Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2019 | 讝壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Arakhin 24

One who dedicates all his possessions to the Temple or promises arakhin and doesn’t pay up, what is the connection of his wives or children – do they leave him money to support them? Can they take items belonging to them also? What items that belong to the person himself is he allowed to keep? The seventh chapter deals with one who dedicates to the Temple an ancestral field. When one redeems it, they pay 50 shekels for a size of land in which one grows a seah of barley. However, this number gets lower by a shekel (sela) and a pundyon (1/48 of a shekel) each year as it gets closer to the jubilee year. Rav and Shmuel debate whether one can dedicate a field in the jubilee year itself (if yes, then the 50 shekalim start in that year). Why does the amount get reduced by also a pundyon each year? How can that be explained both by Rav and Shmuel?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讛讞讬讬讛讜 诪注专讻讱

鈥淏ut if he be too poor for your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). The word 鈥渉e鈥 [hu] is interpreted as a variation of havaya, existence or sustenance. In this manner the verse can be read as an instruction to the treasurer: Sustain him from that which he is obligated to pay for your valuation.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讜诇讗 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪注专讻讱

The mishna teaches that food and garments are left for him, but not for his wife or his children. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The verse states: 鈥淚f he be too poor for your valuation,鈥 which indicates that he must be sustained from your valuation, but his wife and his children are not sustained from your valuation.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞讻住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says that if he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him his pair of oxen; if he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him his donkey. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why do they rule that these animals are repossessed? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, these animals are not tools of his craft; rather, they are his property.

讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讛砖转讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛

The mishna teaches that if one had many tools of one type that he was allowed to keep and few tools of one other type, e.g., three adzes and one saw, the treasurer does not sell tools of the type of which there are many in order to purchase for him tools of the type of which he has few. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Just as it was sufficient for him until now to work with one saw, now too a single saw should be sufficient for him.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讛讜讛 诪讜砖诇讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诪砖讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that the ruling is necessary lest you say that until now, when he was capable of lending one of his many adzes, if he required an additional saw someone would lend one to him, whereas now that his property has been repossessed there is no one who will lend such a tool to him, when he has nothing to offer in exchange. Consequently, the treasurer should not leave him with only one saw, but he should sell some of his adzes in order to purchase an additional saw. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no concern that he might not be able to borrow a tool.

讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 住诇讬拽讜 诇讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries. The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold his property. He came before Rav Yeimar, who said to the members of the court: Remove his phylacteries from his head and his arm and give them to the buyer, as they are included in his property. The Gemara asks: What is this incident teaching us? It is an explicit ruling of the mishna: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚住讘专 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讝讘讜谞讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that it is only there, when one consecrates his property, that the halakha is that his phylacteries are taken, as he thinks to himself: I am performing a mitzva, and therefore he intended for his phylacteries to be included. But with regard to a sale, a person would not sell an item used for a mitzva that he performs with his body without explicitly stating so. The Gemara therefore teaches us by means of the above incident that phylacteries are included in the property of such a sale.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗讞讚 讛诪注专讬讱 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻住讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讘爪讘注 砖爪讘注 诇砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讘住谞讚诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞谉 诇砖诪谉

mishna Both in the case of one who consecrates his property and the case of one who valuates himself, when the Temple treasurer repossesses his property he has the right to repossess neither the garment of his wife nor the garment of his children, nor the dyed garments that he dyed for their sake, even if they have yet to wear them, nor the new sandals that he purchased for their sake.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 注讘讚讬诐 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘讻住讜转谉 诇砖讘讞 砖讗诐 转诇拽讞 诇讜 讻住讜转 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 诪砖讜讘讞 诪谞讛 讜讻谉 驻专讛 讗诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗讬讟诇讬住 诪砖讜讘讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻谉 诪专讙诇讬转 讗诐 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讻专讱 诪砖讜讘讞转 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖注转讜

Although the merchants said: Slaves are sold in their garments for profit, as if a fine garment worth thirty dinars would be purchased for him, his sale price appreciates by one hundred dinars; and likewise with regard to a cow, if one waits to sell it until the market [la鈥檌tlis] day, when demand is high, its sale price appreciates; and likewise with regard to a pearl, if one brings it to sell it in the city, where demand is high, its sale price appreciates; nevertheless, one does not make such a calculation in this case. Rather, the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its price at the present time.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讛 诪专讙诇讬转 诇拽诇讬诐 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 住转诐 讛讛拽讚讬砖讜转 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its present time, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the redemption of a consecrated item: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation as of that day鈥 (Leviticus 27:23). The phrase 鈥渁s of that day鈥 indicates that he should not delay the sale of a pearl for the light ones, i.e., for poor people, in order that they should take it to the city to sell it. Rather, it is appraised according to its present location. The verse continues: 鈥淎s a holy thing unto the Lord,鈥 which teaches that unspecified vows of consecration, e.g., when one states: My property is consecrated, are given for Temple maintenance, rather than to the priests.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讜诐 讛讬转讜诪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讞讚砖讬诐 诇讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讞砖讘 讞讚砖讬诐

MISHNA: One may neither consecrate an ancestral field, i.e., a field that he inherited, less than two years before the Jubilee Year, nor may one redeem such a field less than one year after the Jubilee Year. When redeeming an ancestral field that has been consecrated, the sum paid to redeem the field is calculated based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. When performing this calculation, one does not count months of a partial year in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury; rather, he pays for the entire year. But the Temple treasury may count months in order to raise the price of redemption, as will be explained.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year. And with regard to this, the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: One may consecrate an ancestral field both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. But during the Jubilee Year itself, one may not consecrate it, and if he nevertheless did consecrate it, it is not consecrated. Although consecration of an ancestral field is ineffective during the Jubilee Year, it is clear that such a field may be consecrated at any time prior to the start of the year.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诇 讬拽讚讬砖 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

In response, Rav and Shmuel both say: The mishna means that one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction, i.e., such that the redemption price will be reduced to reflect the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year, less than two years before the Jubilee Year. If such a field is consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee, it is redeemed according to its full valuation, as though it had been consecrated and redeemed immediately after the Jubilee. And since one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction less than two years before the Jubilee, the mishna teaches that a person should be concerned about his property, and should therefore not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讜谞讜转谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

搂 It was stated: With regard to one who consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: It is consecrated, and if he wishes to redeem it he gives the full valuation of fifty sela, i.e., fifty silver biblical shekels, per unit of area required for sowing one kor of seed [beit kor], and Shmuel says: It is not consecrated at all, and therefore it is not redeemed for any sum.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讻讬专讛 讚驻诇讬讙 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬诪讻专

Rav Yosef objects to this: Granted, with regard to the sale of an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year, it is logical that Shmuel disagrees with Rav and maintains that such a sale is invalid, as one can say the following a fortiori inference: And if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer and returns to the original owner now in the Jubilee Year, then with regard to a field that has not been sold, is it not logical to conclude that it cannot be sold during the Jubilee Year?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

But here, with regard to the consecration of a field during the Jubilee Year, can one say such an a fortiori inference? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25b): If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? Since a field that was consecrated before the Jubilee Year does not return to its original owner without redemption, one cannot infer that if one consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, it returns to him without redemption.

砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption value to the Temple treasury. According to this opinion, a field consecrated before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption during the Jubilee Year, and therefore by a fortiori inference, if it was consecrated during the Jubilee Year, it does not require redemption.

讜专讘 住讘专 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讬 拽讛讚专讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽讗 讜讻讛谞讬诐 诪砖讜诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

And Rav holds: Even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, no a fortiori inference may be drawn, as ultimately, does the field return to the owner during the Jubilee Year? It does not, but rather it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests. Therefore, there is no basis for an a fortiori inference, as a field consecrated before the Jubilee Year does not return to the owner during the Jubilee Year, and the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav that consecration of a field during the Jubilee Year is effective and that the field must be redeemed for the full price of fifty sela per beit kor? As the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year, according to your valuation it shall stand鈥 (Leviticus 27:17). The verse indicates that a field is redeemed according to the valuation mentioned in the preceding verse, i.e., fifty sela per beit kor, and the Jubilee Year itself is included in this halakha, as the verse describes a period that begins 鈥渇rom the Jubilee Year,鈥 which can be understood as including the Jubilee Year itself.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讻转讬讘 诪砖谞转 砖讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: And how does Shmuel refute this claim? The Gemara explains that Shmuel would respond: Is it written in the verse: If he sanctifies his field during the Jubilee Year? No, instead: 鈥淔rom the Jubilee Year,鈥 is written, indicating that the verse is referring to consecration beginning from the year that is after the Jubilee Year.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讗诐 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讞专 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, this is the meaning of that which is written in the verse: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year, according to your valuation it shall stand. But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:17鈥18). According to Rav鈥檚 interpretation, the second verse is referring to the year immediately following the Jubilee Year. But according to Shmuel, who maintains that the first verse is dealing with the year following the Jubilee Year, to what is the verse referring when it speaks of the year 鈥渁fter the Jubilee鈥? The Gemara responds: It is referring to the year after the year after the Jubilee Year.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讙讬专讜注 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from the aforementioned baraita: One may consecrate an ancestral field both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. But during the Jubilee Year itself, one may not consecrate it, and if he nevertheless did consecrate it, that field is not consecrated. The Gemara explains: Rav could say to you: The baraita means that it is not consecrated in order to be redeemed with a deduction. But nevertheless it is consecrated, and one gives the full price of fifty sela per beit kor for its redemption.

诪讻诇诇 讚诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara objects: One can conclude by inference from this response that according to Rav, when the baraita states that a field may be consecrated before the Jubilee Year, it means that it is consecrated to be redeemed with a deduction. But wasn鈥檛 it stated that Rav and Shmuel both say that one may not consecrate an ancestral field to be redeemed with a deduction less than two years before the Jubilee Year, but rather it is redeemed according to the total valuation of the field? If so, Rav could not have responded as suggested above.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖谞转 讜砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讻诇诇

Rather, Rav could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that whenever the verse employs an expression such as: From the first day, the first day itself is not included. Accordingly, when the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year,鈥 the Jubilee Year is not included. But I stated my ruling that a field may be consecrated during the Jubilee Year in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: The verse states: 鈥淲hoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:15). It states: 鈥淔rom the first day,鈥 and the first day is included, and it continues: 鈥淯ntil the seventh day,鈥 and the seventh day is also included. Here too, the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year,鈥 and the Jubilee Year is included.

讗讬 讻专讘讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The mishna (25a) teaches that when one redeems an ancestral field, he gives a sela and a pundeyon, which is equivalent to one forty-eighth of a sela, per beit kor for each year remaining until the Jubilee Year. This amount is close to one forty-ninth of the total valuation of fifty sela, and there are no tannaitic disputes with regard to this mishna. The Gemara therefore asks: If Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one may consecrate an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year, what is the purpose of the additional pundeyon that one gives for each remaining year until the Jubilee? If the Jubilee Year itself is included in the calculation, the total price of fifty sela should be divided evenly, i.e., one sela should be paid for each remaining year of the fifty years.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 住诇注 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not require the addition of a pundeyon for each remaining year, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita: If one consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he gives a sela and a pundeyon per year? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted both for this cycle and for that one, i.e., he maintains that the Jubilee Year is also considered the first year of the next cycle. Accordingly, there are actually only forty-nine years in a Jubilee cycle, and the total valuation of a field is therefore divided into forty-nine parts, which comes out to a sela and a pundeyon for each year.

诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住诇注 讜砖转讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 诇砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: According to Shmuel, who maintains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that an ancestral field may not be consecrated during the Jubilee Year, let him say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and hold that the fiftieth year is not counted as the first year of the following cycle. Because if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then he should require one to pay a sela and two pundeyon, i.e., one forty-eighth of the total valuation of a field, per year, as there are only forty-eight years during which one may consecrate a field. The Gemara explains: This is indeed the case. Perforce, according to Shmuel, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 砖谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Shmuel from the mishna: Nor may one redeem an ancestral field that was consecrated less than one year after the Jubilee Year. Granted, according to Shmuel, who says that one may not consecrate an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year itself, and therefore if a field was consecrated during the Jubilee Year it requires no redemption at all, the mishna is teaching that one may not redeem a field less than one year after the Jubilee, i.e., until the year after the Jubilee, as it cannot be consecrated until then. But according to Rav, who maintains that a field may be consecrated and redeemed during the Jubilee Year itself, what does the mishna mean when it states that one may not redeem a field less than one year after the Jubilee?

诪讬 住讘专转 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara responds: Do you maintain that the mishna is referring to the actual year after the Jubilee Year? This is not the case; rather, to what is the phrase: After the Jubilee Year, actually referring?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Arakhin 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 24

讜讗诐 诪讱 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讛讞讬讬讛讜 诪注专讻讱

鈥淏ut if he be too poor for your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:8). The word 鈥渉e鈥 [hu] is interpreted as a variation of havaya, existence or sustenance. In this manner the verse can be read as an instruction to the treasurer: Sustain him from that which he is obligated to pay for your valuation.

讗讘诇 诇讗 诇讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讜讗 诪注专讻讱 讜诇讗 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪注专讻讱

The mishna teaches that food and garments are left for him, but not for his wife or his children. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The verse states: 鈥淚f he be too poor for your valuation,鈥 which indicates that he must be sustained from your valuation, but his wife and his children are not sustained from your valuation.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讛讬讛 讗讬讻专 谞讜转谉 诇讜 爪诪讚讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛谞讛讜 诇讗讜 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 谞讻住讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says that if he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him his pair of oxen; if he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him his donkey. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why do they rule that these animals are repossessed? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, these animals are not tools of his craft; rather, they are his property.

讛讬讛 诇讜 诪讬谉 讗讞讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 注讚 讛砖转讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛

The mishna teaches that if one had many tools of one type that he was allowed to keep and few tools of one other type, e.g., three adzes and one saw, the treasurer does not sell tools of the type of which there are many in order to purchase for him tools of the type of which he has few. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious? Just as it was sufficient for him until now to work with one saw, now too a single saw should be sufficient for him.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜砖讜诇讬 讛讜讛 诪讜砖诇讬 诇讬讛 讛砖转讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诪砖讬诇 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains that the ruling is necessary lest you say that until now, when he was capable of lending one of his many adzes, if he required an additional saw someone would lend one to him, whereas now that his property has been repossessed there is no one who will lend such a tool to him, when he has nothing to offer in exchange. Consequently, the treasurer should not leave him with only one saw, but he should sell some of his adzes in order to purchase an additional saw. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no concern that he might not be able to borrow a tool.

讛诪拽讚讬砖 讗转 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讝讘谞讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 住诇讬拽讜 诇讬讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讛讬讗 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 诪注诇讬谉 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬讜

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries. The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold his property. He came before Rav Yeimar, who said to the members of the court: Remove his phylacteries from his head and his arm and give them to the buyer, as they are included in his property. The Gemara asks: What is this incident teaching us? It is an explicit ruling of the mishna: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讛讜讗 讚住讘专 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 讝讘讜谞讬 诪爪讜讛 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞讬砖 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that it is only there, when one consecrates his property, that the halakha is that his phylacteries are taken, as he thinks to himself: I am performing a mitzva, and therefore he intended for his phylacteries to be included. But with regard to a sale, a person would not sell an item used for a mitzva that he performs with his body without explicitly stating so. The Gemara therefore teaches us by means of the above incident that phylacteries are included in the property of such a sale.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 讛诪拽讚讬砖 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗讞讚 讛诪注专讬讱 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘讻住讜转 讗砖转讜 讜诇讗 讘讻住讜转 讘谞讬讜 讜诇讗 讘爪讘注 砖爪讘注 诇砖诪谉 讜诇讗 讘住谞讚诇讬诐 讞讚砖讬诐 砖诇拽讞谉 诇砖诪谉

mishna Both in the case of one who consecrates his property and the case of one who valuates himself, when the Temple treasurer repossesses his property he has the right to repossess neither the garment of his wife nor the garment of his children, nor the dyed garments that he dyed for their sake, even if they have yet to wear them, nor the new sandals that he purchased for their sake.

讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 注讘讚讬诐 谞诪讻专讬谉 讘讻住讜转谉 诇砖讘讞 砖讗诐 转诇拽讞 诇讜 讻住讜转 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讚讬谞专 诪砖讜讘讞 诪谞讛 讜讻谉 驻专讛 讗诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讗讬讟诇讬住 诪砖讜讘讞转 讛讬讗 讜讻谉 诪专讙诇讬转 讗诐 诪注诇讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇讻专讱 诪砖讜讘讞转 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 诇讛拽讚砖 讗诇讗 诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖注转讜

Although the merchants said: Slaves are sold in their garments for profit, as if a fine garment worth thirty dinars would be purchased for him, his sale price appreciates by one hundred dinars; and likewise with regard to a cow, if one waits to sell it until the market [la鈥檌tlis] day, when demand is high, its sale price appreciates; and likewise with regard to a pearl, if one brings it to sell it in the city, where demand is high, its sale price appreciates; nevertheless, one does not make such a calculation in this case. Rather, the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its price at the present time.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜谞转谉 讗转 讛注专讻讱 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讛 诪专讙诇讬转 诇拽诇讬诐 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 住转诐 讛讛拽讚讬砖讜转 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its present time, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the redemption of a consecrated item: 鈥淎nd he shall give your valuation as of that day鈥 (Leviticus 27:23). The phrase 鈥渁s of that day鈥 indicates that he should not delay the sale of a pearl for the light ones, i.e., for poor people, in order that they should take it to the city to sell it. Rather, it is appraised according to its present location. The verse continues: 鈥淎s a holy thing unto the Lord,鈥 which teaches that unspecified vows of consecration, e.g., when one states: My property is consecrated, are given for Temple maintenance, rather than to the priests.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖讜诐 讛讬转讜诪讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讞讚砖讬诐 诇讛拽讚砖 讗讘诇 讛拽讚砖 诪讞砖讘 讞讚砖讬诐

MISHNA: One may neither consecrate an ancestral field, i.e., a field that he inherited, less than two years before the Jubilee Year, nor may one redeem such a field less than one year after the Jubilee Year. When redeeming an ancestral field that has been consecrated, the sum paid to redeem the field is calculated based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. When performing this calculation, one does not count months of a partial year in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury; rather, he pays for the entire year. But the Temple treasury may count months in order to raise the price of redemption, as will be explained.

讙诪壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year. And with regard to this, the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: One may consecrate an ancestral field both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. But during the Jubilee Year itself, one may not consecrate it, and if he nevertheless did consecrate it, it is not consecrated. Although consecration of an ancestral field is ineffective during the Jubilee Year, it is clear that such a field may be consecrated at any time prior to the start of the year.

专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讬讛讗 讗讚诐 讞住 注诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讗诇 讬拽讚讬砖 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

In response, Rav and Shmuel both say: The mishna means that one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction, i.e., such that the redemption price will be reduced to reflect the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year, less than two years before the Jubilee Year. If such a field is consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee, it is redeemed according to its full valuation, as though it had been consecrated and redeemed immediately after the Jubilee. And since one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction less than two years before the Jubilee, the mishna teaches that a person should be concerned about his property, and should therefore not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 拽讚讜砖讛 讜谞讜转谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

搂 It was stated: With regard to one who consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: It is consecrated, and if he wishes to redeem it he gives the full valuation of fifty sela, i.e., fifty silver biblical shekels, per unit of area required for sowing one kor of seed [beit kor], and Shmuel says: It is not consecrated at all, and therefore it is not redeemed for any sum.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注谞讬谉 诪讻讬专讛 讚驻诇讬讙 砖诪讜讗诇 注诇讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 注讻砖讬讜 砖讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬诪讻专

Rav Yosef objects to this: Granted, with regard to the sale of an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year, it is logical that Shmuel disagrees with Rav and maintains that such a sale is invalid, as one can say the following a fortiori inference: And if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer and returns to the original owner now in the Jubilee Year, then with regard to a field that has not been sold, is it not logical to conclude that it cannot be sold during the Jubilee Year?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 转谞谉 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讻谞住讬谉 诇转讜讻讛 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讚诪讬讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

But here, with regard to the consecration of a field during the Jubilee Year, can one say such an a fortiori inference? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (25b): If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? Since a field that was consecrated before the Jubilee Year does not return to its original owner without redemption, one cannot infer that if one consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, it returns to him without redemption.

砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 谞讻谞住讬谉 讜诇讗 谞讜转谞讬谉

The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption value to the Temple treasury. According to this opinion, a field consecrated before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption during the Jubilee Year, and therefore by a fortiori inference, if it was consecrated during the Jubilee Year, it does not require redemption.

讜专讘 住讘专 住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讘注诇讬诐 诪讬 拽讛讚专讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讛讜讗 讚谞驻拽讗 讜讻讛谞讬诐 诪砖讜诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

And Rav holds: Even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, no a fortiori inference may be drawn, as ultimately, does the field return to the owner during the Jubilee Year? It does not, but rather it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests. Therefore, there is no basis for an a fortiori inference, as a field consecrated before the Jubilee Year does not return to the owner during the Jubilee Year, and the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讻诇诇

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rav that consecration of a field during the Jubilee Year is effective and that the field must be redeemed for the full price of fifty sela per beit kor? As the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year, according to your valuation it shall stand鈥 (Leviticus 27:17). The verse indicates that a field is redeemed according to the valuation mentioned in the preceding verse, i.e., fifty sela per beit kor, and the Jubilee Year itself is included in this halakha, as the verse describes a period that begins 鈥渇rom the Jubilee Year,鈥 which can be understood as including the Jubilee Year itself.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讻转讬讘 诪砖谞转 砖讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇

The Gemara asks: And how does Shmuel refute this claim? The Gemara explains that Shmuel would respond: Is it written in the verse: If he sanctifies his field during the Jubilee Year? No, instead: 鈥淔rom the Jubilee Year,鈥 is written, indicating that the verse is referring to consecration beginning from the year that is after the Jubilee Year.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讗诐 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讞专 讗讞专

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to Rav, this is the meaning of that which is written in the verse: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year, according to your valuation it shall stand. But if he sanctifies his field after the Jubilee, then the priest shall reckon for him the money according to the years that remain until the Jubilee Year, and a deduction shall be made from your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:17鈥18). According to Rav鈥檚 interpretation, the second verse is referring to the year immediately following the Jubilee Year. But according to Shmuel, who maintains that the first verse is dealing with the year following the Jubilee Year, to what is the verse referring when it speaks of the year 鈥渁fter the Jubilee鈥? The Gemara responds: It is referring to the year after the year after the Jubilee Year.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讜讗诐 讛拽讚讬砖 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗讬谞讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讘讙讬专讜注 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav from the aforementioned baraita: One may consecrate an ancestral field both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. But during the Jubilee Year itself, one may not consecrate it, and if he nevertheless did consecrate it, that field is not consecrated. The Gemara explains: Rav could say to you: The baraita means that it is not consecrated in order to be redeemed with a deduction. But nevertheless it is consecrated, and one gives the full price of fifty sela per beit kor for its redemption.

诪讻诇诇 讚诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 拽讚讜砖讛 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 讜讛讗 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 诇讬讙讗诇 讘讙讬专讜注 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

The Gemara objects: One can conclude by inference from this response that according to Rav, when the baraita states that a field may be consecrated before the Jubilee Year, it means that it is consecrated to be redeemed with a deduction. But wasn鈥檛 it stated that Rav and Shmuel both say that one may not consecrate an ancestral field to be redeemed with a deduction less than two years before the Jubilee Year, but rather it is redeemed according to the total valuation of the field? If so, Rav could not have responded as suggested above.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 专讗砖讜谉 讜专讗砖讜谉 讘讻诇诇 砖讘讬注讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘讻诇诇 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖谞转 讜砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讘讻诇诇

Rather, Rav could say to you: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that whenever the verse employs an expression such as: From the first day, the first day itself is not included. Accordingly, when the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year,鈥 the Jubilee Year is not included. But I stated my ruling that a field may be consecrated during the Jubilee Year in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: The verse states: 鈥淲hoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel鈥 (Exodus 12:15). It states: 鈥淔rom the first day,鈥 and the first day is included, and it continues: 鈥淯ntil the seventh day,鈥 and the seventh day is also included. Here too, the verse states: 鈥淚f he sanctifies his field from the Jubilee Year,鈥 and the Jubilee Year is included.

讗讬 讻专讘讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛

The mishna (25a) teaches that when one redeems an ancestral field, he gives a sela and a pundeyon, which is equivalent to one forty-eighth of a sela, per beit kor for each year remaining until the Jubilee Year. This amount is close to one forty-ninth of the total valuation of fifty sela, and there are no tannaitic disputes with regard to this mishna. The Gemara therefore asks: If Rav holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one may consecrate an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year, what is the purpose of the additional pundeyon that one gives for each remaining year until the Jubilee? If the Jubilee Year itself is included in the calculation, the total price of fifty sela should be divided evenly, i.e., one sela should be paid for each remaining year of the fifty years.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞谉 讛拽讚讬砖 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 住诇注 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 专讘讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖谞转 讞诪砖讬诐 注讜诇讛 诇讻讗谉 讜诇讻讗谉

And if you would say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does not require the addition of a pundeyon for each remaining year, that is difficult: But didn鈥檛 we learn in a baraita: If one consecrated the field two or three years before the Jubilee Year, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that he gives a sela and a pundeyon per year? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted both for this cycle and for that one, i.e., he maintains that the Jubilee Year is also considered the first year of the next cycle. Accordingly, there are actually only forty-nine years in a Jubilee cycle, and the total valuation of a field is therefore divided into forty-nine parts, which comes out to a sela and a pundeyon for each year.

诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住诇注 讜砖转讬 驻讜谞讚讬讜谞讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讻专讞讱 诇砖诪讜讗诇 专讘讬 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara objects: According to Shmuel, who maintains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that an ancestral field may not be consecrated during the Jubilee Year, let him say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and hold that the fiftieth year is not counted as the first year of the following cycle. Because if he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, then he should require one to pay a sela and two pundeyon, i.e., one forty-eighth of the total valuation of a field, per year, as there are only forty-eight years during which one may consecrate a field. The Gemara explains: This is indeed the case. Perforce, according to Shmuel, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

转讗 砖诪注 讜诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讙讜讗诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 砖谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Shmuel from the mishna: Nor may one redeem an ancestral field that was consecrated less than one year after the Jubilee Year. Granted, according to Shmuel, who says that one may not consecrate an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year itself, and therefore if a field was consecrated during the Jubilee Year it requires no redemption at all, the mishna is teaching that one may not redeem a field less than one year after the Jubilee, i.e., until the year after the Jubilee, as it cannot be consecrated until then. But according to Rav, who maintains that a field may be consecrated and redeemed during the Jubilee Year itself, what does the mishna mean when it states that one may not redeem a field less than one year after the Jubilee?

诪讬 住讘专转 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讗讞专 讬讜讘诇

The Gemara responds: Do you maintain that the mishna is referring to the actual year after the Jubilee Year? This is not the case; rather, to what is the phrase: After the Jubilee Year, actually referring?

Scroll To Top