Study Arakhin folio 14B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The verse states with regard to a purchased field: “And if he sanctifies to YHWH a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22). The verse is referring specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This requirement exclude
The Talmud analyzes the baraita. That is the opinion of R' Meir, whereas according to R' Yehuda and according to R' Shimon it is considered an ancestral field even if he consecrated the field and afterward his father dies. What is the reason for this opinion? If you suggest it is due to the verse,
Rather, is it not due to the fact that he follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption? Since the father died before the son redeemed the field it is considered an ancestral field in the possession of the Temple treasury. Similarly, if one first consecrates the trees and afterward
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this source does not contradict Rav Huna’s claim that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon. The reason is that R' Yehuda and R' Shimon do not, in fact, maintain that one follows the status of the field at the time of the redemption. Rather, they
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak explains R' Yehuda and R' Shimon’s reasoning: If so, that when one consecrated the field and his father died afterward, it is not considered an ancestral field, let God write in the Torah: And if he sanctifies to YHWH a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral, i