Arakhin 30

ורב ענן ברייתא לא שמיעא ליה ודשמואל ממאי דאינה מכורה ומעות חוזרין דלמא אינה מכורה ומעות מתנה מידי דהוה אמקדש אחותו דאיתמר המקדש אחותו רב אמר מעות חוזרין ושמואל אמר מעות מתנה

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’s 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.

אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף מאי חזית דקנסינן ליה ללוקח נקנסיה למוכר

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.

אמר ליה לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב אי לאו עכברא חורא מנא ליה מסתברא היכא דאיתיה לאיסורא קנסינן

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.

היתה שנת שדפון כו׳ השתא הובירה עולה לו נרה מיבעיא

§ 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’s 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?

נרה איצטריך ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא אמרינן ליה הב ליה דמיה וליסק קא משמע לן

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.

רבי אליעזר אומר מכרה לו כו׳ תניא רבי אליעזר אומר מנין שאם מכרה לו לפני ראש השנה מליאה פירות שלא יאמר לו הנח לפני כדרך שהנחתי לפניך תלמוד לומר במספר שני תבואת ימכר לך פעמים שאדם אוכל שלש תבואות בשתי שנים

§ 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’s 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: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (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.

מתני׳ מכרה לראשון במנה ומכר ראשון לשני במאתים אינו מחשב אלא עם הראשון שנאמר אשר מכר לו

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: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it” (Leviticus 25:27).

מכרה לראשון במאתים ומכר הראשון לשני במנה אינו מחשב אלא עם האחרון שנאמר וחשב את שני ממכרו והשיב את העדף לאיש אשר מכר לו לאיש אשר בתוכו

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: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.” The superfluous term “to the man” indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field.

לא ימכור ברחוק ויגאל בקרוב ברעה ויגאל ביפה ולא ילוה ויגאל ולא יגאל לחצאין ובהקדש מותר בכולן זה חומר בהדיוט מבהקדש

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן מכרה לראשון במנה ומכרה ראשון לשני במאתים מנין שאינו מחשב אלא עם הראשון תלמוד לומר אשר מכר לו

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: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it” (Leviticus 25:27).

מכרה לראשון במאתים ומכר הראשון לשני במנה מנין שאין מחשבין אלא עם השני תלמוד לומר לאיש אשר בתוכו דברי רבי

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: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.” The superfluous term “to the man” 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.

רבי דוסתאי בן יהודה אומר מכרה לו במנה והשביחה ועמדה על מאתים מנין שאינו מחשב אלא במנה שנאמר והשיב את העדף העודף שבידו

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’s 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: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,” that is, the seller returns only the remainder of the original payment that is in his possession.

מכרה לו במאתים והכסיפה ועמדה על מנה מנין שאין מחשבין אלא במנה שנאמר והשיב את העדף העודף שבקרקע

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’s 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: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,” i.e., he returns that which now remains of the value of the land.

מאי בינייהו דאייקר וזל ואייקר

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’s 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.

וממאי דלקולא דלמא לחומרא

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.

לא סלקא דעתך דגמר גאולה גאולה מעבד עברי

The Gemara responds: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, as it is learned by means of a verbal analogy between the term “redemption” written in this context and “redemption” 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: “And he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26), and with regard to the redemption of a slave who was sold to a gentile, the verse states: “After he is sold he shall attain redemption” (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.

והתם מנלן דתניא נמכר במנה והשביח ועמד על מאתים מנין שאין מחשבין אלא ממנה שנאמר מכסף מקנתו

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: “If there are yet many years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money of his purchase” (Leviticus 25:51).

נמכר במאתים והכסיף ועמד על מנה מנין שאין מחשבין אלא ממנה שנאמר כפי שניו

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: “According to his years he shall return the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:52). The verse indicates that the sum is calculated according to the value of his remaining years of service.

ואין לי אלא עבד עברי הנמכר לגוי שנגאל וידו על העליונה נמכר לישראל מנין תלמוד לומר שכיר שכיר לגזירה שוה

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: “Hired worker,” “hired worker,” 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: “According to the time of a hired worker shall he be with him” (Leviticus 25:50), and with regard to a slave sold to a Jew, the verse states: “For double the hire of a hired worker he served you six years” (Deuteronomy 15:18).

אמר אביי

The Gemara relates that Abaye said:

הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא אמר ליה ההוא מרבנן לאביי איכא למידרשינהו לקולא ואיכא למידרשינהו לחומרא ממאי דלקולא אימא לחומרא

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.

לא סלקא דעתיך מדאקיל רחמנא גביה דתניא כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי קרקע מיכן אמרו הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו

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: “And it shall be, if he says to you I will not leave you…because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16). The term “with you” 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’s living conditions are equal to his own.

אדרבה נחמיר עליה מדרבי יוסי ברבי חנינא דאמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא בא וראה כמה קשה אבקה של שביעית

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 Ḥanina. As Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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.

אדם נושא ונותן בפירות שביעית לסוף מוכר את מטלטליו שנאמר בשנת היובל הזאת תשבו איש אל אחזתו וכתיב וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך או קנה מיד עמיתך דבר הנקנה מיד ליד

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, 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: “In this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and it is written in the subsequent verse: “And if you sell something to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand,” 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.

לא הרגיש לסוף מוכר את שדותיו שנאמר וכי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחזתו

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: “If your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25).

לא באת לידו לסוף מוכר את ביתו שנאמר ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב עיר חומה מאי שנא התם דקאמר לא הרגיש ומאי שנא הכא דקאמר לא באת לידו כדרב הונא דאמר רב הונא כיון שעבר אדם עבירה ושנה בה הותרה לו

If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell his house, as it is stated: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city” (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.

הותרה לו סלקא דעתך אלא אימא נעשית לו כהיתר

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.

לא באת לידו לסוף שלוה ברבית שנאמר וכי ימוך אחיך וגו׳ וכתיב אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית

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

לא באת לידו עד שמוכר את בתו שנאמר וכי ימכר איש [את] בתו לאמה ואף על גב דבתו בהאי ענינא ליתא ניחא לאיניש דליזבין ברתיה ולא ליזיף בריביתא דאילו התם מיגרעא ואזלא ואילו הכא קא מוספא ואזלא

One does not come to borrow with interest until he has already been compelled to sell his daughter, as it is stated: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (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.

לא באת לידו לסוף שמוכר את עצמו שנאמר כי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך לא לך אלא לגר שנאמר לגר ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנאמר לגר תושב

If consciousness of his sins does not come to him, ultimately he will be compelled to sell himself, as it is stated: “And when your brother becomes poor with you and sells himself to you” (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: “And sells himself to the stranger” (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: “And sells himself to a ger toshav with you” (Leviticus 25:47).

משפחת גר זה הגוי כשהוא אומר או לעקר משפחת גר זה הנמכר ונעשה משרת לעבודה זרה עצמה

When the verse further states: “Or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to the gentile relatives of a ger toshav, who are idolaters. When it says: “Or to the offshoot [le’eker] of a stranger’s family,” 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’s 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.

אמר ליה הא אהדריה קרא ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל הואיל והלך ומכר עצמו לעבודה זרה אידחה אבן אחר הנופל תלמוד לומר גאלת עולם תהיה לו וביובל יצא אימא גאולה תהיה לו דלא ליטמע בגוים ולעולם לענין פדיונו נחמיר

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.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כתיב אם עוד רבות בשנים וכתיב אם מעט נשאר בשנים

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Two verses are written with regard to redeeming someone who was sold to a gentile. It is written: “If 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” (Leviticus 25:51). And it is written in the next verse: “And 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.”

וכי יש שנים מרובות ויש שנים מועטות אלא נתרבה כספו מכסף מקנתו נתמעט כספו כפי שניו

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 “the money that he was bought for,” which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value depreciated over time, one determines his value “according to his years,” 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.

ואימא היכא דעבד תרתי ופיישי ארבעי ליתב ליה ארבע מכסף מקנתו והיכא דעבד ארבע ופיישי תרתי ליתב ליה תרתי כפי שניו

The Gemara asks: But say that the verses should be interpreted as follows: “If there are yet many in the years,” 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 “the money that he was bought for.” And the phrase “if there remain but few in the years” 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 “according to his years.”

אם כן נכתוב אם עוד רבות שנים מאי בשנים נתרבה כספו בשנים מכסף מקנתו נתמעט כספו בשנים כפי שניו אמר רב יוסף דרשינהו רב נחמן להני קראי כסיני

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

לא ימכור ברחוק כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן והשיגה ידו יד עצמו שלא ילוה ויגאל

§ 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: “And he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26), the phrase “and he prospers” 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.

ומצא פרט למצוי שלא ימכור ברחוק ויגאול בקרוב ברע ויגאול ביפה כדי גאלתו כדי גאולה הוא גואל ואינו גואל לחצאין

The baraita continues: “And finds sufficient means”; 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. “Sufficient means to redeem it”; 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.

למימרא דמצא השתא משמע ורמינהו ומצא פרט לממציא עצמו מיכן אמר רבי אליעזר אם משיצאה אבן מתחת ידו הוציא הלה את ראשו וקיבלה פטור אלמא מצא מידי דאיתיה מעיקרא משמע

The Gemara asks: Is this to say that the term “finds” 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: “And 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” (Deuteronomy 19:5). The term “and finds” excludes one who introduces himself into the area of danger. From here Rabbi Eliezer said: If, after the stone departed from one’s 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 “finds” indicates an item that is there from the outset.

אמר רבא הכא מענינא דקרא והכא מענינא דקרא הכא דומיא דהשיגה ידו מה השיגה ידו דהשתא אף מצא נמי דהשתא והכא דומיא דיער מה יער מילתא דאיתיה מעיקרא אף מצא מילתא דאיתיה מעיקרא

Rava said: Here, “finds” 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 “finds” in a manner similar to the phrase “he prospers.” Just as “he prospers” is referring to funds that he acquires only now, so too “finds” 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 “finds” in a manner similar to the term “forest.” Just as a forest is something that is there from the outset, so too, “finds” 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.

ובהקדש כו׳ מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן ואם גאל יגאל מלמד שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

§ 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: “And if the one who consecrates the field will indeed redeem it” (Leviticus 27:19). The phrase “will indeed redeem” 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.

אמר רבי שמעון מה טעם לפי שמצינו במוכר שדה אחוזה שיפה כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה חוזרת לבעלים ביובל הורע כחו שאינו לוה וגואל ואינו גואל לחצאין

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.

אבל מקדיש שדה אחוזה הואיל שהורע כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה יוצא לכהנים יפה כחו שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

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.