Clarification: 'de'Akdesheih' is La'av Davka ...

Reason: Since the criterion is not the Hekdesh but the redemption.

Refutation: What Rashi explains in Kidushin in Perek ha'Omer and the Rashbam in Perek ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis in Bava Basra is not correct (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Reason: Seeing as even another field one is permitted to redeem in halves ...

Reason: As the Gemara concludes in the first Perek of Kidushin - 'One may borrow and redeem and one may redeem in halves'.

Reference: Tosfos explained this in Bava Basra (Daf 103a) and in Kidushin (Daf 61a)

Question: Why does the Tana not include 'Nachalah' (inheritance) in the list?

Refuted Answer: And we can't say that we only know Nachalah from the fact that a son takes precedence with respect to a S'deh Achuzah- as we see in Perek Yesh Nochlin (Bava Basra 108b),

Refutation: This is incorrect, because even if they would be equal with respect to other Halachos such as Eved Ivri and S'deh Achuzah, nevertheless the Pasuk says explicitly that a son precedes a brother by Yiud, and from this we may correctly infer that the same applies to Nachalah.

Answer: The explanation must therefore be that the Tana only includes cases to which a brother is not subject at all ...

Answer (cont.): As opposed to Nachalah, where a brother is subject at least where there is no son or daughter.

Authentic Explanation: In other words, Ben takes precedence over Ach in this regard.

Refuted Explanation: One cannot explain, as would appear at first glance, that they are equal, and that Ben takes precedence with regard to Ye'idah and Eved Ivri ...

Refutation: Because this is not implied in 'Yesh Nochlin' (Bava Basra, Daf 109a), where it concludes that Bas takes precedence over Av and Ach, precisely because, since with regard to Yibum Ben and Bas are equal, they are also equalk regarding Yibum.

Refutation (cont.): We are therefore forced to say that for the same reason Ben takes precedence over Ach.

Question: Why do we need "Achuzaso", when, without a Pasuk it is possible to refute the Kal va'Chomer, as the Gemara explains at the end of the Masechta in connection with Sadeh Charamin (that a Yisrael was Makdish) ...

Question (cont.): When it learns a Kal va'Chomer similar to the one here, and concludes 'How can one compare them? There he acquires it from someone else, here he just takes it' (See Rabeinu Gershom there)?

Answer: If not for "Achuzaso", based on the Gezeirah Shavah "Kohen" "Kohen" from Gezel ha'Ger, we would have said that he may retain it.

Support: And so it is implied in the Sugya in Perek ha'Gozel Kama (Bava Kama, Daf 109b & 110a) ...

Question: Where the Beraisa, discussing a Kohen who steals from a Ger, asks from where we know that he cannot claim that 'Since it goes out to the Kohanim anyway and it is currently in my domain , I may as well retain it?" ...

Question (cont.): And he has a Kal va'Chomer to back him up - if he acquires what belonged to others, how much more so what was his to start off with?

Proof: Does the Torah not write "ve'Ish es Kodashov lo Yih'yu" - from which we learn that a Kohen can bring his own Korbanos whenever he likes, even if it is not his Mishmar ...

Question (concl.): In which case, he ought to be able to bring the Asham that he is Chayav to bring for Gezel ha'Ger, and consequently, to retain the Keren (that he stole)? ...

Answer: We learn from "Kohen" "Kohen" from Sadesh Achuzah - that it goes out from his domain and is divided among his brothers the Kohanim ...

Source: And in answer to the question from where we know that, the Gemara cites our Sugya ...

Answer (cont.): And we learn that also a field that was his own will not leave his domain.

Conclusion: That explains why we need "Achuzaso" - 'his possession is his, but this is not his!' ...

Answer (cont.): And we learn Gezel ha'Ger from there with the Gezeirah Shavah "Kohen" "Kohen".

Question: From where does Rebbi Yehudah know that Kohanim have more rights than anybody else? ...

Question (cont.): Perhaps it is like someone who is Makdish a house, which goes out to whoever pays, irrespective of whether it is a Kohen or a Yisrael

Question (concl.): Why not say the same here?

Answer: Because he explains the Pesukim as follows ...

Source: "ve'Im Lo Yig'al es ha'Sadeh" - the owner, but it remains with the the treasurer until the Yovel ...

Source (cont.): "And if he sells the field to somebody else" - that someone else redeemed it; in these two cases ...

Source (cont.): "Lo Yiga'el Od" - to the domain of the owner, but ...

Source (cont.): ve'Hayah be'Tzeiso ba'Yovel Kodesh la'Hashem ... la'Kohen Tih'yeh Achuzaso".

Conclusion: So we see that the implication of the Pesukim that it goes over to the Kohanim ...

Conclusion: And from the Gezeirah Shavah Rebbi Yehudah learns that it goes out for payment, and not free of charge, there where nobody else redeemed it.

Question: First the Gemara asks for Rebbi Yehudah's reason, suggesting that Rebbi Shimon's without the Gezeirah Shavah is more logical; then it asks for Rebbi Shimon's reason, which suggests that Rebbi Yehudah's reason is more logical?