Talmud - Arachin 30a ערכין ל׳ א׳

The Gemara explains: And Rav Anan did not resolve his dilemma from the baraita, as he did not learn this baraita. And he could not resolve it from the statement of Shmuel itself, that the sale of a field during the Jubilee Year is ineffective, as the meaning of Shmuel’s statement is unclear. From where can one infer that Shmuel means that the field is not sold and the money is returned? Perhaps he means that the field is not sold and the money is considered a gift, just as it is considered a gift in his opinion in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated: With regard to one who betroths his sister, a betrothal that is invalid, Rav says that the money with which the brother betrothed his sister is returned, as he knew that the betrothal was invalid and merely intended to deposit the money with her for safekeeping. And Shmuel says that it is assumed that he wished to give her the money as a gift.

The Gemara earlier (29a) cited a baraita that teaches that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the buyer must free the slave. Nevertheless, his money is not refunded. With regard to this, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to say, that we penalize the buyer and he loses his money? Let us penalize the seller and require him to refund the money he received, so that he loses both the money and the slave.

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: It is not the mouse that steals; rather, it is the hole that steals, as a mouse cannot steal any item unless he has a hole in which to hide it. In other words, the seller could not have sold his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael had the buyer been unwilling to purchase the slave. Abaye replied: The opposite is also true, namely that if not for the mouse, from where would the hole obtain the stolen item? Had the seller refused to sell his slave, the buyer could not have purchased him and taken him out of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yosef replied to Abaye: Although both parties are at fault, it stands to reason that we apply the penalty wherever the subject of the prohibition is currently located. Since the buyer is now in possession of the slave, he is the one who is penalized.

§ The mishna teaches: If one of the two years after the sale was a year of blight, the buyer is entitled to an additional year’s crops. If the buyer plowed the field but did not sow it, or if he left it fallow, that year counts as part of his tally, as it was fit to produce a crop. The Gemara asks: Now that it was taught that if the buyer left his field fallow that year counts as part of his tally, even though he did not cultivate the field at all, is it necessary for the mishna to teach that the year counts as part of his tally if he plowed the field but did not sow it?

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to teach the case of a buyer who plowed the field but did not sow it, as it might enter your mind to say that we say to the seller: Give the monetary value of the enhancement of the field to the buyer, and then he will leave the field. The mishna therefore teaches us that the seller does not have to pay him that amount.

§ The mishna states that Rabbi Eliezer says: If the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana and the field was full of produce, and the owner redeems the field after two years, the buyer consumes three crops of the field’s produce in two years. With regard to this halakha it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that if the owner of the field sold it to the buyer before Rosh HaShana full of produce, that the seller should not say to the buyer when he redeems the field after two years: Leave the field for me full of produce in the manner that I left it for you? The verse states: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), indicating that the payment is calculated according to the number of years, not according to the number of crops. Consequently, sometimes a person consumes three crops in two years.

MISHNA: When the Jubilee Year is in effect, one may sell a field only until the Jubilee Year, at which point the field returns to its original owner. If the owner redeems the field before the Jubilee Year, the payment per annum is calculated by dividing the sale price by the number of years from the sale until the Jubilee Year. The owner returns the per annum payment multiplied by the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer, as it is stated: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it” (Leviticus 25:27).

If the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars, when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that was paid by the last buyer, as it is stated: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.” The superfluous term “to the man” indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field.

One may not sell his ancestral field that is located in a distant area and redeem with the proceeds a field that he sold in a nearby area. Likewise, he may not sell a low-quality field and redeem with the proceeds a high-quality field. And he may not borrow money and redeem the field, nor may he redeem the field incrementally, half now and half at a later date. But with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury, it is permitted to redeem the field in any of these ways. This is a halakha where greater stringency applies with regard to redeeming a field from an ordinary individual than with regard to redeeming it from the Temple treasury.

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for one hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, he calculates the payment only according to the price that he set with the first buyer? The verse states: “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it” (Leviticus 25:27).

Now consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the first buyer for two hundred dinars and the first buyer then sold it to the second buyer for one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the original owner redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the price that was paid by the second buyer? The verse states: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it.” The superfluous term “to the man” indicates that the verse is referring to the man who is currently in possession of the field. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.

Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says that the verse should be interpreted differently: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for one hundred dinars, and the field appreciated in value while in the buyer’s possession and its value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field he calculates the payment only according to the one hundred dinars he originally received for the field?As it is stated: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,” that is, the seller returns only the remainder of the original payment that is in his possession.

Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda continues: Consider the case where the owner of a field sold it to the buyer for two hundred dinars, and the field depreciated in value while in the buyer’s possession and its value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that when the seller redeems the field, the payment is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars the field is currently worth? As it is stated: “And he returns the remainder to the man to whom he sold it,” i.e., he returns that which now remains of the value of the land.

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda? The Gemara responds: The practical difference between them is in a case where the field’s value was high at the time of the first sale, e.g., it was worth two hundred dinars, and when the field was sold a second time it had depreciated in value and was worth only one hundred dinars. And when the original owner came to redeem it, it again appreciated in value until it was worth two hundred dinars. According to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the redemption payment is calculated according to the one hundred dinars paid by the second buyer for the field. According to Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda, it is calculated either according to the remainder of the original payment or according to that which now remains of the value of the land. Either way, it is calculated according to the remainder of two hundred dinars.

The aforementioned practical difference aside, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda agree that the verses are interpreted in a manner that benefits the original owner. The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that the verses should be interpreted as a leniency for the seller? Perhaps they should be interpreted as a stringency for the seller.

The Gemara responds: Such a possibility should not enter your mind, as it is learned by means of a verbal analogy between the term “redemption” written in this context and “redemption” from the passage discussing a Hebrew slave that the Torah is lenient with regard to the redeemer. The verse states with regard to the redemption of a field: “And he prospers and finds sufficient means to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26), and with regard to the redemption of a slave who was sold to a gentile, the verse states: “After he is sold he shall attain redemption” (Leviticus 25:48). Accordingly, just as the Torah is lenient with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave, so too the Torah is lenient with regard to redeeming a field.

The Gemara asks: And there, in the case of a Hebrew slave, from where do we derive that the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption? The Gemara responds: As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for one hundred dinars, and he appreciated in value during his term of servitude and his value stood at two hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars for which he was originally sold? As it is stated: “If there are yet many years, according to them he shall return the price of his redemption from the money of his purchase” (Leviticus 25:51).

The baraita continues: Consider the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold for two hundred dinars, and he depreciated in value during his term and his value stood at one hundred dinars. From where is it derived that if he redeems himself, the sum he pays for the remaining years of his service is calculated only according to the one hundred dinars he is currently worth? As it is stated: “According to his years he shall return the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:52). The verse indicates that the sum is calculated according to the value of his remaining years of service.

The baraita continues: And I have derived only with regard to a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, that he is redeemed and that he has the advantage, as the price of his redemption is always calculated according to the lesser value. From where is it derived that this halakha also applies in the case of a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew? The verse states: “Hired worker,” “hired worker,” in order to derive a verbal analogy, indicating that this halakha applies both to a slave sold to a gentile and to one sold to a Jew. The verse states with regard to a slave sold to a gentile: “According to the time of a hired worker shall he be with him” (Leviticus 25:50), and with regard to a slave sold to a Jew, the verse states: “For double the hire of a hired worker he served you six years” (Deuteronomy 15:18).

The Gemara relates that Abaye said:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Arachin 30a explores whether an invalid Jubilee Year field sale voids the payment as a gift, and debates penalizing buyer or seller for taking a slave outside Eretz Yisrael.