Arakhin 26B

איבעיא להו: בעלים ביובל שני, כאחר דמו או לא?

§ 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 given to the priests at the following Jubilee Year, or not, i.e., as the one who ultimately redeemed the field first was the owner, does it remain in his possession as it would have if he had redeemed it during the first Jubilee cycle?

תא שמע: ״לא יגאל״⁠ — יכול לא תהא נגאלת, שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה? תלמוד לומר ״עוד״⁠ — לכמות שהיתה אינה נגאלת, אבל נגאלת שתהא לפניו כשדה מקנה.

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 should not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:20), one might have thought that this means it should not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: “Anymore,” indicating that it should not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

אימת? אילימא ביובל ראשון ⁠— אמאי אינה נגאלת? אחוזה נמי הויא! אלא פשיטא ביובל שני.

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 way it was? At that point it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, since if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.