Kommentar zu Wajikra 25:12

‎ קדש תהיה לכם IT SHALL BE HOLY UNTO YOU — The sacred character of the produce of that year attaches itself to its equivalent (i. e. to the articles given in exchange for it), just as is the case with Temple property (הקדש). One might think that after having been exchanged it (the fruit) leaves (loses) its sacred character and becomes חולין (ordinary produce), as is the case with many “holy” objects when they have thus been exchanged! Scripture, however, states תהיה “[holy] shall it be”, it shall always be in its original (holy) status (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 3; cf. Sukkah 40b).

OUT OF THE FIELD YE SHALL EAT THE INCREASE THEREOF. “By virtue of the produce to be found in the field, you may eat of what is in the house, but if it is no longer to be found by the beast in the field, you must remove it from the house, just as it is said in the case of the Sabbatical year.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, the verse is not well-connected [to the preceding part].¹⁶²The preceding part of the verse reads: For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy unto you. And then it continues: out of the field ye shall eat … Now according to Rashi’s interpretation there is no connection between these two parts of the verse. Instead, the verse is stating etc. Ramban, in other words, is explaining that the end of Verse 12 before us continues from the end of Verse 11 above, as stated in the text. Instead, Scripture is stating: Ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it …¹⁴⁷Verse 11. For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy unto you, and out of the field ye shall eat the increase thereof, and not out of the house. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted: “out of the field ye shall eat, out of what the field brings forth of its own accord you shall all eat, as is written in the case of the Sabbatical year.”
In my opinion Scripture is stating: “You shall not reap nor gather in this year, for it is a Jubilee and it shall be holy unto you; out of the field you shall bring the produce and eat, meaning: that you are to go forth into the field to glean and eat together with the poor and destitute, the beast and cattle, and it is not to be for you a time of reaping and gathering in the produce, and bringing it into your house and store-houses like the produce of all other years.” Now we are taught in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁶³Torath Kohanim, Behar 3:5. See above, Note 129. “From this the Sages have inferred that if one preserves three kinds of vegetables in a single barrel, Rabbi Elazar¹⁶⁴In Shevi’ith 9:5, and Pesachim 52 a: “Rabbi Eliezer.” says: ‘They may be eaten only as long as the first [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field’ [but as soon as one vegetable is no longer found in the field, all three are forbidden to be eaten, since by preserving them together he makes all three as one]. Rabbi Yehoshua says: ‘Even as long as the last [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field’ [they may all be eaten, although the first two vegetables are no longer to be found in the field]. Rabban Gamaliel says: ‘When any one of the species comes to an end in the field, he is to remove that kind from the house’. And the final decision of the law is according to him. Rabbi Shimon says: ‘All vegetables are considered one with regard to the law of Removal.’”¹⁶⁵Thus even though all the vegetables preserved in the barrel no longer remain in the field, as long as other kinds of vegetables are still found in the fields the law of Removal does not apply to those in the barrel [[illegible]] “for all vegetables are considered one with regard to the law of Removal.” All this interpretation is because Scripture does not say “out of the field you shall bring and eat,” but instead [said, out of the field ye shall eat, thus] placing “the eating” next to “the field,” meaning that one may eat [what is stored in the house] only because of it [that which is still to be found in the field]. It is possible that this matter¹⁶⁶I.e., the subject of Removal. See Ramban above at the end of Verse 7 in greater detail. is only a Scriptural support for a law of Rabbinic origin, and that is why Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient [even] about it [the actual vegetable], and Rabban Gamaliel [who was more stringent about it than Rabbi Yehoshua, also] was lenient about the taste [of the vegetable which remains in the other vegetables after it is taken out of the barrel]. I have already written on this subject above.¹⁶⁷Verse 7. It is possible that according to Rabban Gamaliel the commandment of Removal is by law of the Torah, but the taste of a vegetable, once it is absorbed [by other food] at the beginning [i.e., before the time of the Removal], is considered as if it were “removed” [since it is absorbed and has no independent existence].

קדש תהיה לכם מן השדה תאכלו, even though I forbade the owners to use this land for sowing and harvesting, and not to gather the fruit of the field as in other years, as in verse 11 where all manner of harvesting is enjoined, I did not forbid the owners to eat of its produce. They are not at a disadvantage compared to the general population who do not have a claim on their fields. The legislation parallels that of the sh’mittah legislation.

מן השדה תאכלו, and not anything which had been gathered into the houses by the owners of the fields which had been forbidden to have been gathered in the first place.

מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה, “you may eat whatever crop the field yields.” Rashi explains the wording to mean that as long as some food is found in the fields, food suitable for the beasts, any food of that year’s spontaneous crop taken indoors by man, may be eaten. When that period has come to an end, the householder has to burn whatever food of that field from that year has not been consumed. Nachmanides comments that if we accept Rashi’s interpretation the words מן השדה, “from the field” in our verse, are not connected to the beginning of the verse. The meaning of the words מן השדה would therefore be that only something grown at the initiative of the field itself, as distinct from the result of the farmer’s efforts are you allowed to eat. Ibn Ezra explains the verse simply as meaning that you may eat only what the field produces spontaneously without a farmer’s input. [He puts no time limit on the consumption of such produce. Ed.] It is like the rules of the sh’mittah year.(compare verses 6 and 7) Personally, (Tur speaking), the meaning of the verse is that you must not work the field during that year, neither plant nor harvest seeing that it is Jubilee year, and the year is to be holy for you; however you may bring in from the field whatever it has produced unaided by man. You are to share such produce in equal measure with the poor who may also help themselves to it. The usual seasons are not to be treated as such, i.e. there is no specific time frame during which the above applies, as opposed to normal years.

Its sanctity attaches its worth as Temple property [does]. Explanation: If one redeemed the fruit of the sabbatical year or JjubileeJubilee with money, this money attaches [to itself the] sanctity [of the fruits]. It is like hekdesh (Temple property) that was redeemed for its monetary worth, where the money is attached and become hekdesh.

מן השדה תאכלו, “you will eat from whatever the field yields on its own.” Nothing had been planted during that year, of course. The Torah promises that there will nonetheless be a harvest. However, we are not to bring that “harvest’’ home to our barns for storage., exclusively.” (Ibn Ezra).

מן השדה תאכלו את תבואתה YE SHALL EAT THE INCREASE THEREOF מן השדה — only by virtue of what is to be found in the field mayest thou eat of what is stored in the house; because if it (a particular fruit) has disappeared for food for the wild beasts in the field, you must clear it out of the house. Just as this is stated in reference to the produce of the Sabbatical year so is it slated also in reference to that of the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 4).

Perhaps it becomes common food? Like Temple property redeemed for its worth, where the money because attached in its stead and [the Temple property] becomes non-sanctified. [Perhaps] fruit of the sabbatical year is the same? The verse thus teaches, “It shall be,” [i.e., it remains sanctified.]

Just as it was said in regard to the seventh [year]. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain “Just as, etc.” He already explained this above regarding the untended vineyard? The answer is that this is proof to what he explained, “If [the crops] of the field have ended for the beast, you have to remove [crops that have been stored] from the house.” You might have asked, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps even if the crops have ended for the beast, you still do not have to remove [the crops] from the house. And when it is written, “Whatever is in the field, you may eat of its produce,” it means that what you bring from the field you [must] eat on that day, and [you may] not [eat] from what you stored of it in the house. [Rashi’s answer] is: Do you not agree that whatever is stated in regard to the sabbatical year, so too it is stated in regard to the Jubilee? And regarding the sabbatical year it is written (verse 7), “For your domesticated animals and for the [wild] beasts,” and Rashi asked, “If a [wild] beast may eat, certainly a domesticated animal”? And he answered, “[When the produce] is gone from the field for beasts, put at an end (to what you stored) for your domesticated animal [by removing it] from the house.” Thus, the same applies to the Jubilee. This is why Rashi said, “Just as it was said, etc.”