וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הוֹאִיל וְיוֹנְקִין מִשְּׂדֵה הֶקְדֵּשׁ The Gemara concludes stating the difficulty: But this is difficult, as Rabbi Shimon himself said that the grafted carob tree and the sycamore trunk are consecrated along with the field since they draw their nutrients from a consecrated field, indicating that one who consecrates acts generously and does not retain the land around the trees for himself.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לְדִבְרֵיהֶם דְּרַבָּנַן קָאָמַר לְהוּ לְדִידִי כִּי הֵיכִי דְּמוֹכֵר בְּעַיִן רָעָה מוֹכֵר מַקְדִּישׁ נָמֵי בְּעַיִן רָעָה מַקְדִּישׁ וְשַׁיּוֹרֵי מְשַׁיַּיר לְדִידְכוּ אוֹדוּ לִי מִיהָא דְּלֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶלָּא חָרוּב הַמּוּרְכָּב וְסַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה וְאָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לָא שְׁנָא The Gemara explains: Rather, it must be understood that when Rabbi Shimon stated his ruling in the mishna, he was not expressing his own opinion. Rather, he was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, and he meant to say: According to my opinion, just as one who sells, sells sparingly, so too, one who consecrates, consecrates sparingly and retains for himself land to nurture the trees. Therefore, when one consecrates a field, even the sycamore and carob tree are not consecrated along with it. But according to your opinion, that one who consecrates does so generously, agree with me at least that one who consecrates a field has consecrated only the grafted carob and the sycamore trunk, because they draw nutrients from consecrated ground, but he has not consecrated the other items that are not integral parts of the field. And the Rabbis said to him: There is no difference between the two in this regard. Since one who consecrates an item does so generously, everything found in the field is consecrated.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתָּא לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֵימָא סֵיפָא וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת וְחָזַר וְהִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַקַּרְקַע כְּשֶׁהוּא פּוֹדֶה פּוֹדֶה אֶת הָאִילָנוֹת בְּשׇׁוְיֵיהֶן וְחוֹזֵר וּפוֹדֶה בֵּית זֶרַע חוֹמֶר שְׂעוֹרִים בַּחֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כָּסֶף The Gemara returns to the baraita that it had concluded was taught according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the baraita discussing consecrated property? It was interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But say the last clause: And moreover, even if one consecrates the trees and then afterward he consecrates the land, when he redeems them, he redeems the trees separately in accordance with their worth, and then he redeems the land according to the standard rate, where an area fit for the sowing of a ḥomer of barley seed is redeemed for fifty silver shekels.
וְאִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵיזִיל בָּתַר פִּדְיוֹן וְנִיפַּרְקוּ אַגַּב אַרְעַיְיהוּ דְּהָא שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָזֵיל בָּתַר פִּדְיוֹן And if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, let him follow the character of the field at the time of its redemption, and so the trees should be redeemed along with their land, as at the time of the redemption both the trees and the land are consecrated. As we have already heard that Rabbi Shimon follows the time of the redemption, i.e., he determines the price at which a field is redeemed based on the time it is being redeemed.
דְּתַנְיָא מִנַּיִן לַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵין רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that with regard to one who purchases a field from his father and consecrates it, and afterward his father dies, so the field would now be considered his as an inheritance, from where is it derived that with regard to its redemption it should be considered before him as an ancestral field and not a field that he purchased? The verse states about a field that was purchased: “And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields” (Leviticus 27:22). The verse speaks specifically of a field that is not fit at the time of its consecration to be an ancestral field, meaning that he never could have inherited it in the future. This specification excludes this field that was fit to be an ancestral field from this halakha, since eventually it would have become his through inheritance, even had he not purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִנַּיִן לַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵאָבִיו וּמֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ מִנַּיִן שֶׁתְּהֵא לְפָנָיו כִּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ שָׂדֶה שֶׁאֵינָהּ שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁהִיא שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir learns a different halakha from this verse, and he says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who purchases a field from his father, and his father dies, and afterward he consecrates the field, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field? The verse states: “And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral fields.” The verse refers specifically to a field that is not now an ancestral field at the time of its consecration. This specification excludes this field, as after the death of the father, it is an ancestral field.
וְאִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֵיכָא דְּמֵת אָבִיו וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישָׁהּ לָא צְרִיכִי קְרָא כִּי אִצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא הֵיכָא דְּהִקְדִּישָׁהּ וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵת אָבִיו But according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that, in a case where his father dies and afterward he consecrates the field, it is considered to be an ancestral field, as this is obvious. A verse is required only to teach the halakha in a case where he consecrates the field after having bought it, and afterward his father dies.
מְנָא לְהוּ אִי מֵהַאי קְרָא אֵימָא לְכִדְרַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא דַּאֲתָא אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלִי בָּתַר פִּדְיוֹן The Gemara asks: From where do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon arrive at this conclusion? If they derive it only from this verse, you can say that the verse came to be interpreted in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as opposed to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, as there is no clear proof from the verse to support either opinion. Rather, is it not due to the fact that they follow the time of the redemption, and at the time of the redemption the father is dead, and the field is the son’s ancestral field that is currently in the possession of the Temple treasury?
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְעוֹלָם בְּעָלְמָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא אָזְלִי בָּתַר פִּדְיוֹן וְהָכָא קְרָא אַשְׁכַּחוּ וּדְרוּשׁ אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא וְאִם אֶת שְׂדֵה מִקְנָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא אֲחוּזָּתוֹ אִי נָמֵי שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּתוֹ מַאי אֲשֶׁר לֹא מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ אֶת שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יָצְתָה זוֹ שֶׁרְאוּיָה לִהְיוֹת שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Actually, I can say to you that generally speaking, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon do not follow the time of the redemption, and therefore their ruling here is not based on this premise. But here they found a verse and interpreted it, as, if the verse is to be understood as it was explained by Rabbi Meir, then let the verse write: And if he sanctifies to the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral estate, or let it write: Which is not his ancestral field. What is meant by the expression: “Which is not of his ancestral fields” (Leviticus 27:22)? It means that a field that is not fit to ever be an ancestral field is considered a purchased field. That excludes this field, as it is fit to be an ancestral field. Based on this explanation, the baraita that addresses one who consecrates trees can, in fact, be understood to be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא חָרוּב הַמּוּרְכָּב וְסַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה תּוֹרַת אִילָן עָלָיו וְתוֹרַת קַרְקַע עָלָיו תּוֹרַת אִילָן עָלָיו דְּהֵיכָא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ אוֹ זַבֵּין שְׁנֵי אִילָנוֹת וְהַאי יֵשׁ לוֹ קַרְקַע תּוֹרַת קַרְקַע עָלָיו דְּלָא מִזְדַּבַּן אַגַּב אַרְעָא § Rav Huna says: A grafted carob and a sycamore trunk have both the status of a tree and the status of land. Each of these has the status of a tree, so if one consecrates or buys two trees and this carob or sycamore, he has also consecrated or bought the land between them, as the sycamore or carob joins with the other two trees to form a unit of three trees that take their land with them. And each has the status of land, as it is not sold along with land, as explained in the mishna, that one who sells a field has not sold a grafted carob or a sycamore trunk that is in the field.
וְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא עוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סָאתַיִם תּוֹרַת עוֹמֶר עָלָיו וְתוֹרַת גָּדִישׁ עָלָיו תּוֹרַת עוֹמֶר עָלָיו דִּשְׁנֵי עוֹמָרִים שִׁכְחָה שְׁנַיִם וָהוּא אֵינָן שִׁכְחָה And Rav Huna says in a similar fashion: A large sheaf of grain that contains two se’a has both the status of a sheaf and the status of a heap with regard to the halakhot of forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor. It has the status of a sheaf, as the principle is that two sheaves that were inadvertently left in the field are considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor, whereas three sheaves need not be left for the poor, but rather the owner of the field may go back and take them for himself. In this regard a two-se’a sheaf is considered one sheaf, so if one forgot two sheaves and also this sheave that contains two se’a, the three together are three sheaves and are not considered forgotten sheaves that must be left for the poor.
תּוֹרַת גָּדִישׁ עָלָיו דִּתְנַן עוֹמֶר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ סָאתַיִם שְׁכָחוֹ אֵין שִׁכְחָה And it has the status of a heap, as we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 6:6): In the case of a sheaf that contains two se’a, if one forgets it in a field, it is not considered a forgotten sheaf that must be left for the poor, as its size and importance grant it the status of a heap, rather than a sheaf.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ חָרוּב הַמּוּרְכָּב וְסַדַּן הַשִּׁקְמָה בָּאנוּ לְמַחְלוֹקֶת רַבִּי מְנַחֵם בַּר יוֹסֵי וְרַבָּנַן § Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Reish Lakish says: With regard to whether a grafted carob and a sycamore trunk are consecrated along with a field that one has consecrated, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei and the Rabbis, as Rabbi Menaḥem bar Yosei rules that they are not consecrated, whereas the Rabbis rule that they are.