Arakhin 30a (ל.) — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

And Rav Anan

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

a. When

the baraita

concerning one who sells his slave

was not known to him.

b.

And Shmuel—that is, from the very substance of Shmuel’s statement that one who sells his ancestral field in the year of the Jubilee, “the sale is not a sale,” it is likewise impossible to prove that since the sale did not take effect, the money is returned. For it is possible to say:

that is, from Shmuel’s basic statement that one who sells his ancestral field during the Jubilee year—“it is not sold”—it is also impossible to prove that, since the sale does not take effect, the money is returned. For one could say:

From where do you know that “the sale is not a sale” and the money is returned? Perhaps the sale is not a sale, but the money

is not returned, and we say that the buyer gave it as

a gift. It is analogous to one who betroths his sister,

for betrothal does not take effect for him with regard to her [as she is one of those women for whom relations incur karet].

For it was stated: With regard to one who betroths his sister, Rav said:

Since the betrothal does not take effect,

the money

of the betrothal

is returned

to the man who betrothed her, and certainly he gave it to her as a deposit.

And Shmuel said: The money

that the man who betrothed her gave, since he knows that his betrothal does not take effect, he gave it as

a gift.

And the same applies to 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 is not returned:

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see that led us to penalize the buyer

for purchasing him, and say that the sale takes effect, and it is the buyer who must emancipate him by means of a bill of manumission, and consequently the money of the sale is not returned? On the contrary,

let us penalize the seller

for selling him, and say that the sale does not take effect at all, and he must return the money, and we obligate the seller to emancipate him by means of a bill of manumission?

And they answer:

He said to him:

Rav Yosef said to Abaye:

It is not the mouse—

that steals, but the hole—

that steals.

This is a proverb: If a mouse steals and places the stolen item in a hole, had it not had a hole in which to place its theft, it would not have stolen; therefore, the hole is considered the thief. Here too, had the seller not found a buyer who would purchase him, he would not have sold him, and it is therefore proper to penalize the buyer.

And they challenge this: On the contrary,

if there were no mouse,

from where would the hole have [the stolen item]?!

Here too, had the seller not agreed to sell, from where would the buyer have had the opportunity to purchase? And they answer:

It is more reasonable

to penalize the buyer, since

where it is found [in the place where it is located]

that is, in the place where the slave is found—

for the prohibition [namely, the slave],

that is, with the buyer, there

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 tally.

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

a kal va-chomer:

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

it counts for him

as that year,

if he plowed it—

for he worked it and made furrows [Rabbeinu Gershom]—

is it necessary

to say that this year counts for him?!

And they answer:

“He plowed it”—it was necessary

to write this!

It might enter your mind to say that we tell him

the seller who comes to redeem the field:

Give

the buyer

the value of his plowing,

since the buyer exerted himself to make furrows in the field but did not benefit from it,

and let him enter [and enter] the seller into another field after he pays the buyer [Rabbeinu Gershom].

that is, let the seller enter the field after paying the buyer—

It teaches us

that this is not so!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: If he sold it to him

before Rosh HaShana, and it was full of produce, the buyer eats from it the produce of three harvests in two years.

It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that if he sold it to him before Rosh HaShana,

when it was

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 it to you.”

That is, all the produce that can be in the field from the time of the sale until the end of the two years is sold, and it belongs to the buyer [Rabbeinu Gershom]. This is derived 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 it follows that

at times a person eats three harvests in two years,

namely, when the seller left the field while it was full of produce, and the buyer eats that produce 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 the sale of an ancestral field: “And he shall calculate the years of his 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 corresponding 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 purchase price, 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 derived from what the Torah said, “to the man to whom he sold it,” that if the first buyer sold it to another for a different price from that at which the owner of the ancestral field sold it to the buyer, the owner calculates with the one “to whom he sold it,” according to the value that the first buyer paid for it, and he does not calculate with the second buyer according to the value that the second buyer paid for it. Conversely, the Sages derived from the Torah’s saying “to the man” to whom he sold it, and not “to the one to whom he sold it,” that he calculates with the second buyer according to the value that the second buyer paid for it, and not with the first buyer. Since these derivations contradict one another, one always follows the leniency of the seller: he calculates with the one who paid less for the field than the other paid. Therefore:

a.

If the owner of the ancestral field sold it

to the first buyer

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

[It can be explained that he sold it to the second immediately for two hundred. Alternatively, he sold it later, 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 buyer, so that its value was doubled]

he does not calculate

the redemption deduction with the second buyer, whose value is higher,

but with the first .

He calculates how many years there were from the time he sold it to him until the Jubilee year, and calculates how much of the one hundred dinars corresponds to each year. According to that calculation, the buyer deducts for each year that he ate from it, 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 person who is currently in the field, who is the second buyer.

b.

If the owner of the ancestral field sold it

to the first buyer

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

only

for one hundred,

since the second paid a lower value than the first,

he does not calculate

with the first buyer

but only with the last buyer, as it is stated: “And he shall calculate the years of his sale and return the surplus ‘to the man’

to whom he sold it. It did not say “to the one to whom he sold it” [Malakhet Shlomo in the name of the Rosh], teaching that he should give the surplus

to the man who is in it,

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 owned when he sold his ancestral field, which is

far

from his place,

and redeem

with the money he receives the field that he sold, which is

near

his place.

And likewise, he may not sell

the inferior

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

and redeem

with the money he receives

the superior

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

And he may not borrow, and redeem

the field that he sold with the borrowed money.

And he may not redeem

the field

in halves,

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

But with regard to a consecrated

ancestral field, when the owners redeem it from the consecrated property,

all of these are permitted,

in contrast to what we prohibited in redemption from an ordinary person.

This is a stringency applying to an ordinary person rather than to consecrated property!

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

a.

If he sold

his ancestral field

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

zuz,

from where is it derived that he does not calculate

the first seller, when he comes to redeem it,

except with the first buyer? The verse states:

“And he shall return the surplus

to the man to whom he sold it,”

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

And he shall return the surplus

“to the man”

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

to the man who is in it,

and since the derivations contradict one another, one follows the leniency of the seller,

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda says:

It is written: “And he shall calculate the years of his sale and return the surplus,” and so on. This can be interpreted to mean that he returns the surplus “remaining from the money” that he received from the buyer, after deducting from the buyer the amount corresponding to each year that he ate from it. It can also be interpreted to mean that he returns the surplus of what “the land” is currently worth, and the buyer deducts from it the years that he ate from it. Since these interpretations contradict one another, one always follows the leniency of the seller: if the surplus in the value of the land is less than the surplus of the money remaining in the seller’s possession after the deduction, it is sufficient for him to give the surplus of the land. If the surplus of the land is greater than the money in his possession, it is sufficient for him to give the surplus of the money in his possession. Therefore:

a.

If the owner of the ancestral field sold it to him

the buyer

for one hundred, and it appreciated

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

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

for him according to its value after it appreciated,

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

It is

the surplus in his possession,

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

b.

If he sold it to him for two hundred, and it depreciated

[and deteriorated] while the field was in the buyer’s possession

and stood at one hundred

only,

from where is it derived

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 can also be interpreted 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 challenge: Since both according to Rabbi and according to Rabbi Dostai ben Yehuda one always follows the leniency of the seller,

what

is the difference between them?

And they answer: Since according to Rabbi a change in the price of the field does not alter the redemption value, except when there are two buyers, with the second having paid a value different from that paid by the first, for this is how they expound the verse: at times one gives it to “the man who is in it,” and not to “the man to whom he sold it.” But a change in its price that does not result from the involvement of two buyers does not alter the redemption value. Therefore:

The difference between them is in a case where it appreciated,

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

and declined

in price when the second buyer purchased it,

and appreciated

again when the seller came to redeem it. According to Rabbi, who considers only the change in price between the two buyers, since the second paid less than the first, one follows the lower price paid by the second buyer, and the fact that it subsequently appreciated while in the second buyer’s possession changes nothing. But according to Rabbi Dostai, who considers only a change in the price of the field, even when it is in the possession of the same buyer, and expounds that at times one follows the surplus in the land’s value, since the price of the land returned to its original high value at the time of the sale, he pays according to its value at the time of the appreciation. [The same applies to their dispute if its price declined while in the possession of the first buyer and the first buyer did not sell it at all: according to Rabbi Dostai, one follows the time of the decline, whereas according to Rabbi, who considers only a 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 presented according to the words of Tosafot; see Shita Mekubetzet, Maimonides, and Zevaḥ Toda].

And they challenge Rabbi and Rabbi Dostai:

And from where do you know that the contradictory verses are expounded for leniency

toward the seller?

Perhaps they are expounded for stringency

toward the seller, and whether the second buyer paid less than the first sale price or its price changed to less than the first sale price, and whether the second buyer paid more or its price changed to more than the first sale price, the seller pays according to the higher value?

And they answer:

It does not enter your mind

to expound the contradictory verses stringently, since

he derives

by means of a

gezera shava the term

“redemption”

used with regard to one who redeems his ancestral field [“and he finds enough for its redemption”] from the term

“redemption” [“redemption shall be his”]

with regard to a Hebrew slave

[who is also redeemed through a redemption deduction: the amount corresponding to the division of the slave’s years of service—which are six years from his sale or until the Jubilee—is reduced for each year that he worked, and the slave gives the master the surplus of the sale price and goes free]. Just as with a Hebrew slave one follows the leniency of the redeemer, so too with an ancestral field one follows the leniency of the seller who redeems it.

And we explain:

And there,

with regard to the Hebrew slave,

from where do we know this?

And they answer:

As it was taught:

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

“After he is sold, he shall have redemption; one of his brothers shall redeem him. Or his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him, or if his means have become sufficient, he shall be 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 days of a hired worker shall he be with him [the amount corresponding to each and every year: he calculates as though he had been hired by him for each year at one hundred, and deducts from it].”

“If there are yet many years [until the Jubilee], according to them he shall return his redemption money from the money for which he was purchased.” “And if few years remain until the Jubilee year, he shall calculate for him; according to his years he shall return his redemption.” And from these verses we learn:

If he was sold for one hundred, and appreciated and stood at two hundred, from where is it derived that they calculate only from the one hundred

[how much corresponds to each year of the six years: one-sixth of a hundred, and this is deducted for each year. If one year remains, he gives him one-sixth of a hundred. We do not say: Since he appreciated, whether because the price of slaves increased or because the slave became stronger and is worth two hundred, he is calculated at two hundred for the six years and gives 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 money

from the money for which he was purchased,”

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

If he was sold for two hundred and depreciated

[deteriorated]

and stood at one hundred, from where is it derived that they calculate

for him

only from one hundred

[they calculate 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 corresponding to each year, based on dividing the one hundred by the number of years for which he was initially sold, and 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 for which he was purchased,” which implies from the time of his purchase]. Since the derivations contradict one another, one follows the leniency of the redeemer.

And

I have derived only the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile

—with regard to whom these verses are written—

that he is redeemed,

and

his

slave’s

hand has the advantage

in his redemption, so that the calculation is always made leniently. But if he was

sold to a Jew

—with regard to whom redemption through a money deduction is not written—

from where

do we know that these laws apply to him?

The verse states:

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

hired worker

shall he be with him,” and with regard to one sold to a Jew it is written in the relevant passage: “For he is like a hired

worker

with you,” and so on,

by means of a gezera shava:

that even one sold to a Jew is redeemed, and his hand has the advantage in his redemption.