Arachin 34a

ערכין ל״ד ע״א

Arakhin 34a

Learn Arachin 34a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Arachin 34a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Levite city houses that are sold, and a כהן who consecrates his שדה חרם: does it come back to him at the יובל?

Overview

The amud opens at the end of a ברייתא about houses of the לויים in a walled city. The גמרא objects that a city of the לויים may not keep its wall anyway. רב אשי answers that the rule is still needed for the time before the wall comes down, so a לוי's sold house can always be redeemed. Then a new ברייתא explains the words 'כשדה החרם' (ויקרא 27:21). A כהן who consecrates a field he received as חרם might argue with a כל שכן that it should stay his at the יובל, but the פסוק rejects this. Using בא ללמד ונמצא למד, the ברייתא shows that his field, like an Israelite's consecrated ancestral field, is divided among all the כהנים. The גמרא then asks why the פסוק was needed at all, since the כהן's כל שכן is weak. רמי בר חמא suggests a comparison to a כהן's own קדשים, which the גמרא rejects. רב נחמן answers that the word 'אחוזתו' shows that only a כהן's inherited field is his lasting possession, not his חרם field. The amud ends with the Hadran closing the chapter הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ and all of מסכת ערכין.

Opening lines

The steps (12)

1. ChallengeWalls of a Levite city must come down anyway
2. Resolutionרב אשי: the rule is needed while the wall still stands
3. StatementWhy the Torah says 'like a dedicated field'
4. ChallengeThe כהן's 'all the more so' argument
5. ResolutionThe פסוק rejects the כהן's argument
6. QuestionWhat did we ever learn about a dedicated field?
7. ResponseThe comparison works both ways
8. ChallengeThe כהן's argument does not really work
9. Resolutionרמי בר חמא: we might compare it to a כהן's own offerings
10. RejectionOfferings are not the same as owning a field
11. Resolutionרב נחמן: we might call it his lasting possession
12. ConclusionHadran — Closing the chapter and the tractate