Texts
Explore
Community
Donate
Log in
Sign up
Site Language
עברית
English
Laws of Selling Ancestral Fields
Property Law
Sources
A
Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason
for this
halakha
? This is
because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field that his power is enhanced, as, if the Jubilee
Year
arrives and it is not redeemed,
the ancestral field
returns to its owners in the Jubilee
Year without them having to pay for it. Therefore,
the power
of the seller
is diminished in
that
he cannot borrow
money
and redeem
the field but must have the money to do so on his own,
and
he cannot
partially redeem
it.
Kiddushin 20b:16
MISHNA:
One who sells his field during a period
when
the Jubilee
Year is in effect
is not permitted to redeem it less than two years
after the sale,
as it is stated: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”
(Leviticus 25:15). The plural form “years” indicates a minimum of two years. If one of those years
was a year of blight or mildew, or
if it was the
Sabbatical Year,
when the buyer is unable to derive benefit from the field, that year
does not count
as part
of the tally…
Arakhin 29b:1-5
Furthermore, Rav Pappa says: If one
sold
fields that are
rocky
and unsuitable for planting,
they may be redeemed
from the purchaser
in
even
less than two years,
despite the fact that normally land must be left in the hands of the purchaser for at least two years (see 29b), as derived from the plural term “years of the crops” cited below.
What is the reason? The Merciful One states:
“According to the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor…
Arakhin 14b:8-10
The Gemara responds:
With what are we dealing here?
We are dealing with a case
where he purchased
the field
for sixty years. As Rav Ḥisda says
that
Rav Ketina says: From where
is it derived with regard
to one who sells his field for sixty years
or any fixed length of time,
that it does not return
to its original owner
in
the
Jubilee
Year?
As it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold in perpetuity”
(Leviticus 25:23). This prohibition applies to land
which,
if
there
were
no Jubilee
Year…
Bava Metzia 79a:12
The Gemara objects:
But if
the field
is indeed sold, let it stand in
the buyer’s
possession until after
the
Jubilee
Year,
and after
the
Jubilee
Year
let him consume
the field’s produce for two
years of crops, and
only then
return
the field.
Isn’t it taught
in a
baraita
: If the buyer
consumed
the field’s produce for
one year before the Jubilee
Year,
he completes another year after the Jubilee
Year? The Gemara explains: The cases are not comparable…
Arakhin 29b:10
[The portions of]
Eretz Yisrael
that were divided among the tribes can never be sold permanently, as [Leviticus 25:23] states: "The land will not be sold in perpetuity." If one sells the land in perpetuity, both [the buyer and the seller] violate a negative commandment. Their deeds are of no consequence, and the land reverts to its [original] owner in the Jubilee year. When a person sells his field for 60 years, it is not returned in the Jubilee. For [the only property] that returns in the Jubilee year is property that is sold without qualification or property that is sold in perpetuity.
Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee 11
The Gemara states: Concerning the
two years
stated
with regard to an ancestral field,
this is derived from the fact
that it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you”
(Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both “years” and “crops” indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are
times when a person
might
eat three
yields of
crops in two years.
If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested…
Arakhin 18b:10
Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason
for this leniency in the case of consecrated fields? It is
because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field, that
the Torah
enhanced his power,
in
that if the Jubilee
Year
arrived and
the field
was not redeemed, it returns to
its original
owners in the Jubilee
Year. Therefore,
his power was diminished
with regard to the manner of redemption, in
that he cannot borrow
money
and redeem
the field,
and he cannot partially redeem
it.
Arakhin 30b:22
§ The mishna states that
Rabbi Eliezer says:
If the owner of the field
sold it to
the buyer before Rosh HaShana and the field was full of produce, and the owner redeems the field after two years, the buyer consumes three crops of the field’s produce in two years. With regard to this
halakha
it is taught
in a
baraita
that
Rabbi Eliezer says: From where
is it derived
that if
the owner of the field
sold it to
the buyer
before Rosh HaShana full of produce…
Arakhin 30a:6-12
The Gemara
raises an objection
from a mishna to the ruling that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The
halakha
is that if one sells his field in Eretz Yisrael in a time when the
halakhot
of the Jubilee Year are in effect, he does not have the right to purchase it from the buyer until two years have passed. The mishna teaches (
Arakhin
29b): If it
was a year of wind-blasted
crops
or mildew or
it was the
Sabbatical
Year…
Bava Metzia 106a:8
Abaye said: If Ravin had not sent
this letter,
would we not have known
that the husband has the status of a purchaser?
But didn’t we learn
in the mishna (
Bekhorot
52b):
These
properties
do not return
to their original owners
in the Jubilee
Year (see Leviticus 25:13–24): The portion of
the firstborn,
i.e., it does not return to the common ownership of the brothers to be shared equally like the rest of the inheritance, but rather remains in the possession of the firstborn;
Bava Batra 139a:21
MISHNA:
And these
are the people
whose
properties, unlike an ancestral field,
do not return
to their original owners
in the Jubilee
Year: The firstborn who inherited his father’s property by the right of
primogeniture
need not return the extra portion for redistribution among the brothers;
and one who inherits his wife’s
property need not return it to her family;
and one who consummates the levirate marriage with the wife of his brother
and gains the right to his brother’s property need not return it for redistribution among the…
Bekhorot 52b:3-16
The Gemara asks:
But still,
this is difficult;
does
the
Jubilee
Year
release
the term of
a contractor? The Merciful One states: “Permanently”
(Leviticus 25:23), which indicates that only land that was permanently sold returns to its owner, whereas land that was rented does not revert to the owner at the Jubilee Year.
Rather, say
that the
baraita
reads as follows: In the case of
one who purchases a field from another and the Jubilee
Year
arrives,
the court
appraises
it
for him.
…
Bava Metzia 109a:6-8
The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: “According to his years he shall give back the price of
his redemption [
ge’ullato
]”
(Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term “
ge’ullato
” can be
derived from
the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: “And he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to
redeem it [
ge’ullato
]”
(Leviticus 25:26). Accordingly,
just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed…
Kiddushin 20b:8
The Gemara notes:
And
both statements of Rabbi Yoḥanan
are necessary. As, if he had taught
this
halakha
to
us
only
here,
with regard to animal tithe, one might have thought that it is
in this
case that
Rabbi Yoḥanan says
each one has not received his own portion. This is because the case must be
similar to
the case of
your
firstborn
son,
in accordance with the juxtaposition between the two cases.
Just as your
firstborn
son
is redeemed only if it
is clear to you
that he is your son…
Bekhorot 57a:2
The Gemara discusses a similar matter.
Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:
In the case of
one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, can
it
be redeemed by relatives or can
it
not be redeemed by relatives?
Is the ability to redeem a house limited to the seller himself? The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one
derive
the verbal analogy of
“
ge’ullato
”
(Leviticus 25:29) and
“
ge’ullato
”
(Leviticus 25:26)
from an ancestral field
in this manner:
Just as an ancestral…
Kiddushin 21a:9
The Sages said to Rav Pappa, and some say
that
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua,
said
to Rav Pappa: But
consider the case
of the Jubilee
Year,
as it is written:
“In this year of Jubilee
you shall return
every man unto his possession” (Leviticus 25:13), and the Sages teach that this verse serves
to include the gift, and
yet
Rabbi Meir does not include
a gift.
Rather, this
baraita
is
certainly not in accordance with
the opinion of
Rabbi Meir.
Arakhin 31b:14
As it is taught
in a
baraita
, with regard to a verse that deals with one who sells ancestral land:
“And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold”
(Leviticus 25:25), this redemption is
optional,
i.e., if he wishes to do so he may redeem the land. Do
you say
that it is
optional or is it nothing other
than
an obligation? The verse states
concerning an ancestral field that was sold:
“And if a man has no one to redeem it”
(Leviticus 25:26)…
Kiddushin 21a:13
The Gemara asks: Is that
to say that
the term
“and finds” indicates
an item that was there
initially,
prior to the incident in question?
And
the Gemara
raises a contradiction
from that which is written with regard to one who seeks to redeem an ancestral field that he sold: “And he acquires the means and finds sufficient funds for his redemption” (Leviticus 25:26). The term
“and finds”
serves
to exclude
one who, in order to accrue funds to redeem his field, sells a field that was
found
in his possession when he originally sold the field…
Makkot 8a:11
Rav Yosef said: Let us see
if it is possible to resolve Rav Anan’s dilemma. It may be resolved
from that which is taught in a
baraita
:
In the case of
one who sells his slave to
a Jew
outside of Eretz
Yisrael, the slave
is emancipated but
nevertheless
requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Conclude from
the
baraita
as follows:
Since
the
baraita
calls the second
owner the slave’s
master,
and requires him to emancipate the slave,
evidently the sale is not retracted…
Arakhin 29b:13
Property Law
דיני רכוש
Laws of the Release of Loans
Laws of Selling Ancestral Fields
Laws of Selling Property in a Walled City
Laws of the Methods of Acquisition
Laws of Retraction of a Transaction before its Completion
Laws of Cancellation of a Transaction and the Seller's Responsibility
Stipulations of a Purchased Acquisition
Intent of the Seller and the Purchaser
Laws of Ownerless Property
Laws of Gifts
More
Sheets
דפי מקורות
Related Sheets
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible on our site. Click OK to continue using Sefaria.
Learn More
.
OK
אנחנו משתמשים ב"עוגיות" כדי לתת למשתמשים את חוויית השימוש הטובה ביותר.
קראו עוד בנושא
לחצו כאן לאישור
