Arakhin 27A

והכא קרא אשכח ודרשי: לכתוב רחמנא ״אם משדה מקנתו אשר לא שדה אחוזתו״, אי נמי: ״אשר לא שדה אחוזה״, מאי ״משדה אחזתו״? שדה שאינה ראויה להיות שדה אחוזה, יצתה זו שראויה להיות שדה אחוזה.

But here, with regard to their opinion that even if the son consecrated the field before his father’s death it is considered an ancestral field, this is because they found another allusion in the verse and interpreted it as follows: If the verse meant to indicate only the halakha that R' Meir derives from it, let God write: And if he will consecrate to YHWH a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral field, or: Which is not an ancestral field. What is the meaning of the extra word “of” in the phrase: “Which is not of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22)? It teaches that only a field that is not due to become his ancestral field is treated like a purchased field, thereby excluding this field, which is due to become his ancestral field.

הכהנים והלוים מקדישין לעולם וכו׳. בשלמא גואלין אצטריך, לאפוקי מדישראל דלא פרקי אלא עד יובל, קא משמע לן דכהנים ולוים גואלין לעולם. אלא מקדישין, מאי איריא כהנים ולוים? אפילו ישראל נמי!

§ The Mishnah teaches: The priests and the Levites may always consecrate their ancestral fields and may always redeem their ancestral fields, both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. The Talmud asks: Granted, the Mishnah’s statement that they may always redeem their ancestral fields was necessary, in order to exclude them from the halakha that applies to the ancestral field of an Israelite, which may be redeemed only until the Jubilee Year, and if not redeemed by then, it is given to the priests. In contrast, the Mishnah teaches us that priests and Levites may always redeem their fields. But with regard to the statement that they may always consecrate their fields, why does the Mishnah specifically mention priests and Levites? Even an Israelite may always consecrate his field, both before and after the Jubilee Year.