1)

(a)Rabah learns from the Pesukim "ve'Im Lo Yig'al es ha'Sadeh ... Lo Yiga'el Od ... ve'Im Machar es ha'Sadeh, Vehayah ha'Sadeh be'Tzeiso ba'Yovel ... la'Kohen Tih'yeh" - the Din of Rebbi Elazar in our Mishnah (that if a Sadeh Achuzah has not been redeemed by the time the first Yovel arrives, it does not go to the Kohanim).

(b)Abaye objects to Rabah's D'rashah in that - he has chopped-up the Pesukim by inverting the phrases "Lo Yiga'el Od" and "ve'Im Machar es ha'Sadeh" (which appear in the Pasuk in the reverse order).

2)

(a)Abaye therefore learns Rebbi Elazar's Din from a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yig'al es ha'Sadeh ... Lo Yiga'el Od" that - although, if the owner failed to redeem the field prior to the first Yovel, he can no longer redeem it as a Sadeh Achuzah (like he could before), he can however, redeem it like a Sadeh Mikneh ...

(b)... in which case, he keeps it until the next Yovel, when he has to return it to the real owner [in this case, the Kohanim]).

(c)This D'rashah cannot go like Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon - because in their opinion, the Kohanim already acquire the field with the advent of the first Yovel ...

(d)... a proof, says Abaye, that - this is Rebbi Elazar's source to say that the Kohanim do not inherit a Sadeh Achuzah that has not been redeemed.

3)

(a)The problem with Abaye's explanation is - what Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon will then learn from the word "Od".

(b)So we establish the Beraisa by a case where a Kohen declared Hekdesh a field that he received in the Yovel. And the Tana'im will now unanimously learn from "Lo Yiga'el Od" that - although the original owner can no longer acquire the field as an owner (like he could originally), he can however, acquire it like a Sadeh Mikneh (until the following Yovel).

(c)We cite a Beraisa in support of this explanation. The Tana there learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Sadeh Mikneh) "bi'Shenas ha'Yovel Yashuv ha'Sadeh la'asher lo Achuzas ha'Aretz" - to the Kohen who sold it and not to the Gizbar of Hekdesh.

(d)And he extrapolates from the Pasuk "la'asher Kanahu me'Ito" (regarding a case where the Kohen who received it in the Yovel subsequently sold it and the purchaser declared it Hekdesh) that - it goes back (not to the original owner, but) to the Kohen who sold it.

4)

(a)We now have two Pesukim which teach us that in Yovel Sheini, the field goes from the Yisrael who redeemed it or who purchased it (after the Kohen declared it Hekdesh or sold it to him, respectively) back to the Kohen. Having written ...

1. ... "Lo Yiga'el Od" (in the first case), the Torah nevertheless sees fit to add "la'asher Kanahu me'Ito" (in the second) to teach us that - even though it goes back to somebody anyway, it does not go back to the original owner, but to the Kohen.

2. ... "la'asher Kanahu me'Ito", the Torah found it necessary to add "Lo Yiga'el Od" to teach us that - even though the original owner pays Hekdesh, he does not get the field back permanently.

(b)And having written "Lo Yiga'el", the Torah needs to add "Od" - because if it hadn't, we would have thought that the original owner cannot redeem the field at all (even as a Sadeh Mikneh, as we explained earlier according to Abaye's initial explanation).

(c)In any event, our original quest to find the source for Rebbi Elazar's ruling remains unanswered. Rava finally resolves it from the Pasuk "Vehayah ha'Sadeh be'Tzeiso ba'Yovel ... la'Kohen Tih'yeh" - which Rebbi Elazar at least will interpret to mean that it is only when it goes out of the R'shus of the one who redeemed it that it goes to the Kohanim; otherwise not.

5)

(a)We ask whether - according to Rebbi Elazar, the owner of a field has the Din of Acher in Yovel Sheini ...

(b)... and if he does - should he redeem it, it goes back to the Kohanim in the following Yovel.

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from the Beraisa that we cited earlier, which learns from "Lo Yiga'el Od" that the owner can redeem the field in Yovel Sheini like a Sadeh Mikneh (as we explained there with regard to the previous She'eilah). We refute the proof that the author must be Rebbi Elazar, in which case he clearly considers the owner in Yovel Sheini like Acher - because how will Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon then explain "Od" (like we refuted it there)?

6)

(a)The rest of the Sugya follows the same pattern as that of the previous Sugya, and we remain without a proof from the current Beraisos. We finally resolve it from another Beraisa, where Rebbi Elazar rules that a field which the owner redeemed in Yovel Sheini - goes to the Kohanim when Yovel Shelishi arrives.

(b)Rav Ashi reconciles this with our Mishnah, which confines this ruling to Acher (implying that it does not apply to the previous owner) - by pointing out that in Yovel Sheini, the original owner is considered Acher, too.

(c)According to the second Lashon, Rebbi Elazar rules that - if the original owner redeems the field, it does not go to the Kohanim, when the third Yovel arrives.

(d)When Ravina (who queried the first Lashon) tried to support this Lashon from our Mishnah, which seems to preclude the owner from Acher, Rav Ashi replied that - perhaps in the second Yovel, the owner is considered Acher.

7)

(a)In a case where a son purchases a field from his father, Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules that - if he declares it Hekdesh after his father died, it has the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah (which in fact it is), whereas if he did so before he died, it has the Din of a Sadeh Mikneh (which it also is).

(b)Based on the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'dei Miknaso asher lo mi'Sedei Achuzaso", Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon hold that - even in the latter case, the field adopts the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah.

(c)A Sadeh Mikneh, says the Tana, does not go to the Kohanim, when Yovel arrives - because the purchaser has no rights in it beyond the Yovel, and we have a principle that a person cannot (sell or) declare Hekdesh something that is not his.

(d)Consequently, it reverts to the original owner (from whom he purchased it).

(e)Our Mishnah concludes that - Kohanim and Levi'im have the right to declare their property Hekdesh forever and to redeem it forever (both before the Yovel and after it).

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im es S'dei Miknaso asher lo S'dei Achuzaso" that - a field that stands to become a S'dei Achuzah (even though at this point it is still a Sadeh Mikneh [a field that a son has purchased from his father, and that he declares Hekdesh whilst the latter is still alive]) already has the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah.

(b)Rebbi Meir interprets the same Pasuk to mean that - once the son inherits it (the Kinyan ha'Guf) it becomes a Sadeh Achuzah, but not before.

9)

(a)There is a She'eilah as to whether or not, we say Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami - whoever has the rights to use the article or the property, is considered the owner.

(b)Based on this question - the owner of a Sadeh Achuzah owns the Guf, whereas the (current) owner of a Sadeh Mikneh only owns the Peiros.

(c)We now suggest that the Tana'im are arguing over - whether Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami (Rebbi Meir), or not (Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon).

(d)According to Rebbi ...

1. ... Meir - seeing as, even though before the father died, the son was considered the owner of the field, yet it goes to the Kohanim in the Yovel, we need a Pasuk to teach us that even after his father's death, in spite of his having inherited the Kinyan ha'Guf, it now adopts the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon - it is obvious that after the father dies, where the son acquires the Kinyan ha'Guf, the field becomes a Sadeh Achuzah, in which case we need the Pasuk for a case where the son sold it before the father died.

10)

(a)We refute this suggestion however, in that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon learn their ruling from the Lashon of the Pasuk " ... asher lo mi'Sedei Achuzaso" (as implied in both the Mishnah and the Beraisa) - from the superfluous 'Mem' (or 'Vav'), since it could have written " ... asher lo S'dei Achuzaso (or Achuzah)' ...

(b)... even if they too hold that - Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf.