This is the Eri B. Sitt Edition, an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. May the merit of Shemuel, Avraham, Shaul, and the parents who gave them to us bring them favor in the eyes of people and God, and may the Holy Spirit fill their hearts with good deeds. Amen, amen.
We are in the middle of the page, beginning with the Mishnah. The case concerns a woman who is owed her marriage settlement and a creditor to whom the man owes money. The man consecrated all his assets to the Temple treasury. Ordinarily, neither the woman nor the creditor can simply collect directly from those assets. Although the consecration should not technically take effect on property already subject to a lien, because the property does not entirely belong to the debtor, the Mishnah nevertheless says that they cannot collect from it directly. They must first redeem the consecrated property.
Why is redemption necessary? Suppose the man owes one hundred, but he has only ninety in consecrated property. The creditor himself can come and perform the redemption. He can add the missing ten—or whatever amount is necessary—and redeem the ninety with a small coin. He does not need to redeem the property for its full value. He can redeem property worth ninety with less than its value, merely to remove the consecration, and then use the property to pay the marriage settlement or the debt.
The Gemara presents the case as follows: the marriage settlement became due only after the divorce had already taken place. There is no concern here that the divorce was arranged merely as a legal maneuver to allow the man to consecrate his property. In the case discussed previously, the man consecrated his property and then divorced his wife, so we were concerned that the divorce might be collusive. Here, however, the divorce occurred first, and only afterward did he consecrate his assets.
The owners—or, more precisely, the people to whom the money is owed—may redeem the consecrated assets with a small amount, even with a single dinar or with something of minimal value, provided that they thereby assume responsibility for paying the remaining amount. The reason is that, in any event, the consecration did not truly take effect on those assets. They were already subject to the marriage settlement or the creditor’s lien, and therefore they did not belong entirely to the man. The requirement to perform a redemption is a rabbinic decree.
The purpose of the decree is to prevent people from concluding that consecrated property can simply be taken without redemption. If, in this case, the consecration did not take effect in the first place, people might mistakenly learn that in an ordinary case one may take consecrated property without performing a redemption. Therefore, the Sages required a redemption even here.
This explains the Mishnah’s ruling that the creditor may add a dinar of his own and perform the redemption. The dinar that the owner of the property takes from his own pocket for the sake of the property becomes part of the calculation as well. Since the creditor adds the money for the sake of redeeming the property, he may then claim that amount from the debtor. The Mishnah is teaching that even if the owner of the consecrated property does not wish to perform the redemption, the creditor may do it himself and then add the amount he spent to the debt.
The first question is why a redemption is needed at all. Since the property was already subject to the marriage settlement or the loan, the consecration should not have taken effect on it. The answer is that the redemption is required because of the decree. Without that requirement, people might see someone take consecrated property and conclude that one never needs a redemption. The decree applies even where the consecration did not technically take effect.
There is a further discussion regarding the amount of property available. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamaliel distinguishes between a case in which the consecrated property is sufficient to cover the entire debt and a case in which it is insufficient. If the property is sufficient to pay the entire debt, the creditor is considered to be relying on that property. When the debtor consecrated it, however, it was not really his to consecrate, and therefore a small redemption is enough to remove the decree.
If the property is worth less than the debt, the creditor is not relying on it as the source of payment. He assumes that the debtor will pay him later. In that case, the property was considered available for consecration, and a full-value redemption is required. Thus, if the debtor owes one hundred but has only ninety in consecrated property, the redemption must be for the full value of the ninety.
The Sages later instituted a leniency: even when the consecrated property is worth less than the debt, a small redemption may suffice. The Gemara explains that this applies when the property is worth at least half the debt. If the debtor owes one hundred and has fifty or more, the creditor can still rely on the property and on the debtor’s ability to pay the rest. If the property is worth less than half the debt, the debtor is not considered sufficiently connected to it for this purpose, and a full-value redemption is required.
The next Mishnah returns to the rules governing a person whose property is taken because he consecrated it or because he owes money. Even when property is collected from him, he must be left with enough food for thirty days and clothing for twelve months. He is also left with a bed, bedding, his shoes, and his ritual objects. The property of his wife and children, however, is not protected in the same way. Even though he is obligated to support them, the consecration takes precedence over their clothing and personal belongings.
If the man is a craftsman, he is left with two tools of his trade. If he is a carpenter, for example, he is left with two planes and two saws. If he is a farmer, he is left with a pair of oxen so that he can continue plowing. If he is a donkey driver, he is left with the animal he needs for his work. The general principle is that essential tools required for his livelihood are not taken from him.
What happens if he has three planes and only one saw? We do not tell him to sell one of the planes and use the proceeds to purchase another saw. Instead, one of the three planes is taken, and he is left with two planes and one saw. Although the general rule speaks of leaving him with two of each tool, he had been working until now with only one saw. We therefore do not require the authorities to rearrange his property so that he has two of every tool.
One might nevertheless have argued that the extra plane gives him bargaining power. Since he could lend or trade it to obtain another saw, perhaps he should be considered as though he already possessed two planes and two saws. The Mishnah teaches that this is not taken into account. Since he had been living and working with only one saw, the extra plane may be taken, and he remains with the tools he had actually been using.
His ritual objects must also be appraised and redeemed. Since the ritual objects are part of his assets, they are included in the accounting when he consecrates all his property. One might have thought that they should be excluded because he needs them for the following morning. The Mishnah teaches that he must borrow money from elsewhere and redeem them. That is precisely the point: even though he needs them, they are still part of the consecrated property until they are redeemed.
The Gemara derives the requirement to leave the man food and clothing from the verse that says he must remain with you as a living person. The person himself must be preserved from the property subject to the assessment. This requirement covers the food for thirty days and clothing for twelve months. It does not extend to all the needs of his wife and children, whose property may be taken.
The Gemara also discusses the tools of the farmer and asks whether the law of leaving a pair of oxen is stated by Rabbi Shimon or by the Sages. The point is that these animals are not merely tools of the trade in the ordinary sense; they are the means by which the farmer earns his livelihood. Nevertheless, they are left to him for the same reason that a craftsman is left with the tools necessary for his work.
The Mishnah then teaches that a man may not take clothing that he had already designated for his wife or children. Although the clothing originally belongs to him, once it has been set aside for them, it is treated as belonging to them. His obligation to provide clothing for his wife and children makes the designation significant. Garments that he had dyed for his wife, even if she had not yet worn them, are included in this rule. New shoes purchased for them but not yet given to them are also protected if they had already been designated for their use.
This applies even though, when property is being sold, one normally invests in improving its appearance in order to obtain a higher price. For example, if servants are being sold, it may be worthwhile to spend money dressing them in attractive clothing, because the additional investment can increase the price. Similarly, an animal may bring a better price if it is taken to the market on the proper market day, and a jewel may bring more if it is brought to a large city where there are more buyers. Those considerations do not allow us to take clothing that has already been designated for the wife or children.
The general rule concerning consecrated property is that it is appraised according to its place and its time. A jewel is assessed where it is currently located, at its present value. We do not delay the assessment for six months in the hope that a fair or a market day will bring more buyers and a higher price. Even if the Temple treasury might ultimately receive less money, the value is determined according to the place and time of the assessment.
The same principle applies when a poor person consecrates himself and must pay the amount assigned to his value. The amount is determined according to what he has at that time. We do not say that he should first improve the clothing of a servant, sell the servant for a higher price, and then pay the larger amount. If the servant is presently worth twenty dinars, that is the value used in the assessment. We do not calculate the amount he might bring in the future if he were dressed in more expensive clothing.
The final teaching of the Mishnah is that an ordinary consecration is designated for the maintenance of the Temple. The phrase “consecrated to God” is understood to mean that, unless the person specified another purpose, the money goes to the Temple treasury. One might have thought that the money was designated for the altar or for offerings; the Mishnah teaches that an unspecified consecration goes to the Temple treasury, which uses it for its needs.
We now begin the next chapter, which deals with an ancestral field. This law is not commonly encountered today, so it is necessary to clarify the concept. An ancestral field is property that was divided in the time of Joshua son of Nun, when each tribe received its portion. Such property passed from father to son and remained within the family’s inherited portion. There are special laws governing this type of field.
If a person consecrates an ancestral field, he may redeem it until the Jubilee year. If he does not redeem it and the Jubilee arrives, the field passes to the priests. If another person redeems it, the property may be returned through the redemption process. But if no redemption takes place before the Jubilee, the field is transferred to the priests, and the original owner may lose it.
The redemption price is calculated according to a fixed formula. The field is assessed at fifty shekels for an area that produces a measure of barley, regardless of whether the field is superior or inferior. The amount is then reduced according to the number of years remaining until the Jubilee. If the field is redeemed at the beginning of the cycle, when forty-nine years remain, the full fifty shekels are paid. For each year that passes, the amount is reduced by one shekel and one small additional unit, so that the calculation reaches the proper amount by the Jubilee.
The next Mishnah states that a person should not consecrate his field when fewer than two years remain until the Jubilee. The reason is that, once the field is within two years of the Jubilee, he no longer receives the ordinary reduction in the redemption price. He will have to pay the full amount. The Mishnah is therefore giving practical advice: it is not worthwhile to consecrate the field at that point.
The calculation is generally made in years rather than months. If five years and six months remain, one might have thought that the field is treated as having five and a half years remaining. The discussion explains that, for the benefit of the Temple treasury, the months are counted. Five years and six months are treated as six years for the calculation, so the person receives the corresponding assessment rather than a reduced calculation based on an incomplete year.
This same rule works to the disadvantage of the person redeeming the field when fewer than two years remain. If a year and a half remains, he does not receive the reduced rate that would ordinarily apply over the remaining period. Once the field is within the two-year period, the full price is required. Thus, the rule that months are counted benefits the Temple treasury in this context.
The Gemara discusses whether the same law applies to a field that was purchased rather than inherited. The distinction is that the special laws of an ancestral field apply specifically to property inherited as part of the tribal portions. A purchased field is not an ancestral field in that sense.
Rav Oshaya explains that if a person consecrates an ancestral field during the Jubilee year itself, the consecration takes effect, and he must pay the full fifty shekels. Shmuel disagrees and says that the consecration does not take effect at all. The same dispute applies to a person who sells an ancestral field during the Jubilee year. According to Rav, the sale takes effect, although the field returns to its original owner during the Jubilee. According to Shmuel, the sale is not valid.
The Gemara first attempts to connect Shmuel’s position with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who teaches that when property passes to the priests at the Jubilee, they do not have to pay money to the Temple treasury. The reasoning is that if a field consecrated before the Jubilee leaves the Temple’s possession at the Jubilee without redemption and without payment, then certainly a field consecrated during the Jubilee should not require a payment to the Temple treasury.
That comparison is rejected. A field consecrated before the Jubilee is already subject to consecration, and the Jubilee determines that it passes to the priests without redemption. A field consecrated during the Jubilee may remain consecrated even though it passes directly to the priests. Therefore, one cannot necessarily derive the law of a consecration made during the Jubilee from the law of a field consecrated beforehand.
The Gemara then returns to the source of Rav’s position. The verse speaks of redeeming the field according to the number of years remaining from the Jubilee. Rav understands the wording to include the Jubilee year itself. Shmuel, however, interprets the wording as referring to the years after the Jubilee, excluding the Jubilee year itself.
The practical disagreement is therefore whether the Jubilee year is included in the calculation of a consecrated field. According to Rav, a field may be consecrated during the Jubilee, and the person must pay the full amount. According to Shmuel, the Jubilee year is excluded from the calculation, and a field cannot be consecrated in that year. The discussion continues by examining the precise wording of the verse and whether the expression referring to the Jubilee year includes the Jubilee itself or only the years that follow it.