Arakhin 33a (לג.) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to this:

This works well according to the Rabbis, who say that the fiftieth year is not included

in the count of the Sabbatical years,

but according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says: The fiftieth year counts here

for the count of the Jubilee years—for the fiftieth year is the Jubilee—

and here

for counting from it [itself]: one, two, three, four, through seven [Rabbeinu Gershom],

why do I need

to count Jubilees with regard to Sabbatical years? After all, every seven years they observe a Sabbatical year, and the Jubilee year is not subtracted from the count—and if so,

a

count

of Sabbatical years is sufficient?

And we answer: That is indeed so.

Certainly,

this beraita, which says that in the days of Ezra they counted Jubilees,

is not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda!

And now we raise the opposite objection:

Did they not count Jubilees

in the days of Ezra himself?! In other words: Is it necessarily the case that when some of the Jews were exiled [such as the two tribes and half the tribe in the days of Sennacherib], or the majority of them, the Jubilee was not observed, to the point that we were forced to conclude from this that in the days of Ezra—when the majority of the Jews had been exiled—the Jubilee was not observed?!

But it is written [Jeremiah 34]: “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were in Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them [to the slaves], to send each man away his slave, etc., so that no man should enslave his fellow Jew. And all the officials and all the people who had entered into the covenant heard, etc., and they heard and sent them away. But afterward they turned back and brought back the slaves, etc., and subjugated them as slaves and maidservants.

in Jeremiah, chapter 34: “The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord, after King Zedekiah had made a covenant with all the people who were in Jerusalem, to proclaim liberty to them: to send each man away his slave, and so on, so that no one would enslave his fellow Jew. And all the officials and all the people who had entered into the covenant listened, and they sent them out. But afterward they turned back and brought back the slaves, and so on, and subdued them as slaves and maidservants.”

And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, etc.: Thus said the Lord, God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers on the day I brought them out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage, saying:

At the end of seven years you shall each send away his Hebrew brother who has been sold to you

and has served you six years; you shall send him away free from you. But your fathers did not listen to Me, nor inclined their ear. And you have now turned and done what is right in My eyes, proclaiming liberty each man to his fellow, and you made a covenant before Me, etc. But you turned back and profaned My Name, and you brought back each man his slave, etc., and subjugated them to be slaves and maidservants for you.”

And we considered this [and raised the following difficulty]: At first it is written

“At the end of

seven years,”

which implies that they should send him away after seven years had elapsed, and that he should work even during the seventh year;

and afterward,

later in the verse,

it is written: ‘He has served you for six years,’

and he should be sent away immediately at their end?!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

The verse is speaking of two acts of sending away: “He has served you for six years” refers to one sending away,

six years, for one who was sold,

a slave who has not yet had his ear pierced.

And seven,

as it is written, “At the end of seven years,” refers to sending away at the Jubilee,

for one whose ear has been pierced,

for if the Jubilee arrives after seven years from his piercing, he goes free. [The Rashash explained that this is understood as though it said: “At the end of seven-seven years,” that is, seven cycles of seven years, after which comes the Jubilee].

And now we raise an objection: It is evident here that the Jubilee was observed in the days of Zedekiah, who lived at the time of the destruction of the Temple, many generations after Sennacherib exiled the two tribes and half the tribe, whereas above we said that in the days of Ezra it was certainly not observed, since after the exile the Jubilee is not observed?!

And we answer:

That

verse in Jeremiah

is written as a rebuke.

It was not saying that they should send them away when the Jubilee arrived; rather, he was rebuking them

and saying

to them—the

prophet

Jeremiah:

D

id you

send away

your slaves during those years in which you were obligated to send them away?!

And we object:

But it is written

at the beginning of the matter, that Zedekiah made a covenant to send away the slaves:

“And they heard [the officials and the people who had entered into the covenant]

—the officials and the people who had entered into the covenant—

and sent them away.”

This indicates that they were required to send them away?

And we give another answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

Initially, when Sennacherib exiled those tribes, the Jubilees were indeed abolished. Nevertheless, in the time of Jeremiah the Jubilee again came into effect, because

Jeremiah brought them back

to those tribes,

and Josiah, son of Amon, ruled over them.

And from where do we know that they returned

—those tribes?

And we explain: We find that in the days of Zedekiah, Ezekiel prophesied about the abolition of the Jubilees,

as it is written: “For the seller

[of his ancestral field]

shall not return to the sold property,”

at the Jubilee, since the Jubilees would be abolished. And we prove: If Jeremiah had not brought them back to the tribes and the Jubilee had not come into effect,

is it possible that the Jubilee

had already

been abolished, and a prophet would prophesy that it would be abolished

in the future?

Rather, it teaches: Jeremiah brought them back

and the Jubilee was observed in the days of Zedekiah.

And from where do we know that Josiah ruled over them,

when these tribes returned?

And we explain:

As it is written: “Josiah turned and saw the graves that were there on the mountain. He sent and took the bones from the graves and burned them upon the altar and defiled it, in accordance with the word of the Lord that the man of God had proclaimed, who proclaimed these things [that Josiah would take out the bones and burn them].

—that Josiah would take out the bones and burn them.

And he said

[Josiah]

‘What is this monument

[it is another grave]

that I see?’ And the people of the city said to him, ‘The grave

[this one is that]

of the man of God

[the aforementioned prophet]

who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done upon the altar

[mentioned above, upon which he burned the bones],

at Bethel.’” And what business did Josiah have

[what was Josiah doing], one of the kings of Judah,

at Bethel

—which belonged to the kings of Israel—burning bones there?!

Rather, when Jeremiah brought back

the exiled tribes,

Josiah ruled over them,

and his kingdom also extended over Bethel!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: From here

we may learn that Josiah ruled over them: For it is written,

“Also Judah

[the tribe of Judah]

shall be set

[there]

as a ruler

[the letters kaf and nun are interchangeable; that is, king]

over you

[over the remaining tribes of Israel]

when I restore the fortunes of My people,”

for Josiah, from the tribe of Judah, ruled over Israel when the two tribes and half the tribe exiled by Sennacherib returned from their exile.

Mishna:

Houses in unwalled towns,

houses in villages that are not surrounded by a wall,

are given

also

the advantageous feature of houses in walled cities

of an ancestral field,

and

also

the advantageous feature of fields

of an ancestral field—from houses in walled cities; therefore:

They may be redeemed immediately,

like houses in walled cities and not like fields, which cannot be redeemed until two years after the sale [above 29b].

And every twelve months, as with houses ,

and they leave

houses in unwalled towns

at the Jubilee

like an ancestral field and not like houses in walled cities.

And with a deduction from the money

[as explained above]

like fields

and not like houses in walled cities.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is written: “And the houses of the unwalled towns, which have no surrounding wall, shall be reckoned like a field of the land; it shall have redemption, and it shall leave at the Jubilee.”

It is written: “And the houses of the unwalled towns, which have no surrounding wall, shall be considered like the field of the land; it may be redeemed, and it shall leave at the Jubilee.”

And we derive:

“It shall be reckoned like a field of the land”—the verse compares it to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field leaves at the Jubilee and with a deduction from the money, so too houses in unwalled towns leave at the Jubilee and with a deduction from the money.

It might have been thought:

Just as an ancestral field cannot be redeemed in less

[time]

than two years, so too houses in unwalled towns cannot be redeemed in less than two years. The verse therefore states: “It shall have redemption”—

immediately.

Since you have given them the advantageous feature of fields

to leave at the Jubilee and with a deduction from the money,

and the advantageous feature of houses,

to be redeemed immediately,

might it be thought that they do not leave at the Jubilee? The verse states: “And it shall leave at the Jubilee”!

And we are astonished at the beraita:

What is it saying?

“Might it be thought that they do not leave at the Jubilee”—but do we not derive from the comparison that it leaves at the Jubilee?!

And we explain:

Rav Huna said: It was necessary

for the beraita to teach that they leave at the Jubilee

only with regard to one who consecrates a house

and not with regard to one who sells

in the houses of unwalled towns, and another redeemed it immediately from the consecrated property, and the Jubilee arrived in the second year

—that is, from the second year onward, counting from the time the other redeemed the house from the consecrated property, the house leaves at the Jubilee for the owners who consecrated it. Without the verse, we would not know that it leaves for the owners, for in any event

to what should you compare it

—the one who consecrates houses in unwalled towns?

If you compare it to houses in walled cities, it becomes the purchaser’s irrevocable possession

from the consecrated property! [As explained above, 31a: one who redeems a house in a walled city from consecrated property after a year acquires it irrevocably.] And

if you compare it to an ancestral field,

which is redeemed from consecrated property,

it goes out to the priests,

like an ancestral field that goes from the redeemer to the priests at the Jubilee!

For this reason, “And it shall leave at the Jubilee” is necessary,

to teach that at the Jubilee it leaves from the redeemer who redeemed it from the consecrated property—when the Jubilee arrived in the second year—and returns to the owners. [But when the Jubilee arrives within a year of its redemption, it is unnecessary to teach this, since houses in unwalled towns were given the advantageous feature of fields—which return at the Jubilee, unlike houses in walled cities, for which there is no Jubilee—and even houses in walled cities do not become the purchaser’s irrevocable possession within a year; therefore they return to the owners at the Jubilee even without a verse].

And we object:

Rav Zeira raised an objection to him: Why specifically

did you say that the verse “And it shall leave at the Jubilee” speaks of returning the consecrated property to the owner of the house after

another has redeemed it

from the consecrated property?

Even

if another

has not yet redeemed it

from the consecrated property,

also

it should return to him at the Jubilee, for “And it shall leave at the Jubilee” was not necessary to be written with regard to an ordinary sale, since without the verse it would leave at the Jubilee from an ordinary purchaser, as it was compared to fields; and if so, we should learn from this that it leaves from consecrated property at the Jubilee?!

And we answer:

Abaye said to him: So that people should not say

—if it is stated that it leaves from consecrated property—

that consecrated property leaves

without redemption.

And we explain:

From where do we know

that consecrated property does not leave without redemption? From a

kal va-chomer from a Levite! Just as a Levite

in the cities that the Levites received in the Land

has an advantage with regard to his sale,

in three respects: (a) he redeems his ancestral field immediately and does not wait two years, unlike an Israelite; (b) he may redeem houses in walled cities forever, unlike an Israelite, who cannot redeem them after a year; (c) his houses in walled cities return to him at the Jubilee, unlike those of an Israelite, which do not return to him at the Jubilee—and nevertheless

he has a disadvantage with regard to his consecration,

for his consecrated house and field do not leave at the Jubilee without redemption.

An Israelite, who has a disadvantage with regard to his sale

in these three respects that we stated,

surely has a disadvantage with regard to his consecration,

so that it does not leave the consecrated property without redemption.

And we clarify:

And there,

with regard to the Levite,

from where do we know

that his consecrated property does not leave without redemption?

As it was taught:

It is written: “And that which is redeemed from the Levites

shall leave the sale

of a house [that he purchased from them] and a city of his ancestral possession [of a Levite, which was purchased from him] at the Jubilee.”

I might understand

from the fact that it says, “And the sale

even

of a Levite,”

his slaves, movable property, and documents

[that is, promissory notes that he held against others—and he sold them], which leave at the Jubilee.

The verse therefore states: “And the sale of

a

house and a city of his ancestral possession

which are land [Rabbeinu Gershom], but not those items. If so,

what does the verse mean by saying ‘sale,’

which implies every sale [Rabbeinu Gershom]? It teaches:

The sale

of a Levite

leaves freely, but consecrated property

of a Levite

does not leave freely, but only through redemption.

And we return to what Rav Huna said, that when one consecrates a house among the houses of unwalled towns and another redeems it immediately from the consecrated property, it returns to the owners at the Jubilee, and we say:

And this disagrees

with Rav Huna

with Rabbi Oshaya,

who holds that it does not leave the redeemer’s possession at the Jubilee.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: All

purchasers from consecrated property

were included in “And he shall give the money

[to the consecrated property]

and it shall be his,”

which implies that the purchase remains in his possession forever and does not leave him at the Jubilee,

just as the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field

that one purchased from consecrated property, which does not remain his but leaves him at the Jubilee, as it is written:

“And the field

[that he purchased from consecrated property]

shall, when it leaves him at the Jubilee, be holy to the Lord, like a field devoted;

it shall be the priest’s ancestral possession.” We say:

It is a field that

because he

and purchased it from the consecrated property does not remain his,

and it goes out

from his possession at the Jubilee and leaves

to the priests; but these

houses in unwalled towns—which are included in “And he shall give the money and it shall be his,” and the verse did not exclude them from the general rule—

remain as they stand,

and do not leave them at the Jubilee.

And we object to Rabbi Oshaya: According to his view, the original difficulty returns:

Why do I need “And it shall leave at the Jubilee,”

since it is impossible to explain, as Rav Huna did, that the verse is speaking about consecrated property?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: “And it shall leave at the Jubilee”

was necessary

only with regard to one who sells a house among the houses of unwalled towns, and the Jubilee arrives in the second year

of the sale—after one year has already passed, at which point houses in walled cities become the purchaser’s irrevocable possession, but before two years have passed, which an ancestral field must remain in the purchaser’s possession—and it teaches that it returns immediately to the owners at the Jubilee. Without the verse, we would not know that it returns to them immediately, for in any event

to what should you compare it:

if

you compare it to houses in walled cities, it becomes the purchaser’s irrevocable possession!

Since a year has passed, it would never leave him at the Jubilee. And

if you compare it to an ancestral field,

it leaves for the owners at the Jubilee, but nevertheless

completion is required!

It should remain in the purchaser’s possession for another year to complete the two years during which the field must be in the purchaser’s possession, even if the Jubilee has passed [as explained above, 29b].

For this reason, “And it shall leave at the Jubilee” is necessary,

to teach that it returns to the owners at the Jubilee in the second year, before two years have passed, and no completion is required.

A beraita supports Rav Huna

who holds that a consecrated house in an unwalled town returns from the redeemer to the owners,

and is a refutation of Rabbi Oshaya

who holds that it remains in the redeemer’s possession:

One who consecrates a house among the houses of unwalled towns—that person

the one who consecrated it

redeems it immediately, and may redeem it forever,

for even if another redeemed it from the consecrated property, the one who consecrated it may redeem it from him, unlike an ancestral field, which cannot be redeemed from him, as it is written: “It shall not be redeemed again.”

If another redeemed it immediately from the consecrated property, and the Jubilee arrived and it had not been redeemed

from him by the owners,

it returns to the owners at the Jubilee!

This is in accordance with Rav Huna.