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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 16, 2019 | 讬状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Arakhin 30

讜专讘 注谞谉 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛


The Gemara explains: And Rav Anan did not resolve his dilemma from the baraita, as he did not learn this baraita. And he could not resolve it from the statement of Shmuel itself, that the sale of a field during the Jubilee Year is ineffective, as the meaning of Shmuel鈥檚 statement is unclear. From where can one infer that Shmuel means that the field is not sold and the money is returned? Perhaps he means that the field is not sold and the money is considered a gift, just as it is considered a gift in his opinion in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated: With regard to one who betroths his sister, a betrothal that is invalid, Rav says that the money with which the brother betrothed his sister is returned, as he knew that the betrothal was invalid and merely intended to deposit the money with her for safekeeping. And Shmuel says that it is assumed that he wished to give her the money as a gift.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 谞拽谞住讬讛 诇诪讜讻专


The Gemara earlier (29a) cited a baraita that teaches that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the buyer must free the slave. Nevertheless, his money is not refunded. With regard to this, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to say, that we penalize the buyer and he loses his money? Let us penalize the seller and require him to refund the money he received, so that he loses both the money and the slave.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讙谞讘 讗诇讗 讞讜专讗 讙谞讘 讗讬 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讞讜专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讬谞谉


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: It is not the mouse that steals; rather, it is the hole that steals, as a mouse cannot steal any item unless he has a hole in which to hide it. In other words, the seller could not have sold his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael had the buyer been unwilling to purchase the slave. Abaye replied: The opposite is also true, namely that if not for the mouse, from where would the hole obtain the stolen item? Had the seller refused to sell his slave, the buyer could not have purchased him and taken him out of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef replied to Abaye: Although both parties are at fault, it stands to reason that we apply the penalty wherever the subject of the prohibition is currently located. Since the buyer is now in possession of the slave, he is the one who is penalized.


讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 讛讜讘讬专讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 谞专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: If one of the two years after the sale was a year of blight, the buyer is entitled to an additional year鈥檚 crops. 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. The Gemara asks: Now that it was taught that if the buyer left his field fallow that year counts as part of his tally, even though he did not cultivate the field at all, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that the year counts as part of his tally if he plowed the field but did not sow it?


谞专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讛 讜诇讬住拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the case of a buyer who plowed the field but did not sow it, as it might enter your mind to say that we say to the seller: Give the monetary value of the enhancement of the field to the buyer, and then he will leave the field. The mishna therefore teaches us that the seller does not have to pay him that amount.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诪讻专讛 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 讻讚专讱 砖讛谞讞转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讗讜讻诇 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐


搂 The mishna states that 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, the buyer consumes three crops of the field鈥檚 produce in two years. With regard to this halakha it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that if the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana full of produce, that the seller should not say to the buyer when he redeems the field after two years: Leave the field for me full of produce in the manner that I left it for you? The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), indicating that the payment is calculated according to the number of years, not according to the number of crops. Consequently, sometimes a person consumes three crops in two years.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜


MISHNA: When the Jubilee Year is in effect, one may sell a field only until the Jubilee Year, at which point the field returns to its original owner. If the owner redeems the field before the Jubilee Year, the payment per annum is calculated by dividing the sale price by the number of years from the sale until the Jubilee Year. The owner returns the per annum payment multiplied by the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it鈥 (Leviticus 25:27).


诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪谞讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞砖讘 讗转 砖谞讬 诪诪讻专讜 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜


If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that was paid by the last buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渢o the man鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field.


诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注讛 讜讬讙讗诇 讘讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讜讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜讘讛拽讚砖 诪讜转专 讘讻讜诇谉 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讛讚讬讜讟 诪讘讛拽讚砖


One may not sell his ancestral field that is located in a distant area and redeem with the proceeds a field that he sold in a nearby area. Likewise, he may not sell a low-quality field and redeem with the proceeds a high-quality field. And he may not borrow money and redeem the field, nor may he redeem the field incrementally, half now and half at a later date. But with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury, it is permitted to redeem the field in any of these ways. This is a halakha where greater stringency applies with regard to redeeming a field from an ordinary individual than with regard to redeeming it from the Temple treasury.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it鈥 (Leviticus 25:27).


诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 注诐 讛砖谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


Now consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the price that was paid by the second buyer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渢o the man鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 讛注讜讚祝 砖讘讬讚讜


Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says that the verse should be interpreted differently: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for one hundred dinars, and the field appreciated in value while in the buyer鈥檚 possession and its value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the one hundred dinars he originally received for the field?As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,鈥 that is, the seller returns only the remainder of the original payment that is in his possession.


诪讻专讛 诇讜 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬驻讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 讛注讜讚祝 砖讘拽专拽注


Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda continues: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for two hundred dinars, and the field depreciated in value while in the buyer鈥檚 possession and its value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars the field is currently worth? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,鈥 i.e., he returns that which now remains of the value of the land.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讬拽专 讜讝诇 讜讗讬讬拽专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is in a case where the field鈥檚 value was high at the time of the first sale, e.g., it was worth two hundred dinars, and when the field was sold a second time it had depreciated in value and was worth only one hundred dinars. And when the original owner came to redeem it, it again appreciated in value until it was worth two hundred dinars. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redemption payment is calculated according to the one hundred dinars paid by the second buyer for the field. According to Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, it is calculated either according to the remainder of the original payment or according to that which now remains of the value of the land. Either way, it is calculated according to the remainder of two hundred dinars.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The aforementioned practical difference aside, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda agree that the verses are interpreted in a manner that benefits the original owner. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the verses should be interpreted as a leniency for the seller? Perhaps they should be interpreted as a stringency for the seller.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讙诪专 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪注讘讚 注讘专讬


The Gemara responds: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, as it is learned by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渞edemption鈥 written in this context and 鈥渞edemption鈥 from the passage discussing a Hebrew slave that the Torah is lenient with regard to the redeemer. The verse states with regard to the redemption of a field: 鈥淎nd he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 25:26), and with regard to the redemption of a slave who was sold to a gentile, the verse states: 鈥淎fter he is sold he shall attain redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:48). Accordingly, just as the Torah is lenient with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave, so too the Torah is lenient with regard to redeeming a field.


讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞诪讻专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜


The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of a Hebrew slave, from where do we derive that the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for one hundred dinars, and he appreciated in value during his term of servitude and his value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars for which he was originally sold? As it is stated: 鈥淚f there are yet many years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money of his purchase鈥 (Leviticus 25:51).


谞诪讻专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬祝 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


The baraita continues: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for two hundred dinars, and he depreciated in value during his term and his value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars he is currently worth? As it is stated: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall return the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:52). The verse indicates that the sum is calculated according to the value of his remaining years of service.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇讙讜讬 砖谞讙讗诇 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛


The baraita continues: And I have derived only with regard to a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, that he is redeemed and that he has the advantage, as the price of his redemption is always calculated according to the lesser value. From where is it derived that this halakha also applies in the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew? The verse states: 鈥淗ired worker,鈥 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 in order to derive a verbal analogy, indicating that this halakha applies both to a slave sold to a gentile and to one sold to a Jew. The verse states with regard to a slave sold to a gentile: 鈥淎ccording to the time of a hired worker shall he be with him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), and with regard to a slave sold to a Jew, the verse states: 鈥淔or double the hire of a hired worker he served you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:18).


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬


The Gemara relates that Abaye said:


讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘砖讜拽讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


I am ready to answer any questions put to me like those of the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound in the markets of Tiberias. One of the Sages said to Abaye: The verses discussing the redemption of a Hebrew slave can be interpreted as a leniency for the slave, and they can also be interpreted as a stringency for him. From where is it derived that the verses should be interpreted as a leniency for the slave? Say that they should be interpreted as a stringency for him.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讱 诪讚讗拽讬诇 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜


Abaye explained: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, due to the fact that the Merciful One was explicitly lenient with regard to a slave. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd it shall be, if he says to you I will not leave you鈥ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 indicates that the slave must be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, with regard to food, and with you with regard to drink. This means that you should not be eating fine bread while he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran. Likewise, you should not drink old wine while he drinks inferior new wine. You should not sleep on bedding made from soft sheets while he sleeps on the ground. From here the Sages stated: One who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, as he must ensure that the slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.


讗讚专讘讛 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转


That Sage raised an objection to Abaye: On the contrary, let us impose a stringency upon the slave, due to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says in explanation of the juxtaposition of several passages in the Torah (Leviticus, chapter 25): Come and see how severe is even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year, as the prohibition against engaging in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical Year is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and yet its punishment is harsh.


讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讝转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, continues: If a person has commercial dealings with produce of the Sabbatical Year or of the Jubilee Year, ultimately he will become so poor that he will be compelled to sell his movable property, as it is stated: 鈥淚n this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and it is written in the subsequent verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell something to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand,鈥 which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. The juxtaposition of the two verses indicates that if one violates the halakhot of the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.


诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜


If he does not feel remorse and he does not repent, ultimately he will be compelled to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: 鈥淚f your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25).


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 讗讚诐 注讘讬专讛 讜砖谞讛 讘讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜


If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell his house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the previous clause, where the tanna says that the sinner does not sense remorse, and what is different here, where he says that consciousness of his sins does not come to him? The Gemara responds: This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him.


讛讜转专讛 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 讻讛讬转专


The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that it is actually permitted to him because he has transgressed twice? Rather, say that it becomes as though it were permitted to him, that is, after transgressing the prohibition twice he becomes accustomed to this behavior and no longer feels that it is a sin. If one transgresses the prohibition only once, he is apt to feel remorse. Once he repeats his transgression, he loses this sensibility concerning his sins and will no longer feel any remorse.


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 砖诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, continues: If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to borrow with interest, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother becomes poor and his means fail with you, then you shall uphold him鈥 (Leviticus 25:35), and it is written in the subsequent verse: 鈥淵ou shall take no interest or increase from him.鈥


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻专 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘转讜 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诇讬转讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讬讝讘讬谉 讘专转讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诪讬讙专注讗 讜讗讝诇讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讜住驻讗 讜讗讝诇讗


One does not come to borrow with interest until he has already been compelled to sell his daughter, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara explains: And even though his daughter is not mentioned in that context in Leviticus, nevertheless, a person prefers to sell his daughter and not to borrow money with interest. This is because there, when one sells his daughter, the sum required in order to redeem her continuously decreases, while here, where one borrows with interest, his debt continuously increases. One may therefore assume that if one borrows with interest, he has already sold his daughter.


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讜谞诪讻专 诇讱 诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 转讜砖讘


If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell himself, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when your brother becomes poor with you and sells himself to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:39). Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew; rather, he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sells himself to the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). And not only to a stranger who is a convert, but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a ger toshav with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:47).


诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇注拽专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 讜谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注爪诪讛


When the verse further states: 鈥淥r to the offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to the gentile relatives of a ger toshav, who are idolaters. When it says: 鈥淥r to the offshoot [le鈥檈ker] of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to one who is sold and becomes a servant to idol worship itself, i.e., he is put to work in a temple dedicated to idolatry. In any event, the baraita teaches that it is only due to an individual鈥檚 sins that he reaches such a low point that he must sell himself as a slave. If so, the verses dealing with a Hebrew slave should be interpreted in a stringent manner, so that the slave cannot easily be redeemed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇讱 讜诪讻专 注爪诪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬讚讞讛 讗讘谉 讗讞专 讛谞讜驻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讬爪讗 讗讬诪讗 讙讗讜诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪注 讘讙讜讬诐 讜诇注讜诇诐 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谞讜 谞讞诪讬专


Abaye said to that Sage: But the verse subsequently restores him, i.e., it requires that one strive to redeem him from slavery. As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since he went and sold himself to a temple dedicated to idol worship, should I throw a stone after the fallen? In other words, perhaps he should be left to his own devices? The verse states: He shall have a perpetual right of redemption, and he shall leave in the Jubilee (see Leviticus 25:31, 48). The Gemara objects: Even so, you can say that he shall have a redemption so that he will not be assimilated among the gentiles, but actually, with regard to his redemption we will be stringent, as it is due only to his sins that he is enslaved.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻转讬讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 讘砖谞讬诐


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Two verses are written with regard to redeeming someone who was sold to a gentile. It is written: 鈥淚f there are yet many in the years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd if there remain but few in the years until the Jubilee Year, then he shall reckon with him; according to his years he shall return the price of his redemption.鈥


讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


Now, are there years with much time and years with little time? Every year is the same length. Rather, this means that if his monetary value appreciated during the years of his service, he is redeemed according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value depreciated over time, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value rather than according to his previous worth. The verse indicates that one acts leniently when calculating the redemption payment of a Hebrew slave.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 转专转讬 讜驻讬讬砖讬 讗专讘注讬 诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讜讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讗专讘注 讜驻讬讬砖讬 转专转讬 诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 转专转讬 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


The Gemara asks: But say that the verses should be interpreted as follows: 鈥淚f there are yet many in the years,鈥 is referring to a case where he served for two years, and four years of servitude remain. In this situation let him return to his master the value of four years of his servitude according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for.鈥 And the phrase 鈥渋f there remain but few in the years鈥 is referring to a case where he served for four years and two years of servitude remain. In this situation let him return to his master the value of two years of his servitude 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥


讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖谞讬诐 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚专砖讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讻住讬谞讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, let the verse write: If there are yet many years. What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渋n the years鈥? Rather, this indicates that if his monetary value appreciated in the years of his service, he is redeemed according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. If his monetary value depreciated in the years, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value. Upon hearing this explanation, Rav Yosef said: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k interpreted these verses as truly as if the interpretation had been transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 讬讚 注爪诪讜 砖诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讜讬讙讗诇


搂 The mishna teaches: One may not sell his ancestral field that is located in a distant area and redeem with that money a field that he sold in a nearby area. Likewise, he may not sell a low-quality field and redeem with that money a high-quality field. And he may not borrow money and redeem the field, nor may he redeem the field incrementally, half now and half at a later date. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 25:26), the phrase 鈥渁nd he prospers鈥 teaches that the money he uses to redeem the field must be his own possession, meaning that he may not borrow money and redeem the field.


讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 砖诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛 讻讚讬 讙讗诇转讜 讻讚讬 讙讗讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


The baraita continues: 鈥淎nd finds sufficient means鈥; this excludes the usage of means that were previously available, meaning that one may not sell property that he owned at the time of the sale in order to redeem his field, e.g., he may not sell a field that is located in a distant area and redeem a field that is located in a nearby area, nor may he sell a low-quality field and redeem a high-quality field. 鈥淪ufficient means to redeem it鈥; this indicates that one may redeem his field if he possesses sufficient means to redeem the entire field, but he may not partially redeem his field.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪爪讗 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 注爪诪讜 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 诪砖讬爪讗讛 讗讘谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诪爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the term 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates that the means were found now and were not previously available? But you can raise a contradiction to this premise from a baraita: The verse states with regard to an unintentional killer: 鈥淎nd one who goes into the forest with another to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the blade slips off the wood, and finds another person, and he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 excludes one who introduces himself into the area of danger. From here Rabbi Eliezer said: If, after the stone departed from one鈥檚 hand, the other person stuck his head out and received a blow from it and died, the killer is exempt from exile. Evidently, the term 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates an item that is there from the outset.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛 讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 讚讛砖转讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 谞诪讬 讚讛砖转讗 讜讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗


Rava said: Here, 鈥渇inds鈥 is interpreted according to the context of the verse, and here it is likewise interpreted according to the context of the verse. Here, with regard to redeeming a field, one interprets 鈥渇inds鈥 in a manner similar to the phrase 鈥渉e prospers.鈥 Just as 鈥渉e prospers鈥 is referring to funds that he acquires only now, so too 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates property that he finds only now, and not property that he owned from the outset. And here, with regard to an unintentional killer, one interprets 鈥渇inds鈥 in a manner similar to the term 鈥渇orest.鈥 Just as a forest is something that is there from the outset, so too, 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates something, i.e., an individual, that is there from the outset. This excludes an individual who was not in the vicinity when the ax slipped.


讜讘讛拽讚砖 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: But with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury, it is permitted to redeem the field in any of these ways. This is a halakha where greater stringency applies with regard to redeeming a field from an ordinary individual than with regard to redeeming it from the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to a verse dealing with one who consecrates his field: 鈥淎nd if the one who consecrates the field will indeed redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 27:19). The phrase 鈥渨ill indeed redeem鈥 teaches that one may borrow money and redeem his field, and one may partially redeem his field, despite the fact that one may not do so when redeeming a field from an ordinary individual.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason for this leniency in the case of consecrated fields? It is because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field, that the Torah enhanced his power, in that if the Jubilee Year arrived and the field was not redeemed, it returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, his power was diminished with regard to the manner of redemption, in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field, and he cannot partially redeem it.


讗讘诇 诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


But with regard to one who consecrates his ancestral field, since his power was diminished, in that if the Jubilee Year arrived and the field was not redeemed, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and passes to the possession of the priests and does not return to the original owner, the Torah therefore enhanced his power, in that he may borrow money and redeem his field, and he may partially redeem it.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 30

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Arakhin 30

讜专讘 注谞谉 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讚诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛


The Gemara explains: And Rav Anan did not resolve his dilemma from the baraita, as he did not learn this baraita. And he could not resolve it from the statement of Shmuel itself, that the sale of a field during the Jubilee Year is ineffective, as the meaning of Shmuel鈥檚 statement is unclear. From where can one infer that Shmuel means that the field is not sold and the money is returned? Perhaps he means that the field is not sold and the money is considered a gift, just as it is considered a gift in his opinion in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated: With regard to one who betroths his sister, a betrothal that is invalid, Rav says that the money with which the brother betrothed his sister is returned, as he knew that the betrothal was invalid and merely intended to deposit the money with her for safekeeping. And Shmuel says that it is assumed that he wished to give her the money as a gift.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇诇讜拽讞 谞拽谞住讬讛 诇诪讜讻专


The Gemara earlier (29a) cited a baraita that teaches that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the buyer must free the slave. Nevertheless, his money is not refunded. With regard to this, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to say, that we penalize the buyer and he loses his money? Let us penalize the seller and require him to refund the money he received, so that he loses both the money and the slave.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讙谞讘 讗诇讗 讞讜专讗 讙谞讘 讗讬 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讞讜专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪住转讘专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讬住讜专讗 拽谞住讬谞谉


Rav Yosef said to Abaye: It is not the mouse that steals; rather, it is the hole that steals, as a mouse cannot steal any item unless he has a hole in which to hide it. In other words, the seller could not have sold his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael had the buyer been unwilling to purchase the slave. Abaye replied: The opposite is also true, namely that if not for the mouse, from where would the hole obtain the stolen item? Had the seller refused to sell his slave, the buyer could not have purchased him and taken him out of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef replied to Abaye: Although both parties are at fault, it stands to reason that we apply the penalty wherever the subject of the prohibition is currently located. Since the buyer is now in possession of the slave, he is the one who is penalized.


讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讻讜壮 讛砖转讗 讛讜讘讬专讛 注讜诇讛 诇讜 谞专讛 诪讬讘注讬讗


搂 The mishna teaches: If one of the two years after the sale was a year of blight, the buyer is entitled to an additional year鈥檚 crops. 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. The Gemara asks: Now that it was taught that if the buyer left his field fallow that year counts as part of his tally, even though he did not cultivate the field at all, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that the year counts as part of his tally if he plowed the field but did not sow it?


谞专讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讛讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讛 讜诇讬住拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the case of a buyer who plowed the field but did not sow it, as it might enter your mind to say that we say to the seller: Give the monetary value of the enhancement of the field to the buyer, and then he will leave the field. The mishna therefore teaches us that the seller does not have to pay him that amount.


专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 诪讻专讛 诇讜 诇驻谞讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诪诇讬讗讛 驻讬专讜转 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛谞讞 诇驻谞讬 讻讚专讱 砖讛谞讞转讬 诇驻谞讬讱 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 驻注诪讬诐 砖讗讚诐 讗讜讻诇 砖诇砖 转讘讜讗讜转 讘砖转讬 砖谞讬诐


搂 The mishna states that 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, the buyer consumes three crops of the field鈥檚 produce in two years. With regard to this halakha it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that if the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana full of produce, that the seller should not say to the buyer when he redeems the field after two years: Leave the field for me full of produce in the manner that I left it for you? The verse states: 鈥淎ccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), indicating that the payment is calculated according to the number of years, not according to the number of crops. Consequently, sometimes a person consumes three crops in two years.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讻专 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪讗转讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜


MISHNA: When the Jubilee Year is in effect, one may sell a field only until the Jubilee Year, at which point the field returns to its original owner. If the owner redeems the field before the Jubilee Year, the payment per annum is calculated by dividing the sale price by the number of years from the sale until the Jubilee Year. The owner returns the per annum payment multiplied by the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it鈥 (Leviticus 25:27).


诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪谞讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛讗讞专讜谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞砖讘 讗转 砖谞讬 诪诪讻专讜 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜


If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that was paid by the last buyer, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渢o the man鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field.


诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注讛 讜讬讙讗诇 讘讬驻讛 讜诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讜讬讙讗诇 讜诇讗 讬讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜讘讛拽讚砖 诪讜转专 讘讻讜诇谉 讝讛 讞讜诪专 讘讛讚讬讜讟 诪讘讛拽讚砖


One may not sell his ancestral field that is located in a distant area and redeem with the proceeds a field that he sold in a nearby area. Likewise, he may not sell a low-quality field and redeem with the proceeds a high-quality field. And he may not borrow money and redeem the field, nor may he redeem the field incrementally, half now and half at a later date. But with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury, it is permitted to redeem the field in any of these ways. This is a halakha where greater stringency applies with regard to redeeming a field from an ordinary individual than with regard to redeeming it from the Temple treasury.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪谞讛 讜诪讻专讛 专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 注诐 讛专讗砖讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诪讻专 诇讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it鈥 (Leviticus 25:27).


诪讻专讛 诇专讗砖讜谉 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪讻专 讛专讗砖讜谉 诇砖谞讬 讘诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 注诐 讛砖谞讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗讬砖 讗砖专 讘转讜讻讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬


Now consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the price that was paid by the second buyer? The verse states: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.鈥 The superfluous term 鈥渢o the man鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


专讘讬 讚讜住转讗讬 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪讻专讛 诇讜 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞砖讘 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 讛注讜讚祝 砖讘讬讚讜


Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says that the verse should be interpreted differently: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for one hundred dinars, and the field appreciated in value while in the buyer鈥檚 possession and its value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the one hundred dinars he originally received for the field?As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,鈥 that is, the seller returns only the remainder of the original payment that is in his possession.


诪讻专讛 诇讜 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬驻讛 讜注诪讚讛 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛注讚祝 讛注讜讚祝 砖讘拽专拽注


Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda continues: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for two hundred dinars, and the field depreciated in value while in the buyer鈥檚 possession and its value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars the field is currently worth? As it is stated: 鈥淎nd he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,鈥 i.e., he returns that which now remains of the value of the land.


诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬讬拽专 讜讝诇 讜讗讬讬拽专


The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is in a case where the field鈥檚 value was high at the time of the first sale, e.g., it was worth two hundred dinars, and when the field was sold a second time it had depreciated in value and was worth only one hundred dinars. And when the original owner came to redeem it, it again appreciated in value until it was worth two hundred dinars. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redemption payment is calculated according to the one hundred dinars paid by the second buyer for the field. According to Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, it is calculated either according to the remainder of the original payment or according to that which now remains of the value of the land. Either way, it is calculated according to the remainder of two hundred dinars.


讜诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讚诇诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


The aforementioned practical difference aside, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda agree that the verses are interpreted in a manner that benefits the original owner. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the verses should be interpreted as a leniency for the seller? Perhaps they should be interpreted as a stringency for the seller.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讙诪专 讙讗讜诇讛 讙讗讜诇讛 诪注讘讚 注讘专讬


The Gemara responds: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, as it is learned by means of a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渞edemption鈥 written in this context and 鈥渞edemption鈥 from the passage discussing a Hebrew slave that the Torah is lenient with regard to the redeemer. The verse states with regard to the redemption of a field: 鈥淎nd he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 25:26), and with regard to the redemption of a slave who was sold to a gentile, the verse states: 鈥淎fter he is sold he shall attain redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:48). Accordingly, just as the Torah is lenient with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave, so too the Torah is lenient with regard to redeeming a field.


讜讛转诐 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞诪讻专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜


The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of a Hebrew slave, from where do we derive that the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for one hundred dinars, and he appreciated in value during his term of servitude and his value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars for which he was originally sold? As it is stated: 鈥淚f there are yet many years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money of his purchase鈥 (Leviticus 25:51).


谞诪讻专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬祝 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


The baraita continues: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for two hundred dinars, and he depreciated in value during his term and his value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars he is currently worth? As it is stated: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall return the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:52). The verse indicates that the sum is calculated according to the value of his remaining years of service.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇讙讜讬 砖谞讙讗诇 讜讬讚讜 注诇 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛


The baraita continues: And I have derived only with regard to a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, that he is redeemed and that he has the advantage, as the price of his redemption is always calculated according to the lesser value. From where is it derived that this halakha also applies in the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew? The verse states: 鈥淗ired worker,鈥 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 in order to derive a verbal analogy, indicating that this halakha applies both to a slave sold to a gentile and to one sold to a Jew. The verse states with regard to a slave sold to a gentile: 鈥淎ccording to the time of a hired worker shall he be with him鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), and with regard to a slave sold to a Jew, the verse states: 鈥淔or double the hire of a hired worker he served you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:18).


讗诪专 讗讘讬讬


The Gemara relates that Abaye said:


讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘砖讜拽讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诇拽讜诇讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讞讜诪专讗


I am ready to answer any questions put to me like those of the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound in the markets of Tiberias. One of the Sages said to Abaye: The verses discussing the redemption of a Hebrew slave can be interpreted as a leniency for the slave, and they can also be interpreted as a stringency for him. From where is it derived that the verses should be interpreted as a leniency for the slave? Say that they should be interpreted as a stringency for him.


诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讬讱 诪讚讗拽讬诇 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜


Abaye explained: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, due to the fact that the Merciful One was explicitly lenient with regard to a slave. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd it shall be, if he says to you I will not leave you鈥ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). The term 鈥渨ith you鈥 indicates that the slave must be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, with regard to food, and with you with regard to drink. This means that you should not be eating fine bread while he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran. Likewise, you should not drink old wine while he drinks inferior new wine. You should not sleep on bedding made from soft sheets while he sleeps on the ground. From here the Sages stated: One who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, as he must ensure that the slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.


讗讚专讘讛 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转


That Sage raised an objection to Abaye: On the contrary, let us impose a stringency upon the slave, due to the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina. As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says in explanation of the juxtaposition of several passages in the Torah (Leviticus, chapter 25): Come and see how severe is even the hint of violation of the prohibition of the Sabbatical Year, as the prohibition against engaging in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical Year is not one of the primary prohibitions of the Sabbatical Year, and yet its punishment is harsh.


讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 讛讝讗转 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讝转讜 讜讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, continues: If a person has commercial dealings with produce of the Sabbatical Year or of the Jubilee Year, ultimately he will become so poor that he will be compelled to sell his movable property, as it is stated: 鈥淚n this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his possession鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and it is written in the subsequent verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell something to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand,鈥 which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. The juxtaposition of the two verses indicates that if one violates the halakhot of the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.


诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜


If he does not feel remorse and he does not repent, ultimately he will be compelled to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: 鈥淚f your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25).


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗讬砖 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚拽讗诪专 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 讗讚诐 注讘讬专讛 讜砖谞讛 讘讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜


If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell his house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city鈥 (Leviticus 25:29). The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the previous clause, where the tanna says that the sinner does not sense remorse, and what is different here, where he says that consciousness of his sins does not come to him? The Gemara responds: This is in accordance with the statement of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him.


讛讜转专讛 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 讻讛讬转专


The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind to say that it is actually permitted to him because he has transgressed twice? Rather, say that it becomes as though it were permitted to him, that is, after transgressing the prohibition twice he becomes accustomed to this behavior and no longer feels that it is a sin. If one transgresses the prohibition only once, he is apt to feel remorse. Once he repeats his transgression, he loses this sensibility concerning his sins and will no longer feel any remorse.


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 砖诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讻转讬讘 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 谞砖讱 讜转专讘讬转


Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, continues: If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to borrow with interest, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother becomes poor and his means fail with you, then you shall uphold him鈥 (Leviticus 25:35), and it is written in the subsequent verse: 鈥淵ou shall take no interest or increase from him.鈥


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻专 讗讬砖 [讗转] 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘转讜 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 诇讬转讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讗讬谞讬砖 讚诇讬讝讘讬谉 讘专转讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 讚讗讬诇讜 讛转诐 诪讬讙专注讗 讜讗讝诇讗 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讻讗 拽讗 诪讜住驻讗 讜讗讝诇讗


One does not come to borrow with interest until he has already been compelled to sell his daughter, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara explains: And even though his daughter is not mentioned in that context in Leviticus, nevertheless, a person prefers to sell his daughter and not to borrow money with interest. This is because there, when one sells his daughter, the sum required in order to redeem her continuously decreases, while here, where one borrows with interest, his debt continuously increases. One may therefore assume that if one borrows with interest, he has already sold his daughter.


诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 诇住讜祝 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 注诪讱 讜谞诪讻专 诇讱 诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 转讜砖讘


If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell himself, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd when your brother becomes poor with you and sells himself to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:39). Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew; rather, he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sells himself to the stranger鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). And not only to a stranger who is a convert, but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a ger toshav with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:47).


诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛讙讜讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗讜 诇注拽专 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 讜谞注砖讛 诪砖专转 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注爪诪讛


When the verse further states: 鈥淥r to the offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to the gentile relatives of a ger toshav, who are idolaters. When it says: 鈥淥r to the offshoot [le鈥檈ker] of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 this is referring to one who is sold and becomes a servant to idol worship itself, i.e., he is put to work in a temple dedicated to idolatry. In any event, the baraita teaches that it is only due to an individual鈥檚 sins that he reaches such a low point that he must sell himself as a slave. If so, the verses dealing with a Hebrew slave should be interpreted in a stringent manner, so that the slave cannot easily be redeemed.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇讱 讜诪讻专 注爪诪讜 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬讚讞讛 讗讘谉 讗讞专 讛谞讜驻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙讗诇转 注讜诇诐 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讬爪讗 讗讬诪讗 讙讗讜诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪注 讘讙讜讬诐 讜诇注讜诇诐 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谞讜 谞讞诪讬专


Abaye said to that Sage: But the verse subsequently restores him, i.e., it requires that one strive to redeem him from slavery. As the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since he went and sold himself to a temple dedicated to idol worship, should I throw a stone after the fallen? In other words, perhaps he should be left to his own devices? The verse states: He shall have a perpetual right of redemption, and he shall leave in the Jubilee (see Leviticus 25:31, 48). The Gemara objects: Even so, you can say that he shall have a redemption so that he will not be assimilated among the gentiles, but actually, with regard to his redemption we will be stringent, as it is due only to his sins that he is enslaved.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讻转讬讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 讘砖谞讬诐


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Two verses are written with regard to redeeming someone who was sold to a gentile. It is written: 鈥淚f there are yet many in the years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51). And it is written in the next verse: 鈥淎nd if there remain but few in the years until the Jubilee Year, then he shall reckon with him; according to his years he shall return the price of his redemption.鈥


讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


Now, are there years with much time and years with little time? Every year is the same length. Rather, this means that if his monetary value appreciated during the years of his service, he is redeemed according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value depreciated over time, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value rather than according to his previous worth. The verse indicates that one acts leniently when calculating the redemption payment of a Hebrew slave.


讜讗讬诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 转专转讬 讜驻讬讬砖讬 讗专讘注讬 诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讜讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 讗专讘注 讜驻讬讬砖讬 转专转讬 诇讬转讘 诇讬讛 转专转讬 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜


The Gemara asks: But say that the verses should be interpreted as follows: 鈥淚f there are yet many in the years,鈥 is referring to a case where he served for two years, and four years of servitude remain. In this situation let him return to his master the value of four years of his servitude according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for.鈥 And the phrase 鈥渋f there remain but few in the years鈥 is referring to a case where he served for four years and two years of servitude remain. In this situation let him return to his master the value of two years of his servitude 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥


讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖谞讬诐 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚专砖讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讻住讬谞讬


The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, let the verse write: If there are yet many years. What is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渋n the years鈥? Rather, this indicates that if his monetary value appreciated in the years of his service, he is redeemed according to 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. If his monetary value depreciated in the years, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value. Upon hearing this explanation, Rav Yosef said: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k interpreted these verses as truly as if the interpretation had been transmitted to Moses from Sinai.


诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 讬讚 注爪诪讜 砖诇讗 讬诇讜讛 讜讬讙讗诇


搂 The mishna teaches: One may not sell his ancestral field that is located in a distant area and redeem with that money a field that he sold in a nearby area. Likewise, he may not sell a low-quality field and redeem with that money a high-quality field. And he may not borrow money and redeem the field, nor may he redeem the field incrementally, half now and half at a later date. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 25:26), the phrase 鈥渁nd he prospers鈥 teaches that the money he uses to redeem the field must be his own possession, meaning that he may not borrow money and redeem the field.


讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 砖诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛 讻讚讬 讙讗诇转讜 讻讚讬 讙讗讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


The baraita continues: 鈥淎nd finds sufficient means鈥; this excludes the usage of means that were previously available, meaning that one may not sell property that he owned at the time of the sale in order to redeem his field, e.g., he may not sell a field that is located in a distant area and redeem a field that is located in a nearby area, nor may he sell a low-quality field and redeem a high-quality field. 鈥淪ufficient means to redeem it鈥; this indicates that one may redeem his field if he possesses sufficient means to redeem the entire field, but he may not partially redeem his field.


诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪爪讗 讛砖转讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 注爪诪讜 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 诪砖讬爪讗讛 讗讘谉 诪转讞转 讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 驻讟讜专 讗诇诪讗 诪爪讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注


The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the term 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates that the means were found now and were not previously available? But you can raise a contradiction to this premise from a baraita: The verse states with regard to an unintentional killer: 鈥淎nd one who goes into the forest with another to hew wood, and his hand fetches a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the blade slips off the wood, and finds another person, and he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5). The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 excludes one who introduces himself into the area of danger. From here Rabbi Eliezer said: If, after the stone departed from one鈥檚 hand, the other person stuck his head out and received a blow from it and died, the killer is exempt from exile. Evidently, the term 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates an item that is there from the outset.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讜讛讻讗 诪注谞讬谞讗 讚拽专讗 讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛 讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 讚讛砖转讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 谞诪讬 讚讛砖转讗 讜讛讻讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗


Rava said: Here, 鈥渇inds鈥 is interpreted according to the context of the verse, and here it is likewise interpreted according to the context of the verse. Here, with regard to redeeming a field, one interprets 鈥渇inds鈥 in a manner similar to the phrase 鈥渉e prospers.鈥 Just as 鈥渉e prospers鈥 is referring to funds that he acquires only now, so too 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates property that he finds only now, and not property that he owned from the outset. And here, with regard to an unintentional killer, one interprets 鈥渇inds鈥 in a manner similar to the term 鈥渇orest.鈥 Just as a forest is something that is there from the outset, so too, 鈥渇inds鈥 indicates something, i.e., an individual, that is there from the outset. This excludes an individual who was not in the vicinity when the ax slipped.


讜讘讛拽讚砖 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches: But with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury, it is permitted to redeem the field in any of these ways. This is a halakha where greater stringency applies with regard to redeeming a field from an ordinary individual than with regard to redeeming it from the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to a verse dealing with one who consecrates his field: 鈥淎nd if the one who consecrates the field will indeed redeem it鈥 (Leviticus 27:19). The phrase 鈥渨ill indeed redeem鈥 teaches that one may borrow money and redeem his field, and one may partially redeem his field, despite the fact that one may not do so when redeeming a field from an ordinary individual.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason for this leniency in the case of consecrated fields? It is because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field, that the Torah enhanced his power, in that if the Jubilee Year arrived and the field was not redeemed, it returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, his power was diminished with regard to the manner of redemption, in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field, and he cannot partially redeem it.


讗讘诇 诪拽讚讬砖 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉


But with regard to one who consecrates his ancestral field, since his power was diminished, in that if the Jubilee Year arrived and the field was not redeemed, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and passes to the possession of the priests and does not return to the original owner, the Torah therefore enhanced his power, in that he may borrow money and redeem his field, and he may partially redeem it.

Scroll To Top