Arakhin 33a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection to it:

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

of the sabbatical year,

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

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

and here

to count from it [itself]: one, two, three, four, until seven [Rabbeinu Gershom]],

why do I need

to count Jubilees with regard to sabbatical years—for every seven years they observe a sabbatical year, and the Jubilee year is not subtracted from the count—and if so,

the

count of

sabbatical years is sufficient?

And we answer: yes, indeed,

this 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:

And did they not count Jubilees

actually in the days of Ezra?! That is: Is it indeed necessary to say that when some of Israel were exiled [such as the two tribes and half a tribe in the days of Sennacherib], or the majority of them, the Jubilee does not apply, so that from this we were forced to conclude that in the days of Ezra—when the majority of Israel had been exiled—the Jubilee did not apply?!

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, and so on, so that no man should enslave his fellow Jew. And all the officials and all the people who entered into the covenant heard, and they sent them away. 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, and so on: Thus said the Lord, God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers on the day I brought them out from the land of Egypt, from the house of slaves, saying:

At the end of seven years, each man shall send away his Hebrew brother who was sold to you

and he shall serve you for six years, and you shall send him away free from you. But your fathers did not listen to Me, nor inclined their ear. And you turned today and did what is right in My eyes, proclaiming liberty each man to his fellow, and you made a covenant before Me, and so on. But you turned back and profaned My Name, and you brought back each man his slave, and so on, and you subdued them to be slaves and maidservants.’”

And we pondered this

and raised this difficulty]: At first it is written

“at the end of seven years”,

and it implies that he is to be sent away after seven years have passed, and that he even serves during the seventh year,

and afterward

in the continuation of the verse

it is written, “and he shall serve you for six years”,

and he is to be sent away immediately at their conclusion?!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

the verse is speaking of two sendings away: “and he shall serve you for six years” is one sending away,

six, for one who was sold,

for a slave who has not yet had his ear pierced.

And seven,

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

for one whose ear has been pierced,

for if the Jubilee occurs after seven years from his piercing, he goes free. [And the Rashash explained that this is interpreted as though it said: at the end of “seven sevens” of years, namely, seven groups of seven years, after which comes the Jubilee]].

And now we raise an objection: It is evident here that the Jubilee applied 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 a tribe; yet above we said that in the days of Ezra it certainly did not apply, since after they were exiled the Jubilee does not apply?!

And we answer:

That

the verse in Jeremiah

is written as a rebuke,

for it does not come to say that they should send them away when the Jubilee arrives, but he was rebuking them

and saying

to them, the

prophet

Jeremiah:

Did

if

you send away

your slaves in those years when 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 entered into the covenant]

and they sent them away”

so evidently they were required to send them away?

And we give another answer:

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

at first, when Sennacherib exiled those tribes, the Jubilees were indeed annulled; nevertheless, in the time of Jeremiah the Jubilee again applied, for

Jeremiah returned them

to these tribes,

and Josiah son of Amon ruled over them.

And from where do we know that they returned

these tribes?

And we explain: For we find that in the days of Zedekiah, Ezekiel was prophesying about the annulment 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 annulled. And we prove: If Jeremiah had not returned them to the tribes and the Jubilee applied,

is it possible that the Jubilee

already

had been annulled, and a prophet would prophesy that it would be annulled

in the future?

Rather, it teaches that Jeremiah returned them

and the Jubilee applied 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: “And Josiah turned and saw the graves that were there on the mountain. And he sent and took the bones from the graves and burned them on the altar and defiled it, according to the word of the Lord that the man of God had proclaimed [that the man of God had prophesied], who proclaimed these words [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 of]

the man of God [

the aforementioned prophet]

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

mentioned above, upon which he burned the bones]

“at Bethel.” And what business did Josiah [

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

at Bethel—

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

Rather, when Jeremiah returned them

to the tribes that had been exiled,

Josiah ruled over them

and his kingdom also extended over Bethel!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: From here

it may be learned that Josiah ruled over them, for it is written:

“Judah also [

the tribe of Judah]

placed [

there]

a ruler [

a commander; the letters reish and nun interchange, that is: a king]

for you [

for the other tribes of Israel]

when I return the captivity of My people,”

for Josiah of the tribe of Judah ruled over Israel when the two tribes and half a tribe returned from the exile into which Sennacherib had exiled them.

Mishna:

Houses of the open towns

houses in villages that are not surrounded by a wall

are given to them,

also

the favorable feature of houses in walled cities

from an ancestral field,

and

also

the favorable feature of fields

of ancestral property—from houses in walled cities, and therefore:

and they are redeemed immediately,

like houses in walled cities, and not like fields, which are not redeemed until two years from the sale [above 29]:.

And throughout twelve months, like houses ,

and the houses of the open towns

—the houses in unwalled towns—

go out at the Jubilee

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

And with a deduction of money [

explained above]

like fields

and not like houses in walled cities.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written: “And the houses of the open towns, which have no wall around them, shall be reckoned with the field of the land; its redemption shall belong to it, and at the Jubilee it shall go out.”

And we expound:

“It shall be reckoned with the field of the land”—the verse compared it to an ancestral field: just as an ancestral field goes out at the Jubilee and with a deduction of money, so too houses of the open towns go out at the Jubilee and with a deduction of money.

It might be thought:

Just as an ancestral field is not redeemed in less [

before]

than two years, so too houses of the open towns are not redeemed in less than two years. The verse therefore says: “Its redemption shall belong to it”—

immediately.

Since you have given them the favorable feature of fields

to go out at the Jubilee and with a deduction of money,

and the favorable feature of houses,

to be redeemed immediately,

it might be thought that they do not go out at the Jubilee. The verse therefore says: “And at the Jubilee it shall go out”!

And we are astonished at the beraita:

What is it saying

“It might be thought that they do not go out at the Jubilee”? But we expound from the comparison that it goes out at the Jubilee?!

And we explain:

Rav Huna said: The beraita is not needed

to teach that they go out at the Jubilee,

but for one who consecrates a house—

not for one who sells—

in the houses of the open towns, and another redeemed it from the consecration, and the Jubilee occurred in the second year

that is, from the second year onward—from the time another redeemed it from the consecration, the house goes out at the Jubilee to the owners who consecrated it. Without the verse, we would not know that it goes out to the owners, for in either case,

to what do you compare it

the one who consecrates houses of the open towns?

If you compare it to houses in walled cities, it becomes finalized for the purchaser

from the consecration! [As explained above, 31b, one who redeems a house in a walled city from the consecration: after a year it becomes finalized for him]. And

if to an ancestral field

which is redeemed from the consecration

you compare it, it goes out to the priests,

like an ancestral field, which goes out from the redeemer to the priests at the Jubilee!

For this reason “and at the Jubilee it shall go out” is necessary,

to teach that at the Jubilee it goes out from the redeemer of the consecration—when it occurred in the second year—to the owners. [But when the Jubilee occurred within a year of its redemption, it was unnecessary to teach this, since because houses of the open towns are given the favorable feature of fields—which return at the Jubilee, and not like houses in walled cities, for which there is no Jubilee—and even houses in walled cities do not become finalized within a year, they return to the owners at the Jubilee even without a verse].

And we object:

Rav Zeira challenged this: Why specifically

that you said that the verse “and at the Jubilee it shall go out” speaks of returning the consecrated property to the owner after it has already

been redeemed by another

from the consecration,

even if

still

another has not redeemed it

from the consecration

also,

it should return to him at the Jubilee, for “and at the Jubilee it shall go out” did not need to be written on account of an ordinary sale, since without the verse it would go out at the Jubilee from an ordinary person, as it was compared to fields; and if so, from this we should learn that it goes out from the consecration at the Jubilee?!

And we answer:

Abaye said to him: So that they should not say—

if it were said that it goes out from the consecration—

consecrated property goes out

without redemption.

And we explain:

From where do we know

that consecrated property does not go out without redemption? From a

kal va-chomer: From a Levite! Just as a Levite

in the cities that the Levites received in the Land

whose power is enhanced in his sale,

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

his power is diminished with regard to his consecration,

for the consecration of his house and field does not go out at the Jubilee without redemption.

An Israelite whose power is diminished in his sale

in these three matters that we stated,

is it not logical that his power is diminished with regard to his consecration,

so that it does not go out from the consecration without redemption?

And we explain:

And there,

with regard to a Levite,

from where do we know

that his consecrated property does not go out without redemption?

For it was taught:

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

and the sold property shall go out

a house [which one purchased from them] and the city of his ancestral property [of the Levite, which was purchased from him] at the Jubilee,”

I might understand

from what it said, “and the sold property shall go out,”

even

if a Levite sold

his slaves, movable property, and documents [

which are promissory notes that others owe him—and he sold them], that they go out at the Jubilee.

The verse therefore says:

“and the sold property shall go out”

“a house and his ancestral city”

which are land [Rabbeinu Gershom], and not those items. And if so,

why does the verse say “sold property”,

which implies every sale [Rabbeinu Gershom]? To teach:

the sale

of a Levite

goes out freely, but the consecration

of a Levite

does not go out freely, but only through redemption.

And we return to what Rav Huna said, that one who consecrates a house among the houses of the open towns, and another redeems it from the consecration, it returns to the owners at the Jubilee, and we say:

And this disagrees,

this statement of Rav Huna,

with Rabbi Oshaya,

who maintains that it does not go out of the redeemer’s possession at the Jubilee.

For Rabbi Oshaya said: All

those who purchase from the consecration

are included in “and he shall give the money [

to the consecration]

and it shall belong to him,”

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

as the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field

which he purchased from the consecration, that it does not remain his, but goes out from him at the Jubilee, as it is written: “

And the field [

which he purchased from the consecration]

when it goes out at the Jubilee shall be sacred to the Lord, like a field of the ban

“to the priest shall be his ancestral property,” we say:

It is a field that

because

and purchased it from the consecration, does not remain his,

and it goes out

from his possession at the Jubilee and goes out

to the priests; but these

houses of the open towns—which are included in “and he shall give the money and it shall belong to him,” and the verse did not remove them from the general rule—

remain as they stand,

so that they do not go out from them at the Jubilee.

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

“And at the Jubilee it shall go out”—why do I need it,

for it is impossible to explain, as Rav Huna did, that the verse speaks about consecration?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: “And at the Jubilee it shall go out” is not needed

only for the following case: One who sells a house among the houses in unwalled towns, and the Jubilee arrives during the second year

except for one who sells a house among the houses of the open towns, and the Jubilee occurs in the second year

of the sale: one year has already passed, after which a house in a walled city becomes finalized, but two years have not passed, for which an ancestral field must remain in the purchaser’s possession; and it teaches that it returns to the owners immediately at the Jubilee. Without the verse, we would not know that it returns to them immediately, for in either case,

to what do you compare it:

if

you compare it to houses in walled cities, it becomes finalized for the purchaser!

Since a year has passed, it will not go out from him at all at the Jubilee. And

if you compare it to an ancestral field,

it goes out to the owners at the Jubilee, but nevertheless

completion is required!

so that it 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 though the Jubilee has passed [as explained above, 29]:

for this reason “and at the Jubilee it shall go out” is necessary,

to teach that it returns to the owners at the Jubilee that occurs in the second year, before two years have passed, and completion is not required.

It was taught in accordance with Rav Huna,

who maintains that the consecration of houses of the open towns returns from the redeemer to the owners,

and this is a refutation of Rabbi Oshaya,

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

One who consecrates a house among the houses of the open towns—this one

the one who consecrates it

redeems it immediately, and redeems it forever

for even if another redeemed it from the consecration, the one who consecrated it redeems it from his possession, unlike an ancestral field, which is not redeemed from him, as it is written: “It shall not be redeemed anymore.”

If another redeemed it from the consecration, and the Jubilee arrived and it was not redeemed

from him by the owners,

it returns to the owners at the Jubilee!

And this is in accordance with Rav Huna.