File size: 63,793 Bytes

60c9777

Mishnah Arakhin
משנה ערכין
William Davidson Edition - English
https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1

Mishnah Arakhin



Chapter 1

<b>Everyone takes</b> vows of <b>valuation</b> and is thereby obligated to donate to the Temple treasury the value fixed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:3–7) for the age and sex of the person valuated. <b>And</b> similarly, everyone <b>is valuated,</b> and therefore one who vowed to donate his fixed value is obligated to pay. Likewise, everyone <b>vows</b> to donate to the Temple treasury the assessment of a person, based on his market value to be sold as a slave, and is thereby obligated to pay; <b>and</b> everyone is the object of <b>a vow</b> if others vowed to donate his assessment. This includes <b>priests, Levites and Israelites, women, and</b> Canaanite <b>slaves.</b> <b>A <i>tumtum</i>,</b> whose sexual organs are concealed, <b>and a hermaphrodite [<i>androginos</i>], vow, and</b> are the object of <b>a vow, and take</b> vows of <b>valuation, but they are not valuated.</b> Consequently, if one says, with regard to a <i>tumtum</i>: The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me to donate to the Temple treasury, he is not obligated to pay anything, <b>as only a definite male or a definite female are valuated.</b> <b>A deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor</b> are the object of <b>a vow and are valuated, but neither vow</b> to donate the assessment of a person <b>nor take</b> a vow of <b>valuation, because they lack the</b> presumed <b>mental competence</b> to make a commitment. A child <b>less than one month old is</b> the object of <b>a vow</b> if others vowed to donate his assessment, <b>but is not valuated</b> if one vowed to donate his fixed value, as the Torah did not establish a value for anyone less than a month old.
With regard to <b>a gentile, Rabbi Meir says:</b> He <b>is valuated</b> in a case where a Jew says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the fixed value of this gentile. <b>But</b> a gentile <b>does not take</b> a vow of <b>valuation</b> to donate his fixed value or the value of others. <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He takes</b> a vow of <b>valuation, but is not valuated. And</b> both <b>this</b> <i>tanna</i>, Rabbi Meir, <b>and that</b> <i>tanna</i>, Rabbi Yehuda, <b>agree that</b> gentiles <b>vow</b> to donate the assessment of another <b>and are</b> the object of <b>vows,</b> whereby one donates the assessment of a gentile.
<b>One who is moribund and one who is taken to be executed</b> after being sentenced by the court <b>is neither</b> the object of <b>a vow nor valuated. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Akavya says:</b> He is not the object of a vow, because he has no market value; but <b>he is valuated, due to</b> the fact <b>that one’s value is fixed</b> by the Torah based on age and sex. <b>Rabbi Yosei says:</b> One with that status <b>vows</b> to donate the assessment of another person to the Temple treasury, <b>and takes</b> vows of <b>valuation, and consecrates</b> his property; <b>and if he damages</b> the property of others, he is <b>liable</b> to pay compensation.
In the case of a pregnant <b>woman who is taken</b> by the court <b>to be executed,</b> the court <b>does not wait to</b> execute <b>her until she gives birth.</b> Rather, she is killed immediately. But with regard to <b>a woman</b> taken to be executed <b>who sat on the travailing chair [<i>hamashber</i>]</b> in the throes of labor, the court <b>waits to</b> execute <b>her until she gives birth.</b> In the case of <b>a woman who was killed</b> through court-imposed capital punishment, <b>one may derive benefit from her hair.</b> But in the case of <b>an animal that was killed</b> through court-imposed execution, e.g., for goring a person, <b>deriving benefit</b> from the animal <b>is prohibited.</b>

Chapter 2

<b>One cannot be charged for a valuation less than a <i>sela</i>, nor</b> can one be charged <b>more than fifty <i>sela</i>. How so?</b> If <b>one gave one <i>sela</i> and became wealthy,</b> he is <b>not</b> required to <b>give anything</b> more, as he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave <b>less than a <i>sela</i> and became wealthy,</b> he is required to <b>give fifty <i>sela</i>,</b> as he has not fulfilled his obligation. If <b>there were five <i>sela</i> in</b> the <b>possession</b> of the destitute person, and the valuation he undertook is more than five <i>sela</i>, how much should he pay? <b>Rabbi Meir says: He gives only one</b> <i>sela</i> and thereby fulfills his obligation. <b>And the Rabbis say: He gives all</b> five. <b>One cannot be charged for a valuation less than a <i>sela</i>; nor</b> can one be charged <b>more than fifty <i>sela</i>.</b> If a woman experienced a discharge of blood and is <b>unsure</b> whether it was during her days of menstruation or during the eleven days that would render her a <i>zava</i>, the <b>alleviation</b> of her state of uncertainty does <b>not</b> occur in <b>fewer than seven</b> clean days, <b>nor</b> in <b>more than seventeen</b> clean days, depending on the number of days that she experiences the discharge. There are symptoms of leprosy that a priest will immediately confirm to be ritually pure or ritually impure, and there are others for which the priest quarantines the leper in order to determine his status. <b>With regard to leprous marks, there is no</b> quarantine that is <b>less than one week and none greater than three weeks.</b>
<b>No fewer than four full</b> thirty-day <b>months</b> may be established <b>during</b> the course of <b>a year, and it did not seem</b> appropriate to establish <b>more than eight. The two loaves</b> that are brought to the Temple on <i>Shavuot</i> <b>are eaten</b> by the priests <b>not before the second and not after the third</b> day from when they were baked. <b>The shewbread is eaten not before the ninth</b> day from when it was baked, which is the situation in a regular week when the bread is baked on Friday and eaten on the following Shabbat; <b>and not after the eleventh</b> day, when the two Festival days of Rosh HaShana occur on Thursday and Friday, as the shewbread is baked on Wednesday and not eaten until the following Shabbat. <b>A minor boy is not circumcised before the eighth</b> day after his birth <b>and not after the twelfth</b> day. Normally a newborn is circumcised on his eighth day. If he was born during twilight, which an uncertain period of day or night, he is circumcised on what would be the eighth day of his birth if he is was born at night, which is the ninth day if he was born during the day. If he was born during twilight on Shabbat eve, the circumcision cannot be performed on Friday, as he might have been born on Shabbat and therefore Friday is only the seventh day. And the circumcision cannot be on Shabbat, as perhaps he was born on Friday and only circumcision performed on the eighth day overrides Shabbat. Therefore, it is postponed until after Shabbat. If two days of Rosh HaShana occur on Sunday and Monday, the circumcision is postponed until Tuesday, the twelfth day after birth.
<b>No fewer than twenty-one</b> trumpet <b>blasts are</b> sounded daily <b>in the Temple,</b> as each day three blasts were sounded for the opening of the gates in the morning, nine for the daily morning offering, and nine for the daily afternoon offering, totaling twenty-one. <b>And no more than forty-eight are</b> ever sounded on a single day. This would occur on the Friday of <i>Sukkot</i>, when they would sound an additional twelve blasts during the ritual of drawing the water for the water libation; nine for the additional offerings; three to signal the population to cease their work before Shabbat; and three more to mark the beginning of Shabbat. When accompanying their song with instruments, the Levites <b>do not use fewer than two lyres and do not use more than six.</b> When flutes are played, <b>they do not use fewer than two flutes and do not use more than twelve. And</b> there are <b>twelve days during the year when the flute plays before the altar: At</b> the time of <b>the slaughter of the first Paschal offering,</b> on the fourteenth of Nisan; <b>and at</b> the time of <b>the slaughter of the second Paschal offering,</b> on the fourteenth of Iyyar; <b>and on the first festival</b> day <b>of Passover; and on the festival of <i>Shavuot</i>; and on</b> all <b>eight days of the festival of <i>Sukkot</i>. And one would not play with a copper flute; rather, one would play with a flute of reed, because its sound is</b> more <b>pleasant. And one would conclude</b> the music <b>only with a single flute, because it concludes</b> the music <b>nicely.</b>
The Temple musicians <b>were slaves of priests;</b> this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says:</b> The musicians were not slaves, but Israelites from <b>the family of the house of Pegarim and the family of the house of Tzippara from</b> the city of <b>Emaum,</b> and their lineage was sufficiently pure that <b>they would marry</b> their daughters <b>to</b> members of <b>the priesthood. Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: They were Levites.</b>
One maintains <b>no fewer than six lambs that</b> have been <b>inspected</b> for blemishes <b>in the Chamber of the Lambs,</b> which are <b>sufficient for</b> the offerings of <b>Shabbat and for the</b> two <b>Festival days of Rosh HaShana</b> that may occur adjacent to it. <b>And one may add</b> inspected lambs <b>up to an infinite</b> number. One plays <b>no fewer than two trumpets</b> and no fewer <b>than nine harps</b> in the Temple, <b>and one may add up to an infinite</b> number. <b>And the cymbal</b> was played <b>alone,</b> and none may be added to it.
In the Temple, there are <b>no fewer than twelve Levites standing on the platform</b> adjacent to the altar and singing, <b>and one may add</b> Levites on the platform <b>up to an infinite</b> number. <b>A minor</b> Levite may <b>enter the Temple courtyard for service only at a time when the Levites are engaging in song,</b> so that he may accompany them. <b>And</b> minors <b>would not engage in</b> playing <b>a lyre and in</b> playing <b>a harp; rather,</b> they would engage <b>in</b> singing with <b>the mouth, in order to provide flavor to the music</b> with their pure, high voices. <b>Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:</b> Minors <b>are not tallied in the</b> minimum <b>total</b> of twelve Levites, <b>and they do not ascend to the platform; rather, they would stand on the ground and their heads</b> would reach to <b>between the legs of the Levites, and they were called cadets [<i>tzoarei</i>] of the Levites.</b>

Chapter 3

<b>There are</b> <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to valuations that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent; and</b> there are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to an ancestral field that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent; and</b> there are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to a forewarned ox that killed</b> a Canaanite <b>slave that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent;</b> and there are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to a rapist, and a seducer, and a defamer that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent.</b> <b>There are</b> <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to valuations that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent; how so? Both</b> in the case of one <b>who took</b> a vow of <b>valuation</b> to donate the fixed value <b>of the</b> most <b>attractive among the Jewish people and</b> in the case of one who took a vow of valuation to donate the fixed value of <b>the</b> most <b>unsightly among the Jewish people, he gives</b> the fixed payment of <b>fifty <i>sela</i>,</b> shekels, to the Temple treasury (see Leviticus 27:3). <b>And if</b> one <b>said: It</b> is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate the <b>assessment</b> of another to the Temple treasury, <b>he gives the price</b> for that person if sold as a slave, a sum that can be more or less than fifty shekels.
There are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to an ancestral field that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent. How so? Both</b> one <b>who consecrates</b> an ancestral field <b>in</b> the low-quality <b>sands of the</b> areas <b>surrounding</b> the city <b>and</b> one <b>who consecrates</b> the high-quality <b>orchards of Sebastia gives</b> a redemption payment of <b>fifty silver shekels for</b> every area that he consecrated that is fit for <b>sowing a <i>kor</i> of barley</b> (Leviticus 27:16). <b>And with regard to a purchased field</b> that one consecrates, <b>he gives its value</b> as redemption, a sum that can be more or less than fifty shekels for every area required for sowing one <i>kor</i> of barley. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> With regard to <b>both a purchased field and an ancestral field,</b> one gives a redemption payment of fifty silver shekels for every area required for sowing a <i>kor</i> of barley that he consecrated. <b>What,</b> then, is the difference <b>between an ancestral field and a purchased field?</b> The difference is <b>that in</b> the case of <b>an ancestral field one gives</b> an additional payment of <b>one-fifth, but in</b> the case of <b>a purchased field one does not give</b> an additional payment of <b>one-fifth.</b>
There are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to a forewarned ox that killed</b> a Canaanite <b>slave that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent; how so? Both</b> in the case of an ox <b>that killed the</b> most <b>attractive among the slaves,</b> whose value is great, <b>and</b> likewise in the case of one that killed <b>the</b> most <b>unsightly among the slaves,</b> whose value is minimal, its owner <b>gives</b> payment of <b>thirty <i>sela</i>,</b> the fine stated in the Torah (Exodus 21:32), to the owner of the slave. If the ox <b>killed a freeman,</b> its owner <b>gives his price</b> as payment to his heirs. This sum can be more or less than thirty shekels. If the ox <b>injured this</b> slave <b>or that</b> freeman, <b>he gives</b> payment of the <b>full</b> cost of the <b>damage</b> as compensation.
There are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to a rapist and with regard to a seducer that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent; how so? Both</b> one <b>who raped or seduced</b> a young woman <b>who is</b> the most <b>prominent in the priesthood and</b> one who raped or seduced a young woman who is <b>the lowliest among the Israelites gives</b> the payment of <b>fifty <i>sela</i>,</b> the fine stated in the Torah (see Deuteronomy 22:29). <b>And</b> the payments for <b>humiliation and</b> for <b>degradation</b> resulting from being raped or seduced are assessed differentially; it is <b>all based on the one who humiliates and the one who is humiliated.</b>
There are <i>halakhot</i> <b>with regard to a defamer,</b> who falsely claims that his bride was not a virgin, <b>that are lenient and</b> others <b>that are stringent. How so? Both</b> one <b>who defamed</b> a young woman who is the most <b>prominent in the priesthood and</b> one who defamed a young woman who is the <b>lowliest among the Israelites gives</b> payment of <b>one hundred <i>sela</i>,</b> the fine stated in the Torah (Deuteronomy 22:19). Based on the relative scope of the fines, with the defamer paying twice the sum of the rapist and the seducer, it <b>is apparent</b> that <b>one who utters</b> malicious speech <b>with his mouth</b> is <b>a more severe</b> transgressor <b>than one who performs an action.</b> And this is corroborated, <b>as we found that the sentence imposed on our ancestors in the wilderness was sealed only due to the malicious speech</b> disseminated by the spies, <b>as it is stated</b> at that time: “All those men that have seen My glory, and My signs, which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, <b>yet they have tried Me these ten times</b> and have not listened to My voice” (Numbers 14:22).

Chapter 4

<b>Affordability,</b> which is written in the Torah: “According to the means of him who vowed shall the priest valuate him” (Leviticus 27:8), is determined <b>in accordance with</b> the means of the <b>one taking the vow, and</b> the sum fixed by the Torah based on <b>the years</b> of age is <b>in accordance with</b> the age of <b>the subject of the vow. And the</b> distinction based on sex that is written in the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>valuations</b> is stated <b>with regard to the one valuated, and the</b> different <b>valuation</b> based on the age of the one valuated is determined <b>at the time</b> one takes <b>the</b> vow of <b>valuation.</b> The mishna elaborates: <b>Affordability</b> is <b>in accordance with</b> the means of the <b>one taking the vow; how</b> so? <b>A destitute person who valuated a wealthy person gives</b> the <b>valuation</b> in accordance with the means <b>of a destitute person,</b> as determined by the priest. <b>And a wealthy person who valuated a destitute person gives</b> the <b>valuation</b> in accordance with the means <b>of a wealthy person,</b> the sum of which is fixed in the Torah.
<b>But with regard to offerings that is not so, as</b> one <b>who</b> took a vow and <b>said:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to provide <b>the offering of this leper,</b> to a leper who requires it for his purification; if the one undergoing purification <b>was a destitute leper,</b> the one who took the vow <b>brings the offering of a destitute</b> leper, which is one male sheep, a tenth of an ephah of fine flour, and two doves or two pigeons (see Leviticus 14:21–22). If the one undergoing purification <b>was a wealthy</b> leper, the one who took the vow <b>brings the offering of a wealthy</b> leper, which is two male sheep, a ewe, and three-tenths of a ephah of fine flour (see Leviticus 14:10). <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says: I say: Even with regard to valuations</b> it is <b>so.</b> He explains: <b>For what</b> reason <b>does a destitute person who valuated a wealthy person give</b> the <b>valuation</b> in accordance with the means <b>of a destitute person?</b> It is due to the fact <b>that the wealthy person is not obligated</b> to pay <b>anything,</b> as the debt was generated by the destitute person who vowed to donate the valuation of a wealthy individual. <b>But</b> in a case similar to that of the offerings of a leper, in the case of <b>a wealthy person who said:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>my valuation, and a destitute person heard</b> him <b>and said:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>that which he said,</b> the destitute person <b>gives the valuation of a wealthy person.</b> If when one took a vow of valuation <b>he was destitute and he became wealthy,</b> or if <b>he was wealthy and became destitute, he gives the valuation</b> in accordance with the means of <b>a wealthy person. Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> This is the <i>halakha</i> not only in a case where one was wealthy either at the time he took the vow or at the time of payment; even if when one took a vow of valuation <b>he was destitute and he became wealthy and again became destitute, he gives</b> the <b>valuation</b> in accordance with the means of <b>a wealthy person.</b>
<b>But with regard to</b> the <b>offerings</b> of a leper <b>that is not so,</b> as the offerings that one brings are determined by his status at the time he brings them. <b>Even</b> if it is common knowledge that <b>his father died and left him</b> an inheritance of <b>ten thousand</b> dinars, <b>or</b> that <b>his ship is at sea and</b> merchandise valued at <b>ten thousand</b> dinars <b>is coming into his</b> possession, <b>the Temple</b> treasury <b>has no</b> share <b>in it.</b> His payment is determined solely by his present situation.
The sum fixed by the Torah based on <b>the years</b> of age is <b>in accordance with</b> the age of <b>the subject of the vow; how</b> so? <b>A youth who valuated an elder gives the valuation of an elder, and an elder who valuated a youth gives the valuation of a youth. And the</b> distinction based on sex that is written in the <i>halakhot</i> of <b>valuations</b> is stated <b>with regard to the one valuated; how</b> so? <b>A man who valuated a woman gives the valuation of a woman, and a woman who valuated a man gives the valuation of a man.</b> <b>And the</b> different <b>valuation</b> based on the age of the one valuated is determined <b>at the time</b> one takes <b>the</b> vow of <b>valuation; how</b> so? If <b>one valuated</b> another when he was <b>less than five years old,</b> when his valuation is five shekels, <b>and</b> before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow <b>became more than five years old,</b> when his valuation is ten shekels; or if <b>one valuated</b> another when he was <b>less than twenty years old,</b> when his valuation is ten shekels, <b>and</b> before payment to the Temple treasury the subject of the vow <b>became more than twenty years old,</b> when his valuation is fifty shekels, in all these cases <b>he gives</b> payment according to the age of the subject of the valuation <b>at the time of the valuation.</b> The Torah provides three age categories that determine the amount of the valuation: From the age of one month until age five, from age five until age twenty, and from age twenty until age sixty. For anyone less than one month old there is no valuation. The halakhic status of the <b>thirtieth day</b> is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding</b> thirty days, and therefore the one who took the vow is exempt. Likewise, the halakhic status of the <b>fifth year and</b> the <b>twentieth year</b> is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding them. As it is stated: “And if it is from sixty years old and upward”</b> (Leviticus 27:7), and <b>we derive all</b> the other age categories <b>from</b> the <b>sixtieth year: Just as</b> the halakhic status of the <b>sixtieth year,</b> where upward is written, is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding it, so too,</b> the halakhic status of the <b>fifth year and</b> the <b>twentieth year</b> is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding them.</b> The mishna asks: Is that <b>so?</b> Can one derive a <i>halakha</i> in this manner? <b>If</b> the Torah <b>rendered</b> the halakhic status of the <b>sixtieth year like</b> that of the period <b>preceding it</b> in order <b>to be stringent</b> and require one who valuated a sixty-year-old person to pay his valuation to the Temple treasury, <b>shall we render</b> the halakhic status of the <b>fifth year and</b> the <b>twentieth year like</b> that of the period <b>preceding</b> them in order <b>to be lenient</b> and pay a lower sum? Therefore, <b>the verse states “year”</b> with regard to the fifth and twentieth years (see Leviticus 27:3–6), and <b>“year”</b> with regard to the sixtieth year (Leviticus 27:7), <b>for a verbal analogy. Just as</b> the halakhic status of the <b>year stated with regard to</b> the <b>sixtieth year</b> is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding</b> it, <b>so too,</b> the halakhic status of the <b>year stated with regard to</b> the <b>fifth year and</b> the <b>twentieth year</b> is <b>like</b> that of the period <b>preceding</b> them, <b>both</b> in order <b>to be lenient and</b> in order <b>to be stringent. Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, <b>until they will be</b> aged one <b>month and one day beyond the</b> fifth, twentieth, and sixtieth <b>years.</b>

Chapter 5

<b>One who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>my weight, gives his weight</b> to the Temple treasury; <b>if</b> he specified <b>silver</b> he donates <b>silver, and if</b> he specified <b>gold</b> he donates <b>gold.</b> There was <b>an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate the <b>weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her</b> daughter’s <b>weight</b> in <b>gold</b> to the Temple treasury. In the case of one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate the <b>weight of my forearm,</b> how does he ascertain the weight of his forearm? <b>Rabbi Yehuda says: He fills a barrel</b> with <b>water and inserts</b> his arm <b>up to his elbow</b> into the water. <b>And</b> in order to measure the displacement, <b>he weighs donkey flesh, and bones, and sinews and places</b> it <b>into</b> the barrel <b>until it fills,</b> and the water level reaches the top of the barrel. He then donates the weight of the meat and the bones to the Temple treasury. <b>Rabbi Yosei said:</b> Displacement is according to volume not according to weight, <b>and how then is it possible to match</b> the amount of the donkey <b>flesh with the flesh</b> of a person <b>and</b> the volume of the donkey’s <b>bones with</b> his <b>bones? Rather,</b> the court <b>appraises how much the forearm is likely to weigh.</b>
If one vows: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate the <b>assessment of my forearm,</b> the court <b>appraises him</b> to determine <b>how much he is worth with a forearm and</b> how much he is worth <b>without a forearm,</b> and he pays the difference. <b>This is</b> a <i>halakha</i> that is more <b>stringent with regard to vows</b> of assessment <b>than with regard to valuations,</b> as one who says: It is incumbent upon me to donate the valuation of my forearm, is exempt from paying. There are <i>halakhot</i> that are more <b>stringent with regard to valuations than with regard to vows</b> of assessment. <b>How so?</b> In the case of <b>one who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>my valuation, and</b> then <b>dies,</b> his <b>heirs must give</b> his valuation to the Temple treasury. But one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>my assessment, and</b> then <b>dies,</b> his <b>heirs</b> need <b>not give</b> his assessment to the Temple treasury, <b>as there is no monetary</b> value <b>for the dead.</b> One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the valuation of my forearm, or: The valuation of my leg, has not said anything,</b> as there are valuations in the Torah only for a complete person. But if one says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the valuation of my head, or: The valuation of my liver, he gives the valuation of his entire</b> self. <b>This is the principle:</b> One who valuates <b>an item upon which the soul is dependent,</b> i.e., without which one will die, <b>gives the valuation of his entire</b> self.
One who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>half of my valuation, gives half of his valuation.</b> But one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the valuation of half of me, gives the valuation of his entire</b> self. Likewise, one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>half of my assessment, gives half of his assessment;</b> one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the assessment of half of me, gives the assessment of his entire</b> self. <b>This is the principle:</b> One who takes a vow with regard to <b>an item upon which the soul is dependent gives the assessment of his entire</b> self.
With regard to <b>one who says:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the valuation of so-and-so,</b> and both <b>the one who vowed and the object of the vow die,</b> the <b>heirs</b> of the one who vowed <b>must give</b> the valuation of the object of the vow to the Temple treasury. With regard to one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to donate <b>the assessment of so-and-so, and the one who vowed dies,</b> his <b>heirs must give</b> his assessment to the Temple treasury. If <b>the object of the vow dies,</b> the <b>heirs</b> of the one who vowed need <b>not give</b> his assessment to the Temple treasury, <b>as there is no monetary</b> value <b>for the dead.</b>
In the case of one who says: <b>This bull</b> is consecrated as <b>a burnt offering, or: This house</b> is consecrated as <b>an offering, and the bull died or the house collapsed,</b> he <b>is exempt from paying</b> his commitment. But in the case of one who says: It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to give <b>this bull as a burnt offering, or:</b> It is incumbent <b>upon me</b> to give <b>this house</b> as <b>an offering,</b> if <b>the bull died or the house collapsed,</b> he is <b>obligated to pay</b> its value.
With regard to those <b>obligated</b> to pay <b>valuations,</b> the court <b>repossesses their</b> property to pay their debt to the Temple treasury. With regard to those <b>obligated</b> to bring <b>sin offerings and guilt offerings,</b> the court <b>does not repossess their</b> property; since one is obligated to bring them for atonement he would not delay bringing them. But with regard to those <b>obligated</b> to bring <b>burnt offerings and peace offerings,</b> the court <b>repossesses their</b> property;since these offerings are not obligatory for atonement, one might delay bringing them. <b>Although</b> one obligated to bring burnt offerings and peace offerings <b>does not achieve atonement until he</b> brings the offering <b>of his own volition, as it is stated:</b> “He shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting <b>of his volition”</b> (Leviticus 1:3), nevertheless the court <b>coerces him until he says: I want</b> to do so. <b>And likewise, you say</b> the same <b>with regard to women’s bills of divorce.</b> Although one divorces his wife only of his own volition, in any case where the Sages obligated a husband to divorce his wife the court <b>coerces him until he says: I want</b> to do so.

Chapter 6

One proclaims, i.e., publicly announces, <b>the appraisal of the</b> property inherited by minor <b>orphans,</b> which is being sold to repay their father’s debt, for <b>thirty days,</b> in order to receive the maximal price. <b>And</b> one proclaims <b>the appraisal of consecrated</b> property that is being sold by the Temple treasury for <b>sixty days, and one proclaims</b> it <b>in the morning and in the evening.</b> In the case of <b>one who consecrates his property and there was</b> the outstanding debt <b>of the marriage contract of</b> his <b>wife,</b> for whose repayment one’s property is liened, <b>Rabbi Eliezer says: When he divorces her, he shall vow</b> that <b>benefit</b> from her is forbidden to him. This is to prevent collusion, by which he divorces her, she collects payment from the consecrated property, and he then remarries her. <b>Rabbi Yehoshua says: He need not</b> do so. <b>On a similar note, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: Even</b> in the case of <b>the guarantor of a woman for her marriage contract, and her husband was divorcing her</b> and could not pay the debt, the husband <b>shall vow</b> that <b>benefit</b> from her is forbidden to him, <b>lest he</b> and his wife <b>engage in collusion [<i>kinunya</i>]</b> and collect payment from the property of <b>that</b> guarantor, <b>and</b> then the husband <b>will remarry his wife.</b>
In the case of <b>one who consecrates his property and there was</b> an outstanding debt of <b>the marriage contract of</b> his <b>wife and</b> of <b>a creditor, the woman may not collect</b> the payment of <b>her marriage contract from the Temple</b> treasury, <b>nor may the creditor</b> collect <b>his debt. Rather, the one who redeems</b> the property <b>redeems</b> it for a cheap price <b>in order to give the woman her marriage contract</b> payment <b>and the creditor his debt.</b> For example, if <b>one consecrated</b> property worth <b>nine thousand dinars and his debt was ten thousand dinars,</b> leaving no property for redemption, the creditor lends <b>an additional dinar</b> to the debtor <b>and</b> the debtor <b>redeems the property</b> with that dinar, <b>in order to give the woman her marriage contract</b> payment <b>and the creditor his debt.</b>
<b>Although</b> the Sages <b>said</b> (21a): With regard to those <b>obligated</b> to pay <b>valuations,</b> the court <b>repossesses their</b> property to pay their debt to the Temple treasury; nevertheless, the treasurer <b>gives him</b> permission to keep <b>food</b> sufficient for <b>thirty days, and garments</b> sufficient for <b>twelve months,</b> and <b>a bed made</b> with linens, <b>and his sandals, and his phylacteries.</b> The treasurer leaves these items <b>for him, but</b> he does <b>not</b> leave items <b>for his wife or for his children.</b> <b>If</b> the one obligated to pay <b>was a craftsman,</b> the treasurer <b>gives him</b> permission to keep <b>two tools of</b> his <b>craft of each and every type,</b> e.g., for <b>a carpenter,</b> the treasurer <b>gives him</b> permission to keep <b>two adzes [<i>matzadin</i>] and two saws. Rabbi Eliezer says: If he was a farmer,</b> the treasurer <b>gives him</b> permission to keep <b>his pair</b> of oxen with which he plows the field. If he was <b>a donkey driver,</b> the treasurer <b>gives him</b> permission to keep <b>his donkey.</b>
If <b>one had many</b> tools of <b>one type and few</b> tools of <b>one</b> other <b>type,</b> e.g., three adzes and one saw, <b>he</b> may <b>not say</b> to the treasurer <b>to sell</b> one tool <b>of the</b> type of which he has <b>many and to purchase</b> for him one tool <b>of the</b> type of which he has <b>few. Rather,</b> the treasurer <b>gives him two</b> tools <b>of the type</b> of which he has <b>many and</b> he retains <b>whatever he has of the</b> type of which he has <b>few.</b> In contrast to one whose property is repossessed to pay valuations, from <b>one who consecrates</b> all <b>his property,</b> the treasurer <b>takes his phylacteries,</b> as they are included in the category of all his property.
<b>Both</b> in the case of <b>one who consecrates his property and</b> the case of <b>one who valuates himself,</b> when the Temple treasurer repossesses his property he <b>has</b> the right to repossess <b>neither the garment of his wife nor the garment of his children, nor the dyed</b> garments <b>that he dyed for their sake,</b> even if they have yet to wear them, <b>nor the new sandals that he purchased for their sake.</b> <b>Although</b> the merchants <b>said: Slaves are sold in their garments for profit, as if</b> a fine <b>garment</b> worth <b>thirty dinars would be purchased for him,</b> his sale price <b>appreciates by one hundred dinars; and likewise</b> with regard to <b>a cow, if one waits</b> to sell <b>it until the market [<i>la’itlis</i>]</b> day, when demand is high, <b>its</b> sale price <b>appreciates; and likewise</b> with regard to <b>a pearl, if one brings it to</b> sell it in <b>the city,</b> where demand is high, <b>its</b> sale price <b>appreciates;</b> nevertheless, one does not make such a calculation in this case. Rather, <b>the Temple treasury has</b> the right to collect the item based <b>only</b> on <b>its</b> current <b>location and its</b> price at the present <b>time.</b>

Chapter 7

<b>One may neither consecrate</b> an ancestral field, i.e., a field that he inherited, <b>less than two years before the Jubilee</b> Year, <b>nor may one redeem</b> such a field <b>less than one year after the Jubilee</b> Year. When redeeming an ancestral field that has been consecrated, the sum paid to redeem the field is calculated based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. When performing this calculation, <b>one does not count months</b> of a partial year in order to lower the price to be paid <b>to the Temple</b> treasury; rather, he pays for the entire year. <b>But the Temple</b> treasury may <b>count months</b> in order to raise the price of redemption, as will be explained. In the case of <b>one who consecrates</b> his ancestral <b>field during a period</b> when <b>the Jubilee</b> Year is observed and wishes to redeem it, <b>he gives</b> the Temple treasury <b>fifty</b> <i>sela</i>, a talmudic measure referred to in the Bible as <b>silver shekels, for</b> an area required for <b>sowing a <i>ḥomer</i>,</b> a measure known in talmudic terminology as one <i>kor</i>, of <b>barley seed</b> (see Leviticus 27:16). If <b>there were crevices [<i>neka’im</i>] ten handbreadths deep</b> in the field, <b>or</b> if there were <b>boulders ten handbreadths high,</b> then when calculating the redemption price those areas <b>are not measured with</b> the rest of the field. But if the depth of the crevices, or the height of the boulders, was <b>less than that</b> amount, <b>they are measured with</b> the rest of the field. If <b>he consecrated</b> the field <b>two or three years before the Jubilee</b> Year and wishes to redeem it, <b>he gives</b> the Temple treasury <b>a <i>sela</i> and a <i>pundeyon</i>,</b> a pundeyon being one forty-eighth of a <i>sela</i>, <b>per year</b> remaining until the Jubilee Year. <b>And if he said: I will give</b> the payment <b>for each year during</b> that <b>year, one does not listen to him; rather, he</b> must <b>give</b> the <b>entire</b> sum <b>in one</b> payment. 
This is the <i>halakha</i> <b>both</b> with regard to a case where <b>the owner</b> redeems the field <b>and</b> a case where <b>any</b> other <b>person</b> redeems the field. <b>What</b> then <b>is</b> the difference <b>between</b> redemption by <b>the owner and</b> redemption by <b>any</b> other <b>person?</b> It is <b>only that the owner gives</b> an extra <b>one-fifth</b> in addition to the payment, <b>and any</b> other <b>person</b> who redeems the field <b>does not give</b> the additional <b>one-fifth.</b> 
If <b>one consecrated</b> his ancestral field <b>and</b> then <b>redeemed it</b> himself, <b>it is not removed from his possession</b> to be divided among the priests <b>during the Jubilee</b> Year. If <b>his son redeemed it,</b> the field <b>is removed</b> from the son’s possession and returns <b>to his father during the Jubilee</b> Year. But if <b>another</b> person <b>or one of his</b> other <b>relatives redeemed</b> the field <b>and</b> the owner subsequently <b>redeemed it from his possession,</b> the field is <b>removed</b> from the owner’s possession and given <b>to the priests during the Jubilee</b> Year. If <b>one of the priests redeemed</b> the field <b>and</b> when the Jubilee arrived <b>it</b> was <b>in his possession, he may not say: Since it is removed</b> from the possession of the one who redeemed it and given <b>to the priests during the Jubilee</b> Year, <b>and</b> since <b>it is</b> already <b>in my possession, it is mine. Rather,</b> the field <b>is removed from his possession and is divided among all his brethren, the priests.</b> 
If one consecrated his ancestral field and the <b>Jubilee</b> Year <b>arrived and it was not redeemed</b> by the owner or anyone else, <b>the priests enter into</b> the field <b>and give its</b> redemption <b>payment</b> to the Temple treasury; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: They enter</b> into the field, <b>but they do not give</b> its redemption payment to the Temple treasury.<b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> The priests <b>do not enter</b> into the field, <b>and</b> they also <b>do not give</b> its redemption payment to the Temple treasury. <b>Rather,</b> the field remains in the possession of the Temple treasury, and <b>it is called: An abandoned field, until the second Jubilee</b> Year. If <b>the second Jubilee arrived and it was</b> still <b>not redeemed, it is called: An abandoned</b> field from among the <b>abandoned</b> fields, meaning one that was abandoned twice, <b>until the third Jubilee.</b> In any case, <b>the priests never enter into</b> a consecrated field during the Jubilee Year <b>until another</b> person <b>redeems it</b> first. 
<b>One who purchases</b> an ancestral <b>field from his father, and his father</b> subsequently <b>died and afterward</b> the son <b>consecrated it, its</b> halakhic status <b>is like</b> that of <b>an ancestral field,</b> as he inherited his father’s ancestral rights prior to the consecration. Consequently, the field’s redemption price is calculated on the basis of fifty <i>sela</i> per <i>beit kor</i>, and if another redeems it instead of the son, it is given to the priests during the Jubilee Year. But if the son <b>consecrated</b> the field <b>and afterward his father died, its</b> halakhic status <b>is like</b> that of <b>a purchased field,</b> whose redemption price is based on its monetary value, and which will return to the ancestral owner, i.e., the son, at the Jubilee; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Meir.</b> <b>Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon say:</b> Even in a case where the son consecrated the field before his father died, <b>its</b> halakhic status <b>is like</b> that of <b>an ancestral field, as it is stated</b> with regard to a purchased field: “And <b>if</b> he will consecrate unto the Lord <b>a field that he has bought, which is not of his ancestral field”</b> (Leviticus 27:22), indicating that this <i>halakha</i> applies only to <b>a field that is not due to become</b> his <b>ancestral field,</b> thereby <b>excluding this</b> field, <b>which</b> at the time of consecration <b>is due to become</b> his <b>ancestral field</b> in the future, when his father dies. The mishna continues: <b>A purchased field</b> that was consecrated <b>is not removed</b> from the possession of the Temple treasury and given <b>to the priests during the Jubilee</b> Year, <b>as</b> the purchase of the land was valid only until the Jubilee, at which point fields return to their ancestral owners, and <b>a person cannot consecrate an item that is not his. The priests and the Levites may always consecrate</b> their ancestral fields <b>and may always redeem</b> their ancestral fields, <b>both before the Jubilee</b> Year <b>and after the Jubilee</b> Year.

Chapter 8

In the case of <b>one who consecrates his</b> ancestral <b>field during a period when the Jubilee</b> Year <b>is not</b> observed, and therefore the field is not redeemed according to a fixed rate of fifty shekels per <i>beit kor</i> but according to its value, when the treasurer announces the sale of the field <b>he says to</b> the owner: <b>You open</b> the bidding <b>first;</b> how much do you offer for its redemption? This method is advantageous for the Temple treasury, <b>as the owner gives</b> an additional payment of <b>one-fifth</b> of the value of the field, <b>and every</b> other <b>person does not give</b> an additional <b>one-fifth</b> payment. There was <b>an incident involving one who consecrated his field due to its inferior quality.</b> The treasurers <b>said to him: You open</b> the bidding <b>first. He said:</b> It is <b>hereby mine for an <i>issar</i>,</b> a small sum. <b>Rabbi Yosei says: That</b> person <b>did not say</b> he would purchase it <b>for an <i>issar</i>; rather,</b> he said he would purchase it <b>for an egg, as consecrated</b> items <b>may be redeemed with money or with the equivalent</b> value of <b>money.</b> The treasurer <b>said to him:</b> The field <b>has come into your</b> possession based on your bid. As <b>a result, he loses an <i>issar</i> and his field</b> remains <b>before him</b> in his possession.
If <b>one said:</b> The field is <b>hereby mine for ten <i>sela</i>, and one</b> other person <b>said:</b> It is mine <b>for twenty, and one said for thirty, and one said for forty, and one said for fifty;</b> and then the one who bid <b>fifty reneged</b> on his offer, the treasurer <b>repossesses from his property up to ten</b> <i>sela</i> and the field is redeemed by the one who bid forty. This ensures that the Temple treasury does not lose. If the one who bid <b>forty</b> <i>sela</i> subsequently <b>reneged</b> on his offer, the treasurer <b>repossesses from his property up to ten</b> <i>sela</i> and the field is redeemed by the one who bid thirty. If the one who bid <b>thirty</b> subsequently <b>reneged</b> on his offer, the treasurer <b>repossesses from his property up to ten</b> <i>sela</i> and the field is redeemed by the one who bid twenty. If the one who bid <b>twenty reneged</b> on his offer, the treasurer <b>repossesses from his property up to ten</b> <i>sela</i> and it is redeemed by the one who bid ten. If the one who bid <b>ten reneged</b> on his offer, the treasurer <b>sells</b> the field <b>at its value and collects the remainder from</b> the property <b>of the one</b> who bid <b>ten,</b> to complete the sum of ten <i>sela</i>. If <b>the owner says</b> he will pay <b>twenty</b> <i>sela</i> <b>and any</b> other <b>person says</b> he will pay <b>twenty</b> <i>sela</i>, the offer of <b>the owner takes precedence, due to</b> the fact <b>that</b> he <b>adds one-fifth.</b> 
If the owner says he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and <b>one</b> other person <b>said:</b> The field <b>is hereby mine for</b> a payment of <b>twenty-one</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>the owner gives twenty-six</b> <i>sela</i> and takes the field. He pays the twenty that he initially offered; plus five <i>sela</i>, which is one-fifth of the total future sum, i.e., one-quarter of his initial offer. In addition, he adds one <i>sela</i>, the difference between his initial offer and that of the other person, so that the Temple treasury will not receive less than the twenty-one <i>sela</i> offer proposed by the other person. If the owner says he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and another person said: The field is hereby mine for a payment <b>of twenty-two</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>the owner gives twenty-seven</b> <i>sela</i> and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment <b>of twenty-three</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>the owner gives twenty-eight</b> <i>sela</i> and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment <b>of twenty-four</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>the owner gives twenty-nine</b> <i>sela</i> and takes the field. If the owner says he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and another said: The field is hereby mine for a payment <b>of twenty-five</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>the owner gives thirty</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>as</b> the owner adds one-fifth only to the amount that he bid, and <b>does not add one-fifth to the addition of that</b> other person. If the owner said he will pay twenty <i>sela</i> and <b>one</b> other person <b>said:</b> The field is <b>hereby mine</b> for a payment <b>of twenty-six</b> <i>sela</i>, <b>if the owner wished to pay thirty-one</b> <i>sela</i> <b>and a dinar the owner takes precedence; and if not,</b> the treasurer <b>says to the other person:</b> The field <b>has come into your</b> possession based on your bid, as it is more than the Temple treasury can compel the owner to pay.
<b>A person</b> may <b>dedicate,</b> for sacred or priestly use, some <b>of his flock and</b> some <b>of his cattle, and</b> some <b>of his Canaanite slaves and maidservants, and some of his ancestral field. But if he dedicated all</b> that he has <b>of</b> any type of property, <b>they are not dedicated,</b> i.e., the dedication does not take effect; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: If for the Most High a person may not dedicate all his property,</b> it is <b>all the more so</b> the case <b>that a person should spare his property</b> and not give all of it to others.
In the case of <b>one who dedicates his son or his daughter, or his Hebrew slave or maidservant, or his purchased field,</b> those items <b>are not</b> considered <b>dedicated, as a person</b> may <b>not dedicate an item that is not his. Priests and Levites may not dedicate</b> their property; this is <b>the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Priests may not dedicate</b> their property, <b>as</b> all <b>dedicated</b> property <b>is theirs;</b> it is one of the priestly gifts, as the verse states: “Everything dedicated in Israel shall be yours” (Numbers 18:14). <b>But Levites may dedicate</b> their property, <b>as dedicated</b> property <b>is not theirs.</b> <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda appears</b> to be correct <b>with regard to land, as it is stated</b> about the land of the Levites: “But the fields of the open land surrounding their cities may not be sold, <b>as that is their perpetual possession”</b> (Leviticus 25:34), and they cannot renounce that land. <b>And the statement of Rabbi Shimon appears</b> to be correct <b>with regard to movable property,</b> which the Levites may dedicate, <b>as dedicated</b> property <b>is not theirs.</b> It is a gift for the priests, not the Levites.
<b>Dedications</b> of property for <b>priests,</b> unlike consecrations of property for Temple maintenance, <b>have no redemption; rather, one gives</b> it <b>to the priests,</b> and it is their property in every sense, <b>like <i>teruma</i>. Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Dedications</b> dedicated <b>without specification</b> of their purpose are designated <b>for Temple maintenance, as it is stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”</b> (Leviticus 27:28). <b>And the Rabbis say: Dedications</b> dedicated <b>without specification</b> of their purpose are designated <b>for priests, as it is stated</b> with regard to one who consecrated a field and did not redeem it: <b>“As a field dedicated; its possession shall be to the priest”</b> (Leviticus 27:21), indicating that a non-specific dedication belongs to the priest. <b>If so, why is it stated: “Every dedicated item is most sacred to the Lord”?</b> This comes to teach <b>that</b> dedication <b>takes effect on offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity.</b> If one consecrated an animal for sacrifice and then dedicated it, the dedication takes effect. Nevertheless, it does not take effect on the body of the animal; rather, it applies to the owner’s financial stake in the offering.
As the Sages delineated: <b>A person may dedicate his sacrificial animals, both offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. If</b> the offering he dedicated was the object of <b>a vow,</b> e.g., if he said: It is incumbent upon me to sacrifice a burnt offering, since he is obligated to replace such offerings they are considered his property, and therefore <b>he gives their value</b> to the priests. <b>And if</b> the offering he dedicated was <b>a gift offering,</b> e.g., if he said: This animal is a burnt offering, in which case he is not obligated to replace the animal, <b>he gives</b> the monetary <b>benefit</b> that he has in <b>them.</b> For example, if he said: <b>This bull is a burnt offering, one estimates how much</b> money <b>a person</b> would be <b>willing to give</b> in order to <b>sacrifice</b> the animal as a voluntary <b>burnt offering, even though he is not permitted</b> to do so. With regard to <b>a firstborn</b> animal, <b>whether</b> it is <b>unblemished</b> or <b>whether</b> it is <b>blemished,</b> its owner <b>may dedicate it. And how does one</b> assess the payment required to <b>redeem it? One estimates how much</b> an Israelite <b>person</b> would <b>be willing to give in</b> exchange for <b>that firstborn</b> in order <b>to give it to</b> a priest who is <b>his daughter’s son or to</b> a priest who is <b>his sister’s son.</b> <b>Rabbi Yishmael says: One verse states:</b> “All the firstborn males that are born of your herd and of your flock <b>you shall consecrate</b> to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 15:19), <b>and one verse states:</b> “However, the firstborn among animals that is born first to the Lord, a man <b>shall not consecrate</b> it” (Leviticus 27:26). It is <b>impossible to say: “You shall consecrate,” as it is already stated:</b> “A man <b>shall not consecrate.”</b> It is likewise <b>impossible to say:</b> “A man <b>shall not consecrate,” as it is already stated: “You shall consecrate.”</b> <b>How,</b> then, can <b>these</b> verses be reconciled? <b>You can consecrate</b> the firstborn animal by <b>a consecration of value,</b> i.e., an individual can donate to the Temple treasury the amount he would be willing to pay for the right to give the firstborn to a specific priest; <b>and you cannot consecrate it</b> by <b>a consecration for the altar,</b> as a firstborn may not be sacrificed for the sake of any other offering.

Chapter 9

<b>One who sells his field during a period</b> when <b>the Jubilee</b> Year is in effect <b>is not permitted to redeem it less than two years</b> after the sale, <b>as it is stated: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”</b> (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years. If one of those years <b>was a year of blight or mildew, or</b> if it was the <b>Sabbatical Year,</b> when the buyer is unable to derive benefit from the field, that year <b>does not count</b> as part <b>of the tally,</b> and the owner must wait an additional year before redeeming the field. If the buyer <b>plowed</b> the field but did not sow it, <b>or</b> if <b>he left it fallow,</b> that year <b>counts</b> as part <b>of his tally,</b> as it was fit to produce a crop. <b>Rabbi Eliezer says:</b> If the owner of the field <b>sold it to</b> the buyer <b>before Rosh HaShana and</b> the field <b>was full of produce,</b> and the owner redeems the field after two years, <b>that</b> buyer <b>consumes from</b> the field’s produce <b>three crops in two years.</b> Although he received the field with its crop, he is not required to return it in the same state.
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 <b>sold it to the first</b> buyer <b>for one hundred</b> dinars <b>and the first</b> buyer then <b>sold</b> it <b>to the second</b> buyer <b>for two hundred</b> dinars, when the original owner redeems the field <b>he calculates</b> the payment <b>only</b> according to the price that he set <b>with the first</b> buyer, <b>as it is stated:</b> “And he calculates the years of its sale, and he returns the remainder to the man <b>to whom he sold it”</b> (Leviticus 25:27). If the owner of a field <b>sold it to the first</b> buyer <b>for two hundred</b> dinars <b>and the first</b> buyer then <b>sold</b> it <b>to the second</b> buyer <b>for one hundred</b> dinars, when the original owner redeems the field, <b>he calculates</b> the payment <b>only</b> according to the price that was paid <b>by the last</b> buyer, <b>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.”</b> The superfluous term “to the man” indicates that the verse is referring <b>to the man who is</b> currently <b>in</b> possession of the field. One <b>may not sell</b> his ancestral field that is located <b>in a distant</b> area <b>and redeem</b> with the proceeds a field that he sold <b>in a nearby</b> area. Likewise, he may not sell <b>a low-quality</b> field <b>and redeem with</b> the proceeds <b>a high-quality</b> field. <b>And he may not borrow</b> money <b>and redeem</b> the field, <b>nor may he redeem</b> the field incrementally, <b>half</b> now and half at a later date. <b>But with regard to</b> redeeming a field from <b>the Temple</b> treasury, it is <b>permitted</b> to redeem the field <b>in any of these</b> ways. <b>This is</b> a <i>halakha</i> where greater <b>stringency</b> applies <b>with regard to</b> redeeming a field from <b>an ordinary</b> individual <b>than with regard to</b> redeeming it from <b>the Temple</b> treasury. 
<b>One who sells a house</b> from <b>among the houses of walled cities may redeem</b> the house <b>immediately,</b> even without the consent of the buyer, <b>and he may redeem</b> the house during <b>the entire twelve months</b> following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and <b>this is</b> ostensibly <b>like a form of interest,</b> as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer’s money was in the possession of the seller. <b>It is not</b> considered <b>interest,</b> because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it. If <b>the seller died, his son may redeem</b> the house from the buyer. If <b>the buyer died,</b> the seller <b>may redeem</b> it <b>from the possession of</b> the buyer’s <b>son.</b> If the buyer sold the house to another, <b>one calculates</b> the <b>year only from the time that</b> the owner <b>sold</b> the house to the first buyer, <b>as it is stated:</b> “And if it is not redeemed <b>until the passage of</b> a full <b>year for him,</b> then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). The term “for him” indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house. <b>When it says: “A full</b> year,” this serves <b>to include the intercalated month</b> in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. <b>Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi <b>says:</b> The word “full” serves <b>to give</b> the seller <b>a year and its addition,</b> i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. 
If the final <b>day of the twelve-month</b> period <b>arrived and</b> the house <b>was not redeemed,</b> the house has <b>become</b> the property <b>of</b> the buyer <b>in perpetuity.</b> This is the <i>halakha</i> with regard to both <b>one who buys</b> a house in a walled city <b>and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated:</b> “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it <b>in perpetuity”</b> (Leviticus 25:30). <b>At first,</b> the buyer <b>would conceal himself</b> on the final <b>day of the twelve-month</b> period, <b>in order to</b> ensure <b>that it would become his in perpetuity. Hillel instituted that</b> the seller <b>would place [<i>ḥolesh</i>] his money in the chamber</b> of the court <b>and</b> that <b>he will break the door and enter</b> the house, and <b>when the other</b> individual, i.e., the buyer, <b>will wish</b> to do so, <b>he may come</b> to the chamber <b>and take his money.</b>
The halakhic status of <b>any</b> area <b>that is</b> located <b>within the</b> city <b>wall is like</b> that <b>of the houses of walled cities</b> in terms of its redemption, <b>except for the fields</b> located therein. <b>Rabbi Meir says: Even the fields</b> are included in this category. With regard to <b>a house that is built in the wall</b> itself, <b>Rabbi Yehuda says:</b> Its halakhic status <b>is not like</b> that <b>of the houses of walled cities. Rabbi Shimon says: The outer wall</b> of the house <b>is</b> considered the city <b>wall,</b> and therefore it has the status of a house in a walled city.
The halakhic status of a house in <b>a city whose</b> houses are attached and their <b>rooftops</b> constitute the top of <b>its wall, and</b> likewise, the status of a house in a city <b>that is not surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun,</b> even if a surrounding wall was constructed during a later period, <b>is not like</b> that <b>of the houses of walled cities. And these are the houses of walled cities:</b> Any city in which there are at least <b>three courtyards,</b> each containing <b>two houses,</b> and which is <b>surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, e.g., the ancient fort [<i>katzra</i>] of Tzippori, and the fortress [<i>ḥakra</i>] of Gush Ḥalav, and ancient Yodfat, and Gamla, and Gedod, and Ḥadid, and Ono, and Jerusalem, and likewise</b> other <b>similar</b> cities.
With regard to the <b>houses of the</b> unwalled <b>courtyards</b> mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 25:31), i.e., houses in villages that are not surrounded by walls, <b>one accords them the exceptional provisions that</b> apply <b>to houses of walled cities and the exceptional provisions that</b> apply <b>to fields.</b> Therefore, <b>they are redeemed immediately and</b> for <b>the entire twelve months</b> following the sale, <b>like</b> in <b>the</b> sale of <b>houses</b> of walled cities, and not like fields, which may be redeemed only after two years. <b>And they leave</b> the possession of the buyer <b>during the Jubilee</b> Year <b>or with</b> a per annum <b>deduction</b> from the <b>money</b> of the sale price, <b>like the</b> sale of <b>fields.</b> By contrast, houses of walled cities become the possession of the buyer in perpetuity after one year, and if they are redeemed within the year, one pays the full sale price. <b>And these are the houses of the</b> unwalled <b>courtyards</b> whose <i>halakha</i> was taught in the previous mishna: Any city in which there are <b>two courtyards</b> each containing <b>two houses, although it is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, their</b> halakhic status <b>is like that of the houses of</b> the unwalled <b>courtyards.</b>
<b>An Israelite who inherited</b> a house in a walled city from <b>his mother’s father</b> who was <b>a Levite does not redeem</b> the house <b>in accordance with this procedure</b> delineated in the previous <i>mishnayot</i>; rather, if he sold the inherited house, he may redeem it always, like a Levite. <b>And likewise, a Levite who inherited</b> a house in a walled city from <b>his mother’s father</b> who was <b>an Israelite does not redeem</b> the house <b>in accordance with this procedure</b> delineated in the previous <i>mishnayot</i>. The mishna provides the source for these <i>halakhot</i>: <b>As it is stated:</b> “And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year; <b>as the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession</b> among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 25:33). The verse indicates that the ability to always redeem the house of a Levite does not apply <b>unless</b> the one selling the house <b>will be a Levite and</b> the house is located in <b>the cities of the Levites.</b> This is <b>the statement of Rabbi</b> Yehuda HaNasi. <b>And the Rabbis say: These matters are stated only</b> with regard to a house <b>in the cities of the Levites,</b> even if the owner was not a Levite. The Levites received two thousand cubits surrounding their cities, one thousand cubits of empty lots and one thousand cubits for fields and vineyards. <b>One may neither render a field</b> an empty <b>lot nor</b> an empty <b>lot a field.</b> Similarly, one may neither incorporate an empty <b>lot</b> into <b>a city nor</b> render part of <b>a city</b> an empty <b>lot.</b> <b>Rabbi Elazar said: In what</b> case <b>is this statement said?</b> It applies <b>in the cities of the Levites. But in the cities of the Israelites one may render a field</b> an empty <b>lot but not</b> an empty <b>lot a field,</b> and one may incorporate an empty <b>lot</b> into <b>a city but not</b> render part of <b>a city</b> an empty <b>lot,</b> in order to ensure <b>that they will not</b> thereby <b>destroy the cities of Israel. The priests and the Levites may sell</b> their fields and houses <b>always and may redeem</b> them <b>always, as it is stated: “The Levites shall have a perpetual right of redemption”</b> (Leviticus 25:32). Priests are also members of the tribe of Levi.