Comentario sobre Levítico 25:26

ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גואל [AND] IF [A MAN] HAVE NONE TO REDEEM IT — But does there exist anyone in Israel who has none to redeem his property (who has no relative at all)? But the meaning is: a relative who is able (possesses the means) to redeem that which he has sold (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 2; cf. Kiddushin 21a).

ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גואל, "And if a man has no redeemer, etc." According to Sanhedrin 93 the Torah occasionally uses the word איש as a simile for G'd, such as in Exodus 15,3 ה׳ איש מלחמה. The Torah's message in this verse is that in the event no Jewish leader is at hand to arouse the people to return to G'd as penitents, this is no reason to abandon hope altogether. Rather, והשיגה ידו ומצא כדי גאולתו, the Jewish people will achieve their redemption by alternative means. Sanhedrin 98 describes both afflictions and national exile as means to bring about redemption. The expression והשיגה ידו may be understood as similar to Deut. 2,15: יד ה׳ היתה בם, "the hand of G'd was against them," a reference to G'd exacting retribution through exiling a nation under harsh conditions. Such an exile will eventually lead to redemption of the Holy Temple.

Who has no redeemers. I.e., is there any Jew who receives a portion in the land who does not have redeemers from the seed of Yaakov?

[Or] if the man has no redeemer. This is extra, and it comes to teach about the way of ethical discipline. The one who has no redeemer will achieve the means to redeem his land, for the one who has a redeemer upon whom he relies removes his trust from Hashem. This is not the case if someone has no one else to rely on; such a person finds shelter only with Hashem. It says here, “man,” which teaches that even one who trusts in Hashem must nonetheless be a “man,” one who recognizes his Creator and makes every effort in prayer and supplication from Hashem, Blessed be He.

והשיגה ידו, “and he had again become wealthy;” either because he inherited wealth, or because he found a treasure, for instance. He is not however, permitted to secure a loan in order to buy back his property with some else’s money. (Sifra)

Who can redeem. I.e., because they are poor. Re’m writes: But in Kiddushin (ibid.) it says, “Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], because he has permission [not to redeem].” [In fact], Rabbi Yehoshua [there] proves from this verse that the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” is voluntary. As he says there, “You [would] say it is voluntary. Or [perhaps] it is obligatory? The verse says, ‘If the man has no redeemer.’ Is there any person in Yisroel who has no redeemer? Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], he has the option [not to not redeem].” However, according to Rashi that having no redeemer means that he cannot afford it, this verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” would be no proof that it is optional, as perhaps it is obligatory, and what is the meaning of the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold”? That he has no redeemer who can afford it. But if so, according to Re’m, Rashi would be contradicting himself. Because above (verse 25) Rashi explains according to the opinion that it is voluntary [to redeem], as the Re’m explained, while here he explains according to the opinion that it is obligatory [to redeem]. Though we often find that Rashi explains sometimes like one opinion and sometimes like another even when they are apparently contradictory, but that is [only] in two [different] places [in Scripture]. But[to make such a claim that Rashi does so] in the same place like here, presents a difficulty. Therefore, it seems, unlike Re’m, that Rashi holds like the opinion that redemption is obligatory, and above too he learns that redemption is obligatory. You might ask: What is answered with this [Rashi’s answer]? Is there any Jew who has no redeemer wealthy enough to redeem his sale? The answer is that Rashi means as follows: He has no closest relative who can redeem his sale, since the obligation lies [only] on his closest relative, and that relative is not wealthy enough to redeem his sale. (Divrei Dovid) In parshas Naso (Bamidbar 5:8) Rashi asks this same question [regarding a case where there are no heirs to whom to return a stolen item], and he says that the verse there is speaking of a convert who has no heirs. That answer cannot be applied here in the case of an ancestral field, as a convert has no portion in the land of Yisroel. So answer Gur Aryeh and Maharan. I have difficulty with this, as a convert could own an ancestral field by gaining permanent ownership of a field he bought from a Jew in a walled city. [This could happin in a case where] hHe bought it from him and the seller did not come to him [to redeem] it within its [first] year, and it [then] belongs to him permanently. Then the convert left the field to his son who was born a Jew. This law would be applicable if the son of the convert sold [the field] to a Jew, as there would be no paternal relatives to redeem it. The answer is: Rashi prefers to learn the verse according to its plain meaning, as talking of a regular Jew [whose closest relative] cannot afford to redeem.

כדי גאולתו, “sufficient in order to redeem it.” This teaches that the redemption process cannot be exercised piecemeal.(Sifra) This would have implied that he resents the person who at the time when the seller had been in need, had bought the property from him.