Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 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.