Komentarz do Kapłańska 25:56

בהר סיני [AND THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES] ON THE MOUNT SINAI — What has the matter of the Sabbatical year to do with Mount Sinai that Scripture felt compelled to expressly state where it was commanded? Were not all commandments given on Sinai? But this statement is intended to suggest the following comparison: How is it in the case of the law of Shemittah? Its general rules, [its specific prescriptions] and minute details were ordained on Mount Sinai! So, also, were all commandments with their general rules and their minute details ordained on Mount Sinai. Thus is taught in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 1). It seems to me that the following is the explanation of this: Since we do not find in Deuteronomy that the law concerning “the rest of the soil in the Sabbatical year” was repeated in “the fields of Moab” (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1; the place where Moses repeated many of the commandments contained in the other books of the Pentateuch), we may infer that all its general rules and specific prescriptions must have been promulgated on Sinai. The express mention of בהר סיני here appears therefore to be unnecessary but Scripture by mentioning it intends to teach regarding every Divine command (lit., Divine utterance) that was spoken to Moses that in every case they, their general rules and minute details originated at Sinai and that they were only repeated again in “the fields of Moab”.

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES IN MOUNT SINAI. “What has the subject of the Sabbatical year [stated here in this section] to do with that of Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments declared on Sinai? [It is to teach us that] just as [this law of] the Sabbatical year was ordained on Sinai with its general rules, its specific prescripts and its minute details, so also were all [the commandments] ordained on Sinai with their general rules, and their specific prescripts and their minute details. Thus it is taught [here] in the Torath Kohanin. It appears to me¹I.e. Rashi. Having quoted the text of the Torath Kohanim, Rashi now proceeds to explain the basis of the analogy of this text of the Beraitha between our section and all other commandments. To follow Rashi’s answer it is important to recall that in the final year of Israel’s stay in the wilderness, when they were encamped in the plains of Moab (Numbers 22:1), Moses, in the last days of his life, restated the commandments of G-d, his words being contained in the Book of Deuteronomy. However, since not all the commandments were restated there by Moses, our verse serves as a basis for the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim, as will be explained by Rashi. Ramban will differ with this whole approach, since the text of the Torath Kohanim makes no reference at all to Moses’ restatement of the laws in the plains of Moab. See at end of Note 10. that the following is the interpretation thereof: Since we do not find the law of the resting of the soil [in the Sabbatical year] repeated in the plains of Moab [when Moses restated the law, as contained in the Book of Deuteronomy], we must deduce that all the general rules and specific prescripts [of the Sabbatical year, including those of the resting of the soil] were declared on Sinai. [Why then was it necessary for Scripture to state here in Mount Sinai, since it is self-understood that this entire law was promulgated on Sinai, since the law of the resting of the soil is not mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy? We must say that the reason] Scripture mentioned [the phrase in Mount Sinai] here is in order to teach that every communication [i.e., commandment] that was spoken to Moses on Sinai, was given at Sinai together with its general rules and minute details, and they were [merely] repeated and taught again in the plains of Moab.” Thus far is the language of Rashi.
But this does not appear to me to be correct at all. For there are many commandments like the Sabbatical year which were not repeated in the plains of Moab, and [all] we know about their general rules and specific prescripts is that they were promulgated either on Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting [but not specifically on Sinai, as Rashi said]!²In other words, we can be certain that those commandments which were not mentioned in the plains of Moab [and are recorded in other parts of the Torah], were declared at some preceding time, but we cannot be sure whether they were said with the commandments given at Sinai, or only later on, after the building of the Tabernacle from which G-d communicated to Moses. On what basis, then, does Rashi say that they were all given on Sinai? Moreover, how do we know that the other commandments which were repeated in the plains of Moab are to be likened to the Sabbatical year [which was not repeated? Perhaps this analogy applies only to those commandments which were not repeated in the plains of Moab, like the Sabbatical year; but how do we know that the analogy applies also to those that were repeated by Moses in the plains of Moab, as contained in the Book of Deuteronomy? And how do we know that in the case of those commandments that were repeated by Moses], that only the general rules were declared on Sinai but the specific prescripts were given in the plains of Moab! And indeed it would be more logical to say so, that those commandments which were repeated by Moses, were restated for the sake of explaining their specific prescripts, since on Sinai only their general rules had been declared!
But the interpretation of the above Beraitha is clear: The general rules of the Sabbatical year were declared on Sinai, as it is written in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances):³Exodus 21:1. Since these ordinances were declared before the Tabernacle was erected, they must perforce have been given on Sinai. And on the seventh year thou shalt let it [i.e., the Land] rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat etc.⁴Ibid., 23:11. These are the laws of the Sabbatical year in a general way. Here He went back [to this subject] and said that in Mount Sinai all its specific prescripts were also given, since all of them are mentioned in this section. And at the end of this subject it is written, These are the commandments, which the Eternal commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,⁵Further, 27:34. in order to liken all the commandments to the Sabbatical year [previously] mentioned, [teaching] that all of them, likewise, were stated in general terms and with their particular details — that is, all were declared on Sinai. And thus it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:⁶Torath Kohanim, end of Seder Bechukothai. “These are the commandments.⁵Further, 27:34. Henceforth no prophet may promulgate any new thing.⁷This is a major teaching in Judaism, that the prophets who came after Moses only served to exhort Israel to obey the laws given by Moses, but no new Divine commandments were added. Which the Eternal commanded Moses.⁵Further, 27:34. The messenger was [found] deserving before Him Who sent him [since he was the most perfect of all human beings].⁸Malbim to Torath Kohanim ibid. Moses for the children of Israel. It was the merit of Israel that caused [the Divine Glory to rest upon Moses].⁹“And that the Torah be given through Moses. For if Israel had not accepted the Torah, the Divine Glory would not have communicated with Moses, because where there is no flock there is no shepherd, and if there is a flock there must be a shepherd” (Rabad in his commentary to Torath Kohanim, ibid.). In Mount Sinai,⁵Further, 27:34. [this teaches] that all commandments originated at Sinai.” Thus far is the text in the Torath Kohanim. But the reason [that the laws were repeated] in the plains of Moab was only for the purpose of explaining the Torah to the children [of those who had left Egypt, who were born in the wilderness after the Giving of the Torah at Sinai]. This appears to me to be the interpretation [of the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim mentioned] and “it is well and nicely said.”¹⁰The Hebrew expression kaftor vaferach literally means “a knop and a flower.” The term is borrowed from the design of the candelabrum (see Exodus 25:33), and here means “a thing of truth, and beautifully stated.” The usage of this expression is found in Bereshith Rabbah 91:12. It has been suggested that since the candelabrum in the Tabernacle represented the light of wisdom, the knops and flowers in the candelabrum symbolized truth beautifully expressed. Hence the expression kaftor vaferach as applied to a dictum of truth well formulated. — In essence, Ramban’s understanding of the Beraitha mentioned by Rashi is as follows: “Why is the expression in Mount Sinai mentioned here? It cannot be to teach us that the general principles of the Sabbatical year were given on Sinai, for all commandments were declared on Sinai in general terms, the Sabbatical year being merely one of them, as expressly stated in Exodus 23:11. Hence the expression here in Mount Sinai must be to teach that all its specific prescripts were also given on Mount Sinai, and from this you may deduce that the verse at the end of the Book of Leviticus, which states, These are the commandments which the Eternal commanded Moses … in Mount Sinai intends to teach us that the specific prescripts of all the laws were also declared on Sinai. — Ramban’s interpretation is thus not based at all on Moses’ restatement of the laws in the plains of Moab, as is that of Rashi, but instead is founded upon the verses in Exodus 23:11, and at the end of Leviticus, as explained.
Now the reason why this section [of the laws of the Sabbatical year] was written here, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained to be as follows: This is the covenant which was written in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances),¹¹Exodus 24:4-7: And Moses wrote all the words of the Eternal … And he took the Book of the Covenant. and when the people accepted it upon themselves [by saying] we will do, and obey,¹²Ibid., Verse 7. then the covenant was made,¹³Ibid., Verse 8. and [Moses] told them this whole section [containing the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Scripture mentioned it in this place in order to put in proximity all the conditions [He laid down for Israel’s inheriting] the Land; for just as He said with reference to forbidden sexual relations that on account of them the Land will vomit them out,¹⁴Above, 18:28. so He said in the section of ‘Im Bechukothai’ (If ye walk in My statutes)¹⁵Further, 26:3. with regard to [not keeping the laws of] the Sabbaths of the Land,¹⁶Ibid., Verse 34. and therefore it was necessary that He mention [here] first [what are the laws of] the Sabbatical years.
In my opinion this section is written here in its proper order, for the expression in Mount Sinai means when Moses went up there to receive the second Tablets [and does not refer, as Ibn Ezra interprets it, to the time immediately after the Giving of the Torah, even before Moses went up the mountain to receive the first Tablets of the Law], and the explanation of the matter is as follows: At the beginning of the first forty days of the first Tablets, Moses wrote in the Book of the Covenant all the words of the Eternal¹⁷Exodus 24:4. and all the ordinances stated there [in that section],¹⁸Ibid., Chapters 21-23. and he sprinkled the blood of the covenant upon the people.¹³Ibid., Verse 8. But when the people sinned with the [golden] calf and the Tablets were broken, that was equivalent to a breaking of the covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to Moses by giving him the second Tablets, He commanded him concerning a new covenant, as it is said, Behold, I make a covenant;¹⁹Ibid., 34:10. and He repeated there the stringent commandments that had been said in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances)²⁰Ibid., 21:1. at the first covenant, and He [now] stated, Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.²¹Ibid., 34:27. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to make this second covenant with them with greater stringency, and that it should be upon them by means of oaths and curses, and that it should cover, like the first one, all the original commandments and all the ordinances, as it is said of the first covenant, And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Eternal, and all the ordinances.²²Ibid., 24:3. Therefore Scripture states here at the end of the exhortations, These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which the Eternal made between Him and the children of Israel, in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses,²³Further, 26:46. this being an allusion to all the commandments and ordinances which had been said at the first covenant, in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances),²⁰Ibid., 21:1. for they were all embodied in this [second] covenant.
Now in the Book of the first Covenant, the law of the Sabbatical year was stated in a general way as I have mentioned, as it is said, And on the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow etc.,⁴Ibid., 23:11. and now in this second convenant it was said with its specific prescripts, its minute details, and its penalties. At the time of the first covenant, during the first forty days [after the Giving of the Torah, when Moses went up to the mountain], Moses was commanded concerning the building of the Tabernacle; and when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to him and commanded him to make a second covenant for them, Moses came down [from the mountain] and he gave them in commandment all that the Eternal had spoken with him in Mount Sinai,²⁴Exodus 34:32. including the making of the Tabernacle. Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them as at first, These are the words which the Eternal hath commanded that ye should do them,²⁵Ibid., 35:1. when making the Tabernacle. Now they accepted the charge joyfully, and departed from his presence at once, and they all came back and brought the donations, and made the Tabernacle and completed its construction. And as soon as it was set up, He immediately called unto Moses, and the Eternal spoke unto him out of the Tent of Meeting,²⁶Above, 1:1. and He commanded him regarding the offerings and the whole Torath Kohanim [“law of the priests,” i.e., the Book of Leviticus], and Moses immediately commanded them all to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel. When he had finished, he said to them: “G-d further commanded me in Mount Sinai to explain to you [the laws of] the Sabbatical year and of the Jubilee, and to make a new covenant with you concerning all the commandments and ordinances, by means of adjuration and oath.” It was not necessary now [for Moses] to slaughter offerings and sprinkle half of the blood upon the people and half upon the altar, as he had done at the first covenant,²⁷Exodus 24:5-6. because now they were [again] accepting upon themselves the original covenant, with these oaths and adjurations. This is the sense of the expression, which the Eternal made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,²³Further, 26:46. for it was He Who made with them this [second] covenant, having forgiven them on the basis of these conditions [i.e., the oaths and adjurations mentioned further on in Chapter 26], as I have explained at the end of [Seder] Ki Thisa.²⁸Ibid., 34:27; 31. See Vol. II, pp. 591-2, 594. Similarly, the covenant at the plains of Moab²⁹Deuteronomy 28:69. 29:9-13. was made likewise, by means of the people accepting upon themselves the Torah with those oaths and adjurations [mentioned in Deuteronomy Chapter 28], this being the covenant, as it is said, These are the words of the covenant which the Eternal commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.³⁰Ibid., 28:69. Ramban’s point is thus to stress that all subsequent covenants mentioned after the one made at Sinai are merely re-affirmations of the original covenant. The Rabbis of blessed memory have spoken the truth in saying³¹Torath Kohanim, Bechukothai 8:9. that among the conditions on which the Land [was given by G-d to Israel] are [those of observing the laws of] the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee, as He will mention in the exhortations,³²Further, 26:34; 43. and they are clearly expressed in this second covenant [as referring to the commandments in this section].

וידבר ה' אל משה בהר סיני, it is noteworthy that nowhere else when the Torah announces new legislation does it also mention where this legislation was originally issued. The only time such locations are mentioned is when a new element of that commandment is added. We have heard about the principle of the sh’mittah legislation in Exodus 23,11 where the general outline was presented, the Torah writing that the produce of the land during the seventh year should be left untouched by the farmer and is intended for the poor of the nation.
Now the Torah reverts to present this legislation in greater detail. This is the reason why we are told where these details were first spelled out. What we read here is only a prototype. The principle does not apply only to the sh’mittah legislation, but wherever some legislation had been mentioned in a general manner only, when the details were filled in this took place at Mount Sinai, just as it did in the case of the sh’mittah legislation. (Torat Kohanim 1,1)
The reason that Moses mentioned this particular legislation at this point is because at this time he was still under the impression that the Israelites would proceed in short order to the land of Canaan, the sin of the spies which set them back by forty years not having occurred yet. Even as late as Numbers 10,29 Moses still spoke to the people of the impending journey to the Holy Land. Speaking about the soil of the holy Land “resting,” is the subject in Leviticus 26,34 as well as in Chronicles II 36,21. This shows that the main focus of the sh’mittah legislation concerns the “Sabbatical” experienced by the farmland of the nation.

בהר סיני, at Mount Sinai. We need to know why the Torah found it necessary to mention that this legislation was revealed at Mount Sinai. While it is true that our sages in Torat Kohanim explain that this is merely a reminder of the fact that all the commandments were given to Moses at Mount Sinai, both in general terms as well as in all their details, this does not answer the question why the Torah selected this commandment to remind us of that fact. It would have made much better sense to state this fact either when relating the first or the last of the Torah's commandments. Perhaps the fact that here G'd describes His gift to the Jewish people, the land of Israel, prompted Him to remind the people that the gift of the land was conditional on the people observing the commandments they had accepted at the time they stood at Mount Sinai and received the Ten Commandments. The present tense, i.e. אשר אני נותן ties the gift to Mount Sinai where the Israelites undertook to keep the Torah.

בהר סיני, before the Tabernacle had been erected.

בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai.” Rashi explains that the reason for the Torah adding the words “at Mount Sinai,” is to inform us that just as the details of the laws of the Sh’mittah year were revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, so the details of all the other laws were also revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai. Nachmanides queries this although Rashi only copied the words of Torat Kohanim. He explains the meaning of Rashi as based on the fact that some laws were repeated in the Book of Deuteronomy, whereas others were not. In connection with Sh’mittah, for instance, the need for the land to remain fallow during that year was not repeated in Deuteronomy, although the need to relinquish overdue debts to the impecunious debtor was. We might have concluded that anything that was repeated in Deuteronomy was something that was revealed to Moses later than at Mount Sinai. Rashi therefore sets the record straight by informing us that all the details of all the 613 commandments had been revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai down to the last detail. Whereas already in Exodus chapter 23,10-12 the subject of the Sh’mittah year had been discussed in general terms, now it is being discussed in greater detail. The Torah reveals that the details had already been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, even though the Torah had seen fit to write these details only now. This, Rashi says, is typical of all the laws of the Torah. If Moses saw fit, shortly before his death, to repeat some of these laws, this does not mean that he had not known about them all long before, ever since his first stay on Mount Sinai. [Numerous commentators understand Nachmanides as explaining that contrary to some laws which were revealed to Moses whenever G’d called him to a meeting in the Tabernacle, the laws of sh’mittah were revealed to him in all their details already long before there was a Tabernacle, in Exodus 23, immediately following the revelation and the giving of the Ten Commandments. The same applies to all the 613 commandments, according to Rashi, [whereas any laws revealed in the Tabernacle may not have been the kind which conform to Maimonides’ 14 criteria for inclusion in the 613 commandments. Ed.] Whatever Moses mentioned shortly before his death in Deuteronomy, were not new laws, as no prophet is entitled to formulate new laws, but were explanations of laws that had been revealed at Mount Sinai, and since the time had not come for them to be practiced, Moses thought it appropriate to publicly discuss them again. According to our author, Nachmanides considers that the laws of sh’mittah appeared here in their appropriate place, i.e. up until the words שבת לה' in verse 2 which concludes the headline of the legislation. The conclusive proof that all the laws were revealed in detail at Mount Sinai is from Leviticus 26,56, where the matter is spelled out most clearly.

Their general rules and specifications. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all of them [including] their general rules and specifications were said at Sinai? Obviously, because the superfluous words “on Mount Sinai” indicate that the general rules and specifications were said at Mount Sinai. But perhaps this only comes to teach [the laws] of about the Sabbatical year itself, and not about other mitzvos? Also, regarding [the claim that these words are superfluous] itself you can object, from where [does Rashi know this]? Perhaps [the verse writes] “on Mount Sinai” so that you do not say that “(And Hashem spoke to him from) the Tent of Meeting” written at the beginning of parshas Vayikra refers to all the parshiyos after parshas Vayikra, and therefore it writes “on Mount Sinai” here? The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “And it seems to me, etc.” He means as follows: Since we do not find that [the laws of] shemittoh of the land whose general rules principles were taught at Sinai were repeated at the Plains of Moab in Sefer Devorim., Tthis could make lead one to mistakenly say that all the mitzvos were repeated taught at the Plains of Moav because of their details and specifications, and are [thus] not from Sinai. Even though it is written later at the end of Vayikra (27:34), “These are the commandments which Hashem commanded Moshe for Bnei Yisroel on Mount Sinai,” which implies that all the mitzvos are from Sinai, this may apply only to the general rules of mitzvos but not to their details. However, since the Sabbatical year is not repeated there except in the hint of “Suspend (every creditor’s hand from his loan to his neighbor)” (Devorim 15:2), if so, its general rules and details must all have been said at Sinai. If so, why does the verse here [superfluously] say “Mount Sinai”? It must be to teach us that every utterance which was prophetically said to Moshe, that all of them were from Sinaiùtheir general rules and their specifications. And [the Sabbatical year] is an example that applies to the entire Torah.

God said to Moses on Mt. Sinai: What is the connection between Shemittah and Mt. Sinai? etc. The meaning is that when Moses went up Mount Sinai after seven weeks, that Israel counted 49 days from Pesach to Shavuot, then that mountain was sanctified, and forbidden from ploughing and sowing on the 50th day, on which the Torah was given. And this is the length of time of the Jubilee, to call for liberty and freedom to all of Israel, freedom on the tablets, by means of the voice of the shofar of the giving of the Torah. At that moment God told Moses the matter of Shemittah and the Jubilee, saying that through the number 7 and the number 49 I am giving this holiness to all the land of Israel. For this has a similarity and connection with Mt. Sinai from the side of there being an air that makes people wise (B. Baba Batra 158b). And the Torah [in general] is not like the Torah of the land of Israel and Mt. Sinai. Therefore it was appropriate to give also to that land the holiness of Mount Sinai after the number 49 years, and thus with the number 7. Or in order to make a memorial of the standing at Sinai through the calling of liberty and the blowing of the shofar. This joins to all the other reasons that there is to this mitzvah. Therefore it was said on Mount Sinai, and this is the correct meaning.

בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai;” all the portions preceding this one from the beginning of the Book of Leviticus had been revealed to Moses from the Tabernacle, (G–d’s voice emanating from the top of the Hoy Ark) and they all concerned laws of importance for the service in the Tabernacle in one way or another. The two portions commencing here had been revealed to Moses at Mount Sinai, as they neither concerned the Tabernacle nor the priests. This is the reason why the Torah here added the words: “at Mount Sinai.” Nonetheless, they were included in the Book of Leviticus, seeing that they deal with the laws of sh’mittah and Yovel as well as the laws of Erchin and Charamim which are administered by the priests. In verse 9 of our chapter the Torah decrees the blowing of the shofar on the tenth of Tishrey when the Jubilee year officially begins. This blowing of the shofar was performed by one of the priests. The fact that this blowing of the shofar when required was performed by the priests is documented in Numbers chapter 10, verse 8. In order that we should not think that these laws were issued from the Tabernacle, the Torah added the words: באהל מועד, “at the Tent of Meeting.”

בהר סיני, “at Mount Sinai.” Whenever the expression: “at Mount Sinai,” is used in the Torah, it refers to a point in time before Moses descended after his third lengthy stay on it in the month of Tishrey. In other words, the legislation described here had been revealed to Moses before the Tabernacle had been built. If these laws were recorded in the Book of Leviticus, and not in the Book of Exodus, seeing that Moses had descended the third time before events described at the end of the Book of Exodus, this is because the laws applied only after the Israelites had settled in their homeland, especially the laws governing Sh’mittah and Yovel, that are prominent in this portion; they are all laws applying also to the priests (although they were not real landowners) about whom most of the legislation in the Book of Leviticus revolves. When we consider that numerous laws were recorded in the second third and fourth Book of the Torah and repeated in the fifth Book by Moses, it is clear that laws that were not repeated by Moses in the fifth Book, must have been given to him already at Mount Sinai. The laws concerning the Sabbaths of the land in the seventh year, and the Sabbath of the land, and the freedom to be granted to the slaves, and the restoration of lands that had been sold under financial duress by their owner during a particular 50 year cycle known as yovel, belong to such categories. The laws about inheritance of the land and those that could be applied only after the Israelites had taken possession of the lands on the east Bank of the Jordan as well as a number of laws pertaining to land ownership were repeated once more. It appears therefore that if the Torah had to make a point here to emphasize that the laws had been given to Moses at Mount Sinai, we must assume that the general outline was given at Sinai to the people and the details were not revealed to them until realization of keeping them would draw near.

Another reason may be related to a statement we find in Avodah Zarah 20 and considered as binding by Maimonides in chapter 3 of his treatise called Zechiyah. Here is what Maimonides writes: "It is forbidden to give a gift to a pagan (unless it is in return for services rendered)." We must remember that prior to acceptance of the Torah by the Jewish people they themselves were legally in the category of pagans, i.e. G'd could not legally make a gift of the land of Israel to the Jewish people until they offered some value in return. He could only give the land of Israel to them after the revelation at Mount Sinai. G'd alluded to this when the Torah mentioned Mount Sinai as the reason for "the land which I am about to give to you." This also answers the question why G'd had to say: "which I am giving to you." There was never any doubt that it was G'd from whom we would receive this gift so that we could have erred if the Torah did not repeat it. You will note that in Leviticus 19,23 where the Torah legislates about the ערלה restrictions the subject is introduced as follows: "when you come to the land and plant fruit-bearing trees, etc." In that instance the Torah did not mention who gives the land to the Israelites, etc. This supports our theory about why G'd selected the example of our verse to teach us that the gift of the land of Israel is tied to the experience at Mount Sinai.

The earth shall have a Shabbat for Hashem: The first letters and the last letters of rest [in Hebrew] are vav and kay [letters of G-d's name] and Shabbat is in between. Tzaddikim are called Shabbat as it says in the Zohar, and they connect the letters of vav-kay as it says in the Torah "You who cleaves to Hashem" means that they bring it together. And "rest" has the same letters as teshuva because teshuva causes the unity of Hashem's name, and this is meaning of the earth will rest: the shechina is called earth as it says "Tzaddikim will inherit the earth (shechina)." And this is the meaning of the verse "the chronicles of the heaven and earth when G-d created them" so the words of the last words are the same letters as Avraham. And he achieved a unity in the name Yud-Kay-Vav-Kay and that brought rachamim and chesed to the name Elokim. He acquires earth and heaven arousal from below to supernal earth and this causes the masculine waters to descend from heaven. This is the meaning of the verse, this is because the tzaddikim connecting the yud and kay and cause revelation of Shabbat.

שבת לה׳ [THEN SHALL THE LAND KEEP) A REST ‎'לה‎ — This means a rest in honor of the Lord (not a rest for the Lord, as in v. 4: שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ, “there shall be a strict Sabbath for the land”, i. e. for the land to rest) in the same sense as these words are used in the case of the weekly Sabbath (lit., the Sabbath of Creation) (Exodus 20:10) where 'שבת לה‎ cannot mean “a day for God to rest” (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 2).

A SABBATH UNTO THE ETERNAL, “[This means] in honor of the Eternal [and that it is not primarily intended for man’s benefit],³³In other words, we are to observe the Sabbatical year primarily as a mark of honor to G-d, and not for our benefit, in that by lying fallow for a year the land will improve. The same applies to the weekly Sabbath, which we celebrate in honor of the Creator of the world, and not primarily because we benefit physically from a day of rest. (Mizrachi). in the same sense as this expression is used in the case of the Sabbath of Creation” [i.e., the weekly Sabbath, of which it is also said, a Sabbath unto the Eternal].³⁴Exodus 20:10. See note above. This is the language of Rashi. But this was not the intention of the Rabbis in their interpretation,³⁵In other words, it is true that in the Torath Kohanim (Behar 1:2) there is such an interpretation of the Rabbis, likening the expression a Sabbath unto the Eternal stated here in the case of the Sabbatical year to that mentioned in the law of the weekly Sabbath. But the intent thereof is not as Rashi presented it, for etc. The full text of the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim will be mentioned further on by Ramban. for all [weekly] Sabbaths, and also the festivals, are in honor of the Eternal, and yet in not one of them [i.e., the festivals] does Scripture say that they are “unto the Eternal.” Instead, it says it shall be a solemn rest unto you,³⁶Above, 23:24. and in the case of the Day of Atonement it states, It shall be unto you a Sabbath of solemn rest.³⁷Ibid., Verse 32. The text of the Beraitha in the Torah Kohanim [quoted by Rashi] is as follows:³⁸Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:2. “A Sabbath unto the Eternal. Just as it says with reference to the Sabbath of Creation, so is it said regarding the Sabbatical year, a Sabbath unto the Eternal.” But the meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d³⁴Exodus 20:10. See note above. stated in connection with the Sabbath of Creation, is that on it He ceased from work and rested³⁹Exodus 31:17. and therefore thou shalt not do any manner of work.³⁴Exodus 20:10. See note above. It was with reference to that idea that the Sages, of blessed memory, said that the same expression is also stated in the case of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh in [the cycle of] the years [just as the weekly Sabbath is the seventh day in the cycle of days; and the meaning thereof here is that since the seventh year is a Sabbath to the Eternal, as will be explained, we are to desist from working the land].
Now here [in the Torath Kohanim mentioned above, the Rabbis] have roused our attention to one of the great secrets of the Torah.⁴⁰See in Exodus (Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23). Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already given us a hint of it when he wrote: “The meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal is like that of the Sabbath-day.⁴¹For just as the Sabbath was given for the purpose of contemplating G-d’s deeds and meditating upon His Torah, so also is the purport of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh of the years (Mekor Chayim in his commentary to Ibn Ezra). The secret of the years of the world is alluded to in this place.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s comment.]
Bend now your ear to understand that which I am permitted to inform you about it in the words that I will cause you to hear, and if you will be worthy, you will contemplate them [and understand them]. I have already written in Seder Bereshith⁴²Genesis 2:3 (Vol. I, pp. 61-64). that the six days of creation represent [all] the days of the world, and the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d,³⁴Exodus 20:10. See note above. for on it will be the Sabbath to the Great Name, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:⁴³Tamid 7:4. “On the seventh day what psalm did the Levites sing [in the Sanctuary? They sang] A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath-day⁴⁴Psalms 92:1. — [a song] for the World to Come, which will be wholly a Sabbath, and rest for life everlasting.” Thus the [seven] days [of the week] allude to that which He created in the process of creation, and the [seven] years [of the Sabbatical cycle] refer to that which will occur during the creation of all “the days” of the world. It is for this reason that Scripture was more stringent regarding [the transgression of the laws of] the Sabbatical year than with respect to those guilty of transgressing all other negative commandments, and made it punishable with exile, just as He was stringent with respect to forbidden sexual relations [for which the punishment of the people, as opposed to that of the individual, is also exile];⁴⁵Above, 18:28. as it is said, Then shall the Land be paid her Sabbaths,⁴⁶Further, 26:34. and He repeated this matter many times: As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest,⁴⁷Ibid., Verse 35. and it is further said, And the Land shall lie forsaken without them, and shall be paid her Sabbaths.⁴⁸Ibid., Verse 43. “And so we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:⁴⁹Aboth 5:9. Our text of the Mishnah has a variant reading. See my Hebrew commentary p. 167, Note 55. “Exile comes for the delaying of justice, and for the perversion of justice, and for [the neglect of] the year of rest for the Land.” [This stringency of punishment is] because whoever denies it [i.e., the law of the Sabbatical year], does not acknowledge the work of creation and [life in] the World to Come. Similarly the prophet [Jeremiah] was stringent, and decreed exile for neglecting to send [Hebrew] servants to freedom in the seventh year [of their service], as it is said, I made a covenant with your fathers … At the beginning of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother etc.,⁵⁰Jeremiah 34:13-14. — The verse there reads ‘mikeitz sheva shanim’, which is normally translated as “at the end of seven years” (so also in the J.P.S. translation). Ramban in Deuteronomy 15:1, however, brings proofs that the correct meaning in this context is “at the end-year of the seven years”, i.e., at the beginning of seventh year, rather than “at the end of the seventh year.” Thus the Hebrew servant goes free at the beginning of the seventh year [the end-year of the cycle of seven years], and this is indeed the accepted law (Rambam, Hilchoth Avadim 2:1) that he serves for six years. See, however, Yonathan ben Uziel in Jeremiah. for in the case of a servant the seventh year is also like a [complete] Jubilee; and the Jubilee is known also [at the very beginning of the Torah] — from ‘Bereshith’ (In the beginning) to ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished)⁵¹In other words, in the Scriptural account of the creation — commencing with the verse, In the beginning … and concluding with ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished) (2:1) — the secret of the Jubilee is already hinted at, namely, “that all things, that came into existence in the beginning of time will be finished in the era of the Jubilee (Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). — intimating that in the Jubilee everything is to return [to its origin], every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.⁵²Further, Verse 10. For it is a sure foundation, and he that believeth⁵³Isaiah 28:16. The verse reads: He that believeth will not ‘yachish’ (make haste). Ramban brings out ingeniously a different meaning by saying: he that believeth ‘yacharish’ (will keep silence), suggesting that the student of Cabala must be reticent and careful not to disclose the secrets he has learned. Cf. the phrase in Amos 5:13 — ‘Therefore ‘hamaskil yidom’. (he who understands will keep quiet)! shall keep silence. This is what is meant in saying, ‘v’shavtah ha’aretz shabbath’ (and ‘the land’ shall keep a Sabbath);⁵⁴In Verse 2 before us. The word ha’aretz is here understood as “the earth” in its entirety [not merely one particular part of it], the same interpretation applying to the next verses quoted. See further, Note 194. and ye shall proclaim liberty ‘ba’aretz’ (throughout ‘the land’),⁵⁵Further, Verse 10. for the reference here is to “the land of eternal life” which is alluded to in the first verse [of the Torah],⁵⁶In the beginning G-d created the heavens ‘v’eth ha’aretz’, which means “the land of eternal life.” and of which it is said, ‘v’ha’aretz ezkor’ (and I will remember ‘the land’).⁵⁷Further, 26:42. I have already mentioned this several times.⁵⁸See Vol. I, pp. 110, and 120. Perhaps it is to this that our Rabbis alluded in saying:⁵⁹Rosh Hashanah 21 b. See also Vol. I, pp. 9-10. “Fifty gates [degrees] of understanding were created in the world, and all were transmitted to Moses with one exception.” For each cycle of seven years constitutes “the gate of one house” [creation], and thus He informed him of all existence from beginning to end, with the exception of the holy Jubilee.

כי תבואו אל הארץ, a reference to the land west of the river Jordan (Torat Kohanim 2)

דנר אל בני ישראל, "speak to the children of Israel, etc." The reason the Torah repeats דבר ואמרת is that this legislation involves both a prohibition to work the land (for a limited period) as well as denying oneself ownership of what one's field or orchard produces during that year (especially the fruit of the trees which grow without planting). The Torah uses the relatively harsh expression דבר to introduce the prohibition to work the land seeing it is difficult for a farmer to reconcile himself to such a commandment. The expresssion ואמרת applies to the requirement to declare one's produce הפקר, i.e. accessible to anyone who finds it, something which does not involve too much hardship as the farmer becomes the beneficiary of his neighbour's parallel declaration. Moreover, G'd's promise that the land would produce an extra generous harvest during the sixth year of the cycle (compare verse 21) will gladden the heart of the farmer and reconcile him to loss of ownership of what his own field or orchard produces during the seventh year.

ושבתה, an expression of idleness.

שבת לה', “as a kind of Sabbath in honour of Hashem.” Nachmanides observes that in connection with all the festivals the Torah mentions such expressions as שבת or שבתון, describing various degrees of abstention from work, whereas nowhere else do we encounter the expression שבת לה', “a Sabbath for Hashem,” as we find it concerning the weekly Sabbath which is testimony that Hashem has created the universe in six days. (Compare Exodus 20,10 as well as the second version of the Ten Commandments in Deuteronomy.) It is fairly clear then that the sh’mittah legislation too is meant to pay homage to the fact that G’d created the universe in six stages. Our sages consider the duration of that universe as meant to endure for 6000 years, paralleling the “days” it took to create. The seventh millennium, by contrast, would be of a different order altogether, work in the manner in which we know it not being performed during that millennium. As a result of such considerations, anyone who denies the validity of the sh’mittah in thought or deed is equivalent to someone who denies that G’d created the universe in six days and that there is a world to come beyond the world in which we find ourselves on this planet. This is the reason why the Torah has been so strict with warnings about the dire consequences to the nation if this legislation were to be disregarded, and why there are so many apparently stringent regulations connected to the observance of the sh’mittah legislation. Non-observance of this positive commandment [usually carrying a relatively minor penalty Ed.] is followed by the exile of the nation, a punishment equal to the violation of non-observance of the negative commandments of incestuous or immoral sexual relationships! (Compare Leviticus 27,34)

The Shabbos of Ccreation. You might ask: What has this [Shabbos] to do with that [the Sabbatical year]? The answer is: A person sometimes stops plowing his land for its benefit, so that the land should be fertile. Therefore, Rashi explains, “As it was said regarding the Shabbos of creation.” I.e., it says there (Shemos 20:10), “But the seventh day is Shabbos to Hashem, your God,” since the Holy One rested on the seventh day. Here too, we are commanded to keep the Sabbatical year in the seventh year in order to remind us that the Holy One rested on the seventh day. And the verse is commanding to not plow the land for the sake of Hashem, and his intent should not be for his own benefit.

The land shall be at rest. There are differing opinions about the reason for this mitzvah. Many say that the reason the land should rest is so that it will continue to be fertile for planting, and this is the reason favored by Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim. However, many disagree with him. They say that if the Torah was concerned about the land becoming infertile, why should they be liable exile for not keeping shemittoh? Their punishment would be the natural consequence that the land becomes infertile. Furthermore, this is not “a Shabbos for Hashem” but rather for the land. Additionally, why does it say (26:34): “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos”? What does it have to gain that Israel will be exiled from it and non-Jews will settle there? They will work the land incessantly!

כי תבואו, “when you will come;” what follows will be applied after the land has been conquered, and distributed to the tribes who have settled there. If this were not so, what would be the meaning of such words as: “your vineyards, your fields,” unless the ownership of these fields and vineyards had already been established and each one of the people addressed knew the boundaries of their land?

ושבתה הארץ, .a reference to the soil intended for farming.

Another reason why the apparent duplication of דבר ואמרת is justified is the dual nature of the "Sabbath" i.e. rest, of the land. One aspect of this legislation is that the King commanded us to let the land lie fallow, ergo we carry out this command. 2) Although the practical performance of this commandment involves the relationship between man and man rather than the relationship between man and G'd, our obligation to comply is anchored in our relationship with G'd, i.e. the fact that the gift of the land to the Jewish people had been made conditional on our observing the Torah. When G'd did not say: "I have given you the land," but "I am giving you the land," He made it plain that the condition which is attached to that gift is an ongoing one, i.e. the land never became ours irrevocably. The word דבר therefore alludes to G'd's right to legislate; the word ואמרת on the other hand, refers to the social element of this legislation which also is the prerogative of the King to legislate. The Torah is under no obligation to furnish us with the reasons which motivated G'd the legislator, when He commanded us to perform these statutes.

In order to resolve a number of fine details in the language of this parshah I would say that the reason for this mitzvah is to implant the character traits of faith and trust in Hashem in the people of Israel. Hashem was concerned that perhaps when they would come to the land they would work the soil in the natural way, and when they would be successful they would forget Hashem and remove their trust from Him. They would think that ‘their might and the power of their hand have made them this wealth,’ and the world goes along in its natural way. They would think that the land belongs to them; they are the masters and no one else. Therefore, Hashem took them out of the natural way altogether, for within six years the nations of the world plant their fields for two years and let one year lie fallow, so the land will not be weakened. However, Hashem said, “For six years you shall plant your field,” year after year, and I promise you that it will be more and more fertile and will not weaken. Also, there will be a miracle within a miracle. After having sown the fields for six years, if the sixth year would not be weaker, at least it would not be more fertile. But Hashem declares: On the contrary, in the sixth year it will be much more fertile, to the point where it says (v. 21): “I shall command My blessing to you in the sixth year and it will produce [enough] for three years”.

ושבתה הארץ, “the land is to observe a rest, ‘Sabbatical;’” seeing that we might understand this term as referring only to a prohibition not to dig in the land for treasure, not to dig irrigation canals, etc., the Torah spells out that we must not plough, put seed in the ground, nor dig for wells, either. Neither must we perform work for the betterment of orchards or vineyards, which do not need to be ploughed every year.

'שבת לה, so that during this whole year the farmer instead of “serving” the soil which requires cultivation, will turn his efforts to serving G’d directly instead. Just as the weekly Sabbath is a day set aside for intensive service of the Lord, so the sh’mittah year is to serve the same purpose. (compare Exodus 20,9)

ושבתה הארץ שבח לשם, "and the land shall keep a Sabbath for G'd." What precisely does the Torah have in mind here? If the Torah refers to the seventh year, this is already stated in verse 4, "in the seventh year shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land."

'שבת לה, “a Sabbath for the Lord;” the legislation is not because the land is tired after producing crops six years in a row, but the Sabbath of the land is to remind you that the land belongs to Me, though you are its tenants.

We must therefore understand this verse as belonging to the previous verse in which G'd proclaimed that He was giving us the land. Our verse is a codicil, i.e. that G'd has made a reservation concerning that gift. The reservation is that we, the new "owners," agree to to let the land rest from time to time; "to G'd," i.e. to the G'd who still has title to the land. In verse 4 the Torah defines the nature of this "rest," i.e. when and for how long it is to occur. First we are to work the land for six consecutive years and only the seventh year is to be a year of rest. If the Torah had not written the verse ושבתה הארץ and contented itself with verse 4, I would not have known that G'd had reserved a claim to that land for Himself.

'שבת לה; Rashi understands these words as meaning: “a Sabbath in honour of My name;” what he means is that you are not to understand this law as designed to teach you how to farm efficiently by giving the land a breather every seven years, but you are to demonstrate that you observe the Lord’s commandments.

Upon closer examination we find that G'd was extremely kind in this matter. Generally speaking when a gift is conditional, such a gift may be revoked when the party who received it violates the condition attached to it. In this instance G'd did us a favour by retaining part of the land He had given us as a conditional gift. When the Jewish people violated the conditions of the gift by not observing the Shemittah legislation they did not lose the entire land but merely had to recompense G'd for having deprived Him of what He had reserved for Himself, i.e. the seventh year, the שבת לשם. We find proof of this in 26,34-35 where the Torah writes: "then the land shall be paid her Sabbaths, …the rest it had not had, etc." As a result of G'd retaining part ownership of the land of Israel the gift part of the land will never be cancelled.

The reason why the Torah wrote the word ושבתה next to the words אשר אני נותן is connected to what we learned in Baba Metzia 23 that when a Torah scholar identifies an object he claims as belonging to him this is accepted without an accompanying oath. G'd's word is certainly at least as trustworthy as that of the greatest Torah scholar and there was therefore no need for Him to use an oath when giving the land of Israel to us. Besides, the gift may be considered an act of charity and G'd's utterance concerning it is to be considered as equivalent to a vow (compare Rosh Hashanah 6) so that the words ושבתה הארץ immediately after the promise אשר אני נותן are actually part of the gift itself and not an afterthought. If the Torah had relied only on verse 4 the שמטה legislation could no longer have been considered as an integral part of the gift of the land. The verse speaking about our working the land for six consecutive years, etc., would have constituted an interruption of the subject matter.

SIX YEARS THOU SHALT SOW THY FIELD. Such is the way of Scripture to state [i.e., it is not a command that is expressed here, but it is merely the style of Scripture], just as it says, Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;⁶⁰Exodus 20:9. Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.⁶¹Ibid., 23:12. According to the way of our Rabbis [the verse is to be interpreted as follows:⁶²Yerushalmi, Kilayim VIII, 1. “Six years thou shalt sow thy field — but not in the seventh year — this being a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment, and carries the force of a positive commandment.” Thus he who sows [his field] in the seventh year violates this positive commandment, and also the negative commandment [expressed in the verse, thou shalt not sow thy field].⁶³Verse 4. A homiletic exposition of the Rabbis is as follows:⁶⁴Mechilta, Kaspa 20. “Rabbi Yishmael says: When Israel does the will of G-d, it has to observe only one year of rest [of the soil] in a seven-year cycle, as it is said, Six years thou shalt sow thy field. But if the people do not do the will of G-d, they have to make four ‘years of rest’ of the soil in one seven-year cycle. How so? He plows for one year and cannot sow until the next year, again he plows for one year and cannot sow until the next year. Thus there are four ‘years of rest’ in one seven-year cycle.”⁶⁵The thought expressed is as follows: When Israel observes the law of the Sabbatical year G-d blesses the produce of the Land during the next six years. But if the law of the Torah is not observed, the farmer must leave his field fallow every alternate year in order to preserve the soil. Thus if the law of the Sabbatical year is observed, only one year of rest of the Land is required in a seven-year cycle, but where the law of the Torah is not observed, there must be four years of rest — the first, the third, the fifth, and the seventh. The meaning of the verse, according to this Mechilta [which is, as Ramban calls it here, “a homiletic exposition”], is thus: “six full years you will be able to sow your field without recourse to a rest of the Land, if in the seventh year there shall be a solemn rest for the Land” (Zeh Yenachameinu — a commentary upon the Mechilta).

שש שנים תזרע שדך, the new revelation in this verse is that the land of Israel is so fertile that the same piece of land can remain under cultivation for six consecutive years, although in other countries the land generally is allowed to lie fallow every other year. (compare Baba Batra 36 on this subject.)

שש שנים תזרע, "You shall plant seed for six years, etc." The Torah wanted to phrase the procedure of the farmer seeding his land as a positive commandment, and the pruning of the vines in the seventh year as a negative commandment so that the negative commandment which is a derivative of a positive commandment is also considered as a positive commandment (compare Pessachim 41). Although Maimonides wrote in the first chapter of his treatise Hilchot Shemittah that the positive commandment is based on the words ושבתה הארץ שבת at the end of verse 2, this would certainly not be enough to make the act of seeding and the act of pruning positive commandments. Perhaps what Maimonides had in mind was to make a person who ignores the laws of seeding and pruning guilty of violating two positive commandments instead of merely one.

ואספת, the opposite of abandoning it.

שש שנים תזרע שדך, “you are to sow your field for six consecutive years.” According to Nachmanides the wording is not to be viewed as an absolute commandment, but is similar to the one in the fourth of the Ten commandments ששת ימים תעשה מלאכתך “you shall perform your work on six days, etc.,” meaning that any work which you have to do, you shall do during the six days of the week allocated to the performance of such tasks, whereas on the seventh day you are to rest. (Compare Exodus 20,9) According to our sages the law to abstain from work in the field during the seventh year is in the nature of a negative commandment derived from the restrictive statement that you may only “sow your field for six consecutive years.” [Something known in halachah as לאו הבא מכלל עשה, a negative commandment that is a derivative of a positive commandment. In practice, this means that although the Torah phrased the abstention from such work in the seventh year as a positive instruction, he who fails to observe it transgresses a negative commandment. Ed.]

'שש שנים וגו, for six consecutive years you are to sow, etc;” this verse proves once again that the Torah is not bound to relate matters in a chronological order, else it would have written this verse before the verse about abstaining from agricultural activity during the seventh year. Actually, this paragraph has already appeared in Exodus 23,10, in the chronological order that we would expect. It is only being repeated here on account of the addition of the olive groves that were omitted here.

ואספת את תבואתה, as opposed to the soil in the countries adjacent to the land of Israel.

ושש שנים תזמר, "and for 6 years you shall prune your vineyard." Why did the Torah repeat the words ושש שנים when it could have written: שש שנים תזרע שדך ותזמר כרמך? Our sages explain this in chapter 5 of Massechet Shvi-it by reference to בנות שוח שביעית שלהם שניה, certain kinds of white figs which ripen only once in three years. The shemittah legislation applies starting only with the second year of the cycle. The Talmud explains that in the case of the fruits of that tree the cut-off date is the date they blossom which occurs in the seventh year so that these fruit are harvested in the second year after the shemittah year. In other words, when it comes to the trees, the time the fruit blossoms determines the calculation for when the shemittah year applies. In the case of grains and vegetables however, the time they are harvested determines the application of the shemittah prohibition as we know from Rosh Hashanah 13. There is a good reason then why the Torah had to write the words שש שנים twice, seeing that trees and fields have different six-year cycles respectively, the former determined by the time of the harvest the latter by the time the fruit blossoms.

ואספת את תבואתה, "and you shall gather in its harvest." What need was there for the Torah to write the word ואספת? Perhaps the Torah's use of the expression ואספת את תבואתה is meant to contrast with the ספיחים, the wild growing crop of the seventh year which was not planted which must not be gathered in. The intention of the Torah then would be to add a positive commandment, i.e. the type of positive commandment which is actually a derivative of the negative commandment not to harvest the wild growing crop. This would make the negative commandment not to harvest this kind of crop into a positive commandment with the appropriate halachic consequences for people transgressing it. Possibly the Torah hints that although a piece of land which has been farmed for six years consecutively does not have the strength left to produce a crop in the seventh year, especially seeing it has not even been ploughed or seeded, in this case this is precisely what will happen. The normal procedure is to cultivate a field for a year and then to give that piece of land a year of rest (compare Baba Batra 29). In other words, the Torah praises the quality of the soil in the land of Israel and assures us that observance of the legislation in this chapter will enhance the value of the land. We may even interpret the opening words דבר ואמרת as reflecting this message. The word דבר is normal, the word ואמרת which tones town the harsh דבר hinting at the veiled blessing that the observance of the שמטה legislation will result in an improvement of the yield from the soil.

We may also find a clue to the meaning of our verse in Sanhedrin 26 which reports Rabbi Yannai calling on the people to plant their fields in the seventh year as the government levied a tax on the fields and people could not have met this unless they planted a crop. Tossaphot comment on this: "how could Rabbi Yannai permit something which is forbidden by biblical injunction?" They answer on two levels. Rabbi Yannai spoke of a period when the shemittah legislation applies only because of a rabbinic decree. Alternatively, when a matter of פקוח נפש, physical survival, is involved it is in order to temporarily cancel even a biblical injunction.

יהיה לארץ [A SABBATH OF STRICT REST] SHALL BE UNTO THE LAND [or SOIL] — unto the fields and vineyards.

שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ. You have to refrain totally from working the land, including preparatory work mentioned in detail by our sages in Avodah Zarah 50.

For the fields. Because if not [for this limitation], even making a hole in the earth [for non-agricultural purposes] would be forbidden. Therefore, Rashi explains: “For the fields and vineyards.” His proof for this is that it is written, “You shall not plant your field and you shall not prune your vineyard,” indicating that only fields and vineyards are forbidden, whereas making a hole is permitted. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it says “The land shall be at rest”? The answer is: [If he said it there] you might object, how does he know that? Perhaps even digging the earth is forbidden? Here, however, it is explicitly written a “field” and a “vineyard.”

לא תזמר — The word is a denominative verb from זמורה, a branch, and denotes: to do something to the branches: it is used here because one lops off its (the vineyard’s) branches. Its translation in the Targum is thus: לא תכסח, “thou shall not cut off”, and this root has a similar meaning in the Hebrew (Isaiah 33:12) “as thorns cut off (כסוחים)”; (Psalms 80:17) “it is burnt with fire, it is cut down (כסוחה).

'שבת לה, to seek out the Lord in some manner. [not to use the year to play golf, etc. Ed.]

That they cut off its branches. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it states “You shall prune your vineyard”? The answer is: Above you might have thought that תזמור is an expression of planting, [meaning] that one should not plant branches that grow will beinto a vineyard. But now that it is written וכרמך לא תזמור (your vineyard you shall not prune), by writing “vineyard” first indicates that the vineyard has already been planted, and if so, what is the meaning of לא תזמור? Thus, it must be an expression of pruning.

And its Targum is: “you shall not cut off.” You might ask: Why does Rashi not [simply] explain, “Like its Targum?” The answer is: [He wanted to add] that it is also an expression found in Scripture, “as thorns cut off.” We find the same in parshas Vayeitzei (Bereishis 30:32) [regarding the word] חום (dark) where Rashi explains שחום (dark brown), which is [actually] like its Targum. [If so], why does Rashi not [simply] explain “Like its Targum”? Because [he wants to explain that] it is also an expression found in the Mishnah, “[It was sold as] dark brown (שחמתית) etc.”

את ספיח קצירך THAT WHICH GROW OF ITS OWN ACCORD OF THY HARVEST — i. e. even if you have not sown it but it grew from the seed which fell into it (into the ground) at the time of the last harvest — and that is what the term ספיח denotes.

ETH S’FIACH K’TZIRCHA’ (THAT WHICH GROWETH OF ITSELF OF THY HARVEST) THOU SHALT NOT REAP. “Even if you did not sow it, but it grew from the seed that had fallen [into the ground] at the time of the harvest [of the sixth year], and it is that which is called ‘s’fiach’ (aftergrowth) — thou shalt not reap, to take possession of it like other harvests, but is to be free for everyone. AND THE GRAPES OF ‘N’ZIRECHA’ — which you have barred and separated from people, and not declared ownerless — THOU SHALT NOT GATHER them. You may only gather them after they have been declared free for all.” Thus the language of Rashi.
The Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] meaning by [writing] this is because he is of the opinion that if a person guards his field and his fruits in the Sabbatical year [at the time of growth, and afterwards he declares them free for all], the produce does not become prohibited [as food]. So also did he [Rashi] write in his commentaries to Tractate Yebamoth⁶⁶Yebamoth 122 a. and to Tractate Succah.⁶⁷Succah 39 b. This is indeed so according to the law of the Torah, as is established by clear proofs. And that which is taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁶⁸Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “And the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the soil [i.e., when it is in the process of growth] you shall not gather, but you may gather from that which was made free for all”⁶⁹From this text you might understand that if the fruits were guarded whilst they were growing, they become completely prohibited for ever. But this is not correct. Rashi will explain the text etc. — the Rabbi [Rashi] will explain it in the following way: “Grapes which have been kept away from people you may not gather as long as they are so barred; you must rather declare them all ownerless, and then you may gather them together with the poor.”
The correct interpretation of the verse is that the expression the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ is like ‘s’fiach’ of thy harvest, and thou shalt not gather is like thou shalt not reap, for the purport of the whole section is to state a twofold law to the Israelites — warning with respect to fields and warning again with reference to vineyards. Thus: thou shalt sow thy field … thou shalt prune thy vineyard;⁷⁰Verse 3. thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.⁷¹Verse 4. Similarly, And six years thou shalt sow thy Land … but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow … In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard.⁷²Exodus 23:10-11. And the meaning of the verse [here] is that that which grows by itself in a field without intentional plowing and sowing is called “s’fiach of the harvest,” because it is “attached” to the harvest of the past year, this term being of the root, ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob.⁷³Isaiah 14:1. Likewise the vine which has not been cultivated, nor hoed or pruned, is called nazir, because [the owner] “held himself aloof and put it away from him” as if it were not his, of the root, because ‘nazoru’ from Me through their idols,⁷⁴Ezekiel 14:5. [which means] “they separated themselves from Me.” Similarly, ‘v’yinazru’ (and they separate themselves) from the holy things of the children of Israel.⁷⁵Above, 22:2. And Onkelos [also] translates here [and the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’] as shivkach, which means [those grapes that] “you have left” to be for briers and thorns.⁷⁶Isaiah 7:23.
It is possible that the custom in Israel was that a vineyard which was uncultivated, neither pruned nor hoed, and in which briers and thorns⁷⁷See ibid., 5:6. grew up, they called nazir, that is to say, it is a vineyard of the Nazirite, since the Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine nor eat fresh grapes or dried,⁷⁸Numbers 6:3. and he does not cultivate his vineyard. They also gave a name to long hair derived from the Nazirite, as it is said, Cut off ‘nizreich’ (thy hair) and cast it away.⁷⁹Jeremiah 7:29. This then is the sense of [the expression here] the grapes of ‘n’zirecha,’ the general purport thereof being that they are the grapes which grow without cultivation of the vineyard. Thus Scripture is stating that that which grows by itself in the field he may not reap, and the grapes which grow in the vineyard without work he may not gather. And the meaning of these negative commandments is that you may not reap them alone for your own needs, nor are you to gather the grapes for yourself [only], but it shall be a year of solemn rest for the Land⁸⁰Verse 5 before us. from sowing and pruning, and the Sabbath-produce of the Land,⁸¹Verse 6. that is, whatever the Land brings forth in its rest, whether s’fiach or nazir [as explained above] shall be unto all of you together for food, for thee,⁸¹Verse 6. and for thy poor, and for the beast and for the cattle.⁸²See Verses 6-7.
Now I will return to explain the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on this subject, because they are misleading [in their plain sense]. On the verse, And if ye shall say: ‘What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase,⁸³Further, Verse 20. the Rabbis taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5. “If people do not sow, what is there to gather? [So why then did Scripture prohibit gathering the increase, since there can be none to gather without sowing?] Said Rabbi Akiba: It is from here that the Sages found a Scriptural source for s’fichin (aftergrowths), [indicating] that they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year.” This Beraitha is quoted in the Gemara [of Tractate Pesachim] in the Chapter Makom Shenahagu (“A place where the custom is”).⁸⁵Pesachim 51 b. And it is further taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁸⁴Torath Kohanim. Behar 4:5. “But the Sages say: Aftergrowths are not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by decree of the Scribes. If so, why is it said, behold, we may not sow, nor gather?⁸³Further, Verse 20. [It means as follows:] You have told us not to sow, and what there is for us to gather — [the aftergrowths] — we may not bring in for storage [after the time of the Removal];⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. and then You have told us, ‘Remove it [from the house],’ what then shall we eat from the time of the Removal onwards?” Thus far [are the words of the Torath Kohanim].
Thus it is clear that according to the words of the Sages the prohibition of aftergrowths is only by law of the Rabbis, that is to say, it is they who decreed that they be prohibited altogether, because of the suspicion that the owners might sow and say that these are aftergrowths. It is for this reason that the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:⁸⁷Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. “Rabbi Yannai said: All aftergrowths are forbidden [under the law forbidding theft, i.e., since they belong to the owner of the field, they may not be taken by a stranger during the non-Sabbatical years], except for those which come up in an uncultivated field, a plowed field, a field containing a vineyard, or a field sowed [with fenugreek]. [The aftergrowths of] an uncultivated field [are permissible to a stranger] because the owner pays no attention to such a field [and therefore it is considered ownerless]. A plowed field — the owner desires to clear of all growths. A field containing a vineyard — the owner does not want to forfeit his vineyard⁸⁸Deuteronomy 22:9. [because the aftergrowths of the grain in the vineyard constitute diverse kinds which are forbidden, and so he welcomes their being taken out by anyone]. A field sowed [with fenugreek] — the owner does not want to maintain aftergrowths therein [because they harm the fenugreek].”⁸⁹In other words, the aftergrowths of these four kinds of fields may be taken by anyone during all normal years, because the owners consider these growths ownerless; and in the Sabbatical year, since the owners are not suspected of having violated the law against planting them, they are permissible to the owners together with everyone else. But in all other fields, since the aftergrowths during any non-Sabbatical year are forbidden to be taken by strangers because the owners do not wish to relinquish their possession of them, in the Sabbatical year they are subject to the law of aftergrowths, as will be explained.
It is on the basis of this division of opinion [between Rabbi Akiba, who says that aftergrowths are forbidden in the Sabbatical year by law of the Torah, and the Sages, who are of the opinion that they are forbidden only by Rabbinical decree], that it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:⁹⁰Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap. It is from here that they found a Scriptural source for forbidding aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year.” They thus gave their teaching in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiba, [who explains the phrase] thou shalt not reap as [prohibiting] altogether [any reaping, even of aftergrowths, by law of the Torah], But according to the words of the Sages [the verse means] that you are not to reap them [solely] for yourself, nor are you to gather the grapes [of your undressed vine solely] for yourself, but you are to treat them as if they were ownerless property. Similarly, and we do not gather in our increase⁸³Further, Verse 20. means that we do not gather [entirely] into our homes the fruits of the tree [which grow by themselves] nor the aftergrowths [of crops], because we must declare them ownerless for the poor, the beasts and the cattle, and at the time of Removal,⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. [and therefore one might say that] we are not able to live on them [since we cannot use them entirely as our own possession.]!
Now these aftergrowths which are forbidden according to Rabbi Akiba are those which have grown in the forbidden season. [i.e., the Sabbatical year]: in grain, all that has reached a third of its growth in the Sabbatical year, and in the case of vegetables, whatever has sprouted in the Sabbatical year are forbidden by law of the Torah. But according to the Sages they are forbidden by decree of the Scribes, except for those [aftergrowths] which come up in any of those [four kinds of] fields mentioned in the Yerushalmi⁸⁷Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. which we have quoted above. However, vegetables that sprouted in the sixth year but were harvested in the seventh, are also subject to all the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [regarding Seventh year produce, which are as follows]: they must not be wasted [as they were given for food;⁸¹Verse 6. their money substitute may not be used] for [obligatory] offerings;⁹¹For if a person has an obligation to bring any offering, as for instance if he commits one of those sins for which he must bring a sin-offering, etc., he must discharge his duty from unhallowed money, and since the money-substitute of the Seventh-year produce is as sacred as the original produce, therefore this obligatory offering cannot be bought with this money. [they may not be used] for the purpose of trade, and they are subject to the law of Removal.⁸⁶See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. For even though these vegetables grew completely in the sixth year [nonetheless if they were harvested in the seventh year, they are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year], because we follow in the case of vegetables the time of collecting them in, whether for tithes⁹²In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, as well as in the fourth and fifth years, the First and Second Tithes are given of all produce, while in the third and sixth years, the First and the Poorman’s Tithes are given. The First Tithe is given to the Levite; the Second Tithe belongs to the owner, but he must eat it in Jerusalem. The Poorman’s Tithe is given to the poor, and they may eat it wherever they are. Now each group of produce has different rules to determine which is the relevant year for its specific tithes, since different factors apply; for instance: the fruits, crops and vegetables. The point here is that in the case of vegetables the determining factor is the time when they are gathered. Hence if, for example, the vegetables grew in the second year and were collected in the third, the tithes given are the First and Poorman’s Tithes. Similarly, if they grew in the sixth year and were collected in the seventh, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to these vegetables, as specifically explained in the text. or for the Sabbatical year. But the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them, for they are not aftergrowths of the Sabbatical year since they grew in the sixth year, and even if they continued [their growth] in the seventh year, the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them. It is with reference to such vegetables that we were taught [in the Mishnah]:⁹³Shevi’ith 8:4. “If a man said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], ‘Here you have an issar [a coin equivalent to one twenty-fourth of the silver dinar], and gather me vegetables today’, his payment is permitted etc.”⁹⁴That is, the laborer is not restricted to buying only food, drink, or unguents with the money, as would have been the case if the money were subject to the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year. “But if he said to him, ‘In return for it [i.e., the issar] gather me vegetables today,’ his payment is forbidden” [i.e., he is restricted to using the money only for the above-mentioned purposes]. The difference between these two cases is generally explained to be that the latter transaction resembles a sale [in exchange for the coin he gathers for him the vegetables], and it is forbidden to sell Seventh-year produce; therefore the money is “seized” with the sanctity of the original produce. And similarly we were taught [there] in a Mishnah:⁹⁵Shevi’ith 7:3. “A man may not gather in the [wild] vegetables in a field and sell them in the market; but he may gather them in and his son may sell them for him;” and we were also taught there:⁹⁶Ibid., 9:1. “Rue, goosefoot, etc. may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these” [wild vegetables, and, since they are ownerless, the sanctity of the Sabbatical year does not apply to them].
Now some [scholars] say⁹⁷This opinion is stated by Rambam, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil 4:3. See my Hebrew commentary p. 170 for the text. that [in the case of] these vegetables mentioned [in the above Mishnah] and all similar ones, which people do not usually sow, but which grow by themselves on mountains and near rivers, the prohibition of aftergrowths does not apply to them at all even though they grew in the Sabbatical year, since the Rabbis only forbade [the aftergrowths of] those things which are normally planted, in order that one should not plant them [in the Sabbatical year and then say that they grew by themselves]. And so it appears from the Gemara of the Yerushalmi [mentioned above]. This is the subject of “aftergrowths” whenever the Sages mention it [in the Talmud].
Similarly it is [forbidden by law] of the Torah for a person to guard his field and lock it up from the poor in the Sabbatical year, even if he intends to declare them free for all at the time of gathering them in; instead, the field is to be ready and free for the poor throughout the year. Thus the Sages taught in the Mechilta:⁹⁸Mechilta, Kaspa 20. “That the poor of thy people may eat.⁹⁹Exodus 23:11. ‘Why did the Torah say this? Was it not so that the poor may eat it? If so, I am going to gather in the fruit and distribute it among the poor’. Therefore Scripture states, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow.⁹⁹Exodus 23:11. This teaches that the owner is even [obliged] to make breaches in the fence [so that everyone may come and take]. The Sages, however, as a precaution for the general good, allowed him to keep the fence.” Now the restraining measure which the Sages established was only that he need not make breaches in the fences of his field and vineyard, but not that he may guard his field and gather in the fruits, thereby transgressing the words of the Torah. Moreover, the Sages even decreed against buying fruits which have been guarded, or even from one who is under suspicion of so [guarding]. It is with reference to this that we have been taught in the Mishnah:⁹⁶Ibid., 9:1. “[The wild vegetables mentioned] may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these.” And in Tractate Succah the Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁰Succah 39 a-b. “One may not hand over to those ignorant of the law more of the monetary equivalent of fruits of the Sabbatical year than that needed for three meals.¹⁰¹Three meals are needed for the Sabbath, and since it is permitted to give it to him before the Sabbath in order that he may buy the three required meals, it is permitted throughout the week (ibid.). See also the following note for fuller explanation. This applies only where he buys [the fruits] from a field which was free for all,¹⁰²In other words, if the chaver (a person who is faithful in observing the law) sees the owner [who is ignorant of the law] taking the fruits from an unguarded field, he may give him the monetary equivalent of three meals’ worth of fruits; but he is not permitted to give the owner more money than that required for three meals, for since such money must be spent according to the restrictions of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [i.e., he must spend it only for food, drink or unguent] it is feared that the seller receiving such money may not do so. But the Sages permitted the chaver to give him the monetary equivalent of three meals so that he may have sufficient food for himself [for a day] (Rashi, ibid.). but if he buys from a guarded field, even the value of half an issar is forbidden.” And the reason for this is as follows: When the purchaser buys it from a field which was free for all — that is to say, from things which people usually bring from ownerless property, or if it is known that he brought them from a place which was declared free for all — then [the purchaser who knows and observes the law] is permitted to buy the fruit. However, if he gives the owner more money than is needed for his [three] meals on that day, we suspect that the [seller who is] ignorant of the law might use [this money] for the purpose of business [which he is forbidden to do]. But if he buys things which it is customary to guard, then even if it is [no more than the value of] half an issar, we suspect that [the seller, being ignorant of the law], guarded them, in which case it is forbidden to buy from him. However if he buys a perutah’s worth of fruits, or less than half an issar, the Sages did not prohibit this, because it is customary for people to gather them in from any [unguarded] place, even during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle.
It is referring to this that the Sages have taught:¹⁰³Yebamoth 122 a. “If a non-Jew was selling fruits in the market, and he said [by way of praising his products], ‘These fruits are orlah [of the first three years’ growth, and are therefore better than the fruit of an old tree], or ‘they are of azeikah’ [a term explained further on], he has said nought [i.e., we do not believe his statement that the fruits are orlah etc., and hence forbidden; instead we say that these fruits come from the majority of trees which are nor orlah, and they therefore may be eaten]. For the seller only intended to praise his products.” Now Rashi explained there in the name of the early scholars,¹⁰⁴See in Seder Emor, Note 485. [that the term azeikah means that the fruits come] from an orchard “that is enclosed” with a fence around it, and it happens to be the Sabbatical year. Now if we were to believe him [the non-Jewish seller], it would be forbidden to buy the fruits from him in a city wherein most [of the inhabitants] are Jews, lest he is a tenant-laborer of a Jew and guards the field for him; or we would suspect that he may have gathered [these fruits] from a field belonging to a Jew [who has not declared them free for all] and he sells them; or that the fruits belong to a Jew and he is selling them for him. Or perhaps [even if the land belongs to the seller], a gentile cannot make such an acquisition in the Land of Israel as to negate the laws of the Sabbatical year [from his produce]. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the fruits of his field are to be regarded as those of an Israelite [and hence subject to all the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Nonetheless, the Sages did not prohibit the fruits of a guarded field [in the Sabbatical year] to everybody, but only [decreed] that one should not buy them directly from the owner who guarded them [but it is not the fruits themselves of a guarded field which are prohibited; thus if they have already been sold to a first purchaser, another Jew may buy them from him]. Therefore the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁰⁵Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:3. “And the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the land you are not to gather, but you may gather from that which was free for all. Thou shalt not gather, in the [ordinary] manner of those who gather grapes. It was on the basis of this that the Sages said: ‘Seventh-year figs may not be cut with a special fig-knife [but may be cut with an ordinary knife]; grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, but one may press them in a vat.’” And the meaning thereof is as follows: Since it is not written “the grapes of the undressed vine thou shalt not reap,” but instead it is written ‘thy’ undressed vine, it is to be interpreted that you are not to gather them in the way you usually gather your grapes, but you may gather them together with the poor in the way that they gather them, meaning to say that he is not to guard them for himself, but he is to gather them with the poor as if they were ownerless. Similarly he is to treat them [after he has gathered them in] as the poor do, and press them in a vat. And it is further taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:¹⁰⁶Ibid., 1:5. “And the Sabbath-produce of the Land shall be for food for you.¹⁰⁷Verse 6. You are to eat from that which rested in the land [as will be explained], but you may not eat from that which was guarded. Hence the dictum of the Sages:¹⁰⁸Shevi’ith 4:2. The School of Shammai say, one may not eat from the produce of a field which has been industriously tilled.¹⁰⁹The Mishnah refers to a time when the Rabbis permitted tilling the ground once in the Sabbatical year in order to enable the people to pay the Roman government the tax imposed on land, as failure to do so could have led to mortal danger. But if the owner tilled the land twice, the question arises whether the produce thereof may be eaten, since a field which was tilled twice is treated as a field that was guarded. But the School of Hillel say that one may eat of it.’” That is to say, since the Torah stated that the produce of the Sabbath should be for us for food, and not that which was guarded, the School of Shammai say that the fruits themselves become prohibited [and therefore the produce of a field which was tilled twice, and considered as a field that was guarded, may not be eaten]; but the School of Hillel are of the opinion that the fruits themselves are not prohibited, for Scripture’s intention is only to forbid us to guard [our produce], in order that our crops should be from a field in which the Sabbatical rest was observed. Similarly when the Rabbis have said¹¹⁰Shevi’ith 8:6, and referred to in the Torath Kohanim (Behar 1:3) mentioned above. that seventh-year figs may not be cut with a [special] fig-knife, and grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, [these laws are] a “fence” and guard of Rabbinic origin, in order that people should not come to guard and gather in their crops, and rob them from the poor. This is [the meaning of] that which is taught here in these Beraithoth [of the Torath Kohanim], and it is the best and clearest exposition of the discussions in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Gemara. The scholar who is acquainted [with the Talmud] will succeed in finding these texts.

את ספיח קצירך לא תלקט, “You are not to gather in the aftergrowth of your harvest, etc.” This verse precludes you from harvesting even produce that grew on your field during that year without your having seeded that field. [The word “harvest” in this context means produce to be stored for future consumption. Ed.] Nachmanides adds that the expression ענבי נזירך in the line immediately following refers to similar spontaneously grown grapes in your vineyard that the owner of the vineyard had not in any way encouraged to grow during that year. The expression לא תבצור in connection with such grapes also means that although the owner may eat such grapes, he must not “harvest” them in the sense that he must not make wine out of them for consumption at a later time. It is the nature of this and similar paragraphs to repeat legislation applicable to the field when speaking about similar activities applicable to the orchard. What grows in the field without the field having been ploughed or seeded is called ספיח, whereas what grows in the vineyard without the latter having been primed in preparation cutting such grapes for storage, etc. is called זמירה, i.e. לא תזמור. The vineyard is called by the Torah here נזיר, akin to the person who vows to abstain from the consumption of wine or grapes, as by contrast to the grain of the field the vines are durable and do not have to be reseeded or replanted year after year. The owner of such field or vineyard or orchard does not enjoy any special privileges vis a vis a person visiting that field and may not partake of such spontaneously grown grapes or grain except for immediate consumption. The Torah requires him to give up any claim of ownership of the land on which these fruit grow. The land enjoys freedom from its owners during that year, i.e. it enjoys a שבת שבתון. Man and beast enjoy what there is to enjoy alike.

To retain it with the rest of the harvest. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say קצירך (your harvest)? It should have just said “Crops that grew on their own you shall not reap.” He answers, “To retain it...” Alternatively, Rashi is answering [the question of] how can Scripture write “you shall not reap,” when it is written [later], “The [produce] ... shall be for yourselves, for food,” indicating that one may eat it, and it is unreasonable [to suggest] that one eats it from the field like an animal without reaping it. Regarding this he explains, “To retain it...”

ואת ענבי נזזירן, “and the grapes of your undressed vine;” these are grapes which grew without any physical input by you. They correspond to what the Torah called ספיח קצירך, grain growing by itself during the seventh year of the sh’mittah cycle when you did not sow any seeds. Proof that this interpretation is correct, can be found in verse 11 in our chapter where ססיחיה and נזיריה, are mentioned side by side. Onkelos also understands לא תבצרו את נזיריה, as a prohibition to pluck those grapes.

לא תקצור THOU SHALT NOT REAP [IT] — to take it as your exclusive property as you do with other harvests (with the harvest in another year) but it shall be free (הפקר) to all and then thou also may reap of it.

But from [that which is] ownerless. Re’m explains that the first command [of this verse] teaches us that one may not even reap even crops that grew on their own unless they are ownerless, and the same applies to grapes that grew without pruning or digging. The second command teaches that even if the owner kept people away from the grapes, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten and the owner may gather them like any poor person. The same applies to crops. If the owner kept people away from them, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten, and the owner too may reap them like any poor reaper.

שבת שבתון יהיה לארץ, “it shall be a year of solemn (complete) rest for the land.” The reason for this is that the land is not in your possession during that year.” (Ibn Ezra)

You shall not gather. The Torah does not intend to prohibit the gathering of grapes completely, for they are permissible to eat, as it says, “The [produce] of the land’s Shabbos shall be for yourselves, for food.” However, the meaning is as the Sifra explains: Do not harvest the grapes in the way of the harvesters. This means they should make a change, and they should not deal with the seventh year fruits in the way they deal with them the other years. Rather, he should cut a little and thrash [the fruit off the vine], and he should only bring a small amount into his home, as fruits are brought into the home from ownerless [produce].

נזירך [AND THE GRAPES OF THY VINE] WHICH ARE נזירים — i. e. those from which you barred people (שהנזרת) and from which you have kept them away, not having declared them free to everybody.

לא תבצר THOU SHALT NOT GATHER — them thou must not gather, but you may gather from that which has been declared free to everybody (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 3).

'והיתה שבת הארץ וגו‎‎‎‎ AND THE SABBATH OF THE LAND SHALL BE [FOOD FOR YOU] — Although I have forbidden them (the fruits of the sabbatical year) to you by stating “thou shalt not harvest etc.”, I do not mean to forbid them to you as food or to be used for any other beneficial purpose but what I meant was that you should not comport yourself in respect of them as the exclusive owner but all must be equal as regards it (the Sabbatical year’s produce) — you and your hired servant and your sojourner.

AND ‘SHABBATH HA’ARETZ’ (THE SABBATH-PRODUCE OF THE LAND) SHALL BE FOR FOOD FOR YOU. Because He said it shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the Land,¹¹¹Verse 4. He states [here] that the rest mentioned shall be for food for you to maintain all of you — you and your servant, and the cattle and the beast — so that you should all support yourselves from that which the land will bring forth by itself whilst it is resting. Or [it may be that] the year itself is called shabbath ha’aretz, just as the [seventh] day is called “the Sabbath of the Eternal,”¹¹²Above, 23:38: Beside the Sabbaths of the Eternal. or just “Sabbath;” and the reference thereof is to the produce of the Sabbath [year], for the Sabbath [year] itself is not something to be eaten.

והיתה שנת הארץ לכם לאכלה, "And the Sabbath-produce of the land shall be for you as food;" The principal reason for this verse is to inform us that contrary to other sacred matters which are restricted to the altar or to the priests, in this instance everybody is entitled to consume what has grown during the seventh year. The Torah then details who are all the people who are included in that permission. You may well ask that in view of this, why did the Torah have to write the word לכם, "to you," which is normally a restrictive word, i.e. "you and no one else?" All the Torah had to write was הארץ לך לאכלה! I suppose the best approach to this is as follows. Normally, I would have expected that whosoever is mentioned in the verse first is first in line for the permission to eat. We have a parallel to this when the Torah legislated the order of priorities when giving charity. In that instance (Deut. 15,7) The Torah lists: "your poor (family members)," followed by "the poor of your town," followed by the people in "your land" (based on Sifri on that verse). To ensure that we do not understand the last half of our verse in the same way as Deut. 15,7 the Torah here first wrote the word לכם to tell us that all people have an equal claim on what grows in the fields during that year.

והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה, “the Sabbath produce shall be for you to eat, etc.” Seeing that the objective is for the earth to enjoy rest, it is in order for you or your servants or the beasts to consume on an ad hoc basis what grows on it during that year

All shall be equal in it. You might ask: Rashi already explained above, “’You shall not reap,’ [in order] to retain it with the rest of the harvest, but it should be ownerlessùfree to all,” which implies that one may benefit from it or eat it. The answer is: Above too, Rashi proved this from here. Because if not for this verse, “[It] shall be for yourselves, for food,” I would say that “you shall not reap” forbids even eating and benefit.

והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה, “what the earth produces during that year is for all of you to serve as food.” You are not obligated to tithe any part of it, nor to set it aside for the poor, as it is not yours to distribute. Neither is what it produces to be converted into libations to be offered in the Temple. (Sifra)

שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה THE שבת OF THE LAND [SHALL BE] FOR FOOD FOR YOU — Since Scripture does not state והיתה תבואת הארץ לכם לאכלה‏ but‎‎ והיתה שבת הארץ לכם לאכלה it intimates: Only that which has been treated according to the Sabbatical law (שבות) and been declared free to all may you eat, but not that which has been kept by you (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 5).

From that which has been “rested.” שבות is an expression of permission. I.e., you may eat whatever everyone has permission to take from, i.e., [whatever is] ownerless.

לך ולעבדך ולאמתך [AND THE SABBATH OF THE LAND SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU]; FOR THEE, FOR THY SERVANT, AND FOR THY MAID SERVANT — Because it states (Exodus 23:11) “[but in the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still]; that the needy of thy people may eat”, one might think that they (the fruits of the Sabbatical year) are forbidden as food for the rich (and thus also for the owner of the field and his household), Scripture therefore states here: “[it shall be for food for thee,] for thy servant, and for thy maid servant” — thus you have the mention of the owners (the rich) here as well as of the servants and the maid servants — the poor (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 6).

From that which is kept. Explanation: From the fruits of the Sabbatical year that someone kept for himself, by not making them ownerless. [Rashi understands that שבת means שבות] because the verse writes “The land’s Shabbos[-year] (shall be for yourselves),” instead of writing, “The produce of the land’s Shabbos[-year] shall be for yourselves.” Thus [he understands that] שבת means שבות. Even though above, Rashi commented on the verse “You shall not gather,” that “Those you may not gather, but from [that which is] ownerless, [you may gather],” there he was only talking about grapes, whereas here the verse includes all produce from the land. Alternatively, that [law of the earlier verse] is derived from here, because, as I explained above, if not for this verse, you would think that one may not gather at all.

ולשכירך ולתושבך AND FOR THY HIRED SERVANT, AND FOR THY SOJOURNER — Even non-Jews (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 7).

By the wealthy. And you might think that when the verse includes the owner by writing, “The [produce] of the land’s Shabbos[-year] shall be for yourselves, for food,” that is only if he too is poor since it is written (Shemos 23:11), “And let the needy among your people eat it.” Therefore Scripture writes, “For you, and for your servant,” to teach that even if he is wealthy he may eat it. You might ask: Why does it write here “(you), your servant and your maidservant?” It should only write “you,” since poor people are already mentioned in the verse “And let the needy among your people eat it”? The answer is: Here it is speaking of before [the time of] bi’ur, when there is still produce in the field, [in which case rich and poor are equal]. But there it is talking about after [the time of] bi’ur, when the householder has to put his [produce that he had taken indoors back] in the field. Therefore it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it,” because [only] they eat without having to put [anything] in the field. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: If so, why do I need [the words] “And let the needy among your people eat it”? If a wealthy person may eat, how much more a poor person! The answer is: “The needy among your people” have precedence over a wealthy person. Therefore, it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it.”

Even the non-Jews. Nachalas Yaakov explains: You cannot say the verse is talking about a Jew and that שכיר (hired hand) means [a Jew] acquired for [six] years, and (resident sojourner) means [a Jew] acquired forever [i.e., until the Yovel], like every [other use of the words] שכיר and תושב in Scripture, because the verse already said “your slave and your female slave,” and these are Jews. The verse is telling us that even though the year is called “holy,” its fruit is permitted to non-Jews. Gur Aryeh asks: Why does the verse need to write [both] “for your hired hand” [and also “for your resident sojourner”]? The answer is: If it only wrote “for your hired hand,” I might think that only he [eats Sabbatical year produce] because he is a Jew’s worker and it is normal to give him food, whereas, since a Jew is not responsible to provide food for “your resident sojourner,” I might think he may not [eat food of the Sabbatical year]. So it tells us [otherwise]. And if it [only] wrote “for your sojourner,” I might think [only] a sojourner who accepted upon himself not to serve idols [may eat food of the Sabbatical year], but not a regular non-Jew, so it tells us [otherwise].

ולבהמתך ולחיה AND FOR THY BEAST, AND FOR THY CATTLE [… SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOOD] — If the wild beast may eat thereof how much the more is this the case with cattle to supply which with food is your duty! What, then, is intended by Scripture specially stating “and for thy cattle”? But by mentioning it, it intends to put on a level (to suggest equal treatment of) the cattle with the wild beast: so long as the wild beast has the opportunity of eating from the produce in the field, feed your cattle with what is stored in the house; as soon, however, as food has disappeared for the wild beast from out of the field, make it disappear for thy cattle from out of thy house [i. e. clear it out of thy house into the field and make it thus available to all animals alike] (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 1 8; Taanit 6b).

AND FOR THY CATTLE, AND FOR THE BEASTS THAT ARE IN THY LAND, SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOR FOOD. “If wild beasts may eat thereof, how much more so is this the case with cattle which it is your duty to feed! Why then does it say and for thy cattle? [Scripture mentioned it] in order to liken cattle to the beast. As long as the wild beast is able to eat of [the produce of] the field, you may feed your cattle with that [which is stored] in the house; when food has disappeared for the wild beast in the field, remove it [what is stored] for your cattle from the house [and make it available to all animals alike].” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the Torath Kohanim.¹¹³Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:8.
The Rabbi [Rashi] did not, however, explain [the meaning of] this Removal. Its purport is that after a certain time the owner must remove all produce from his house and declare it ownerless [i.e., after food has disappeared for the wild beast from the field], this being “the Removal of the Seventh-year [produce]” which the Sages mention everywhere. Now the intention thereof is not that after the time of Removal it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from the produce or to eat, and that the owner must destroy it, for the Sages have not listed the fruits of the Seventh year in the Mishnah¹¹⁴Temurah 33 b. among those things that must be burnt, nor among those that must be buried. Rather, [the meaning of the Removal] is only that he must remove them from his control, and declare them free for the poor and for all people, similar to that which it says, I have put away the hallowed things out of my house¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 26:13. [in which case it obviously does not mean that he destroys the hallowed things, but rather that he gives them to whomever they belong, e.g. the heave-offering to the priest, etc.]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶Shevi’ith 9:8. “The poor may eat [of the produce] after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both the poor and the rich may eat of the produce after the Removal.” The meaning of the term “the poor” is all people who gather the produce of fields of other people which have been declared ownerless, and “the rich” means the owners of the fields themselves, who gathered the produce of their own fields after they declared them free for all. Now Rabbi Yehudah declared that they [these “rich” former owners] are forbidden by law of the Rabbis to gather in from their own fields, on account of suspicion [that they did not really intend to make their fields free for all], but Rabbi Yosei permitted them [to gather in from their own fields], and the final decision of the law is according to his words. This Mishnah is also found in the Torah Kohanim.¹¹⁷Torath Kohanim, Behar 1:6.
And in the Tosephta it is stated:¹¹⁸Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:1-4. On “Tosephta” see above in Seder Tazria, Note 124. “Originally messengers of the court would go around the entrances of the cities; if anyone had brought the produce [of the Seventh year] into his possession, they would take it from him and give him enough food for three meals, and the rest they would put into a store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] figs came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to pick them, and they would make them into cakes of pressed figs [and then put them into the store-house in the city]. When the time [of the ripening] of olives came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to harvest them, press them in olive-presses and put [the oil] into barrels, and then they would put them into the store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] grapes came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to gather them, press them in a wine-press and put [the wine] into barrels, and they would put them into the store-house in the city. On the day preceding the [weekly] Sabbath they would distribute the food from them [the store-houses] to each and every one according to the needs of his family. When the time of the Removal arrived, the poor would eat after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both poor and rich may eat after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon says: The rich may eat from the store-house after the Removal.¹¹⁹For with respect to the store-house, all people are regarded as “poor,” but an owner of a field may not eat of his own fruits after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon’s teaching is thus a sort of middle position between that of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosei. [When the time of the Removal came] he who had produce to distribute gave it to the poor. If someone had produce of the Seventh year [and he lived in a place where there was no store-house, nor a functioning court to supervise the distribution], and the time of Removal was come, he would distribute some of it to his neighbors, relatives and friends, and [the remainder] he would take out and place at the door of his house, and say: ‘Brethren, house of Israel! Whoever has to take, let him come and take!’ And then he may bring [the rest] back into his house and continue to eat of it until it is finished.”
All this is taught in the Tosephta, and from it we clearly learn that the term “Removal” only means that [the Seventh-year produce] must be taken out of the owner’s possession, and that he must declare it free for all, and that [for the fulfillment of this law] the Rabbis made various ordinances. Originally the court used to make a store-house in each and every city. As soon as the fruits ripened, they would take them from those who brought them [from their fields] and put them into the store-house. Thus when the time of the harvest for the whole of that crop would arrive, such as when the time had come for reaping the grain or gathering the grapes, the [messengers of the] court would hire workers to gather the grapes, pick the olives and harvest the whole of that species, and then they would press the grapes in a wine-press and the olives in an olive-press as one does during any other year, and put them into their store-house. Now this produce which was gathered into the store-house of the court required no other act of “Removal,” since they were already removed from the homes [of their owners], and both poor and rich were permitted after the time of the Removal to come and receive them from the court’s messengers, and to eat them. All this ordinance and trouble taken by the court was on account of suspicion, that [if the court were not to act in this manner] people would hold on to it [the produce of the Seventh year] or do business with it. And where there was no store-house in the city, nor a [functioning] court, and the produce remained in the hands of he who gathered it in from ownerless property, then he must remove it from his house when the time of Removal comes, and declare it free for all at the door of his house, and from then on he is permitted to continue eating from it [as long as it lasts]. This is [what the Rabbis meant in saying¹²⁰Nedarim 58 a. that] Seventh-year produce renders forbidden [a mixture] of its own kind in the smallest of quantities as far as the Removal is concerned,¹²¹Thus if a person took an onion which grew in the sixth year [of the Sabbatical cycle] and replanted it in the seventh year, even though it only grows a small amount in the seventh year the whole onion is subject to the law of Removal, as if it had grown entirely in the seventh year. Normally any forbidden food which becomes unrecognizable in a mixture the majority of which consists of permitted food, is considered negligible and “annulled” by the majority according to the law of the Torah [however, the Rabbis usually required a ratio of 60:1, for the forbidden food to become annulled]. However, any forbidden food which will at some future time have a permitted status, can never become annulled even if it is a minute part of the permitted part of the mixture; for why should we annul it now when it will eventually become permitted automatically? Here too, since the minute forbidden part of the onion which grew in the seventh year will automatically become permitted to be eaten when the owner declares it free for all at the time of Removal, it does not become annulled by the rest of the onion. Thus the whole of the onion is subject to the law of Removal [since we do not know which is the bit which grew in the seventh year]; and if the owner does not declare it free for all, it is completely forbidden. Ramban quotes this to prove that Removal does not mean destruction of the produce, but merely declaring it free for all, as the Gemara clearly states that it becomes permitted after Removal. as is mentioned in Tractate Nedarim,¹²⁰Nedarim 58 a. because it may be rendered permissible by removal from his house.
Now I have found the following comment of Rashi which he wrote in Tractate Pesachim:¹²²Pesachim 58 a. “And it is this which constitutes their ‘removal’ — that he is to make them free for all in a place where human beings and animals tread.” Perhaps the Rabbi thought that the owner has to make it free also for beasts and cattle, in order to fulfill that which is written concerning them, that the poor of thy people may eat, [and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat];¹²³Exodus 23:11. and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy Land [shall all the increase thereof be for food].¹²⁴Verse 7 before us. In this he [Rashi] has stated the matter too strongly, for [as we explain it] eating of the produce [after the Removal] is not prohibited at all. And the Rabbis have already taught in the Tosephta that the Removal of the [produce of the] Seventh year is like the removal [mentioned] in connection with the Second Tithe¹¹⁵Deuteronomy 26:13., and there is no difference between them as far as prohibition of eating them [for just as the Second Tithe is eaten, so the Seventh-year produce may be eaten].
Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon]¹²⁵Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil 7:3. and many of the Sages¹²⁶Such as Rabad (Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posqieres) who agrees with Rambam on this point (Keseph Mishneh ibid.). are, however, of the opinion that the Removal renders the produce completely forbidden, and it must be burnt, or spread about and scattered in the wind, or thrown into the sea. But it is not so, as has been explained. If, however, he retained it in his home after the [time for the] Removal so that he may eat thereof, then it does become completely forbidden as food. This is the Seventh-year produce which renders [a mixture of a different kind] forbidden, [but only] if it is enough to give [the entire mixture] its flavor, since it has no permitted status [after the Removal; and therefore if the Seventh-year produce is not enough to give its flavor into the entire mixture, it becomes “annulled” by the majority of permitted food, but if it is enough to give it its flavor, it is not annulled].¹²⁷See Note 121 above. It is possible that this prohibition is [only] by law of the Rabbis; perhaps even the whole matter of Removal is a stringency imposed by the Scribes, and the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on the subject of Removal are only Scriptural supports for a matter which is of Rabbinic origin.
On this basis the following Mishnah can be well-explained:¹²⁸Shevi’ith 9:5. “If one pickles three kinds of vegetables [of Seventh-year produce] in a single barrel etc.”¹²⁹“Rabbi Eliezer says: they may be eaten only as long as the first [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even until the last [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field, etc.” Ramban intends to say that if, as mentioned above, the whole law of Removal of Seventh-year produce is only a decree of Rabbinic origin, we may well understand why Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient in this case. — See also Ramban further on in Verse 12 where he quotes this whole text from the Torath Kohanim, and it is more fully explained. Similarly [we may well understand] the following Mishnah:¹³⁰Ibid., 6:1. “Three countries are to be distinguished as regards the Seventh year.” There we are taught: “Throughout that part of the Land of Israel which those that came up from Babylon occupied, as far as Chezib,¹³¹This is the city of Achzib, mentioned in Joshua 19:29, and Judges 1:31. It was in the vicinity of Acco, as is clear from the verse in the Book of Judges (Tifereth Yisrael). To understand this Mishnah it is important to remember that the sanctity first imparted to the Land of Israel by Joshua’s conquests came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple. Now when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile and reoccuppied the Land, their settlement was not as large as that originally occupied by those that came up from Egypt. The sanctity imparted to this part of the Land which was re-occupied by the Babylonian exiles was never lost again; and it is to this part that the laws of the Seventh year fully apply. [Seventh-year produce] may not be eaten [without Removal], and [the land] may not be cultivated. Throughout that part of the Land which those that came up from Egypt occupied [but which was not later occupied by those that came up from the Babylonian captivity], from Chezib¹³⁰Ibid., 6:1. to the river¹³²I.e., the Brook of Egypt (Joshua 15:47) in the south (Tifereth Shlomoh). and [from Chezib] to Amanah,¹³³I.e. Mount Hor (Numbers 34:7) to the north. The Mishnah thus covers two points from Chezib: from the south thereof to the Brook of Egypt, and from the north thereof to Mount Hor (Tifereth Shlomoh). [Seventh-year produce] may be eaten [without Removal], but [the land] may not be cultivated.” Thus the Sages were more lenient as regards eating [the Seventh-year produce] after the time of Removal [without having gone through the actual act of Removal] than they were as regards cultivating [the land].¹³⁴As suggested above by Ramban, the reason for this leniency concerning Removal may be that the whole matter is of Rabbinic origin. And in the Yerushalmi it is mentioned:¹³⁵Yerushalmi Shevi’ith, end of Chapter 9. “A certain person who was suspected of [breaking the law of] Seventh-year produce said to his wife, ‘Separate the dough-offering [from the dough].’ Thereupon she said to him, ‘That person [i.e., you] is suspected of breaking the law of Seventh-year produce, and he tells me to separate the dough-offering!’ He said to her, ‘The dough-offering is a matter of Scriptural law; the law of the Seventh-year produce was ordained by the Rabbis, Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues.’” That unworthy man was suspected of retaining produce of the Seventh year and eating it after the [time of] Removal, and he said that the prohibition of eating tevel¹³⁶See above in Seder Emor, Note 108. is a law of the Torah, but the Removal and the prohibition of eating Seventh-year produce after the Removal was ordained by Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues. Or it may be that [he meant that although] the Removal itself is by law of the Torah, the prohibition of eating from the produce after the [time of] Removal [if one did not fulfill the law of Removal] is by law of the Rabbis — and he was only particular not to eat that which is forbidden by the Torah. Now since the Sages have mentioned the words of this person, it would seem that they are correct [inasmuch as that the prohibition against eating produce after the Removal, was enacted only by the Rabbis, as explained above]. Or perhaps [this is no indication that such is the accepted opinion of the law, because it may be] that this wicked person relied upon the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Shimon¹³⁷Moed Katan 2 b. In other words, this was why the Talmud Yerushalmi quoted the words of this man. In our editions of the Gemara, the version is “Rabbi” [the editor of the Mishnah] instead of Rabbi Shimon. who says: “Scripture speaks of two kinds of release [the release of land and the release of money],”¹³⁸Deuteronomy 15:2: And this is the manner of the ‘release:' every creditor shall ‘release’ that which he hath lent unto his neighbor. The double use of the term “release” indicates that Scripture speaks here of two kinds of release: the release of the land in the Sabbatical year, and the release of monetary debts, and Scripture likens one to another to teach us the following: “At a time the release of the land is in force the release of money is obligatory, but at a time when the release of the land is not in force, the release of money is not obligatory.” And since Rabbi Shimon speaks of “a time when the release of the Land is not obligatory,” he must be referring to the time after the destruction of the Second Temple. (Rashi, Moed Katan 2 b). Thus it is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that the law of the Seventh-year produce nowadays is of Rabbinic enactment. and the law of the Seventh-year nowadays is of Rabbinic authority, although the law of removing the dough-offering [in the Land of Israel] is of the Torah.

Since you are obligated to feed it. Nachalas Yaakov explains as follows: Because the verse is permitting the [Sabbatical year’s] fruits even to non-Jews, domesticated animals and beasts, even though the fruits are holy, it would be more logical to permit them [only] to a domesticated animal which is a mitzvah to feed since it belongs to you and you are obligated to feed it, unlike the beast [which you are not obliged to feed]. [Therefore Rashi is answering the question]: If so, why does the verse need to say “for your domesticated animals”? This answers the question of Re’em, see there.

Put at an end (to that stored) for your domesticated animal [removing it] from the house. I.e., you must remove whatever fruit you gathered for your domesticated animals from the house when they those [fruits] are gone no longer [growing] infrom the field [and no longer available] for wild beasts. And one has to make ownerless all the Sabbatical fruit that he had gathered into the house.

שבתות שנים [AND THOU SHALT NUMBER] SEVEN SABBATHS OF YEARS [UNTO THEE] — seven Shemittah-periods of years (cf. Onkelos). One might think that one may keep seven successive years as “Shemittah” and keep the year immediately following them as the “Jubilee”, Scripture therefore states “seven years, seven times”, consequently you are bound to say that each of these seven years of release has to be kept in its proper time (i, e. at the end of six years of work) (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 1).

'והיו לך ימי שבע שבתות השנים וגו, the count of these years is not to be based on 12 lunar months per year only, but you will count hem as if regular years, the thirteenth month occurring at the same intervals as in your normal calendar considerations. The result will be that at the end of a Jubilee cycle, 49 solar years will have been completed. The same rules which apply to the sh’mittah calculation apply to the Yovel calculation. [since the farmer bases his activities on the seasons, and the seasons are controlled by the solar calendar, any other way of counting the 49 year cycle would throw the farmer’s schedule completely out of gear. Ed.]

Seven sabbatical years. Explanation: The sabbatical year is called Shabbos as it says (later 26:34), “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos.” So translates Onkelos, “Seven sabbatical years.” The proof [that “Shabbos” means “sabbatical year” and not “a period of seven years”], is because Scripture writes [afterwards], “seven years, seven times,” which indicates that [Shabbos] refers to [sabbatical] years and not to a period of seven years. [Otherwise, why should the verse repeat the same thing twice?] [Translating שבתת as “a period of seven years] would have been] similar to “Seven complete weeks (שבתות) they shall be” (earlier 23:15), which Onkelos translates as “seven complete weeks.” [See Re’m]

וספרת לך, “you shall count for yourself;” at first glance we might think that this instruction to count concerns days and weeks just like during the days between Passover and the festival of Shavuot;” if you were to say that we have Leviticus 15,28 where a similar construction is found in connection with a woman experiencing a vaginal discharge at times which do not coincide with her menses, we would have to say that the reason there is to teach us that the Torah warns her not to interrupt her counting during the days before she can regain ritual purity. If she would miss counting a single day, the blessings would have been futile.

וספרת לך שבע שבתות שנים, ”you are to count for yourself 7 seven year cycles, seven times;” seeing that the Torah speaks of counting in the singular mode, i.e. by a single person, it addresses the High Court which will proclaim the start of the Jubilee year. There is no need to recite a benediction as is the case in Leviticus 23,15 when counting the omer; there two separate counts had been mentioned, days and weeks. This had been repeated also in Deuteronomy 16,9. One was meant for the individuals and one for the High Court.

'והיו לך ימי שבע וגו‎‎ AND THE PERIOD OF SEVEN [SABBATHS OF YEARS] SHALL BE UNTO THEE [FORTY AND NINE YEARS] — This mention of the sum total tells you that even if you have not kept the years of “Shemittah” keep the “Jubilee” at the end of forty-nine years (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 2). (The translation according to this Midrashic explanation therefore is: When seven Sabbaths of years (i. e. the seven seven-year periods) will be unto thee forty-nine years, thou shalt cause the horn to be blown etc. — no matter whether you have kept the intervening שמיטות or not.) The plain sense of the verse, however, is: The sum total of the periods of which each ends in a “Shemittah” (or, the sum total of these Shemittah-periods) will give thee forty-nine years.

That even if, etc., declare the jJubilee. Explanation: Expound the verse as follows: “And it shall be for you, the days (period) of the seven sabbatical years forty-nine years,” then [even if you did not declare the sabbatical years], “you shall make a proclamation with the shofar” and declare the Jubilee.

Add up to the number forty-nine. You might ask: Does the verse need to tell us the number? The Re’m answers: This is the way of Scripture in many places. But, it seems to me [that Rashi says this] since the year of yovel counts for here and for there. I.e., during this year of yovel, one [already] begins to count [towards] the [next] sabbatical year [that is to arrive] after the yovel (Rosh Hashana 9a). If so, I might say that every the sabbatical year too also counts for here and for there, and the sum of the years would only be forty-three. Therefore, Rashi explains, forty-nine. Another answer is that Scripture writes “seven sabbatical years” and then writes “You shall make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur.” If so, I might have said that the forty-nine years end on Yom Kippur, and there will be ten days extra. Therefore, Rashi explains “forty-nine.”

והעברת has the same meaning as the verb in (Exodus 36:6) “and they caused it to be proclaimed (ויעבירו קול) in the camp” — it is a term for proclamation (i. e. והעברת has not the literal meaning of causing a cornet to pass, i. e. to carry it about in the land as a symbol of freedom) (Rosh Hashanah 34a).

THEN SHALT THOU MAKE PROCLAMATION WITH THE BLAST OF THE HORN ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH; IN THE DAY OF ATONEMENT SHALL YE MAKE PROCLAMATION WITH THE HORN THROUGHOUT ALL YOUR LAND. “Since Scripture states in the Day of Atonement do I not know that it is on the tenth day of the seventh month? Why then does Scripture state on the tenth day? [It is to teach us that] the blowing [of the Shofar] on the tenth day of the seventh month overrides the Sabbath throughout all your Land, but the blowing [of the Shofar] on the New Year does not override the Sabbath throughout all your Land, but only at the court alone.” This is Rashi’s language.
Now the Rabbi [Rashi], with his expert knowledge of the Talmud, and because it is all for him like a ready-laid table, was not concerned when he quoted Beraithoth without qualification, but they are misleading for the rest of the people [who are not as expert in the Talmud as he was]. For it is known and clear in the Gemara¹³⁹Rosh Hashanah 29 b. that all blowings of the Shofar, whether on the New Year, or the Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year], or even [blowing] out of one’s own desire [without any intention to fulfill a commandment], are permitted on the Sabbath [by law of the Torah], since blowing [of the Shofar] is merely an art and not “work.” They used [in fact] to blow the Shofar everywhere by law of the Torah on the Sabbath of the New Year and on the Day of Atonement; and the matter of blowing the Shofar [only] at the court, was ordained by Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai¹⁴⁰The title “Rabban” [our master] instead of just “Rabbi,” indicates that he was the head of the Sanhedrin. The title also appears above at the end of Verse 7: “Rabban Gamaliel.” Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai was the leading Sage in the period of the destruction of the Second Temple [in the year 70 Common Era]. It was he who went to Vespasian the Roman general and obtained permission to open an academy at Jabneh, which, after the destruction of the Temple, took the place of the Sanhedrin as the supreme religious authority for the Jewish people. Under his leadership a number of regulations were instituted by the Sages in remembrance of the Temple. after the Temple was destroyed. This was decreed [by Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai], because they [the Sages] prohibited the blowing of the Shofar [if the New Year fell on a Sabbath]. Since everyone is obliged to blow the Shofar [or to hear it blown, but not everyone is expert in it, thus we fear that] perhaps he will take the Shofar in his hand and go to an expert to learn, and thus he will carry it the distance of four cubits in a public thoroughfare [which is forbidden by law of the Torah on the Sabbath]; and Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai therefore only permitted us to do it at the court [where the fear of the judges ensures that nobody will violate the Sabbath on account of the blowing of the Shofar]. There is thus no basis whatsoever for this prohibition in Scripture [and so how could Rashi interpret the verse before us on the basis of this Rabbinic enactment]? And the Rabbis, in mentioning that “the blowing of the Shofar on the tenth day [of the seventh month] overrides the Sabbath,” intended to say that it is done on every Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year, whether it falls on a weekday or on the Sabbath]; for there is no difference between overriding the Day of Atonement when it falls on the Sabbath or when it falls on a weekday, since the Day of Atonement itself is like the Sabbath in respect of [the prohibition of] all work, whether that of carrying [an object four cubits in a public thoroughfare, or transferring it from “public” to “private” ground and vice versa], or any other kind of [forbidden] work.¹⁴¹Ramban’s point here is as follows: As far as the blowing of the Shofar on the New Year is concerned, there is a clear distinction between a New Year which falls on a weekday and one which occurs on the Sabbath. In the latter case, Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai prohibited blowing the Shofar [except at the court] lest someone may accidentally carry the Shofar and thereby transgress a law of the Torah, as explained in the text. But when the New Year falls on a weekday, there is no question of forbidding blowing the Shofar, because carrying on a festival is permitted. But on the Day of Atonement, unlike other festivals, carrying is prohibited as on the Sabbath. Thus when the Beraitha quoted by Rashi states that the blowing of the Jubilee horn was permitted on the Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, this is equivalent to saying that it is permitted on every Day of Atonement, whether weekday or Sabbath. Hence the thought conveyed by the Beraitha is not as Rashi has it [that the blowing of the Jubilee overrides the Sabbath day], for as the Day of Atonement is concerned everyday of the week is like the Sabbath! Even so, the Rabbi [Rashi] wished to teach us that the blowing of the Shofar on the Day of Atonement is to be done in all places, for the meaning of the expression ye shall make proclamation with the horn throughout all your Land is to teach us that each individual is obliged to blow [or hear the sound of] the Shofar, and that the blowing is not done only at the court, as is the counting [of the years].¹⁴²Above, 25:8. See Ramban ibid., 23:15 that this counting is done by the court only.

שופר תרועה, as an expression of joy over the liberation of the slaves and the restoration of lands whose sale had been forced by economic necessity to its original owners or their heirs.

An expression of “proclaiming.” Not [an expression of] moving something with one’s hand (Rosh Hashanah 34a).

תעבירו שופר בכל ארצכם, “sound the shofar throughout your land,” at all major highway junctions.

ביום הכפורים [ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH] ON THE DAY OF EXPIATION [SHALL YE CAUSE THE CORNET TO SOUND] — Since Scripture states “on the day of expiation” do I not know that it is “on the tenth day of the seventh month”? Why, then, does Scripture add “on the tenth day of the month”? But it adds these words in order to tell you: the blowing Of the שופר on the tenth day of the month sets aside the Sabbath (supersedes the Sabbath Law) throughout all your land (בכל ארצכם); whilst the blowing of the Shofar on the New Year, the first day of that month, does not supersede the Sabbath Law “throughout all your land”, but only at the law-court (בי"ד) alone (Sifra, Behar, Section 1 5; Rosh Hashanah 29b).

Since it is said, “onOn Yom Kippur.” Gur Aryeh asks: Why does Rashi not ask this question according to the order of the verse as follows: Since it states, “On the tenth day of the (seventh) month,” do I not know that it is on Yom Kippur?. If so, why does it say, “on Yom Kippur”? The answer is: Rashi thinks it is no coincidence that the verse makes the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. There is certainly a reason for this, and therefore the verse has to write, “On Yom Kippur shall this shofar-proclamation be made,” making the mitzvah of the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. The reason is, as understanding people know, that the yovel and Yom Kippur share common features, because during the yovel everything reverts to its original state [of ownership] as in the beginning, and so too on Yom Kippur everything returns to its original status because Hashem atones gives atonement to people and they return to their original condition.

You shall make a proclamation with the shofor. In the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai it says: “Shofor that breaks chains, and breaks the rule from all the slaves.” The explanation of תרועה is as in (Tehillim 2:9): “You shall break (תרועם) them with an iron rod,” for the yoke of enslavement is broken. The word תרועה can also be explained as in (Bamidbar 23:21): “And he has the King’s friendship (ותרועת מלך),” which connotes a matter of fellowship and friendship. This is because the Jubilee year is a year of freedom and the proclamation of liberty for all the inhabitants of the land, a year of rejoicing for the rich and poor, for the owners of ancestral land and the slaves, for there is no working of the soil.

וקדשתם AND YE SHALL SANCTIFY [THE FIFTIETH YEAR] — when it begins they declare it holy in the court by saying: “The year is holy!” (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 2 1; Rosh Hashanah 8b and Rosh Hashanah 24a).

YOVEIL HI’ (IT IS A JUBILEE). “This [the fiftieth] year is distinguished from all other years by being given a special name. And what is that name? Its name is yoveil [literally: ‘the ram’s horn’] on account of the blowing of the Shofar.” This is Rashi’s language, and such also is the opinion of the commentators¹⁴³R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim (Book of Roots), under the root yoveil. that [the word yoveil here] is of the roots: ‘b’keren hayoveil’ (with the ram’s horn);¹⁴⁴Joshua 6:5. ‘shofroth ha’yovlim’ (the rams’ horns).¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 4. But I do not find this acceptable, because of [the expression here] shall be unto you [it shall be a Jubilee unto you]; for what sense is there in saying of a year that “it shall be ‘a blowing’ unto you”¹⁴⁶For since Rashi explained that the term yoveil means “blowing the Shofar,” then it follows that ‘yoveil hi’ the fiftieth year shall be unto you means that “the fiftieth year shall be blowing the Shofar to you.” But how can this be said of a year? Mizrachi in defense of Rashi writes that Rashi means that “the year in which every man returns to his possession and to his family, is called yoveil (Jubilee) on account of the blowing of the Shofar,” but not that the word yoveil means “blowing.” and you shall return [every man unto his possession etc.]? Perhaps Scripture is stating: “It is a Jubilee distinguishable by that name which I have called it, and it shall be unto all of you known by the blowing of the Shofar which you will do thereon, reminding you of the purport [of the Jubilee year], that in it every man shall return unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” Similarly, A Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you¹⁴⁷Verse 11. means that it shall be a Jubilee unto you, that ye shall not sow, neither reap, that is to say, it is known by its name that it is to be so.
But all this appears to me to be incorrect. For the meaning of shofroth ha’yovlim¹⁴⁵Ibid., Verse 4. is “the horns of the rams,” and Yonathan [ben Uziel] also translated there: “shofroth [made] of rams’ horns.” It is also so stated in the Gemara:¹⁴⁸Rosh Hashanah 26 a. “What intimation is there that the term yoveil is an expression for a ram? In Arabic they call a ram yovlo.” Now the Shofar used on the Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year] does not necessarily need to be a ram’s horn, for all shofroth (horns) are valid on it, and in the opinion of our Mishnah¹⁴⁹Ibid., 26 b. and all the Tannaim (Sages of the Mishnah), the commandment is [preferably to be performed in the year of the Jubilee] with the horn of wild goats. If so, why then would the [Jubilee] year be called “the year of the ram?”
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of yoveil is like “sending forth.” In my opinion, Scripture does not call the year yoveil with reference to the blowing [of the Shofar], but with reference to “the liberty” [that it brings to the inhabitants of the Land]; for this term is not mentioned in the first verse which states, Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn.¹⁵⁰Above, Verse 9. But when He stated [in the verse before us] and ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof, meaning that they shall all be free to reside wherever they please, He continued by saying ‘yoveil hi,’ that it is a year in which every man is “carried away” to his possession, and his feet “transport him” to his family afar off to sojourn.¹⁵¹Isaiah 23:7. This term [yoveil] is used in connection with many subjects. Thus: ‘yuval’ (there shall be brought) a present unto the Eternal of hosts,¹⁵²Ibid., 18:7. and it is further stated: and on ‘yuval’ it spreadeth out its roots;¹⁵³Jeremiah 17:8. streams and ‘yivlei mayim’,¹⁵⁴Isaiah 30:25. which mean “channels through which water is conveyed.” And the Land shall yield ‘yevulah';¹⁵⁵Further, 26:4. and neither shall ‘yevul’ be in the vines¹⁵⁶Habakkuk 3:17. also signify a kind of “bringing” [of produce or fruits], just as they are called t’vuah [“produce,” which is of the root “bringing”]. Similarly in Aramaic [as will be explained]. Thus: and carry it quickly¹⁵⁷Numbers 17:11. the Targum renders: “v’ovil quickly.” Thus the meaning of it shall be ‘yoveil’ unto you is “it is a year which ‘brings’ [liberty] and it shall be so to all of you, that you shall come and return every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” And He stated again [in the following verse], A ‘yoveil’ shall that fiftieth year be unto you¹⁴⁷Verse 11. meaning that the fiftieth year shall be to you only for yoveil [“bringing” liberty], and not for anything else, and ye shall not sow, neither reap,¹⁴⁷Verse 11. but instead it shall be holy¹⁵⁸Verse 12. and every man shall return unto his possession,¹⁵⁹Verse 13. so that the year shall be for all of you a yoveil [bringing everyone back to his possession and family], as its name indicates.
And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the term d’ror (liberty) is related to the expression, ‘dor’ (a generation) passeth away, ‘v’dor’ (and a generation) cometh.¹⁶⁰Ecclesiastes 1:4. See Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 186, where in his sermon on Ecclesiastes Ramban alludes to a text from the Sefer Habahir which asks: “But does not a generation first ‘come’ and then ‘pass away,’ so why then does the verse change the order? It is to allude to the fact that a generation cometh means that ‘it had already come beforetime.’” See also in Genesis 38:8, Vol. I, p. 469, Note 155. Similarly, yoveil means that everyone will return to the yoveil (source) whence his roots are, and this shall be unto you, [until that time].¹⁶¹Abusaula.

יובל היא תהיה לכם. All of you will also be free of subservience to other nations. This is the opposite of Jeremiah 34,17 “because you have failed to proclaim freedom for your kinsmen and countrymen as I have commanded, I proclaim your release -declares the Lord- to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine; and I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.”

ושבתם איש אל אחוזתו, to his ancestral heritage as has been spelled out in verse 28 and 31 respectively. Sellers of ancestral fields may repossess them in the Jubilee year without having to compensate the buyer.

יובל היא, “it shall be a Jubilee;” Rashi explains the term as “something apart,” so that even the year itself is called by a name different from ordinary years. As to the significance of the different name, it is called thus on account of the blowing of the shofar which introduces that year. The term occurs elsewhere for the shofar when the Torah writes: במשוך היובל “when a long blast is blown with the shofar,” (compare Exodus 19,13) This view is shared by other commentators. Nonetheless, Nachmanides does not agree, citing that the Torah writes the words תהיה לכם, “it will be for you,” and it would not be appropriate to refer to the “shofar” as a year, i.e. שנת החמשים שנה, “the fiftieth year.” A year (verse 12) can hardly be described as a תקיעה, the blast on the shofar. Furthermore the meaning of the expression שופרות היובלים is a reference to the horns of rams and this is the way Targum Yonatahan renders that expression. It is a fact that the horn used to blow out of on the Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year does not need to be a ram’s horn. The Talmud is quite specific on this. (Rosh Hashanah 26) Why should that year then bear a name that is equivalent to שנת האיל, “the year of the ram?” Ibn Ezra explains the word יובל as related to שילוח, as in יבל, [compare the modern Hebrew הובלה, describing transportation of goods, especially moving furniture. Ed.] It would describe the release and dispatch to his home of servants whose period of service was brought to an abrupt halt with the onset of this year. Nachmanides adds that the mystical connotation of the word suggests a return to one’s origin, to original freedom in the widest sense, דרור, being related to דור generation, as Solomon describes the return of man to his roots, i.e. after death as דור הולך ודור בא, (Kohelet 1,4) seeing that at the beginning of the paragraph the Torah speaks only about והעברת שופר תרועה , “you shall sound a broken blast on the shofar,” etc.” Families are to be reunited during that year, something that involves travel, mobility, i.e. יובל. It is noteworthy that the expression יובל for this year appears only after the Torah stated that during that year דרור, freedom is to be proclaimed for all, and those who had been enslaved will return to their original homes and families. Nachmanides quotes additional verses from Scripture showing that יובל does not always mean physical motion, transportation of goods or people, so that a “return” to one’s roots, one’s family, need not be understood only in physical terms, bodily return, but as something more profound.

They sanctify it in Beis Din. But not on the tenth of the month when they proclaim the JjubileeJubilee with the shofar. Because if it was so, why write “the year of the fiftieth year”? We already know that they are sanctifying the fiftieth year [from the previous verse]. You need not ask: This verse implies that that people are freed from the beginning of the year, while above it writes, “You shall make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month.” Why make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth [day] if the year is already sanctified in every way from the beginning of the year? The Gemara already answered this in the first chapter of Rosh Hashana (8b): “From Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, slaves did not leave for home and did not work for their masters. Rather, they ate and drank and had crowns on their heads. Once Yom Kippur arrived, Beis Din blew the shofar and slaves would leave for their homes and fields would return to their owners.”

And proclaim freedom in the land. This includes the soldiers of war who leave their homes to guard in the service of the king and the matters of state; in the Jubilee year they return to their homes and ancestral land.

שנת החמישים שנה וקראתם דרור, “the fiftieth year, when you will proclaim freedom.” We find something similar with the Levites who retired from active service at the age of fifty, and they could not perform physical service anymore. (Numbers 8,25)

וקראתם דרור AND YE SHALL PROCLAIM LIBERTY unto slaves, both to him whose ear has been pierced (and whose period of servitude has thus been prolonged until the Jubilee; cf. Exodus 21:6) and to him whose six years of servitude (the period prescribed for an ordinary Hebrew servant; Exodus 21:6 Exodus 21:2), reckoning from the time when he was sold, have not yet ended. R. Jehuda said, “What is the etymology of the term דרור, freedom? A free man is like a person who may dwell (דור) at an inn — meaning that he may reside in any place he pleases, and is not under the control of others. (דרור therefore implies liberty of residence) (Rosh Hashanah 9b).

(2) AND EACH OF YOU SHALL RETURN TO HIS FAMILY. A Hebrew slave goes frree in the Jubilee (see vv. 40-41).

As one [=a free man] who dwells at an inn, etc. And takes merchandise around the whole country. The Aruch explains, “’Like a runner with a load.’ Explanation. The carrier of the load [of] a merchant, who runs and takes merchandise everywhere. מדייר is an expression of running, and דיירא means a load. [It is actually spelled] מדוור with two vavs.” But Rashi there explains, “As one who dwells at an inn. Someone who is in his own jurisdiction and can dwell in any inn he pleases.”

It shall be for you a jubilee. According to the plain meaning the word יובל connotes moving (הובלה) from one place to another. In fact, the deer is also called יובל because it is always going from place to place. The Torah continues and explains the reason for the jubilee year:

לכל יושביה, “for all its inhabitants;” seeing that the Torah wrote: ושבתם איש אל אחוזתו, “each man of you is to return to his ancestral heritage,” it would have sounded as if women did not possess ancestral land in Israel. Therefore the Torah also had to write: לכל יושביה, to all of its inhabitants no matter which sex. According to Sifra, this meaning has been derived from the word: תשובו, [which is a repetition. Ed.] לכל יושביה, “for all its inhabitants.” This is why as soon as even when only parts of the tribes had been exiled, this law could no longer be observed.

יובל הוא IT SHALL BE A JUBILEE [UNTO YOU] — This year shall be distinguished from all other years by it alone being given a special name for itself. And what is its name? “Jobel” is its name — with reference to the “sounding of the Shofar” (the ram’s horn which is called יובל; cf. Exodus 19:13).

The fields return. According to this, the verse is in the wrong order. It should say, “The ancestral land should return to each man,” and not that the owners return to the fields as is implied in “Each man shall return, etc.”

And each man shall return to his ancestral land — even if he has no ancestral land he goes back to his main family and all the family heads are gathered together.

ושבתם איש אל אחזתו AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS POSSESSION — This means that the fields return to their owners. (Not that each man actually goes back to his land — just as it goes on to state that the slave actually returns to his family).

To include one who[se ear has been] pierced. Explanation: [This refers to] tThe person [whose ear has been] pierced person who reached the Jubilee before six years passed since his piercing, as is taught in the Beraisa of Toras Kohanim and Kiddushin (15a). You might ask: Since it is already written (verse 10) “proclaim freedom,” and Rashi explained, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” why [also] write, “Each man shall return to his family”? The answer is: When Rashi explained that “proclaim freedom” means, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” he actually derived this from “Each man shall return to his family,” as this is the main verse. Proof for this is that Rashi comments on the verse in Ve’eileh Hamishpatim (Shemos 21:6), “He then serves his master forever,” that “[This means] until the Jubilee year.” He then asks, “Or perhaps it means forever as is its literal meaning? The Torah therefore says: ’And each man will return to his family.’” He does not cite the verse, “And proclaim freedom,” indicating that it (the latter part of the verse) is the main source. Another answer is that if the Torah only wrote “And proclaim freedom,” I might think that he only leaves at the yovel if beis din had sold him, but not if he sold himself. Therefore, it says “Each man will return to his family.” Or [I may have thought the inference of each of the two verses may be] the opposite.

ואיש אל משפחתו תשבו AND YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO HIS FAMILY — This verse is intended to include in the law of setting the slaves free also the slave whose ear has been pierced (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 2 5; Kiddushin 15a).

יובל הוא שנת החמשים שנה IT IS A JUBILEE; THE FIFTIETH YEAR [SHALL BE UNTO YOU A PERIOD etc.] — Why is this statement made at all? Is it not identical with that made in v. 10? But because it is stated (v. 10) “and ye shall sanctify [the fiftieth year]” which implies that the year has to be sanctified at the beginning although the law of setting the slaves free applies only as from Yom Kippur, and consequently one might think that the holy character of the year is to be extended till the tenth of Tishri of the next year. Scripture therefore states here “a Jubilee is the fiftieth year” — but not any part of the fifty-first — just as is explained in Rosh Hashanah 8b and in Torat Cohanim (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 1).

יובל היא שנת החמישים שנה תהיה לכם, just as the soil will become free from those who have purchased it, it will not be enslaved to the owners that are returning to it; during that year they must not yet use it as if it were their own.

נזיריה, freely growing grapes that have fallen off the vines must not be harvested. The same applies to grain that grew without having been planted during that year.

As it is [stated] in Rosh Hashanah. Explanation: Wherever it says “holy,” such as pertaining to Shabbos and Yom Tov, we add from secular to the holy, and here pertaining to the Jubilee too it is written (verse 10) “You shall sanctify.” Thus, one may have thought that we add to the Jubilee from the year following the Jubilee. Therefore it says, “It is a Jubilee, the year of the fiftieth year,” only this year and no more, and one does not need to add from the following year.

יובל היא, “it is a Jubilee year,” the expression יובל from the root יבל “to bring home,” reflects the extraordinary function of this year, namely to release slaves and to enable them to return to their original homes. Compare the use of this root in the transitive mode in Isaiah 23,7: יובילוה רגליה, “her own feet shall carry her far off”, or Psalms 60,11: מי יובילני עיר מצור?, ”would that I be brought to the fortified city!” Compare also Isaiah 18,7: ביום ההוא יובל שי, “on that day a gift will be brought from a people far removed.”[What follows really belongs to verse 10, the author may have had his reasons why he decided to place this here. Ed.]

את נזריה [YE SHALL NOT GATHER THE GRAPES] THAT ARE נזירים — i. e. the grapes which have been kept by you (cf. Rashi on v. 6: לכם לאכלה‎ שבת הארץ), but you may gather from those that had been declared free to all (cf. Rashi on v. 5: ‎‎לא תבצר). Just as this is stated with reference to the Sabbatical year so, too, is it stated with regard to the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 2). Thus there are two holy years one after the other: the forty-ninth year שמיטה, and the fiftieth,יובל‎‎.

Just as this is said, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain, “Just as this is said, etc.,” on the phrase “You shall not gather the [grapes of] its untended vineyard,” more than on the phrase “You shall not plant and you shall not reap”? The answer is: Rashi writes “Just as this is said, etc.,” because regarding the JjubileeJubilee it is written “You shall not gather its untended vineyard [lit. fruits]” without specifying, and one might think that this applies to other fruits but not to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” since there by the sabbatical year it says “The grapes of your untended vines (את ענבי נזירך) you shall not gather,” and here too likewise it writes, “its untended vineyard” (את נזיריה). Just as it applies to grapes there as it is explicitly written, “The grapes of your untended vines you shall not gather,” so here too it applies to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” i.e., the sabbatical year and the Jubilee are the sameidentical in everything [restriction]. (Kitzur Mizrachi) You might ask: What is Rashi telling us? Does the verse not state explicitly, “You shall count for yourself seven sabbatical years... You shall sanctify the year of the fiftieth year”? The Kitzur Mizrachi found written [an answer] written: From the verses it is not obvious that they are [both] equally holy, and one may have thought that one has greater sanctity than the other does. But now that he explained, “Just as this is said in regard to the sabbatical year, so it is said in regard to the Jubilee,” we know their sanctity is equal. (R. Noson)

לכם, “for to you Israel, exclusively.” (Ibn Ezra).

יובל היא שנת החמישים שנה, “it, i.e. the fiftieth year is a Jubilee;” on the face of it the meaning of this line is not clear, nor why it is needed, seeing that the Torah had written the same words already in verse 10. We therefore need to understand this as follows: seeing that the Torah had written in verse 10 that we are to sanctify this year, that the meaning was that we should do so from the beginning of the year already, and that at the end of that year its special sanctity would continue for ten days until the Day of Atonement, as it is a custom to always add to, and thereby include, something secular, so that it also becomes something holy, the Torah, by repeating this line, teaches that the sanctity of that year does not extend beyond the end of its calendar year, i.e. Rosh hashanah. (Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 8)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

תשבו איש אל אחזתו YE SHALL RETURN EVERY MAN UNTO IHS POSSESSION — But has it not already been stated: (v. 10) “and ye shall return every man unto his possession”? But this is repeated in order to include in this law also the case of one who sold his field and his son came forward and redeemed it, — that it also is to be returned to the father in the Jubilee (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 3 6).

תשובו איש אל אחוזתו; it is permitted for the owners to take possession of it as their ancestral heritage, and to use it to build houses thereon, construct pens for the flocks, etc., as proof that it is again theirs.

It returns to his father in the Jjubilee. I.e., do not say that since his son will inherit him [anyway], the field should not return to his father in the jubileeJubilee.

‎'וכי תמכרו וגו‎‎‎‎ AND IF THOU SELL [OUGHT TO THY FELLOW… YE SHALL NOT OVERREACH ONE ANOTHER] — According to its plain sense the verse intimates what it literally means: (i. e. as translated above). But there is also a Midrashic interpretation: Whence can it be derived that if you sell anything you should sell it to your Israelite fellowman? From what Scripture states: “And if you sell — ,לעמיתך sell it to one associated with you by nationality”. And whence can it be derived that if you intend to buy anything that you should buy it of your Israelite fellow? From what Scripture states “or if thou buy ought — מיד עמיתך, at the hand of one associated with thee, buy it” (Sifra, Behar, Section 3 1).

YE SHALL NOT WRONG ONE ANOTHER. “This refers to overcharging in money matters.” 15. ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER THE JUBILEE THOU SHALT BUY OF THY NEIGHBOR. “The plain meaning of the verse as indicated by its context is that Scripture is admonishing here against overcharging [as mentioned in the preceding verse, and explains here in detail]: When you sell or buy land, ascertain how many years there are left till the Jubilee, and according to these years the vendor is to sell and the purchaser to buy, for in the end the purchaser must return him [the land] in the year of the Jubilee. Thus if there are but a few years [till the Jubilee] and he sells it at a high price, the purchaser has been wronged, and if there are many years so that the purchaser can eat many crops from it, he must buy it according to the [greater] time [remaining till the Jubilee]. It is referring to this that it is said, according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee,¹⁶⁸Verse 15. [meaning]: according to the number of years of crops which the land will remain in the hand of the purchaser, you shall sell it to him. Now our Rabbis have derived from here [the law] that one who sells his field has no right to redeem it before two years [after the date of the sale, for the verse states, according to the number of ‘years’ of the crops he shall sell, and the minimum number of the term ‘years’ is two], even if there were three crops in those two years. [However, although this interpretation of the Rabbis indicates that the verse in speaking of shnei means ‘two years’], it does not lose its literal meaning [i.e., ‘years of’], that is to say, he is to sell by the number of ‘years of’ crops, and not by years when the produce is smitten by blast,¹⁶⁹Thus, if during one of the two years after the sale the produce was smitten by blast, the vendor does not have the right to redeem his field until three years have elapsed, so that the purchaser has enjoyed at least two crops. and the minimum number implied in ‘years’ is two.” Thus far is Rashi’s language.
Now this is indeed the correct interpretation of the verse; however, our Rabbis have said that overcharge does not apply in [the sale of] land, for it is said:¹⁷⁰Baba Metzia 56 b. “Or buy of thy neighbor’s ‘hand’,¹⁷¹Verse 14 before us. and this refers to something which is transferred from ‘hand’ to ‘hand’” [i.e., movable goods or chattels]. But this verse according to the Rabbi [Rashi], both in its plain meaning and its [Rabbinical] interpretation, speaks of [overcharging in the sale of] land! We must then perforce turn the verses away from their simple meaning, and say that each one stands independently [of the others].¹⁷²Thus while Rashi interpreted all three verses [14-16] as applying to business transactions, Ramban interprets only Verse 14 in that way, while Verses 15-16 refer only to keeping the laws of the Jubilee, and Verse 17 prohibits all kind of wronging by words. Thus, as Ramban expresses it, “we must perforce turn the verses away from their simple meaning, and say that each one stands independently of the others.” Thus Scripture is stating: And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buy of thy neighbor’s hand,¹⁷¹Verse 14 before us. that is, something which is transferred from hand to hand, ye shall not wrong one another. Then He states further: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee thou shalt buy¹⁶⁸Verse 15. of him the crops, and according unto the number of years of the crops he shall sell them unto thee. According to the years you shall increase and reduce the price,¹⁷³See Verse 16. for you will have to return it [i.e., the land] to him in the Jubilee.” All this is an admonition regarding the Jubilee, that they should keep it forever [but it is not intended as a law against overcharging in the sale of land, for in such a transaction the law of overcharge does not apply]. Then He said further, And ye shall not wrong one another, [referring to wronging] by words [i.e., offending].
And it further seems to me logical that one who intentionally overcharges his fellowman, definitely transgresses a negative commandment, whether it be [in a sale of] chattels or land, for it is with reference to them that Scripture is saying, Ye shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the Jubilee,¹⁷⁴Verses 14-15. admonishing that one must buy and sell according to the years [after the Jubilee], and that no man shall wrong another. But our Rabbis laid down a new law regarding overcharge, namely, that [if the amount overcharged was] one-sixth of the total purchase-price, [the sale is valid and that extra amount] must be paid back, but the sale is totally invalidated if the amount overcharged was more than one-sixth of the purchase-price. It is only from this law that land has been excluded, since [a person] foregoes an overcharge of even more than a sixth [of the purchase-price] in the case of [the sale of land], just as one [is prepared to] forego in the case of chattels an overcharge of less than a sixth [of the purchase-price], although it is forbidden intentionally to overcharge by such [amounts], but people do not usually go back on their purchase on account of such a small overcharging. The Sages interpreted [Scripture to give a basis for this law] because the verse states, And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buy something which is transferred from hand to hand, ye shall not wrong one another. From this we learn that in the matter of overcharging there is a special law for chattels which does not apply to land, namely, the return of the money, [i.e., the cancellation of the entire sale if the amount overcharged was more than a sixth of the purchase-price], but the negative commandment [forbidding overcharging] applies to all transactions. That is why He said, ‘v’chi thim’kru mimkar’ [“if ‘ye’ sell aught”], which is a plural expression, referring to one who sells land and to one who sells chattels; ‘o kanoh’ (or buys) of thy neighbor’s hand, referring to an individual, who sells chattels from hand to hand, and with reference to all of them He said ye shall not wrong. But since He singled out and specified chattels, [it indicates that] He gave concerning them an additional law regarding overcharging, namely the [right to] return the money [of the purchase-price and thereby cancel the sale]. This is a correct interpretation according to the expositions which our Rabbis have received on the allusions of the Torah.
Perhaps all this is only a Scriptural support [for a Rabbinical enactment], for the negative commandment [ye shall not wrong one another] constitutes an admonition applying to both land and chattels [but does not refer at all to cancellation of the entire purchase], and [the right to return] the money the Rabbis received by tradition as applying to chattels and not to [transactions of] land, just as they have said¹⁷⁵Baba Kamma 14 b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 177, Note 96. that [land] is a possession that is worth any price. For all these [differing] standards of one-sixth [of the purchase-price, in which case the sale is valid and the amount overcharged must be returned], and more than one-sixth [in which case the entire sale may be cancelled] are based on people’s opinions [and since “land is worth any price” to most people, the Rabbis did not institute these laws of overcharging with respect to land]. And why should the Rabbis not exclude [transactions of] land from this law [of overcharging] just as they excluded from it wares bought from a householder. Thus they said:¹⁷⁶Baba Metzia 51 a. “[The law of overcharging] is taught only if one buys from a merchant, but if one buys from a private householder, the law of overcharging does not apply,” because private people are not in the habit of selling the possessions that they use [and hence if they do sell them, it is considered as if they had made a specific condition that the buyer cannot complain about the price].¹⁷⁷Rashi ibid., in the name of the She’iltoth of Rav Achai Gaon.
It is also possible to say that Scripture is warning that they [sellers and purchasers] should take cognizance of the number of years till the Jubilee, and according to them they should sell and buy, and no one shall wrong another because of them by misleading him about the number [of years], or by deceiving him about the sale, so that he thinks that it is in perpetuity, and thus he leads him astray thereby. Instead, they must both know and inform one another of this number, since the sale is according to the number of years [remaining] until the Jubilee, for even in [transactions of] land the law of overcharging applies as regards size and number,¹⁷⁸In other words, it is only with reference to price that specific laws of overcharging do not apply to land, but not with reference to size or number. even if the misleading referred to was less than one-sixth [of the size or the number], and all the more so in the case of chattels [one must be careful not to overcharge].

וכי תמכרו, in any sale it is forbidden to disadvantage the seller or the purchaser. For instance, the seller must not skim off any dust particles from the top of the drawer to create the impression that the purchaser receives completely refined merchandise none of which turns out to be substandard or useless. (Baba Metzia 60)

וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך, "And if you sell anything to your neighbour, etc." Torat Kohanim on this verse asks: "whence do we know that the legislation concerning overcharging does not apply to transactions involving real estate?" Answer: "this is why the Torah wrote או קנה מיד עמיתך, "or if you will buy from the hand of your neighbour." This means that the commandment not to charge too much applies only to מטלטלין, mobile goods, chattels. The Talmud Baba Metzia 56 queries this ruling pointing to Numbers 21,26 where the word יד is used in connection with land, i.e. "he took his whole land from his hand, as far as the river Arnon." The Talmud concludes by saying that in every other instance the word ידו is to be understood literally, whereas only in this instance (Numbers 21,26) the word means "in his possession." Thus far the Talmud. The question arises why we do not use the verse in Numbers to deduce that the word ידו never needs to be understood literally as "his hand?" We must answer that the meaning of the word ידו is certainly "his hand" in the literal sense of the word. It is not disputed that the meaning of the word ידו may also be "something under one's control," however the literal meaning is the more likely in our context. When I have the choice of how to understand the word I naturally choose the meaning which fits the context in which the word appears. Moreover, if the Torah had not intended that we understand the word ידו literally it should have used a different word to prevent us from misunderstanding its purpose. We need to explore therefore why the sages inisted that the legislation against overcharging in our verse speaks only of the sale of chattels and that the verse does not speak at all of sales involving real estate.

This refers to cheating in monetary matters. I explained this in parshas Kedoshim (above 19:33). (Kitzur Mizrachi) [says] in the name of R. Noson: Although our Sages said that the laws regarding to cheating in monetary matters do not apply to [buying or selling] land, however this only pertains to [not] having to return the money when the cheating was by more than one sixth. Nonetheless, he transgresses a negative commandment [by doing so].

,וכי תמכרו ממכר, “and if you sell something to your neighbour, etc.” this includes the selling of chattels. How do we know that the law concerning overcharging does not apply to real estate transactions?The Torah continues with או קנה מיד עמיתך, אל תונו, “or you buy something from your neighbour’s hand, do not overcharge;” things that are passed from hand to hand are subject to the laws governing overcharging. Real estate which stays put, does not fall into that category.

אל תונו YE SHALL NOT WRONG [ONE ANOTHER] — This refers to wronging in money matters (Sifra, Behar, Section 3 4).

או קנה, when the purchaser is unaware of the true worth of the merchandise, even if by then it had already come into his possession and he had an opportunity to show it to a friend who is more knowledgeable.

It appears that although the exegesis employed by our sages is based on their prior knowledge of these הלכות which had been handed down orally from Mount Sinai, they were interested in linking all these הלכות to the written text of the Torah. The plain meaning of our verse is perfectly compatible with the known הלכות on this subject. We must remember that the Torah had already prohibited the irrevocable sale of real estate in the land of Israel through the institution known as יובל, Jubilee year legislation. That legislation precluded overcharging for the land as the Torah expressly stipulated that the sale price be based on the number of harvests the land in question would produce before the next Jubilee year (verses 16-17). Verse 17 speaks specifically about not overcharging an unsuspecting purchaser who thought that he bought title to that land outright. The seller meanwhile intended to invoke Torah law in the Jubilee year and claim back the land in question without compensating the buyer. In such a situation, i.e. that the seller purports to sell property against which there is no potential lien, the principle of overcharging does apply so that the original sale is invalidated due to the seller having misrepresented what he sold. Seeing that the Torah took care of potential overcharging for land in those verses, it is clear that in verse 14 the Torah speaks only of the sale of chattels and the word ידו is to be applied only in its literal sense. In our case the Torah protected the buyer of land against being overcharged seeing no outsider would protest the sale, only the seller himself who claims to base his protest on Torah law. The Torah therefore saw fit to protect the unsuspecting buyer against this particular claim only by writing that the price had to be based on the number of years till the Jubilee year from the time of the sale. By contrast then, the words אל תונו in verse 14 apply only to the sale of chattels.

אל תונו איש את אחיו ,“do not cheat one another.” How does one “cheat? By selling a piece of land for more than its worth, seeing that it is going to have to be returned to the seller in the Yovel year. If it is a property that is not subject to return to its original owner in the Jubilee year, then the term “overcharging” cannot be applied, as what he had sold was not a fixed amount of harvests expected. This is the meaning of the Rabbis having said that the law of overcharging does not apply to real estate.

אל תונו, even though the sages said that there is no overcharging when land is involved. (Baba Metzia 56), this applies to the price charged for the land itself. When it comes to calculating the remaining number of years before the next Jubilee year one must not mislead the purchaser [such as saying that there are 18 years left before the next Jubilee year, withholding the information that for at least 2 of those years the land may not be worked so that the purchaser should pay only for 16 anticipated harvests instead of 18. Ed.]

במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER THE JUBILEE THOU SHALT BUY [OF THY COMPANION] — This (the following) is the literal sense fitting in the clauses of the verse as required by the context: Scripture intends here to warn against wronging prohibited in the preceding verse: When you sell or buy landed property take into account how many years there are until the Jubilee, and according to the years and the crops of the field which it can be expected to yield shall the vendor sell and the purchaser buy, for in the end he (the purchaser) will have to return it to him (to the vendor) in the Jubilee-year. Consequently if there are only a few years until the Jubilee and this man sells it at a high price it follows that the purchaser has been overreached. If, on the other hand, there are still many years until the Jubilee so that he eats from it many crops the seller is overreached if you give him only a low price. It must therefore be purchased according to the period remaining until the Jubilee. That is what Scripture means when it states: “According to the number of the years of the fruits he shall sell unto ,"thee," i. e. according to the number of years of crops that it (the field) will remain in the hand of the purchaser you shall sell it to him. Our Rabbis, however, derived from here the law that one who sells his field has no right to repurchase it before the elapse of at least two years, — that it must remain in the possession of the purchaser two full years reckoning from date to date, and even though there may be three crops in these two years, as, for instance, if he sold it when it had its corn standing. And in this interpretation the word שני does not lose its literal meaning, viz., that of years, (the words שני תבואות are not taken in this interpretation to mean “two crops” as you might at first think) — the phrase means מספר שנים של תבואות the number of years of crops (i. e. שני is the construct of שנים) and not of years when the corn is smitten by blast, and you know that the minimum number implied in the plural שנים is two (this is how the Rabbis derived the law that the vendor must leave the field at least two years in possession of the purchaser) (Arakhin 29b).

במספר שנים תקנה, you are to pay a price corresponding to the number of years that you will own the land. Our sages state that when it comes to matters which are subject to verification by weight, by measure, or number, even if the overcharge amounted to less than 1/6th, the usual leeway when buying things in “bundles,” etc, is refundable. (Baba Metzia 56)

במספר שנים אחר היובל, "according to the number of years after the Jubilee year, etc," We must establish first of all why the Torah speaks of the years "after the Jubilee," rather than "the number of years until the Jubilee year," seeing that the years the purchase is in effect are part of those years? Secondly, why did the Torah change its wording in the middle of a verse? The Torah describes the transaction as a purchase,מקנתו, when speaking of the number of years which determines the purchase price, i.e. making the purchaser the principal figure. When the Torah speaks of the number of harvests, however, it switches and describes the transaction as a sale, i.e. הוא מוכר לך, "he sells to you?"

במספר שנים אחר היובל תקנה מאת עמיתך, “you will buy from your fellow on the basis of how many years have elapsed since the last Jubilee year.” According to Rashi the plain meaning of the verse is to warn the seller not to overcharge the buyer. Nachmanides agrees that this is the plain meaning of the text, but adds that if this were so halachically, it would contradict the principle that the term אונאה, an illegal overcharge, does not apply when the object in question is real estate. We are therefore bound to look for a different interpretation of the meaning of our verse(s) here.(compare Ketuvot 99) We therefore need to view each of the verses in this paragraph as unrelated to the verse prior to it or subsequent to it. Verse fourteen speaks of chattels changing hands, something where the laws of אונאה, overcharges, do apply. Afterwards the Torah warns not to become guilty of unfair dealing in the sale of real estate. In verse 17 the Torah repeats the general principle of dealing fairly with one’s fellowman rather than applying the principle of “buyer beware!” which is so prevalent in our society. Verse 17 even includes אונאת דברים, causing damage by the spoken word, though nothing substantive had been denied the purchaser or seller, as the case may be. The Talmudבבא מציעא folio 58 even considers the latter kind of unfair practice as more serious than the former, either because it is not subject to being retracted or because it insults the victim’s body rather than cause harm only to his financial assets. Alternately, it is quite possible that if one deliberately cheats one’s customer by misrepresenting the object one tries to sell, one is guilty of violating a negative commandment regardless of whether the object involved is a chattel or real estate, seeing that the Torah here quotes both examples separately as forbidden. The words אל תונו איש את אחיו, followed by the example of the number of years that have elapsed since the Jubilee year, clearly refer to transactions involving real estate. The difference in the law of אונאה when practiced with chattels as opposed to when involving real estate, would only be that in the case of chattels when the overcharge is less than 1/6th of the fair price the transaction is not voided and the vendor does not have to return the excess he has charged. Should the overcharge have exceeded that amount, the transaction is automatically reversed when the buyer becomes aware of having been deceived. When the Talmud stated that the law of אונאה does not apply to transactions involving real estate, the meaning was that even if the overcharge was more than one 6th, the sale is not cancelled, but the vendor must make the appropriate refund. When viewed in this light, Rashi’s explanation does not raise any problems. In any event, it is forbidden to overcharge deliberately, hoping that the purchaser in his desire to acquire said land will forgive the vendor for overcharging him. Our sages arrived at this interpretation because the Torah employed the plural mode in verse 14 when writing וכי תמכרו ממכר לעמיתך...אל תונו, “when you make a sale to your fellow….do not cheat one another” (literally :”cause each other grief.”) The use of the plural here suggests that both real estate transactions and chattels are the subject of this ordinance. Although the Torah spoke first specifically of chattels, i.e. או קנה מיד, “or when he purchased something from the “hand, etc.,” it reverts to the all embracing אל תונו without limiting such transactions to chattels, mobile objects. Seeing that the chattels did warrant special mention, the reason must be that the regulations as to under what conditions such “cheating” results in a reversal of the transaction is bound to be somewhat different from the conditions invalidating a real estate transaction in which one or the other party was not honest. It is also possible that the thrust of the whole verse is to warn people to be aware at all times of how many years have elapsed since the last Jubilee year, that knowing the date of the month is not sufficient. Once this is common knowledge, there will not be miscalculations as to the value of the piece of property that is being sold until the advent of the next Jubilee year. This also will preclude the buyer from believing that what he is about to buy will remain in his possession for an unlimited number of years. At any rate, the principle of אונאה, legal consequences that result from misrepre-sentations of objects being sold, applies also to real estate transactions, though the details are different from when someone sells produce in the market at an inflated price. If it applies there, it is obvious that it also applies when chattels or produce is being bought or sold. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason why the Torah formulated this paragraph by beginning with the words וכי תמכרו in the plural, is that it describes transactions that take place publicly, in front of eyewitnesses. This is why the Torah also employs the plural mode when writing לא תונו, do not take unfair advantage, addressing the seller, is that usually the seller is more likely to take unfair advantage of the buyer rather than vice versa. After all, it is he who initiates the transaction.

How many years there are until the jubileeJubilee. (Divrei Dovid) You might ask: According to Rashi’s explanation that the verse “according to the number of years” is explaining the cheating involved in selling land, would we not know this ourselves? Since he is obligated to return it in the jubileeJubilee, the sale [price] obviously depends on the time left until the jubileeJubilee. Perhaps the difference that arises from this [Rashi’s explanation] is when a first buyer sold to a second buyer. You might have thought that he [the first buyer] can say to him, “I am selling it to you forever! Even though you have to return it to the [original] seller, I have nothing to do with that! The obligation is upon you to fulfill the mitzvah.” This would be similar to someone who sells an animal to a slaughterer, where the obligation to give the gifts to a kohein rests upon the slaughterer and not upon the seller. Here too regarding the jubileeJubilee [one might have thought it is the same and that] one is permitted to “cheat” him [the second buyer]. So it comes to teach us that even in this case do not cheat, and you are included in the obligation [to ensure that the field returns to its original owner].

אחר היובל תקנה, there is no point in purchasing a field during the actual Jubilee year, as a situation might arise in which the returning owners cannot retain possession of it for any meaningful amount of time at all, depriving them of the feeling that they had benefited from the Yovel institution.

And according to the years [remaining] and the crops. Explanation: This verse, “according to the number of years,” is explained afterwards in the next verse, “Based on the abundance of years, etc.” Even though the first verse is speaking of the years that passed since the [last] jubileeJubilee, while the next verse is speaking of the years until the [next] jubileeJubilee, this is because the one results from the other, since the buyer and seller only look at the years remaining until the jubileeJubilee and calculate according to them. Therefore, Rashi explains both verses according to the years remaining. Re’m

We have the following Mishnah in Massechet Arachin folio 29: "When someone sells a field in the Jubilee year he is not allowed to redeem it until at least 2 years have elapsed seeing that the Torah stipulates that the sale has to be in effect for "a number of harvests," i.e. not less than two harvests. If one of those two years happens to be a year of drought so that no harvest is brought in, or it was the shemittah year (when the harvest is public property), such a year does not form part of the two years we have just mentioned. Rabbi Eliezer says that if the seller sold the field immediately before New Year's day while it had not yet been harvested the buyer may enjoy 3 harvests before the seller can redeem the field." Thus far the Mishnah. When the Talmud elaborates on this, it is pointed out that the Mishnah did not say that redemption of the field in less than two years would be legally ineffective, but said only that the "seller is not allowed to redeem it." This means that there is both a negative and a positive commandment, the positive commandment being that one must allow the purchaser to enjoy the field for at least two harvests. The wording of the Torah applies the positive commandment also to the purchaser, not merely to the seller having to allow the purchaser to enjoy possession for a minimum of two harvests ; this is based on the word תקנה "you shall purchase." We also find a Baraitha in that connection which states as follows: "if the purchaser enjoyed only one harvest prior to the Jubilee year one allows him to enjoy the harvest of an additional year after the Jubilee year." As a result of the foregoing we have four separate הלכות, rulings, on the subject which are based on our verse. 1) It is a commandment applicable to both seller and buyer that the sale be valid for no less than two years as stated in the Torah. 2) If there were three harvests within the space of two years they all belong to the purchaser. 3) If there was a year of drought so that there was no harvest, the purchaser is entitled to another year. 4) If the Jubilee year occurs during one of the two years the purchaser contracted for, this year is considered as null and void and the purchaser continues in possession for another year. Maimonides rules in accordance with what we have just stated in chapter 11 of his treatise Shemittah Veyovel.

שני תבואות, years during which a harvest is produced, not years of drought, etc. The conditions are parallel to a farmer who enters into a tenancy agreement working the field for the owner and giving him a portion of the harvest.

In less than two years. Because they find it problematical to explain [verse 14 in a way] that the first verse (verse 14) is connected with the second verse (verse 15). [See Re’m]

Keeping the above in mind the wording of the Torah can be fully appreciated. The words במספר שנים אחר היובל mean "the number of years that have to be completed in the event the Jubilee year does not require the present owner of the field to relinquish it." The Torah then changed its wording from buyer to seller in order to make the law apply to the purchaser as well. Both seller and buyer are responsible for the sale not to remain effective for less than the time legislated by the Torah. The Torah mentions both the number of years and the number of harvests (pl) in order to allow for the eventuality of a drought or the Jubilee year which would result in the number of harvests being less than the number of years contracted for.

We need to understand the reason why G'd does not permit the buyer to return the field he purchased to the seller before two (harvest) years have passed. Since when is it forbidden for a person to waive financial claims in favour of someone else? The answer to this peculiar piece of legislation must be sought in the Torah's looking askance at anyone who sells land which is his heritage in the Holy Land. Torat Kohanim on verse 25: "if your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral heritage, etc." explains that a person is not permitted to sell his field and to use the proceeds to invest in livestock or chattels. They base this on the fact that the Torah described permission to sell as due only to poverty, i.e. כי ימוך. The Torah hopes to dissuade a potential seller of his ancestral property from selling if he is aware that he will not be able to redeem it for at least two years.

Another reason may be connected to a ruling by Maimonides in chapter 11 of Hilchot Shemittah Veyovel that if someone sold his field for a period of 60 years such a field does not revert to the seller in the Jubilee year. The only purchases which are reversed in the Jubilee year are lands sold without a specific time frame, or a piece of property sold "forever." The author of Kesseph Mishneh does not quote the origin for Maimonides' ruling. Perhaps Maimonides derived it from a nuance in our text here. When the Torah writes במספר שנים אחר היובל the meaning may be that if the seller mentions a specific number of years that the sale is to be in force, be it 40 years or 60 years, ימכר לך, "he may go ahead and sell it to you." -The additional words ימכר לך mean that the sale is effective for the number of years contracted. In such a situation the Jubilee year does not override the agreement reached between buyer and seller. The words במספר שני תבואות explain why such a sale can remain effective beyond the Jubilee year, i.e. seeing that the seller sold a number of harvests he did not contravene Torah law not to sell soil. The Torah's principal concern is that a Jew must not sell the land which is his heritage in the land of Israel.

תרבה מקנתו THOU SHALT INCREASE THE PRICE THEREOF — i. e. you may sell it at a high price

תרבה מקנתו, you will buy it at a higher price than would have been the case if you had only rented it. The reason why the seller is entitled to a proportionately better price is that over a period of years any investment the owner makes in building on such property will be worth his while, and will be amortized over many years, whereas a rental agreement does not permit the renter to make such changes.

כי מספר תבואות until the Jubilee year is what he is selling you, as opposed to the actual soil.

Lessen its price. Because תרבה or תמעיט מקנתו implies to increase or decrease the [number of the] field’s sales, which is not the verse’s meaning. Therefore Rashi explains, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price,” and “’You shall decrease its purchase price,’ lessen its price.” Rashi says, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price (תמכרנה ביוקר),” instead of saying “increase its price” (תרבה בדמיה) as he said “lessen its price” (תמעיט בדמיה), so that you do not think that one should increase and lessen its price more than it is worth. The expression תמכרנה ביוקר, however, does not imply selling for more than its worth, but rather [implies] that it is worth a lot. Re’m

תמעיט מקנתו — You shall offer a lower price.

תמעיט מקנתו, that you do not have to pay a price as if you had only rented it. Naturally, if the sale is for a few years only, such considerations are taken into account. כי מספר תבואות הוא מוכר לך, for when you buy the land for a few years only, the only use you can make of it is the harvests which it will yield. Shortness of tenure does not permit the owner to invest in superstructure on the field and to amortize his investment. The purchaser also cannot grow the kind of crop which weakens the soil such as flax, as by the time he has to return the field to the original owner it must be returned in a condition similar to the one when he had bought it. Baba Metzia 109 states specifically that if someone purchased a piece of land for a few years only, he is not permitted to grow flax on it.

ולא תונו איש את עמיתו YE SHALL NOT THEREFORE BE EXTORTIONATE TO ONE ANOTHER — Here Scripture warns against vexing by words (wounding a person’s feelings) — that one should not annoy his fellow-man, nor give him an advice which is unfitted for him, but is in accordance with the plan and the advantage of the adviser. But lest you should say, “Who knows whether I had any intention to do him evil?” Scripture therefore states: “but thou shalt fear thy God”! — He Who knows men’s thoughts, He knows it! In all cases where it is a matter of conscience (more lit., a matter handed over to the heart), when no one knows the truth except the one who has the thought in his heart, Scripture always states: “but be afraid of thy God”! (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4 1-2; Bava Metzia 58b; cf. also Rashi on Leviticus 19:14.)

ולא תונו, the reason this is repeated so many times is to warn you that you must not even misrepresent by words and thereby treat your customer unfairly. Even if the damage caused is not measurable in terms of money, all manner of misrepresentation is forbidden.

ולא תונו איש את עמיתו, "And you shall not take advantage of one another." Baba Metzia 58 explains that our verse discusses אונאת דברים, "verbal wrongs." The plain meaning of the verse is that seeing the Torah had already issued a similarly phrased commandment in verse 14, and we had explained that commandment as applicable when overcharging for chattels, we could have thought that overcharging for land was permitted. The Torah therefore had to repeat this commandment in connection with land sales so that the reader would not err and assume it is permitted to overcharge on land. The verse therefore concludes with the exhortation: "you shall fear your G'd," telling us that although the normal legislation against overcharging does not have a legal effect when the sale of real estate is involved, this is so only in connection with land sales in the rest of the world and to members of society at large (Gentiles). The prohibition to overcharge is in effect, however. The reason there are no legal repercussions when someone overcharges for the land he sells is that G'd personally will exact the appropriate penalty from the guilty party; this is why after the words: "you shall fear your G'd" the Torah adds the words: "for I am the Lord your G'd." G'd reminds us that He Himself will judge us in this respect and that we must not assume that it is permissible to overcharge when selling real estate. There are many instances of the Torah forbidding something without making such prohibitions a matter punishable by our legal system. You may do well to read what I have written on Exodus 21,12 in this connection. In our specific case, a court might find it difficult to determine precisely when the seller has violated the rule that he must not overcharge, seeing a purchaser may have been willing to pay more than the market price. (the same applies if the buyer bought the property for less than the market price, exploiting the economic weakness of the seller). G'd alone knows where to draw the line between what a buyer is truly willing to pay and what he feels he is forced to pay. This is why G'd Himself will administer any penalty due to either of the parties involved.

ולא תונו איש את עמיתו ויראת מאלוקיך, “Do not wrong one another, but fear your G’d, etc.” The אונאה referred to in this verse is called אונאת דברים, hurting people with words. Examples are: not to offer deliberately poor advice; irritating one’s fellow and provoking him to become angry (Rashi). We have a statement in Baba Metzia 59 that “all the gates are closed (subject to being closed from time to time) except the gate of אונאה, i.e. the supervision by the watchful eye of G’d if someone is guilty of that sin. The sages based this on Amos 7,7 הנה ה' נצב על חומת אנך וידו אנך, “here the Lord was standing on a wall checked with a plumb line, and in His hand a plumb line.” [The word אנך in that verse is related to אונאה, and the prophet describes the constant alertness of G’d for deviations from the ‘straight and narrow’ symbolized by the plumb line. Ed.] The reason for this is that the victim of such provocations is ever upset and prays to G’d to deliver him from such verbal persecution. This results in G’d’s being involved in matters such as these around the clock. In the event the guilty party who employed language subject to different interpretations consoles himself by saying that his intention to cause his victim anguish could not be proven, the Torah reminds him: “and fear your G’d,” i.e. He knows.

Here [the verse] forbids insulting others with words. Rashi specifically says “here,” because since it is written עמיתו(his fellow), annoying someone with words is applicable. But in verse 14 where it says אל תונו איש את אחיו (do not cheat, a man his brother), one cannot say it means annoying with words because however he denigrates [his brother], he is denigrating with his own flaw since his brother’s honor is his own honor, and by insulting his brother he himself is insulted. Therefore, over there he explains it as cheating in monetary matters, and here he explains it as insulting with words. And so writes the Sheloh. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

And you shall not defraud, each one their kin To sell according to the worth of the land, since it will return. Although there is no concept of fraud with regard to land (cf Sifra Behar 3:1), here there is fraud, since one does not acquire land in Eretz Yisrael but rather only its products, like the verse says "For the number of years they sell to you" (Leviticus 25:15). If it had been years like the years of Eliyahu (ie of drought, cf I Kings 17:1), or blasting and mildew (cf Devarim 28:22), one would not decrease the account of the money if the redeemer came to redeem. And so too the two years that the Sages said one needs to leave the land in their hand, they need to be productive years.

כי אני ה' אלוקיכם, I, G’d am both buyer and seller. This is why I am meticulous and adamant that neither practice be tolerated.

I have already stated earlier that the principle of a sale being declared an "erroneous transaction" and the court reversing it applies also to land sales. Maimonides also writes in that vein in chapter 15 of his treatise Hilchot Mechirah. The principle is based on the transaction having a blemish of which the buyer was unaware at the time he concluded the purchase. In such cases the buyer is at liberty to return the land even if a number of years have passed since the purchase was concluded. Our explanation is based on the wording of אל תונו the Torah uses here. The expression אונאת דברים covers every deception caused by words which misrepresent true facts. Lying to a person is a form of "wronging" him and includes overcharging for land, i.e. misrepresenting its true value.

וישבתם על הארץ לבטח [WHEREFORE YE SHALL DO MY ORDINANCES] AND YE SHALL ABIDE IN THE LAND IN SAFETY — It states this because as a punishment for the sin of neglecting the laws of ”Shemittah” Israel becomes exiled, as it is said (Leviticus 26:33, 34) “(And I will disperse you among the nations…] Then shall the land makeup for the Sabbatical years… even then make up for her Sabbatical years that she has not observed” (Shabbat 33a). The seventy years of the Babylonian exile were indeed a punishment corresponding to the seventy Sabbatical years which they had neglected (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 26:35).

AND YE SHALL DO MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES. He warned [here] concerning [all] the statutes on account of the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee mentioned [above], because these [commandments] are in the category of “statutes” [for which no explicit reason is given], and [He warned concerning all] the ordinances on account of the law of the return of sales and servants in the Jubilee, and [the law of] overcharging [which are “ordinances” for which the reasons are obvious]. He said, and ye shall dwell in the Land in safety, because it is for the sin of [transgressing the laws of] the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee that Israel goes into exile. He then said again, And the Land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat until ye have enough, and dwell therein in safety,¹⁷⁹Verse 19. meaning that you will not have to go out of the Land in the Sabbatical year in order to live in another land on account of lack of food [because the Land shall yield enough fruit].

ועשיתם את חקותי, the sh’mittah and Yovel legislation. ואת משפטי תשמרו, the social laws governing the sale and purchase of property in relation to the Yovel so that no cheating of any kind takes place.

ועשיתם את חקותי, “you shall carry out My decrees, etc.” According to Nachmanides these words refer back to the sh’mittah and Jubilee legislation, seeing that these two sets of laws belong to the category of חקים, whereas cheating belongs to the category of משפטים.

ועשיתם את חוקותי, “You shall perform My decrees, etc.” The Shemittah and Yovel legislation belongs to the commandments categorized as “decrees.” The words ואת משפטי תשמרו, “and My social laws you shall observe,” which follow immediately refer to the rules about reversing the sales into service, or the sale of property due to duress which when the party making the sale became more affluent can be reversed, as well as to all the laws involving wrongdoing under the heading of אונאה. Both categories of laws are mentioned in our paragraph.
וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “you will dwell securely in the land.” This assurance is important as through non-observance of the Shemittah legislation the Jewish people were exiled from the land in fulfillment of the warning by the Torah in 27,34 that the land would recoup the years of Shemittah which the people did not allow it when the people would be in exile. The seventy years of the Babylonian exile were in direct retaliation for the neglect of that commandment (70 times) as we know from Rashi on that verse in 27,34.

For, by the sin of [neglecting] the sabbatical year Israel is exiled. And when the beginning of the verse says, “You shall fulfill My statutes and keep My laws and fulfill them,” it is referring to the statutes and laws pertaining to the sabbatical year, because if not what is its relevance to here?

ועשיתם את חקותי, “You will keep My laws;” this is a reference to all laws pertaining to land in the Holy Land and any laws subject to being performed only in the Holy Land as much as they apply during the sh’mittah and Yovel years.

.וישבתם על הארץ לבטח. To ensure that you will not be exiled from your land. This is the opposite of the prospect discussed in 26,43, and Isaiah 56,17, both of which threaten exile for abuse of the above laws.

ואת משפטי תשמרו, “and you are to observe My social laws;” Here the Torah refers back to the sale of land, freeing of slaves, etc, which are part of the legislation discussed in the context of sh’mittah and Jubilee year legislation.

ואת משפטי, “and My ordinances;” for instance the prohibition to overcharge.(verse 14)

וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “as a result of such observance you will dwell in the land securely.” Israel went into exile as a result of its failure to heed these warnings. The Torah repeats once more:

וישבתם על הארץ לבטח, “if you do this you will live in this and securely.” Your security will be bound up with your loyalty to G-d’s Torah.

ונתנה הארץ וגו' וישבתם לבטח עליה AND THE LAND SHALL YIELD [HER PRODUCE AND YE SHALL EAT YOUR FILL], AND ABIDE THEREIN IN SAFETY — The latter words imply that ye shall not have to worry about years (lit., a year) of drought.

ואכלתם לשובע, the produce of the land will prove nutritious. An example of this is the manna when the same quantity, an omer per head, whether for a baby or a fully grown person proved adequate, showing that G’d had imbued it with the nutrients needed by the person eating it. [It was the most individualised diet ever. Ed.] Our sages describe this as an example of food adjusting to the body’s needs after it had come into a person’s entrails. (Torat Kohanim, Bechukotai 1,7) This is also how we can understand that the crops grown in the sixth year of the sh’mittah cycle were able to be sufficient for the people’s needs during the seventh year.

ונתנה הארץ פריה, "And the earth shall yield her fruit, etc." The meaning of "her fruit" is that which corresponds to the potential it has been endowed with. When we observe the earth producing fruit this does not prove that the amount of fruit we observe the earth produce is equivalent to the amount the earth is capable of producing. We find in Ketuvot 112 that a certain sage was angry at the earth and decreed that it be prevented from yielding its fruit. As a result of this curse the earth produced far less than previously. If someone had not seen the amount of fruit that piece of earth produced before the sage cursed it, he would have thought that the amount it produced subsequently was the maximum it was capable of producing.

ונתנה הארץ פריה...וישבתם לבטח עליה, “and the earth will yield its fruit and you will dwell on it in safety.” This is a promise that you will not have to leave the land of Israel on account of a scarcity of food during the sh’mittah year, or as a result of the observance of these regulations.

Within your stomach. Because once it is explicitly written “The land will give forth its fruit,” we already know that you will eat one’s your fiull, so why write “You will eat your fill”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Within your stomach...” You might ask: Why does Rashi turn the verse around and explain “You will live securely on it,” before explaining “You will eat your fill”? Also, why does Rashi cite two phrases of the verse, “The land will give forth..., etc. and you will live securely on it,” and then only explain “And you will securely on it”? The answer is: Learning the verse according to its order one could understand that “you will live securely” refers to “you will eat your fuill,” and is answering the question that once [the Torah writes] “the land will give its fruit,” why does it need to write “you will eat your fill”? If it is to tell you that “there will be blessing even within your stomach,” as meaning that you will eat [only] a little and it will bring provide blessing in your stomach, as implied by the verse writing לשובע (to fullness) and not ושבעתם (you will be filled), as the satiation will come afterwards by itself, why should the Torah give such a blessing? Is it not better to taste food and enjoy eating one’s food? The verse answers this question by saying “you will live securely.” You will not need to worry about years of famine (בצורת) that might come. [Even though the Torah promised there will always be fruit], בצורת can also mean that money will be scarce. Thus the Torah blesses you that you will be filled with the little food that you buy with a few coins. And thus it [the verse] is all one blessing. Rashi rejects this explanation of the verse, because if so, the verse could have omitted “you will live securely.” Because if it comes to explain why the food needs to be blessed in one’s stomach, people would in any case understand the reason when a shortage [of money] occurs, as [explained] above. Therefore, he explains that “You will live securely” refers to “the land will give its fruit,” and means that both fruit and money will be available so that there will never be any shortage. And if so, [the blessing] that “you will eat your fill” even by eating a little, is perforce another blessing, that you will have more than you need and be able to buy whatever items you want [by selling your surplus food]. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

וישבתם לבטח עליה, “you will dwell safely in it.” The land itself will provide you with its strength so that your enemies cannot consume you. \compare Judges 6,3: ועלה מדין ועמלק, “and the Midianites and the Amalekites would come up (and raid them.) During serious times of hardship, they would not only raid you but would exile some of you and not leave any food for you to be able to subsist on.

ואכלתם לשבע AND YE SHALL EAT YOUR FILL — [even if you eat only a little — cf. Rashi on Leviticus 26:5] it will be blessed in your stomach.

וישבתם לבטח עליה, you will not need to be embarrassed by having to import food because your land did not provide you with sufficient means of nutrition.

ואכלתם לשבע, "and you will eat to your satisfaction, etc." Perhaps the Torah had to emphasise this as we could have thought that if the earth were to produce fruit according to its full potential the excess fat of the produce would be so filling that one could not eat one's fill, i.e. לשבע. The Torah therefore reassures us that we will be able to enjoy such fruit to the full.

וישבתם לבטח עליה. "and you will dwell on it in safety." Although the Torah had already written in verse 18 that we would dwell in the land in safety as a result of performing G'd's comandments, the Torah repeats this promise to assure us that the excellence of the land's produce will not attract raiders bent on stealing our harvests. This verse contains G'd's promise that neighbouring countries would not attack us out of greed for our excellent land.

ולא נאסף [AND IF YE SHALL SAY,… BEHOLD WE SHALL NOT SOW] NOR GATHER IN — into the house.

AND IF YE SHALL SAY: ‘WHAT SHALL WE EAT THE SEVENTH YEAR?’ The verse is, as it were, inverted, meaning: “and if you shall say in the seventh year, ‘What shall we eat [in the eighth year]?’ for their worry would be about the eighth year. For since the beginning of the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee is in Tishri, then they would eat of the produce of the sixth year during the seventh year, as is the normal way in all other years to eat [of the old produce] until after the reaping [of the new], which is at the time of the Festival of Weeks, and even afterwards until the work of fanning and sifting the produce is finished. Therefore the correct interpretation of the verse, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years¹⁸⁰Verse 21. is that on account of the year of Jubilee [which always follows a Sabbatical year, G-d will command His blessing in the sixth year,¹⁸⁰Verse 21. meaning] that the sixth year will bring forth [sufficient produce] for the whole of the Sabbatical year, the Jubilee and the year after the Jubilee, and during all these [three years] they will eat of the old crop. Thus Scripture is assuring them that should they fear in the seventh year saying, “What shall we eat?” then I will command My blessing in the sixth year that it shall bring forth produce for the three years following after [the sixth year], this being an additional blessing [to that of every Sabbatical year, when the sixth year brings forth sufficient produce for the seventh and eighth years; and when in addition there is a Jubilee year, it will bring forth enough for three years] so that it should suffice also for the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee. He states, And ye shall sow the eighth year,¹⁸¹Verse 22. meaning to say that you should sow in the eighth year in the customary manner of every year, and you should not hurry to plow and sow, or to reap, for until her produce come in into the house at the time that the harvest [usually] takes place every year, at the Festival of Tabernacles, ye shall eat the old crop. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is stated]:¹⁸²Torath Kohanim, Behar 4:6. “For the three years¹⁸⁰Verse 21. — for the sixth, the seventh, and the year after the seventh. Another interpretation: For the three years — for the Seventh year, the Jubilee, and the year after the Jubilee.”

וכי תאמרו מה נאכל, when you raise doubts about this promise which I have made you, asking that you would not have enough to eat because you cannot believe that the quality of such food would compensate for its lack of quantity.

וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעית, "When you will say: 'what shall we eat in the seventh year?'" The plain meaning of the verse is as follows: "When you will say (in the seventh year) 'what shall we eat?'" The question posed by the Torah as being asked by the Israelites in this verse could be read in one of two different ways 1) the Torah reveals a motive for the Israelites' reluctance to observe the commandment not to seed the land during the seventh year, i.e. "if we do not seed what shall we eat?" 2) The question centers on the result of observing the commandment not to seed in the seventh year. The Israelites will ask that seeing they have observed G'd's directives "what shall we eat?" In order to make sure we understand the question as the second alternative we mentioned, the Torah adds הן לא נזרע, "behold we may not seed?" The question is one posed by the son to the father who wants to know where his sustenance is to come from seeing it is not available by natural means. The Torah answers that in that case, i.e. that you have fulfilled G'd's command, He will command the earth to provide a more than usually bountiful harvest in the sixth year so that you will not experience any shortfall. This blessing will occur only if your question was not intended to excuse your failure to observe My command. If you were asking to excuse your non-observance, the promise of a bountiful harvest in the sixth year will not materialise.

וכי תאמרו מה נאכל בשנה השביעית?, “and if you were to ask: ‘what are we going to it during the seventh year?” According to Nachmanides this is a verse that has been truncated, and the correct wording should have been וכי תאמרו בשנה השביעית מה נאכל, “if you were to ask during the seventh year: ‘what are we going to eat?’” The question refers to where the people’s food supply during the eight’s year will come from. The people were not concerned about their food supply during the seventh year as they had the harvest of the sixth year to depend on which would last them until the harvest time of that year. It was accepted that the basic food supply consisted of the previous year’s harvest. Their concern was centred on the year after the sh’mittah, or the Jubilee year. The Torah therefore lays such concerns to rest by writing:

מה נאכל בשנה השביעית, “what are we to eat in the seventh year?” The question seems unfounded as the people would naturally eat the harvest of the sixth year of the cycle in the following year, i.e. the seventh year! We must therefore understand the words בשנה השביעית as linked to the words “here we have not sown and we will not gather in,” at the end of our verse. The question is voiced in the seventh year and refers to the eighth year.

Into the house. And it is an expression of bringing [produce] into the house. You cannot say it means we did not gather [the produce] into a pile in the field, and that it means to gather to one place, because what does it help if the produce is gathered in a pile in the field and not brought into the house?

וכי תאמרו, “if you were to say, etc.;” this sounds peculiar as to why would people worry in the sixth year about what they would have to eat in the seventh year, seeing that they ploughed, seeded and harvested in that year so that they would have food for a year? We must understand this verse as having been abbreviated; the Torah meant to quote them as saying in the seventh year: “what will we have to eat in the eighth year?”

If you shall say. In truth all this is nothing but miraculous — in a year without any planting, the grain and fruit of the trees will grow enough to satiate the entire population of people and animals. It is known that path of miracles is only appropriate to the extent that one prepares for it, and this is what it says previously in Scripture: “You shall fulfill My statutes, etc.” This means they should increase their continuous study of Torah and its sharp give and take in those years. They should believe and completely give themselves over to this lofty manner of conducting themselves … Thus, one might think the main mitzvah of the Sabbatical and Jubilee year was only given to those who conduct themselves with this extra high level. However, this is not true, for the Torah can be kept completely even by people who are not on this level. This is why Scripture explains, “If you will say …” — if you will not be on this level, then “I will command” — this is personal Hashgachah in the way of nature.

את תבואתנו OUR INCREASE — as, e. g., the wine and the fruits of trees and the aftergrowth of the fields, which grow of their own accord (Pesachim 51b).

Which grow on their own. Because once it is written “we have not planted,” why write the obvious fact that “we have not gathered our produce.”? Therefore, when it says “We have not gathered our produce,” it must refer to things like wine, fruit, and crops that do not need to be sown.

לשלש השנים [IT SHALL BRING FORTH INCREASE] FOR THE THREE YEARS — i. e. for a part of the sixth year — from Nisan till the New Year of the seventh — for the whole seventh year and for part of the eighth year, for in the eighth year they will sow in Marcheshvan but will harvest only in Nisan (so that they will have to depend on the harvest of the sixth year in the eighth too).

ועשת את התבואה, in a manner which will satisfy the eyes of those who see it so that the people seeing it will realise that the quantity will be sufficient.

וצויתי את ברכתי, "And I shall command My blessing, etc." The blessing referred to in this verse does not pertain to the growth of the crop; that blessing has already been mentioned when the Torah spoke of the earth giving its full yield. The blessing the Torah speaks of here is in the nature of what we read in Kings I 17 and Kings II chapter 4 where the prophet made the little bit of oil of the respective petitioners stretch miraculously. This is alluded to in the words of our verse that ועשת את התבואה, i.e. that the existing crop will be made to last for three years. My comments on Genesis 33,9-11 are relevant to this verse.

לשלוש שנים, according to the plain meaning of the text the seed which has been planted in the sixth year of the cycle will provide sufficient food for the sixth, seventh and eighth year. They would eat until the onset of the ninth year from that harvest. During the balance of that year they will eat from planting which took place in the eighth year.

ועשת את התבואה לשלוש השנים, “the land will produce (during the sixth year) enough harvest to last for the three years.” This promise was necessary to cover the sh’mittah year of the 49th year which was followed by the Jubilee year during which no work in the fields was performed either.

לשלש שנים, “ the three years. The three years are the sh’mittah year, the yovel year, and the year following it.

לשלש השנים, for the three years. The meaning of the verse is that the blessing will be in effect during the sixth, the seventh and eighth year. Statistically speaking the period of three years the Torah speaks of commences in the month of Sivan during the sixth year, i.e. the month most of the grain is harvested, and continues till the month of Sivan in the ninth year. The Torah had to write the word לשלש השנים so we would not think that part of a year is considered a whole year [as when we count the years a king reigned. Ed.]

עד השנה התשיעית UNTIL THE NINTH YEAR — i. e. until the Feast of Tabernacles of the ninth year which is the time when the crop of the eighth year comes ‎(בא תבואתה) into the house (the granaries). For during the whole summer-time (the fruits) remained in the fields inthe barns, and in Tishri was the time for gathering them into the house. Sometimes indeed it th)e soil) had to bring forth fruits for four years, viz., during the sixth year preceding the seventh “Shemittah” (i. e. in the forty-eighth year of the Jubilee-period) when they had to refrain from agricultural work two successive years, viz., the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee immediately following it. This verse, however, (which mentions only an increase sufficient for three years) is said (written) with reference to all other (i. e. ordinary) Sabbatical years.

וזרעתם את השנה השמינית, "And you will seed the eighth year, etc." The Torah had to spell this out on account of having written that the harvest of the sixth year would last for three years. We might have thought that if the harvest of the sixth year lasts into the ninth year why sow in the eighth year? Surely G'd would not perform an unnecessary miracle! The Torah provides the reason by writing that the people were to enjoy the harvest brought in during the sixth year until the harvest of what was planted in the eighth year was at hand. The lesson of the verse is that a harvest which is three years old is superior to grain from the new harvest. (Baba Batra 91 confirms this).

וזרעתם את השנה השמינית, ”you will seed in the eighth year, etc.” Here the Torah reverts to the natural state of affairs, planting a crop that will develop without miraculous input by G’d, as did the one in the sixth year. You will not have to extend yourselves especially, as what the land had provided in the sixth year is sufficient until the crop planted in the eighth year had matured in the normal way. Rashi does not explain our verse in this manner.

עד בא תבואתה, “until its harvest will arrive.” The suffix ה at the end of the word תבואת-ה, refers to the eighth year, not the ninth year mentioned in our verse. The meaning of the whole verse is as follows: “you will sow in the eighth year and you will eat from the old harvest until its harvest (the one which you planted) comes in; this will be sufficient for you until the ninth year.” When the Torah adds the words לשלוש השנים, “for these three years,” the reference is not to three whole calendar years but the words: ‘the sixth year’ in verse 21 refer to the second half of that year, the year which G’d blessed with a bumper harvest; the entire seventh year when you did not plough, seed, etc., you will eat of that harvest, plus the first half of the eighth year until the harvest of that year’s planting comes in. This is the commentary by Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra.

Tishrei is the season of gathering into the house. This implies that they did not eat from the produce until Sukkos. But above Rashi explained:, “’For three years,’ for part of the sixth, from Nisan until Rosh Hashanah and the seventh and eighth [years], since they would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” This implies that they ate immediately in Nissan, which is an apparent contradiction. The answer is: Above (verse 20) it is written “If you shall say (ask).” I.e., “If you shall say (ask), ’What will we eat in the seventh year, for lo! we have not planted nor gathered our produce?’” The Holy One answers them, “I shall command (direct) My blessing to you... and it will produce [enough] for three years.” And as Rashi explains, “They would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” [Thus, by Nissan their question regarding what they will eat will no longer apply]. But they actually did not eat [that produce] until the ninth year on Sukkos. So when it is written, “You will still be eating... until the ninth year,” it is saying even more. That the old produce will be enough not only for three years from Nissan of the sixth year until Nissan of the eighth year, but will even be enough until the end of the eighth year and the beginning of the ninth year. You will eat from it as you do every year when you eat from the old produce until Sukkos of the following year. Re’m

[However,] this verse was said regarding all other sabbatical cycles. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask, why does Scripture not write more, that it will produce for four years. The answer is that the verse is answering the people’s’ question regarding what they will eat. This question does not apply to the jubileeJubilee as they will not ask about one year [that only comes once every fifty years], as for one year people can make an effort to get produce. But for every sabbatical year it would be impossible.

‎‎לא תמכר‎‎ והארץ THE LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD [ABSOLUTELY] — This is intended to charge with the transgression of a negative command (לאו) the neglect of returning the fields to their owners in the Jubilee — it commands that the purchaser must not detain it (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 8).

AND THE LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD IN PERPETUITY. “This is to declare a negative commandment affecting [one who refuses] to return fields to their [original] owners in the Jubilee, so that the purchaser should not retain it.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, why does He warn about “selling” [saying, the Land shall not be ‘sold’ in perpetuity], when it should rather have said: “Thou shalt not buy in perpetuity”? Perhaps [the meaning of the verse is as if] it said, “and the Land shall not be sold to you in perpetuity” [and thus the prohibition refers to the buyer]. Similarly, they shall not be sold as bondmen¹⁸³Further, Verse 42. is an admonition to the purchaser, that he must send forth to freedom [a Hebrew servant] in the Jubilee year, according to the plain meaning of the verse.
It is, [however], possible that the Land shall not be sold in perpetuity is a negative commandment referring to the seller, that he is not to sell it permanently by saying: “I am selling it to you forever, even for after the Jubilee.” For although the Jubilee [in fact] takes it out of his possession [despite his intention of buying it permanently], Scripture nonetheless admonishes the seller or both of them that they should not [attempt to] make their transaction in perpetuity, and if they did so stipulate, they transgress this negative commandment, and [additionally] it will be of no avail to them, for the land will return in the Jubilee. And so did Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] explain it.¹⁸⁴Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Shmitah V’yoveil 11:1. And the reason for this prohibition [of stipulating a permanent sale, although such a stipulation is completely ineffective], is because it is well-known in human thought that if people take into account from the beginning of the transaction the number of years until the Jubilee, it will [in the end] be easier for them [i.e., for the purchasers, to return it in the Jubilee], but if one [intends to] buy it in perpetuity, one will find it very difficult to return. This prohibition, then, is similar to what the Sages have said:¹⁸⁵Temurah 4 b. “That which the Merciful One said one may not do, if one does do, has no legal effect, but the transgressor is liable to the punishment of whipping because he violated the Royal decree.”
The correct opinion appears to me to be that this is not a negative commandment [for the transgression of which] one is liable to whipping. Rather, [the verse merely states] a reason [for the Jubilee], saying: “Observe between you [the law of] the Jubilee, and be not resentful about it, for the Land is Mine, and I do not want that it should be sold in perpetuity as [in the case of] other transactions.” This is the meaning [of the Rabbis’ interpretation] in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁸⁶Torath Kohanim, Behar 4:8. “And the Land shall not be sold ‘litzmithuth’ — permanently. For the Land is Mine — [therefore] be not resentful about it. For ye are strangers and settlers — do not consider yourselves the main [proprietors]. Ye are with Me — it is enough for the servant to be as his Master. When it is Mine it is yours.”¹⁸⁷This is a euphemism, the intent of which is as follows: “When you [Israel] are there upon the Land, G-d considers it as His, since the laws of the Jubilee then apply, but this is not so when Israel is exiled.” See my Hebrew commentary p. 179.
By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the meaning of the expression for the Land is Mine [literally: “for ‘unto Me’ is the Land”] is like and they take ‘unto Me’ an offering.¹⁸⁸Exodus 25:2. It is this which the Rabbis have alluded to here [by saying in the Torath Kohanim]:¹⁸⁶Torath Kohanim, Behar 4:8. “It is enough for the servant to be as his Master,” for the Jubilee will be applying [even]¹⁸⁹Abusaula. See further in Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23. in the world. The person learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.

והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות. The legislation applies to land intended for cultivation..

והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות, “and the land (family inheritance) must never be sold in perpetuity.“ Rashi understands the verse as a negative commandment, in addition to the positive commandment for the purchaser to restore the land to the party from whom he had bought it. (Verse13). Failure to restore it is not only violation of a positive commandment, but transgression of a negative commandment also. Nachmanides feels that if this were so the Torah should have made the purchaser the culprit, i.e. forbidding him to write a contract by the terms of which he acquired the land in perpetuity, and should not have worded the instruction as a restriction imposed on the seller. This would be parallel to selling a servant in perpetuity, ignoring the law that servants go free in the sh’mittah year. It is possible that the verse may be understood as a warning to the seller not to try and bypass the legislation of the Torah, and to secure a better price for himself by promising the buyer that he may retain the land in question in perpetuity, his foregoing the right given him by the Torah to reclaim his ancestral property in the Jubilee year. This warning may be addressed by the Torah to both the seller and the buyer to advise them that by making individual arrangements bypassing Torah law, they both make themselves guilty of a serious violation of the Torah. This is the interpretation of our verse by Maimonides. This would be considered violation of a negative commandment, although such a contract would be invalid to start with, no one being able to legally override laws of the Torah. The reason for the legislation as it is written is that if, at the time of the sale, the number of years during which the sale will be effective is part of the document, it is much easier, psychologically, that when the next Jubilee occurs, either during the lifetime of the purchaser or his heir, to effect the transfer of that property back to its original owner. I believe that the kind of negative commandment that we are dealing with here is not the type that carries the penalty of 39 lashes, as do most other negative commandments. Rather, it is in the nature of an explanation by the Torah of its motivation, designed to facilitate the smooth observance of the unusual law, which basically is a reminder that all land in the land of Israel ultimately is the Lord’s and we only administer it on His behalf.

והארץ לא תמכר לצמיתות, “and the land shall not be sold in perpetuity.” this teaches that if the purchaser of the field fails to hand it back to the seller or his heirs at the appropriate time, it will automatically revert to ownership of the original owner in the Yovel year. The expression צמיתות means something absolute, final. This is why Onkelos translates it as לחלוטין.

The buyer should not hold it. In other words, the buyer should not hold it and refuse to return it, resulting in it being sold forever.

לא תמכר לצמיתות, “do not sell with a clause to override the yovel year, i.e. for always. The expression צמיתות, means something absolute, complete separation. Compare Psalms 94,23: 'יצמיתם ה, “the Lord will destroy them utterly, (beyond chance of recovery)

לצמתת means for severance; the meaning is: it shall not be sold as a sale that severs in perpetuity.

כי לי הארץ, a reference that the region known as גליל, the earth is G’d’s. [specifically excluding the east bank of the Jordan, based on the letter ה in front of the word הארץ. Compare Torat Kohanim there. Ed.] כי גרים ותושבים אתם עמדי, in this very same גליל, which is not part of “He has given earth to man” (Psalms 115,16).

For it is not yours. Rashi does not cite the reason written in the verse, that it “is Mine,” because for the reason the buyer should not hold it in his hand and refuse to return it to the owners is not because “the land is Mine.” Rather, the verse should have said: Do not begrudge returning it because the land is theirs, or because the land is not yours. Therefore Rashi writes, “For it is not yours.”

לצמיתות, the vowel under the prefix ל time is a chirik, not a patach as in verse 30, to show that the vowel in this verse refers to the purchaser, whereas here it refers to the seller.

כי לי הארץ FOR THE LAND IS MINE — Your eye shall not be evil towards it (you shall not begrudge this) for it is not yours.

ובכל ארץ אחזתכם AND IN ALL THE LAND OF YOUR POSSESSION [YOU SHALL GRANT A REDEMPTION FOR THE LAND] — (The translation may be: And as regards everything etc.) thus including in this law houses and Hebrew servants (i. e. that to these also the right of redemption must be granted). And this matter is explained in Treatise Kiddushin 21a in the first section (cf. also Sifra, Behar, Chapter 4 9). According to the literal sense, however, it is to be connected with the section immediately following: to point out that one who sells his landed property has the right of redeeming it after two years either by himself or his relative, and that the purchaser has no right to prevent it (גאולה תתנו לארץ, you must grant redemption).

AND IN ALL THE LAND OF YOUR POSSESSION [YE SHALL GRANT A REDEMPTION FOR THE LAND]. “This [expression of ‘in all the land’] includes houses and Hebrew servants [that they too be granted the right of redemption]. This matter is explained in the first chapter of Tractate Kiddushin.¹⁹⁰Kiddushin 21 a. And according to the plain meaning thereof, it is to be connected with the section [immediately] following, [thus teaching] that he who sells [his land] has the right of redeeming it after two years, either personally or through his relative, and the purchaser cannot prevent it.” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct that Scripture should state in general terms in the section dealing with the Jubilee, [mentioned above], And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption [which according to Rashi speaks of the right of the seller to redeem the land of his possession], and then explain in the second section how this law applies: If thy brother be waxen poor etc.¹⁹¹Further, Verse 25. In other words, since this verse [25] begins a new section in the Torah, and is thereby disconnected from the preceding verse [before us], it is not likely that this new section is the explanation of the preceding verse.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture is stating: “And in all the land of your possession, that is, the land which I give you for a possession, ye shall grant this redemption of the Jubilee.” The term “redemption” is like the Eternal hath redeemed His servant Jacob,¹⁹²Isaiah 48:20. which means that He brought out His servant from the hand of those who held him [captive]. Similarly, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm¹⁹³Exodus 6:6. [means “I will take Israel out of Egypt”]. So also [the expression before us] ye shall grant a redemption for the Land means that I wish to redeem My Land from the hand of those who hold it, as I have not given it to them as a part of their possession. It was necessary that this be stated because He had said [as a reason for this law], for ‘ha’aretz’ (the earth) is Mine,¹⁹⁴Verse 23. It is clear from the following text that Ramban understands here the word ha’aretz as referring to the entire earth, and not to any particular land. and since the whole earth is His, therefore He stated additionally that the Jubilee only applies in the Land of our possession, not outside the Land [of Israel]. He stated and in all [‘and in all’ the land of your possession …] meaning that it is to apply to all our possessions, including the other side of the Jordan and all places of [our] possession, and not only in “the Land of the Eternal” wherein the Sanctuary is located [i.e., westward of the Jordan, but the law of the Jubilee is to apply also in the land east of the Jordan where the Sanctuary of G-d may not be built — see Ramban Numbers 21:21].

ובכל ארץ אחוזתכם גאולה תתנו לארץ, but outside of the boundaries of the land of Israel proper this legislation does not apply at all.

גאולה תתנו לארץ, if the seller wishes to redeem it prior to the Jubilee year.

ובכל ארץ אחוזתכם גאולה תתנו לארץ, “In the entire land of your ancestral heritage you shall make provision for the redemption of such lands (when appropriate).” Rashi, in addressing the plain meaning of our verse, assuming that the verses immediately following deal with people that need this redemption of their ancestral land, explains that whereas the seller enjoys the right to redeem his land after two years, either himself or through the good offices of a relative, sees the principal meaning of our verse in denying the purchaser the right to interfere with such a process of redemption. Nachmanides writes that he does not agree with Rashi on this, as he sees no reason why the Torah should have written this verse as part of the Jubilee legislation. Rashi, in effect, interprets our verse which deals with a legislation in effect only when the Israelites are predominantly all living on their ancestral land, as discussing legislation applicable also under far less favourable situations, at any time when part of the people live on their land. [An impoverished Jew is to be helped to regain economic independence regardless of the political environment in which the Jewish people find themselves. Ed.] According to Nachmanides, the reason why the Torah in our verse speaks of בכל ארץ אחוזתכם, “throughout your ancestral lands,” is to drive home the point that what we consider “our” land, is really still G’d’s land, something that the Jubilee legislation comes to remind us of. The very term גאולה for the transaction restoring land to its original owner or his heir, is parallel to such expressions as גאל ה' את יעקב, “the Lord redeemed Yaakov,” i.e. when G’d took the Israelites out of Egypt, He in effect redeemed their ancestor who had entered exile when he brought his family down to Egypt where they would become enslaved. The land had originally been given (promised) by G’d to Yaakov, so that all his descendants are entitled to a share of it. The difference between the land of Israel and the Diaspora, is that the laws about redeeming land holdings does not and never did apply anywhere except in the land of Israel after the distribution of it by Joshua. The reason the Torah adds the word ובכל, is to make sure we understand that the rules of the Jubilee and the reversal of land sales in that year also applies to the lands conquered by the Israelites under Moses on the East bank of the Jordan river. Seeing that G’d had repeated כי לי כל הארץ, “for the entire globe belongs to Me,” some confusion might have arisen as to within which parameters the Jubilee laws would apply.

Houses [and] a Hebrew slave. Because if not so, why write “in all”? Thus, it comes to include [the law] that even relatives may redeem houses of a walled city or a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew. [See Re’m]

You shall grant redemption to the land. Even if it is already sold to non-Jews it is a mitzvah to redeem it so that it will not be worked in the Sabbatical year … Even regarding our day and age it says in Gittin (8b) that for the sake of settling Eretz Yisrael it is a mitzvah to redeem a field from a non-Jew, and so much the more so when the people of Israel are dwelling in Eretz Yisrael. It says, “In all of your ancestral lands” — there is only a mitzvah when all of Eretz Yisrael is in the possession of the people of Israel. This is not so if all of Eretz Yisrael is in the hands of non-Jews, and it is impossible to redeem it all; there is no mitzvah to redeem a certain location. This is the plain meaning of Scripture, and you may derive from it the drashot as well.

גאולה תתנו לארץ, “you shall grant redemption to the land,” so that it is clear that it had not been sold but only mortgaged as a loan. (Rash’bam)

Adjacent to the following section. Re’m writes: “I do not know what forced him to say that it is adjacent to the following section, and not [connected] to the beginning of the same section (v. 15), and that it is telling us that the buyer cannot refuse; rather, ‘you shall grant redemption to the land.’” It seems that Rashi had to explain like this as he is answering the question: why do we need the verse “In all of your ancestral lands, etc.”? In the second [following] section in v. 25 it is written that the buyer cannot refuse? Therefore, he explains that this verse too is adjacent to the following section. Analyze this.

כי ימוך אחיך ומכר AND IF THY BROTHER BE WAXEN POOR AND HAS SOLD AWAY [SOME OF HIS POSSESSION] — The introductory words teach us that one is not permitted to sell his real estate except under the pressure of poverty (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 1).

כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחוזתו, "If your brother becomes poor and has to sell part of his heritage, etc." This paragraph contains cardinal moral-ethical lessons to mankind. Kohelet 10,18 alludes to this when he says: "through slothfulness the ceiling sags." Our sages in Taanit 7 comment on this "you have made "poor" the One of Whom it is said (Psalms 104,3) "המקרה במים עליותיו" "Who sets the rafters of His lofts in the waters;" When people who dwell in the lower parts of the universe stray from the correct path they cause the beneficial outpourigs from the upper part of the universe to cease. They thereby endanger the continuous presence of sanctity on earth. In the final analysis the fate of the universe is determined by the conduct of the creatures who inhabit earth, i.e. "the lower world."

כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחוזתו, “When your brother becomes impoverished and sells you a part of his inherited land, etc.” The introduction to this legislation teaches that one does not have the right to sell the land one has inherited in Eretz Yisrael from one’s forefathers except when in economic distress. In addition the Torah teaches that even if one is forced to sell, one should retain at least part of one’s holding.

Proper behavior: that he should leave over some of his field. Because since he may only sell under pressure, why does the verse write “some of his ancestral land”? Since he is under pressure and has to sell, [why not sell] even all of it? Therefore he writes, “The (Torah) taught, etc.” I.e., even if he is under pressure, he should restrict his [expenses] to the best of his ability and not sell it all, but leave for himself, etc. This is easy to understand.

כי ימוך אחיך ומכר מאחוזתו, “if your brother has become impoverished, and as a result had been forced to sell part of his ancestral land holdings;” the Torah implies that this misfortune befell him because he sold the crop that grew in his field during the seventh year. (Compare Rashi) We do indeed find a similar verse that during the period of the prophet Jeremiah, as recorded in Chronicles II 36,20, that the Israelites were forced to sell themselves as slaves to the gentiles in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah, who had stated that this situation would last until the soil of the land of Israel would once more find favour in G–d’s eyes, having paid back the sh’mittah years it had been worked during the seventy years of the first exile.

וגאל את ממכר אחיו, “he shall redeem what his brother had been forced to “sell,” i.e. his body, immediately. When referring to the seller, who had “sold his land,” because of financial distress, however, according to the (Sifra), the Torah adds a proviso, (verse 32) that the law of redemption applies only after a number of years had elapsed, as the interests of the purchaser had to be considered, seeing that he had acted in good faith.

מאחזתו SOME OF HIS POSSESSION — but not the entire property. Scripture thereby teaches you a practical rule that, however needy a man is, he should always leave some immovables (lit., a field) for himself (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 1).

And the buyer cannot impede [it]. Re’m writes: This is according to the opinion (Kiddushin 21a) that [when the verse writes], “(a close relative comes) and redeems,” this is a voluntary (Kiddushin 21a). Therefore the verse “and redeems” is saying that the buyer cannot impede the redemption, because if not so, for what do I need “and redeems”? However, according to the opinion that [the relative has] an obligation [to redeem the field] this is no difficulty, as the verse is coming to obligate the closest relative to redeem it. But according to the opinion that it is voluntary, why do I need “and redeems”? Would you think that if he wants to redeem he is not allowed to? Perforce, it is telling us that the buyer cannot impede the redemption.

When the Torah says: ומכר מאחוזתו "and he sells part of his heritage," this is a reference to the משכן, the Holy Tabernacle, which is G'd's heritage. The Torah warns us that our sins may result in G'd "selling off" His heritage, i.e. our enemies appropriating our (G'd's) Sanctuary. We find an allusion to this concept in Psalms 79,1 where Assaph describes the Gentiles as having entered G'd's domain. Midrash Tehillim comments on this verse that the redemption of G'd's Sanctuary is in the hands of the righteous who endeavour to be close to G'd. G'd has already told us this in Leviticus 10,3 when He said בקרובי אקדש, "I will be sanctified by those near Me." "They, the righteous, have to redeem what I had to sell." G'd is perceived as calling on the righteous in their capacity as אחי ורעי, "My brothers and My friends" (compare Psalms 122,8). Redemption will occur when the righteous succeed in awakening the hearts of their contemporaries by convincing them that it is really not in their best interest to spend their time exiled from the table of their Father in Heaven. The righteous have to convince the average Jew that what he considers success in his world is illusory if bought at the expense of forfeiting his respective eternity in a better world. In the future all Torah scholars who have failed in their efforts to convince their peers to adopt a Torah-true lifetsyle, etc. will have to render an account before the highest tribunal. G'd will hold those Torah scholars responsible for the continued disgrace suffered by the Holy Temple.

ובא גואלו, “and his redeemer arrives;” this is a reference to Hashem Who is the Redeemer. We know this from Deuteronomy 4,7: אשר לו אלהים קרובים אליו, “who has the Lord near to him.” (Moses refers to Hashem being constantly close to His people)

וגאל את ממכר אחיו HE SHALL REDEEM THAT WHICH HIS BROTHER SOLD — and the purchaser has no right to prevent it.

וגאל את ממכר אחיו, “who will redeem what his brother had been forced to sell.” The following dialogue is reported as having occurred between the prophet Jeremiah and G–d: “Lord of the universe! You who fulfil the promise of redeeming the Jewish people whom You have referred to as Your brothers, as we know from Psalms 122,8: למען אחי ורעי אדברה-נא שלום בך, “for the sake of My brothers and friends, I pray for your well being;” we also have a similar line in Isaiah 43,14:, “for your sake I have sent to Babylon, etc.” למענכם שלחתי בבלה. [The prophet quotes G–d as reminding the Jewish people that He had sent the Babylonians into exile on account of what they had done to His people. Ed.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

וחשב את שני ממכרו THEN LET HIM RECKON THE YEARS OF THE SALE THEREOF — [let him reckon thus:] How many years were there until the Jubilee? So-and-so many! At what price did I sell it to you? At such-and-such a price! Now in the Jubilee year you would have to restore it to me; it follows therefore that you have actually bought a number of crops only (and not the land itself) at a certain sum for every year. You have eaten it (used it) three or four years; deduct therefore their value from the sum total of the purchase money and you take the remainder. And this is the meaning of: “he shall restore the overplus” — viz., the excess of the purchase-money over the value of the crops which he (the purchaser) has enjoyed, and he shall restore it to the purchaser.

וחשב את שני ממכרו, "let him count the number of years of his sale," etc." The sale occurred due to our sins as mentioned by Isaiah 50,1: "here you have been sold due to your sins," and the sin is equivalent to a debt to be paid off. When the time comes to tear up the I.O.U. a careful accounting is made of any remaining indebtedness before the promissory note is torn up. The Torah speaks about the remaining years the Temple has been in foreign hands. The time it is redeemed depends on the quantity and severity of the collective sins of the people of Israel. We are told in Yuma 86 that if a person actually enjoyed the sins he committed, he has to flagellate himself in a measure which corresponds to the amount of pleasure he had when committing the sins he is guilty of. This is part of the rehabilitation of the sinner. In this manner he will repay his debt. G'd will deal with us in this manner at the time the redemption will be close at hand. This is also what the sages had in mind in Sanhedrin 98 when they refer to the חבלי משיח the birth-pangs to be endured as part of the coming of the Messiah. After that, ושב לאחוזתו, G'd will return to His heritage. The word ושב also refers to Israel. We have a parallel in Deut. 30,3 ושב ה׳ את שבותך "and G'd will return with your captive ones;" we would have expected the Torah to speak about והשיב i.e. "He will bring back" instead of "He will come back" (compare Megillah 29).

והשיב את העודף, from the years prior to the Jubilee which he had not consumed yet.

This [original] seller who comes. Explanation: To the first buyer. Because if not, the seller of an ancestral field will sometimes lose, as perhaps when the first buyer buys for a hundred and then sells for two-hundred.

לאיש אשר מכר לו [AND HE SHALL RESTORE THE OVERPLUS] TO THE MAN TO WHOM HE HAD SOLD IT — i. e. to whom he — this seller who now comes to redeem it — had sold it (but not to any other person who is now in the possession of the field, having in his turn bought it from that man to whom he — the seller — had originally sold it) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 3; Arakhin 30a).

העודף, which is in excess of the years he had already possessed that land.

די השיב לו [BUT IF HE IS NOT ABLE] TO RESTORE IT (lit., if his hand find not sufficient means to restore to him) — Therefore it follows that he (the vendor) has no right to redeem his property in parts (lit., by halves) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 5, Arachin 30a).

ואם לא מצאו ידו די השיב, "But if he does not have sufficient means to restore it to himself, etc." If G'd observes that the people do not possess the strength to endure all the suffering that is their lot, and the debt they owe is still great, והיה ממכרו עד שנת היובל, "then its sale will extend (only) to the Jubilee year, etc." Here the Torah refers to G'd's timetable, i.e. the ultimate date for the eventual redemption. At that time, ויצא ביובל ושב לאחוזתו, He will come out in the Jubilee year and return to His heritage (rebuild the Temple). Exile will come to an end even if the Israelites will be (G'd forbid) absolute sinners.

He may not redeem it by halves. Because if not, why does the verse write “enough”? Thus it must be telling us that if he has within his means enough to redeem the whole field, he redeems, and if not, [he does] not. Nachalas Yaakov asks: Why does Rashi not say this on the verse “And finds [it] enough to redeem it [himself]” above (verse 26)? Perhaps Rashi thinks that this is more obvious over here, as the verse concludes, “That which he sold remains in the possession of the buyer until the Jubilee year,” and returns nothing to him. This indicates that he may not redeem it by halves. But above it said that if he finds enough to redeem it, he should calculate with the buyer, and one could say that the same applies if he did not have enough to redeem it [all], that he redeems it according to the money he has. And that the verse is speaking of a normal case where he had [money] equal to the whole field. Therefore Rashi delayed his explanation until here.

עד שנת היובל UNTIL THE YEAR OF JUBILEE — “until” but not “including” the year of the Jubilee; it means that nothing of time shall have entered into that year (that not one moment of that year shall have passed), because the Jubilee effects the release of such property at its very beginning (in contrast to the cancelling of debts in the “Shemittah” which takes place only at the end of the year; cf. Deuteronomy 15:1 ff.) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 5 6; Arakhin 28b).

For the jubileeJubilee releases from its beginning. Erchin 28b. Rashi [there] explains, “At twilight of the [first] evening of the Jubilee year the sabbatical year ends, and at that time both of them release.” [I.e., the sabbatical year releases loans, and the Jubilee year releases sold lands].

בית מושב עיר חומה A DWELLING PLACE IN A CITY WHICH HATH A WALL — i. e. a house situated in a city which has been surrounded by a wall since the days of Joshua the son of Nun (Sifra, Behar, Section 4 1).

AND IF A MAN SELL A DWELLING-HOUSE IN A WALLED CITY. Since a man finds it very difficult to sell his house, and be disconcerted at the time of the sale, therefore the Torah wanted that he [have the right to] redeem it within the first year [after the sale]. And because man is servant to the field,¹⁹⁵Ecclesiastes 5:8. and the bread of his sustenance comes from it, the Torah wanted [that if the seller did not redeem it before the Jubilee], it should go back [to him] in the Jubilee.¹⁹⁶Verse 31. But with regard to a house [in a walled city], after [the seller] has given up hope [of regaining it], by changing his residence and staying for a year in another house, it can no longer cause him harm [if he cannot redeem it after a year], since his [source of] livelihood will not be diminished if it will be forfeited [to the purchaser]. And the houses of the villages [which have no wall round about them]¹⁹⁶Verse 31. are made for the purpose of protecting the fields, and to serve as dwelling-places for those who cultivate the earth; therefore their law [of redemption] is similar to that of the fields of the country [i.e., they may be redeemed at any time until the Jubilee, and in the Jubilee they go back without compensation].

ואיש כי ימכר בית מושב, "And if a man sells a house which is (his) residence, etc." After the Torah has described how G'd "sold" the Temple, the Torah now explains how it could happen that G'd would "sell" His heritage, the Holy Temple. This is why the paragraph starts with the word ואיש, so that we understand that the word refers to G'd, just as it had in the previous paragraph. The extraneous word מושב refers to the house in which G'd has His residence, the Holy Temple; the expression עיר חומה refers to Jerusalem, the "walled city" which is described by David in Psalms 125 ,2 as "the city ringed by mountains, (i.e. like wall)." The Torah continues by explaining that these very "walls" are why the city may be be redeemed after as little as a year already. The reason is similar to what has been revealed to us by Midrash Tehillim on Psalms 79,1. We were told there that when G'd vented His anger on the stones and timber of the city allowing it to be destroyed, this was in lieu of venting all His anger on the people inside the city. Had G'd not vented His anger on stone and wood, not a single Jew would have survived that experience. If Israel had been wiped out, there would never again have been either a Holy Temple or a city of Jerusalem.

ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה, “If a man shall sell a house of residence in a walled city,” Nachmanides writes that seeing that if someone is forced to sell his residence for reasons of economic distress, and this is something which the seller feels as very degrading, the Torah permitted him to exercise the right to redeem such a house even during the very first year after he has sold it. Seeing that his house is not the source of his livelihood, the rules pertaining to the reversion of a field to its original owner in the Jubilee year do not apply to the sale of a residence. Loss of one’s house is something one comes to terms with much sooner than loss of one’s primary source of livelihood, i.e. one’s ancestral field. Houses in open areas, as distinct from residential houses in walled cities, serve the owner in supervising his field and as temporary residence for his harvest workers, and therefore the legislation governing the sale of such a house is much more similar to that governing the sale of one’s ancestral field. (verse 31)

Surrounded by a wall: Explanation: It was first surrounded by a wall and then settled [with people]. He says “from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun,” because the verse is probably only speaking of a town surrounded by a wall at the time of the conquest when the land was first settled.

ואיש כי ימכור בית מושב עיר חומה, “and if a man had to sell a house (his) in a walled city, etc.” the “man” described here as a “man,” is none other than the Lord. He had been described as such in Exodus 15,3: ה' איש מלחמה, “The Lord is a man of war.” The expression is a euphemism for “Master, overlord.” We find the expression also used in Ruth 1,3, where the husband of Naomi, Elimelech, is described as איש נעמי, as opposed to בעל נעמי, to show the reader that if Naomi agreed to leave the land of Israel it was because her husband was her overlord, and she had no other choice. In our verse the expression בית-מושב, the house of his residence, is the same as if the Torah had written: מושב ביתו, his residence, i.e. his house. He sold it to gentiles. The addition of the word מושב is to alert the reader to Psalms 132,13: כי בחר ה' בציון אוה למושב לו, “for the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it as His residence.” [His people being exiled, is equivalent to His being exiled from Earth. Ed.] The previous owner of such a house has only one year during which he can redeem it and it becomes the permanent property of the person who had bought it. [Houses are not considered ancestral properties, which revert back to the original owner or his heirs in the Jubilee year. Ed.] G–d had promised to redeem His land after 70 years, (compare Jeremiah 29,10, [at which time the Babylonian Empire was replaced by the Persian Empire. Ed.]

בית מושב עיר חומה, “a dwelling house in a fortified (walled) city;” seeing that the city is walled, the land inside it clearly was not meant ever to be used for agricultural purposes. This being so, G-d did not decree that if sold it had to revert to its original owner in the Jubilee year. The Jubilee legislation refers only to land that serves as its owner’s basic source of making a livelihood. An alternate interpretation: when someone buys himself a house in a walled city, he may be presumed to have done so with the intent of keeping it permanently. Most people do not feel comfortable when living in rented homes as they are always worried that the owner would not renew their rental contract at a price they could afford. This is why the Torah adds: לא יצא ביבל, “it will not revert in the Jubilee year.” However, fields and houses bordering on fields, not walled in, are all subject to the rules of the Yovel legislation, being given back to the original owner free of any charge to be paid by that owner. Both of these kinds of property are more often leased than purchased.

והיתה גאלתו THEN IT SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REDEEMED [UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF THE YEAR OF ITS SALE] — Because it is stated about a field that one may redeem it after two years from the date of the sale and onwards at any time he pleases, but one may not redeem it during the first two years, Scripture was compelled to state specially with reference to this (the house) that just the opposite is the case — that if one wishes to redeem it in the first year he may do so, but after that he cannot redeem it.

[Referring to] the house (בית). But it is not referring to his sale of the house. It is not like “enough for its redemption” above (verse 26), which has to be translated as “the redemption of its sale (ממכר),” and it cannot mean “the redemption of the ancestral land (אחוזה)” since אחוזה is a word in the female form. Here, however, בית is a word in the male form. In addition, the word ממכר [connoting “sale”] is not mentioned in this verse that “its redemption” could refer to it. Therefore, it must mean the redemption of the house. (Re’m)

שנת ממכרו, “not the calendar year, but the year relevant to the 50 year cycle of the Yovel, which repeats itself as if moving in a circle.” (Sifra).

והיתה גאלתו THEN THE REDEMPTION OF IT — of the house — SHALL BE [TILL THE COMPLETION OF THE YEAR].

ימים תהיה גאולתו, “the period during which it may be redeemed extends for one year.” The wording means that the 12 month period during which this house may be redeemed may be combined between so many months in one calendar year and the balance in the next calendar year. This is also what the sages meant when they described the age of the Messiah’s coming as extending over 2000 years, i.e. part in one millennium and part in another (Avodah Zarah 9).

ימים, “years.” In other words, a year is not complete until the sun reverts to its original position in the following year.

ימים YEAR (lit., days) — the days of a full year are, briefly, termed “days”. Similar is: (Genesis 24:55) “Let the damsel remain with us a year (‎‎‏."(ימים

וקם הבית...לצמתת (THEN THE HOUSE… SHALL BE ESTABLISHED ABSOLUTELY [TO HIM THAT OBTAINED IT] — i. e. it leaves the control of the vendor for ever and stands under the exclusive control of the purchaser.

Under the control of the buyer. I.e., even though it was in the hands of the buyer [beforehand], it was also under the control of the seller because he could still redeem it. [But now] it remains in the hand of the buyer, as the seller can no longer take it from his hand. Re’m writes: You might ask: [Why does Rashi [say that “it will remain” refers to “its purchaser”]? Why does he not explain that “it will remain” refers to “in perpetuity,” that until now it was only acquired for a year in the purchaser’s hand, [but now it is acquired forever]? It seems that Rashi deduces this since it is written “in perpetuity to its purchaser.” “Its purchaser” is apparently superfluous as it is obvious that this refers to the purchaser. Thus, one can deduce from [the superfluous] “to its purchaser,” that the verse means “for its purchaser and not for its seller.” I.e., until now, the seller had the right to redeem it, but now, after the year has passedt, it left the jurisdiction of the seller, etc.

שנה תמימה, “a full year.” In the event that this particular year was declared a leap year, this works to the advantage of the person wishing to redeem it. (Sifra)

אשר לא חמה — We read the text as though it were written לו (i. e. tradition tells us to do so). Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, said (Arakhin 32a): We do so to intimate that the law applies to a city even if at the present it has not a rampart (אשר לא חמה) since previous to now it had one (אשר לו חמה). It is true that עיר is a feminine noun and the preposition referring to it should have been written לה (not לו), yet because Scripture was bound to write לא in the text for the reason given, the Massora (the traditional Scriptural text without vowels) replaced it by לו (instead of לה), because the sound of the one applies also to the other (they sound similar).

בעיר אשר לא חומה, the word לא here is read as if it had been spelled לו, “his.” The reason for this is that it refers to the word ואיש at the beginning of the paragraph. At the beginning of that year that house had a wall around it. The word שדה is masculine, as we know from Leviticus 27,21 והיה השדה בצאתו, “and the field will be when it (he) goes out etc.”

לא יצא ביובל IT SHALL NOT GO OUT IN THE JUBILEE — Rabbi Saphra said, “if the Jubilee happened to fall during that year (the first year of its sale), it shall nevertheless not go out” (Arakhin 31b).

לו חומה לצמיתות, “which (city) has a wall will be his (the purchaser’s) in perpetuity.” The vowel under the letter ל in לצמיתות is a patach, just as the vowel under the letter ל under the word לקונה אותו, at the end of the verse.

ובתי החצרים BUT THE HOUSES OF THE VILLAGES — Understand this as the Targum does: פצחין i. e. “houses of open cities” such as have no rampart. The term חצר occurs many times in this sense in the Book of Joshua, e.g., (Joshua 13:29) “the cities and the unwalled places thereof (וחצריהם)”; so also (Genesis 25:16) "by their unwalled places (בחצריהם) and by their strongholds” (see Rashi on that verse).

Without cost. I.e., without compensation. Because regarding an ancestral field it is taught in a Beraisa, “If [the buyer] used it for a year and the jubileeJubilee year arrived, he has to add another year for [the buyer] after the jubileeJubilee year [because generally one cannot redeem a field before two years have passed]. Therefore one needs the extra words “and it is released by the jubileeJubilee,” to teach that it goes out without cost, without adding [an extra year]. [See] Erchin 29b.

ובתי החצרים, “but the houses of the villages;” seeing that such houses are frequently transformed into fields, they are considered as an integral part of the legislation as it applies to fields, which means that they revert to the original owner in the Jubilee year. (Compare Ibn Ezra in his abbreviated commentary).

על שדה הארץ יחשב [BUT THE HOUSES OF THE VILLAGES]… SHALL BE ACCOUNTED AS THE FIELDS OF THE COUNTRY — i. e. they shall be like the fields which may be redeemed until the Jubilee(not only in the first year) and go out in the Jubilee into the possession of their owners if they have not been redeemed in the meantime (Arakhin 33a).

גאלה תהיה לו THEY MAY BE REDEEMED — at once if he (the vendor) so desires. In this respect it (the house in an unwalled city) has even a greater advantage than the fields, for the fields cannot be redeemed until two years have elapsed from the date of the sale (Arakhin 33a; cf. Rashi on v. 24).

וביבל יצא AND THEY SHALL GO OUT IN THE JUBILEE — for nothing.

וערי הלוים THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES… [MAY BE REDEEMED AT ANY TIME] — This refers only to the forty-eight cities which had been given to them (cf. Numbers 35:6. 7). (But if the Levites built another city for themselves, or if a Levite possesses a house in a city inhabited by Israelites these do not come under this law).

גאולת עולם תהיה ללוים, “the Levites will have an unlimited period during which to redeem their houses.” It does not matter if these houses are part of a walled city or of open villages, they are never sold in perpetuity, seeing that they are the only ancestral property the Levites own in the Holy Land as spelled out clearly in Numbers 35,3: והיו הערים להם לשבת ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם ולרכושם ולכל חיתם,” and they shall have these cities to dwell in, and their open land shall be for their cattle and for their substance and for all their beasts.”

גאלת עולם [THE LEVITES SHALL HAVE] THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AT ANY TIME — This means that they (Levites) may redeem at once — even before the end of two years — if they sold a field of those fields which had been given to them within the two thousand cubits round about the cities (cf. Numbers 25:5) (whilst an ordinary Israelite’s field must remain at least two years in the hand of the purchaser), or if they sold “a house in a city which has a wall” they may redeem it at any time and it does not become irredeemable at the end of one year (as is the case with such houses belonging to Israelites; cf. v. 30) (Arakhin 33b).

‎הלוים‎ מן‎ואשר יגאל ‏ ‎‎‎ ‎— This means, and if any one buys a house or a city from them, then that house that has been sold or the city that was sold shall go out in the Jubilee and shall return unto the Levite who has sold it, and not be irredeemable as are other houses in “cities that have a wall” viz., those of Israelites. According to this explanation, יגאל has here the meaning of a “sale”. Another explanation is (taking יגאל here in its usual meaning of “redeeming”): Because it is stated in the previous verse: “the Levites shall have the right of redemption at any time”, I might think that Scripture is speaking only of an ordinary Israelite purchaser who bought a house in a city of the Levites, but when a Levite bought a house from another Levite it shall be irredeemable! Scripture therefore states “[the Levites shall have the right redemption at any time]”, ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, “also if one who redeems does so from the Levites — i. e. that also one (a Levite) who redeems a house from the possession of another Levite shall have the right to do so at any time (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 6).

AND IF ONE OF THE LEVITES REDEEM. The plain meaning of this verse appears to be as follows: He had stated [in the previous verse], the Levites have a perpetual right of redemption, to redeem immediately [even before the period of two years after the sale of the fields, which an Israelite must wait before he is allowed to redeem], and to redeem at any time [a house in a walled city, even after the expiration of a year since the sale, after which time an Israelite cannot redeem]. But He did not explain with reference to them [the Levites] whether their relatives [also] have the right of redemption, nor whether the Jubilee applies to them. Therefore He stated again, And if one of the Levites redeem, be the redeemer the seller himself or his relative a Levite, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the Jubilee from the hand of the purchaser. He should redeem it on this understanding, that he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof and restore the overplus,¹⁹⁷Verse 27. He calculates how many years remain until the Jubilee, and divides the total purchase-price by the number of years of crops that the purchaser will have until the Jubilee. This gives the value of each crop bought. If the purchaser or his relative redeems the field before the Jubilee, he deducts from the purchase-money paid the value of the crops eaten by the purchaser during the years that the field was in his possession, and gives him the balance. meaning to say that the Jubilee does apply to them [the Levites], and the manner of their redemption shall be as He said of the Israelites, and he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof etc.¹⁹⁷Verse 27. He calculates how many years remain until the Jubilee, and divides the total purchase-price by the number of years of crops that the purchaser will have until the Jubilee. This gives the value of each crop bought. If the purchaser or his relative redeems the field before the Jubilee, he deducts from the purchase-money paid the value of the crops eaten by the purchaser during the years that the field was in his possession, and gives him the balance.
And our Rabbis have said¹⁹⁸Arakhin 33 a. that the verse speaks of a Levite who buys from a Levite. According to their word, the interpretation of the verse appears to me to be as follows: It was the custom in former times in Israel that when a man had to sell his field, the person who had precedence in his inheritance [i.e., who was the nearest relative who could inherit] would come and buy it, and it was this that was called “redemption,” as it is said, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is thine to buy it,¹⁹⁹Jeremiah 32:7. and so also is it explained there in the matter of Boaz.²⁰⁰Ruth 4:4. And it appears to me that they administered a law of precedence for him, just as our Rabbis enacted for us the law of [the prerogative of] the neighbor,²⁰¹Baba Metzia 108 a. If a man wishes to sell his field, his neighbor has the special right of pre-emption — the right of purchasing before or in preference to others. and [if other people wanted to buy it], they would acquire [the right of possession] from the “first redeemer” by the [symbolic act of] acquisition of a scarf, as did Boaz.²⁰²Ruth 4:8: So the near kinsman said unto Boaz: ‘Buy it for thyself.’ And he drew off his shoe. See Ramban on Exodus 28:41. Thus Scripture is stating here that when a Levite redeems the inheritance of a Levite, that is to say, when he buys it from him as is the law of redemption, then that [land] acquired shall go out in the Jubilee. It thus teaches that the Jubilee applies to them [the Levites] in the case of “redemption” just as in the case of any other sale [among Israelites]. Scripture did not have to mention this law in the case of a plain sale [i.e., to say that if a Levite sold his field to a non-Levite, who is not his near relative, that it goes back to its original owner, the Levite, in the Jubilee], for they [Levites] are part of all Israel [and it is self-understood that the same laws apply to them]; except that He strengthened their legal right [by giving them, as explained above], a perpetual [privilege of] redemption. This law of “redemption” applies also to Israelites [i.e., that if they bought from Levites, the Levites have an unrestricted right of redemption forever]. Scripture, however, mentioned it with reference to the Levites, in order that one should not say that the [forty-eight] cities²⁰³Numbers 35:6-7. were only given to the whole tribe of Levi [and not to any particular person], and that therefore [fields which a Levite had sold] go back from an Israelite [in the Jubilee, i.e., if the purchaser was an Israelite he must give them back], but they do not go back from a Levite [i.e., if the purchaser was a Levite he does not have to give them back, since they remain anyway in the hands of the Levitical tribe], and certainly [we might think that] from a near kinsman [i.e., a Levite] whom we have made liable to buy [the field of his poor brother-Levite, those fields surely do not go back in the Jubilee]; therefore He said that this redemption too goes back in the Jubilee, and from the [law stated in connection with the] Levite we deduce [that the same law applies] to the Israelites. It is possible also that the Levites are not permitted to sell of their cities in any transaction [i.e., whether a field or house] to an Israelite, and therefore all their purchases are termed redemption [because only other Levites, who are their kinsmen, can buy from them].

ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, as we said in verse 32 that the Levites have a right to redeem such property for an unlimited period of time, לעולם, in the event he did not have the funds at the time of the Jubilee year or any other so-called deadline.

ואשר יגאל מן הלווים, “and if someone buys a property from a Levite, etc.” Nachmanides writes that from the plain meaning of the text it appears that seeing that the Torah had already stated that the Levites have an unlimited period of time during which they can redeem property they had been forced to sell, (compare verse 32) the right to redeem his property commences immediately, i.e. as soon as he has the necessary means, and nothing is said about his relatives having the right to do this on his behalf. Neither does the Torah indicate if the laws of the Jubilee apply to the Levites, i.e. a return of their property in that year without their having to compensate the buyer of it. This is why the Torah phrases this legislation as אשר יגאל מן הלווים, “if one of his fellow Levites redeems it,” to show that since in the case of the Levites who do not own ancestral land, a Levite has fallen on hard times, it is clear that his house has to be viewed as just as basic to his needs as the field is to the ordinary Israelite. Another Levite, who is his relative, may redeem it on behalf of the one who sold it.

This “redemption” is an expression of “selling.” R. Noson wrote: I found written somewhere that the verse calls the selling here “redemption” because anything belonging to Levites once belonged to Israelites, since they received no portion or inheritance with the Israelites except the forty-eight towns the Israelites gave them in exchange for their service [in the Temple]. Therefore, when an Israelite buys from a Levite, it is as if he is redeeming it from him, as this inheritance too once belonged to the Israelites.

ואשר יגאל מן הלוים, “and if he redeems (buys) it from the Levites;” there is a special reason why purchase is called “redemption” by the Torah. The reason is that whatever the Levites sell originated with the ordinary Israelites from whose tithes, etc., they made their living. After all, they never had an ancestral share of land in the land of Israel. This means that whatever they sell had originally been owned by Israelites. The Levite therefore feels as if he had “redeemed” it from an Israelite.

ויצא ממכר בית THEN THE HOUSE THAT WAS SOLD… SHALL GO OUT [IN THE JUBILEE] — According to the second explanation of ‎'ואשר יגאל וכו‎‎ given above, this contains another command and is not a continuation of the words that precede. They mean: “but if he (the vendor) did not redeem it” then it shall go out in the Jubilee and shall not become irredeemable at the end of the first year as is the case with the house of an Israelite.

'ויצא ממכר בית וגו, whereas houses do not fall under the Jubilee rule, houses of the Levites do, seeing they have no other ancestral heritage. They get it back without having to pay compensation to the buyer.

ויצא ממכר בית וגו', “and the house shall go out in the Jubilee year, etc.;” the sale of that house will be reversed, meaning that the sale price was calculated originally on the number of years remaining till the Jubilee so that the price of the redemption will take into account the number of years the purchaser has not been able to live in that house. In other words, the redemption procedures applied to the Levites closely parallels that of the Israelites. Our sages interpret this verse as dealing with a situation where a Levite had purchased the house under discussion from a fellow Levite and the Torah would tell us that redemption involving both buyer and seller who are Levites follow the same pattern as that involving ordinary Israelites. According to their words it was assumed that whenever the need for such redemptions arose in ancient Israel, the closest family member of the impoverished person was the first one in line to act as the redeemer. This is where the meaning of the term “redemption” fulfills its truest meaning. We find this documented in Jeremiah I believe that the pattern which determined the respective rank of the redeemer was similar to the manner in which the sages determined the rights of prospective purchasers when someone’s neighbour claimed first right of refusal when his neighbour put up a property for sale which adjoined his own. The subject is called דינא דמצרא in the Talmud. If a third party not in line wished to secure the property in question, he would have had to buy it from the original redeemer. The case of Boaz not being able to marry Ruth until the more closely related redeemer had declined, illustrates this kind of procedure. (Compare Ruth 4,1-9) This is what our verse meant when speaking of someone who “redeems from a Levite, etc.” The Levite in question had redeemed the field of his fellow Levite by paying out the purchaser who had bought that house. Now, someone wishes to buy that house from that “redeemer.” [Possibly, the proceeds of such a sale must be given by the “redeemer” to the original Levite, who might have moved to another town in the meantime. Ed.] At any rate, the Torah did not find it necessary to spell out the mechanics of how the Jubilee law works to restore the original property to the one who had owned it ancestrally, and does not then have to compensate the present holder of it in order to ensure that it is legally given back to him. The Levites have a claim on using this legislation in perpetuity. While it is true that basically this legislation applies also to the Israelites, the reason that the Levite was used by the Torah as the classical example of such a situation is in order that we should not think that such property would be distributed amongst all the Levites collectively, instead of the individual original Levite who had felt himself forced to sell it. Consequently such property is redeemed from ownership by an ordinary Israelite, but not from the ownership of a fellow Levite. It will certainly not be removed through automatic redemption from the possession of the redeemer who had been commanded by the Torah to redeem it, i.e. to “rescue” it from the original purchaser. This is why the Torah had to make the point that such redemption must occur through another Levite. Only such a Levite has the right to perform such redemption for an unlimited period of time after the original sale even if the original purchaser had been a Levite, and even more so if an ordinary Israelite had purchased that property from the Levite.

An Israelite who buys a house. The “another interpretation” means as follows: ואשר יגאל means to actually redeem, an expression of actual redeeming and not an expression of buying, and it is referring to where it is written is written above, “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption.” This verse is telling us that not only when an Israelite buys from a Levite can the Levite redeem it forever, but even when a Levite bought from a Levite the seller has eternal right of redemption.

ויצא ממכר בית, Rashi had to choose between two different interpretations of these words, and it is clear that he chose the second alternative according to which: “then the house which has been sold will revert in the Jubilee year;”

כי בתי ערי הלוים הוא אחזתם FOR THE HOUSES OF THE CITIES OF THE LEVITES ARE THEIR POSSESSION —They had no separate property of fields and vineyards, only cities to dwell therein together with the open land surrounding them; these, therefore, in their case took the place of the fields possessed by the Israelites and should thus be redeemable just like fields, in order that their inheritance should not be alienated from them.

This is another mitzvoh. I.e., according to the “another interpretation,” it is not connected to the “eternal right of redemption” of the previous phrase, as that refers to redeeming. However, according to the first interpretation, the entire verse discusses [the] one same subject [of selling to a Yisroel].

הוא אחוזתם, a masculine mode for possession, with the vowel shuruk. We find the same construction in verse 34 אחוזת עולם הוא להם, “it is a possession in perpetuity for them.”

Like fields. When Rashi says “They have [a rule] of redemption like fields,” and does not also say, “And they go out in the jubileeJubilee year like fields,” this is imprecise, since they too go out in the jubileeJubilee year, but Rashi only mentions one of these [points]. Re’m writes: You might ask: The reasonis rationale that, “For the houses of the Levitic cities, etc.,” only applies when an Israelite buys from a Levite. However, when the buyers are Levites and this rationale does not apply, since it will remain in the hands of a Levite and their inheritance will not be removed,, perhaps [Therefore] perhaps this case has the law of houses of an Israelite walled city, etc. The answer might be: Since most people who buy from Levites are Israelites, as they are the majority, the Torah gives a rationale that applies to them and it is not concerned about the minority of buyers who are Levites. It seems to me that we learn that it makes no difference whether the buyers are Israelites or Levites from what the verse writes, “(This) is their ancestral lands among Bnei Yisroel.” Why write “among Bnei Yisroel”? This must come for us to expound that the inheritance of the Levites should remain whole as it was originally “among Bnei Yisroel.” And since you do not need this regarding Israelite buyers, you expound it regarding Levite [buyers], that they [the houses they buy] return in the Jubilee year.

ושדה מגרש עריהם לא ימכר AND THE FIELDS OF THE SUBURBS OF THEIR CITIES MAY NOT BE SOLD — This means: they may not be sold as an absolute sale by the treasurer of the Temple property — that if a Levite dedicated his field to the Temple and has not redeemed it, and the treasurer then sold it to someone it does not pass into the possession of the priests in the Jubilee as is the case with the property of an Israelite of whom it is stated (Leviticus 27:16—20) “[and if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord some part of a field… and if he will not redeem the field,] and he (the treasurer; see Rashi on that verse) has sold it to another man, it shall not be redeemed any more, [but the field when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be… the priests]” — the Levite, however, may redeem it at any time (even after the Jubilee and also when the treasurer has sold it to another man) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 6 9).

ושדה מגרש, as explained in detail in Numbers 35.

It does not go out to the kohanim. Re’m writes: You might ask: The Rrabbis need to bring a proof from “it is their perpetual ancestral land” that their fields cannot be sold forever. This is taught in a Beraisa of in Toras Kohanim that says, “Does ’it may not be sold’ refer to the treasurer selling it [saying that the treasurer cannot sell it forever], or does ’it may not be sold’ mean that it cannot be sold forever [by the Levite himself],” i.e., that the Levite cannot sell it [forever]? [The Beraisa continues]: “The verse says, ’It is their perpetual ancestral land,’ [which teaches that the Levite cannot sell it forever. Therefore, ’it may not be sold’ must be teaching that the treasurer cannot sell it forever.”] Since the Beraisa does not cite verse (33) “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” [to prove that a Levite cannot sell their fields forever], this indicates that the Beraisa holds that the verses above are dealing with houses and towns and not with a field on the outskirts. But if so, why does the Beraisa not explain that “it may not be sold” teaches that the Levite cannot sell a field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verses above [that allow him to sell] are talking only about houses and towns, and not about a field onf the outskirts? This question requires investigation. [S.ifsei Chachomim. answers]: It seems to me that this is how the Beraisa expounds the verse “It is their perpetual ancestral land.” If the Torah had not stated “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” I would think that when the Torah writes of the outskirts, “It may not be sold,” it [indeed] means that the Levite cannot sell his field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verse “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” is speaking of houses and towns and not of fields onf the outskirts. But now that it says “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” we derive through [a gezeiroh shovoh] “ancestral land,” “ancestral land” from houses and towns, [that] just as houses can be sold, so too a field of the outskirts can be sold, the same as houses that cannot be sold forever. But if so, since we derive that houses and towns and a field of the outskirts all have the same law, why does the verse not combine them and write them together [in one verse]. Therefore one must say that “it may not be sold” must is certainly be teaching about the treasurer selling it [that he cannot sell it forever]. This also answers the second question of Re’m regarding the Beraisa of the Toras Kohanim.

והחזקת בו THOU SHALT RELIEVE HIM — Do not leave him by himself so that he comes down in the world until he finally falls altogether when it will be difficult to give him a lift, but uphold him from the very moment of the failure of his means. To what may this (the differences between whether you assist him at once or whether you wait with your help till he has come down in the world) be compared? To an excessive load on the back of an ass. So long as it is still on the ass’s back, one person is enough to take hold of it (the load) and to keep it (the ass) up, as soon as it has fallen to the ground not even five persons are able to set it on its legs (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 1).

THAT HE MAY LIVE WITH THEE. The meaning thereof is that he [i.e., the stranger or settler]²⁰⁴See Note 33 in my Hebrew Commentary pp. 180-181, that this is the correct interpretation of the intent of Ramban. Thus the expression before us speaks of our duty to help the stranger and settler, “and surely [this duty applies to] one of our brethren of the children of Israel, who had become poor.” It is from this positive commandment that he may live with thee that we derive the principle that the saving of life overrides the Sabbath etc., as Ramban continues. shall [be enabled to] live with you, it being a positive commandment to support him, and it is from here [that we deduce] that we are commanded by means of a positive commandment to save life. It is from here too, that the Sages have said:²⁰⁵Torath Kohanim, Behar 5:3. Baba Metzia 62 a. “That thy brother may live with thee.²⁰⁶Verse 36. This was explained by Ben Peturi: If two people were going on a journey [in the desert], and one of them has a pitcher of water which [contains such an amount that] if he [alone] drinks it, [it would suffice to enable him to] reach an inhabited place, but if both drink from it, both would die. Ben Peturi stated: ‘It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should witness the death of his colleague,’ until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: that thy brother may live with thee²⁰⁶Verse 36. — thy life takes precedence over the life of thy colleague.”
He repeated [the phrase] that thy brother may live with thee,²⁰⁶Verse 36. in order to emphasize and stress [that we are not to take from him any interest or increase, as is stated in the first part of that verse]. And the Rabbinical interpretation is as follows:²⁰⁷Baba Metzia 62 a. “Return to him the interest, so that he may live with you.” Thus He commanded the return of [previously] stipulated interest, similar to that which He said in the case of robbery, and he shall restore that which he took by robbery.²⁰⁸Above, 5:23. Interest is only forbidden by law of the Torah if it is previously stipulated, i.e., at the time of the loan, although the Rabbis forbade all interest.
Now Onkelos rendered ‘geir v’thoshav vachai imach’ [generally translated: a stranger and a settler that he may live with thee] as part of the positive commandments [enumerated here, thus meaning:] “he shall sojourn and settle and live with you.”²⁰⁹The sense of the verse according to Onkelos is thus as follows: And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee — then thou shalt uphold him. And the verse continues to explain how you are to uphold him: “he is to sojourn and settle and live with thee.” But according to the Rabbis, as Ramban continues, the sense of the verse is etc. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis in the Gemara,²¹⁰Baba Metzia 71a. See my Hebrew Commentary p. 181. the sense of the verse is as follows: [“And if thy brother be waxen poor …] then thou shalt uphold him, and [thou shalt also uphold] a stranger and a settler, so that each one of them shall live with thee.”

והחזקת בו, in order to keep it in good condition.

וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו, "If your brother becomes poor and his means fail while he is with you, etc." This paragraph tries to awaken us to the reason why the spirit of G'd "our Brother" who used to dwell in our midst has become so infirm. When the Torah describes "our Brother becoming poor," it refers to the "spirit of life within us; the reason it seems to weaken is that it observed that we failed to study Torah and practice the commandments. There is no greater kind of poverty than the dearth of merits due to Torah study and the performance of kind deeds towards one's fellow man. As a result, the individual Israelite's light fails. The word עמך emphasises that the failure is due to its having concentrated on you. Had it not been for G'd channelling His light through you (the Jewish people), His light would have permeated the whole universe from one end to the other. Under the changed conditions, G'd wants to return the רוח light, to His celestial domains as described in Kohelet 12,7: "and the spirit returns to the Lord who had provided it." Shabbat 152 comments on this that G'd demands that the spirit be returned to Him in mint condition, i.e. שנתנה לך "in the condition He gave it to you." The Torah goes on והחזקת בו "you are to uphold him;" this means that you are to assist such a Jew who has strayed from the true path to do תשובה to help him rehabilitate himself. There is no other means which can ensure that the vital רוח be sustained within us which is comparable to the power of repentance.

וחי עמך, “so that he may live alongside you.” This is a positive commandment addressed to you the Israelite with means, to enable fellow Israelites to have secure means of subsistence. The commandment to physically save fellow Israelites’ lives (when they appear to be in danger) flows directly from this verse. The Torah repeats and says:

And what is a “sojourner”? Explanation: But [the verse does not mean] literally “a stranger and [non-Jewish] sojourner” [i.e., a stranger who is a non-Jewish sojourner, because the word גר here refers to a proselyte who converted to Judaism] similar [the commandment] to not to cause anguish to a גר (see above 19:33), and “You are to love the [righteous] convert (גר)” (Devarim 10:19). [גר here must be referring to someone who converted to Judaism] because in the beginning of the verse it is written “If your brother becomes impoverished” and a תושב [i.e. if we translated גר ותושב as “a stranger and sojourner”] would not be considered your brother since he eats neveilos, even though he fulfills the seven Noahide mitzvos and he does not worship idols.

והחזקתי בו,”you shall uphold him;” in case anyone thought that he should be supported even if he had turned to criminal activities, the Torah cautions: עמך, “only as long as he conducts himself legally correct.”

גר ותושב means, even though he be a stranger or a sojourner. And what is a תושב? One who has undertaken not to worship idols (i. e. one who has been converted to the fundamental tenet of Judaism) but eats carrion (does not care for the other commandments of the Torah) (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 1).

גר ותושב וחי עמך, "a stranger or a resident he shall live with you." According to a mystical text קב הישר chapter 32 there are souls G'd places in a body (person) in accordance with the principle we call סוד העבור, so that they can participate in the performance of a specific commandment and that person will acquire the merit which results from performance of that commandment. Other souls are provided for man for no specific task but as an opportunity afforded to the body (person) within whom the soul dwells to rehabilitate that personality. The words גר ותושב refer to these two kinds of souls. The former is called גר, the latter is called תושב. The Torah says: וחי עמך "it shall live within you" concerning either kind of soul, seeing a person does not know which kind of soul he has been endowed with he is well advised to assume that it is his task to rehabilitate himself by doing תשובה so that he would not lose the light G'd has granted him and as a result of which He resides within him. אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית, "Do not take an advance from him or accrued Interest;" I will explain presently what is meant by these words. When the verse goes on ויראת מאלוקך, "you shall fear your G'd," this refers to the light which G'd has endowed you with by granting you a pure soul which you are under an obligation to return in mint condition. The Torah demands further וחי אחיך עמך, that when the time comes to return your soul to G'd it should return equipped with additional vitality acquired through the fact that you lived a life dedicated to the service of G'd. While it is true that Kohelet only spoke about returning the רוח in the condition that you received it, this was a minimal demand. Alternatively, you may refer to what I explained in my book חפץ השם on Shabbat 152, that the words "as He has has given to you," mean that the soul by definition is a spiritual force which is apt to add vitality and spiritual light to the body it inhabits.

נשך ותרבית [TAKE THOU NOT] INTEREST [OF HIM] OR INCREASE — The Rabbis regard them (these two things) as one, but Scripture uses two different words for the same offence in order to prescribe that he who infringes the law, is thereby transgressing two negative commands (Bava Metzia 60b).

TAKE THOU NO ‘NESHECH’ (INTEREST) OF HIM OR ‘RIBITH’ (INCREASE). “The Rabbis explained [these two terms — ‘interest’ and ‘increase’] as one, and [the reason why Scripture mentioned two different words is to teach us that he who transgresses this law] violates two negative commandments.” This is Rashi’s language. The plain meaning of the verse appears to me to be that neshech (interest) is where, [for example], he lends him a hundred [shekels] and [the borrower is] to give him five shekels each year [for the use of the money, without deducting it from the capital sum of the loan]. It is so called [neshech, literally “biting”] because at the last ‘yishach’ (it biteth) like a snake,²¹¹Proverbs 23:32. [the effect of whose bite is not noticed immediately, but which] spurts and increases. Tarbith [or ribith — “increase”], however, is if he lends him [a sum of money] until a certain time, and then [the borrower is to] repay him and give him an increase of five shekels, but [even if the repayment should be delayed], there is no [additional] increase after that time [i.e., there is one fixed sum and not an annual percentage]; this [form of interest] does not “bite”, since it will not go up more than that [fixed] sum, but it is [nonetheless] “an increase.” Therefore He stated, Thou shalt not give him thy money ‘b’neshech’ (upon interest), nor give him thy food ‘b’marbith’ (for increase),²¹²Verse 37. for it is customary to lend money for neshech (interest), [the borrower being obliged] to give every year [a certain amount of money for the use of the capital borrowed], but food is [usually] lent until the time of reaping, and then he pays him back out of his granary with a stipulated addition.

אל תקח מאתו, because this is the ethically good way to extend a loan to your financially embarrassed brother without charging him interest or something in lieu of interest.

וחי אחיך עמך, “and let your brother live with you.” The line is repeated primarily in order to show the reader how important that consideration is in the eyes of the Torah. Onkelos demonstrates in his translation that he includes the resident stranger as included in the admonition of the Torah to fear the Lord and “let your brother live with you.” Our sages apply the obligation of והחזקת בו, “you shall strengthen him (economically),” to fellow Jews, whereas they understand the commandment “and let him live with you,” as also including the resident stranger. [Anyone checking Onkelos will note that there is another version of the text in Onkelos in which the word דיר, “resident stranger,” does not appear. Ed.]

That which it says, "Do not take from him," implies that it is permitted to take from the wealthy. Likewise in Parshat Mishpatim (Exodus 22:24), it states, "If you lend money to My people, to the poor among you... exact no interest from him." Hence the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 23:21, "Do not take interest from your brother" - do not take interest from anyone who is your brother, and even though the borrower profits from it. For the main reason for the prohibition of interest is because it erodes the trait of trust [in God]. As anyone engaged in business has his eyes lifted towards God, since he is in doubt whether he will make a profit or not. But one who gives with interest has his profit known and designated. So he will rely on his surety and remove his heart from God. And that which the borrower also transgresses the negative commandment is because he causes the creditor to sin and erodes his trait of trust. This is known from [observing] those that lend with interest. As most of them have little faith, and are 'stubborn-hearted and distant from charity' because of their lack of trust in God. This is the reason for the prohibition of interest in every place...

אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית, “do not accept from him any kind of interest or increase.” This paragraph has been repeated in the Torah when the Torah worded it in the inverted form as: “do not pay the lender interest or increase.” (verse 42, speaking of food.)

ויראת מאלהיך BUT BE AFRAID OF THY GOD — Because man’s thoughts are greatly attracted by the idea of taking interest and it comes difficult to him to keep aloof from it, so that he tries to persuade himself that it is a legitimate act (lit., he decides for himself that it is a permissible matter) on account of the fact that his money will otherwise remain unemployed, Scripture was compelled to state: “But be afraid of thy God!" Or take another case: If one pretends that his money belongs to a non-Jew in order to be able to lend it to an Israelite in an ostensibly legitimate way. This is given only to his heart and thoughts to know the real circumstances of the case; Scripture therefore was compelled to state “But be afraid of thy God!” (Bava Metzia 61b).

וחי אחיך עמך, you are required to do this if the Lord has endowed you so that you are financially able to extend such loans. The word עמך, alongside you, teaches what our sages termed “your own life takes precedence over that of your fellow.” (Baba Metzia 62)

And it mentioned the word, "interest (literally, bite)," [as well as] "increase"; as it is called, "bite," to the borrower, since it is is similar to [the bite of] a snake - in the way that if it bites his heel, it results in a small scratch; but it [then] proceeds to rise and swell to his skull. At first, it is not noticeable until its fever rises and cannot be cured. But to the creditor, it is called increase, as it increases his wealth and property...

את כספך לא תתן לו בנשך, "You shall not give him your money upon interest;" Here the Torah explains what the words נשך ומרבית are all about; they darken the divine light G'd provides. The word את כספך refers to the material things man yearns for in this world believing them to be of real value though their value is totally illusory. לא תתן לו בנשך When man fulfils his animalistic instincts and thereby tries to gratify his spiritual needs his spirit is actually "bitten," נשוך and the poison of sin is absorbed by that person's רוח. The Torah continues: ובמרבית לא תתן אכלך, "and you must not give him your food in return for increase." The Torah means that even your food, i.e. something that it is certainly permissible for you to eat you must not consume to excess, i.e. מרבית. When a person follows the needs of his palate he gradually increases his appetite for more food than is needed to sustain him. This is turn also leads to the divine light G'd has granted us by means of our pure soul being gradually more and more "blacked out." The stronger the physical in man the weaker his spiritual capacity. Encouraging the body to grow stronger through gratifying its appetites therefore is sinful. This is why Proverbs 13,25 teaches us that "the righteous eats onIy to satisfy the needs of his life-force, נפש." Solomon says this to remind us that it is not our palate which should dictate the quantity or quality of our food-intake. When the Torah continues אני השם (verse 38), this means that although G'd has taken us out of Egypt in order to give us the land of Canaan, the purpose was not in order for the Jewish people to stuff themselves on the good fruit of the land but in order for Him to be our G'd, something that requires the land of Israel. Our sages in Torat Kohanim say that anyone who merely lives in the land of Israel is as if he had accepted for himself G'd's sovereignty.

נשך ותרבית, “outright interest, or food against repayment by a greater amount, etc.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning of he text it appears that נשך refers to a loan to be repaid with a fixed amount of interest which runs and is payable concurrently. It is called נשך, “bite,” as the borrower feels as if he is being bitten every time he makes an interest payment. The word תרבית refers to a loan of money for a fixed period at the end of which both principal and interest is due. Seeing that the “interest” does not accumulate even when the principal is repaid after the agreed upon time, the Torah does not describe such a transaction as נשך. מרבית, on the other hand, refers to loans of food or other chattels, not loans of money. Here too the Torah forbids the lender to charge any extra when the harvest time rolls around and the borrower repays him from the new harvest.

את כספך, “your money;” the emphasis is on the pronoun “your; it is perfectly legal to lend money at interest when it is a gentile’s money. (A Jewish bank administering funds deposited by a gentile, may charge a Jew interest for such loans.)

'אשר הוצאתי וגו‎‎ [I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD] WHO BROUGHT YOU FORTH [FROM THE LAND OF EGYPT] and distinguished between those who were firstborn and those who were not firstborn (a matter which is hidden from human cognizance), I also know the true facts of this matter and I will exact punishment from him who lends money to an Israelite saying that it belongs to a non-Jew (Bava Metzia 61b; cf. Rashi on Leviticus 19:36). Another explanation is: I am the Lord your God Who brought you forth from the land of Egypt on condition that you take upon yourselves the fulfillment of My commands although they be hard for you (cf. Sifra, Behar, Section 5 3)

להיות לכם לאלוקים. In order for G’d’s purpose to be the G’d of all of you to be accomplished, it is necessary that you enable your fellow to live on an economically comfortable level. It is your duty to help bring this about. [this is not a recipe for a welfare state but for a state in which the dignity of recipients of economic assistance is preserved. Ed.]

אני ה' אלוקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם, “I am the Lord your G’d Who has taken you out, etc.” According to Baba Metzia 61 in this verse G’d refers to how He distinguished between each drop of sperm in order to know which firstborn was an Egyptian and which was not, as a result of which the former were killed and the latter were redeemed. Similarly, G’d warns that when the time comes He will apply similar careful distinction between who has lent money to a fellow Jew charging interest and who has not. The former will be punished, and it will not help them to claim that they thought the recipient was a Gentile to whom it is permissible to charge interest. This is behind our verse (36) “do not accept from him or charge him interest, but fear your G’d.” The Torah invokes the fear of G’d also in connection with the warning not to impose undignified labour on a Jewish servant (verse 43). Telling such a servant to heat the cup of his master when there is no need for this to be done is considered as demeaning the servant. Whenever there are no objective yardsticks for determining if certain chores are necessary or if the master merely demands them as a form of caprice, the Torah reminds the person demanding such chores to be performed: “fear your G’d,” i.e. He knows what is in your heart even if the servant does not.

For whoever dwells in the land of Israel. (Gur Aryeh). The reason for this is well known. The Holy Land belongs to Hashem as it is written (Yechezkel 36:20), “These are the nation of Hashem and they went out of His land.” Therefore, when one dwells in the Land of Israel, the Holy One is his God. But outside the Land, because it is under the hand of the supernal [angelic] princes, someone whowhen on dwells outside the Land it is considered as if he serves idols. Since “In a multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Mishlei 14:28), someone who lives there, glorifies and honors foreign gods [by increasing the population there].

לתת לכם את ארץ כנען, “to give you the land of Canaan;” the Talmud, tractate Ketuvot folio 110, uses this verse to make the following statement: “basically a Jew is to make his home in the land of Israel even if at that time most of the inhabitants in that land are gentiles. He should not choose to live in the Diaspora, as a Jew who voluntarily lives outside the Holy Land, is considered as if he did not have a G–d.” The Talmud bases this statement on the conclusion of our verse: להיות לכם לאלהים, “to be for you as G–d.” David also made a statement of a similar nature when he said in Samuel I 26,19: כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמור לך עבוד אלוהים אחרים, “for they have driven me out today so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s ancestral property, but they told me: ”go and worship other gods!”

Who brought you out. This is the reason for the warning to the borrower not to give interest, for what can be done when he needs to borrow money and cannot find any without giving interest? Therefore it gives the reason, “I brought you out from the land of Egypt” — and they were provided for in abundance like the king’s hand, if so, I shall watch over you and bring you your livelihood.

אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים, “Who has taken you out from the land of Egypt, while you had remained strangers there.” (Compare Ibn Ezra)

לתת לכם את ארץ כנען TO GIVE YOU THE LAND OF CANAAN as a reward for your taking upon yourselves to fulfill My commandments.

להיות לכם לאלהים TO BE YOUR GOD —Because to him who dwells in the land of Israel I am God; while he who leaves it may be regarded as though he were an idolator (Sifra, Behar, Section 5 4; Ketubot 110b).

עבדת עבד [THOU SHALT NOT COMPEL HIM] TO SERVE AS A BOND-SERVANT — i. e. thou shalt not make him do degrading work by which he is recognised as a slave — this might come out that he shall not, for instance, carry his (the master’s) clothes after him to the public baths nor help him on with his boots (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 7 2).

וכי ימוך אחיך, "And if your brother becomes poor, etc." This paragraph is an allusion to something we find in the Tikkuney HaZohar chapter 10 that G'd ordered the spiritual representative of Edom (Samael) in the celestial spheres not do deal cruelly with Israel. When the Torah speaks of the Jewish people becoming poor this is a reference to the exile under the Romans. The reason the Torah speaks of "your brother" is the same as the prophet Maleachi reminding the Jewish people in G'd's name (Maleachi 1,2) that Esau was Jacob's brother but that nonetheless G'd loved Jacob. The word עמך, "with you," is a reminder that the impoverishment of Israel is due to its proximity to Esau/Edom and the fact that it started to copy the evil ways of Edom. The words ונמכר לך, "and he sold himself to you," may be understood as similar to Isaiah 52,3 in which the Jewish people are described as having sold themselves in return for חנם, "nought". According to the Zohar volume 2 page 128, Samael is equated with the domain of חנם, nought, seeing the prophet speaks of the exile under Roman (Edom) domination. (compare Psalms 137,7 where the Jewish people ask G'd to repay Edom for the cruel treatment they dished out to the people of Israel)

עבודת עבד, to let him perform menial labour, as is the lot of the Canaanite slaves.

לא תעבוד בו עבודת עבד is G'd's command to Edom the host country not to make the Jewish people perform slave labour. (compare Jeremiah 2,14 who asks plaintively: "is Israel then a slave?") but to treat them as one treats a hired hand, כשכיר כתושב יהיה לך, "it shall be like a hired hand or a resident for you." The reason the Torah uses two alternatives here is that Israel may be divided into two categories. 1) The multitude; 2) the elite, as per Samuel II 23,8 where this elite is described as "sitting in the council of the wise." You find on occasion that Israelites rose to the rank of tax collectors even while in exile; these tax collectors may have been the elite in terms of secular rank but they do not represent Israel's spiritual elite. Israel's spiritual elite are characterised by Moses in Deut. 33,3, as והם תכו לרגליך ישא מדברותיך, "but they followed in Your footsteps, accepted Your pronouncements." Concerning this verse our sages in Baba Batra 8 quote Ezra 7,24 that it was forbidden by royal decree to impose any kind of taxes on the Torah scholars (literally the priests and the Levites) even in exile (under Artaxerxes). When the Torah speaks of the Edomites who have exiled us treating us like hired hands, שכיר, this refers to the common people; the term תושב, however, refers to the spiritual elite of the Jewish people in exile. They are not to be burdened with taxes and other governmental demands.

The Torah continues עד שנת היובל יעבוד עמך, "until the Jubilee year he will serve with you;" in this instance the Jubilee year is a reference to the most remote date possible for the redemption. G'd advises Edom that in the end the Jewish people will go free from its exile, i.e. ויצא מעמך. The reference to ובניו is to the "sparks" which have become isolated and which are the mystical dimension of the whole concept of the value of exile. This is the mystical aspect of Kohelet 8,9: "there is a time when one man rules over another to his detriment." [These holy souls had been scattered throughout the nations as a result of Adam's sin and are to be rescued and reunited with the pool of holy souls through their coming into contact with the Jewish people. The author explained this concept on several occasions. Ed.]

You may well ask what would have happened to all these souls if Israel had not sinned and as a result had been scattered throughout the world in exile? Know that if Israel had not sinned they would have possessed the spiritual power to attract these lost souls from wherever they were instead of having to be physically near them in order to exert some influence on them. It was the Israelites' sin which weakened their spiritual power; these sins so weakened Israel's spiritual power to act as a magnet for these souls that even while in exile and physically close to them they do not succeed in all instances to rescue the souls in question.

The Torah continues: ושב אל משפחתו, "and HE will return to his family;" when the redeemer arrives G'd will plant His light amongst us so that He will again take up residence amongst His family, the people of Israel. At such a time the dead will arise and each one will return to אחוזת אבותיו, "the heritage of his fathers," the Holy Temple established by G'd's hands Himself.

לא תרדה בו בפרך, "Do not rule over it with oppression." Samael will be guilty of the death penalty in the future because he ignored the instructions in this verse as we know from Sukkah 52.

כשכיר כתושב BUT AS A HIRED SERVANT AND AS A SOJOURNER HE SHALL BE UNTO THEE] —Employ him on field-labour or on a handicraft; Treat him as you do any hired servant.

AS A HIRED SERVANT, AND AS A SETTLER, HE SHALL BE WITH THEE. The meaning of this is that he [your brother who sold himself to you] shall not be with you in your house as a bondservant, but as a laborer hired year by year²¹³Further, Verse 53. who hires himself out to do work as a freeman, and who is not subjected to heavy work; or [he is to be in your house] as a settler, for it is customary that settlers who come to sojourn in [another] land work for the head of the household with whom they reside to their satisfaction, similar to the case of Jacob with Laban, where [Laban] said [to Jacob], Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?²¹⁴Genesis 29:15. And in the Torath Kohanim it is written:²¹⁵Torath Kohanim, Behar 7:3. “As a hired servant — just as [in the case of] a hired servant in the same day thou shalt give him his hire,²¹⁶Deuteronomy 24:15. so too, this one must be given his hire in the same day.²¹⁷If he did some extra work outside his strict duty, his master must pay him on the day he completes it (Malbim in his commentary to the Torath Kohanim ibid.). As a settler — just as [in the case of] a settler he shall dwell with thee … where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him,²¹⁸Ibid., 23:17. this one also where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him. — He shall be with thee, with thee concerning [the same kind of] food, with thee concerning [the same kind of] drink, with thee concerning [the same kind of] clean garment, etc.”²¹⁹“So that you [the master] should not eat bread of refined flour, and he eat black bread; you drink old wine, and he drink new wine; you sleep on pillows, and he sleep on straw” (Torath Kohanim ibid.).

כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך. A Jewish servant whose labour has been acquired and paid for 6 years in advance by the person hiring him shall be treated as if he had been hired by the year. If someone’s labour has been contracted for by you until the advent of the next Jubilee year he is to be treated as if he had been hired with a long-term contract.

If the jubileeJubilee [year] met him. Explanation: There are four verses. One, “He shall serve you until the jubileeJubilee year,” which is speaking of someone who sold himself [into servitude] and whom the jubileeJubilee year met [and set free] before six years [of slavery had passed]. “Return to his own family” refers to someone sold by beis din whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years. “Each man shall return to his family” (verse 10) refers to someone whose ear was pierced whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years passed since his piercing, and “He then serves his master forever” (Shemos 21:6) [refers to someone] whom the jubileeJubilee year met after six years since his piercing. Beraisa first chapter of Kiddushin 15a.

כשכיר כתושב יהיה עמך, “as a hired servant and as a settler he shall be amongst you.” Both of these categories of people are hired hands; the difference between the first and the second category is that the first category consists of people hired on a day to day basis, while “settlers” have been hired for a year at a time. You are clearly not able to demand overly taxing work from a worker hired only for a day, as he would simply not come back on the next day if he felt taken advantage of; the Torah warns you not to take advantage of the fact that the “settler” does not have that legal option. (B’chor shor)

עד שנת היבל [HE SHALL SERVE THEE] UNTIL THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE — This implies that if the Jubilee happens to come (lit., happens to meet him) before the six years of his servitude are at an end, it frees him.

עד שנת היובל יעבוד עמך, “he must serve you until the Jubilee year.” When the Torah had written earlier that you must proclaim liberty for all slaves in the Jubilee year, (verse 10), that had referred to a slave sold into slavery by the court. Here the Torah speaks of people who had sold themselves into slavery because of financial stress not because they had stolen and could not repay their victim.

הוא ובניו עמו [AND HE SHALL GO AWAY FROM THEE] BOTH HE AND HIS CHILDREN WITH HIM — Rabbi Simeon asked: If he sold himself who sold his children that Scripture has to state they shall leave the master together with him? But we may learn from this that the master is bound to provide his (the servant’s) children with food (Kiddushin 22a; cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:3) although they are not his slaves.

This master is obligated to feed his children. (Kitzur Mizrachi) It is not talking about any sons, but [only] of sons whom the father is obligated to feed; i.e., until they are six years old.

הוא ובניו עמו, “he and his sons with him.” Generally speaking, people who sell themselves are destitute. This being so, it may be assumed that when the father sold himself he included his children in the sale and they had agreed to this as where would they find sustenance if not with the father’s master?

ואל אחזת אבתיו AND UNTO THE POSSESSION OF HIS FATHERS [SHALL HE RETURN] — This means, he shall return to the dignity held by his ancestors and people shall not hold him in low esteem because of this (because he had previously been a slave);

To the honor of his ancestors. It does not mean his ancestral land, because [if so,] once it is written “estate,” why write “ancestral”? In addition, the verse is not speaking of someone who sold his land. Rather, it means the honor of his ancestors, which means that people should not denigrate him for being a slave. (Divrei Dovid).

ושב אל משפחתו, “and he will return to his family;” the first part of the paragraph dealt with people sold by the court, the latter half with people who sold themselves due to financial stress.

אחזת thus means as much as חזקת “the status of” (Makkot 13a).

כי עבדי הם FOR THEY ARE MY SERVANTS — My document (deed of purchase) is of an earlier date ( Sifra, Behar, Section 6 1).

כי עבדי הם, even though this labourer had “sold” himself to you, thus meaning to acquire a new master, it might have been assumed that you might treat him like a servant instead of like a hired labourer, the fact remains that seeing he was and remains “MY” servant; this is not the way you can treat him. No Jew is legally able to sell his body, seeing that he already “belongs” to G’d.

לא ימכרו ממכרת עבד THEY SHALL NOT BE SOLD AS THOUGH BY THE SALE OF A BONDSMAN — by public announcement: “Here is a slave to be sold!” Nor shall one make him stand on the auction-stone (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 1).

לא תרדה בו בפרך THOU SHALT NOT RULE OVER HIM WITH RIGOUR — i. e. do not force him to do some useless work with the sole purpose of vexing him. Do not e.g. say to him, “Warm me this cup of drink" when this is unnecessary; nor: “Hoe beneath this vine tree until I come" whilst he does not know when you may be expected to come back. Perhaps you will say, “No one knows the fact — whether it is necessary or not, so I will tell him that it is necessary”! — the thing is thus entrusted to his (the master’s) heart only, therefore Scripture states, “but be afraid of thy God!” (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 2; see Rashi on Leviticus 19:32).

You must not rule over him to crush him. Giving him work he is not capable of performing has no use for the master and is only to crush him so that he will not consider himself a free man, and this is prohibited with a Hebrew servant.

לא תרדה בו, “do not force him to perform unnecessary tasks just to keep him busy.” The reason why the Torah repeats this warning is because, sadly, exploitation of slaves has become a common practice.

ועבדך ואמתך אשר יהיו לך BUT THY MAN-SERVANT AND THY MAID-SERVANT WHO MAY BE THINE [SHALL BE OF THE NATIONS THAT ARE ROUND ABOUT YOU] — If you should say, “But if this be so (that I must treat my Jewish servant with so much regard), by whom shall I be served? Over my Jewish servants I have no power; of the Canaanite people I cannot possess any for You have warned me, (Deuteronomy XX 16) “Thou shalt keep alive any soul"! Who then shall serve me?” Then I reply —

If you say: “If so, etc.” It seems that the verse is the source of this question. I.e., [the verse itself is hinting at the question], “If you say, etc.” Because if not so [that the verse is hinting at question], why does it say “And your slaves (ועבדך)” with a vav, connecting it to the above. Why do we need this? Therefore Rashi writes that there is a question here, and answers it.

From them you may purchase. It is a mitzvah to purchase them to take them out of idolatry.

מאת הגוים OF THE OTHER NATIONS — they may be servants to you.

אשר סביבתיכם [THE NATIONS] WHO ARE ROUND ABOUT YOU — not, however, those who live within the boundaries of your land; for with regard to them I have indeed told you, “Thou shalt keep alive no soul” (Sifra, Behar, Section 6 3).

‎ וגם מבני התושבים MORE-OVER FROM AMONGST THE TOLERATED STRANGERS who came from the lands round about you in order to marry Canaanite women in your land and these bear them children; then the child follows the father in respect of nationality, and thus, not being regarded as a Canaanite, is not included in this command, “Thou shalt not keep alive any soul”, but you may purchase him as a servant (cf. Sifra, Behar, Section 6 4; Kiddushin 67b).

Them you may buy. You might ask: Why does Rashi have to explain “Them you may buy”? The answer is: If he did not explain this, I would say that if they had slaves who were sold to them, you may buy those slaves from [among] them, [but the children of the sojourners you may not buy]. Therefore, Rashi explains, “Them you may buy.” I.e., you can buy even them. Another reason Rashi says “Them you may buy” is to say that one may buy the fathers of the sons and even more so the children. But simply understood, I would say that “from them” means one can buy the children of the fathers as slaves, but not the fathers themselves. Therefore Rashi explains, “’From them you may purchase [slaves].’ Them you may buy.” You may buy even the fathers themselves, like the children. [Alternatively], you might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above in [the previous verse], “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants?” The answer is: Above, Rashi does not have to explain anything because the verse itself explains, “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants.” But here where the verse says nothing afterwards and I do not know to what “from them you may purchase” refers., Pperhaps it refers to animals and means as follows, “From them you may purchase animals.” Therefore Rashi has to explain, “Them you may buy.” (Re’m) You might ask: How does Rashi know that “from them” means “them you may buy?” Perhaps “from them” simply means [buying their animals] and not [buying] them? The answer is: Above in parshas Shemos (1:7), it is written, “The land was filled with them (אותם),” and Rashi explains “From them (מהם).” And it is obvious there that the meaning of אותם is ’from them.” Therefore, [Conversely] here too, מהם means “from them.”

מהם תקנו means THEM MAY YE BUY.

והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם means, you may hold them as your possession, לבניכם אחריכם, for the benefit of your children after you. It would not, however, be correct to give the word והתנחלתם the meaning: “leave them as an inheritance to your children”, for if this were intended it should have written: והנחלתם אותם לבניכם (the Hiphil), but והתנחלתם (which is the Hithpael form) is equivalent to והתחזקתם “you may hold them as your possession”.

You must not rule over him to crush him. On the contrary, you should be generous with him and tell him, “Maybe Hashem will help you and provide you with a redeemer, or you will gain the funds in some other way, through Divine Providence”.

איש באחיו ONE OVER ANOTHER — These apparently redundant words (for the text might have run: ובאחיכם בני ישראל לא תרדו בפרך) are intended to include in the prohibition that the prince must not rule with rigour over his people nor the king over his subjects.

יד גר ותושב [AND IF] A גר ותושב WAX RICH — This means a stranger, he being at the same time a sojourner with thee, as the Targum renders it: ערל תותב an uncircumcised sojourner (the phrase is hendiadys). The end of the verse proves this, for it states: “and he sells himself unto a strange sojourner” (גר תושב, without the copulative ו before the second word).

AND IF A STRANGER WHO IS A SETTLER WITH THEE BE WAXEN RICH, AND THY BROTHER BE WAXEN POOR BESIDE HIM, AND SELL HIMSELF UNTO THE STRANGER WHO IS A SETTLER WITH THEE, OR ‘L’EIKER’ (TO THE STOCK OF) THE FAMILY OF ‘GEIR’ (A STRANGER). “The family of ‘geir’ — this means an idolater. Since Scripture [also] stated l’eiker (‘to the stock of’ the idolater), it refers to one who sold himself to the idol itself — to be its servant; not to worship it as a deity, but to hew wood and draw water for its service.” This is Rashi’s language derived from the Torath Kohanim.²²⁰Torath Kohanim, Behar 5:1. And if so, the verse is saying: l’eiker ‘u’mishpachath geir [“to the stock of ‘and’ to the family of the stranger,” — since according to Rashi the verse speaks of two different people — and omits the conjunctive “and” and merely says, l’eiker mishpachath geir — literally “to the stock of the family of a stranger”]. Scripture calls the idol eiker [“plucking” or “uprooting”] because a person is dutybound to uproot thoroughly an object of idol-worship and to extirpate it.
But Onkelos translated l’eiker — l’armai (“to a gentile”), and this is the correct interpretation. Scripture is thus mentioning [the case of a Hebrew who] sold himself to a stranger who dwells with us, or who sold himself ‘l’eiker mishpachath geir’ (to the stock of the stranger’s family), who is himself a gentile, the word eiker thus being related to the expression ‘ikar sharshohi’ (the stump of its roots).²²¹Daniel 4:12. Scripture states ‘mishpachath geir’ (the family of the stranger) [in order to indicate that] the stranger or the settler who became rich with us brought it about that the brother [i.e., the Israelite] become poor beside him [because he had emulated his ways] and thus be sold to the stock of the family of the stranger. Scripture commanded that he must be redeemed,²²²Verse 48. this being a positive commandment upon all Israel that we are to redeem him, and then it commanded his kinsmen that they are the first [in this duty].²²³Verse 49. The purpose of the commandment is clear, that he should not become assimilated and learn from the ways [of his purchasers]. For in the case of [all] other sales, the redemption by kinsmen is a matter of choice [but here it is an obligation]. Therefore He said here, For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants,²²⁴Verse 55. meaning to say that “although the stranger who settled [with us] and the stock of his family do not have to observe the commandment of the Jubilee, they cannot buy My servants to be their [permanent] servants.”

או לעקר, who was uprooted from that kingdom, far from your homeland. He is neither a resident stranger (someone committed to keep the Noachide laws) nor a convert to Judaism, nor a resident pagan.

משפחת גר, “the family of a total stranger.” According to Rashi the Torah refers to a real idolator (non Jew), the word עקר meaning the idolatrous cult itself. The reason why the Torah uses the term עקר, “something to be uprooted, eradicated,” is that the Torah had charged us with eradicating all kinds of symbols and cults in our land. (Nachmanides) Onkelos translates the word עקר as an Aramaic word, a correct interpretation, the word literally meaning “root.” The Torah in using this term here criticizes a community in which such cults had been tolerated and had taken root. The reason why the word משפחת, “family of,” had been added is to remind is that tolerating such aliens and allowing them to prosper in our land is the reason why some of our own people have fallen on hard times and are now facing the ultimate degradation of being sold into slavery to families of strangers in their own land. The Torah is adamant that such Jews must be redeemed, and that the cost of their redemption must be paid for by Jewish family members, who had allowed their own flesh and blood to be so demeaned. Although this duty falls upon the immediate family of the person so sold first, the entire Jewish community is called upon being the “redeemer” when the family of the party concerned is either unable or unwilling to perform its duty. In order to make this point crystal clear, the duty of the Jewish community at large is mentioned before the next of kin of the victim of such a sale. The principal reason of the legislation is to prevent a situation from arising in which the victim will prefer the religion of his new masters who may by then have shown him more compassion than his own people. When a Jew has been sold into service to a fellow Jew, the redemption by members of his family prior to the sh’mittah year is something of a voluntary nature, as there is no fear that he will become estranged to his people and to his religion. In the situation discussed here it is an absolute duty. Jews are to be servants (in a contractual relationship) only of their Creator, not servants of servants.

וכי תשיג יד גר, “if an alien settler has grown wealthy, etc.” the word גר here is a veiled reference to the Persian-Medes Empire.

או לעקר, this term is the reverse of a תושב, settler. The literal meaning is “someone uprooted;” such people have been uprooted from their land, their people, and they are literally “rootless.”

וכי תשיג יד גר ותושב עמך AND IF A STRANGE SOJOURNER WAX RICH BY THEE — The last word suggests: What was the cause that he has waxen rich? His close connection with thee (עמך) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1).

או לעקר משפחת גר, “or to the offshoot of a stranger’s family.” This is a euphemism for the Roman Empire, which in due course, will be uprooted,” אחרי נמכר גאולה תהיה לו, “after it has been sold, it is subject to redemption.” This is based on Isaiah 63,4: כי יום נקם בלבי ושנת גאולי תהיה לי, “for I had planned a day of vengeance, and my year of redemption has arrived.”

ומך אחיך עמו AND THY BROTHER WAX POOR BY HIM — Here again the last word suggests: What was the cause that he has waxen poor? His intimacy with him (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1), — because of the fact that he learned evil from his (the stranger’s) evil doings.

משפחת גר — itself denotes a heathen; since, however, Scripture adds the word לעקר “to the stock of the heathen’s family” it thereby refers to one who sells himself to the idol itself — to be its servant; not to worship it as a deity, but e. g., to chop wood or to draw water which are to be used in connection with this idol worship (cf. Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1; Bava Kamma 113b; Arakhin 30b; Kiddushin 20a).

גאלה תהיה לו means HE SHALL BE REDEEMED at once — do not allow him totally to sink his identity among the heathens (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 1; Kiddushin 20b).

אחרי נמכר גאולה תהיה לו; our sages (Kidushin 20) have already explained that you are not to say that seeing that this Jew has sold himself and has even become a priest to a pagan cult “I will kick away this stone which has already fallen,“ i.e. not make an effort to buy his freedom. This is why the Torah had to write: “even after he has sold himself in a most undignified manner, he is entitled to be redeemed.”

Do not leave him to sink (שיטמע). I found in the name of the Aruch, that the Aramaic translation of מטמון (a hidden treasure) is טמוע. And in the Aruch I found, ויחפרוהו ממטמונים, (“They dig for it more than buried treasures)”) (Iyov 2:21), the Aramaic translation [of this] is מן טומעיא. כי בא השמש לּ, “Because the stun had set” (Bereishis 28:11), Targum Yerushalmi [translates this as] טמעת שמשא. Thus here Rashi means,means do not leave him until he is sunk among idolaters.

After he is sold. This teaches that at first he should try not to be sold, but if he is sold, then nonetheless, “redemption shall be his.” In Toras Kohanim the Baraita taught the opposite: “If he came and said: ‘I am about to be sold,’ we might have thought we have to help him, therefore the Torah says, ‘after he is sold.’” That is, if he comes to his relatives and says, “If you do not help me I will sell myself to a foreigner,” and he will be a disgrace to the family … Nevertheless, what I wrote is true, and it is implied by the verse’s plain meaning that if they know he is poor and is prepared to sell himself, in truth they should make an effort that he will not come to this.

אחד מאחיו יגאלנו, “one of his brethren is to redeem him.” Our author assumes that the “brother” referred to is Hashem. He is both “one,” i.e. “unique,” and a brother to the Jews in exile. We know this from Psalms 122,8: למען אחי רעי, “for the sake of My brethren and friends.”

או דודו, “or his uncle;” this is also a reference to another attribute of Hashem, as we know from Song of Songs 5,16: זה דודי ורעי, “this is my uncle and good friend.”

או בן דודו, “or the son of his uncle, his cousin;” this is a reference to the Messiah, of whom it is said in Psalms 2,7: בני אתה, “you are My son.” [The subject being Hashem. (Compare comment in Talmud tractate Sukkah folio 52.

או השיגה ידו, “or he has become wealthy;” as a result of performing the commandments of the Torah; so that he was able to redeem himself.

עד שנת היובל [AND HE SHALL RECKON WITH HIM…] UNTO THE YEAR OF THE JUBILEE — for after all, essentially he has bought him only to work for him till the Jubilee, for surely you must admit in the Jubilee he is to go free, as Scripture states later ,on (v. 54) “[and if he be not redeemed in these ways], then he shall go out in the year of the Jubilee”. And, of course, Scripture is speaking here of a heathen who is under your control (i. e. who has to submit to your jurisdiction, for otherwise Scripture could not dictate to him) (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 9 3; Kiddushin 16a). But nevertheless you must not practise crooked ways against him because this would result in a desecration of the Name of the Lord (Bava Kamma 113a), but when he wishes to be redeemed he must be exact in his calculation — only just as much as is due each year shall the heathen allow him as a deduction from the purchase-money: (i. e. the Jew cannot demand a larger deduction); if e. g., there were twenty years from the date when he was sold till the Jubilee and he has bought him for twenty manehs — and consequently the heathen has purchased the labour of each year for one maneh — if he (the Jewish servant) stayed with him five years and then wishes to be redeemed, he (the master) has to allow him only a deduction of five manehs from the purchase-money, so that the servant must repay him fifteen manehs. This is the meaning of: והיה כסף ממכרו במספר שנים; AND THE PRICE OF HIS SALE SHALL BE CALCULATED AS HAVING BEEN ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS;

וחשב עם קונהו, even though the pagan who purchased him is legally under your authority so that you could force him to release this Jew for less than he was worth, and moreover the sale was not legal in terms of our halachah, you must compensate him fairly.

וחשב עם קונהו, “he will make a reckoning with the one who purchased him.” The verse warns that one must make a meticulous accounting and not try and trick the Gentile in one’s calculations. The reason is that stealing from pagans is prohibited as a form of desecrating the holy name of the Lord. The Torah demands such careful accounting when the Gentile in question is under Jewish authority. I might have thought that seeing the Torah permits charging interest to Gentiles, something which the Torah elsewhere appears to view as a form of unethical conduct, that stealing, at least indirectly, from a pagan is permitted; therefore the Torah makes a point of telling us that this is not so. We know already from Joseph’s brothers whose money had been returned to them by the Egyptians (at least they thought so) that they took it back to Egypt with them (Genesis 43,13) in response to their father Yaakov’s instructions. If Yaakov thought (as he said) that even if the pagans had made an error we must not take advantage of it to their detriment, how much more so must we not disadvantage them deliberately. All of this occurred before the Torah was given, when we did not have these limitations imposed upon us. How much more meticulous must one deal with a Gentile now that the laws of the Torah apply to us! The prohibition is derived from Deut.7,16 that “during the time G’d gives us the land of the seven Canaanite tribes we are commanded to destroy them.” The words אשר אני נותן לכם, “which I am about to give to you,” make this commandment an exception. Only the pagan nations G’d gives to us may be treated in such a fashion as described in that verse. We are to relate to other Gentile nations in accordance with the moral and ethical imperatives which are part of the Jewish code of ethics.
Another law derived from the words in this verse that one is to make a careful calculation is that the redeemer must calculate the number of years remaining in the contract of the Jewish slave to the Gentile before the Yovel year, and he must pay him for the years of service that the Jew will not serve him. The basis of the law is to prevent the desecration of the Lord’s name, i.e. not to give the pagan an opportunity to claim that our G’d deals unfairly with him who had paid good money for the services of this slave. To allow such a thought to take hold in the mind of a Gentile is a more serious crime than doing the same thing to a Jew.
The Tosephta Baba Kama 113 states expressly that if one has robbed a pagan one must return the stolen goods. It adds that such robbery is a graver crime than robbing a Jew because the crime includes the sin of desecrating the Lord’s name. When one robs a fellow Jew the victim does not use this as an excuse to question the rules of the Torah and the fairness of G’d.
You will find an interesting illustration of this principle in the inaugural prayer of Solomon when the Temple was dedicated. Solomon prayed that when a Gentile comes all the way from across the ocean or from countries closer by in order to offer his prayers to the Jewish G’d in the Temple, that G’d should respond positively to such prayer. Regarding similar prayers offered up by Jews, Solomon asked that if the Jews in question were worthy then G’d should respond positively to such prayers. Clearly, the reason that Solomon asked for a blanket acceptance of prayers offered by the Gentiles was in order not to give them an opportunity to denigrate the Jewish G’d which would have been a form of desecrating the Lord’s name (compare Kings I 8,39-43 respectively). Solomon was not afraid that if a Jew’s prayer would not be answered positively, that such a Jew would question the existence or fairness of the Lord as a result.

Who is in your power. Rashi is saying this out offrom logic. Because if it is speaking of a non-Jew who is not in your power, what can you do to him that results with the verse saying of him, “He then goes out in the jubileeJubilee year.”

וחשב עם קונהו, “and he makes an accounting with his master” (the one who had purchased his labour). The unusual word used by the Torah here for “his master,” suggests that the Torah speaks of his master Esau, here on earth (while Israel is in exile).

משנת המכרו לו עד שנת היובל, “from the year he had sold himself to him until the Jubilee year.” This is to remind you that this slave does not leave his master’s employ after six years. (Sifra)

כימי שכיר יהיה עמו AS AT THE RATE OF THE DAYS OF AN HIRED SERVANT SHALL HE HAVE BEEN WITH HIM — i. e. he shall calculate the amount due for each year as though he had hired himself out with him e. g., at one maneh per year and that amount only he (the master) has to allow him.

כימי שכיר יהיה עמו, “in whose debt he remains seeing that he had not yet rendered all the labour that he undertaken to perform.” We find a simile for this in Psalms 72,10, where the Kings of Tarshish and the various islands in the sea are described by King Solomon as paying tribute to him, first and foremost the Queen of Sheba.

אם עוד רבות בשנים IF THERE BE YET MANY YEARS until the Jubilee.

אם עוד רבות בשנים, there is no doubt that once the Jew has been in the service of his pagan master his services have become more and more valuable due to his knowing exactly what is expected of him, the compensation due to his master is based on a division of the purchase price into equal parts for every year he has not served out in his contract. The matter is described in detail in Kidushin 20

לפיהן ACCORDING TO THEM [HE SHALL RESTORE THE PRICE OF HIS REDEMPTION] — all exactly as I have explained above.

ואם מעט נשאר, so that the years of “good” labour rendered have already given the employer value for the money he had originally paid, allowance is made for the number of actual years which were not completed in the original contract. This is what our sages call: נתמעט כספו, כפי שניו, (Kidushin 20)

לא ירדנו בפרך לעיניך HE SHALL NOT RULE WITH RIGOUR OVER HIM IN THY EYES — that is to say, you looking on unconcernedly (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 8 9; cf. Targum Jonathan on).

While you look on. You might ask: How do I know whether his intent is to rule over him, to crush him? Above (verse 43) Rashi explained, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him.” But here one cannot know, [as] perhaps it is necessary? You might also ask: Rashi explained above, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” What is Rashi’s difficulty? One may use a Hebrew slave for whatever one needs? The answer is: When Rashi explains above, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him,” he means as follows: “Do not say to him: ’Warm this glass for me,’ while not needing it; ’Hoe beneath this vine until I come.’” [The latter case is forbidden] even when necessary, as perhaps he will never come. If so, everything is answered. When Rashi explained, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” this is because one may not use him even for necessary work, as Rashi explained. It also answers that which Rashi explained, “While you look on,” as you can see whether he is saying, “Do this work until I come.” This is called ruling over him even if it is necessary, since he said to him “until I come.”

לא ירדנו בפרך, “he shall not rule over him with rigour.” The gentile nations hosting the Israelites in exile are commanded not to take unfair advantage of the Israelites who have become their slaves. (Compare Talmud, tractate Ketuvot, folio 111.)

ואם לא יגאל באלה AND IF HE BE NOT REDEEMED BY THESE — by these (his relatives) he may be redeemed, but he cannot be redeemed through the termination of the six-years-period of servitude as in the case of a Hebrew servant of a Hebrew master (Kiddushin 15b).

ואם לא יגאל באלה, and if he has not been redeemed by these means,” according to Ibn Ezra the reference is to the elapse of the years which have been mentioned here. According to other opinions, the reference is to the people mentioned whose duty it would have been to redeem him.

ואם לא יגאל באלה, “And if he will not be redeemed by means of these methods, etc.” Our sages in Kidushin 15 explain the words או דודו in verse 49 (normally translated as “his uncle,”) as including all kinds of relatives. The words או השיגה ידו they interpret as referring to the slave succeeding in redeeming himself by his own efforts. The word ונגאל at the end of that verse, they explain as redemption by people not related to the slave. This is why the Torah writes here that if the slave לא יגאל had not been redeemed by other Jews not related to him he will leave in the Yovel year, i.e. against the will of his master the Gentile, seeing that the Torah speaks of a Gentile who lives in the land of Israel under a Jewish government.
The Talmud in Kidushin 16 already points out that if the Jew of whom the Torah speaks here had been bought by a Gentile in the Gentile’s domain it would be futile for the Torah to write such a sentence as: “he will go free in the Yovel year,” as there is no one to enforce such legislation.
As to the meaning of the word גאולה, the Talmud in Kidushin 16 already points out that just as redeeming himself (גאולה) makes sense only if the one-time slave now becomes free, so being “redeemed” by either his relatives or other Jews makes sense only if as a result he becomes totally free, not if he changes status from being owned by a Gentile to being owned by a Jew. The word גאל means a transition to absolute independence. [The author cites the conclusion in the Talmud of an argument whether if a non-relative buys the contract from the Gentile, the Jew has to serve out his time as a servant of the Jew who bought him from the Gentile.].

ואם לא יגאל באלה, “and if he will not be redeemed by any of the aforementioned means;” the “means” referred to are the laws concerning how to deal with a servant, (Exodus 21,1) i.e. the Jew in exile still has not learned to observe the laws of the Torah; G–d promises that at a time of His choosing there will be an end to the exile, regardless.
ויצא בשנת היובל, “he will go free in the Jubilee year;” G–d has set aside such a time as we know from Isaiah 27,13: והיה ביום ההוא יתקע בשופר גדול ובאו האובדים מארץ אשור והנדחים בארץ מצרים, “it will be on that day a great ram’s horn shall be sounded; and the stranded who are in the land of Assyria, and the expelled in the Land of Egypt shall come, etc.”

ואם לא יגאל באלה, “and if he is not redeemed by any of these means;” this is a reference to either the years remaining until the next Jubilee year, or to relatives of his;

הוא ובניו עמו [HE SHALL GO OUT…] BOTH HE, AND HIS CHILDREN WITH HIM — the hèathen who acquires a Hebrew servant is bound to provide his children also with food just as is the Israelite master (cf. Rashi v. 41).

הוא ובניו עמו, “He and his sons with Him;” G–d together with His people will return from exile, as we know from Deuteronomy 30,3: ושב וקבצך, He will return and gather you in;” note that Moses does not say that G–d will bring the Israelites back but that “He together with the Israelites will return from exile.” (Compare Talmud M’gillah folio 29)

ויצא בשנת היובל, “he will go free in the Jubilee year,” but not after six years.

הוא ובניו עמו, “he and his sons with him.” Release of the father automatically includes release of his children. This is a moral lesson to teach us not to act like the gentiles act with their slaves. (B’chor shor)

כי לי מי ישראל עבדים FOR UNTO ME THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL ARE SERVANTS — My document (deed of purchase) is of an earlier date (cf. Rashi on v. 42).

כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, "For the children of Israel are My servants, etc." Why did the Torah write once more עבדי הם, "they are My servants?" Perhaps the point G'd makes here is that "they are My servants" as they are of sacred origin, their souls and their bodies are intrinsically holy independent of the Exodus from Egypt. The factor which obligates the Israelites to conduct themselves in a manner befitting holy creatures is "that I took them out of the land of Egypt." Ever since, G'd says, they themselves realise that they are My servants.

כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, “for the Children of Israel are My servants.” They are not the slaves of Esau.

כי לי בני ישראל עבדים, “for the Children of Israel are My servants;” previously the Torah wrote: כי עבדי הם, “for My servants are they;” (verse 42) on that occasion G-d had added that they were His servants already in Egypt and He contrasted this to show that someone who is His servant could not possibly be sold legally to anyone else, i.e. one Jew to another as they are both G-d’s servants (slaves) [Jews cannot opt out of their people or religion which are tied up one with other. Ed.] If such a Jew had been sold to a gentile, a member of another nation, I might have thought that this is not objectionable. The Torah therefore makes the point that it is equally objectionable.

אני ה׳ אלהיכם I AM THE LORD YOUR GOD — Whosoever enslaves thee (the Israelites) on earth enslaves, as it were, Him in Heaven (Sifra, Behar, Chapter 9 4).

אני ה׳ אלוקיכם, "I am the Lord your G'd." Why did the verse commence in the third person, i.e. G'd speaking about the Israelites, whereas it concludes with direct speech, i.e. "I am the Lord your G'd?" Perhaps we have to look for the reason in the laws governing the sale and purchase of a slave. We have the law that if someone acquires a Jewish servant he has to free him in the Jubilee year. G'd therefore had to state that the Jew remains His servant also in the Jubilee year and beyond, i.e. עבדי הם. The purchaser of the Jewish servant may argue that this fact is justification for a Jew not being allowed to sell himself into permanent servitude, but this fact does not impose an obligation on the purchaser. If the Jew had sold himself to a resident stranger, גר תושב, that resident stranger would argue that he had no oligation to release the servant merely because of the Jubilee year. G'd therefore states categorically: "I am the Lord your G'd," i.e. I address you the purchaser the very person whom the Torah addressed at the beginning of this paragraph in verse 39 and subsequently in verse 44 when it spoke about ונמכר לך, "and he was sold to you." The Torah wanted to be sure the owner understood that he was expected to comply with the entire legislation recorded here.

אני ה' אלוקיכם, “I am the Lord your G–d.” We also have the corresponding negative commandment: לא תעשו לכם אלילם, “do not make idols for yourselves!” Why is the repetition of this commandment appropriate at this juncture? Seeing that G–d has just promised us that He will redeem us from exile, He provides the reason why, in spite of everything, He feels compelled to do so. After all, at least we have been loyal in observing the law not to make idols for ourselves. (Exodus 20,3)