Arakhin 30a — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

And Rav Anan

who was uncertain and did not resolve it—his reason is:

a. When the

beraita

regarding one who sells his slave

was not heard by him.

b.

And Shmuel

that is, from the fundamental words of Shmuel, that one who sells his field in the Jubilee year “it is not sold,” it is also impossible to prove that since the sale did not take effect the money returns! For it is possible to say:

From where [do we know] that “it is not sold” and the money returns? Perhaps it is not sold, but the money

does not return, and let us say that the buyer gave it as a

gift. Just as it is with one who betroths his sister

for whom the betrothal does not take effect [because she is among those liable for excision if he has relations with her].

For it was stated: One who betroths his sister: Rav said:

since the betrothal does not take effect, the

money

of the betrothal

returns

to the betrother, and certainly he gave it to her as a deposit. And

Shmuel said: The money

that the betrother gave, since he knows that his betrothal does not take effect, he gave as a

gift. And the same is true of a sale in the Jubilee year. Rav Anan was uncertain: perhaps even though the sale does not take effect, the money is a gift.

And they raise an objection to what we said, that in the case of one who sells his slave the money of the sale does not return:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What have you seen that we penalize the buyer

for having purchased him, and say that the sale takes effect, and it is the buyer who emancipates him by a bill, and consequently the money of the sale does not return? On the contrary,

let us penalize the seller

for having sold him, and say that the sale does not take effect at all, and he should return the money, and we should obligate the seller to emancipate him by a bill?

And we answer:

He said to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

It is not the mouse

that

steals, but the hole

steals. It is a proverb: when a mouse steals and places [the theft] in a hole, if it did not have a hole in which to place its theft it would not steal; therefore, the hole is the thief. And the same is true here: if the seller had not found a buyer who would purchase him, he would not have sold him, and it is proper to penalize the buyer.

And they object: On the contrary,

if there were no mouse,

where would the hole get [anything]?!

And here too, if the seller had not agreed to sell, from where would the buyer have had [the opportunity] to purchase? And we answer:

It is reasonable

to penalize the buyer, since

where it is found

[in the place where it is located]

for the prohibition

[that is, the slave], namely, with the buyer, there

we penalize.

we impose the penalty.

We learned in the Mishna:

If it was a year of blight

and so on, it does not count, and so on. If he plowed it or left it fallow, it counts for him in the calculation.

And we infer: Why was it necessary to write “he plowed it”? It is a

kal va-chomer:

now, if he left it fallow, so that the buyer did nothing with it,

this year counts for him

,

if he plowed it

—that he worked it and made furrows, [Rabbeinu Gershom]—

is it necessary

to say that this year counts for him?!

And we answer:

“He plowed it” was necessary for him

to write!

You might have thought that we would say to him

to the seller who comes to redeem it:

Give

the buyer

the value of his plowing,

for the buyer toiled in the field to make furrows in it and did not benefit from it,

and let him ascend

[and enter] the seller into another field after he pays the buyer [Rabbeinu Gershom];

it teaches us

that this is not so!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If he sold it to him

before Rosh Hashanah and it was full of produce, he eats from it three harvests in two years.

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: From where [do we know] that if he sold it to him before Rosh Hashanah,

when it is

full of produce, the seller may not say to him

the buyer, when he comes to redeem it:

Leave before me

the field when it is full of produce

as I left it before you? The verse states: “According to the number of years of produce shall he sell to you.”

That is, all the produce that can be in the field from the time of the sale until the end of two years is sold, and it belongs to the buyer [Rabbeinu Gershom]. This follows from the fact that the Torah did not write “the number of years” or “the number of harvests,” which would have indicated two harvests [Rashi]. From here:

sometimes a person eats three harvests in two years,

namely, when the seller left the field when it was full of produce, and the buyer eats them together with the two new harvests that the field produces during the two years.

Mishna:

It is written in the passage concerning the redemption of an ancestral field: “And he shall calculate the years of its sale and return the surplus to the man to whom he sold it.” [He calculates how many years there were until the Jubilee—such and such—and for how much he sold it to you—such and such. He was destined to return it at the Jubilee. It follows that you purchase the number of harvests according to the calculation of each year. If you ate it for three or four [years], deduct their value from the calculation, and take the remainder. This is “and return the surplus,” from the money of the sale, for the produce that he ate, and he gives it to the buyer.] And if the first buyer sold it to another, the owner has the right to redeem it from the last buyer. And the Sages expounded from what the Torah said, “to the man to whom he sold it,” that if the first buyer sold it to another at a different price from the price at which the owner of the ancestral field sold it to the buyer, the owner of the ancestral field calculates with the one “to whom he sold it,” according to the value that the first one paid for it, and he does not calculate with the second buyer according to the value that the second buyer paid for it. On the other hand, the Sages expounded from what the Torah said “to the man” to whom he sold it, and not “to the one to whom he sold it,” that he should calculate with the second according to the value that the second paid for it, and not with the first. Since the expositions contradict one another, they always follow the leniency of the seller: he calculates with the one who paid less for the field than the other paid. Therefore:

a.

He sold

the owner of the ancestral field

to the first for one hundred dinars, and the first sold it to the second for two hundred

[It may be explained that he sold it immediately to the second for two hundred. Or it may be explained that he sold it after some time, closer to the Jubilee year, and sold it to the second for a “value” of two hundred had it been sold to him for the same number of years for which it was sold to the first; thus, its value was doubled.] He

does not calculate

in redeeming it by a “deduction of money” with the second, whose value is higher,

but with the first

. He calculates how many years there were from when he sold it to him until the Jubilee year, calculates how much of the one hundred comes to each year, and according to that calculation the buyer deducts from him for each year that he ate, and he returns the remainder to him.

As it is stated:

and the redeemer shall return the surplus

“to the man to whom he sold it,”

and not to the one who is inside the field, who is the second buyer.

b.

He sold

the owner of the ancestral field

to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second

for only

one hundred,

since the second paid a lower value for it than the first, he

does not calculate

with the first

but with the last, as it is stated: And he shall calculate the years of its sale and return the surplus “to the man”

to whom he sold it, and it did not say “to the one to whom he sold it” [Melekhet Shlomo in the name of the Rosh], to teach that he should give the surplus

to the man who is inside it

of the field, and not to the one who sold it to him.

One who comes to redeem his ancestral field from the buyer

may not sell

a field that he already had at the time he sold his ancestral field, and it is

far

from his place,

and redeem

with the money that he receives the field that he sold—and it is

near

to his place.

Likewise, he may not sell the inferior

[that is, the inferior field] that he had at the time he sold his ancestral field,

and redeem

with the money that he receives

the superior

[that is, the superior one] that he sold.

He may not borrow, and redeem

with the loan the field that he sold.

And he may not redeem

the field

by halves,

so that he does not redeem half the field that he sold and afterward another half [Rabbi Shimon in the Sifra].

But with consecrated

ancestral land, when the owners redeem it from consecration,

all of them are permitted

—the things that we prohibited in redemption from an ordinary buyer—

this is a stringency of the ordinary case over consecration!

all the acts that we prohibited in redemption from an ordinary buyer.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

a.

He sold

his ancestral field

to the first for one hundred, and the first sold it to the second for two hundred

zuz,

from where

is it known that the first seller, when he comes to redeem it,

does not calculate

with the first?

The verse states: “And he shall return the surplus

to the man to whom he sold it,”

which implies that he calculates with the man to whom he sold it, and not with the one who is now in the field.

b. But

if he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for one hundred, from where is it known that he calculates only with the second? The verse states:

and he shall return the surplus

“to the man”

[to whom he sold it], from which one must also expound:

to the man who is inside it.

Since the expositions contradict one another, they follow the leniency of the seller,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says:

It is written: “And he shall calculate the years of its sale and return the surplus,” and so on. This may be explained to mean that he shall return the surplus “remaining from the money” that he received from the buyer, after the buyer deducts from him the calculation due for each year that he ate. It may also be explained to mean that he shall return the surplus of what “the land” is currently worth, and the buyer shall deduct from him the years that he ate. Since the interpretations contradict one another, they always follow the leniency of the seller: if the surplus of the land’s value is less than the surplus of the money remaining in the seller’s possession after the deduction, it is enough for him to give the surplus of the land. And if the surplus of the land is greater than the money in his possession, it is enough for him to give the surplus money in his possession. Therefore:

a.

He sold it to him

the owner of the ancestral field to the buyer

for one hundred, and it improved,

the field improving on its own in the buyer’s possession before he redeemed it,

and it stood at two hundred, from where is it known that they do not calculate

for him according to its value after it improved,

but at one hundred, as it is stated: “And he shall return the surplus”?

It is

the surplus in his possession,

that is, the surplus of the money in his possession, and not the surplus of the land, which is not in his possession; after all, he has in his possession only the surplus from the one hundred.

b.

He sold it to him for two hundred, and it deteriorated

[and the field became ruined] in the buyer’s possession

and stood at one hundred

alone,

from where

is it known that they do not calculate

for him at two hundred, which is the value that the buyer paid for it,

but at one hundred,

according to the field’s current value, which is less than what the buyer paid for it,

as it is stated: “And he shall return the surplus,”

which may also be expounded as

the surplus in the land,

and it is sufficient for him to give the surplus of the land, and not the surplus of the money, which is greater than the surplus of the land.

And they object: Since both according to Rabbi and according to Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda they always are lenient for the seller,

what

is [the difference] between them?

And we answer: Since according to Rabbi a change in the price of the field does not change the redemption value, except with two buyers, where the second paid according to a different value from what the first paid, for this is how they expound: sometimes one gives to the man who is inside it, and not to the man to whom he sold it, therefore:

There is [a difference] between them: [the field] became more expensive,

that is, the field was expensive when the first buyer purchased it,

and became cheaper

when the second buyer purchased it,

and became more expensive

again when the seller came to redeem it. According to Rabbi, who determines only according to the change in price between the two buyers, since the second paid less for it than the first, they follow the cheaper price that the second buyer paid; and the fact that it subsequently became more expensive in the possession of the second buyer changes nothing. But according to Rabbi Dostai, who determines only according to a change in the price of the field, even when it is in the possession of the same buyer, who expounds that sometimes they follow the surplus of the land’s value, since the land’s price returned to its original expensiveness at the time of the sale, he gives according to its value at the time of the high price. [The same is true of their dispute when its price became cheaper in the possession of the first buyer and the first did not sell it at all: according to Rabbi Dostai, they follow the time of the cheap price; but according to Rabbi, who considers only the change in its price when the second buyer purchased it, he redeems it at the time of the high price.] [The explanation of the Gemara’s answer is rendered according to Tosafot; see the Shitah Mekubetzet, Maimonides, and Zevach Todah].

And they object to Rabbi and Rabbi Dostai:

And from where [do you know that “for the leniency”

the contradictory verses are expounded for the seller,

perhaps “for stringency”

they are expounded against the seller, and whether the second buyer paid less than the first sale price, or the price changed to less than the first sale price, and whether the second buyer paid more, or the price changed to more than the first sale price, the seller gives according to the higher value?

And we answer:

It does not enter your mind

to expound the contradictory verses for stringency, since

he derives

by a

gzera shava the expression

“redemption,”

said concerning one who redeems his ancestral field [“and he finds sufficient for his redemption”], from the expression

“redemption” [“redemption shall be his”]

concerning a Hebrew slave

[who too is redeemed by deduction of money: one deducts from the sum resulting from dividing the years of the slave’s service—six years from his sale or until the Jubilee—for each year that he worked, and the surplus of the money of his sale the slave gives to the master and goes free]. Just as with a Hebrew slave they follow the leniency of the redeemer, so with an ancestral field they follow the leniency of the seller who redeems it.

And we explain:

And there

with the Hebrew slave,

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

For it was taught:

It is written [Leviticus 25:47–53]: “And if the hand of a resident alien and sojourner with you attains means, and your brother becomes impoverished with him, and he is sold to the resident alien who is with you, or to the offshoot of the family of a resident alien [this refers to one sold to a gentile and to idolatry itself].”

“After he is sold, there shall be redemption for him; one of his brothers shall redeem him. Either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him, and so on, or his hand attains means and he is redeemed.”

“And he shall calculate with his purchaser from the year that he was sold to him until the Jubilee year, and the money of his sale shall be according to the number of years; like the hire of a hired laborer shall he be with him [the calculation due for each and every year: he calculates as though he had been hired with him for each year for one hundred, and deducts for him].”

“If there are yet many years [until the Jubilee], according to them he shall return his redemption from the money of his purchase.” “And if few years remain until the Jubilee year, he shall calculate for him according to his years and return his redemption.” And from these verses one can learn:

He was sold for one hundred, and improved and stood at two hundred; from where is it known that they calculate only from one hundred

[how much comes from the one hundred for each year of the six years: one-sixth of a hundred, and likewise he deducts for each year. If one year remains, he gives him one-sixth of a hundred. We do not say: Behold, he improved, for slaves became more expensive, or the slave became stronger and his price stands at two hundred; let two hundred be calculated for the six years, and let him give him one-third of a hundred—Rashi, Kiddushin 20].

As it is stated:

“If there are yet many years, according to them he shall return his redemption

from the money of his purchase,”

from the time of his purchase he shall return his redemption—Rashi, Kiddushin 20.

He was sold for two hundred and deteriorated

[he became ruined]

and stood at one hundred; from where is it known that they calculate

for him

only from one hundred

[they calculate for him the years that he must work only at one hundred, as though he had been sold for one hundred—Rashi, Kiddushin 20], so that the slave gives the master for the number of years remaining until the Jubilee according to the calculation resulting from dividing one hundred by the number of years for which he was initially sold, and he goes free?

As it is stated: “According to his years

he shall return his redemption,” which implies “according to the years in which he stands,” that is, according to what he is worth at that time, [and not “from the money of his purchase,” which implies from the time of his purchase]. Since the expositions contradict one another, they follow the leniency of the redeemer.

And

I have only [learned this of] a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile

in whose case these verses are written—

that he is redeemed,

and

his hand

of the slave

has the advantage

in his redemption, always calculating for the leniency. But

if he was sold to an Israelite

—in whose case redemption by deduction of money is not written—

from where

do we know that these laws apply to him?

The verse states:

It is written concerning one sold to a gentile: “Like the days of a

hired laborer

shall he be with him,” while concerning one sold to an Israelite it is written in its context: “For he is like a hired laborer,

your hired laborer

and so on,”

for a gzera shava:

even one sold to an Israelite is redeemed, and his hand has the advantage in his redemption.