Talmud su Levitico 25:78

[The regulations regarding] a Hebrew slave¹An Israelite, according to the Rabbis, could become a slave either through being sold by the Beth Din to make restitution for a theft or through selling himself for a livelihood. and a slave whose ear is bored [nirẓa‘]²Because he refused to go free after six years’ service (Ex. 21, 5f.; Deut. 15, 16f.). are in force only when the Jubilee [is in force].³This apparently means, so long as the years from one Jubilee to the next are being officially counted, as laid down in Lev. 25, 8.
[The regulations regarding] a field of possession⁴Cf. ibid. XXVII, 16-21. A ‘field of possession’ is one that has been inherited as distinct from a ‘field of purchase’. and a field which had been devoted [to the Temple]⁵Cf. ibid. 28f. are in force only when the Jubilee [is in force]. R. Ishmael said: For that reason it is stated, As a field devoted; the possession thereof shall be the priest’s⁶ibid. 21.—as possession [depends] on the Jubilee, so a field which had been devoted [depends] on the Jubilee.⁷A field of possession which had been dedicated by the owner, then sold by the priests and not redeemed before the Jubilee. Such a field at the Jubilee became the property of the priest. Cf. Rashi on ibid. 16. The Jubilee is on the same footing as the New Year in regard to the blowing [of the shofar],⁸Cf. ibid. XXV, 9. and the benedictions,⁹[Nine blessings have to be said over the shofar as on the New Year; R.H. 26b (Sonc. ed., p. 120, n. 2).] except that [the blowing of] the shofar on the Jubilee overrides the Sabbath.^9a(9a) [The shofar is not blown on the day of the New Year which falls on the Sabbath.] When did the Jubilees cease [to be observed]? From the time when Pul and Tiglath-pileser, kings of Assyria, came up and carried the Reubenites, the Gaddites and half the tribe of Manasseh into captivity.¹⁰Cf. 2 Kings 15, 19, 29.

HALAKHAH: “Until when may one plough, etc.” It is written¹Shortened versions of this discussion are in the Babli, Roš Haššanah9b, Makkot 8b. In both places, the argument is attributed to the school of R. Aqiba. In Mekhilta deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai to 34:22, it is attributed to R. Jehudah. Practice noted in the next paragraph follows the school of R. Ismael as explained in Mishnah 5. (Ex. 23:12): “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall rest.” And it is written (Ex. 34:21): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting.²The argument is somewhat elliptic. Ex. 23:12 reads: “Six days you shall do your work but on the Seventh Day you shall cease, so that your donkey and your ox may rest and the son of your bondsmaid and the stranger may recuperate.” Ex. 34:21: “Six days you shall work; on the Seventh day you shall rest, from ploughing and harvesting you shall rest.” It would seem more natural to quote the second verse in toto; this is the approach of the commentaries which emend the first quote away but such an approach is impossible since our text clearly quotes two different verses. The explanation is in the Mekhiltot(deR.Ismael,Massekhta dekhas pa, p. 331; deR.Simeon bar Ioḥai,Mishpaṭim, p. 217): It says in the Ten Commandments, that “six days you shall labor and do all your work.” Hence, one could think that the Sabbath has to be kept only if all work is permitted on weekdays. This would exclude the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical year since most agricultural work is forbidden in the Sabbatical. Hence, the verse Ex. 23:12 is necessary to include the Sabbath days of the Sabbatical years; this only makes sure that Ex. 34:21 is redundant as far as both Sabbath day and Sabbatical year are concerned.” Where do we hold? If one speaks about the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day., was it not already said (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work?” If one speaks about Sabbatical years, was it not already said (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and six years you shall prune your vineyard?” If it cannot refer to the Sabbath of Creation nor to Sabbatical years, let it refer to the prohibition of the first two terms⁴The “two terms” are the two periods during which agricultural work has to cease before the onset of the Sabbatical year, one for orchards and one for fields.. “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Jonah said, our Mishnah speaks about poor ḥaverim, and about guests following Rebbi Joshua. It was stated⁶Tosephta Ma‘serot 2:1: “Donkey drivers and private persons on the road from place to place may eat and they are free (from the obligation to tithe) until they reach their destination. Therefore, if their host gave them a separate room and they stayed there overnight, they have to tithe, otherwise they are exempt. It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai at Beror Ḥayil, and some inhabitants of these localities brought them figs. They asked him, do we have to tithe? He said to them, if we stay overnight, we are obligated to tithe; otherwise, we are not obligated to tithe.” Because R. Joshua was such an important personality he and his students certainly were placed in a separate room; therefore, staying overnight alone creates the obligation of tithes. The obligation for heave and tithes only starts with the storage of the harvest. Since R. Joshua would not travel without a large group of students, keeping him overnight creates the duty to give heave and tithes. This is the explicit interpretation given in Yerushalmi Ma‘serot 2:3.: “It happened that Rebbi Joshua went to Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai in Beror Ḥayil⁷Neither name nor location of this place are certain but it is known that it was the home town of Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai., and some local people brought them fruits. Rebbi Joshua said to them, if they⁸His students. stay overnight, we are obliged to tithe; otherwise, we are not obliged to tithe.” Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah speaks about am haäreẓ poor. If you restrict to poor ḥaverim, you lock the door before am haäreẓ poor⁹If it becomes expensive to give to the am haäreẓ poor, nobody will give to them.. How does Rebbi Yose hold about “the stranger?¹⁰For R. Jonah, there is no problem; since the traveller is not really poor it is necessary to say that the Mishnah applies only to ḥaverim who will put their food in order. But why does R. Yose need to mention the traveller?” Following what was stated: “(Lev. 25:45) ‘Those who dwell among you,’ to include the stranger; Rebbi Eliezer said, that means the Gentile stranger.¹¹It is permitted to buy oneself goodwill with demay even though one may not satisfy a formal obligation with demay.”

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans⁵Cosmetics.? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you⁶“The Sabbath of the Land shall be for you (plural) to eat, for you (singular), your slave, and your hand-maiden, your hired hand and your (Gentile) resident who dwell with you.” The first “for you” seems to be superfluous. Since the verse gives permission to a slave owner to eat Sabbatical produce, it follows that the rich may eat. The poor are given permission to eat in Ex. 23:11: “The Seventh Year you shall let lie fallow and abandon it so that the needy of your people may eat; the remainder the wild animals of the field shall eat.” It is inferred that “for you” means all legitimate human needs that apply to all equally.. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia⁷See Berakhot, pp. 87, 501. תפילין is derived from Arabic תַּפִֹל “mal odorous”. which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state⁸A related text is in Tosephta 5:7: “Din,Bṣr, and indigo usually are sown after the end of the Sabbatical.” As R. S. Lieberman notes, the identity of the first two plants can no longer be established. The isatis plant is used as dye (indigo) but the seeds are good only for sowing. Hence, seeds harvested in the Sabbatical retain their Sabbatical quality even after the end of the year. {For דן cf. Arabic דאן “to be of inferior quality”, for צד Arabic צדא “rust”.}
The argument goes as follows: It is stated in Mishnah 8:1 that animal feed may be used to make wound dressing; only Sabbatical human food may not be used. In itself, animal feed has the sanctity of the Sabbatical and cannot be used for industrial purposes. Then one cannot understand why dyestuff seeds retain their sanctity but wound dressing does not. The answer is that the next argument will show that human needs have precedence over animal needs but once the product is no longer available for all of mankind it cannot have sanctity attached.: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7)⁹Sifra Behar Pereq 1(10). “For your domestic animal and the beast in your Land shall be all its yield as feed.” It is clear from the preceding verse that not all growth of the Sabbatical is for animals since humans were given prior permission to eat it. Therefore, the expression “shall be” is interpreted as: All that is not used for humans shall be animal feed.: “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it¹⁰For potential human food..

HALAKHAH: “They established a comprehensive principle for the Sabbatical,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rebbi Zeïra: Human and animal food is mentioned in the paragraph³Lev 25:6–7 “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl.) as food, for you (sing.), your slave, and your handmaid, your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you. Also for your (sing.) domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food.”. What reason do you have to say that from human food one cannot make a wound dressing but from animal feed one may make a wound dressing? He said to him (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion. It excludes human food that cannot be made into wound dressing. It also excludes animal feed! Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid⁵R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid.. Rebbi Yose did not say so, but (Lev. 25:6): “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you as food”, an exclusion, “for you, your slave, and your handmaid”, an exclusion after an exclusion, to add that human food cannot be made into wound dressing⁴Here we find an essential difference between the exegesis of Babli and Yerushalmi. In the Babli, a double restriction always means an addition, no restriction at all. For the Yerushalmi, any exclusion remains an exclusion; one adds exclusions that otherwise would not be thought of. The verse really contains more exclusions and inclusions: “The Land’s Sabbath shall be for you (pl.)”, not for the Gentile (Tosephta 5:21) but for all your needs (Mishnah 8:2), “as food”, not for industrial use and not for sacrifices [Sifra Behar 1(10)]. “For you (sing.), your slave, and your handmaid,” seems to be an addition since this allows rich people to eat Sabbatical produce [Sifra Behar 1(10)], even though it is written (Ex. 23:11): “Abandon the yield of the Sabbatical, so it may be eaten by the destitute of your people …” The verse here permits slaveholders, i. e., people of means, to eat Sabbatical produce. According to Mekhilta Mišpaṭim 20, still only poor people may eat Sabbatical produce under the obligation of removal. It follows that “you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is stated on condition that there be food for the wild animals, and can be considered a restriction. “Your hired hand and your sojourner who are dwelling with you” are Gentile employees hired for a period of time (“dwelling with you”), not hourly workers. They are exempt from the ban to give Sabbatical fruit to Gentiles. “Also for your domestic animals, as well as the wild animals in your land, shall all its yield be food,” domestic animals can be fed stored food in the stable only as long as they could find it in the fields by themselves.
The argument in the Halakhah seems to be the following: Since Sabbatical produce is “for you”, one could think that this (1) only excludes the Gentile, but a Jew may use Sabbatical produce for anything he needs. It is specified “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” which (2) excludes use of Sabbatical produce for any but human use. Wound dressings (as well as emetics) are used for human needs. If there were only one exclusion, I would include medical uses. But since there are two, one has to give an expansive interpretation of the exclusion; the only uses permitted are those needed equally by master and slave, the healthy and the sick. Therefore, medical (non-food) uses are forbidden, washing and heating is permitted. This argument is diametrically opposed to any Babylonian argument which treats two consecutive exclusions as inclusion.. He added animal feed! As Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, any interpretation you give which contradicts the prior interpretation is not valid⁵R. Bun bar Ḥiyya refutes the arguments of R. Zeïra and R. Yose: Since “for you, your slave, and your handmaid,” is a necessary addition, as explained above, to permit the rich person to eat, it cannot be treated as an exclusion. The explanations are invalid.. Rebbi Mattaniah said, when you did exclude, you excluded from human food; when you included, you included animal feed⁶It is enough to have one exclusion mentioned for humans; since there is no similar exclusion for animals, which have the right to Sabbatical produce whether owned by a Jew or not, it is reasonable to have a restrictive tradition for human food but not for animal feed..

HALAKHAH: Does the sanctity of the Sabbatical fall on dyes for humans⁵Cosmetics.? Let us hear from the following (Lev. 25:6): “For you”, all that is needed by you⁶“The Sabbath of the Land shall be for you (plural) to eat, for you (singular), your slave, and your hand-maiden, your hired hand and your (Gentile) resident who dwell with you.” The first “for you” seems to be superfluous. Since the verse gives permission to a slave owner to eat Sabbatical produce, it follows that the rich may eat. The poor are given permission to eat in Ex. 23:11: “The Seventh Year you shall let lie fallow and abandon it so that the needy of your people may eat; the remainder the wild animals of the field shall eat.” It is inferred that “for you” means all legitimate human needs that apply to all equally.. We have stated on that: For example eating, drinking, anointing, and coloring. This excludes wound dressing which is only for the sick. This excludes olentia⁷See Berakhot, pp. 87, 501. תפילין is derived from Arabic תַּפִֹל “mal odorous”. which are only for the malodorous. Rebbi Jonah asked: Why does one exclude wound dressing because the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall on it? But did we not state⁸A related text is in Tosephta 5:7: “Din,Bṣr, and indigo usually are sown after the end of the Sabbatical.” As R. S. Lieberman notes, the identity of the first two plants can no longer be established. The isatis plant is used as dye (indigo) but the seeds are good only for sowing. Hence, seeds harvested in the Sabbatical retain their Sabbatical quality even after the end of the year. {For דן cf. Arabic דאן “to be of inferior quality”, for צד Arabic צדא “rust”.}
The argument goes as follows: It is stated in Mishnah 8:1 that animal feed may be used to make wound dressing; only Sabbatical human food may not be used. In itself, animal feed has the sanctity of the Sabbatical and cannot be used for industrial purposes. Then one cannot understand why dyestuff seeds retain their sanctity but wound dressing does not. The answer is that the next argument will show that human needs have precedence over animal needs but once the product is no longer available for all of mankind it cannot have sanctity attached.: “Sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on din, sad, and indigo seed that one sows after the end of the Sabbatical.” What is that? “For you”, for all of you equally. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila understood it from the following (Lev. 25:7)⁹Sifra Behar Pereq 1(10). “For your domestic animal and the beast in your Land shall be all its yield as feed.” It is clear from the preceding verse that not all growth of the Sabbatical is for animals since humans were given prior permission to eat it. Therefore, the expression “shall be” is interpreted as: All that is not used for humans shall be animal feed.: “Shall be”, even to kindle the light and to dye. Does this not destroy animal feed? Rebbi Mana said, explain it if animal feed is used for human needs and you cannot infer anything from it¹⁰For potential human food..

HALAKHAH: “If the holiday of the New Year,” etc. Rebbi Abba bar Pappos said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish were sitting and questioning. They said, we have stated: “if the holiday of the New Year falls on a Sabbath, at the Temple they were blowing but not in the countryside.” If it is a word of the Torah, in the countryside it also should push aside⁴Since any positive commandment which must be performed at a fixed date pushes the Sabbath aside, such as the daily and Sabbath sacrifices in the Temple and circumcision on the eighth day.; if it is not a word of the Torah also in the Temple it should not push aside. Cahana passed by. They said, this is a [an important]⁵Corrector’s addition. man whom we may ask. They went and asked him. He said to them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding⁶In Num. 29:1, New Year’s Day is called a day of sounding, but in Lev. 23:24 it is remembrance of sounding.. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow. Rebbi Ze`ira told the colleagues to go and listen to Rebbi Levi preaching since it would be impossible that he would let a weekly reading go by without enlightenment. He came and said before them, one verse says, a day of sounding; another verse says, a remembrance of sounding. How is that? If it falls on a weekday, a day of sounding. If it falls on a Sabbath, a remembrance of sounding, one mentions it but does not blow⁷That this argument is treated as a novelty a full generation after R. Joḥanan shows that Cahana’s explanation was not disseminated.. Then also in the Temple it should not push aside⁸The Babli 29b accepts this as proof that the prohibition of blowing the shofar outside the Temple on the Sabbath must be purely rabbinic.. It was stated, on the first of the month⁹Both in Num. 29:1 and Lev. 23:24 this is the definition of the day.. Then also anywhere they know that it is the first of the month it should push aside¹⁰Since it is known with certainty which day is a Sabbath, but the exact date of New Year’s day depends on a declaration from the calendar court, it should be clear that at a distance from the court, in Temple times at a distance from Jerusalem, one cannot blow the shofar on a 30^th of Elul which is a Sabbath. (This argument is disputed in the Babli 29b).. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated, and you shall sacrifice¹¹Lev. 23:24., at the place where the sacrifices are offered. The colleagues said before Rebbi Jonah. Is it not written, you shall convey a sounding shofar in the seventh month¹²Lev. 25:9. The verse continues, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement,you shall convey a shofar in all your Land. There can be no doubt that on a day of Atonement in a Jubilee year which is a Sabbath the shofar has to be sounded in all the Land of Israel, not just at the Temple. Since it was established in Halakhah 3:5 that the rules of New Year’s Day and Day of Atonement in a Jubilee year are identical, there seems to be no reason not to blow the shofar on a Sabbath outside the Temple., etc? He said to them, this one you convey in all your Land, therefore not another one¹³While this argument is attributed here to an Amora of the generation before the last, it is given in Sifra Behar Parashah 2(5): “Why does the verse say, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement? Since it says, on the Day of Atonement, would I not know that it is on the tenth of the month? But to tell you that on the tenth of the month it pushes the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, but the sound of New Year’s day does not push the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, only at the place of the Court.” This argument justifies Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s decision to have the shofar blown at Jabneh.. They said to him, or we might say, this one you convey in your Land, therefore another one both in your Land and outside the Land. Rebbi Jonah said, if it were written “convey a shofar in your Land”, I would have said that here he restricted and at another place he extended. But in all your Land, here he extended and at another place he restricted¹³While this argument is attributed here to an Amora of the generation before the last, it is given in Sifra Behar Parashah 2(5): “Why does the verse say, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement? Since it says, on the Day of Atonement, would I not know that it is on the tenth of the month? But to tell you that on the tenth of the month it pushes the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, but the sound of New Year’s day does not push the Sabbath aside in all of your Land, only at the place of the Court.” This argument justifies Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai’s decision to have the shofar blown at Jabneh..

“What is increase?” It was stated¹²Babli 72a, Bava qamma 30b, Bava batra 94b; Yerushalmi Giṭṭin 4:4 (Notes 129,130), Pesaḥim 2:2 (29a l. 38).: A Jew who lent to another Jew with interest can collect neither principal¹³Not as a matter of biblical law but as a fine. For him, the court will refuse to look at a document containing a stated rate of interest which therefore becomes barred from any action needing the sanction of a court. nor interest, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, he may collect the capital but not the interest. ¹⁴Babli 60b. It is written: “Your money you shall not give him by biting¹⁵The reference includes the second half of Lev. 25:36, “and against increase do not give your food.”.” Not only money by biting and food by increase. From where increase in money and biting in food? The verse says, “do not take from him biting and increase,¹⁶Lev. 25:35, “and fear your God, I am the Eternal.” This establishes the prohibition of stated interest as a moral imperative, subject to the jurisdiction of Heaven, not the human court. The argument identifies תַּרְבִּית in v. 35 and מַרְבִּית in v. 36.” it brackets biting with increase and increase with biting. Since biting refers to money, increase also refers to money; since increase refers to food, biting also refers to food¹⁷In each case every instance of taking stated interest is two sins by one action..

Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture¹⁰It is not claimed that the rules of the Sabbatical year in the Second Commonwealth are biblical, only that they are inspired by the interpretation of biblical verses., and when they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture. When they forbade it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Lev. 25:3): “You shall rest from ploughing and harvesting,” from ploughing when harvesting is forbidden; what is this? This is ploughing in the year preceding the Sabbatical in preparation of the Sabbatical. And from harvesting when ploughing is forbidden, what is this? That is the harvest of Sabbatical growth after the Sabbatical. When they permitted it, they were inspired by Scripture, (Ex. 20:9): “Six days you shall labor and do all your work,” just as on the eve of the Sabbath of Creation³The Sabbath day. one may do work until sundown, also before the start of the Sabbatical year one may work until sundown¹¹Sundown of the eve of New Year’s Day.
The Babli (Mo‘ed qaṭan 3b–4a) has another interpretation, based on R. Ismael’s opinion in Mishnah 1:5. It cannot accept the interpretation here since in the theory of the Babli one is obliged by biblical decree to start Sabbath and holidays some time before sundown (Yoma 82b, Roš Haššanah 9a)..

MISHNAH: A Hebrew slave¹⁵⁰The rules are based on Ex. 21:2–6, Lev. 25:39–43, Deut. 15:12–18. The Lev. source clearly refers to the person who sells himself as indentured servant because he cannot fend for himself. Ex. 22:2 provides for judicial sale of the thief who cannot pay the required double restitution.
Separate rules for the Hebrew slave acquired by a Gentile are given in Lev. 25:47–54. In that case, the slave regains his freedom automatically only in the Jubilee year but the family can force his redemption by repaying the portion of his buying price not amortized by the time passed (Lev. 25:50). is acquired by money or a document; he regains his autonomy by years¹⁵¹The maximum time of a contract of an indentured servant was 6 years; Ex. 21:2, Deut. 15:12., or the Jubilee¹⁵²Lev. 25:40. Since the Jubilee brings back everybody to his ancestral land, everybody is presumed to be able to feed himself. The dependence of the rules of the Hebrew slave on the Jubilee implies that Hebrew slavery disappeared with the Jubilee; it never existed during the Second Commonwealth and is not to be re-instituted in the times of the Messiah (Ševi‘it 10:3, Notes 83–88; Giṭṭin 4:3, Note 65). The discussion about the rules of Hebrew male slavery are a purely theoretical reconstruction of the past whose interest is not in statements but in the rules of inference., or reduction of the amount¹⁵³If the slave or his family buy his freedom, the master is required to accept payment proportional to the time not yet served.. The Hebrew slave girl¹⁵⁴While the rules for the Hebrew slave girl are not tied to the Jubilee, the verses Deut. 15:12,17 equate the rules for male and female slaves. Therefore, all the detailed rules developed in this Halakhah are purely theoretical interpretations of the biblical text; they never were operational within the rabbinic framework. in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty¹⁵⁵While a father can forcibly marry off his daughter until she has reached adulthood (12 years six months and one day) he cannot sell her into slavery beyond adolescence (12 years and a day if she shows signs of puberty). He cannot sell her to work for longer than he had the right to sell.. The pierced slave is acquired by piercing¹⁵⁶The slave who does not want to regain his freedom after six years, whose earlobe is pierced (Ex. 21:6, Deut. 15:17).; he regains his autonomy in the Jubilee or by the master’s death¹⁵⁷Ex. 21:5, Deut. 15:16 make it clear that the relationship of the “pierced” slave to his master is a personal one, not transferable to his heirs..

HALAKHAH: “One may increase rental fees,” etc. It was stated³⁸Tosephta 4:4.: “If somebody sells a field to another and stipulates, on condition that I shall work it as a sharecropper, on condition that I shall be part owner, on condition that the tithes shall be mine³⁹Demay 6:3 (Notes 77,84); Babli Bava batra 63a. In this case, the seller must be a Cohen or Levite; he reserves for himself the place at which the grain used as tithe grows. The condition is impossible for an Israel since for him it would be a trade in futures which is null and void., on condition that if you sell it, you will sell it only to me, that anytime I want I may pay you back and take it; this is permitted.” ⁴⁰Babli 63a; Megillah 27b, Arakhin 31a.“If he owed him money and wrote his field over to him as a sale, any time the seller⁴¹The debtor. eats the yield it is permitted; any time the buyer⁴²The creditor who in the end will return the field to its owner and in the meantime receives the field’s yield as “premium for waiting.” eats the yield, it is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah says, in any case it is permitted. Rebbi Jehudah said, that is what Boethos ben Zenon did following the Sages³⁷In the Babli, 63a, ‘Arakhin 31a; Tosephta 4:2: On the instruction of R. Eleazar ben Azariah.. They said to him, is that a proof? The seller was eating the yield.” Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Eleazar, and Rebbi Hoshaia said, Rebbi Jehudah learned from the houses of walled cities⁴³Lev. 25:29–30. The sale of a house in a walled city implies an automatic right for the seller to buy back his house at the exact sale price during one full year. During that year, the buyer has the house as owner for his unrestricted use.. As it was stated: The year mentioned in the Torah regarding walled cities is like interest but it is not interest⁴⁴Since no interest rate was spelled out, no biblical prohibition was violated.. Another Tanna stated: This is interest but the Torah permitted it⁴⁵He holds that rabbinic interest prohibitions are basically biblical as long as they involve a clear “premium for waiting.” The only rabbinic interest prohibitions which are purely a “fence around the law” are those which only involve a possible, but not a certain, premium (such as “increase” defined in Mishnah 1.). He who said, it is like interest but it is not interest, Rebbi Meïr⁴⁶It seems that one has to switch the positions of R. Meïr (i. e., “the rabbis”) and R. Jehudah; cf. Babli ‘Arakhin 31a. E here has a lacuna.. He who said, this is interest but the Torah permitted it, Rebbi Jehudah⁴⁶It seems that one has to switch the positions of R. Meïr (i. e., “the rabbis”) and R. Jehudah; cf. Babli ‘Arakhin 31a. E here has a lacuna..⁴⁷E here has an addition: “What is R. Jehudah’s reason? Any interest which involves one permitted aspect is permitted.” The permitted aspect in this case is that the debtor decides not to repay his debt. Since the loan was structured as a conditional sale, the buyer retroactively is justified in harvesting the yield from the date of sale. This is Abbaye’s reading of R. Jehudah’s position in the Babli (63a); the addition seems to be a gloss by a student of the Babli. Rebbi Idi said, when I came from the Diaspora, I found that a case⁴⁸E has an addition: הַדָּר בַּחֲצַר חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ “about one who dwelt on another’s property without the latter’s knowledge.” If this addition be relevant, it must have been the creditor who lived on property which belonged to the debtor but was held by the latter neither for rental nor for his own use, cf. ברכיהו ליפשיץ מחזי כממון מחקרי תלמוד ג (2005) p. 438–460. was before Rebbi Immi of “it is like interest but it is not interest.⁴⁹It is more likely that the problem was a sale which in the end was rescinded but in the meantime the buyer lived in the house.” Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, they only said that “this is interest but the Torah permitted it.” There⁵⁰A house in a walled city, and the case before R. Immi was not in this category., the Torah permitted it, therefore not in any other case. Nevertheless, Rebbi Immi did not consider it⁵¹He ruled according to R. Jehudah., for he said: a house dwells with its inhabitants⁵²When the sale was rescinded, the full price was to be returned without any deductions for rental during the period in which the buyer used it. R. Immi did not necessarily follow R. Jehudah’s argument as presented in the Halakhah; he holds that an uninhabited house deteriorates much more than an inhabited one and, therefore, the buyer is due some consideration for the upkeep of the house. Then this consideration might as well be the entire rent.
E’s text contradicts the interpretation of J. N. Epstein in Tarbiz8 (1937) 395–397 who considers the case before R. Immi as antichretic lease (cf. 6:7, Notes 77–78 and Giṭṭin 4:6, Note 168.) But antichretic loans are endorsed in Mishnah 6:7 in certain cases..

HALAKHAH: “A Hebrew slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you,” he bracketed the male Hebrew with the female¹⁵⁹Deut. 15:12. The Babli, 14b, points out that the verse only covers persons sold by others, the girl by her father and the man by the court, not the person who sells himself. Sifry Deut. 118 disputes the entire argument and holds that the female had to be mentioned separately from the male since the rules of her acquisition and liberation are distinct from those of the male. (E. g., the female cannot sell herself; the adult female cannot be a Hebrew slave.). Since the female Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract, also the male Hebrew can be acquired by money or contract. One understands money since it is written¹⁶⁰Ex. 21:11. Since after six years, or after she reached adulthood, she leaves without payment, it follows that her work was worth money; cf. Note 18.: “She leaves gratis, without money [due].” From where by contract? The female Hebrew is inferred from the free woman¹⁶¹Ex. 21:10 equates the marriage of the Hebrew slave girl to her master to the latter’s marriage with another, free, woman. (Babli 16a; Mechilta dR. Šimon b.Jochai, ed. Epstein-Melamed, p. 167)., and the male Hebrew from the female. This is a combination of inferences. That follows Rebbi Aqiba who accepts combination of inferences¹⁶²Except for texts based on Lev. For the intricacies of his position, cf. H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164; Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, ed. Ph. Longworth, London 1966, pp. 171–196.
The problem before the rabbis of the second and third generations of Tannaïm was to derive a consistent legal system which intellectually could compete with the Roman law from the scattered remarks offered in the Biblical text. R. Ismael allows no more than one intermediate step between biblical text and legal statement.. Following Rebbi Ismael who rejects combination of inferences? It was found that Rebbi Ismael stated: In the case of the word חֻפְשָׁה, “free” is inferred from חֻפְשָׁה¹⁶³The expression חפשי is used in Ex. 21:2,5 in reference to the male Hebrew slave. In R. Ismael’s opinion, the ḥâruphah slave girl is a former Gentile who needs manumission (Notes 147,148) and חֻפְשָׁה mentioned in Lev. 19:20 is her bill of manumission. Since the Gentile slave girl can be manumitted by a document, it is concluded that the Hebrew slave can be acquired by a document. As noted later, this is a non sequitur.. Everywhere Rebbi Ismael rejects combination of inferences and here, he accepts combination of inferences? Rebbi Ismael stated it in the name of the Sages¹⁶⁴This translation follows the sentence structure of A.. From where is it derived for Rebbi Ismael? “Sending away, sending away.” Since “sending away” mentioned there means by a contract, also “sending away” here means by a contract¹⁶⁵Divorce, which requires a written document, is called “sending away” (of the wife) in Deut. 24:1. Therefore, the “sending away” of the Hebrew slave (Deut. 15:12,13) also refers to a written document. As noted immediately, this only would prove that the master can terminate the indenture by a written document, not that he could acquire the Hebrew’s services by a document.. But it does not compare. There it is to gain autonomy, here it is to be acquired by others! Rebbi Mattaniah¹⁶⁶In A: “Rebbi said, a baraita.” This reading is preferable since a fifth-generation Amora is unlikely to appear in a Tannaïtic discussion. said, “sale, sale”¹⁶⁷In Lev. 25:42 it is stated that a Hebrew “shall not be sold as in the sale of a [Gentile] slave.” In Deut. 15:12 it says, “If your Hebrew brother or sister be sold to you.” It is an accepted principle (Sifry Deut. 72, Yerushalmi Baba batra 8:5 (16b), Babli Temurah5a) that if the verse notes that “something shall not be done,” if it is done it is sinful but legally valid since an invalid action does not have to be forbidden. Since the Gentile slave can be bought by contract (Mishnah 3), the Hebrew slave also can be bought by contract. The question remains whether he can be bought by contract without the buyer sinning.. Since “sale” mentioned there means by a contract, “sale” here also means by a contract. But since there¹⁶⁸Since the laws regarding Gentile slaves in general follow the rules of real estate, undisturbed possession for three years accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition legally establishes ownership. Nobody claims that the same holds for Hebrew slaves. it is possible by possession, then here it should be possible by possession. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada¹⁶⁹A: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba (an Amora of the third generation). The reading of L is the only one acceptable, referring to R. Ḥiyya bar Ada I, of the generation of transition between Tannaïm and Amoraïm. said, the male Hebrew is like the female Hebrew¹⁷⁰This essentially is the argument given at the start of this paragraph, Note 159. The reason for the female to be mentioned in Deut. 15:12 at the start of rules mostly dealing only with the male, is to transfer the rules of acquisition from the female to the male..

HALAKHAH: “If somebody hired tradesmen,” etc. Rav said, “because the Children of Israel are My servants²⁸Lev. 25:55.,” Jews cannot buy one another. Rebbi Joḥanan said, this was stated about a Hebrew slave²⁹The verse is in the paragraph about a Hebrew slave of a Gentile, who has to be freed in the Jubilee year.. In Rav’s opinion, both a worker and an employer can back out; in Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion the worker can back out but not the employer³⁰It seems that the attributions have to be switched. Rav, who quotes the verse, holds that a contract which bars a worker from quitting his job is invalid as “stipulating against the words of the Torah”, must hold that any employment contract which specifies a fixed term of employment can be enforced only against the employer, not the employee. In the Babli 10a this is universally accepted. This does not exclude that the worker who quits his job in the middle of work be financially disadvantaged (Babli 77a). R. Joḥanan, who holds that the verse is irrelevant in the context, must read the Mishnaiot as applying both to contractors and workers; both can renege on their obligations if they accept the penalties spelled out there..

Rebbi Ḥuna said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes [are from their words, it is understandable that Hillel instituted prozbol. But following him who says tithes] are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah⁸⁴The disagreement about tithes is between R. Yose ben R. Ḥanina and R. Eleazar in Halakhah 6:1 (Note 11). “Their words” are the rabbinic institutions.? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah [because it is an obligation of the person⁸⁵While this may be the correct reason, the language is Babylonian rabbinic Hebrew; the insert probably is a gloss that found its way into the text. In Sifry Deut. 111, the reason given is not this logical argument but the verse (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission: every creditor remit what is in his hand, what he loaned to his fellow; he shall not press his fellow because a remission was declared for the Eternal.” Since God is Lord over the universe, remission is applicable everywhere in the universe.]? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment⁸⁶Agricultural Sabbatical. is followed as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There⁸⁷Babylonia. The Babli (Giṭṭin36a) quotes only Rebbi’s statement below. The commentators of the Babli assume that the majority of rabbis oppose Rebbi. There seems to be no basis for that assumption. The sketchy treatment of the subject in the Babli is explained by Meïri (Magen Avot, ed. Last, London 1909, Chap. 15.)., they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. As we have stated (Deut. 15:2): “this is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, these two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “[All its] inhabitants.⁸⁸From here to the end of the Halakhah, the argument is also in Babli Arakhin 32b and Sifra Behar Pereq2(3). The verse reads: “You shall sanctify the fiftieth year and call freedom for all its inhabitants, a Jubilee it shall be for you so that everybody return to his ancestral land, everybody return to his family.” “Ancestral land” is the plot given to the family in the original distribution after the conquest. It follows that there can be no Jubilee if the distribution of land by Joshua is no longer known.” In the time when its inhabitants lived on it, not when they went into exile. If they lived on it but intermingled, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee is operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

“By money”. “The money of his sale price shall be;”¹⁷²Lev. 25:50, speaking of the redemption of a Hebrew slave from his Gentile master by his family. he can be redeemed by money, not by produce nor by vessels¹⁷³Babli 8a, Sifra Behar Pereq 8(4).. Everywhere you treat money’s worth like money, but here you do not treat money’s worth like money. Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, because the verse repeated “money, of money”¹⁷⁴The first כסף is from Lev. 25:50, the second (read מכסף for בכסף) Lev. 25:52, about the same subject. The repetition shows that the redemption can be forced only by payment in cash.. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said¹⁷⁵Text of A: א״ר חײא בר אדא, preferred over L: “Even R. Ḥiyya bar Ada will agree.”, but if he wants to reduce, he can leave for the reduced amount even for produce, even for vessels¹⁷⁶The cash requirement applies only to redemption by his family. If the slave himself buys his freedom, he can offer valuables instead of money.. Rebbi Yudan, Rebbi Mattaniah’s father, said that this is only if he did not give them their money’s worth¹⁷⁶The cash requirement applies only to redemption by his family. If the slave himself buys his freedom, he can offer valuables instead of money.. But if he gave them their money’s worth, it is like money.

From where for remission of debts? At the end of seven years make remission of debts¹⁸⁰Deut. 15:1. Different Babli 8b.. Since years are counted from Tishre, also remission of debts is counted from Tishre. For Jubilee periods¹⁸¹Note the spelling which indicates a pronunciation yubilot. from where? You shall count for yourselves seven Sabbatical periods of year, seven years seven times¹⁸²Lev. 25:8.. Since years and Sabbaticals are counted from Tishre, also Jubilee periods are counted from Tishre. They objected, is it not written¹⁸³Lev. 25:9. The objection is from the part of the verse not quoted, that the proclamation of the Jubilee is made on the day of Atonement, not on New Year’s Day., you shall sound the shofar of cheer in the seventh month, etc. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: So that all months of the year be equal and no month be divided into two years¹⁸⁴Since months follow the moon and years the sun, there is no intrinsic reason to adapt months to years.. They objected, did we not state, “on the first of Shevaṭ is New Year for trees following the House of Shammai; the House of Hillel say, on the fifteenth of it”? Then not all months of the year are equal and a month is divided into two years¹⁸⁵For the House of Hillel the reason given to prefer New Year’s day to the Day of Atonement does not hold. In effect the first 10 days of the Jubilee are somewhat in limbo; the laws of the Jubilee are
enforceable only after the Day of Atonement. Babli 8b..

From where for remission of debts? At the end of seven years make remission of debts¹⁸⁰Deut. 15:1. Different Babli 8b.. Since years are counted from Tishre, also remission of debts is counted from Tishre. For Jubilee periods¹⁸¹Note the spelling which indicates a pronunciation yubilot. from where? You shall count for yourselves seven Sabbatical periods of year, seven years seven times¹⁸²Lev. 25:8.. Since years and Sabbaticals are counted from Tishre, also Jubilee periods are counted from Tishre. They objected, is it not written¹⁸³Lev. 25:9. The objection is from the part of the verse not quoted, that the proclamation of the Jubilee is made on the day of Atonement, not on New Year’s Day., you shall sound the shofar of cheer in the seventh month, etc. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose, both in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: So that all months of the year be equal and no month be divided into two years¹⁸⁴Since months follow the moon and years the sun, there is no intrinsic reason to adapt months to years.. They objected, did we not state, “on the first of Shevaṭ is New Year for trees following the House of Shammai; the House of Hillel say, on the fifteenth of it”? Then not all months of the year are equal and a month is divided into two years¹⁸⁵For the House of Hillel the reason given to prefer New Year’s day to the Day of Atonement does not hold. In effect the first 10 days of the Jubilee are somewhat in limbo; the laws of the Jubilee are
enforceable only after the Day of Atonement. Babli 8b..

Rebbi Ammi asked before Rebbi Joḥanan: Does our Mishnah go back to the time before they decreed about spontaneous growth³⁴Lev. 25:5 reads: “The spontaneous growth of your grain you should not harvest …” On this, Sifra Behar1(3) comments: From here the Sages found support to forbid spontaneous growth in the Sabbatical. The verse forbids only commercial harvest of grain. R. Ammi notes that the leaves of Arum whose roots were in the earth long before the Sabbatical must have the status of spontaneous growth of vegetable.? He said to him, where you there on the upper floor³⁵In all cases where details of the enactment of rabbinical prohibitions have come down to us, the vote was taken on the upper floor of some house. R. Joḥanan notes that no record of such a vote is available.? Rebbi Ammi inferred that the prohibition of spontaneous growth is from the Torah³⁶The different positions in this matter will be described in Chapter Nine..

It was stated⁶⁵Cf. Peah 4:5, Notes 90–92.: If a field⁶⁶A grain field in the Land of Israel. “One-third ripe” means that the grains are fully formed and one-third ripe; not that one third of the growing period has passed. For grain, “one-third ripe” is the Biblical standard for grain that might be harvested, cf. Ma‘serot Chapter 1, Note 78, Ševi‘it Chapter 2, Notes 63,77. became one-third ripe in the possession of a Gentile and a Jew bought it from him, Rebbi Aqiba says the addition is free. But the Sages say, the addition is obligated. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Also the Sages did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁶⁷The status of grain as far as second tithe or tithe of the poor is concerned is determined by the time it is one-third ripe, rather than by the time of harvest. In this respect, the rules of tithing follow the rules of the Sabbatical.. It was stated⁶⁸Sifra Behar (9). There, the name is R. Jonathan ben Joseph, a Tanna of the fourth generation who also is quoted as R. Natan ben Joseph.: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose says, from where that grain one-third ripe before New Year’s day may be brought in during the Sabbatical? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): “You shall gather its⁶⁹The sixth year’s. yield,” [even] in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Abina, Ulla ben Rebbi Israel in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba said, you follow the first third, so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose said, you follow the first third. Rebbi Zeїra said to Rebbi Abina, you say two things which contradict one another. Here you teach that the Sages also did obligate only for the past; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁰If the Sages determine the rules of tithes by the time the grains were one-third ripe, there is no proof that R. Jonathan ben R. Yose follows R. Aqiba where the latter disagrees with the Sages. Therefore, R. Eleazar should hold that for the Sages, only the time of the actual harvest and threshing is relevant.. There, you teach that Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. If Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose follows the argument of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba then just as Rebbi Aqiba says the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah⁷¹Sifra Behar Pereq 4(5); Babli Pesaḥim 51b., so Rebbi Jonathan ben Rebbi Yose must say, the prohibition of aftergrowth is from the Torah. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the Sabbatical, in the Sabbatical it is forbidden⁷²Following R. Aqiba and R. Jonathan ben R. Yose. as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical did not fall on it since it was grass on which the sanctity of the Sabbatical cannot fall⁷³If the grain was collected as fodder before it was fully ripe for human consumption. It would be forbidden to use the unripe grain as Grünkern, cf. Peah 4:6, Note 86.. If it grew less than one-third ripe before the eighth year, in the eighth year it is permitted as aftergrowth but the sanctity of the Sabbatical falls on it⁷⁴It should be eaten following the rules of the Sabbatical.. Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that the Sages agree with Rebbi Aqiba in the order of years; if it was second it remains second, for the poor it remains for the poor⁷⁵They disagree that grain one-third ripened in the possession of the Gentile should be exempt but they admit that the kind of second tithe to be given depends on the year in which the grain was edible as Grünkern..

He who is sold for committing a theft should not be sold either in the market-place or in a bazaar, as it is stated, For unto Me the children of Israel are servants.⁸Lev. 25, 55. They must be treated as human beings and not as chattels.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, “or buying from your neighbor’s hand”⁶⁰Lev. 25:14, containing the prohibition of overcharging or underpaying in commercial transactions., from you neighbor’s hand you need an act of acquisition; you do not need an act of acquisition from the Gentile’s hand⁶¹The principle that in biblical law payment transfers not only ownership but also possession is restricted to transactions involving Gentiles; for transactions between Jews the transfer needs an actual “taking” from the prior owner’s hand; Babli 47b.. In Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion, why does one deliver a person to “Him Who exacted retribution”⁶²Since a deal between Jews is not valid in biblical law without actual transfer, why should the court be involved in a dispute regarding such a deal? E reads here: why does one not deliver a person to “Him Who …”?? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, it follows the Tanna who stated: “Nobody dealing in words only may one deliver to “Him Who exacted retribution”^45,Sevi‘it 10:9, Notes 129–130; Babli 49a, Tosephta 3:14. As long as there was no action of acquisition, the person who goes back on his word can be considered untrustworthy but is not subject to judicial censure.⁶³This Tanna holds that taking the money is a “transfer from hand to hand”, which gives the transaction biblical status. The only case which the court will refuse to hear is one where no concrete action has yet taken place..

“Or the Jubilee,” as it is written, “in the Jubilee he shall leave.”²⁰²Lev. 25:31. This quote does not make sense since it refers to real estate transactions. The correct quotes are Lev. 25:40 for the slave sold to an Israel and Lev. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile. Babli 16a. “Or reduction of the amount,” as it is written: “If there still are many years²⁰³Lev. 25:51–52; Sifra Behar Pereq8(5). The biblical text is unusually wordy, stating that the redemption price is high if many years of service remain and low if few years remain..” Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and if there are few there are not many? Rebbi Hila said, sometimes the years are worth more than the wages, sometimes the wages are worth more than the years. How do you explain the following? If he was sold for a mina²⁰⁴The Greek Μνᾶ of 100 drachmas each, not the Babylonian מָנֶה of 60 šeqel. each and improved so that now he is worth 200 each, from where that one computes for him only by a mina each? The verse says, “according to the years he shall compute his redemption²⁰⁵Lev. 25:52. In the Babli 20a and ‘Arakhin 30a, the proof is from v. 51: “He shall compute the amount of his redemption from the amount for which he was bought.” There is an additional text: From where that if he was sold for 200 denars each but now he is worth only a mina, one computes a mina per year, the verse says “according to the years he shall compute his redemption.” If this passage also was in the Yerushalmi text, it must have disappeared already from the common source of A and L..” We learned that one sold to a Gentile is advantaged²⁰⁶In that his redemption price is determined by law from the original sale price; there can be no haggling over the amount. when he comes to be redeemed. From where that one sold to an Israel is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed? “Hireling, hireling”²⁰⁷The slave has to be treated like a hireling; Lev. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile, Lev. 25:40 for the one sold to an Israel. Sifra Behar Pereq 8(6). for an equal cut. Since the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to a Gentile, so too the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to an Israel. Rebbi says, why does the verse say “he shall be redeemed, he shall be redeemed,” three times? To add all redemptions that they have to follow this order²⁰⁹Sifra Behar Pereq 8(3), an anonymous statement..

“Or the Jubilee,” as it is written, “in the Jubilee he shall leave.”²⁰²Lev. 25:31. This quote does not make sense since it refers to real estate transactions. The correct quotes are Lev. 25:40 for the slave sold to an Israel and Lev. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile. Babli 16a. “Or reduction of the amount,” as it is written: “If there still are many years²⁰³Lev. 25:51–52; Sifra Behar Pereq8(5). The biblical text is unusually wordy, stating that the redemption price is high if many years of service remain and low if few years remain..” Do we not know that if there are many there are not few, and if there are few there are not many? Rebbi Hila said, sometimes the years are worth more than the wages, sometimes the wages are worth more than the years. How do you explain the following? If he was sold for a mina²⁰⁴The Greek Μνᾶ of 100 drachmas each, not the Babylonian מָנֶה of 60 šeqel. each and improved so that now he is worth 200 each, from where that one computes for him only by a mina each? The verse says, “according to the years he shall compute his redemption²⁰⁵Lev. 25:52. In the Babli 20a and ‘Arakhin 30a, the proof is from v. 51: “He shall compute the amount of his redemption from the amount for which he was bought.” There is an additional text: From where that if he was sold for 200 denars each but now he is worth only a mina, one computes a mina per year, the verse says “according to the years he shall compute his redemption.” If this passage also was in the Yerushalmi text, it must have disappeared already from the common source of A and L..” We learned that one sold to a Gentile is advantaged²⁰⁶In that his redemption price is determined by law from the original sale price; there can be no haggling over the amount. when he comes to be redeemed. From where that one sold to an Israel is advantaged when he comes to be redeemed? “Hireling, hireling”²⁰⁷The slave has to be treated like a hireling; Lev. 25:53 for the one sold to a Gentile, Lev. 25:40 for the one sold to an Israel. Sifra Behar Pereq 8(6). for an equal cut. Since the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to a Gentile, so too the hireling is advantaged in redemption when he is sold to an Israel. Rebbi says, why does the verse say “he shall be redeemed, he shall be redeemed,” three times? To add all redemptions that they have to follow this order²⁰⁹Sifra Behar Pereq 8(3), an anonymous statement..

“If he be not redeemed by these²¹⁰Lev. 25:54..” ²¹¹Babli 15b, Sifra Behar Pereq9(1). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude²¹²“These” are the family members mentioned in vv. 48–49, who are required to buy him back from the Gentile. If he is bought from the Gentile by an unrelated Jew, he has to serve as a Hebrew slave either for six years or until the Jubilee,. Rebbi Aqiba says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves²¹³The verse reads: “Unless he be redeemed by these, he leaves in the Jubilee year.” If “these” are the modalities of redemption detailed in vv. 48–52, then the meaning is that the Hebrew slave of the Gentile leaves his service in the Jubilee year. But if “these” are persons, then there must be a case when the slave is redeemed from the Gentile and nevertheless has to serve until the Jubilee.. Rebbi Aqiba interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these”, by these he completes^213aThe translation follows A. before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Yasa²¹⁴In the Babli: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom²¹⁵They read “these” as the modalities of his redemption, Note 213.. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,²¹⁶Lev. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid.” his own hand²¹⁷Sifra Behar Pereq 5(2).. “Or he found for his redemption²¹⁶Lev. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid..” Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for ‘orlah⁹⁰Nowhere is “field” mentioned in the verses defining ‘orlah. but free from tithes since it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all yield of your seeds which comes from the field.” For the Sabbatical it is problematic⁹¹Whether the Sabbatical restrictions apply to fruit-bearing house plants. since it is written (Lev. 25:5): “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.” And it is written (Lev. 25:6): “You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.”

“If he be not redeemed by these²¹⁰Lev. 25:54..” ²¹¹Babli 15b, Sifra Behar Pereq9(1). Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, by these to freedom, by all others to servitude²¹²“These” are the family members mentioned in vv. 48–49, who are required to buy him back from the Gentile. If he is bought from the Gentile by an unrelated Jew, he has to serve as a Hebrew slave either for six years or until the Jubilee,. Rebbi Aqiba says, by these to servitude, by all others to freedom. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both interpret the same verse: “Unless he be redeemed by these.” Rebbi Yose the Galilean interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these” but by others he is made to serve before he leaves²¹³The verse reads: “Unless he be redeemed by these, he leaves in the Jubilee year.” If “these” are the modalities of redemption detailed in vv. 48–52, then the meaning is that the Hebrew slave of the Gentile leaves his service in the Jubilee year. But if “these” are persons, then there must be a case when the slave is redeemed from the Gentile and nevertheless has to serve until the Jubilee.. Rebbi Aqiba interprets: “Unless he be redeemed by these”, by these he completes^213aThe translation follows A. before he leaves. The words of the Sages? Rebbi Yasa²¹⁴In the Babli: R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: In both cases to freedom²¹⁵They read “these” as the modalities of his redemption, Note 213.. It was stated thus: “If his hand achieves,²¹⁶Lev. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid.” his own hand²¹⁷Sifra Behar Pereq 5(2).. “Or he found for his redemption²¹⁶Lev. 25:26, referring to the right of a farmer to buy back his ancestral land for the prorated price the buyer had paid..” Since his own hand achieves for himself, what others achieve also is for himself.

Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Yannai: A tree planted inside a house is obligated for ‘orlah⁹⁰Nowhere is “field” mentioned in the verses defining ‘orlah. but free from tithes since it is written (Deut. 14:22): “You shall certainly tithe all yield of your seeds which comes from the field.” For the Sabbatical it is problematic⁹¹Whether the Sabbatical restrictions apply to fruit-bearing house plants. since it is written (Lev. 25:5): “The Land shall celebrate a Sabbath for the Eternal.” And it is written (Lev. 25:6): “You shall not sow your field nor prune your vineyard.”

Samuel bar Abba asked before Rebbi Yose: There it is written “he computes” and here it is written “he computes”²²⁴The person who sells of his ancestral property until the Jubilee “computes the years of sale” when he buys the property back (Lev. 25:27). Since sale of agricultural property is a sale of harvests (Lev. 25:15) it is clear that the right of redemption can be exercised only between harvest and the next sowing. Only full years are counted. But the redemption of the Hebrew slave of a Gentile is possible at all times and, therefore, the amount due changes every month.. Here you compute months and years so he may leave, there you do not compute months and years so he may leave. He said to him, the difference is that the Torah compared him to the hireling²²⁵Lev. 25:53, even though the verse refers to “a hireling on a yearly contract.”. Since the latter computes months and years and leaves, so this one computes months and years and leaves.

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his maternal brother’s wife¹⁷⁴From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. It is said here his aunt, and it is said there¹⁷⁵Lev. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal sister¹⁷⁶In Sanhedrin: His paternal uncle’s wife. This is more appropriate for the argument here since his father’s or mother’s sisters are forbidden by Lev. 18:12,13 and the prohibition is unproblematic.. Also his brother’s wife¹⁷⁷Who is forbidden in Lev. 18:16. can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? As Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there¹⁷⁸Lev. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah¹⁷⁹In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19), to whom relations with her husband are forbidden, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot 54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden.¹⁸⁰The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45). This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden¹⁸¹But for whom no punishment is spelled out..

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹⁹⁸If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹⁹⁹From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Moˋed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹Lev. 25:4., detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide²⁰²To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³For R. Joḥanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the soil (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard²⁰⁴Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited.
Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim.). Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷This refers to R. Yose’s opinion, that sowing and pruning are forbidden in the Sabbatical but these and all other agricultural work are violations of the positive commandment to give rest to the Land..

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹⁹⁸If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹⁹⁹From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Moˋed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹Lev. 25:4., detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide²⁰²To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³For R. Joḥanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the soil (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard²⁰⁴Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited.
Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim.). Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷This refers to R. Yose’s opinion, that sowing and pruning are forbidden in the Sabbatical but these and all other agricultural work are violations of the positive commandment to give rest to the Land..

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹⁹⁸If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹⁹⁹From here to the end of the discussion there exists a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Moˋed qaṭan 3a). The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune²⁰¹Lev. 25:4., detail. Sowing and pruning were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since sowing and pruning are particular in that they perform work on the soil or on a tree, I have only what is work on the soil or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion do they not divide²⁰²To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.? He holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, are they not for making inferences? There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. Rebbi Eleazar said, a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it^202*During the Sabbatical year.? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions²⁰³For R. Joḥanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the soil (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard²⁰⁴Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical at all. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment²⁰⁵As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Sanhedrin 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment²⁰⁶He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited.
Since R. Yose was R. Jeremiah’s student, he should be mentioned after his teacher (which he is both in Sanhedrin and Kilaim.). Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Why is it written that the Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal²⁰⁰Lev. 25:2.? That is for the prohibition implied by it²⁰⁷This refers to R. Yose’s opinion, that sowing and pruning are forbidden in the Sabbatical but these and all other agricultural work are violations of the positive commandment to give rest to the Land..

It is written: “His master shall bring him to the judges, or he shall bring him to the door²⁸⁹Ex.. 21:6..” How is that? The one who was sold by the court, “his master shall bring him to the judges.” The one who sold himself, “or he shall bring him to the door.”²⁹⁰Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2; but in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) even the private act of piercing needs a public act in court. Rebbi Immi asked: It is obvious that the court writes the contract for him who was sold by the court. Who is writing the contract for him who sells himself?²⁹¹No answer is given since in a private transaction any one of the parties may write the contract. It is written: “It shall not be hard in your eyes to send him away free from you; for twice the hire of a hireling he served you for six years.” The hired hand works during the day; he does not work in the night. The Hebrew slave works both day and night. It is written: “He shall not treat him harshly before your eyes²⁹²Lev. 25:53.,” and you say so²⁹³It certainly is forbidden to ask more than a full day’s work from any slave, whether Hebrew or not.? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: His master marries him to a Canaanite slave; it turns out that he serves him day and night²⁹⁴Since in the night he produces slave children for his master.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked before Rebbi Immi: Think of it, if he was buying a Cohen²⁹⁵Since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee, certainly a slave woman is forbidden to him.! He answered him: Would the case of an Israel not also be permission of something prohibited following Rebbi Simeon²⁹⁶The slave woman is not more strictly forbidden to the Cohen than she is to the Israel. According to R. Simeon, children of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother have no family relationship with their father; children of a Jewish father and Gentile mother have no family relationship with their father; the latter statement includes slave women who as yet are not fully Jewish (cf. Yebamot 4:15,7:6 Note 135). Therefore, if the slave woman is temporarily permitted to the Israel, she also is temporarily permitted to the Cohen slave. The woman is not married to the slave in legal terms since at the moment when the slave regains his freedom she automatically becomes forbidden to him and permitted to others without a bill of divorce.
In the Babli, 21b, only Rav holds that the Canaanite woman was permitted to the Cohen while Samuel disagrees.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamai here changed his mind.

Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Abun²⁹⁷In the Babli, 21b, and Sifry Deut. #122, he seems to be identified as R. Jehudah (bar Ilai); explicitly so in Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2. The opinion ascribed here to R. Meïr there is that of the anonymous Sages. preached: The earlobe was pierced, lest a Cohen become disqualified. Rebbi Meïr says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rebbi Meïr says that a Cohen cannot be pierced lest he become blemished and be disqualified for service²⁹⁸Mishnah Bekhorot 6:1 notes that both sacrificial animal and priest are disqualified for Divine service if the cartilage of their ears be punctured in the size of a vetch seed.. Could not the cartilage be pierced less than the size of a vetch seed? Maybe it would result in the size of a vetch seed. Let it be the size of a vetch! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance²⁹⁹Lev. 25:27. This is the wrong quote since it refers to real estate returned to its original owner in the Jubilee. The verse referring to the Hebrew slave released in the Jubilee is v. 41, “he shall return to his family, to his forefathers’ inheritance he shall return.” The inheritance of a priest is the Divine service (Num. 18:20).,” as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children³⁰⁰A Jewish wife and children, whom he is unable to support by himself. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin2, dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.. “By an awl”³⁰¹Ex. 21:6.. Not only an awl, from where even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass? The verse says, “he pierces”³⁰²This interpretation seems to be the reason for the masoretic accents which introduce a dividing accent: “he shall pierce his ear, with an awl”, taking “as an awl” as an afterthought. The Babli, 21b, refers to Deut 15:17: “You shall take the awl,” anything that can be used to serve as an awl.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.

“He regains his autonomy in the Jubilee,” as it is written: “He leaves in the Jubilee together with his children³²⁶Lev. 25:54. The text is misquoted; it reads וְיָצָא בִּשְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל “he leaves in the Jubilee year.”.” “Or at the master’s death,” as it is written: “He shall be for you a perpetual slave,³²⁷Deut. 15:17. In contrast to the slave indentured for six years, the “pierced slave” does not serve the son. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, end; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 164; Sifry Deut. #121.” all the days of his master’s lifetime.

HALAKHAH: Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Simeon⁶⁸It seems that this refers to the next Mishnah, that one may no longer eat of any kind if all remaining produce is on guarded fields not abandoned to the public and guarded against intrusion of wildlife.. It is written⁶⁹Sifra Behar Pereq 3(4). This derivation is accepted by everybody. (Lev. 25:12): “From the field you should eat its yield.” Any time you find food on the field, you can eat from the house. If it is finished on the field, it is finished in the house. What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon? You caused yourself not to eat⁷⁰Since you did riot obey the injunction to abandon your crop to the public and to wildlife, you cannot use that crop as an excuse to continue eating Sabbatical produce..

⁶⁶Ševi‘it 10:3, explained there in Notes 83–88. The Leiden ms. is denoted by ל, the Rome ms. by ר. Rav Huna⁶⁷The readings from Ševi‘it, “Rebbi Ḥuna”, “Rebbi Jacob”, are the only ones which make sense in place and time. said, I asked before Rebbi Jacob ben Aḥa: Following him who says tithes are from their words. But following him who says tithes are from the Torah, does Hillel institute anything against the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose said, from the moment that Israel was exiled to Babylonia, did they not become free from all commandments connected with the Land, but the remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah? Rebbi Yose turned and said, (Deut. 15:2) “this is the word of the abandonment, remit” as long as abandonment is followed in the Land as a word of the Torah, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from the words of the Torah, but when abandonment is followed in the Land as their word, remission of debts applies both in the Land and outside the Land from their word. There, they say that even one who holds that tithes are from the Torah will hold that the Sabbatical is from their word. (Deut. 15:2): “This is the word of the remission, remit!” Rebbi says, two remissions are the Sabbatical and the Jubilee. As long as the Jubilee is operative, the Sabbatical is from words of the Torah. If the Jubilees are abolished, the Sabbatical is operative from their words. When were the Jubilees abolished? (Lev. 25:10) “For all its inhabitants.” In the time when they lived on it, not when they went from it into exile. If they lived on it but did (not)⁶⁸This clearly is a scribal error; see the variant readings. intermingle, the tribe of Judah in Benjamin, and the tribe of Benjamin in Judah, I could think that the Jubilee was operative. The verse mentions its inhabitants, “All its inhabitants;” you find that when the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh went into exile, the Jubilees were disestablished.

Rebbi Zakkai stated before Rebbi Joḥanan: The daughter of an Ammonite convert is enabled, the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert is disabled. Rebbi Joḥanan told him: Babylonian, you crossed three rivers on your way and got lost! But both the daughter of an Ammonite convert and the daughter of an Ammonite woman convert are enabled¹⁸³It seems that R. Zakkai only had heard the statement that the daughter of a male Ammonite convert was enabled to be married into the priesthood and concluded that the insistence on a male would imply the quite unreasonable implication that the daughter of a female Ammonite would be disabled. R. Joḥanan points out that the statement on the daughter of a male Ammonite convert is needed for itself if the mother is an Israelite woman. Since the marriage of the parents is forbidden, the mother becomes desecrated for the priesthood. It is noteworthy that the disability does not extend to the daughter.
In the Babli, 77b, one version of the statement of R. Zakkai is explicit: The daughter of an Ammonite and an Israelite woman is disabled. This is rejected by R. Joḥanan.. Rebbi Yosa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The statement is needed only if her mother was from Israel. That you should not say, since her mother was desecrated, so the daughter is desecrated. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, she is enabled even for the High Priest. What is the reason? “In his peoples¹⁸⁴Lev. 21:14, speaking of the High Priest, “only a virgin from among his people he may take as a wife.” In the Babli, 77b, R. Zakkai is the source of this argument but he wrongly requires the (converted) parents to be from the same people.”. A people divided into two peoples, the males are forbidden but their females permitted. Rebbi Ḥaggai in the name of Rebbi Pedat: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish did not say so, but the daughter of an Ammonite convert is disabled since she comes from a disabled drop¹⁸⁵Babli 77a, a different reason ascribed to him.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, we have stated thus: Of Gentiles married unconverted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are immediately permitted. If they converted, the males are permanently forbidden but their females are permitted after three generations¹⁸⁶If an Ammonite and an Egyptian woman married as Gentiles, the children are Ammonites since in permitted marriages the child’s status is that of the father. But if they married when converted, the child inherits the disabilities of both parents. Therefore, the daughter, who does not inherit any disability from her father, has the status of a second generation Egyptian from her mother (in the opinion of the rabbis who reject R. Simeon’s argument.)
The Babli, 78a, formulates this explicitly: Among Gentiles, the status of the father is determining. If they converted, the more disabled is determining.. Rebbi Ḥizqiah in the name of [Rebbi] Aḥa: A baraita states this: From where can you say that if one of any of the families of the earth cohabited with a Canaanite woman and she gave birth to a son, that you may buy him as a slave? The verse says, “whom they will father in your land,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:45. In v. 44 it is stated that slaves may be bought (only) from the surrounding peoples, since Canaanites are not to be tolerated in the Land. It is then stated that a child fathered in the Land can be tolerated if his father was not a Canaanite; the argument is parallel to that of the baraita quoted earlier. The same statement is in the Babli, 78a.” not from those who dwell in your land.

Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated¹¹⁴A similar baraita in Babli Sukkah 3a/b.: A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah¹¹⁵Deut. 6:9, 11:20. and the parapet¹¹⁶Deut. 22:8., from the obligation of eruv¹¹⁷If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193)., does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town¹¹⁸On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house.; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door¹¹⁹In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance of each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload. This does not apply to a small hut.; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee¹²⁰Lev. 25:30.; it cannot become impure by scale disease¹²¹Lev. 14:34 ff., and its owner does not return from the army because of it¹²²Deut. 20:5..

HALAKHAH: “If a widow’s ketubah was 200,” etc. We understand worth a mina for 200⁷⁸The Babli, 98 ab, does not hold that it is trivial that the widow is not rewarded for getting such a good deal; it concludes that an agent by his office is always required to look for the best possible deal and the widow sells as an agent for the estate. or worth 200 for a mina. In any case, she made the orphans lose a mina⁷⁹That she receives only 100 zuz for her ketubah if she sells real estate too cheaply is not a matter of the laws of ketubah but of torts in general; the person who causes damage has to pay for it.. [If it was worth] a mina [and she sold it] for 200, would the sale not be invalidated as erroneous buy⁸⁰Lev. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/₃%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.? Explain it that the property increased in value⁸¹And the fair value on the date of transaction can no longer be determined.. Rebbi Abin said, this supports Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, real estate buys are never under the laws of overcharging. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the transaction was excessive, it comes under the law of overcharging. The Mishnah⁸²Baba meṣi‘a 4:9. disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “The following do not fall under the laws of overcharging: Slaves, securities, real estate, and redemptions⁸³Real estate is excluded in Lev. 25:14 since it is not bought “from his hand”; slaves are excluded since they are traded under the rules of real estate; securities are excluded since what one buys “from the neighbor’s hand” is the paper, but what is intended are the rights given by the paper and these are immaterial. The Temple is excluded in its transactions since it is not “a neighbor” (Babli Baba meṣi‘a56b)..” He explains it, unless it was excessive⁸⁴He holds that any transaction is void in which the profit margin is 100% of the fair value. Tosaphot (s. v. ,אלמנה 98a) find the same opinion expressed by Rav Naḥman in the Babli, Baba meṣi‘a 57a.. If he redeemed⁸⁵He had donated something (other than a sacrificial animal) to the Temple. The redemption rules are based on Lev. 27:11–25. what was worth a mina by 200, Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is not redeemed, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it is redeemed⁸⁶The standard commentators agree to switch the places of “mina” and “200 zuz”. Since the Yerushalmi never quotes Samuel’s statement in the Babli (Baba meṣi‘a 57a and 7 other instances) that a redemption of dedicated items worth a mina by a peruṭa is valid (i. e., in ratio 19200: 1), there is no reason to assume that there should be any difference in the rulesfor overpaying or underpaying.. A baralta disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: If he said, this toga instead of this donkey, the latter becomes profane⁸⁷He substitutes a toga for the dedicated donkey (which is redeemable since it is not a sacrificial animal) and presumably the donkey is worth at least two togas.. And its end disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is necessary to compute the value⁸⁸It is a biblical requirement that dedications can be redeemed only after their value has been determined (Lev. 27:12). The presumption is that the statement means not only that the value has to be determined but also that it has to be paid in full.. Rebbi Yose said, the baraita itself implies that it is necessary to compute the value. Where do they disagree? To bring [a sacrifice to atone for] larceny⁸⁹Unauthorized use of Temple property is sinful and has to be atoned for by a special sacrifice (Lev. 5:14–16). If the redemption of the donkey was valid, no sacrifice is due for using the donkey even if there remains the additional obligation to make up the difference in price between toga and donkey. If the redemption is invalid because the difference in price between the dedicated and the substitute values is too large, a sacrifice is due. The Babli, Baba meṣi‘a57a/b, is not quite sure to whom to attribute which opinion in this dispute.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he has to bring a sacrifice for larceny; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for larceny.

Beloved are proselytes [by God], for [Scripture] everywhere uses the same epithets of them as of Israel; [61b] as it is stated, But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen.⁷Isa. 41, 8. Jacob is here interpreted as ibid. XLIV, 5, And another shall call himself by the name of Jacob—these are the proselytes of righteousness (cf. towards the end of this tractate). The order of the quotations in V is confused. The term ‘love’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, I have loved you, saith the Lord,⁸Mal. 1, 2. and the term ‘love’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, And He loveth the stranger, in giving him food and raiment.⁹Deut. 10, 18. Israel are called ‘servants’, as it is stated, For unto Me the children of Israel are servants,¹⁰Lev. 25, 55. V omits the quotation. and proselytes are called ‘servants’, as it is stated, To be His servants.¹¹Isa. 56, 6. The term ‘acceptable’ is used of Israel, as it is stated, And it shall be always upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord,¹²Ex. 28, 38. and the term ‘acceptable’ is used of proselytes, as it is stated, Their burnt-offerings and their sacrifices shall be acceptable upon Mine altar.¹³Isa. 56, 7. The term ‘keeping’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, The Lord is thy keeper, the Lord is thy shade upon thy right hand,¹⁴Ps. 121, 5. and the term ‘keeping’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, The Lord preserveth the strangers.¹⁵ibid. CXLVI, 9. The term ‘ministering’ is applied to Israel, as it is stated, But ye shall be named the priests of the Lord, men shall call you the ministers of our God,¹⁶Isa. 61, 6. and the term ‘ministering’ is applied to proselytes, as it is stated, Also the aliens, that join themselves to the Lord, to minister unto Him.¹⁷ibid. LVI, 6.
Beloved are proselytes seeing that our father Abraham did not circumcise himself when he was twenty or thirty years of age, but when he was ninety-nine years old;¹⁸Cf. Gen. 17, 24. since if he had circumcised himself when he was twenty or thirty years old, no Gentile would have become a proselyte when he had passed the age of twenty or thirty. The Holy One, blessed be He, kept putting it off¹⁹The verb has fallen out of V. until he had reached ninety-nine years, so as not to close the door in the face of proselytes, [and to allow more days and years so as to increase the reward of those who do His will, as it is stated, The Lord was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, to make the teaching great and glorious].²⁰Isa. 42, 21. The passage within brackets is added by MS.K. and H.
Our father Abraham called himself a ger, as it is stated, I am a stranger [ger] and a sojourner with you.²¹Gen. 22, 4. Similarly David, king of Israel, called himself a ger, as it is stated, For I am a stranger [ger] with Thee,²²Ps. 39, 13. and likewise it states, For we are strangers before Thee.²³1 Chron. 29, 15.
Beloved is the Land of Israel because it makes proselytes fit [to be received]. If a man says in the Land of Israel, ‘I am a proselyte’, he is accepted at once, but outside the Land of Israel he is not accepted unless his witnesses are with him. Beloved is the Land of Israel because it atones for iniquities and transgressions, as it is stated, And the inhabitant shall not say: ‘I am sick’, the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity.²⁴Isa. 33, 24.
And so you find in the four classes that stand before the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is stated, One shall say: ‘I am the Lord’s’; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord, and surname himself by the name of Israel.²⁵ibid. XLIV, 5. One shall say: ‘I am the Lord’s’—this alludes to one who belongs wholly to the Omnipresent and has no admixture of sin. Another shall call himself by the name of Jacob—this alludes to the proselytes of righteousness.²⁶A term to denote the genuine and complete convert. Another shall subscribe with his hand unto the Lord—this alludes to those who repent. And surname himself by the name of Israel—this alludes to those who fear Heaven.

It was stated: “Produce of the Land that was exported is removed at its place, the words of Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, one returns it to the Land and removes it, as it is written (Lev. 25:7): ‘In your Land shall all its produce be food.’ ”¹⁴⁷Tosephta 5:1. In the Tosephta, the opinion of R. Simeon is attributed to Rebbi, in the Babli (Pesaḥim 52b) it is anonymous. In the Land, the produce has to be removed (e. g., by being given away to the poor to be eaten) if nothing of its kind is left on the fields for wild animals. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Immi taught following the first Tanna for leniency¹⁴⁸In the Babli, this ruling is attributed to R. Abbahu.. Rebbi Hila said, but he should not move it from place to place¹⁴⁹When the time of removal comes, the produce should be destroyed at its place since Sabbatical fruit must be eaten in the Land. According to Rashi in Pesaḥim, everybody will agree that the produce may be returned to the Land to be given to the local poor..

There¹⁶⁴Mishnah Arakhin 9:5, Babli Arakhin 32a. Here starts the discussion of the last two sentences of the Mishnah, Notes 149–151., we have stated: “Everything inside the wall is like houses of a walled city except fields¹⁶⁵In Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5), the statement is attributed to R. Jehudah. This is confirmed by Babli Arakhin 32a.. Rebbi Meïr says, including fields.” “¹⁶⁶Sifra Behar Parašah 4(5–6). What is the reason of the rabbis? (Lev. 25:30) ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, and towers? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’. I could think, also fields? The verse says, ‘the house.’ The house is special in that it is a dwelling, that excludes fields which are not for dwelling¹⁶⁷According to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda in Babli Arakhin 32a, even R. Meїr will agree that an agricultural field is excluded. The only “fields” he includes are sand quarries and fish ponds which have the character of “ditches and caves”. In the Tosephta, Arakhin 5:14, R. Meїr admits gardens and orchards as entities which cannot be reclaimed by the seller later than one full year after the sale.. What is the reason of Rebbi Meїr? ‘The house stands.’ Not only houses; from where do we include oilpresses, cisterns, ditches, caves, bathhouses, dovecots, towers, and fields? The verse says, ‘which is in the city’.”

(Lev. 25:30) 168“ ‘Which has a wall’, this excludes a house which is built as a wall, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, its outer wall is the city wall.” Rebbi Jehudah explains ‘which has a wall¹⁶⁹The Qere in the verse; the Ketib is “the house in a city which has no wall.” Since עיר is feminine and לוֹ masculine, the relative pronoun should belong to בית: The house in the city which (i. e., the house) has/does not have a wall. In this interpretation, the positions of R. Jehudah and R. Simeon should be interchanged. In the Babli, the difference between the authors is explained by their different interpretations of the description of Rahab’s house (Jos. 2:15).’; Rebbi Simeon explains ‘which has no wall’.

HALAKHAH: ⁹⁶The entire Halakhah was copied in Sanhedrin 1:2, completely explained there in Notes 138–171. Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year⁹⁷Lev. 25:10. Babli 8b, Sanhedrin 10b.. You shall sanctify years, [but] one does not sanctfy months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What means sanctified? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts⁹⁸Polling the judges’ opinions. with the most senior person. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the Court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rebbi Zebida said, but this lower house do not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rebbi Jonah, Rebbi Abba, Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rebbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rebbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but “in intercalation”, that the Sages added thirty days to it [and intercalated it.]⁹⁹Corrector’s (unnecessary) addition. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rebbi Ḥanina started, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqisch summed up. Rebbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rebbi Ḥiyya, Rebbi Yasa and Rebbi Immi summed up. Rebbi Ḥaggai started, Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose summed up. Rebbi Cahana was ordained before Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rebbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.

One might say, this similarly applies to rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame⁶⁸There seems to be no reason why the kinds enumerated in the Mishnah should be treated differently from produce in general. R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya explains that the principle of “one-third ripe” is not practical for these kinds. This answer would be impossible if prohibitions of the Sabbatical year were biblical since then in a questionable case one could not be more lenient than in a certain one. A biblical justification is given in the next paragraph, but see the last paragraph in Chapter 9. There is no problem with the rules of tithing since biblical law requires tithing only of דגן יצהר ותירוש “grain, olive oil, and wine”. All quotes of biblical verses in this Halakhah have to be taken as establishing guidelines for rabbinic decrees, not as giving hard biblical rules (R. Abraham ben David, Commentary to Sifra, Behar Pereq 1.)! Rebbi Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya⁶⁹One of the original members of the Yeshivah of Rav in Babylonia. In the Babli, his title always is “Rav”. It is not impossible that he exercised rabbinic functions before the title of “Rav” was introduced; then either he should have no title or the title of “Rebbi”. He became rich as a tax farmer; for this he was shunned by some of his colleagues and could not attain the status of a major figure in either of the Talmudim. said, there it is impossible to recognize. They objected to Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya, was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits⁷⁰This refers to the next Mishnah, that according to some opinions, Egyptian beans (cf. Kilaim Chapter 1, Note 45) follow the rules of rice. Now beans can be planted either as produce for their beans or as vegetable for their pods. The obligations of a field of beans therefore are determined by the intentions of the farmer. If the farmer changes his mind during the growing season then, as it is stated in Tosephta 2:5, R. Simeon from Shezur, whose opinion is reported in Mishnah 8, is of the opinion that now produce and vegetable are inseparably mixed in the ripe bean pod and that after “threshing”, separating the beans from their pods, beans and pods have to be mixed for the purpose of taking common heave. The baraita quoted here explains the same in different wording; for the full text see Note 84. The objection here already implies the ruling given in Halakhah 8 that practice follows R. Simeon from Shezur. {In the Babli, Roš Haššanah13b, a baraita is quoted closer to the Tosephta.}? Rebbi Yose said, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya confirmed it; Rebbi Jonah, Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel⁷¹R. Yose and R. Jonah disagree about who is the first author of the following statement.: It is written (Deut. 14:22): “Tithe! You should tithe all produce of your seed,” you give one tithe in one year but not two tithes in one year⁷²Cf. Note 61. The argument is about the last part of the verse which was not quoted, year by year.. They objected, does not Egyptian bean require two tithes in one year⁷³One for produce and one as vegetable.? Was it not stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits? Rebbi Zeïra said, it is written (Lev. 25:3): “Six years you shall sow your field and harvest.” Six sowings and six harvests, not six sowings and seven harvests⁷⁴R. Zeïra reinforces the attack against R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya; in the case of R. Simeon from Shezur, only tithing in common may permit six harvests for the purpose of tithing; otherwise one would have to admit seven. Rebbi Jonah supports R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya and notes that one must admit “seven” harvests (which for two harvests every year adds up to 12 harvests in six years.) The Sifra(Behar 7–8) has a different (Babylonian?) approach to the verses quoted: “From where that you may store in the Sabbatical year rice, millet, poppy seeds, and sesame that took root before the New Year? The verse says (Lev. 25:3): ‘you should harvest its yield’, even in the Sabbatical. I could think [this applies] even if they did not take root, the verse says (Lev. 25:3): ‘six years you shall sow your field and harvest.’ Six sowings and six harvests, not six sowings and seven harvests.”. Rebbi Jonah said, we cannot hold with six but instead hold with seven; so it is: Six sowings and seven harvests, not six sowings and five harvests. They objected, does not Egyptian bean have six sowings and five harvests⁷⁵If the planting is late, there may be no harvest in either year. Hence, any number of harvests are possible, and the entire argument started by R. Zeïra is moot. The reason of R. Ḥuna bar Ḥiyya remains unproven and uncontradicted.? As it was stated: He collects it together with his threshing, it turns out that he tithes from his seeds for his vegetable and from his vegetable for his fruits.

⁶⁴Sifra Emor Parashah 11(7), Behar Parashah 2(4); Babli 33b/34a.“From where that there is a single sound preceding? The verse says, you shall convey the shofar. And from where that there is a single sound afterwards, the verse says, you shall convey the shofar⁶⁵Lev. 25:9 reads: You shall convey the shofar of sounds in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month; on the Day of Atonement you shall convey the shofar in all of your land. It seems that they interpret “convey” as conveying a single sound.. So far the Jubilee, New Year’s day? You shall convey the shofar of sounds in the seventh month, on the tenth of the month, on the Day of Atonement. The verse did not have to say, in the seventh month. Why did the verse say, in the seventh month? Only that everything you are doing in the Seventh Month do as on the Tenth of the Month. Since here he blows, modulates, and blows, so also there he blows, modulates, and blows.”

Rebbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife⁸⁷From punishment by loss of children (rejected in the Babli, Yebamot 55a).. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there⁸⁸Lev. 25:49. Since the subject of the entire Chapter is inheritance, it is understood that only the male line is addressed., either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall freehim. Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also his brother’s wife⁸⁹Who is forbidden in Lev. 18:16. can be inferred⁹⁰The reading of G and Šabbat, לְמֵידָה, seems preferable. from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by his brother’s wife mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: It is said here his brother’s wife and it is said there⁹¹Lev. 20:21, the penalty clause referring to the prohibition formulated in Lev. 18:16., a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah⁹²In biblical Hebrew, the meaning of the root נדד is the same as Arabic نحاد “to separate, to disperse”. This applies both to the menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19), who is forbidden relations with her husband, and to the person excommunicated (מְנֻדֶּה) who is separated from the community. In rabbinic Hebrew, the word נִדָּה is used exclusively for the menstruating woman; this is the reference made here, even though the argument is equally valid for the excommunicated person. (Babli Yebamot54b.). Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his [paternal] brother’s wife may be permitted [after being forbidden.⁹³The words in brackets are added from G and Šabbat. The menstruating woman is permitted after her purification; the brother’s wife may be permitted, viz., if the brother dies childless. In the latter case, “brother” means paternal brother (Yebamot 1:1, Note 45).] This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden⁹⁴But for whom no punishment is spelled out..

⁶⁶Sifra Emor Parashah 11(9), Sifry Num. 73.“From where that there are three sets of three sounds each? The verse says, a day of sound⁶⁷Num. 29:1, a remembrance of sound⁶⁸Lev. 23:24., shofar of sound⁶⁹Lev. 25:9..” So far following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? ⁷⁰Sifry Num. 73.“You shall blow sounding⁷¹Num. 10:5.; and you shall blow sounding a second time⁷²Num. 10:6.; sounding you shall blow for your travels⁷²Num. 10:6.. If you would say that blowing is sounding, is it not written, to assemble the people you shall blow but not sound⁷³Num. 10:7.”

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition¹⁰⁹The vocalization and, consequently, the interpretation כלל of and פרט as verbs rather than nouns, is from G. Here ends the Genizah fragment., the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹¹⁰If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹¹¹From here to the end of the Halakhah there also is a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 3a). The text in Kilaim practically is identical with that in Šabbat; the text here is slightly abbreviated. The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal¹¹²Lev. 25:3., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune¹¹³Lev. 25:4., detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide¹¹⁴To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions¹¹⁵For R. Johanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the ground (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard¹¹⁶Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment¹¹⁷As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Halakhah 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it¹¹⁸He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited..

If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition¹⁰⁹The vocalization and, consequently, the interpretation כלל of and פרט as verbs rather than nouns, is from G. Here ends the Genizah fragment., the word of Rebbi Eleazar is that this is a general principle followed by a detail¹¹⁰If a pentateuchal verse partially is an exhortation to action and partially a prohibition, it nevertheless forms a logical unit.. ¹¹¹From here to the end of the Halakhah there also is a parallel in Kilaim 8:1, Notes 20–36 (Babli Mo`ed qaṭan 3a). The text in Kilaim practically is identical with that in Šabbat; the text here is slightly abbreviated. The punishment for violating a biblical prohibition for which no penalty is specified is by flogging. The problem is that ploughing is not specifically mentioned in Lev. 25. Rebbi Eleazar said, one whips for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. Rebbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for ploughing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rebbi Eleazar’s reason? The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal¹¹²Lev. 25:3., a general principle. Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune¹¹³Lev. 25:4., detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rebbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide¹¹⁴To require separate atonement if performed inadvertently.. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rebbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rebbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions¹¹⁵For R. Johanan, if ploughing is not sanctionable, digging for other than agricultural purposes certainly is permitted. But for R. Eleazar digging is work on the ground (in the language of his argument) but not in the field (as forbidden in the verse.). Rebbi Abba from Carthage said, Rebbi Joḥanan’s reason is six years you shall sow your field, not in the Sabbatical; and six years you shall prune your vineyard¹¹⁶Lev. 25:3., not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment¹¹⁷As such it is not sanctionable; cf. Halakhah 5:3, Note 73.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rebbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that the Land shall rest as a repose for the Eternal? That is for the prohibition implied by it¹¹⁸He takes R. Eleazar literally at his word. If Lev. 25:3–4 represents a general principle followed by a detail (even if the principle is a positive commandment and the detail a prohibition) then by R. Ismael’s hermeneutical rule כְּלָל וּפְרָט אֵין בִּכְלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁבִּפְרָט “general principle followed by detail: the general principle only applies to the detail”, nothing not mentioned in the verse is prohibited..

MISHNAH: The following are not under the rules of cheating¹²⁵There is no recourse in court for overpaying or underpaying.: Slaves¹²⁶In Lev. 25:45, Gentile slaves are put under the rules of real estate., securities¹²⁷Documents of indebtedness. What one buys is not the paper on which the IOU is written but the future claim. What one buys “from the hand of your neighbor” (Lev. 25:14) is the paper; therefore the IOU is not under the rules of that verse., real estate¹²⁸Lev. 25:14 only refers to movables., and Temple property¹²⁹Lev. 25:14 only refers to “your neighbor,” not to public property.; they are not under the rules of double or quadruple or quintuple restitution¹³⁰If slaves, securities, or Temple property was stolen (e. g., Temple animals).. An unpaid trustee does not have to swear, a paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, sacrifices which he is obligated to warrant¹³¹If one vows to bring “a sacrifice”, he has not fulfilled his obligation until the animal was sacrificed. Before that moment, it remains the personal property of the offerer and is covered by Lev. 25:14. But if he vows to offer “this animal”, he has fulfilled his duty at the moment the animal was delivered to the Temple. After that it is Temple property; cf. Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5. are under the rules of cheating; those for which he is not obligated to warrant are not under the rules of cheating. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl is not under the rules of cheating. They told him, they said only these.

MISHNAH: The following are not under the rules of cheating¹²⁵There is no recourse in court for overpaying or underpaying.: Slaves¹²⁶In Lev. 25:45, Gentile slaves are put under the rules of real estate., securities¹²⁷Documents of indebtedness. What one buys is not the paper on which the IOU is written but the future claim. What one buys “from the hand of your neighbor” (Lev. 25:14) is the paper; therefore the IOU is not under the rules of that verse., real estate¹²⁸Lev. 25:14 only refers to movables., and Temple property¹²⁹Lev. 25:14 only refers to “your neighbor,” not to public property.; they are not under the rules of double or quadruple or quintuple restitution¹³⁰If slaves, securities, or Temple property was stolen (e. g., Temple animals).. An unpaid trustee does not have to swear, a paid trustee does not pay. Rebbi Simeon says, sacrifices which he is obligated to warrant¹³¹If one vows to bring “a sacrifice”, he has not fulfilled his obligation until the animal was sacrificed. Before that moment, it remains the personal property of the offerer and is covered by Lev. 25:14. But if he vows to offer “this animal”, he has fulfilled his duty at the moment the animal was delivered to the Temple. After that it is Temple property; cf. Mishnah Bava qamma 7:5. are under the rules of cheating; those for which he is not obligated to warrant are not under the rules of cheating. Rebbi Jehudah says, also he who sells a Torah scroll, an animal, or a pearl is not under the rules of cheating. They told him, they said only these.

HALAKHAH: “If the judges estimated one sixth too little or too much,” etc. As you say for a private person, in real estate up to one third¹⁰⁶R. Joḥanan was reported to say in Halakhah 4 that in real estate the deviation must be 100%. This is interpreted here to mean than the overcharge cannot be more than 100% of the undercharge, 150% vs. 50%, giving a ratio of 3 to 1 (Pnei Mosheh).., in movables up to one sixth⁸⁰Lev. 25:14: “If you sell a sale to you neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand, do not overcharge one another.” Rabbinic interpretation holds that an overcharge of a sixth, 16²/₃%, entitles the injured party to rescind the transaction.. And similarly, for Temple property, in real estate up to one sixth, in movables up to [one in] twelve¹⁰⁷For redemption of property dedicated to the Temple, all terms are halved or doubled to the advantage of the Temple as exemplified in the Mishnah, next Note.. There¹⁰⁸Arakhin 6:1; cf. Tosephta Ketubot 11:3., we have stated: “The estimation for orphans is thirty days, the estimation for Temple property sixty days, and one publicly announces mornings and evenings¹⁰⁹The court’s herald announces the sale twice daily in public..” And why thirty? In order to empower the orphans. Why should they not announce longer? Up to thirty days you empower the orphans, more than that you diminish their power¹¹⁰In less than 30 days one is not sure that all potential buyers hear of the sale; a shorter period would diminish the number of bidders. If the process is drawn out too long, people lose interest and one diminishes the number of buyers.. Why do you not say that for Temple property? Temple property is different because each offer made is firm¹¹¹Each offer made to the Temple administration obliges the bidder to act on his bid until he is notified that he was released from his obligation because a higher bid was accepted. The Temple does not have to worry that it would lose bidders in a drawn out process.. Then they should announce forever! If suffices for the Temple that it should be twice that of a private person. Rebbi Yudan said, since you say that Temple property is different because each offer made is firm, this implies that if they find their estimation they do not continue but close the deal¹¹²If the administration had decided on an adequate price, the first bidder meeting this price can immediately be given possession and the public announcements stopped, since the Temple will get its full price. The sixty day period is a possibility, not a necessity..

HALAKHAH: It is written⁸⁷Sifra Behar Pereq 1(3), in slightly different wording. (Lev. 25:5) “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap.” That means, not in the way of reapers⁸⁸As Maimonides explains, since Sabbatical produce is for everybody to eat, the verse cannot mean that one may not reap grain or gather grapes at all. Therefore, it must mean that professional harvesting in all its aspects is forbidden.. Rebbi La said, if it cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth⁸⁹Since aftergrowth is forbidden only by rabbinic ordinance, the verse cannot refer to forbidden aftergrowth., take it to refer to permitted aftergrowth. Rebbi Mana said, it is needed for itself when it grew by itself⁹⁰One should not say that the prohibition of professional harvesting applies only to aftergrowth on a field that was planted for the same crop the previous year. If the plants appear at other places, which really is spontaneous growth, they still fall under the same rule.. You should not say that since it grew by itself it is permitted; therefore it was necessary to say that it is forbidden. “The aftergrowth of your harvest you should not reap and the grapes of your wild growth you should not process into wine.⁹¹Not only collecting the grapes but the entire processing of the harvest, ending with the production of wine.” You may not harvest grapes from what is being watched over on the land, but you may gather grapes from what is abandoned. “You should not process into wine,” not in the way of vintners. From here, they said that “one does not cut Sabbatical figs with the fig-knife but he may cut with a dagger. One does not tread grapes in the wine press but he may tread in a trough. One does not work olives in the oil press and with a roller.” Our teachers permitted to use a roller⁹²Since this is used only for small quantities of grapes in the other years of the Sabbatical cycle. The Tosephta (6:27) spells out that “our teachers” are Rabban Gamliel (III, the son of Rebbi) and his academy..

It is written (Lev. 25:7): “For your domestic animals and the wild animals of your Land shall all its yield be food.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, two kinds of yield, one from the house and one from the field, and it is written (Lev. 25:12): “From the field you shall eat its yield.⁸⁵This explains why the Mishnah has to give two terms for each kind of produce. As will be explained in the following paragraph, the edible produce of the Sabbatical year may be used only as unaltered food to be eaten.”

It is written (Lev. 25:7): “For your domestic animals and the wild animals of your Land shall all its yield be food.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, two kinds of yield, one from the house and one from the field, and it is written (Lev. 25:12): “From the field you shall eat its yield.⁸⁵This explains why the Mishnah has to give two terms for each kind of produce. As will be explained in the following paragraph, the edible produce of the Sabbatical year may be used only as unaltered food to be eaten.”

“Unripe grapes when they contain fluid”, etc. What argument can you give for unripe grapes? Rebbi Abun said, because at that stage usually the owls eat it¹⁰²By Lev. 25:7, food for wild animals is legal food in the Sabbatical year; cf. Mishnah 8:1..

It is written (Lev. 25:12): “Because it is yovel, holy should it be for you, etc.” Just as [the year] is holy, so its yield is holy¹⁰⁵The full verse reads: “Because it is yovel, holy should it be for you; from the field you should eat its yield.” The yield of Sabbatical and Jubilee years has to be treated as holy and may not be used for industrial purposes. On the other hand, as explained in Note 85, lenient rules are valid for eating in the field..

Rebbi Zeïra¹⁶⁸This paragraph explains the action of the Sabbatical year on Temple property. The text follows the parallel in Pesaḥim 4:9 (fol. 31b). in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan (Lev. 25:2): “The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal.” The sanctity of the Sabbatical year falls¹⁶⁹Hence, the status of ownership has no influence on the duties of the Sabbatical year. on anything that is the Eternal’s. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rebbi Mana: It is impossible¹⁷⁰In Mishnaic Hebrew, אפשר means “it is possible,” but איפשר is a contraction of אֵי אפשר and means “it is impossible.” to eat it¹⁷¹Any produce from Temple property collected in the Sabbatical year. without redemption since Temple property cannot exit¹⁷²Its sacred status without the sanctity being transmitted to the money that goes into the Temple treasury. without redemption. If one redeems and eats it, it would be as if one bought an axe with money from the Sabbatical¹⁷³Since it is written (Lev. 25:6): “The rest of the Land should be for you to eat,” we infer that the spontaneous growth is there to be eaten, not to be traded. It is possible to trade produce of the Sabbatical year as long as the final use is for food. The Temple has no need for money for food since the public sacrifices must be paid from the Temple tax of half a šeqel and private sacrifices are paid by the donors. Valuables donated to the Temple are used for building upkeep, vessels, and implements. Any monetary gain from Sabbatical produce for these purposes is forbidden; how can the Temple accept illegal money?! He said to him, the treasurer¹⁷⁴The Temple treasurer. He has the right and the obligation to sell all Temple property which is not directly used for sacrifices in order to raise money for the upkeep of the Temple. The Sabbatical produce is not sold but directly exchanged for vessels or implements needed by the Temple. This exchange is permitted; it removes the holiness of Temple property but has no influence on the Sabbatical status of the produce. Then the third party may sell the produce as Sabbatical food (Explanation by R. Z. Frankel.) The third party probably is chosen before any harvest of the Sabbatical year to avoid leading ignorant people into sin. exchanges it through a third person. Rebbi Mattaniah¹⁷⁵He belongs to the last generation of Galilean Amoraïm, later than R. Ḥiyya bar Abba. said, why do we not explain it¹⁷⁶That the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to Temple property. according to everybody, as Rebbi Joḥanan said¹⁷⁷This refers to Mishnah Nedarim4:10: “If they were on the road (a person A and another B who had made a vow not to use anything belonging to A). If B has nothing to eat, A gives food to a third person as a gift and B may use it. If no third person is with them, A puts the food up on a fence or a rock and says: This is abandoned to anybody who wants it. B may take and eat it, but Rebbi Yose forbids it.” On this, R. Joḥanan notes in Halakha 4:10 that R. Yose forbids only because the food was forbidden to B before it was declared abandoned; the abandonment is invalid relative to B. But if something was abandoned before any vow was made, R. Yose agrees that the vow cannot retroactively influence the status of abandoned property. Cf. Chapter 6, Note 17.: The words of Rebbi Yose: because his vow precedes his declaration of abandonment. And here¹⁷⁸In the case of the vineyard, the abandonment of the gleanings is written in the Torah and certainly precedes any dedication., because his vow of abandonment precedes his dedication¹⁷⁹The abandonment of the Sabbatical year is not invalidated by the dedication. Hence, the produce of the Sabbatical year should not need redemption..

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season¹⁸³One may not offer to exchange agricultural work against agricultural work if these would represent vastly different expenditures if they needed hired hands..
Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y¹⁸⁴To let the debtor take care of the guest for the creditor..
The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:37.” and “do not take from him,¹⁸⁸Lev. 25:36” and “do not be a creditor,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “do not burden him with interest,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:14. While the preceding verses spell out the guilt of the parties, this verse explains the guilt of the scribe, who is supposedly learned in the law and has to know that he participates in an illegal activity. The extended interpretation of Lev. 19:14 is one of the signs of pharisaic doctrine; it is intimated that the Sadducees, the opponents of the Sages, would absolve the scribe from guilt.”

MISHNAH: A man may say to another, weed with me and I shall be weeding with you, hoe with me and I shall be hoeing with you, but he shall not tell him, weed with me and I shall be hoeing with you, hoe with me and I shall be weeding with you. All the dry season is one, all the wet season is not; one may not say to him, plough with me in the dry season and I shall be ploughing with you in the wet season¹⁸³One may not offer to exchange agricultural work against agricultural work if these would represent vastly different expenditures if they needed hired hands..
Rabban Gamliel says, there exists predated and postdated interest. How is this? If one indended to borrow from him and sent him [a gift] saying, so you should lend me; that is predated interest. If one had borrowed and returned the money when he sent him [a gift] saying, that is for your money which was not earning for you while it was with me; that is postdated interest. Rebbi Simeon says, there exists verbal interest. One should not say to him, you should know that X came from place Y¹⁸⁴To let the debtor take care of the guest for the creditor..
The following transgress prohibitions: The creditor, and the debtor, and the guarantor, and the witnesses; the Sages say, also the scribe. They transgress “do not give,¹⁸⁷Lev. 25:37.” and “do not take from him,¹⁸⁸Lev. 25:36” and “do not be a creditor,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “do not burden him with interest,¹⁸⁹Ex. 22:24.” and “before a blind man do not put an obstacle; and fear your God, I am the Eternal.¹⁹⁰Lev. 19:14. While the preceding verses spell out the guilt of the parties, this verse explains the guilt of the scribe, who is supposedly learned in the law and has to know that he participates in an illegal activity. The extended interpretation of Lev. 19:14 is one of the signs of pharisaic doctrine; it is intimated that the Sadducees, the opponents of the Sages, would absolve the scribe from guilt.”

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah¹⁰⁴Parallels Giṭṭin 4:12, Babli Giṭṭin47a; there the dispute is between two Amoraim, Rabba (in Babylonia, holding that Gentile land is subject to tithes) and R. Eleazar (in Galilee, holding that the Gentile’s land is free from tithes.) The verses quoted also are totally different. Tosaphot (Giṭṭin 47a, s. v. אמר רבה) prove that in the opinion of the Babli, R. Meïr frees Gentile land from heave and tithes except if it is leased to a Jewish sharecropper. In Tosephta Demay 5:21, the position of R. Meïr is the same as here, the opposition consists of R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, R. Yose. The Tosephta is quoted in Babli Menaḥot 66b; there, R. Meïr and R. Jehudah agree with R. Meïr here; R. Simeon and R. Yose oppose. In the interpretation of the Babli Menaḥot, the disagreement is not about the status of the Land; it is universally held that ownership of real estate by a Gentile does not free the Land from its obligations. Rather, it is the ownership of the grain at the moment the obligation of heave and tithes starts, i. e., when the grain is stored. Since a Gentile is not subject to the laws of the Torah, R. Simeon and R. Jehudah hold that his grain cannot be subject to those laws. Cf. also Peah, Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them¹⁰⁵Non–Jewish slaves. by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you¹⁰⁶In Babli Yebamot 46a, this is derived from the verse Lev. 25:45: “ ‘Also from the children of the inhabitants that live among you, from them you may buy;’ you, but not they.” As a matter of practical law, since the Jewish buyer of a non–Jewish slave is required to convert him, and the slave then is subject to the commandments of the Torah; if his owner would sell him to a Gentile, the slave automatically would go free., so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely¹⁰⁷This cryptic note refers to Sifra Behar,Parashah 4(8): לצמיתות לחולטנית, “permanently means absolutely.” See R. Shaul Israeli, ספר ארץ חמדה⁴ Jerusalem 1999, p. 195 ff.. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”¹⁰⁸If it could not be sold, there would be no sin in selling it, since the transaction would be void. But since selling agricultural real estate in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is a sin, by necessity the sale would be valid and would imply unrestricted transfer of title., because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

HALAKHAH: The Mishnah¹⁰⁴Parallels Giṭṭin 4:12, Babli Giṭṭin47a; there the dispute is between two Amoraim, Rabba (in Babylonia, holding that Gentile land is subject to tithes) and R. Eleazar (in Galilee, holding that the Gentile’s land is free from tithes.) The verses quoted also are totally different. Tosaphot (Giṭṭin 47a, s. v. אמר רבה) prove that in the opinion of the Babli, R. Meïr frees Gentile land from heave and tithes except if it is leased to a Jewish sharecropper. In Tosephta Demay 5:21, the position of R. Meïr is the same as here, the opposition consists of R. Jehudah, R. Simeon, R. Yose. The Tosephta is quoted in Babli Menaḥot 66b; there, R. Meïr and R. Jehudah agree with R. Meïr here; R. Simeon and R. Yose oppose. In the interpretation of the Babli Menaḥot, the disagreement is not about the status of the Land; it is universally held that ownership of real estate by a Gentile does not free the Land from its obligations. Rather, it is the ownership of the grain at the moment the obligation of heave and tithes starts, i. e., when the grain is stored. Since a Gentile is not subject to the laws of the Torah, R. Simeon and R. Jehudah hold that his grain cannot be subject to those laws. Cf. also Peah, Chapter 4, Notes 129–131. is Rebbi Meïr’s, since Rebbi Meïr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithe; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithe. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev.25:46): “You shall transmit them¹⁰⁵Non–Jewish slaves. by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets real estate with slaves. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you¹⁰⁶In Babli Yebamot 46a, this is derived from the verse Lev. 25:45: “ ‘Also from the children of the inhabitants that live among you, from them you may buy;’ you, but not they.” As a matter of practical law, since the Jewish buyer of a non–Jewish slave is required to convert him, and the slave then is subject to the commandments of the Torah; if his owner would sell him to a Gentile, the slave automatically would go free., so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa, the following supports Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently, because the land belongs to Me,” absolutely¹⁰⁷This cryptic note refers to Sifra Behar,Parashah 4(8): לצמיתות לחולטנית, “permanently means absolutely.” See R. Shaul Israeli, ספר ארץ חמדה⁴ Jerusalem 1999, p. 195 ff.. He said to him, that in itself supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”¹⁰⁸If it could not be sold, there would be no sin in selling it, since the transaction would be void. But since selling agricultural real estate in the Land of Israel to a Gentile is a sin, by necessity the sale would be valid and would imply unrestricted transfer of title., because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely.

²⁰²This is from Demay 5:9, explained there in Notes 104–109. Variants are denoted by ד. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa²⁰³This is the correct reading in ד., the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself²⁰³This is the correct reading in ד. supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

²⁰²This is from Demay 5:9, explained there in Notes 104–109. Variants are denoted by ד. The Mishnah is Rebbi Meїr’s, since Rebbi Meїr says that a Gentile may not acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to remove it from tithes; Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Simeon say, a Gentile may acquire real estate in the Land of Israel to free it from tithes. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Meïr (Lev. 25:46): “You shall transmit them by inheritance to your sons after you, to inherit by the rules of real estate.” This brackets slaves with real estate. Just as you may buy slaves from them but they cannot buy from you, so real estate you may buy from them but they cannot buy from you. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yasa²⁰³This is the correct reading in ד., the following supports Rebbi Meїr (Lev. 25:23): “The land shall not be sold permanently,” absolutely. He said to him, that in itself²⁰³This is the correct reading in ד. supports Rebbi Simeon. “It shall not be sold”, because if it was sold, it would be sold absolutely. Rebbi Huna from Sepphoris said, Rebbi Ḥanina instituted in Sepphoris following Rebbi Simeon.

¹⁶⁹From here on, the Halakhah also is Peah7:8 (פ).“How did they permit sycamore figs of dedicated trees? The Sages said to them, do you not agree with us that growth of dedicated [plants] is forbidden? They told them, when our forefathers dedicated them, they dedicated only the tree stems because of the strong men who came and took them by force.¹⁷⁰Tosephta 3:22 (Babli 56b). Sycamores produce inferior fruits but superior building material. The “strong men” are probably the Hasmonean rulers or Herod. The people protected their sycamore groves by putting them out of bounds of any human government.” Do the rabbis mean to say that they dedicated tree stems and fruits? Even if you say that they dedicated the tree stems but not the fruits, the rabbis wonder if somebody dedicates an orchard, may he reserve the growth for himself¹⁷¹In Mishnah Meˋilah 3:6 the anonymous Tanna declares that taking the fruits of a Temple tree does not constitute the crime of meˋilah, larceny committed on Temple property. But R. Yose declares the fruits to be covered by meˋilah. The Babli 56b points out that the Sages of the Tosephta, while agreeing that no felony is committed by taking the sycamore figs, nevertheless must assume that taking them means overstepping a prohibition. No such prohibition is written in the Torah. While any stipulation contradicting a commandment of the Torah is invalid (Peah 6:9), one violating a rabbinic prohibition may be valid. It remains unresolved whether the people of Jericho had permission to reserve the right to use the jummiz.? Let us hear from the following¹⁷²Mishnah Peah 7:8, about a vineyard dedicated to the Temple (i. e., its fruits to be sold by the Temple and the proceeds to be given to the Temple treasury).: “After the gleanings are recognizable, the gleanings belong to the poor.” That is different because nobody may dedicate anything that is not his own¹⁷³Since gleanings on vines belong to the poor by Divine decree (Deut. 24:21).. Does that not mean that even if the gleanings were not yet recognizable, they should belong to the poor? This is different, because it is a vineyard for the Temple, as it was stated¹⁷⁴Tosephta Peah 3:15. Here starts a Genizah fragment, edited by L. Ginzberg in Ginze Schechter, vol. 1, New York 1928, pp. 442–448 (ג).: “It somebody plants a vineyard for the Temple, it is exempt from single berries¹⁷⁵Which in secular growth belong to the poor (Lev. 19:10). Addition by the corrector, supported by a lacuna in ג., and from ˋoriah¹⁷⁶The fruits growing in the first three years after planting, forbidden for use (Lev.19:23)., and from the Fourth Year¹⁷⁷Where the fruit has to be redeemed (Lev. 19:24)., but it is subject to the Sabbatical year.” Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The land shall observe a Sabbath for the Eternal¹⁷⁸Lev. 25:2.. The sanctity of the Sabbatical falls even on anything that is the Eternal’s.

If somebody bought a field during a Jubilee period²⁰⁶This discussion is purely theoretical since the institution of the Jubilee was abolished with the exile of the Ten Tribes, not to be re-instated; cf. Note 66; Ševi‘it 1:1 Note 7, 10:3 Notes 83–88.. Rebbi Ila said, he acquired ownership of the ground²⁰⁷A sale of ancestral agricultural land in a Jubilee period is really a long-term lease since the land returns to the owner in the Jubilee year. The buyer certainly acquires possession; the question is whether he also acquires ownership (cf. Note 169)., Abba bar Mamal said, he did not acquire ownership of the ground. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal objected to Rebbi Ila: In your opinion, since you say that he acquired ownership of the ground, why can he not dig cisterns, ditches, and caves²⁰⁸The prohibition to alienate agricultural lands from their status is not found otherwise in either one of the Talmudim There may be a hint of this in Sifra Behar, Pereq 5(7); also Parašah 4(6) where it is stated that cisterns, ditches, and caves follow the rules of houses, which sometimes are not returned in the Jubilee year, but not those of agricultural land, which always is returned. The buyer/lessee has no right to change the legal status of the land; this seems to indicate that he has no ownership.? He said to him, the Torah said²⁰⁹Lev. 25:28., “he shall return to his inheritance,” as it was. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa brought this topic before them and did not know that they still disagreed: Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he does not bring and recite²¹⁰In the Babli, 47b/48a, it is clearly stated that R. Joḥanan holds that possession is like ownership, R. Simeon ben Laqish holds that possession and ownership are distinct. In this, practice of the Babli strictly follows R. Simeon ben Laqish.. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: Everybody agrees that he brings²¹¹Possession of the land is sufficient for the property to be subject to the duty of first fruits but not enough for the farmer to declare (Deut. 26:10) “I brought the First Fruits of the land which You gave me, o Eternal”; cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 1:2,6.. Where do they disagree? Rebbi Joḥanan said, he brings and recites; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he brings but does not recite.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: When the people of Israel are in foreign lands, they worship idolatry without meaning to. How so? A Samaritan makes a party for his son. He sends out an invitation to all the Jews in his city. Even though they eat and drink their own food, and bring their own attendants who stand and pour for them, it is still considered as if they ate from the sacrifices of the dead, as it says (Exodus 34:15), “They will call to you, and you will eat their sacrifices.”
Rabbi Eliezer HaModa’i would say: Anyone who violates the Sabbath, scorns the festivals, disregards circumcision, or attempts to reveal the flaws of the Torah, even though he may be learned in Torah and have done many good deeds, he has no share in the World to Come.
Rabbi Akiva would say: Anyone who marries a woman who is not proper for him transgresses five commandments: “Do not take vengeance” (Leviticus 19:18), “Do not bear a grudge” (ibid.), “Do not hate your brother in your heart” (Leviticus 19:17), “Love your fellow as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18), and “Let your brother live with you” (Leviticus 25:36). Because he will hate her he will want her to die, and this will cause fewer children to be born into the world.

Exile comes into the world because of idolatry, sexual transgression, murder, and not letting the land rest during the sabbatical year. Idolatry, as it says (Leviticus 26:30), “I will destroy your altars.” The Holy Blessed One said: Since you want to worship idols, I will exile you to a place where they worship idols. That is why it says, “I will destroy your altars.” Not letting the land rest during the sabbatical year, as it says (Leviticus 26:34), “Then shall the land make up for its sabbatical years [throughout all the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies].” The Holy Blessed One said to them: Since you do not let the land rest, it will rest by itself, and the number of months that you did not let it rest, it will rest by itself. That is why it says, “Then shall the land make up…all the time.” (Sexual transgression: How so? Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosei said: As long as Israel commits sexual transgressions, the Divine Presence removes Itself from them, as it says (Deuteronomy 23:15), “Let no unseemly [lit., naked] thing be seen among you, so that [God] will turn away from you.”)