Study Arakhin folio 26B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
§ A dilemma was raised before the rabbis: According to R' Eliezer, if the owner consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it before the first Jubilee Year, but he redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, is he considered like another person who redeemed the field, in which case it is
The Talmud suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the following baraita: Since the verse states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:20), one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeem
The Talmud continues: According to this baraita, of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption that occurs during the first Jubilee cycle, in which the field was consecrated, why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the
And according to whose opinion is this baraita? If we say that it is according to either R' Yehuda or R' Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no long
The Talmud asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, what do R' Yehuda and R' Shimon derive from this term: “Anymore”? Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Tem