What are the different opinions regarding a cherem that was unspecified? What sources to they bring and how do they explain the sources of the other opinion? Is there a difference between a time when they count Jubilee years and a time where they do not? What other laws do not apply when there is no Jubilee year? One who sells a field in the Jubilee year – is it a valid sale or not? If not, does the money also revert back to its original owner?
Arakhin 29
07.15.2019 | י״ב בתמוז תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true baal chesed, who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition. He was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Arakhin 29
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן וְנִותָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן. חֲרָמִים כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית בְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״. נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן — הֲרֵי הֵן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן כְּחוּלִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Dedications of property for priests have no redemption, and one gives the property to the priest. With regard to these dedications, as long as they remain in the house of the owner they are considered like consecrated property in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred property, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן כִּדְקָא מְפָרְשִׁי טַעְמַיְיהוּ וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא הַאי ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Gemara asks: Granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they explain their reason and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. But as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this verse: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?
מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדִי — תְּהֵא שֶׁלִּי?
The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita that discusses the case of one who consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it. This field becomes the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year. The baraita teaches: Why must the verse state at its end: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated by an Israelite and was given to him and he then consecrated it, and then the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed goes out of the owner’s possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.
וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.
The baraita adds: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed at the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, all the more so is it not clear that I should acquire it? Therefore, the verse states, with regard to an ancestral field that one consecrated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.
וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשְּׂדֵה חֵרֶם מֵעַתָּה? הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מַקִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The baraita explains the derivation: But what have we now learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field? In other words, the verse, which is dealing with an ancestral field, says an ancestral field is like a dedicated field, but it does not explicitly state the halakha of dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field comes to teach a halakha about an ancestral field but is found to derive a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes a dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite.
מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים, אַף שָׂדֶה חֶרְמוֹ, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.
The baraita clarifies how the halakha is derived from the juxtaposition: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite, which was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury, goes out of his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year (see 25b), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that remained in his possession goes out of his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.
וְאִידָּךְ? מֵ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״. וְאִידַּךְ, ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And the other, i.e., the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara responds: They derive it from a superfluous term in the verse, as it could have stated merely: Dedicated [ḥerem], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: “Haḥerem,” with the definite article, and therefore both halakhot are derived from this verse. The Gemara notes: And as for the other, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he does not learn anything from the difference between ḥerem and haḥerem. Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, דְּחָל עַל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְעַל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, מְנָא לֵיהּ? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where does he derive that a dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, which, according to the Rabbis, is learned from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28)? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives this halakha from another source, as explained in the mishna below.
אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, וְרַב שָׁבֵיק רַבָּנַן וְעָבֵיד כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? בָּרַיְיתָא אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, שָׁבֵיק מַתְנִיתִין וְעָבֵיד כְּבָרַיְיתָא? רַב מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי.
§ Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: And would Rav leave aside the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: This dispute is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., it is the Rabbis who hold that unspecified dedications are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara further asks: Would Rav leave aside a mishna and act in accordance with a baraita? The Gemara responds: Rav teaches the mishna as well in the opposite manner, in accordance with the baraita.
מַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ מַתְנִיתִין מִקַּמֵּי בָּרַיְיתָא? נֵפֵיךְ בָּרַיְיתָא מִקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתִין! רַב גְּמָרֵיהּ גְּמִיר. אִי הָכִי, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? כְּרַבָּנַן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְמַאי דְּאָפְכִיתוּ וְתָנֵיתוּ, הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא.
The Gemara asks: What did you see that you chose to reverse the opinions in the mishna due to the baraita? Let us reverse the opinions in the baraita due to the mishna. The Gemara answers: Rav learned by tradition from his teachers that the opinions cited in the mishna should be reversed. The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rav state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? He should have said it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav is saying: In accordance with the manner in which you reversed the opinions and taught them in the mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַחְרְמִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי וְאַחֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, וּשְׁדִינְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא, וְלִישְׁתְּרוֹ לָךְ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.
§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who dedicated his property in Pumbedita. He came before Rav Yehuda to ask him what to do. Rav Yehuda said to him: Take four dinars and desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto them. And then throw the dinars into the river, because one may not derive benefit from them. And then the property will be permitted to you, as it will have been redeemed. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Rav Yehuda holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance, which is why the man could redeem his property. Had the property been designated for the priests there could be no redemption, as taught in the mishna.
כְּמַאן? כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְחוּלָּל. אֵימַר דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ, לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Yehuda hold, when he told the man to desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto money worth less than the dedicated property? The Gemara responds: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized onto an item worth one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara asks: One can say that Shmuel said this is the halakha only in a case where one already desacralized the property, i.e., after the fact. Did he say one may do so ab initio?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ פְּרוּטָה נָמֵי? פַּרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא.
The Gemara responds: This matter, that one must desacralize consecrated property onto an item worth the value of the property ab initio, applies only during a period when the Temple is standing, as there is a loss caused to the Temple treasury by desacralizing its property onto an item worth less than its value. But in the present time, when the Temple is not standing and there is no Temple treasury, one may desacralize with an item worth less than the consecrated property even ab initio. The Gemara asks: If so, then one may even desacralize with one peruta as well. Why, then, did Rav Yehuda require the man to use four dinars? The Gemara responds: He required four dinars in order to publicize the matter, so that the community will know the property is permitted for use only because it was redeemed.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה יָהֵיבְנָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Ulla says: If I had been there when this man asked what to do, I would have given all of the property to the priests. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Ulla holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for the priests, and therefore they cannot be redeemed.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד שְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל יַעֲבֹד עִמָּךְ״.
It can be inferred from the previous discussion that the halakhot of dedications are in effect even today. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: The sale of a Hebrew slave is practiced only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “And if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you…he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:39–40).
וְאֵין שְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצָא בַּיּוֹבֵל וְשָׁב לַאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״. אֵין בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל״.
And likewise the halakhot pertaining to a dedicated, i.e., ancestral, field apply only during a period that the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought…and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession” (Leviticus 25:28). Finally, the halakhot pertaining to houses of walled cities apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:30).
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שְׂדֵה חֲרָמִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳ כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The halakhot pertaining to a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be sacred to the Lord, as a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The halakhot pertaining to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed.
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אַתְיָא ״טוֹב״ ״טוֹב״, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״בַּטּוֹב לוֹ לֹא תּוֹנֶנּוּ״!
Rav Beivai said: What is the reason? It is derived from a verbal analogy between “well” and “well.” It is written here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16). And it is written there, with regard to a ger toshav: “Where it is well for him; you shall not wrong him” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara’s objection is that it is evident from the baraita that the halakhot pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי, הָא בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי. וְהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי נָמֵי הֲוָה! מְקַרְקְעֵי דְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּמֵי.
The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is discussing the halakha with regard to land, whereas that incident, in Pumbedita, in which a dedication was effected, occurred with movable property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that incident that occurred in Pumbedita involved land as well, and Rav Yehuda nevertheless required the man to redeem them. The Gemara responds: Land outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״.
MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19), and one verse states: “However, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man shall not consecrate it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall consecrate,” as it is already stated: “A man shall not consecrate.” It is likewise impossible to say: “A man shall not consecrate,” as it is already stated: “You shall consecrate.”
הָא כֵּיצַד? מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאִי אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.
How, then, can these verses be reconciled? You can consecrate the firstborn animal by a consecration of value, i.e., an individual can donate to the Temple treasury the amount he would be willing to pay for the right to give the firstborn to a specific priest; and you cannot consecrate it by a consecration for the altar, as a firstborn may not be sacrificed for the sake of any other offering.
גּמ׳, וְרַבָּנַן: ״אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו, ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְנוֹלַד בְּכוֹר בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ״.
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, who derive the halakha that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse “A man shall not consecrate” is necessary to teach that there is a Torah prohibition against consecrating a firstborn animal for the sake of another offering. As for the other verse discussed in the mishna: “You shall consecrate,” it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn animal that was born in one’s flock that it is a mitzva to consecrate it verbally as a firstborn? As it is stated: “The firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate.”
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ, לָא קָדֵישׁ? קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ קָדוֹשׁ, לָא צְרִיךְ לְאַקְדּוֹשֵׁיהּ.
And Rabbi Yishmael, who maintains there is no such mitzva, would argue: If one does not consecrate it verbally, is the animal not consecrated? It certainly is consecrated, as its sanctity is from the womb. And since when one does not consecrate it the animal is nevertheless sanctified automatically, he does not need to consecrate it verbally.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שָׂדֵהוּ.
MISHNA: One who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale, as it is stated: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַיּוֹבֵל — אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לִגְאוֹל פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״.
If one of those years was a year of blight or mildew, or if it was the Sabbatical Year, when the buyer is unable to derive benefit from the field, that year does not count as part of the tally, and the owner must wait an additional year before redeeming the field. If the buyer plowed the field but did not sow it, or if he left it fallow, that year counts as part of his tally, as it was fit to produce a crop. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana and the field was full of produce, and the owner redeems the field after two years, that buyer consumes from the field’s produce three crops in two years. Although he received the field with its crop, he is not required to return it in the same state.
הָיְתָה שְׁנַת שִׁדָּפוֹן וְיֵרָקוֹן, אוֹ שְׁנַת שְׁבִיעִית — אֵינָו עוֹלָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. נָרָהּ אוֹ הוֹבִירָהּ — עוֹלָה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְכָרָהּ לוֹ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that one who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale. The Gemara notes: The mishna does not teach that one cannot redeem his field before two years have elapsed; rather, the mishna teaches that one is not permitted to redeem it. Evidently, the tanna of the mishna holds that there is also a prohibition involved in the matter, such that it is prohibited even to rattle dinars before the buyer in order to persuade him to sell back the field.
גְּמָ׳ הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַיּוֹבֵל וְכוּ׳. ״אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לִגְאוֹל״, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: אִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי אִיכָּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ קַרְקוֹשֵׁי זוּזֵי נָמֵי אָסוּר.
The Gemara continues: And it is not necessary to state this with regard to the seller, as he stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and the plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years. Rather, even the buyer stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as we require the fulfillment of another mitzva from the same verse: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee Year you shall buy from your neighbor,” and if the buyer returns the field before the two years elapse, the mitzva is not fulfilled.
וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא מוֹכֵר, דְּקָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לוֹקֵחַ נָמֵי קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, דְּבָעֵינַן ״שָׁנִים תִּקְנֶה״, וְלֵיכָּא.
§ It was stated: With regard to one who sells his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: The field is sold in principle, but it leaves the buyer’s possession immediately, and his money is not refunded. And Shmuel says: It is not sold at all. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reasoning of Shmuel? Shmuel derives his opinion via an a fortiori inference. And what, if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, is it not logical that a field that was not yet sold is not sold at all during the Jubilee Year?
אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל עַצְמָהּ, רַב אָמַר: מְכוּרָה וְיוֹצְאָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה כׇּל עִיקָּר. מַאי טַעְמָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל? קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה מְכוּרָה כְּבָר יוֹצְאָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּימָּכֵר?
The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, do we not say that one may derive an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a person may sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman. You can say the following a fortiori inference to reject such a possibility: And what, if a daughter who was already sold, now leaves her master upon becoming a young woman, is it not logical that a daughter who was not sold is not capable of being sold once she becomes a young woman? Evidently, one may derive this type of an a fortiori inference. Why, then, does Rav disagree with Shmuel?
וּלְרַב, לָא אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם אֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מְכוּרָה כְּבָר — יוֹצְאָה עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּימָּכֵר?
The Gemara answers that the cases are not comparable. There, with regard to a maidservant, once she becomes a young woman she is not ever sold again. Here, the field that is returned to the seller in the Jubilee Year may later be sold again. Rav therefore maintains that one may not derive the aforementioned a fortiori inference.
הָתָם לָא הָדְרָא מִיזְדַּבְּנָא, הָכָא הָדְרָא מִיזְדַּבְּנָא.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: The verse states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:15). The term: After the Jubilee, teaches that a field may be sold in the year adjacent to the Jubilee Year. From where is it derived that a field may be sold in a year that is separated from the Jubilee Year? The verse states: “According to the multitude of the years you shall increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years you shall diminish the price of it” (Leviticus 25:16). The verse teaches that one may sell a field even after several years have elapsed since the last Jubilee Year.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל שָׁנִים תִּקְנֶה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין סָמוּךְ לַיּוֹבֵל, מוּפְלָג מִן הַיּוֹבֵל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְפִי רֹב הַשָּׁנִים… וּלְפִי מְעוֹט הַשָּׁנִים״.
The baraita continues: And in the Jubilee Year itself one may not sell his field, and if one sold it, it is not sold. This baraita clearly seems to contradict the opinion of Rav. The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you: The baraita means that the field is not sold for the number of years of the crops, i.e., it does not remain in the buyer’s possession for a minimum of two years, rather it is sold in principle, and then immediately leaves the buyer’s possession.
וּבִשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל עַצְמָהּ לֹא יִמְכּוֹר, וְאִם מָכַר — אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה לְמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת, אֲבָל מְכוּרָה הִיא וְיוֹצְאָה.
The Gemara objects: But if the field is indeed sold, let it stand in the buyer’s possession until after the Jubilee Year, and after the Jubilee Year let him consume the field’s produce for two years of crops, and only then return the field. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If the buyer consumed the field’s produce for one year before the Jubilee Year, he completes another year after the Jubilee Year? The Gemara explains: The cases are not comparable. There, the buyer already entered the field in order to consume the produce, and therefore he completes the minimum of two years. Here, the buyer did not enter the field to consume the produce at all, as ownership of the field immediately reverts to the seller.
וְאִי אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי מִיזְדַּבְּנָה, תֵּיקוּם בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ עַד בָּתַר יוֹבֵל, וּבָתַר יוֹבֵל נֵיכְלַיהּ שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת וְנַיהְדְּרַהּ! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: אֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַת לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ שָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל? הָתָם נָחֵית לַאֲכִילָה, הָכָא לָא נָחֵית לַאֲכִילָה.
§ Rav Anan says: I learned two halakhot from Master Shmuel. One was this halakha, that if one sells his field during the Jubilee Year the sale is ineffective. And the other halakha concerned one who sells his Canaanite slave to gentiles, or to a Jew who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael, that the slave is emancipated. A Canaanite slave is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot. By selling him to a gentile, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzvot, and by selling him to one who dwells outside of Eretz Yisrael, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzva of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. The Sages therefore decreed that the Jewish master must write the slave a bill of manumission after the sale, so that if he runs away from his gentile master, he would not reenter servitude under the Jewish master.
אָמַר רַב עָנָן: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל תַּרְתֵּי, חֲדָא הָךְ, וְאִידַּךְ הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹיִם אוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת.
Rav Anan continues: With regard to one of these halakhot, Shmuel said that the sale is retracted and the money is refunded, and with regard to one of them, he said that the sale is not retracted and the buyer loses his money. But I do not know in which of the cases the sale is retracted and in which case it is not.
חֲדָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וַחֲדָא לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי (מיניה) [מִינַּיְהוּ].
Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan’s dilemma. It may be resolved from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Conclude from the baraita as follows: Since the baraita calls the second owner the slave’s master, and requires him to emancipate the slave, evidently the sale is not retracted, and the buyer loses his money. And therefore, when Shmuel says here that the field is not sold during the Jubilee Year, he means that the sale does not take effect and the money is returned to the buyer.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן, מִדְּתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִדְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ לִשְׁנֵי ״רַבּוֹ״, אַלְמָא לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וְכִי קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכָא: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה וּמָעוֹת חוֹזְרִין.
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
The Innovation of אינו מעכב – What does this category teach us about the halakhic system?
02.26.2026 | ט׳ באדר תשפ״ו
Bava Kamma: 112-119 + Siyum – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
02.29.2024 | כ׳ באדר א׳ תשפ״ד
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Adina Hagege
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Janine Rubens
Virginia, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Harriet Hartman
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Rachel Rotenberg
Tekoa, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Shira Jacobowitz
Jerusalem, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
Arakhin 29
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֶרְמֵי כֹהֲנִים אֵין לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן וְנִותָּנִין לַכֹּהֵן. חֲרָמִים כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּבֵית בְּעָלִים הֲרֵי הֵן כְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לַה׳״. נְתָנָן לְכֹהֵן — הֲרֵי הֵן לְכׇל דִּבְרֵיהֶן כְּחוּלִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כׇּל חֵרֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ יִהְיֶה״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught: Dedications of property for priests have no redemption, and one gives the property to the priest. With regard to these dedications, as long as they remain in the house of the owner they are considered like consecrated property in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred property, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת כּוּ׳. בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבָּנַן כִּדְקָא מְפָרְשִׁי טַעְמַיְיהוּ וְטַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא הַאי ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Gemara asks: Granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they explain their reason and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. But as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this verse: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?
מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? מִנַּיִן לְכֹהֵן שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצְאָה לַכֹּהֲנִים, וַהֲרֵי הִיא תַּחַת יָדִי — תְּהֵא שֶׁלִּי?
The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita that discusses the case of one who consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it. This field becomes the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year. The baraita teaches: Why must the verse state at its end: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated by an Israelite and was given to him and he then consecrated it, and then the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed goes out of the owner’s possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.
וְדִין הוּא: בְּשֶׁל אֲחֵרִים אֲנִי זוֹכֶה, בְּשֶׁל עַצְמִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם לַכֹּהֵן תִּהְיֶה אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״.
The baraita adds: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed at the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, all the more so is it not clear that I should acquire it? Therefore, the verse states, with regard to an ancestral field that one consecrated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.
וְכִי מָה לָמַדְנוּ מִשְּׂדֵה חֵרֶם מֵעַתָּה? הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מַקִּישׁ שְׂדֵה חֶרְמוֹ לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל.
The baraita explains the derivation: But what have we now learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field? In other words, the verse, which is dealing with an ancestral field, says an ancestral field is like a dedicated field, but it does not explicitly state the halakha of dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field comes to teach a halakha about an ancestral field but is found to derive a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes a dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite.
מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לַכֹּהֲנִים, אַף שָׂדֶה חֶרְמוֹ, יוֹצְאָה מִתַּחַת יָדוֹ, וּמִתְחַלֶּקֶת לְאֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים.
The baraita clarifies how the halakha is derived from the juxtaposition: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite, which was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury, goes out of his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year (see 25b), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that remained in his possession goes out of his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.
וְאִידָּךְ? מֵ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״. וְאִידַּךְ, ״חֵרֶם״ ״הַחֵרֶם״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: And the other, i.e., the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara responds: They derive it from a superfluous term in the verse, as it could have stated merely: Dedicated [ḥerem], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: “Haḥerem,” with the definite article, and therefore both halakhot are derived from this verse. The Gemara notes: And as for the other, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he does not learn anything from the difference between ḥerem and haḥerem. Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, דְּחָל עַל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְעַל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, מְנָא לֵיהּ? סָבַר לֵיהּ כְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where does he derive that a dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, which, according to the Rabbis, is learned from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28)? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives this halakha from another source, as explained in the mishna below.
אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא, וְרַב שָׁבֵיק רַבָּנַן וְעָבֵיד כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? בָּרַיְיתָא אִיפְּכָא תַּנְיָא, שָׁבֵיק מַתְנִיתִין וְעָבֵיד כְּבָרַיְיתָא? רַב מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי אִיפְּכָא תָּנֵי.
§ Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: And would Rav leave aside the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: This dispute is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., it is the Rabbis who hold that unspecified dedications are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara further asks: Would Rav leave aside a mishna and act in accordance with a baraita? The Gemara responds: Rav teaches the mishna as well in the opposite manner, in accordance with the baraita.
מַאי חֲזֵית דְּאָפְכַתְּ מַתְנִיתִין מִקַּמֵּי בָּרַיְיתָא? נֵפֵיךְ בָּרַיְיתָא מִקַּמֵּי מַתְנִיתִין! רַב גְּמָרֵיהּ גְּמִיר. אִי הָכִי, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא? כְּרַבָּנַן מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לְמַאי דְּאָפְכִיתוּ וְתָנֵיתוּ, הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא.
The Gemara asks: What did you see that you chose to reverse the opinions in the mishna due to the baraita? Let us reverse the opinions in the baraita due to the mishna. The Gemara answers: Rav learned by tradition from his teachers that the opinions cited in the mishna should be reversed. The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rav state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? He should have said it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav is saying: In accordance with the manner in which you reversed the opinions and taught them in the mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַחְרְמִינְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ בְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁקוֹל אַרְבְּעָה זוּזֵי וְאַחֵיל עֲלַיְיהוּ, וּשְׁדִינְהוּ בְּנַהֲרָא, וְלִישְׁתְּרוֹ לָךְ. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.
§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who dedicated his property in Pumbedita. He came before Rav Yehuda to ask him what to do. Rav Yehuda said to him: Take four dinars and desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto them. And then throw the dinars into the river, because one may not derive benefit from them. And then the property will be permitted to you, as it will have been redeemed. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Rav Yehuda holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance, which is why the man could redeem his property. Had the property been designated for the priests there could be no redemption, as taught in the mishna.
כְּמַאן? כִּשְׁמוּאֵל, דְּאָמַר: הֶקְדֵּשׁ שָׁוֶה מָנֶה שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ עַל שָׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה מְחוּלָּל. אֵימַר דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל שֶׁחִילְּלוֹ, לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?
The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Yehuda hold, when he told the man to desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto money worth less than the dedicated property? The Gemara responds: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized onto an item worth one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara asks: One can say that Shmuel said this is the halakha only in a case where one already desacralized the property, i.e., after the fact. Did he say one may do so ab initio?
הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּזְמַן שֶׁבֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ קַיָּים, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא, אֲבָל בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה אֲפִילּוּ לְכַתְּחִלָּה. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ פְּרוּטָה נָמֵי? פַּרְסוֹמֵי מִלְּתָא.
The Gemara responds: This matter, that one must desacralize consecrated property onto an item worth the value of the property ab initio, applies only during a period when the Temple is standing, as there is a loss caused to the Temple treasury by desacralizing its property onto an item worth less than its value. But in the present time, when the Temple is not standing and there is no Temple treasury, one may desacralize with an item worth less than the consecrated property even ab initio. The Gemara asks: If so, then one may even desacralize with one peruta as well. Why, then, did Rav Yehuda require the man to use four dinars? The Gemara responds: He required four dinars in order to publicize the matter, so that the community will know the property is permitted for use only because it was redeemed.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: אִי הֲוַאי הָתָם, הֲוָה יָהֵיבְנָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: סְתַם חֲרָמִים לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Ulla says: If I had been there when this man asked what to do, I would have given all of the property to the priests. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Ulla holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for the priests, and therefore they cannot be redeemed.
מֵיתִיבִי: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עַד שְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל יַעֲבֹד עִמָּךְ״.
It can be inferred from the previous discussion that the halakhot of dedications are in effect even today. The Gemara raises an objection to this opinion from a baraita: The sale of a Hebrew slave is practiced only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “And if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you…he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:39–40).
וְאֵין שְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְיָצָא בַּיּוֹבֵל וְשָׁב לַאֲחֻזָּתוֹ״. אֵין בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא יֵצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל״.
And likewise the halakhot pertaining to a dedicated, i.e., ancestral, field apply only during a period that the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought…and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession” (Leviticus 25:28). Finally, the halakhot pertaining to houses of walled cities apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it, throughout his generations; it shall not go out in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:30).
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: אֵין שְׂדֵה חֲרָמִין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיָה הַשָּׂדֶה בְּצֵאתוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל קֹדֶשׁ לַה׳ כִּשְׂדֵה הַחֵרֶם״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: אֵין גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁהַיּוֹבֵל נוֹהֵג.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: The halakhot pertaining to a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: “But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be sacred to the Lord, as a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The halakhot pertaining to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav] apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed.
אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי: מַאי טַעְמָא? אַתְיָא ״טוֹב״ ״טוֹב״, כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״בַּטּוֹב לוֹ לֹא תּוֹנֶנּוּ״!
Rav Beivai said: What is the reason? It is derived from a verbal analogy between “well” and “well.” It is written here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16). And it is written there, with regard to a ger toshav: “Where it is well for him; you shall not wrong him” (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara’s objection is that it is evident from the baraita that the halakhot pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי, הָא בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי. וְהָא מַעֲשֶׂה דְּפוּמְבְּדִיתָא בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי נָמֵי הֲוָה! מְקַרְקְעֵי דְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ כְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּמֵי.
The Gemara explains that it is not difficult. This baraita is discussing the halakha with regard to land, whereas that incident, in Pumbedita, in which a dedication was effected, occurred with movable property. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But that incident that occurred in Pumbedita involved land as well, and Rav Yehuda nevertheless required the man to redeem them. The Gemara responds: Land outside of Eretz Yisrael is considered like movable property in Eretz Yisrael.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״. אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לוֹמַר ״לֹא יַקְדִּישׁ״ — שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״.
MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states: “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19), and one verse states: “However, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man shall not consecrate it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: “You shall consecrate,” as it is already stated: “A man shall not consecrate.” It is likewise impossible to say: “A man shall not consecrate,” as it is already stated: “You shall consecrate.”
הָא כֵּיצַד? מַקְדִּישׁוֹ אַתָּה הֶקְדֵּשׁ עִלּוּי, וְאִי אַתָּה מַקְדִּישׁוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.
How, then, can these verses be reconciled? You can consecrate the firstborn animal by a consecration of value, i.e., an individual can donate to the Temple treasury the amount he would be willing to pay for the right to give the firstborn to a specific priest; and you cannot consecrate it by a consecration for the altar, as a firstborn may not be sacrificed for the sake of any other offering.
גּמ׳, וְרַבָּנַן: ״אַל תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְלָאו, ״תַּקְדִּישׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְנוֹלַד בְּכוֹר בְּעֶדְרוֹ שֶׁמִּצְוָה לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַזָּכָר תַּקְדִּישׁ״.
GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, who derive the halakha that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse “A man shall not consecrate” is necessary to teach that there is a Torah prohibition against consecrating a firstborn animal for the sake of another offering. As for the other verse discussed in the mishna: “You shall consecrate,” it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn animal that was born in one’s flock that it is a mitzva to consecrate it verbally as a firstborn? As it is stated: “The firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate.”
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ, לָא קָדֵישׁ? קְדוּשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם הוּא, וְכֵיוָן דְּכִי לָא מַקְדֵּישׁ לֵיהּ קָדוֹשׁ, לָא צְרִיךְ לְאַקְדּוֹשֵׁיהּ.
And Rabbi Yishmael, who maintains there is no such mitzva, would argue: If one does not consecrate it verbally, is the animal not consecrated? It certainly is consecrated, as its sanctity is from the womb. And since when one does not consecrate it the animal is nevertheless sanctified automatically, he does not need to consecrate it verbally.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַמַּקְדִּישׁ שָׂדֵהוּ.
MISHNA: One who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale, as it is stated: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַיּוֹבֵל — אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לִגְאוֹל פָּחוֹת מִשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״.
If one of those years was a year of blight or mildew, or if it was the Sabbatical Year, when the buyer is unable to derive benefit from the field, that year does not count as part of the tally, and the owner must wait an additional year before redeeming the field. If the buyer plowed the field but did not sow it, or if he left it fallow, that year counts as part of his tally, as it was fit to produce a crop. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana and the field was full of produce, and the owner redeems the field after two years, that buyer consumes from the field’s produce three crops in two years. Although he received the field with its crop, he is not required to return it in the same state.
הָיְתָה שְׁנַת שִׁדָּפוֹן וְיֵרָקוֹן, אוֹ שְׁנַת שְׁבִיעִית — אֵינָו עוֹלָה מִן הַמִּנְיָן. נָרָהּ אוֹ הוֹבִירָהּ — עוֹלָה לוֹ מִן הַמִּנְיָן. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מְכָרָהּ לוֹ לִפְנֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְהִיא מְלֵיאָה פֵּירוֹת — הֲרֵי זֶה אוֹכֵל מִמֶּנָּה שָׁלֹשׁ תְּבוּאוֹת בִּשְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים.
GEMARA: The mishna states that one who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale. The Gemara notes: The mishna does not teach that one cannot redeem his field before two years have elapsed; rather, the mishna teaches that one is not permitted to redeem it. Evidently, the tanna of the mishna holds that there is also a prohibition involved in the matter, such that it is prohibited even to rattle dinars before the buyer in order to persuade him to sell back the field.
גְּמָ׳ הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁעַת הַיּוֹבֵל וְכוּ׳. ״אֵינוֹ גּוֹאֵל״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״אֵינוֹ מוּתָּר לִגְאוֹל״, אַלְמָא קָסָבַר: אִיסּוּרָא נָמֵי אִיכָּא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ קַרְקוֹשֵׁי זוּזֵי נָמֵי אָסוּר.
The Gemara continues: And it is not necessary to state this with regard to the seller, as he stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and the plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years. Rather, even the buyer stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as we require the fulfillment of another mitzva from the same verse: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee Year you shall buy from your neighbor,” and if the buyer returns the field before the two years elapse, the mitzva is not fulfilled.
וְלָא מִיבַּעְיָא מוֹכֵר, דְּקָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאֹת יִמְכׇּר לָךְ״, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לוֹקֵחַ נָמֵי קָאֵי בַּעֲשֵׂה, דְּבָעֵינַן ״שָׁנִים תִּקְנֶה״, וְלֵיכָּא.
§ It was stated: With regard to one who sells his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: The field is sold in principle, but it leaves the buyer’s possession immediately, and his money is not refunded. And Shmuel says: It is not sold at all. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reasoning of Shmuel? Shmuel derives his opinion via an a fortiori inference. And what, if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, is it not logical that a field that was not yet sold is not sold at all during the Jubilee Year?
אִיתְּמַר: הַמּוֹכֵר שָׂדֵהוּ בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל עַצְמָהּ, רַב אָמַר: מְכוּרָה וְיוֹצְאָה, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה כׇּל עִיקָּר. מַאי טַעְמָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל? קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה מְכוּרָה כְּבָר יוֹצְאָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּימָּכֵר?
The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, do we not say that one may derive an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a person may sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman. You can say the following a fortiori inference to reject such a possibility: And what, if a daughter who was already sold, now leaves her master upon becoming a young woman, is it not logical that a daughter who was not sold is not capable of being sold once she becomes a young woman? Evidently, one may derive this type of an a fortiori inference. Why, then, does Rav disagree with Shmuel?
וּלְרַב, לָא אָמְרִינַן קַל וָחוֹמֶר כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יִמְכּוֹר אָדָם אֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה? אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה מְכוּרָה כְּבָר — יוֹצְאָה עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא תִּימָּכֵר?
The Gemara answers that the cases are not comparable. There, with regard to a maidservant, once she becomes a young woman she is not ever sold again. Here, the field that is returned to the seller in the Jubilee Year may later be sold again. Rav therefore maintains that one may not derive the aforementioned a fortiori inference.
הָתָם לָא הָדְרָא מִיזְדַּבְּנָא, הָכָא הָדְרָא מִיזְדַּבְּנָא.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita: The verse states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:15). The term: After the Jubilee, teaches that a field may be sold in the year adjacent to the Jubilee Year. From where is it derived that a field may be sold in a year that is separated from the Jubilee Year? The verse states: “According to the multitude of the years you shall increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years you shall diminish the price of it” (Leviticus 25:16). The verse teaches that one may sell a field even after several years have elapsed since the last Jubilee Year.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל שָׁנִים תִּקְנֶה״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹכְרִין סָמוּךְ לַיּוֹבֵל, מוּפְלָג מִן הַיּוֹבֵל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְפִי רֹב הַשָּׁנִים… וּלְפִי מְעוֹט הַשָּׁנִים״.
The baraita continues: And in the Jubilee Year itself one may not sell his field, and if one sold it, it is not sold. This baraita clearly seems to contradict the opinion of Rav. The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you: The baraita means that the field is not sold for the number of years of the crops, i.e., it does not remain in the buyer’s possession for a minimum of two years, rather it is sold in principle, and then immediately leaves the buyer’s possession.
וּבִשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל עַצְמָהּ לֹא יִמְכּוֹר, וְאִם מָכַר — אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה לְמִסְפַּר שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת, אֲבָל מְכוּרָה הִיא וְיוֹצְאָה.
The Gemara objects: But if the field is indeed sold, let it stand in the buyer’s possession until after the Jubilee Year, and after the Jubilee Year let him consume the field’s produce for two years of crops, and only then return the field. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: If the buyer consumed the field’s produce for one year before the Jubilee Year, he completes another year after the Jubilee Year? The Gemara explains: The cases are not comparable. There, the buyer already entered the field in order to consume the produce, and therefore he completes the minimum of two years. Here, the buyer did not enter the field to consume the produce at all, as ownership of the field immediately reverts to the seller.
וְאִי אִיזְדַּבּוֹנֵי מִיזְדַּבְּנָה, תֵּיקוּם בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ עַד בָּתַר יוֹבֵל, וּבָתַר יוֹבֵל נֵיכְלַיהּ שְׁנֵי תְבוּאוֹת וְנַיהְדְּרַהּ! מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: אֲכָלָהּ שָׁנָה אַחַת לִפְנֵי הַיּוֹבֵל — מַשְׁלִימִין לוֹ שָׁנָה אַחֶרֶת אַחַר הַיּוֹבֵל? הָתָם נָחֵית לַאֲכִילָה, הָכָא לָא נָחֵית לַאֲכִילָה.
§ Rav Anan says: I learned two halakhot from Master Shmuel. One was this halakha, that if one sells his field during the Jubilee Year the sale is ineffective. And the other halakha concerned one who sells his Canaanite slave to gentiles, or to a Jew who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael, that the slave is emancipated. A Canaanite slave is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot. By selling him to a gentile, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzvot, and by selling him to one who dwells outside of Eretz Yisrael, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzva of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. The Sages therefore decreed that the Jewish master must write the slave a bill of manumission after the sale, so that if he runs away from his gentile master, he would not reenter servitude under the Jewish master.
אָמַר רַב עָנָן: שְׁמַעִית מִינֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל תַּרְתֵּי, חֲדָא הָךְ, וְאִידַּךְ הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לְגוֹיִם אוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת.
Rav Anan continues: With regard to one of these halakhot, Shmuel said that the sale is retracted and the money is refunded, and with regard to one of them, he said that the sale is not retracted and the buyer loses his money. But I do not know in which of the cases the sale is retracted and in which case it is not.
חֲדָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וַחֲדָא לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא הֵי (מיניה) [מִינַּיְהוּ].
Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan’s dilemma. It may be resolved from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Conclude from the baraita as follows: Since the baraita calls the second owner the slave’s master, and requires him to emancipate the slave, evidently the sale is not retracted, and the buyer loses his money. And therefore, when Shmuel says here that the field is not sold during the Jubilee Year, he means that the sale does not take effect and the money is returned to the buyer.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: נִיחְזֵי אֲנַן, מִדְּתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ שֵׁנִי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, מִדְּקָרֵי לֵיהּ לִשְׁנֵי ״רַבּוֹ״, אַלְמָא לָא הָדְרִי זְבִינֵי, וְכִי קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל הָכָא: אֵינָהּ מְכוּרָה וּמָעוֹת חוֹזְרִין.
Follow
