Komentarz do Kapłańska 25:34

ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר AND THE FIELDS OF THE SUBURBS OF THEIR CITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD — This means: they may not be sold as an absolute sale by the treasurer of the Temple property — that if a Levite dedicated his field to the Temple and has not redeemed it, and the treasurer then sold it to someone it does not pass into the possession of the priests in the Jubilee as is the case with the property of an Israelite of whom it is stated (Leviticus 27:16—20) “[and if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field… and if he will not redeem the field,] and he (the treasurer; see Rashi on that verse) has sold it to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more, [but the field when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be… the priests]” — the Levite, however, may redeem it at any time (even after the Jubilee and also when the treasurer has sold it to another man) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 9).

ושדה מגרש, as explained in detail in Numbers 35.

It does not go out to the kohanim. Re’m writes: You might ask: The Rrabbis need to bring a proof from “it is their perpetual ancestral land” that their fields cannot be sold forever. This is taught in a Beraisa of in Toras Kohanim that says, “Does ’it may not be sold’ refer to the treasurer selling it [saying that the treasurer cannot sell it forever], or does ’it may not be sold’ mean that it cannot be sold forever [by the Levite himself],” i.e., that the Levite cannot sell it [forever]? [The Beraisa continues]: “The verse says, ’It is their perpetual ancestral land,’ [which teaches that the Levite cannot sell it forever. Therefore, ’it may not be sold’ must be teaching that the treasurer cannot sell it forever.”] Since the Beraisa does not cite verse (33) “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” [to prove that a Levite cannot sell their fields forever], this indicates that the Beraisa holds that the verses above are dealing with houses and towns and not with a field on the outskirts. But if so, why does the Beraisa not explain that “it may not be sold” teaches that the Levite cannot sell a field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verses above [that allow him to sell] are talking only about houses and towns, and not about a field onf the outskirts? This question requires investigation. [S.ifsei Chachomim. answers]: It seems to me that this is how the Beraisa expounds the verse “It is their perpetual ancestral land.” If the Torah had not stated “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” I would think that when the Torah writes of the outskirts, “It may not be sold,” it [indeed] means that the Levite cannot sell his field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verse “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” is speaking of houses and towns and not of fields onf the outskirts. But now that it says “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” we derive through [a gezeiroh shovoh] “ancestral land,” “ancestral land” from houses and towns, [that] just as houses can be sold, so too a field of the outskirts can be sold, the same as houses that cannot be sold forever. But if so, since we derive that houses and towns and a field of the outskirts all have the same law, why does the verse not combine them and write them together [in one verse]. Therefore one must say that “it may not be sold” must is certainly be teaching about the treasurer selling it [that he cannot sell it forever]. This also answers the second question of Re’m regarding the Beraisa of the Toras Kohanim.