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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 15, 2019 | 讬状讘 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Arakhin 29

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?


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

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讞专诪讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛拽讚砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讬讛讬讛

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: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讚拽讗 诪驻专砖讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,鈥 what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?

诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讛拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 转讞转 讬讚讬 转讛讗 砖诇讬

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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥? 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鈥檚 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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讘砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗谞讬 讝讜讻讛 讘砖诇 注爪诪讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜

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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,鈥 which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.

讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讚讛 讞专诐 诪注转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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.

诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜诪转讞诇拽转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗祝 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜诪转讞诇拽转 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞专诐 讛讞专诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讞专诐 讛讞专诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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 [岣rem], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: Ha岣rem,鈥 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 岣rem and ha岣rem. Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚讞诇 注诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜注诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬

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.

诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 谞驻讬讱 讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘 讙诪专讬讛 讙诪讬专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讻专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻讬转讜 讜转谞讬转讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讞专诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讞讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜砖讚讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗 讜诇讬砖转专讜 诇讱 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

搂 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.

讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讬诇诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讜讟讛 谞诪讬 驻专住讜诪讬 诪诇转讗

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讬注讘讚 注诪讱

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: 鈥淎nd if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you鈥he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:39鈥40).

讜讗讬谉 砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜砖讘 诇讗讞讝转讜 讗讬谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇

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: 鈥淭hen that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought鈥and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession鈥 (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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:30).

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讚讛 讞专诪讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The halakhot pertaining to a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜讘 讟讜讘 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讘讟讜讘 诇讜 诇讗 转讜谞谞讜

Rav Beivai said: What is the reason? It is derived from a verbal analogy between 鈥渨ell鈥 and 鈥渨ell.鈥 It is written here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). And it is written there, with regard to a ger toshav: 鈥淲here it is well for him; you shall not wrong him鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara鈥檚 objection is that it is evident from the baraita that the halakhot pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讛讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诪拽专拽注讬 讚讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 转拽讚讬砖 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 转拽讚讬砖 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 转拽讚讬砖

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), and one verse states: 鈥淗owever, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man shall not consecrate it鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate.鈥 It is likewise impossible to say: 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate.鈥

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪拽讚讬砖讜 讗转讛 讛拽讚砖 注诇讜讬 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪拽讚讬砖讜 讛拽讚砖 诪讝讘讞

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇 转拽讚讬砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诇讗讜 转拽讚讬砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 讘讻讜专 讘注讚专讜 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, who derive the halakha that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate,鈥 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鈥檚 flock that it is a mitzva to consecrate it verbally as a firstborn? As it is stated: 鈥淭he firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讛讜讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽讚讜砖讬讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 讘砖注转 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讙讗讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱

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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form 鈥測ears鈥 indicates a minimum of two years.

讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讗讜 砖谞转 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 谞专讛 讗讜 讛讜讘讬专讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 诪诪谞讛 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖注转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讙讗讜诇 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 拽专拽讜砖讬 讝讜讝讬 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

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.

讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讜讻专 讚拽讗讬 讘注砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 拽讗讬 讘注砖讛 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖谞讬诐 转拽谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), and the plural form 鈥測ears鈥 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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years after the Jubilee Year you shall buy from your neighbor,鈥 and if the buyer returns the field before the two years elapse, the mitzva is not fulfilled.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 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

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鈥檚 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?

讜诇专讘 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, do we not say that one may derive an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn鈥檛 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?

讛转诐 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讗 讛讻讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬诐 转拽谞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 住诪讜讱 诇讬讜讘诇 诪讜驻诇讙 诪谉 讛讬讜讘诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 专讘 讛砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻讬 诪注讜讟 讛砖谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor鈥 (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: 鈥淎ccording 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:16). The verse teaches that one may sell a field even after several years have elapsed since the last Jubilee Year.

讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讜讗诐 诪讻专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 诇诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗讜转 讗讘诇 诪讻讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讬讜爪讗讛

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鈥檚 possession for a minimum of two years, rather it is sold in principle, and then immediately leaves the buyer鈥檚 possession.

讜讗讬 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 诪讬讝讘谞讛 转讬拽讜诐 讘专砖讜转讬讛 注讚 讘转专 讬讜讘诇 讜讘转专 讬讜讘诇 谞讬讻诇讬讛 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗讜转 讜谞讬讛讚专讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讛 讗讞转 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讛转诐 谞讞讬转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转 诇讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara objects: But if the field is indeed sold, let it stand in the buyer鈥檚 possession until after the Jubilee Year, and after the Jubilee Year let him consume the field鈥檚 produce for two years of crops, and only then return the field. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If the buyer consumed the field鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讱 讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转

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.

讞讚讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪讚转谞讬讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讬讞专讜专 诪专讘讜 砖谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇砖谞讬 专讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 29

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 29

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讞专诪讬 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讜谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 讞专诪讬诐 讻诇 讝诪谉 砖讛谉 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讬诐 讛专讬 讛谉 讻讛拽讚砖 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 诇讛壮 谞转谞谉 诇讻讛谉 讛专讬 讛谉 诇讻诇 讚讘专讬讛谉 讻讞讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讞专诐 讘讬砖专讗诇 诇讱 讬讛讬讛

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: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淓verything dedicated in Israel shall be yours鈥 (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘谞谉 讻讚拽讗 诪驻专砖讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讜讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讗讬 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥 (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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,鈥 what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?

诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 诇讻讛谉 砖讛拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讛专讬 讛讬讗 转讞转 讬讚讬 转讛讗 砖诇讬

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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest鈥? 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鈥檚 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.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讘砖诇 讗讞专讬诐 讗谞讬 讝讜讻讛 讘砖诇 注爪诪讬 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 诇讻讛谉 转讛讬讛 讗讞讝转讜

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: 鈥淎s a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,鈥 which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.

讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讚讛 讞专诐 诪注转讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇

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.

诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜诪转讞诇拽转 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗祝 砖讚讛 讞专诪讜 讬讜爪讗讛 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讜诪转讞诇拽转 诇讗讞讬讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讞专诐 讛讞专诐 讜讗讬讚讱 讞专诐 讛讞专诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

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 [岣rem], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: Ha岣rem,鈥 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 岣rem and ha岣rem. Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讚讞诇 注诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜注诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 住讘专 诇讬讛 讻专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

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: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜专讘 砖讘讬拽 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬讗 砖讘讬拽 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜注讘讬讚 讻讘专讬讬转讗 专讘 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讗讬驻讻讗 转谞讬

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.

诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讗驻讻转 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诪拽诪讬 讘专讬讬转讗 谞驻讬讱 讘专讬讬转讗 诪拽诪讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘 讙诪专讬讛 讙诪讬专 讗讬 讛讻讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讻专讘谞谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚讗驻讻讬转讜 讜转谞讬转讜 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗

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.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讞专诪讬谞讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讘驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽讜诇 讗专讘注讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讗讞讬诇 注诇讬讬讛讜 讜砖讚讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗 讜诇讬砖转专讜 诇讱 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转

搂 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.

讻诪讗谉 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 讛拽讚砖 砖讜讛 诪谞讛 砖讞讬诇诇讜 注诇 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诪讞讜诇诇 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖讞讬诇诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讚讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讻转讞诇讛 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 驻专讜讟讛 谞诪讬 驻专住讜诪讬 诪诇转讗

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.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬 讛讜讗讬 讛转诐 讛讜讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 住转诐 讞专诪讬诐 诇讻讛谞讬诐

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讬谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 注讚 砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讬注讘讚 注诪讱

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: 鈥淎nd if your brother be waxen poor with you, and sell himself to you鈥he shall serve with you until the year of Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:39鈥40).

讜讗讬谉 砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 谞讜讛讙转 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜砖讘 诇讗讞讝转讜 讗讬谉 讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇

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: 鈥淭hen that which he has sold shall remain in the hand of him that has bought鈥and in the Jubilee it shall go out, and he shall return to his possession鈥 (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: 鈥淭hen 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:30).

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讜讞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 砖讚讛 讞专诪讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛砖讚讛 讘爪讗转讜 讘讬讜讘诇 拽讚砖 诇讛壮 讻砖讚讛 讛讞专诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讙专 转讜砖讘 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讬讜讘诇 谞讜讛讙

Rabbi Shimon ben Yo岣i says: The halakhot pertaining to a dedicated field apply only during a period when the Jubilee Year is observed, as it is stated: 鈥淏ut 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鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗转讬讗 讟讜讘 讟讜讘 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讘讟讜讘 诇讜 诇讗 转讜谞谞讜

Rav Beivai said: What is the reason? It is derived from a verbal analogy between 鈥渨ell鈥 and 鈥渨ell.鈥 It is written here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, who can be sold only when the Jubilee Year is observed: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). And it is written there, with regard to a ger toshav: 鈥淲here it is well for him; you shall not wrong him鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:17). The Gemara鈥檚 objection is that it is evident from the baraita that the halakhot pertaining to dedicated fields apply only when the Jubilee Year is observed.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讛讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讜讛讗 诪注砖讛 讚驻讜诪讘讚讬转讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 谞诪讬 讛讜讛 诪拽专拽注讬 讚讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚诪讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 转拽讚讬砖 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 转拽讚讬砖 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇讜诪专 诇讗 讬拽讚讬砖 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 转拽讚讬砖

MISHNA: Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states: 鈥淎ll the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate to the Lord your God鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:19), and one verse states: 鈥淗owever, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man shall not consecrate it鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). It is impossible to say: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate.鈥 It is likewise impossible to say: 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate,鈥 as it is already stated: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate.鈥

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪拽讚讬砖讜 讗转讛 讛拽讚砖 注诇讜讬 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪拽讚讬砖讜 讛拽讚砖 诪讝讘讞

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.

讙诪壮 讜专讘谞谉 讗诇 转拽讚讬砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诇讗讜 转拽讚讬砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讜诇讚 讘讻讜专 讘注讚专讜 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 砖谞讗诪专 讛讝讻专 转拽讚讬砖

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, who derive the halakha that a dedication takes effect on all offerings of sanctity from the verse: 鈥淓very dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:28), would explain that the verse 鈥淎 man shall not consecrate鈥 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: 鈥淵ou shall consecrate,鈥 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鈥檚 flock that it is a mitzva to consecrate it verbally as a firstborn? As it is stated: 鈥淭he firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock you shall consecrate.鈥

讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诇讗 拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转讜 诪专讞诐 讛讜讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讗 诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 拽讚讜砖 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇讗拽讚讜砖讬讛

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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讛讜 讘砖注转 讛讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讙讗讜诇 驻讞讜转 诪砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱

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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form 鈥測ears鈥 indicates a minimum of two years.

讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讗讜 砖谞转 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 谞专讛 讗讜 讛讜讘讬专讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讛讬讗 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讜讻诇 诪诪谞讛 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐

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鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖注转 讛讬讜讘诇 讜讻讜壮 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜转专 诇讙讗讜诇 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 讗讬住讜专讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 拽专拽讜砖讬 讝讜讝讬 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

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.

讜诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诪讜讻专 讚拽讗讬 讘注砖讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讜拽讞 谞诪讬 拽讗讬 讘注砖讛 讚讘注讬谞谉 砖谞讬诐 转拽谞讛 讜诇讬讻讗

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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), and the plural form 鈥測ears鈥 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: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years after the Jubilee Year you shall buy from your neighbor,鈥 and if the buyer returns the field before the two years elapse, the mitzva is not fulfilled.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 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

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鈥檚 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?

讜诇专讘 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讗诪专转 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

The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, do we not say that one may derive an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn鈥檛 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?

讛转诐 诇讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讗 讛讻讗 讛讚专讗 诪讬讝讚讘谞讗

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 砖谞讬诐 转拽谞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜讻专讬谉 住诪讜讱 诇讬讜讘诇 诪讜驻诇讙 诪谉 讛讬讜讘诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻讬 专讘 讛砖谞讬诐 讜诇驻讬 诪注讜讟 讛砖谞讬诐

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor鈥 (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: 鈥淎ccording 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鈥 (Leviticus 25:16). The verse teaches that one may sell a field even after several years have elapsed since the last Jubilee Year.

讜讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讜讗诐 诪讻专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 诇诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗讜转 讗讘诇 诪讻讜专讛 讛讬讗 讜讬讜爪讗讛

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鈥檚 possession for a minimum of two years, rather it is sold in principle, and then immediately leaves the buyer鈥檚 possession.

讜讗讬 讗讬讝讚讘讜谞讬 诪讬讝讘谞讛 转讬拽讜诐 讘专砖讜转讬讛 注讚 讘转专 讬讜讘诇 讜讘转专 讬讜讘诇 谞讬讻诇讬讛 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗讜转 讜谞讬讛讚专讛 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讗讻诇讛 砖谞讛 讗讞转 诇驻谞讬 讛讬讜讘诇 诪砖诇讬诪讬谉 诇讜 砖谞讛 讗讞专转 讗讞专 讛讬讜讘诇 讛转诐 谞讞讬转 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讻讗 诇讗 谞讞讬转 诇讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara objects: But if the field is indeed sold, let it stand in the buyer鈥檚 possession until after the Jubilee Year, and after the Jubilee Year let him consume the field鈥檚 produce for two years of crops, and only then return the field. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If the buyer consumed the field鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讱 讜讗讬讚讱 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转

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.

讞讚讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讞讚讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪讚转谞讬讗 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讬讞专讜专 诪专讘讜 砖谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讚拽专讬 诇讬讛 诇砖谞讬 专讘讜 讗诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讻讬 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

Scroll To Top