Arakhin 14B

תלמוד לומר: ״אם את שדה מקנתו אשר לא משדה אחוזתו״⁠ — שדה שאינה שדה אחוזה, יצתה זו שהיא שדה אחוזה.

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 excludes this field, as currently, after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.

אילו לרבי יהודה ולרבי שמעון, אפילו הקדישה ואחר כך מת אב ⁠— שדה אחוזה הויא. מאי טעמא? אי משום קרא ⁠— קרא לכדרבי מאיר הוא דאתא!

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, that cannot be, as the verse comes to teach the halakha that was stated in accordance with the opinion of R' Meir, i.e., it is referring to a case where the father died before he consecrated the field, as R' Meir explained.

אלא לאו משום דאזיל בתר פדיון?

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 the field, he should redeem them both together, since at the time of the redemption they are both consecrated. Since this ruling is not in accordance with the baraita that states that the trees and field are redeemed separately, evidently the baraita cannot be in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon.