Babylonian Talmud in English

1from that of other items consecrated for Temple maintenance, e.g., a consecrated house, but one does not derive the halakha with regard to items consecrated for Temple maintenance from items that are consecrated for the altar, such as the two lambs brought on Shavuot .

2The Gemara objects: And let Rabbi Shimon also derive the halakha by means of a verbal analogy from one who consecrates a house. Why does he disagree with Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara explains: One derives the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests, such as an ancestral field that is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, from that of another item that is a gift to the priests, i.e., the two lambs brought on Shavuot , but one does not derive the halakha of an item that is a gift to the priests from that of an item that is not a gift to the priests, i.e., a consecrated house.

3§ The mishna teaches that if one consecrates his ancestral field and it is not redeemed before the Jubilee, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests do not enter into the field, and they also do not give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. According to Rabbi Eliezer, the priests do not obtain possession of a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year unless another person redeemed it first.

4Rabba said: What is the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion? It is because the verse states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed anymore. But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy for the Lord, as a dedicated field; his ancestral possession shall be for the priest” (Leviticus 27:20–21). According to Rabba, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that these verses teach two separate halakhot , and should be read as follows: “And if he will not redeem the field…it shall not be redeemed anymore,” as an ancestral field, and: “Or if he sold the field…But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee… his ancestral possession shall be for the priest.” Accordingly, if the field has not yet been sold to another man, it is not transferred to the priests during the Jubilee.

5Abaye said: Does a sharp knife cut through the verses, that they may be interpreted by reading the words out of order? Rather, Abaye said: The reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is as it is taught in a baraita : Since the verse states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed,” one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession until the Jubilee. Therefore, the verse states: “Anymore,” indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., to regain the status of an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

6Abaye continues: According to this baraita , of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption occurring during the first Jubilee cycle in which the field was consecrated, then why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point, it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, because if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

7And according to whose opinion is this baraita ? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, conclude from this baraita that the reason for Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is from here, i.e., from the superfluous term “anymore.”

8The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, then what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: “Anymore”? Rather, the baraita can be understood in accordance with their opinions as well, and what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field then consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury.

9It might enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem this field during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: “Anymore,” indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field, which remains in his possession only until the Jubilee Year.

10And similarly, it is taught in a baraita : With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: “In the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought” (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states immediately afterward: “To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,” i.e., it goes to the ancestral owner who initially sold the field to the one who consecrated it.

11The baraita continues: If so, let the verse simply state: “To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs.” Why must the verse state first: “To the one from whom it was bought”? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: “In the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,” indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

12The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “It shall not be redeemed,” and it was also necessary for it to write: “To the one from whom it was bought,” despite the fact both phrases apparently teach the same halakha , i.e., that after a consecrated ancestral field is left unredeemed and given to the priests during the Jubilee Year, it never returns to the original owner.

13The Gemara explains: Because if the Merciful One had written only: “It shall not be redeemed,” one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all, but is divided among the priests. But here, where the priest sold the field that he received and the field was consecrated by the buyer as a purchased field and subsequently redeemed by another, as the field does return to its owner in the Jubilee Year, perhaps it should return to its original owner, and not the priest. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “To the one from whom it was bought,” indicating that it returns to the priest.

14And if the Merciful One had written only: “To the one from whom it was bought,” one might have thought that the field does not return to its original owner during the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as he gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, perhaps it should remain in his hands as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “It shall not be redeemed.”

1§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, if the owner consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it before the first Jubilee Year, but he redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, is he considered like another person who redeemed the field, in which case it is given to the priests at the following Jubilee Year, or not, i.e., as the one who ultimately redeemed the field first was the owner, does it remain in his possession as it would have if he had redeemed it during the first Jubilee cycle?

2The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the following baraita : Since the verse states: “And if he will not redeem the field, or if he sold the field to another man, it shall not be redeemed” (Leviticus 27:20), one might have thought that this means it shall not be redeemed at all by its owner, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: “Anymore,” indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

3The Gemara continues: According to this baraita , of when, i.e., about which time period, is the verse speaking? If we say that it is referring to a redemption that occurs during the first Jubilee cycle, in which the field was consecrated, why may it not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was? At that point it is even redeemable as an ancestral field, since if the owner redeems it then, it is not removed from his possession during the Jubilee Year. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita interprets the verse as referring to a redemption occurring during the second Jubilee cycle.

4And according to whose opinion is this baraita ? If we say that it is according to either Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Shimon, this cannot be correct, as according to them, the field leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the first Jubilee Year, after which it may no longer be redeemed. Rather, is it not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury until it is redeemed, even during a subsequent Jubilee cycle? And consequently, you can conclude from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, an owner who redeems his ancestral field from the Temple treasury during the second Jubilee cycle is considered like another, as he may redeem it only for it to be treated like a purchased field.

5The Gemara asks: And can you understand the baraita this way? If so, what do Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derive from this term: “Anymore”? Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with an ancestral field whose owner consecrated it and did not redeem it, which left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the first Jubilee Year; and the priest who received the field subsequently consecrated it, and then the original owner came to redeem it from the Temple treasury. It may enter your mind to say: Since the owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle, it shall not be redeemed by him at all, even for it to be treated for him like a purchased field. Therefore, the verse states: “Anymore,” indicating that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, i.e., an ancestral field, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

6And similarly, it is taught in a baraita : With regard to one who consecrated a purchased field and redeemed it, since the verse states: “In the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought” (Leviticus 27:24), one might have thought that the field shall return to the Temple treasurer, from whom he bought it when he redeemed it. Therefore, the verse states: “To the one to whom the possession of the land belongs,” i.e., the ancestral owner.

7The baraita continues: If so, why must the verse state: “To the one from whom it was bought”? The baraita answers: The verse is referring to an ancestral field that was consecrated and not redeemed, and which therefore left the possession of the Temple treasury and was given to the priests at the Jubilee Year, and the priest who received the field then sold it to another, and the buyer then consecrated it, and another person redeemed it from the Temple treasury. One might have thought that when the next Jubilee arrives, it shall return to the original owner. Therefore, the verse states: “In the Jubilee Year the field shall return to the one from whom it was bought,” indicating that the field is returned to the priest who sold the field.

8The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: “It shall not be redeemed,” and it was also necessary for it to write: “To the one from whom it was bought,” because if the Merciful One had written merely: “It shall not be redeemed,” one might have thought that the field does not return to the original owner only in a case where the priest consecrates the field and the original owner redeems it, as an ancestral field that is consecrated by its owner and redeemed by another does not return at all. But in a case where the priest sold the field to another and the buyer consecrated it, perhaps it should return to its original owner. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “To the one from whom it was bought,” indicating that it returns to the priest.

9And if the Merciful One had written merely: “To the one from whom it was bought,” one might think that the field does not return to its original owner at the Jubilee Year only in a case where the priest sold it and the buyer consecrated it, as the owner did not give any payment for the field to the Temple treasury. But here, where the priest consecrated the field and its original owner redeemed it, as the owner gives payment for the field to the Temple treasury, one might have thought that it should remain in his hands, as his ancestral field. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: “It shall not be redeemed.”

10And if the Merciful One had written only: “It shall not be redeemed,” and did not write: “Anymore,” I would say that it shall not be redeemed at all, as its original owner failed to redeem it during the first Jubilee cycle. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Anymore,” to indicate that it shall not be redeemed in order for it to return to the way it was, but it may be redeemed for it to be treated for him like a purchased field.

11The Gemara asks: Since it has been established that the term “anymore” is necessary according to all opinions, what conclusion was reached about the original dilemma with regard to whether the owner is considered like another person during the second Jubilee cycle? The Gemara answers: Come and hear a proof from the following baraita : Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury and is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year.

12Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But we did not learn this interpretation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in the mishna. Instead, the mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. This indicates that if the owner, rather than any other person, is the one who ultimately redeems the field, it remains in his possession even if he did so during the second Jubilee cycle. Rav Ashi said to Ravina: During the second Jubilee cycle, the owner is considered like another person.

13Some say a different version of the baraita and ensuing discussion: Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner redeemed it during the second Jubilee cycle, it does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury and is not given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Why must a proof be brought from this baraita ? We learn in the mishna as well that Rabbi Eliezer says: The priests never enter into a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year until another person redeems it first. Rav Ashi said to him: If a proof is learned from the mishna alone I would say that during the second Jubilee cycle the owner is considered like another person. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that according to Rabbi Eliezer the owner is not considered like another person, and the field returns to him as an ancestral possession.

14MISHNA: One who purchases an ancestral field from his father, and his father subsequently died and afterward the son consecrated it, its halakhic status is like that of an ancestral field, as he inherited his father’s ancestral rights prior to the consecration. Consequently, the field’s redemption price is calculated on the basis of fifty sela per beit kor , and if another redeems it instead of the son, it is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. But if the son consecrated the field and afterward his father died, its halakhic status is like that of a purchased field, whose redemption price is based on its monetary value, and which will return to the ancestral owner, i.e., the son, at the Jubilee; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

1But here, with regard to their opinion that even if the son consecrated the field before his father’s death it is considered an ancestral field, this is because they found another allusion in the verse and interpreted it as follows: If the verse meant to indicate only the halakha that Rabbi Meir derives from it, let the Merciful One write: And if he will consecrate unto the Lord a field that he has bought, which is not his ancestral field, or: Which is not an ancestral field. What is the meaning of the extra word “of” in the phrase: “Which is not of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:22)? It teaches that only a field that is not due to become his ancestral field is treated like a purchased field, thereby excluding this field, which is due to become his ancestral field.

2§ The mishna teaches: The priests and the Levites may always consecrate their ancestral fields and may always redeem their ancestral fields, both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. The Gemara asks: Granted, the mishna’s statement that they may always redeem their ancestral fields was necessary, in order to exclude them from the halakha that applies to the ancestral field of an Israelite, which may be redeemed only until the Jubilee Year, and if not redeemed by then, it is given to the priests. In contrast, the mishna teaches us that priests and Levites may always redeem their fields. But with regard to the statement that they may always consecrate their fields, why does the mishna specifically mention priests and Levites? Even an Israelite may always consecrate his field, both before and after the Jubilee Year.

3The Gemara continues: And if you would say that the mishna means that priests and Levites may consecrate their fields during the Jubilee Year itself, whereas an Israelite may not, this works out well according to the opinion of Shmuel, who says (24a) that if an Israelite consecrated his field during the Jubilee Year itself it is not consecrated. Accordingly, the mishna teaches us that priests and Levites may always consecrate their fields, even in the Jubilee Year itself. But according to the opinion of Rav, why does the mishna specifically mention priests and Levites? Even an Israelite may consecrate his field during the Jubilee.

4The Gemara responds: And according to your reasoning, one may similarly ask: Why do I need the statement that priests and Levites may consecrate their fields both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year? Doesn’t the mishna already state that they may always consecrate their fields? Rather, since the tanna taught in the first mishna in this chapter (24a) that Israelites may not consecrate their fields less than two years before the Jubilee and they may not redeem them less than one year after the Jubilee, the tanna also taught in the latter mishna that priests and Levites may consecrate their fields both after the Jubilee and before the Jubilee, despite the fact that there is no novelty in this statement.

5And similarly, since the tanna taught in the first mishna that Israelites may neither consecrate their fields less than two years before the Jubilee nor redeem them less than one year after the Jubilee, the tanna also taught in the latter mishna that priests and Levites may always consecrate and redeem their fields, despite the fact that there is no novelty with regard to consecrating in this statement either, as Israelites may also consecrate their fields both after the Jubilee and before the Jubilee.

6MISHNA: In the case of one who consecrates his ancestral field during a period when the Jubilee Year is not observed, and therefore the field is not redeemed according to a fixed rate of fifty shekels per beit kor but according to its value, when the treasurer announces the sale of the field he says to the owner: You open the bidding first; how much do you offer for its redemption? This method is advantageous for the Temple treasury, as the owner gives an additional payment of one-fifth of the value of the field, and every other person does not give an additional one-fifth payment.

7There was an incident involving one who consecrated his field due to its inferior quality. The treasurers said to him: You open the bidding first. He said: It is hereby mine for an issar , a small sum. Rabbi Yosei says: That person did not say he would purchase it for an issar ; rather, he said he would purchase it for an egg, as consecrated items may be redeemed with money or with the equivalent value of money. The treasurer said to him: The field has come into your possession based on your bid. As a result, he loses an issar and his field remains before him in his possession.

8GEMARA: The mishna teaches that with regard to one who consecrates his ancestral field during a period when the Jubilee Year is not observed, the treasurer says to him: You open the bidding first. The Gemara asks: Why does the treasurer merely say this to him? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the treasurer forces him to open the bidding? The Gemara responds: What is the meaning of the phrase: The treasurer says to him? It means that the treasurer forces him to open the bidding. And if you wish, say instead that initially the treasurer says to him that he should open the bidding; if he complies, he complies; and if not, the treasurer forces him to comply.

9The mishna teaches that the one who consecrated the field opens the bidding, as the owner gives an additional one-fifth payment whereas others do not give an additional one-fifth payment. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna state that the reason he opens the bidding is specifically because the owner gives an additional one-fifth? Let the tanna derive it from the reason that since the field is dear to the owner he would increase his bid and redeem it for a higher price. And furthermore, doesn’t the mitzva of redemption begin with the owner of the field by Torah law?

10The Gemara answers: The tanna states one reason and there are another two reasons: One reason is that since it is dear to him he would increase his bid and redeem it for a higher price; another reason is that the mitzva of redemption begins with the owner; and another reason is that the owner gives an additional one-fifth payment and every other person does not give an additional one-fifth payment.

11§ The mishna teaches: There was an incident involving one who consecrated his field, which was causing him a loss due to its low quality. The treasurers said to him: You open the bidding first. He said: It is hereby mine for an issar . Rabbi Yosei says: That person did not say he would purchase it for an issar ; rather, he said he would purchase it for an egg, as consecrated items may be redeemed with money or with the equivalent value of money. The Gemara suggests: Let us say they disagree about this, that Rabbi Yosei holds that the equivalent value of money is the same as money, and the Rabbis hold that the equivalent value of money is not the same as money.

12The Gemara asks: But don’t we maintain as an accepted principle that the equivalent value of money is the same as money? The Gemara answers: Everyone agrees that the equivalent value of money is the same as money, and here they disagree with regard to whether one may redeem with an item one-fifth of whose value is not worth one peruta . The first tanna holds that one may redeem with an issar , which is worth eight perutot , as one-fifth of its value is greater than the value of one peruta , and Rabbi Yosei holds that one may even redeem with an item such as an egg, despite the fact that one-fifth of its value is not worth one peruta .

13The mishna relates that after the owner made his bid the treasurer said to him: The field has come into your possession based on your bid. As a result, he loses an issar and his field remains before him in his possession. The Gemara notes: This statement, whose source is unspecified, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who hold that in the incident in the mishna, the man redeemed the field with an issar .

14MISHNA: If one said: The field is hereby mine for ten sela , and one other person said: It is mine for twenty, and one said for thirty, and one said for forty, and one said for fifty; and then the one who bid fifty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela and the field is redeemed by the one who bid forty. This ensures that the Temple treasury does not lose. If the one who bid forty sela subsequently reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela and the field is redeemed by the one who bid thirty.

1the owner gives twenty-six sela and takes the field. He pays the twenty that he initially offered; plus five sela , which is one-fifth of the total future sum, i.e., one-quarter of his initial offer. In addition, he adds one sela , the difference between his initial offer and that of the other person, so that the Temple treasury will not receive less than the twenty-one sela offer proposed by the other person. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-two sela , the owner gives twenty-seven sela and takes the field.

2If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-three sela , the owner gives twenty-eight sela and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-four sela , the owner gives twenty-nine sela and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-five sela , the owner gives thirty sela , as the owner adds one-fifth only to the amount that he bid, and does not add one-fifth to the addition of that other person.

3If the owner said he will pay twenty sela and one other person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-six sela , if the owner wished to pay thirty-one sela and a dinar the owner takes precedence; and if not, the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession based on your bid, as it is more than the Temple treasury can compel the owner to pay.

4GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if one said: The field is mine for ten sela , and another said for twenty, and another said thirty, and another said forty, and yet another said fifty; and then the one who bid fifty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela , and it is redeemed by the one who bid forty. In this manner, the Temple treasury does not lose. Rav Ḥisda says: The mishna taught that the treasurer repossesses ten sela from the one who initially offered fifty sela only when the one who offered forty stands in his place and intends to purchase the field, as the Temple treasury would have lost only ten sela .

5But if the one who offered forty does not stand in his place, i.e., he too reneged on his offer, then the additional amount they had offered is divided between the one who initially offered fifty and the one who offered forty, as follows: The one who offered fifty pays all ten of the difference between fifty and forty, but he must also pay half of the extra ten that is the difference between the offer of forty and the previous offer of thirty. The reason is that the one who bid fifty agreed to that extra ten that raised the price from thirty to forty. In sum, the one who offered fifty pays fifteen, and the one who said forty pays five.

6The Gemara raises an objection to the statement of Rav Ḥisda from that which we learned in the mishna: If the one who bid forty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela . The Gemara explains the objection: According to Rav Ḥisda, there is a difficulty: Why does the mishna rule that his property is repossessed by ten sela ? Let the one who offered fifty give together with him, and therefore the one who offered forty should give only five. The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered fifty sela .

7The Gemara further objects: The mishna also teaches that if the one who bid thirty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela . But according to Rav Ḥisda, why is only his property repossessed? Let the one who offered forty give together with him. The Gemara again responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered forty sela . The Gemara persists: The mishna states that if the one who bid twenty reneged on his offer, the treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela . According to Rav Ḥisda, why is only his property repossessed? Let the one who offered thirty give together with him. Once again, the Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where there is no one who offered thirty sela .

8The Gemara asks: If so, then say the latter clause of the mishna: If the one who bid ten reneged on his offer, the treasurer sells the field at its value and collects the remainder from the property of the one who bid ten, to complete the sum of ten sela . Why is payment collected only from the one who offered ten? Let the one who offered twenty give together with him. And if you would say that here too, there is no one who offered twenty sela , then if so, why does the mishna state: And collects from the one who bid ten? The mishna should have stated simply: And collects from him, as there is no one else who submitted an offer.

9Rather, Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here, when the potential loss incurred by the Temple treasury is divided, they reneged on their offers simultaneously; whereas there, in the mishna, where only one individual must cover the loss, two individuals reneged one after the other. The Gemara notes that this is also taught in a baraita : If all of them reneged at once they divide the potential loss incurred by the Temple treasury between them. Now didn’t we learn in the mishna: The treasurer repossesses from his property up to ten sela , without any mention of a division? Rather, must one not conclude from the baraita that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda, who holds that when two individuals renege on their offers simultaneously they divide the loss between them? The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from it that this is the case.

10The Gemara notes that there are those who raise this baraita as a contradiction: We learned in the mishna that if the one who bid ten reneged on his offer, the treasurer sells the field at its value and collects the remainder from the property of the one who bid ten. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that they divide the potential loss to the Temple treasury between them? Rav Ḥisda said: This is not difficult. Here in the baraita they reneged on their offers simultaneously, whereas there, in the mishna, two individuals reneged one after the other.

11§ The mishna teaches: If the owner says he will pay twenty sela and any other person says he will pay twenty sela , the owner’s offer takes precedence because he adds one-fifth. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that an offer of the owner, which perforce includes an additional one-fifth, is preferable to a higher offer for the principal submitted by another? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna ( Ma’aser Sheni 4:3): If one is unable to transport his second-tithe produce to Jerusalem to consume it there, the produce is redeemed and the redemption money is spent on food in Jerusalem. If the owner of second tithe says he will redeem it for one sela and one other says he will redeem it for one sela and one issar , the offer of one sela and one issar takes precedence, because he adds to the principal.

12The Gemara answers: Here, where the additional one-fifth is a gain of the Temple treasury, a calculation that includes the one-fifth is preferable. By contrast, there, where the additional one-fifth belongs to the owner, i.e., the Temple treasury gains nothing from it, as the redemption money for second-tithe produce belongs to the owner and must be taken to Jerusalem for him to spend it there, let the principal be redeemed for a proper sum, and we do not care about the additional one-fifth.

13§ The mishna teaches that if the owner says he will pay twenty sela and one other person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-five sela , the owner gives thirty sela . The Gemara suggests: And let the owner say: A man has come in my place [ baḥarikin ] to redeem the field, as even when accounting for the one-fifth that I must add, my offer stands at twenty-five sela , identical to this man’s offer. Why, then, am I forced to redeem the field for a greater sum? The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner initially said he would pay twenty sela and an additional dinar, one-quarter of one sela . When the additional one-fifth is taken into account, the owner’s offer is greater than twenty-five sela .

14The Gemara asks: But if so, let the mishna teach explicitly that he offered an additional dinar. The Gemara responds: The tanna was not meticulous with regard to the mention of small sums of money such as one dinar. The Gemara asks: And was the tanna not meticulous? But isn’t it taught in the mishna that in a case where one said: The field is hereby mine for a payment of twenty-six sela , if the owner wished to pay thirty-one sela and a dinar the owner takes precedence? Rather, Rava said: The mishna is referring to a case where the owner said he would redeem it for twenty sela and one peruta , and the tanna was not meticulous with regard to mentioning such a tiny sum.

1What are the circumstances of such an offer? It is in a case where the owner initially said he would purchase the field for twenty-one sela . In such an instance, the additional one-fifth amounts to five sela and one dinar, which means that the total payment of the owner is twenty-six sela and one dinar, greater than the offer of the other person. Accordingly, the owner takes precedence, and when the one-fifth is added to the twenty-six sela offer of the other person, the total price paid by the owner is equal to thirty-one sela and one dinar. And if the payment of the owner does not exceed the offer of the other person even when accounting for the additional one-fifth, then the treasurer says to the other person: The field has come into your possession.

2MISHNA: A person may dedicate, for sacred or priestly use, some of his flock and some of his cattle, and some of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all that he has of any type of property, they are not dedicated, i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give all of it to others.

3GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, stated in the mishna, derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught in a baraita , with regard to the verse: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse indicates that one may dedicate “of all that he has” but not all that he has; likewise “of man” but not every man, i.e., not every slave of his; “of man or animal” but not every animal of his; and finally one may dedicate “of his ancestral field” but not all of his ancestral field.

4It might have been thought that one may not dedicate all his properties ab initio , but if he did dedicate all of them, they should be dedicated. Therefore the verse states: “Notwithstanding,” to teach that they are not dedicated. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that a person should spare his property and not give it all to others.

5The Gemara notes: And it is necessary to derive this halakha with regard to all the categories in the verse. As, if the Merciful One had written only: “Of all that he has,” I would say that one may not dedicate all that he has, but let him dedicate all of one type of property. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “of man,” to teach that he may not dedicate every man.

6And if the Merciful One had written only: “of man,” one might say that he may not dedicate all of his slaves, as it is not possible for him to be without a slave to perform his work; but with regard to a field, it is possible for him to maintain a livelihood by sharecropping [ distoran ]. And if the Torah had taught this halakha with regard to only these two types, i.e., ancestral fields and slaves, one might say these may not be dedicated in their entirety because here there is livelihood and here there is also livelihood. But in the case of movable property, on which maintaining a livelihood does not depend, let him dedicate all of them. Therefore, all of these derivations are necessary.

7The Gemara further asks: Why do I need for the verse to state “or animal”? The Gemara explains it is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita : One might have thought a person can dedicate his son or his daughter, his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field. Therefore, the verse states “animal” to teach that just as an animal is an item that he has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he has permission to sell. He cannot dedicate an item that he does not have the ability to sell.

8The baraita continues: But in the case of his minor daughter, he has permission to sell her as a Hebrew maidservant. If so, one might have thought he may dedicate her. Therefore, the verse states “animal,” indicating that just as an animal is an item that he always has permission to sell, so too, one can dedicate any item that he always has permission to sell, whereas one may not sell his daughter once she reaches majority. A field as well can be sold only until the Jubilee Year.

9§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property, it is all the more so the case that one should spare his property and not give it all to others. The Gemara raises a difficulty: This is identical to the opinion of the first tanna , i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who prohibits the dedication of all one’s property.

10The Gemara responds: There is a practical difference between them with regard to the statement of Rabbi Ila, as Rabbi Ila said: In Usha the Sages instituted that one who dispenses his money to charity should not dispense more than a fifth. Rabbi Eliezer, who did not state that one should spare his property, rules that one may give all his money to charity, provided he keeps a small portion for himself, whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya maintains that one should not give more than a fifth.

11The Gemara relates that there was an incident involving a certain individual who sought to dispense more than a fifth of his property as charity, and his friend did not let him act upon his wishes. And who was this friend? It was Rabbi Yeshevav. And some say it was Rabbi Yeshevav who wanted to give too much charity, and his friend did not let him do so. And who was the friend? It was Rabbi Akiva.

12MISHNA: In the case of one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field, those items are not considered dedicated, as a person may not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate their property; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate their property, as all dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). But Levites may dedicate their property, as dedicated property is not theirs.

13Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears to be correct with regard to land, as it is stated about the land of the Levites: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, as that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears to be correct with regard to movable property, which the Levites may dedicate, as dedicated property is not theirs. It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.

14GEMARA: The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what is his reasoning? Granted, priests may not dedicate property, as dedicated property is theirs; it is one of the gifts of the priesthood. But why are Levites unable to dedicate their property? Granted, they may not dedicate land, as it is written: “As that is their perpetual possession” (Leviticus 25:34). But let them dedicate movable property. The Gemara explains that the verse states: “Notwithstanding, no dedicated thing, that a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). The verse juxtaposes the dedication of movable property to that of land. Accordingly, as Levites cannot dedicate land, they cannot dedicate movable property either.

1shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., for Aaron and any of his descendants. But if one dedicated his fields, he gives them to a priest of that priestly watch which is currently serving in the Temple, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21). And one derives a verbal analogy between “to the priest” here and “to the priest” from a verse (Numbers 5:8) discussing property robbed from a convert. The halakha in that case is that if one took an oath that he did not rob a convert, and then after the convert died and left no descendants he admitted to taking a false oath, he must give the stolen property to the priests of the priestly watch currently serving in the Temple.

2The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of property robbed from a convert, from where do we derive that it is given to the priests of the current priestly watch? As it is taught in a baraita : In the verse: “But if the man has no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, to the priest” (Numbers 5:8), the phrase: “Shall be the Lord’s, to the priest,” indicates that God has acquired the restitution for the guilt and has given it to the priest of that priestly watch.

3The Gemara objects: Do you say the restitution is given to the priest of that priestly watch; or perhaps is it necessary only for it to be given to any priest to whom the robber wishes to give it. The Gemara explains that when the same verse says: “Besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him,” this indicates that the verse speaks of a priest of that priestly watch, i.e., the watch that is currently involved in sacrificing offerings.

4§ Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin states another halakha involving property that is given to the priests. With regard to a field that was consecrated by its owner and was not redeemed by him, which goes out of his possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, one gives it to the members of the priestly watch serving when the Jubilee Year occurred, i.e., the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the beginning of the Jubilee Year occurred on Shabbat, which is the day on which the priestly watches rotate, what is the halakha ? Which priestly watch receives the property? Rav Ḥiyya bar Ami says in the name of Ḥulfana: One gives it to the watch that leaves the service of the Temple on that Shabbat.

5Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with these statements: You are found to say that both the Jubilee Year, when fields that were sold are returned to their owners, and the Sabbatical Year, when debts are canceled, abrogate at once, i.e., at the same time, except that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end. In other words, the evening of Rosh HaShana at the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, which is the forty-ninth year of the Jubilee cycle, is also the beginning of the Jubilee Year, which is the fiftieth year. At this time, all debts and land purchases are abrogated, and consecrated fields that were not redeemed become the property of the priests. Accordingly, if Rosh HaShana occurs on a Shabbat, the priestly watch that ends their service receives the fields, as the priestly watches rotate only in the morning.

6The Gemara questions the terminology of the baraita : Why does the baraita state: Except that? This statement indicates that the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year abrogate simultaneously despite the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning. On the contrary, this halakha is due to that very reason, i.e., they abrogate simultaneously because the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end. The Gemara explains that in fact one should say the baraita as follows: They abrogate at the same time, due to the fact that the Jubilee Year abrogates at its beginning and the Sabbatical Year at its end.

7The Gemara asks: Granted, it is clear that the Sabbatical Year abrogates at its end, as it is written: “At the end of every seven years you shall make a release” (Deuteronomy 15:1). But does the Jubilee Year abrogate at its very beginning? It abrogates only ten days later, on Yom Kippur, as it is written: “On Yom Kippur shall you make proclamation with the shofar throughout all your land …and you shall return every man to his possession” (Leviticus 25:9–10). The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita ? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says: It is from Rosh HaShana that the Jubilee Year takes effect.

8The Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin that one who dedicates his movable property may give it to a priest of his choosing, whereas one who dedicates his land gives it to members of the current priestly watch. The Gemara relates that Ḥizkiyya bar Biluto heard this statement and went and said the following difficulty before Rabbi Abbahu: But let one juxtapose movable property to land, as the verse states: “That a man may dedicate to the Lord of all that he has, whether of man or animal, or of his ancestral field” (Leviticus 27:28). If so, movable property must also be given to members of the current priestly watch.

9Rabbi Abbahu responded: Is it not a dispute between tanna’im ? As there are those who juxtapose and there are those who do not juxtapose, in accordance with the earlier explanation of the Gemara that this is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon with regard to whether or not Levites may dedicate movable property. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says we do not juxtapose movable property and land.

10MISHNA: Dedications of property for priests, unlike consecrations of property for Temple maintenance, have no redemption; rather, one gives it to the priests, and it is their property in every sense, like teruma . Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28).

11And the Rabbis say: Dedications dedicated without specification of their purpose are designated for priests, as it is stated with regard to one who consecrated a field and did not redeem it: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. If so, why is it stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”? This comes to teach that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If one consecrated an animal for sacrifice and then dedicated it, the dedication takes effect. Nevertheless, it does not take effect on the body of the animal; rather, it applies to the owner’s financial stake in the offering.

12As the Sages delineated: A person may dedicate his sacrificial animals, both offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If the offering he dedicated was the object of a vow, e.g., if he said: It is incumbent upon me to sacrifice a burnt offering, since he is obligated to replace such offerings they are considered his property, and therefore he gives their value to the priests.

13And if the offering he dedicated was a gift offering, e.g., if he said: This animal is a burnt offering, in which case he is not obligated to replace the animal, he gives the monetary benefit that he has in them. For example, if he said: This bull is a burnt offering, one estimates how much money a person would be willing to give in order to sacrifice the animal as a voluntary burnt offering, even though he is not permitted to do so.

14With regard to a firstborn animal, whether it is unblemished or whether it is blemished, its owner may dedicate it. And how does one assess the payment required to redeem it? One estimates how much an Israelite person would be willing to give in exchange for that firstborn in order to give it to a priest who is his daughter’s son or to a priest who is his sister’s son.

1GEMARA: The Sages taught: Dedications of property for priests have no redemption, and one gives the property to the priest. With regard to these dedications, as long as they remain in the house of the owner they are considered like consecrated property in every sense, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). Once the owner has given them to the priest they are in every sense like non-sacred property, as it is stated: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14), i.e., it shall be like all other regular property belonging to a priest, which is non-sacred.

2§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says dedications donated without specification are designated for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28). And the Rabbis say they are designated for priests, as it is stated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest” (Leviticus 27:21), whereas the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira teaches that dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. The Gemara asks: Granted, the opinion of the Rabbis is clear, as they explain their reason and the reason of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, i.e., they interpret the verse he cited as his proof. But as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, this verse: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” what does he do with it, i.e., what does he derive from it?

3The Gemara responds: The verse is necessary for him for that which is taught in a baraita that discusses the case of one who consecrated his ancestral field and failed to redeem it. This field becomes the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year. The baraita teaches: Why must the verse state at its end: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”? The baraita explains: From where is it derived with regard to a priest who consecrated his dedicated field, i.e., a field that was dedicated by an Israelite and was given to him and he then consecrated it, and then the Jubilee Year arrived, that he may not say: Since a field that was consecrated by its owners and was not redeemed goes out of the owner’s possession and passes to the possession of the priests at the Jubilee Year, and this field that I consecrated is already in my possession, it is therefore mine.

4The baraita adds: And this claim of the priest is based on logical inference: If I acquire the fields of others that were consecrated and not redeemed at the Jubilee Year, then with regard to my own property, all the more so is it not clear that I should acquire it? Therefore, the verse states, with regard to an ancestral field that one consecrated: “As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest,” which teaches that this priest does not acquire the field.

5The baraita explains the derivation: But what have we now learned about a consecrated ancestral field from a dedicated field? In other words, the verse, which is dealing with an ancestral field, says an ancestral field is like a dedicated field, but it does not explicitly state the halakha of dedicated fields. Rather, this case of a dedicated field comes to teach a halakha about an ancestral field but is found to derive a halakha from that case, i.e., the verse juxtaposes a dedicated field of a priest to the ancestral field of an Israelite.

6The baraita clarifies how the halakha is derived from the juxtaposition: Just as the ancestral field of an Israelite, which was redeemed by a priest from the Temple treasury, goes out of his possession at the arrival of the Jubilee Year and is divided among all the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year (see 25b), so too, the dedicated field of a priest that remained in his possession goes out of his possession and is divided among his brothers, the priests of the watch serving at the beginning of the Jubilee Year.

7The Gemara asks: And the other, i.e., the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha ? The Gemara responds: They derive it from a superfluous term in the verse, as it could have stated merely: Dedicated [ ḥerem ], from which one would have derived that unspecified dedications are designated for the priests. Yet the verse actually states: “ Haḥerem ,” with the definite article, and therefore both halakhot are derived from this verse. The Gemara notes: And as for the other, Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, he does not learn anything from the difference between ḥerem and haḥerem . Accordingly, he derives from here only that if a priest consecrated his dedicated field it is removed from his possession.

8The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, from where does he derive that a dedication takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, which, according to the Rabbis, is learned from the verse: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:28)? The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who derives this halakha from another source, as explained in the mishna below.

9§ Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara asks: And would Rav leave aside the majority opinion of the Rabbis and act in accordance with the individual opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? The Gemara answers: This dispute is taught in a baraita in the opposite manner, i.e., it is the Rabbis who hold that unspecified dedications are designated for Temple maintenance. The Gemara further asks: Would Rav leave aside a mishna and act in accordance with a baraita ? The Gemara responds: Rav teaches the mishna as well in the opposite manner, in accordance with the baraita .

10The Gemara asks: What did you see that you chose to reverse the opinions in the mishna due to the baraita ? Let us reverse the opinions in the baraita due to the mishna. The Gemara answers: Rav learned by tradition from his teachers that the opinions cited in the mishna should be reversed. The Gemara asks: If so, why does Rav state that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira? He should have said it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav is saying: In accordance with the manner in which you reversed the opinions and taught them in the mishna, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.

11§ The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who dedicated his property in Pumbedita. He came before Rav Yehuda to ask him what to do. Rav Yehuda said to him: Take four dinars and desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto them. And then throw the dinars into the river, because one may not derive benefit from them. And then the property will be permitted to you, as it will have been redeemed. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Rav Yehuda holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for Temple maintenance, which is why the man could redeem his property. Had the property been designated for the priests there could be no redemption, as taught in the mishna.

12The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion does Rav Yehuda hold, when he told the man to desacralize the dedicated property by transferring its sanctity onto money worth less than the dedicated property? The Gemara responds: He holds in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who said: Consecrated property worth one hundred dinars that one desacralized onto an item worth one peruta is desacralized. The Gemara asks: One can say that Shmuel said this is the halakha only in a case where one already desacralized the property, i.e., after the fact. Did he say one may do so ab initio ?

13The Gemara responds: This matter, that one must desacralize consecrated property onto an item worth the value of the property ab initio , applies only during a period when the Temple is standing, as there is a loss caused to the Temple treasury by desacralizing its property onto an item worth less than its value. But in the present time, when the Temple is not standing and there is no Temple treasury, one may desacralize with an item worth less than the consecrated property even ab initio . The Gemara asks: If so, then one may even desacralize with one peruta as well. Why, then, did Rav Yehuda require the man to use four dinars? The Gemara responds: He required four dinars in order to publicize the matter, so that the community will know the property is permitted for use only because it was redeemed.

14Ulla says: If I had been there when this man asked what to do, I would have given all of the property to the priests. The Gemara notes: Evidently, Ulla holds that unspecified dedications of property are designated for the priests, and therefore they cannot be redeemed.

1MISHNA: One who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale, as it is stated: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years.

2If one of those years was a year of blight or mildew, or if it was the Sabbatical Year, when the buyer is unable to derive benefit from the field, that year does not count as part of the tally, and the owner must wait an additional year before redeeming the field. If the buyer plowed the field but did not sow it, or if he left it fallow, that year counts as part of his tally, as it was fit to produce a crop. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana and the field was full of produce, and the owner redeems the field after two years, that buyer consumes from the field’s produce three crops in two years. Although he received the field with its crop, he is not required to return it in the same state.

3GEMARA: The mishna states that one who sells his field during a period when the Jubilee Year is in effect is not permitted to redeem it less than two years after the sale. The Gemara notes: The mishna does not teach that one cannot redeem his field before two years have elapsed; rather, the mishna teaches that one is not permitted to redeem it. Evidently, the tanna of the mishna holds that there is also a prohibition involved in the matter, such that it is prohibited even to rattle dinars before the buyer in order to persuade him to sell back the field.

4The Gemara continues: And it is not necessary to state this with regard to the seller, as he stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), and the plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years. Rather, even the buyer stands in violation of a positive mitzva, as we require the fulfillment of another mitzva from the same verse: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee Year you shall buy from your neighbor,” and if the buyer returns the field before the two years elapse, the mitzva is not fulfilled.

5§ It was stated: With regard to one who sells his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: The field is sold in principle, but it leaves the buyer’s possession immediately, and his money is not refunded. And Shmuel says: It is not sold at all. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reasoning of Shmuel? Shmuel derives his opinion via an a fortiori inference. And what, if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, is it not logical that a field that was not yet sold is not sold at all during the Jubilee Year?

6The Gemara asks: And according to Rav, do we not say that one may derive an a fortiori inference in this way? But isn’t it taught in a baraita : One might have thought that a person may sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman. You can say the following a fortiori inference to reject such a possibility: And what, if a daughter who was already sold, now leaves her master upon becoming a young woman, is it not logical that a daughter who was not sold is not capable of being sold once she becomes a young woman? Evidently, one may derive this type of an a fortiori inference. Why, then, does Rav disagree with Shmuel?

7The Gemara answers that the cases are not comparable. There, with regard to a maidservant, once she becomes a young woman she is not ever sold again. Here, the field that is returned to the seller in the Jubilee Year may later be sold again. Rav therefore maintains that one may not derive the aforementioned a fortiori inference.

8The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s opinion from a baraita : The verse states: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor” (Leviticus 25:15). The term: After the Jubilee, teaches that a field may be sold in the year adjacent to the Jubilee Year. From where is it derived that a field may be sold in a year that is separated from the Jubilee Year? The verse states: “According to the multitude of the years you shall increase the price thereof, and according to the fewness of the years you shall diminish the price of it” (Leviticus 25:16). The verse teaches that one may sell a field even after several years have elapsed since the last Jubilee Year.

9The baraita continues: And in the Jubilee Year itself one may not sell his field, and if one sold it, it is not sold. This baraita clearly seems to contradict the opinion of Rav. The Gemara responds: Rav could say to you: The baraita means that the field is not sold for the number of years of the crops, i.e., it does not remain in the buyer’s possession for a minimum of two years, rather it is sold in principle, and then immediately leaves the buyer’s possession.

10The Gemara objects: But if the field is indeed sold, let it stand in the buyer’s possession until after the Jubilee Year, and after the Jubilee Year let him consume the field’s produce for two years of crops, and only then return the field. Isn’t it taught in a baraita : If the buyer consumed the field’s produce for one year before the Jubilee Year, he completes another year after the Jubilee Year? The Gemara explains: The cases are not comparable. There, the buyer already entered the field in order to consume the produce, and therefore he completes the minimum of two years. Here, the buyer did not enter the field to consume the produce at all, as ownership of the field immediately reverts to the seller.

11§ Rav Anan says: I learned two halakhot from Master Shmuel. One was this halakha , that if one sells his field during the Jubilee Year the sale is ineffective. And the other halakha concerned one who sells his Canaanite slave to gentiles, or to a Jew who resides outside of Eretz Yisrael, that the slave is emancipated. A Canaanite slave is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot. By selling him to a gentile, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzvot, and by selling him to one who dwells outside of Eretz Yisrael, one prevents him from fulfilling the mitzva of dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. The Sages therefore decreed that the Jewish master must write the slave a bill of manumission after the sale, so that if he runs away from his gentile master, he would not reenter servitude under the Jewish master.

12Rav Anan continues: With regard to one of these halakhot , Shmuel said that the sale is retracted and the money is refunded, and with regard to one of them, he said that the sale is not retracted and the buyer loses his money. But I do not know in which of the cases the sale is retracted and in which case it is not.

13Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan’s dilemma. It may be resolved from that which is taught in a baraita : In the case of one who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Conclude from the baraita as follows: Since the baraita calls the second owner the slave’s master, and requires him to emancipate the slave, evidently the sale is not retracted, and the buyer loses his money. And therefore, when Shmuel says here that the field is not sold during the Jubilee Year, he means that the sale does not take effect and the money is returned to the buyer.

1The 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.

2The 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.

3Rav 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.

4§ 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?

5The 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.

6§ 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.

7MISHNA: 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).

8If 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.

9One 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.

10GEMARA: 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).

11Now 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.

12Rabbi 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.

13Rabbi 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.

14The 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.

1I 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.

2Abaye 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.

3That 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.

4Rabbi 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.

5If 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).

6If 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.

7The 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.

8Rabbi 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.”

9One 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.

10If 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).

11When 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.

12Abaye 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.

13Rav 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.”

14Now, 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.

1The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita : One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita : One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita , which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita , which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.

2MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer’s money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.

3If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer’s son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). The term “for him” indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.

4When it says: “A full year,” this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word “full” serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30).

5GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The word “days” means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.

6The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word “days”? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: “Until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29).

7The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold,” I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.

8The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term “a full year” (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term “a full year”? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.

9The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term “a full year.” Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha , which is derived from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold.”

10§ The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita : This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?

11Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita : Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower’s possession.

12Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.

13The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna , i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.

1Rava said: Everyone agrees that uncertain interest is prohibited; and here, the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis concerns the permissibility of interest given on the condition that it will be returned. That is, in addition to the arrangement described in the baraita , the parties agreed that the buyer will consume the produce, and if the sale will later be nullified, then the buyer will reimburse the seller for the value of the produce. One Sage, the first tanna , holds that although the interest is subsequently refunded, this practice is prohibited, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that this is permitted.

2§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, if the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. The Gemara asks: This is obvious, as a son inherits his father’s property. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that when the Merciful One states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29), this indicates that the man who redeems the house must be the same man who sold it, and this son did not sell; therefore, the same verse teaches us: “And he shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that the right of redemption applies in any case, either to the seller or his son.

3The mishna further teaches: If the buyer died, the seller may redeem the house from the possession of the buyer’s son. The Gemara asks: This, too, is obvious. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that the Merciful One states: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30), and as this son did not buy the house, the buyer cannot redeem it from him; therefore, the previous verse teaches us: “He shall have the right of redemption,” indicating that this right applies in any case, even from the buyer’s son.

4§ The mishna teaches that if the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30). The Sages taught: When the verse states “year,” I do not know if one counts the year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer, or if one counts the year from when the first buyer sold it to the second. When the verse states: “Until the passage of a full year for him,” you must say that it is a year from when the owner sold it to the first buyer.

5The Gemara asks: In such a case, if the owner did not redeem the house within one year of the first sale, to whom does it belong in perpetuity? Rabbi Elazar says: It belongs in perpetuity to the first buyer. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It belongs in perpetuity to the second buyer. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, it is understandable why the house belongs to the first buyer, as one calculates the year according to his acquisition. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the reason that the house belongs to the second buyer after the conclusion of one year from the acquisition of the first buyer? Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: What did the first buyer sell to the second buyer? He sold him any right to the field that will come into his possession. This includes the fact that the house will belong to him in perpetuity after the conclusion of one year from the first purchase.

6Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If one sold two houses of walled cities, one on the fifteenth day of the first month of Adar in a leap year, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this house that he sold to him on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed. With regard to this house that he sold to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

7Ravina objects to this: But let the first buyer say to the second: I preceded you and kindled a fire before you, i.e., I bought my house before you acquired yours. How, then, can you gain possession in perpetuity before me? The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second buyer can say to him: You descended to the house during the intercalated month, i.e., the first Adar, and as it is taught in the mishna, the seller has the right to redeem the house for an entire year, including the intercalated month.

8And Rabbi Abba bar Memel says: If two lambs were born to a single owner, one on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, and the other one on the first day of the second Adar, then the halakha is as follows: With regard to this lamb that was born on the first day of the second Adar, once the first day of Adar of the next year arrives, it is counted as though a full year has elapsed, and if it was a firstborn it should be sacrificed before that time arrives ab initio . With regard to this lamb that was born to him on the fifteenth day of the first Adar, it is not counted as though a full year has elapsed until the fifteenth day of Adar of the next year.

9Ravina again objects to this: But let the lamb that was born first say to the other lamb: I preceded you and ate vegetables before you, i.e., I was born first. The Gemara responds: This is due to the fact that the second lamb can say to the first: You descended to the world during the intercalated month, which is added to the year, whereas I did not descend to the world during the intercalated month.

10The Gemara asks: Why do I also need this second halakha ? This halakha with regard to the lambs is identical to that halakha concerning the houses. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that there, with regard to houses of walled cities, where it is written: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this is indeed the halakha , but here, with regard to lambs, where it is not written: A full year, perhaps this is not the case; Rabbi Abba bar Memel therefore teaches us that by means of a verbal analogy between the words “year” and “year” the two cases derive their halakhot from each other. With regard to houses of walled cities, it is written: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him” (Leviticus 25:30), and it is written with regard to lambs: “Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year” (Exodus 12:5).

11§ The mishna teaches: When it states: “A full year” (Leviticus 25:30), this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This serves to give the seller a year and its addition. With regard to this matter, the Sages taught in a baraita : “A full year”; Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This means that one counts 365 days, in accordance with the number of days in a solar year, which are eleven more than in a lunar year. And the Rabbis say: One counts twelve months from day to day, and if an additional month was intercalated into the year, then the month was intercalated to the benefit of the seller, i.e., he has thirteen months to redeem his house.

12§ The mishna teaches: If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, it becomes the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “In perpetuity [ latzemitut ]” (Leviticus 25:30). With regard to this matter, the Sages taught: “ Latzemitut ” means in perpetuity; that is, the seller can no longer redeem the house against the buyer’s will, nor does it return to his possession in the Jubilee Year. Another matter derived from this verse is that “ latzemitut ” serves to include a house given as a gift. What is the reason, i.e., how is this derived from “ latzemitut ”? The verse could have stated tzemit , but instead it states tzemitut . The expanded term serves to include a house given as a gift.

13The Sages said the above baraita before Rav Pappa, and then asked: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? Ostensibly, it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, doesn’t he say with regard to the return of an ancestral field in the Jubilee Year that a gift is not like a sale, i.e., an ancestral field given as a gift does not return to the original owner in the Jubilee Year? Likewise, a house in a walled city given as a gift should not become the perpetual property of the buyer after twelve months. Rav Pappa said: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it is different here, as the Merciful One includes a house given as a gift through the term “ latzemitut .”

14The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say that Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: But consider the case of the Jubilee Year, as it is written: “In this year of Jubilee you shall return every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves to include the gift, and yet Rabbi Meir does not include a gift. Rather, this baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.