AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES IN MOUNT SINAI. “What has the subject of the Sabbatical year [stated here in this section] to do with that of Mount Sinai? Were not all the commandments declared on Sinai? [It is to teach us that] just as [this law of] the Sabbatical year was ordained on Sinai with its general rules, its specific prescripts and its minute details, so also were all [the commandments] ordained on Sinai with their general rules, and their specific prescripts and their minute details. Thus it is taught [here] in the Torath Kohanin. It appears to me¹ (Numbers 22:1), Moses, in the last days of his life, restated the commandments of G-d, his words being contained in the Book of Deuteronomy. However, since not all the commandments were restated there by Moses, our verse serves as a basis for the interpretation of the Torath Kohanim, as will be explained by Rashi. Ramban will differ with this whole approach, since the text of the Torath Kohanim makes no reference at all to Moses’ restatement of the laws in the plains of Moab. See at end of Note 10. that the following is the interpretation thereof: Since we do not find the law of the resting of the soil [in the Sabbatical year] repeated in the plains of Moab [when Moses restated the law, as contained in the Book of Deuteronomy], we must deduce that all the general rules and specific prescripts [of the Sabbatical year, including those of the resting of the soil] were declared on Sinai. [Why then was it necessary for Scripture to state here in Mount Sinai, since it is self-understood that this entire law was promulgated on Sinai, since the law of the resting of the soil is not mentioned in the Book of Deuteronomy? We must say that the reason] Scripture mentioned [the phrase in Mount Sinai] here is in order to teach that every communication [i.e., commandment] that was spoken to Moses on Sinai, was given at Sinai together with its general rules and minute details, and they were [merely] repeated and taught again in the plains of Moab.” Thus far is the language of Rashi. But this does not appear to me to be correct at all. For there are many commandments like the Sabbatical year which were not repeated in the plains of Moab, and [all] we know about their general rules and specific prescripts is that they were promulgated either on Sinai or in the Tent of Meeting [but not specifically on Sinai, as Rashi said]!² [and are recorded in other parts of the Torah], were declared at some preceding time, but we cannot be sure whether they were said with the commandments given at Sinai, or only later on, after the building of the Tabernacle from which G-d communicated to Moses. On what basis, then, does Rashi say that they were all given on Sinai? Moreover, how do we know that the other commandments which were repeated in the plains of Moab are to be likened to the Sabbatical year [which was not repeated? Perhaps this analogy applies only to those commandments which were not repeated in the plains of Moab, like the Sabbatical year; but how do we know that the analogy applies also to those that were repeated by Moses in the plains of Moab, as contained in the Book of Deuteronomy? And how do we know that in the case of those commandments that were repeated by Moses], that only the general rules were declared on Sinai but the specific prescripts were given in the plains of Moab! And indeed it would be more logical to say so, that those commandments which were repeated by Moses, were restated for the sake of explaining their specific prescripts, since on Sinai only their general rules had been declared! But the interpretation of the above Beraitha is clear: The general rules of the Sabbatical year were declared on Sinai, as it is written in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances):³ And on the seventh year thou shalt let it [i.e., the Land] rest and lie fallow, that the poor of thy people may eat etc.⁴, 23:11. These are the laws of the Sabbatical year in a general way. Here He went back [to this subject] and said that in Mount Sinai all its specific prescripts were also given, since all of them are mentioned in this section. And at the end of this subject it is written, These are the commandments, which the Eternal commanded Moses for the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,⁵ in order to liken all the commandments to the Sabbatical year [previously] mentioned, [teaching] that all of them, likewise, were stated in general terms and with their particular details — that is, all were declared on Sinai. And thus it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:⁶. “These are the commandments.⁵ Henceforth no prophet may promulgate any new thing.⁷ Which the Eternal commanded Moses.⁵ The messenger was [found] deserving before Him Who sent him [since he was the most perfect of all human beings].⁸ Moses for the children of Israel. It was the merit of Israel that caused [the Divine Glory to rest upon Moses].⁹). In Mount Sinai,⁵ [this teaches] that all commandments originated at Sinai.” Thus far is the text in the Torath Kohanim. But the reason [that the laws were repeated] in the plains of Moab was only for the purpose of explaining the Torah to the children [of those who had left Egypt, who were born in the wilderness after the Giving of the Torah at Sinai]. This appears to me to be the interpretation [of the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim mentioned] and “it is well and nicely said.”¹⁰ literally means “a knop and a flower.” The term is borrowed from the design of the candelabrum (see Exodus 25:33), and here means “a thing of truth, and beautifully stated.” The usage of this expression is found in Bereshith Rabbah 91:12. It has been suggested that since the candelabrum in the Tabernacle represented the light of wisdom, the knops and flowers in the candelabrum symbolized truth beautifully expressed. Hence the expression kaftor vaferach as applied to a dictum of truth well formulated. — In essence, Ramban’s understanding of the Beraitha mentioned by Rashi is as follows: “Why is the expression in Mount Sinai mentioned here? It cannot be to teach us that the general principles of the Sabbatical year were given on Sinai, for all commandments were declared on Sinai in general terms, the Sabbatical year being merely one of them, as expressly stated in Exodus 23:11. Hence the expression here in Mount Sinai must be to teach that all its specific prescripts were also given on Mount Sinai, and from this you may deduce that the verse at the end of the Book of Leviticus, which states, These are the commandments which the Eternal commanded Moses … in Mount Sinai intends to teach us that the specific prescripts of all the laws were also declared on Sinai. — Ramban’s interpretation is thus not based at all on Moses’ restatement of the laws in the plains of Moab, as is that of Rashi, but instead is founded upon the verses in Exodus 23:11, and at the end of Leviticus, as explained. Now the reason why this section [of the laws of the Sabbatical year] was written here, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained to be as follows: This is the covenant which was written in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances),¹¹. and when the people accepted it upon themselves [by saying] we will do, and obey,¹², Verse 7. then the covenant was made,¹³, Verse 8. and [Moses] told them this whole section [containing the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Scripture mentioned it in this place in order to put in proximity all the conditions [He laid down for Israel’s inheriting] the Land; for just as He said with reference to forbidden sexual relations that on account of them the Land will vomit them out,¹⁴ so He said in the section of ‘Im Bechukothai’ (If ye walk in My statutes)¹⁵ with regard to [not keeping the laws of] the Sabbaths of the Land,¹⁶, Verse 34. and therefore it was necessary that He mention [here] first [what are the laws of] the Sabbatical years. In my opinion this section is written here in its proper order, for the expression in Mount Sinai means when Moses went up there to receive the second Tablets [and does not refer, as Ibn Ezra interprets it, to the time immediately after the Giving of the Torah, even before Moses went up the mountain to receive the first Tablets of the Law], and the explanation of the matter is as follows: At the beginning of the first forty days of the first Tablets, Moses wrote in the Book of the Covenant all the words of the Eternal¹⁷ and all the ordinances stated there [in that section],¹⁸, Chapters 21-23. and he sprinkled the blood of the covenant upon the people.¹³, Verse 8. But when the people sinned with the [golden] calf and the Tablets were broken, that was equivalent to a breaking of the covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to Moses by giving him the second Tablets, He commanded him concerning a new covenant, as it is said, *Behold, I make a covenant;*¹⁹, 34:10. and He repeated there the stringent commandments that had been said in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances)²⁰, 21:1. at the first covenant, and He [now] stated, Write thou these words, for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.²¹, 34:27. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to make this second covenant with them with greater stringency, and that it should be upon them by means of oaths and curses, and that it should cover, like the first one, all the original commandments and all the ordinances, as it is said of the first covenant, And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Eternal, and all the ordinances.²², 24:3. Therefore Scripture states here at the end of the exhortations, These are the statutes and ordinances and laws, which the Eternal made between Him and the children of Israel, in Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses,²³ this being an allusion to all the commandments and ordinances which had been said at the first covenant, in the section of ‘V’eileh Hamishpatim’ (And these are the ordinances),²⁰, 21:1. for they were all embodied in this [second] covenant. Now in the Book of the first Covenant, the law of the Sabbatical year was stated in a general way as I have mentioned, as it is said, And on the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow etc.,⁴, 23:11. and now in this second convenant it was said with its specific prescripts, its minute details, and its penalties. At the time of the first covenant, during the first forty days [after the Giving of the Torah, when Moses went up to the mountain], Moses was commanded concerning the building of the Tabernacle; and when the Holy One, blessed be He, became reconciled to him and commanded him to make a second covenant for them, Moses came down [from the mountain] and he gave them in commandment all that the Eternal had spoken with him in Mount Sinai,²⁴ including the making of the Tabernacle. Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the children of Israel, and said unto them as at first, These are the words which the Eternal hath commanded that ye should do them,²⁵, 35:1. when making the Tabernacle. Now they accepted the charge joyfully, and departed from his presence at once, and they all came back and brought the donations, and made the Tabernacle and completed its construction. And as soon as it was set up, He immediately called unto Moses, and the Eternal spoke unto him out of the Tent of Meeting,²⁶ and He commanded him regarding the offerings and the whole Torath Kohanim [“law of the priests,” i.e., the Book of Leviticus], and Moses immediately commanded them all to Aaron and his sons and to all the children of Israel. When he had finished, he said to them: “G-d further commanded me in Mount Sinai to explain to you [the laws of] the Sabbatical year and of the Jubilee, and to make a new covenant with you concerning all the commandments and ordinances, by means of adjuration and oath.” It was not necessary now [for Moses] to slaughter offerings and sprinkle half of the blood upon the people and half upon the altar, as he had done at the first covenant,²⁷ because now they were [again] accepting upon themselves the original covenant, with these oaths and adjurations. This is the sense of the expression, which the Eternal made between Him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai,²³ for it was He Who made with them this [second] covenant, having forgiven them on the basis of these conditions [i.e., the oaths and adjurations mentioned further on in Chapter 26], as I have explained at the end of [Seder] Ki Thisa.²⁸, 34:27; 31. See Vol. II, pp. 591-2, 594. Similarly, the covenant at the plains of Moab²⁹ was made likewise, by means of the people accepting upon themselves the Torah with those oaths and adjurations [mentioned in Deuteronomy Chapter 28], this being the covenant, as it is said, These are the words of the covenant which the Eternal commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covenant which He made with them in Horeb.³⁰, 28:69. Ramban’s point is thus to stress that all subsequent covenants mentioned after the one made at Sinai are merely re-affirmations of the original covenant. The Rabbis of blessed memory have spoken the truth in saying³¹ 8:9. that among the conditions on which the Land [was given by G-d to Israel] are [those of observing the laws of] the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee, as He will mention in the exhortations,³² and they are clearly expressed in this second covenant [as referring to the commandments in this section].

footnotes: ¹ I.e. Rashi. Having quoted the text of the Torath Kohanim, Rashi now proceeds to explain the basis of the analogy of this text of the Beraitha between our section and all other commandments. To follow Rashi’s answer it is important to recall that in the final year of Israel’s stay in the wilderness, when they were encamped in the plains of Moab ² In other words, we can be certain that those commandments which were not mentioned in the plains of Moab ³ Exodus 21:1. Since these ordinances were declared before the Tabernacle was erected, they must perforce have been given on Sinai. ⁴ Ibid. ⁵ Leviticus 27:34. ⁶ Torath Kohanim, end of Seder Bechukothai ⁵ Leviticus 27:34. ⁷ This is a major teaching in Judaism, that the prophets who came after Moses only served to exhort Israel to obey the laws given by Moses, but no new Divine commandments were added. ⁵ Leviticus 27:34. ⁸ Malbim to Torath Kohanim ibid. ⁹ “And that the Torah be given through Moses. For if Israel had not accepted the Torah, the Divine Glory would not have communicated with Moses, because where there is no flock there is no shepherd, and if there is a flock there must be a shepherd” (Rabad in his commentary to Torath Kohanim, ibid. ⁵ Leviticus 27:34. ¹⁰ The Hebrew expression kaftor vaferach ¹¹ Exodus 24:4-7: And Moses wrote all the words of the Eternal … And he took the Book of the Covenant ¹² Ibid. ¹³ Ibid. ¹⁴ Above, 18:28. ¹⁵ Further, 26:3. ¹⁶ Ibid. ¹⁷ Exodus 24:4. ¹⁸ Ibid. ¹³ Ibid. ¹⁹ Ibid. ²⁰ Ibid. ²¹ Ibid. ²² Ibid. ²³ Further, 26:46. ²⁰ Ibid. ⁴ Ibid. ²⁴ Exodus 34:32. ²⁵ Ibid. ²⁶ Above, 1:1. ²⁷ Exodus 24:5-6. ²³ Further, 26:46. ²⁸ Ibid. ²⁹ Deuteronomy 28:69. 29:9-13. ³⁰ Ibid. ³¹ Torath Kohanim, Bechukothai ³² Further, 26:34; 43.

A SABBATH UNTO THE ETERNAL, “[This means] in honor of the Eternal [and that it is not primarily intended for man’s benefit],³³ in the same sense as this expression is used in the case of the Sabbath of Creation” [i.e., the weekly Sabbath, of which it is also said, a Sabbath unto the Eternal].³⁴ This is the language of Rashi. But this was not the intention of the Rabbis in their interpretation,³⁵ 1:2) there is such an interpretation of the Rabbis, likening the expression a Sabbath unto the Eternal stated here in the case of the Sabbatical year to that mentioned in the law of the weekly Sabbath. But the intent thereof is not as Rashi presented it, for etc. The full text of the Beraitha of the Torath Kohanim will be mentioned further on by Ramban. for all [weekly] Sabbaths, and also the festivals, are in honor of the Eternal, and yet in not one of them [i.e., the festivals] does Scripture say that they are “unto the Eternal.” Instead, it says it shall be a solemn rest unto you,³⁶ and in the case of the Day of Atonement it states, It shall be unto you a Sabbath of solemn rest.³⁷, Verse 32. The text of the Beraitha in the Torah Kohanim [quoted by Rashi] is as follows:³⁸ 1:2. “A Sabbath unto the Eternal. Just as it says with reference to the Sabbath of Creation, so is it said regarding the Sabbatical year, a Sabbath unto the Eternal.” But the meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d³⁴ stated in connection with the Sabbath of Creation, is that on it He ceased from work and rested³⁹ and therefore thou shalt not do any manner of work.³⁴ It was with reference to that idea that the Sages, of blessed memory, said that the same expression is also stated in the case of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh in [the cycle of] the years [just as the weekly Sabbath is the seventh day in the cycle of days; and the meaning thereof here is that since the seventh year is a Sabbath to the Eternal, as will be explained, we are to desist from working the land]. Now here [in the Torath Kohanim mentioned above, the Rabbis] have roused our attention to one of the great secrets of the Torah.⁴⁰ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra has already given us a hint of it when he wrote: “The meaning of a Sabbath unto the Eternal is like that of the Sabbath-day.⁴¹ The secret of the years of the world is alluded to in this place.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s comment.] Bend now your ear to understand that which I am permitted to inform you about it in the words that I will cause you to hear, and if you will be worthy, you will contemplate them [and understand them]. I have already written in Seder Bereshith⁴² that the six days of creation represent [all] the days of the world, and the seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Eternal thy G-d,³⁴ for on it will be the Sabbath to the Great Name, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:⁴³ “On the seventh day what psalm did the Levites sing [in the Sanctuary? They sang] A Psalm, a Song. For the Sabbath-day⁴⁴ — [a song] for the World to Come, which will be wholly a Sabbath, and rest for life everlasting.” Thus the [seven] days [of the week] allude to that which He created in the process of creation, and the [seven] years [of the Sabbatical cycle] refer to that which will occur during the creation of all “the days” of the world. It is for this reason that Scripture was more stringent regarding [the transgression of the laws of] the Sabbatical year than with respect to those guilty of transgressing all other negative commandments, and made it punishable with exile, just as He was stringent with respect to forbidden sexual relations [for which the punishment of the people, as opposed to that of the individual, is also exile];⁴⁵ as it is said, Then shall the Land be paid her Sabbaths,⁴⁶ and He repeated this matter many times: As long as it lieth desolate it shall have rest,⁴⁷, Verse 35. and it is further said, And the Land shall lie forsaken without them, and shall be paid her Sabbaths.⁴⁸, Verse 43. “And so we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:⁴⁹ “Exile comes for the delaying of justice, and for the perversion of justice, and for [the neglect of] the year of rest for the Land.” [This stringency of punishment is] because whoever denies it [i.e., the law of the Sabbatical year], does not acknowledge the work of creation and [life in] the World to Come. Similarly the prophet [Jeremiah] was stringent, and decreed exile for neglecting to send [Hebrew] servants to freedom in the seventh year [of their service], as it is said, I made a covenant with your fathers … At the beginning of seven years ye shall let go every man his brother etc.,⁵⁰, which is normally translated as “at the end of seven years” (so also in the J.P.S. translation). Ramban in Deuteronomy 15:1, however, brings proofs that the correct meaning in this context is “at the end-year of the seven years”, i.e., at the beginning of seventh year, rather than “at the end of the seventh year.” Thus the Hebrew servant goes free at the beginning of the seventh year [the end-year of the cycle of seven years], and this is indeed the accepted law (Rambam, Hilchoth Avadim 2:1) that he serves for six years. See, however, Yonathan ben Uziel in Jeremiah. for in the case of a servant the seventh year is also like a [complete] Jubilee; and the Jubilee is known also [at the very beginning of the Torah] — from ‘Bereshith’ (In the beginning) to ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished)⁵¹ … and concluding with ‘Vayechulu’ (And there were finished) (2:1) — the secret of the Jubilee is already hinted at, namely, “that all things, that came into existence in the beginning of time will be finished in the era of the Jubilee (Beiur Ha’lvush to Ricanti who quotes the language of Ramban). — intimating that in the Jubilee everything is to return [to its origin], every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.⁵² For it is a sure foundation, and he that believeth⁵³ (make haste). Ramban brings out ingeniously a different meaning by saying: he that believeth ‘yacharish’ (will keep silence), suggesting that the student of Cabala must be reticent and careful not to disclose the secrets he has learned. Cf. the phrase in Amos 5:13 — ‘Therefore ‘hamaskil yidom’. (he who understands will keep quiet)! shall keep silence. This is what is meant in saying, ‘v’shavtah ha’aretz shabbath’ (and ‘the land’ shall keep a Sabbath);⁵⁴ is here understood as “the earth” in its entirety [not merely one particular part of it], the same interpretation applying to the next verses quoted. See further, Note 194. and ye shall proclaim liberty ‘ba’aretz’ (throughout ‘the land’),⁵⁵ for the reference here is to “the land of eternal life” which is alluded to in the first verse [of the Torah],⁵⁶, which means “the land of eternal life.” and of which it is said, ‘v’ha’aretz ezkor’ (and I will remember ‘the land’).⁵⁷ I have already mentioned this several times.⁵⁸ Perhaps it is to this that our Rabbis alluded in saying:⁵⁹ “Fifty gates [degrees] of understanding were created in the world, and all were transmitted to Moses with one exception.” For each cycle of seven years constitutes “the gate of one house” [creation], and thus He informed him of all existence from beginning to end, with the exception of the holy Jubilee.

footnotes: ³³ In other words, we are to observe the Sabbatical year primarily as a mark of honor to G-d, and not for our benefit, in that by lying fallow for a year the land will improve. The same applies to the weekly Sabbath, which we celebrate in honor of the Creator of the world, and not primarily because we benefit physically from a day of rest. (Mizrachi). ³⁴ Exodus 20:10. See note above. ³⁵ In other words, it is true that in the Torath Kohanim (Behar ³⁶ Above, 23:24. ³⁷ Ibid. ³⁸ Torath Kohanim, Behar ³⁴ Exodus 20:10. See note above. ³⁹ Exodus 31:17. ³⁴ Exodus 20:10. See note above. ⁴⁰ See in Exodus (Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23). ⁴¹ For just as the Sabbath was given for the purpose of contemplating G-d’s deeds and meditating upon His Torah, so also is the purport of the Sabbatical year, since it is the seventh of the years (Mekor Chayim in his commentary to Ibn Ezra). ⁴² Genesis 2:3 (Vol. I, pp. 61-64). ³⁴ Exodus 20:10. See note above. ⁴³ Tamid 7:4. ⁴⁴ Psalms 92:1. ⁴⁵ Above, 18:28. ⁴⁶ Further, 26:34. ⁴⁷ Ibid. ⁴⁸ Ibid. ⁴⁹ Aboth 5:9. Our text of the Mishnah has a variant reading. See my Hebrew commentary p. 167, Note 55. ⁵⁰ Jeremiah 34:13-14. — The verse there reads ‘mikeitz sheva shanim’ ⁵¹ In other words, in the Scriptural account of the creation — commencing with the verse, In the beginning ⁵² Further, Verse 10. ⁵³ Isaiah 28:16. The verse reads: He that believeth will not ‘yachish’ ⁵⁴ In Verse 2 before us. The word ha’aretz ⁵⁵ Further, Verse 10. ⁵⁶ In the beginning G-d created the heavens ‘v’eth ha’aretz’ ⁵⁷ Further, 26:42. ⁵⁸ See Vol. I, pp. 110, and 120. ⁵⁹ Rosh Hashanah 21 b. See also Vol. I, pp. 9-10.

SIX YEARS THOU SHALT SOW THY FIELD. Such is the way of Scripture to state [i.e., it is not a command that is expressed here, but it is merely the style of Scripture], just as it says, *Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work;*⁶⁰ Six days thou shalt do thy work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest.⁶¹, 23:12. According to the way of our Rabbis [the verse is to be interpreted as follows:⁶² “Six years thou shalt sow thy field — but not in the seventh year — this being a negative commandment which is derived from a positive commandment, and carries the force of a positive commandment.” Thus he who sows [his field] in the seventh year violates this positive commandment, and also the negative commandment [expressed in the verse, thou shalt not sow thy field].⁶³ A homiletic exposition of the Rabbis is as follows:⁶⁴ 20. “Rabbi Yishmael says: When Israel does the will of G-d, it has to observe only one year of rest [of the soil] in a seven-year cycle, as it is said, Six years thou shalt sow thy field. But if the people do not do the will of G-d, they have to make four ‘years of rest’ of the soil in one seven-year cycle. How so? He plows for one year and cannot sow until the next year, again he plows for one year and cannot sow until the next year. Thus there are four ‘years of rest’ in one seven-year cycle.”⁶⁵

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Exodus 20:9. ⁶¹ Ibid. ⁶² Yerushalmi, Kilayim VIII, 1. ⁶³ Verse 4. ⁶⁴ Mechilta, Kaspa ⁶⁵ The thought expressed is as follows: When Israel observes the law of the Sabbatical year G-d blesses the produce of the Land during the next six years. But if the law of the Torah is not observed, the farmer must leave his field fallow every alternate year in order to preserve the soil. Thus if the law of the Sabbatical year is observed, only one year of rest of the Land is required in a seven-year cycle, but where the law of the Torah is not observed, there must be four years of rest — the first, the third, the fifth, and the seventh. The meaning of the verse, according to this Mechilta [which is, as Ramban calls it here, “a homiletic exposition”], is thus: “six full years you will be able to sow your field without recourse to a rest of the Land, if in the seventh year there shall be a solemn rest for the Land” (Zeh Yenachameinu — a commentary upon the Mechilta).

ETH S’FIACH K’TZIRCHA’ (THAT WHICH GROWETH OF ITSELF OF THY HARVEST) THOU SHALT NOT REAP. “Even if you did not sow it, but it grew from the seed that had fallen [into the ground] at the time of the harvest [of the sixth year], and it is that which is called ‘s’fiach’ (aftergrowth) — thou shalt not reap, to take possession of it like other harvests, but is to be free for everyone. AND THE GRAPES OF ‘N’ZIRECHA’ — which you have barred and separated from people, and not declared ownerless — THOU SHALT NOT GATHER them. You may only gather them after they have been declared free for all.” Thus the language of Rashi. The Rabbi’s [i.e., Rashi’s] meaning by [writing] this is because he is of the opinion that if a person guards his field and his fruits in the Sabbatical year [at the time of growth, and afterwards he declares them free for all], the produce does not become prohibited [as food]. So also did he [Rashi] write in his commentaries to Tractate Yebamoth⁶⁶ and to Tractate Succah.⁶⁷ This is indeed so according to the law of the Torah, as is established by clear proofs. And that which is taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁶⁸ 1:3. “And the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the soil [i.e., when it is in the process of growth] you shall not gather, but you may gather from that which was made free for all”⁶⁹ — the Rabbi [Rashi] will explain it in the following way: “Grapes which have been kept away from people you may not gather as long as they are so barred; you must rather declare them all ownerless, and then you may gather them together with the poor.” The correct interpretation of the verse is that the expression the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’ is like ‘s’fiach’ of thy harvest, and thou shalt not gather is like thou shalt not reap, for the purport of the whole section is to state a twofold law to the Israelites — warning with respect to fields and warning again with reference to vineyards. Thus: *thou shalt sow thy field … thou shalt prune thy vineyard;*⁷⁰ thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard.⁷¹ Similarly, And six years thou shalt sow thy Land … but the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow … In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard.⁷² And the meaning of the verse [here] is that that which grows by itself in a field without intentional plowing and sowing is called “s’fiach of the harvest,” because it is “attached” to the harvest of the past year, this term being of the root, ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob.⁷³ Likewise the vine which has not been cultivated, nor hoed or pruned, is called nazir, because [the owner] “held himself aloof and put it away from him” as if it were not his, of the root, because ‘nazoru’ from Me through their idols,⁷⁴ [which means] “they separated themselves from Me.” Similarly, ‘v’yinazru’ (and they separate themselves) from the holy things of the children of Israel.⁷⁵ And Onkelos [also] translates here [and the grapes of ‘n’zirecha’] as shivkach, which means [those grapes that] “you have left” to be for briers and thorns.⁷⁶ It is possible that the custom in Israel was that a vineyard which was uncultivated, neither pruned nor hoed, and in which briers and thorns⁷⁷, 5:6. grew up, they called nazir, that is to say, it is a vineyard of the Nazirite, since the Nazirite is forbidden to drink wine nor eat fresh grapes or dried,⁷⁸ and he does not cultivate his vineyard. They also gave a name to long hair derived from the Nazirite, as it is said, Cut off ‘nizreich’ (thy hair) and cast it away.⁷⁹ This then is the sense of [the expression here] the grapes of ‘n’zirecha,’ the general purport thereof being that they are the grapes which grow without cultivation of the vineyard. Thus Scripture is stating that that which grows by itself in the field he may not reap, and the grapes which grow in the vineyard without work he may not gather. And the meaning of these negative commandments is that you may not reap them alone for your own needs, nor are you to gather the grapes for yourself [only], but it shall be a year of solemn rest for the Land⁸⁰ from sowing and pruning, and the Sabbath-produce of the Land,⁸¹ that is, whatever the Land brings forth in its rest, whether s’fiach or nazir [as explained above] shall be unto all of you together for food, for thee,⁸¹ and for thy poor, and for the beast and for the cattle.⁸² Now I will return to explain the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on this subject, because they are misleading [in their plain sense]. On the verse, And if ye shall say: ‘What shall we eat the seventh year? behold, we may not sow, nor gather in our increase,⁸³ the Rabbis taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:⁸⁴ 4:5. “If people do not sow, what is there to gather? [So why then did Scripture prohibit gathering the increase, since there can be none to gather without sowing?] Said Rabbi Akiba: It is from here that the Sages found a Scriptural source for s’fichin (aftergrowths), [indicating] that they are forbidden in the Sabbatical year.” This Beraitha is quoted in the Gemara [of Tractate Pesachim] in the Chapter Makom Shenahagu (“A place where the custom is”).⁸⁵ And it is further taught in the Torath Kohanim:⁸⁴ 4:5. “But the Sages say: Aftergrowths are not forbidden by law of the Torah, but only by decree of the Scribes. If so, why is it said, *behold, we may not sow, nor gather?*⁸³ [It means as follows:] You have told us not to sow, and what there is for us to gather — [the aftergrowths] — we may not bring in for storage [after the time of the Removal];⁸⁶ and then You have told us, ‘Remove it [from the house],’ what then shall we eat from the time of the Removal onwards?” Thus far [are the words of the Torath Kohanim]. Thus it is clear that according to the words of the Sages the prohibition of aftergrowths is only by law of the Rabbis, that is to say, it is they who decreed that they be prohibited altogether, because of the suspicion that the owners might sow and say that these are aftergrowths. It is for this reason that the Rabbis have said in the Yerushalmi:⁸⁷ “Rabbi Yannai said: All aftergrowths are forbidden [under the law forbidding theft, i.e., since they belong to the owner of the field, they may not be taken by a stranger during the non-Sabbatical years], except for those which come up in an uncultivated field, a plowed field, a field containing a vineyard, or a field sowed [with fenugreek]. [The aftergrowths of] an uncultivated field [are permissible to a stranger] because the owner pays no attention to such a field [and therefore it is considered ownerless]. A plowed field — the owner desires to clear of all growths. A field containing a vineyard — the owner does not want to forfeit his vineyard⁸⁸ [because the aftergrowths of the grain in the vineyard constitute diverse kinds which are forbidden, and so he welcomes their being taken out by anyone]. A field sowed [with fenugreek] — the owner does not want to maintain aftergrowths therein [because they harm the fenugreek].”⁸⁹ It is on the basis of this division of opinion [between Rabbi Akiba, who says that aftergrowths are forbidden in the Sabbatical year by law of the Torah, and the Sages, who are of the opinion that they are forbidden only by Rabbinical decree], that it is taught there in the Torath Kohanim:⁹⁰ 1:3. “That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap. It is from here that they found a Scriptural source for forbidding aftergrowths in the Sabbatical year.” They thus gave their teaching in accordance with the words of Rabbi Akiba, [who explains the phrase] thou shalt not reap as [prohibiting] altogether [any reaping, even of aftergrowths, by law of the Torah], But according to the words of the Sages [the verse means] that you are not to reap them [solely] for yourself, nor are you to gather the grapes [of your undressed vine solely] for yourself, but you are to treat them as if they were ownerless property. Similarly, and we do not gather in our increase⁸³ means that we do not gather [entirely] into our homes the fruits of the tree [which grow by themselves] nor the aftergrowths [of crops], because we must declare them ownerless for the poor, the beasts and the cattle, and at the time of Removal,⁸⁶ [and therefore one might say that] we are not able to live on them [since we cannot use them entirely as our own possession.]! Now these aftergrowths which are forbidden according to Rabbi Akiba are those which have grown in the forbidden season. [i.e., the Sabbatical year]: in grain, all that has reached a third of its growth in the Sabbatical year, and in the case of vegetables, whatever has sprouted in the Sabbatical year are forbidden by law of the Torah. But according to the Sages they are forbidden by decree of the Scribes, except for those [aftergrowths] which come up in any of those [four kinds of] fields mentioned in the Yerushalmi⁸⁷ which we have quoted above. However, vegetables that sprouted in the sixth year but were harvested in the seventh, are also subject to all the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [regarding Seventh year produce, which are as follows]: they must not be wasted [as they were given for food;⁸¹ their money substitute may not be used] for [obligatory] offerings;⁹¹ [they may not be used] for the purpose of trade, and they are subject to the law of Removal.⁸⁶ For even though these vegetables grew completely in the sixth year [nonetheless if they were harvested in the seventh year, they are subject to the laws of the Sabbatical year], because we follow in the case of vegetables the time of collecting them in, whether for tithes⁹² or for the Sabbatical year. But the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them, for they are not aftergrowths of the Sabbatical year since they grew in the sixth year, and even if they continued [their growth] in the seventh year, the law of aftergrowths does not apply to them. It is with reference to such vegetables that we were taught [in the Mishnah]:⁹³ “If a man said to a laborer [in the Sabbatical year], ‘Here you have an issar [a coin equivalent to one twenty-fourth of the silver dinar], and gather me vegetables today’, his payment is permitted etc.”⁹⁴] gather me vegetables today,’ his payment is forbidden” [i.e., he is restricted to using the money only for the above-mentioned purposes]. The difference between these two cases is generally explained to be that the latter transaction resembles a sale [in exchange for the coin he gathers for him the vegetables], and it is forbidden to sell Seventh-year produce; therefore the money is “seized” with the sanctity of the original produce. And similarly we were taught [there] in a Mishnah:⁹⁵ “A man may not gather in the [wild] vegetables in a field and sell them in the market; but he may gather them in and his son may sell them for him;” and we were also taught there:⁹⁶, 9:1. “Rue, goosefoot, etc. may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these” [wild vegetables, and, since they are ownerless, the sanctity of the Sabbatical year does not apply to them]. Now some [scholars] say⁹⁷ 4:3. See my Hebrew commentary p. 170 for the text. that [in the case of] these vegetables mentioned [in the above Mishnah] and all similar ones, which people do not usually sow, but which grow by themselves on mountains and near rivers, the prohibition of aftergrowths does not apply to them at all even though they grew in the Sabbatical year, since the Rabbis only forbade [the aftergrowths of] those things which are normally planted, in order that one should not plant them [in the Sabbatical year and then say that they grew by themselves]. And so it appears from the Gemara of the Yerushalmi [mentioned above]. This is the subject of “aftergrowths” whenever the Sages mention it [in the Talmud]. Similarly it is [forbidden by law] of the Torah for a person to guard his field and lock it up from the poor in the Sabbatical year, even if he intends to declare them free for all at the time of gathering them in; instead, the field is to be ready and free for the poor throughout the year. Thus the Sages taught in the Mechilta:⁹⁸ 20. “That the poor of thy people may eat.⁹⁹ ‘Why did the Torah say this? Was it not so that the poor may eat it? If so, I am going to gather in the fruit and distribute it among the poor’. Therefore Scripture states, But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie fallow.⁹⁹ This teaches that the owner is even [obliged] to make breaches in the fence [so that everyone may come and take]. The Sages, however, as a precaution for the general good, allowed him to keep the fence.” Now the restraining measure which the Sages established was only that he need not make breaches in the fences of his field and vineyard, but not that he may guard his field and gather in the fruits, thereby transgressing the words of the Torah. Moreover, the Sages even decreed against buying fruits which have been guarded, or even from one who is under suspicion of so [guarding]. It is with reference to this that we have been taught in the Mishnah:⁹⁶, 9:1. “[The wild vegetables mentioned] may be bought from anyone in the Sabbatical year, since no watch is kept over the like of these.” And in Tractate Succah the Rabbis have said:¹⁰⁰ “One may not hand over to those ignorant of the law more of the monetary equivalent of fruits of the Sabbatical year than that needed for three meals.¹⁰¹). See also the following note for fuller explanation. This applies only where he buys [the fruits] from a field which was free for all,¹⁰² (a person who is faithful in observing the law) sees the owner [who is ignorant of the law] taking the fruits from an unguarded field, he may give him the monetary equivalent of three meals’ worth of fruits; but he is not permitted to give the owner more money than that required for three meals, for since such money must be spent according to the restrictions of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year [i.e., he must spend it only for food, drink or unguent] it is feared that the seller receiving such money may not do so. But the Sages permitted the chaver to give him the monetary equivalent of three meals so that he may have sufficient food for himself [for a day] (Rashi, ibid.). but if he buys from a guarded field, even the value of half an issar is forbidden.” And the reason for this is as follows: When the purchaser buys it from a field which was free for all — that is to say, from things which people usually bring from ownerless property, or if it is known that he brought them from a place which was declared free for all — then [the purchaser who knows and observes the law] is permitted to buy the fruit. However, if he gives the owner more money than is needed for his [three] meals on that day, we suspect that the [seller who is] ignorant of the law might use [this money] for the purpose of business [which he is forbidden to do]. But if he buys things which it is customary to guard, then even if it is [no more than the value of] half an issar, we suspect that [the seller, being ignorant of the law], guarded them, in which case it is forbidden to buy from him. However if he buys a perutah’s worth of fruits, or less than half an issar, the Sages did not prohibit this, because it is customary for people to gather them in from any [unguarded] place, even during the other years of the Sabbatical cycle. It is referring to this that the Sages have taught:¹⁰³ “If a non-Jew was selling fruits in the market, and he said [by way of praising his products], ‘These fruits are orlah [of the first three years’ growth, and are therefore better than the fruit of an old tree], or ‘they are of azeikah’ [a term explained further on], he has said nought [i.e., we do not believe his statement that the fruits are orlah etc., and hence forbidden; instead we say that these fruits come from the majority of trees which are nor orlah, and they therefore may be eaten]. For the seller only intended to praise his products.” Now Rashi explained there in the name of the early scholars,¹⁰⁴, Note 485. [that the term azeikah means that the fruits come] from an orchard “that is enclosed” with a fence around it, and it happens to be the Sabbatical year. Now if we were to believe him [the non-Jewish seller], it would be forbidden to buy the fruits from him in a city wherein most [of the inhabitants] are Jews, lest he is a tenant-laborer of a Jew and guards the field for him; or we would suspect that he may have gathered [these fruits] from a field belonging to a Jew [who has not declared them free for all] and he sells them; or that the fruits belong to a Jew and he is selling them for him. Or perhaps [even if the land belongs to the seller], a gentile cannot make such an acquisition in the Land of Israel as to negate the laws of the Sabbatical year [from his produce]. The Rabbis therefore decreed that the fruits of his field are to be regarded as those of an Israelite [and hence subject to all the laws of the Sabbatical year]. Nonetheless, the Sages did not prohibit the fruits of a guarded field [in the Sabbatical year] to everybody, but only [decreed] that one should not buy them directly from the owner who guarded them [but it is not the fruits themselves of a guarded field which are prohibited; thus if they have already been sold to a first purchaser, another Jew may buy them from him]. Therefore the Rabbis taught in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁰⁵ 1:3. “And the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather. From that which was guarded when in the land you are not to gather, but you may gather from that which was free for all. Thou shalt not gather, in the [ordinary] manner of those who gather grapes. It was on the basis of this that the Sages said: ‘Seventh-year figs may not be cut with a special fig-knife [but may be cut with an ordinary knife]; grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, but one may press them in a vat.’” And the meaning thereof is as follows: Since it is not written “the grapes of the undressed vine thou shalt not reap,” but instead it is written ‘thy’ undressed vine, it is to be interpreted that you are not to gather them in the way you usually gather your grapes, but you may gather them together with the poor in the way that they gather them, meaning to say that he is not to guard them for himself, but he is to gather them with the poor as if they were ownerless. Similarly he is to treat them [after he has gathered them in] as the poor do, and press them in a vat. And it is further taught there [in the Torath Kohanim]:¹⁰⁶, 1:5. “And the Sabbath-produce of the Land shall be for food for you.¹⁰⁷ You are to eat from that which rested in the land [as will be explained], but you may not eat from that which was guarded. Hence the dictum of the Sages:¹⁰⁸ The School of Shammai say, one may not eat from the produce of a field which has been industriously tilled.¹⁰⁹ in the Sabbatical year in order to enable the people to pay the Roman government the tax imposed on land, as failure to do so could have led to mortal danger. But if the owner tilled the land twice, the question arises whether the produce thereof may be eaten, since a field which was tilled twice is treated as a field that was guarded. But the School of Hillel say that one may eat of it.’” That is to say, since the Torah stated that the produce of the Sabbath should be for us for food, and not that which was guarded, the School of Shammai say that the fruits themselves become prohibited [and therefore the produce of a field which was tilled twice, and considered as a field that was guarded, may not be eaten]; but the School of Hillel are of the opinion that the fruits themselves are not prohibited, for Scripture’s intention is only to forbid us to guard [our produce], in order that our crops should be from a field in which the Sabbatical rest was observed. Similarly when the Rabbis have said¹¹⁰ 1:3) mentioned above. that seventh-year figs may not be cut with a [special] fig-knife, and grapes may not be pressed in a wine-press, [these laws are] a “fence” and guard of Rabbinic origin, in order that people should not come to guard and gather in their crops, and rob them from the poor. This is [the meaning of] that which is taught here in these Beraithoth [of the Torath Kohanim], and it is the best and clearest exposition of the discussions in the Babylonian and Jerusalem Gemara. The scholar who is acquainted [with the Talmud] will succeed in finding these texts.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ Yebamoth 122 a. ⁶⁷ Succah 39 b. ⁶⁸ Torath Kohanim, Behar ⁶⁹ From this text you might understand that if the fruits were guarded whilst they were growing, they become completely prohibited for ever. But this is not correct. Rashi will explain the text etc. ⁷⁰ Verse 3. ⁷¹ Verse 4. ⁷² Exodus 23:10-11. ⁷³ Isaiah 14:1. ⁷⁴ Ezekiel 14:5. ⁷⁵ Above, 22:2. ⁷⁶ Isaiah 7:23. ⁷⁷ See ibid. ⁷⁸ Numbers 6:3. ⁷⁹ Jeremiah 7:29. ⁸⁰ Verse 5 before us. ⁸¹ Verse 6. ⁸¹ Verse 6. ⁸² See Verses 6-7. ⁸³ Further, Verse 20. ⁸⁴ Torath Kohanim. Behar ⁸⁵ Pesachim 51 b. ⁸⁴ Torath Kohanim. Behar ⁸³ Further, Verse 20. ⁸⁶ See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. ⁸⁷ Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. ⁸⁸ Deuteronomy 22:9. ⁸⁹ In other words, the aftergrowths of these four kinds of fields may be taken by anyone during all normal years, because the owners consider these growths ownerless; and in the Sabbatical year, since the owners are not suspected of having violated the law against planting them, they are permissible to the owners together with everyone else. But in all other fields, since the aftergrowths during any non-Sabbatical year are forbidden to be taken by strangers because the owners do not wish to relinquish their possession of them, in the Sabbatical year they are subject to the law of aftergrowths, as will be explained. ⁹⁰ Torath Kohanim, Behar ⁸³ Further, Verse 20. ⁸⁶ See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. ⁸⁷ Yerushalmi, Baba Bathra V, 1. The translation follows the commentary of P’nei Moshe there. ⁸¹ Verse 6. ⁹¹ For if a person has an obligation to bring any offering, as for instance if he commits one of those sins for which he must bring a sin-offering, etc., he must discharge his duty from unhallowed money, and since the money-substitute of the Seventh-year produce is as sacred as the original produce, therefore this obligatory offering cannot be bought with this money. ⁸⁶ See Ramban further, Verse 7 for a full discussion of this law. ⁹² In the first and second years of the Sabbatical cycle, as well as in the fourth and fifth years, the First and Second Tithes are given of all produce, while in the third and sixth years, the First and the Poorman’s Tithes are given. The First Tithe is given to the Levite; the Second Tithe belongs to the owner, but he must eat it in Jerusalem. The Poorman’s Tithe is given to the poor, and they may eat it wherever they are. Now each group of produce has different rules to determine which is the relevant year for its specific tithes, since different factors apply; for instance: the fruits, crops and vegetables. The point here is that in the case of vegetables the determining factor is the time when they are gathered. Hence if, for example, the vegetables grew in the second year and were collected in the third, the tithes given are the First and Poorman’s Tithes. Similarly, if they grew in the sixth year and were collected in the seventh, the laws of the Sabbatical year apply to these vegetables, as specifically explained in the text. ⁹³ Shevi’ith 8:4. ⁹⁴ That is, the laborer is not restricted to buying only food, drink, or unguents with the money, as would have been the case if the money were subject to the laws of the sanctity of the Sabbatical year. “But if he said to him, ‘In return for it [i.e., the issar ⁹⁵ Shevi’ith 7:3. ⁹⁶ Ibid. ⁹⁷ This opinion is stated by Rambam, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil ⁹⁸ Mechilta, Kaspa ⁹⁹ Exodus 23:11. ⁹⁹ Exodus 23:11. ⁹⁶ Ibid. ¹⁰⁰ Succah 39 a-b. ¹⁰¹ Three meals are needed for the Sabbath, and since it is permitted to give it to him before the Sabbath in order that he may buy the three required meals, it is permitted throughout the week (ibid. ¹⁰² In other words, if the chaver ¹⁰³ Yebamoth 122 a. ¹⁰⁴ See in Seder Emor ¹⁰⁵ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹⁰⁶ Ibid. ¹⁰⁷ Verse 6. ¹⁰⁸ Shevi’ith 4:2. ¹⁰⁹ The Mishnah refers to a time when the Rabbis permitted tilling the ground once ¹¹⁰ Shevi’ith 8:6, and referred to in the Torath Kohanim (Behar

AND ‘SHABBATH HA’ARETZ’ (THE SABBATH-PRODUCE OF THE LAND) SHALL BE FOR FOOD FOR YOU. Because He said it shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the Land,¹¹¹ He states [here] that the rest mentioned shall be for food for you to maintain all of you — you and your servant, and the cattle and the beast — so that you should all support yourselves from that which the land will bring forth by itself whilst it is resting. Or [it may be that] the year itself is called shabbath ha’aretz, just as the [seventh] day is called “the Sabbath of the Eternal,”¹¹². or just “Sabbath;” and the reference thereof is to the produce of the Sabbath [year], for the Sabbath [year] itself is not something to be eaten.

footnotes: ¹¹¹ Verse 4. ¹¹² Above, 23:38: Beside the Sabbaths of the Eternal

AND FOR THY CATTLE, AND FOR THE BEASTS THAT ARE IN THY LAND, SHALL ALL THE INCREASE THEREOF BE FOR FOOD. “If wild beasts may eat thereof, how much more so is this the case with cattle which it is your duty to feed! Why then does it say and for thy cattle? [Scripture mentioned it] in order to liken cattle to the beast. As long as the wild beast is able to eat of [the produce of] the field, you may feed your cattle with that [which is stored] in the house; when food has disappeared for the wild beast in the field, remove it [what is stored] for your cattle from the house [and make it available to all animals alike].” This is Rashi’s language, taken from the Torath Kohanim.¹¹³ 1:8. The Rabbi [Rashi] did not, however, explain [the meaning of] this Removal. Its purport is that after a certain time the owner must remove all produce from his house and declare it ownerless [i.e., after food has disappeared for the wild beast from the field], this being “the Removal of the Seventh-year [produce]” which the Sages mention everywhere. Now the intention thereof is not that after the time of Removal it is forbidden for him to derive benefit from the produce or to eat, and that the owner must destroy it, for the Sages have not listed the fruits of the Seventh year in the Mishnah¹¹⁴ among those things that must be burnt, nor among those that must be buried. Rather, [the meaning of the Removal] is only that he must remove them from his control, and declare them free for the poor and for all people, similar to that which it says, I have put away the hallowed things out of my house¹¹⁵ [in which case it obviously does not mean that he destroys the hallowed things, but rather that he gives them to whomever they belong, e.g. the heave-offering to the priest, etc.]. And so we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶ “The poor may eat [of the produce] after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both the poor and the rich may eat of the produce after the Removal.” The meaning of the term “the poor” is all people who gather the produce of fields of other people which have been declared ownerless, and “the rich” means the owners of the fields themselves, who gathered the produce of their own fields after they declared them free for all. Now Rabbi Yehudah declared that they [these “rich” former owners] are forbidden by law of the Rabbis to gather in from their own fields, on account of suspicion [that they did not really intend to make their fields free for all], but Rabbi Yosei permitted them [to gather in from their own fields], and the final decision of the law is according to his words. This Mishnah is also found in the Torah Kohanim.¹¹⁷ 1:6. And in the Tosephta it is stated:¹¹⁸, Note 124. “Originally messengers of the court would go around the entrances of the cities; if anyone had brought the produce [of the Seventh year] into his possession, they would take it from him and give him enough food for three meals, and the rest they would put into a store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] figs came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to pick them, and they would make them into cakes of pressed figs [and then put them into the store-house in the city]. When the time [of the ripening] of olives came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to harvest them, press them in olive-presses and put [the oil] into barrels, and then they would put them into the store-house in the city. When the time of [the ripening of] grapes came, the court’s messengers would hire workers to gather them, press them in a wine-press and put [the wine] into barrels, and they would put them into the store-house in the city. On the day preceding the [weekly] Sabbath they would distribute the food from them [the store-houses] to each and every one according to the needs of his family. When the time of the Removal arrived, the poor would eat after the Removal, but not the rich. These are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yosei says: Both poor and rich may eat after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon says: The rich may eat from the store-house after the Removal.¹¹⁹ [When the time of the Removal came] he who had produce to distribute gave it to the poor. If someone had produce of the Seventh year [and he lived in a place where there was no store-house, nor a functioning court to supervise the distribution], and the time of Removal was come, he would distribute some of it to his neighbors, relatives and friends, and [the remainder] he would take out and place at the door of his house, and say: ‘Brethren, house of Israel! Whoever has to take, let him come and take!’ And then he may bring [the rest] back into his house and continue to eat of it until it is finished.” All this is taught in the Tosephta, and from it we clearly learn that the term “Removal” only means that [the Seventh-year produce] must be taken out of the owner’s possession, and that he must declare it free for all, and that [for the fulfillment of this law] the Rabbis made various ordinances. Originally the court used to make a store-house in each and every city. As soon as the fruits ripened, they would take them from those who brought them [from their fields] and put them into the store-house. Thus when the time of the harvest for the whole of that crop would arrive, such as when the time had come for reaping the grain or gathering the grapes, the [messengers of the] court would hire workers to gather the grapes, pick the olives and harvest the whole of that species, and then they would press the grapes in a wine-press and the olives in an olive-press as one does during any other year, and put them into their store-house. Now this produce which was gathered into the store-house of the court required no other act of “Removal,” since they were already removed from the homes [of their owners], and both poor and rich were permitted after the time of the Removal to come and receive them from the court’s messengers, and to eat them. All this ordinance and trouble taken by the court was on account of suspicion, that [if the court were not to act in this manner] people would hold on to it [the produce of the Seventh year] or do business with it. And where there was no store-house in the city, nor a [functioning] court, and the produce remained in the hands of he who gathered it in from ownerless property, then he must remove it from his house when the time of Removal comes, and declare it free for all at the door of his house, and from then on he is permitted to continue eating from it [as long as it lasts]. This is [what the Rabbis meant in saying¹²⁰ that] Seventh-year produce renders forbidden [a mixture] of its own kind in the smallest of quantities as far as the Removal is concerned,¹²¹ as is mentioned in Tractate Nedarim,¹²⁰ because it may be rendered permissible by removal from his house. Now I have found the following comment of Rashi which he wrote in Tractate Pesachim:¹²² “And it is this which constitutes their ‘removal’ — that he is to make them free for all in a place where human beings and animals tread.” Perhaps the Rabbi thought that the owner has to make it free also for beasts and cattle, in order to fulfill that which is written concerning them, that the poor of thy people may eat, [and what they leave the beast of the field shall eat];¹²³ and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy Land [shall all the increase thereof be for food].¹²⁴ In this he [Rashi] has stated the matter too strongly, for [as we explain it] eating of the produce [after the Removal] is not prohibited at all. And the Rabbis have already taught in the Tosephta that the Removal of the [produce of the] Seventh year is like the removal [mentioned] in connection with the Second Tithe¹¹⁵, and there is no difference between them as far as prohibition of eating them [for just as the Second Tithe is eaten, so the Seventh-year produce may be eaten]. Now Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon]¹²⁵ 7:3. and many of the Sages¹²⁶). are, however, of the opinion that the Removal renders the produce completely forbidden, and it must be burnt, or spread about and scattered in the wind, or thrown into the sea. But it is not so, as has been explained. If, however, he retained it in his home after the [time for the] Removal so that he may eat thereof, then it does become completely forbidden as food. This is the Seventh-year produce which renders [a mixture of a different kind] forbidden, [but only] if it is enough to give [the entire mixture] its flavor, since it has no permitted status [after the Removal; and therefore if the Seventh-year produce is not enough to give its flavor into the entire mixture, it becomes “annulled” by the majority of permitted food, but if it is enough to give it its flavor, it is not annulled].¹²⁷ It is possible that this prohibition is [only] by law of the Rabbis; perhaps even the whole matter of Removal is a stringency imposed by the Scribes, and the Beraithoth taught in the Torath Kohanim on the subject of Removal are only Scriptural supports for a matter which is of Rabbinic origin. On this basis the following Mishnah can be well-explained:¹²⁸ “If one pickles three kinds of vegetables [of Seventh-year produce] in a single barrel etc.”¹²⁹ Similarly [we may well understand] the following Mishnah:¹³⁰, 6:1. “Three countries are to be distinguished as regards the Seventh year.” There we are taught: “Throughout that part of the Land of Israel which those that came up from Babylon occupied, as far as Chezib,¹³¹ [Seventh-year produce] may not be eaten [without Removal], and [the land] may not be cultivated. Throughout that part of the Land which those that came up from Egypt occupied [but which was not later occupied by those that came up from the Babylonian captivity], from Chezib¹³⁰, 6:1. to the river¹³² and [from Chezib] to Amanah,¹³³ [Seventh-year produce] may be eaten [without Removal], but [the land] may not be cultivated.” Thus the Sages were more lenient as regards eating [the Seventh-year produce] after the time of Removal [without having gone through the actual act of Removal] than they were as regards cultivating [the land].¹³⁴ And in the Yerushalmi it is mentioned:¹³⁵ “A certain person who was suspected of [breaking the law of] Seventh-year produce said to his wife, ‘Separate the dough-offering [from the dough].’ Thereupon she said to him, ‘That person [i.e., you] is suspected of breaking the law of Seventh-year produce, and he tells me to separate the dough-offering!’ He said to her, ‘The dough-offering is a matter of Scriptural law; the law of the Seventh-year produce was ordained by the Rabbis, Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues.’” That unworthy man was suspected of retaining produce of the Seventh year and eating it after the [time of] Removal, and he said that the prohibition of eating tevel¹³⁶, Note 108. is a law of the Torah, but the Removal and the prohibition of eating Seventh-year produce after the Removal was ordained by Rabban Gamaliel and his colleagues. Or it may be that [he meant that although] the Removal itself is by law of the Torah, the prohibition of eating from the produce after the [time of] Removal [if one did not fulfill the law of Removal] is by law of the Rabbis — and he was only particular not to eat that which is forbidden by the Torah. Now since the Sages have mentioned the words of this person, it would seem that they are correct [inasmuch as that the prohibition against eating produce after the Removal, was enacted only by the Rabbis, as explained above]. Or perhaps [this is no indication that such is the accepted opinion of the law, because it may be] that this wicked person relied upon the [unaccepted] opinion of Rabbi Shimon¹³⁷ who says: “Scripture speaks of two kinds of release [the release of land and the release of money],”¹³⁸. The double use of the term “release” indicates that Scripture speaks here of two kinds of release: the release of the land in the Sabbatical year, and the release of monetary debts, and Scripture likens one to another to teach us the following: “At a time the release of the land is in force the release of money is obligatory, but at a time when the release of the land is not in force, the release of money is not obligatory.” And since Rabbi Shimon speaks of “a time when the release of the Land is not obligatory,” he must be referring to the time after the destruction of the Second Temple. (Rashi, Moed Katan 2 b). Thus it is clear that Rabbi Shimon is of the opinion that the law of the Seventh-year produce nowadays is of Rabbinic enactment. and the law of the Seventh-year nowadays is of Rabbinic authority, although the law of removing the dough-offering [in the Land of Israel] is of the Torah.

footnotes: ¹¹³ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹¹⁴ Temurah 33 b. ¹¹⁵ Deuteronomy 26:13. ¹¹⁶ Shevi’ith 9:8. ¹¹⁷ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹¹⁸ Tosephta Shevi’ith 8:1-4. On “Tosephta” see above in Seder Tazria ¹¹⁹ For with respect to the store-house, all people are regarded as “poor,” but an owner of a field may not eat of his own fruits after the Removal. Rabbi Shimon’s teaching is thus a sort of middle position between that of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosei. ¹²⁰ Nedarim 58 a. ¹²¹ Thus if a person took an onion which grew in the sixth year [of the Sabbatical cycle] and replanted it in the seventh year, even though it only grows a small amount in the seventh year the whole onion is subject to the law of Removal, as if it had grown entirely in the seventh year. Normally any forbidden food which becomes unrecognizable in a mixture the majority of which consists of permitted food, is considered negligible and “annulled” by the majority according to the law of the Torah [however, the Rabbis usually required a ratio of 60:1, for the forbidden food to become annulled]. However, any forbidden food which will at some future time have a permitted status, can never become annulled even if it is a minute part of the permitted part of the mixture; for why should we annul it now when it will eventually become permitted automatically? Here too, since the minute forbidden part of the onion which grew in the seventh year will automatically become permitted to be eaten when the owner declares it free for all at the time of Removal, it does not become annulled by the rest of the onion. Thus the whole of the onion is subject to the law of Removal [since we do not know which is the bit which grew in the seventh year]; and if the owner does not declare it free for all, it is completely forbidden. Ramban quotes this to prove that Removal does not mean destruction of the produce, but merely declaring it free for all, as the Gemara clearly states that it becomes permitted after Removal. ¹²⁰ Nedarim 58 a. ¹²² Pesachim 58 a. ¹²³ Exodus 23:11. ¹²⁴ Verse 7 before us. ¹¹⁵ Deuteronomy 26:13. ¹²⁵ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Sh’mitah V’yoveil ¹²⁶ Such as Rabad (Rabbi Abraham ben David of Posqieres) who agrees with Rambam on this point (Keseph Mishneh ibid. ¹²⁷ See Note 121 above. ¹²⁸ Shevi’ith 9:5. ¹²⁹ “Rabbi Eliezer says: they may be eaten only as long as the first [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even until the last [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field, etc.” Ramban intends to say that if, as mentioned above, the whole law of Removal of Seventh-year produce is only a decree of Rabbinic origin, we may well understand why Rabbi Yehoshua is lenient in this case. — See also Ramban further on in Verse 12 where he quotes this whole text from the Torath Kohanim, and it is more fully explained. ¹³⁰ Ibid. ¹³¹ This is the city of Achzib, mentioned in Joshua 19:29, and Judges 1:31. It was in the vicinity of Acco, as is clear from the verse in the Book of Judges (Tifereth Yisrael). To understand this Mishnah it is important to remember that the sanctity first imparted to the Land of Israel by Joshua’s conquests came to an end with the destruction of the First Temple. Now when the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile and reoccuppied the Land, their settlement was not as large as that originally occupied by those that came up from Egypt. The sanctity imparted to this part of the Land which was re-occupied by the Babylonian exiles was never lost again; and it is to this part that the laws of the Seventh year fully apply. ¹³⁰ Ibid. ¹³² I.e., the Brook of Egypt (Joshua 15:47) in the south (Tifereth Shlomoh). ¹³³ I.e. Mount Hor (Numbers 34:7) to the north. The Mishnah thus covers two points from Chezib: from the south thereof to the Brook of Egypt, and from the north thereof to Mount Hor (Tifereth Shlomoh). ¹³⁴ As suggested above by Ramban, the reason for this leniency concerning Removal may be that the whole matter is of Rabbinic origin. ¹³⁵ Yerushalmi Shevi’ith, end of Chapter 9. ¹³⁶ See above in Seder Emor ¹³⁷ Moed Katan 2 b. In other words, this was why the Talmud Yerushalmi quoted the words of this man. In our editions of the Gemara, the version is “Rabbi” [the editor of the Mishnah] instead of Rabbi Shimon. ¹³⁸ Deuteronomy 15:2: And this is the manner of the ‘release:' every creditor shall ‘release’ that which he hath lent unto his neighbor

THEN SHALT THOU MAKE PROCLAMATION WITH THE BLAST OF THE HORN ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE SEVENTH MONTH; IN THE DAY OF ATONEMENT SHALL YE MAKE PROCLAMATION WITH THE HORN THROUGHOUT ALL YOUR LAND. “Since Scripture states in the Day of Atonement do I not know that it is on the tenth day of the seventh month? Why then does Scripture state on the tenth day? [It is to teach us that] the blowing [of the Shofar] on the tenth day of the seventh month overrides the Sabbath throughout all your Land, but the blowing [of the Shofar] on the New Year does not override the Sabbath throughout all your Land, but only at the court alone.” This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi [Rashi], with his expert knowledge of the Talmud, and because it is all for him like a ready-laid table, was not concerned when he quoted Beraithoth without qualification, but they are misleading for the rest of the people [who are not as expert in the Talmud as he was]. For it is known and clear in the Gemara¹³⁹ that all blowings of the Shofar, whether on the New Year, or the Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year], or even [blowing] out of one’s own desire [without any intention to fulfill a commandment], are permitted on the Sabbath [by law of the Torah], since blowing [of the Shofar] is merely an art and not “work.” They used [in fact] to blow the Shofar everywhere by law of the Torah on the Sabbath of the New Year and on the Day of Atonement; and the matter of blowing the Shofar [only] at the court, was ordained by Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai¹⁴⁰ after the Temple was destroyed. This was decreed [by Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai], because they [the Sages] prohibited the blowing of the Shofar [if the New Year fell on a Sabbath]. Since everyone is obliged to blow the Shofar [or to hear it blown, but not everyone is expert in it, thus we fear that] perhaps he will take the Shofar in his hand and go to an expert to learn, and thus he will carry it the distance of four cubits in a public thoroughfare [which is forbidden by law of the Torah on the Sabbath]; and Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai therefore only permitted us to do it at the court [where the fear of the judges ensures that nobody will violate the Sabbath on account of the blowing of the Shofar]. There is thus no basis whatsoever for this prohibition in Scripture [and so how could Rashi interpret the verse before us on the basis of this Rabbinic enactment]? And the Rabbis, in mentioning that “the blowing of the Shofar on the tenth day [of the seventh month] overrides the Sabbath,” intended to say that it is done on every Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year, whether it falls on a weekday or on the Sabbath]; for there is no difference between overriding the Day of Atonement when it falls on the Sabbath or when it falls on a weekday, since the Day of Atonement itself is like the Sabbath in respect of [the prohibition of] all work, whether that of carrying [an object four cubits in a public thoroughfare, or transferring it from “public” to “private” ground and vice versa], or any other kind of [forbidden] work.¹⁴¹ on the New Year is concerned, there is a clear distinction between a New Year which falls on a weekday and one which occurs on the Sabbath. In the latter case, Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai prohibited blowing the Shofar [except at the court] lest someone may accidentally carry the Shofar and thereby transgress a law of the Torah, as explained in the text. But when the New Year falls on a weekday, there is no question of forbidding blowing the Shofar, because carrying on a festival is permitted. But on the Day of Atonement, unlike other festivals, carrying is prohibited as on the Sabbath. Thus when the Beraitha quoted by Rashi states that the blowing of the Jubilee horn was permitted on the Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath, this is equivalent to saying that it is permitted on every Day of Atonement, whether weekday or Sabbath. Hence the thought conveyed by the Beraitha is not as Rashi has it [that the blowing of the Jubilee overrides the Sabbath day], for as the Day of Atonement is concerned everyday of the week is like the Sabbath! Even so, the Rabbi [Rashi] wished to teach us that the blowing of the Shofar on the Day of Atonement is to be done in all places, for the meaning of the expression ye shall make proclamation with the horn throughout all your Land is to teach us that each individual is obliged to blow [or hear the sound of] the Shofar, and that the blowing is not done only at the court, as is the counting [of the years].¹⁴², 23:15 that this counting is done by the court only.

footnotes: ¹³⁹ Rosh Hashanah 29 b. ¹⁴⁰ The title “Rabban” [our master] instead of just “Rabbi,” indicates that he was the head of the Sanhedrin. The title also appears above at the end of Verse 7: “Rabban Gamaliel.” Rabban Yochanan ben Zaccai was the leading Sage in the period of the destruction of the Second Temple [in the year 70 Common Era]. It was he who went to Vespasian the Roman general and obtained permission to open an academy at Jabneh, which, after the destruction of the Temple, took the place of the Sanhedrin as the supreme religious authority for the Jewish people. Under his leadership a number of regulations were instituted by the Sages in remembrance of the Temple. ¹⁴¹ Ramban’s point here is as follows: As far as the blowing of the Shofar ¹⁴² Above, 25:8. See Ramban ibid.

YOVEIL HI’ (IT IS A JUBILEE). “This [the fiftieth] year is distinguished from all other years by being given a special name. And what is that name? Its name is yoveil [literally: ‘the ram’s horn’] on account of the blowing of the Shofar.” This is Rashi’s language, and such also is the opinion of the commentators¹⁴³. that [the word yoveil here] is of the roots: ‘b’keren hayoveil’ (with the ram’s horn);¹⁴⁴ ‘shofroth ha’yovlim’ (the rams’ horns).¹⁴⁵, Verse 4. But I do not find this acceptable, because of [the expression here] shall be unto you [it shall be a Jubilee unto you]; for what sense is there in saying of a year that “it shall be ‘a blowing’ unto you”¹⁴⁶ means “blowing the Shofar,” then it follows that ‘yoveil hi’ the fiftieth year shall be unto you means that “the fiftieth year shall be blowing the Shofar to you.” But how can this be said of a year? Mizrachi in defense of Rashi writes that Rashi means that “the year in which every man returns to his possession and to his family, is called yoveil (Jubilee) on account of the blowing of the Shofar,” but not that the word yoveil means “blowing.” and you shall return [every man unto his possession etc.]? Perhaps Scripture is stating: “It is a Jubilee distinguishable by that name which I have called it, and it shall be unto all of you known by the blowing of the Shofar which you will do thereon, reminding you of the purport [of the Jubilee year], that in it every man shall return unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” Similarly, A Jubilee shall that fiftieth year be unto you¹⁴⁷ means that it shall be a Jubilee unto you, that ye shall not sow, neither reap, that is to say, it is known by its name that it is to be so. But all this appears to me to be incorrect. For the meaning of shofroth ha’yovlim¹⁴⁵, Verse 4. is “the horns of the rams,” and Yonathan [ben Uziel] also translated there: “shofroth [made] of rams’ horns.” It is also so stated in the Gemara:¹⁴⁸ “What intimation is there that the term yoveil is an expression for a ram? In Arabic they call a ram yovlo.” Now the Shofar used on the Day of Atonement [in the Jubilee year] does not necessarily need to be a ram’s horn, for all shofroth (horns) are valid on it, and in the opinion of our Mishnah¹⁴⁹, 26 b. and all the Tannaim (Sages of the Mishnah), the commandment is [preferably to be performed in the year of the Jubilee] with the horn of wild goats. If so, why then would the [Jubilee] year be called “the year of the ram?” Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the meaning of yoveil is like “sending forth.” In my opinion, Scripture does not call the year yoveil with reference to the blowing [of the Shofar], but with reference to “the liberty” [that it brings to the inhabitants of the Land]; for this term is not mentioned in the first verse which states, Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn.¹⁵⁰ But when He stated [in the verse before us] and ye shall proclaim liberty throughout the Land unto all the inhabitants thereof, meaning that they shall all be free to reside wherever they please, He continued by saying ‘yoveil hi,’ that it is a year in which every man is “carried away” to his possession, and his feet “transport him” to his family afar off to sojourn.¹⁵¹ This term [yoveil] is used in connection with many subjects. Thus: ‘yuval’ (there shall be brought) a present unto the Eternal of hosts,¹⁵², 18:7. and it is further stated: *and on ‘yuval’ it spreadeth out its roots;*¹⁵³ streams and ‘yivlei mayim’,¹⁵⁴ which mean “channels through which water is conveyed.” *And the Land shall yield ‘yevulah';*¹⁵⁵ and neither shall ‘yevul’ be in the vines¹⁵⁶ also signify a kind of “bringing” [of produce or fruits], just as they are called t’vuah [“produce,” which is of the root “bringing”]. Similarly in Aramaic [as will be explained]. Thus: and carry it quickly¹⁵⁷ the Targum renders: “v’ovil quickly.” Thus the meaning of it shall be ‘yoveil’ unto you is “it is a year which ‘brings’ [liberty] and it shall be so to all of you, that you shall come and return every man unto his possession, and every man unto his family.” And He stated again [in the following verse], A ‘yoveil’ shall that fiftieth year be unto you¹⁴⁷ meaning that the fiftieth year shall be to you only for yoveil [“bringing” liberty], and not for anything else, and ye shall not sow, neither reap,¹⁴⁷ but instead it shall be holy¹⁵⁸ and every man shall return unto his possession,¹⁵⁹ so that the year shall be for all of you a yoveil [bringing everyone back to his possession and family], as its name indicates. And by way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the term d’ror (liberty) is related to the expression, ‘dor’ (a generation) passeth away, ‘v’dor’ (and a generation) cometh.¹⁶⁰ means that ‘it had already come beforetime.’” See also in Genesis 38:8, Vol. I, p. 469, Note 155. Similarly, yoveil means that everyone will return to the yoveil (source) whence his roots are, and this shall be unto you, [until that time].¹⁶¹

footnotes: ¹⁴³ R’dak in Sefer Hashorashim (Book of Roots), under the root yoveil ¹⁴⁴ Joshua 6:5. ¹⁴⁵ Ibid. ¹⁴⁶ For since Rashi explained that the term yoveil ¹⁴⁷ Verse 11. ¹⁴⁵ Ibid. ¹⁴⁸ Rosh Hashanah 26 a. ¹⁴⁹ Ibid. ¹⁵⁰ Above, Verse 9. ¹⁵¹ Isaiah 23:7. ¹⁵² Ibid. ¹⁵³ Jeremiah 17:8. ¹⁵⁴ Isaiah 30:25. ¹⁵⁵ Further, 26:4. ¹⁵⁶ Habakkuk 3:17. ¹⁵⁷ Numbers 17:11. ¹⁴⁷ Verse 11. ¹⁴⁷ Verse 11. ¹⁵⁸ Verse 12. ¹⁵⁹ Verse 13. ¹⁶⁰ Ecclesiastes 1:4. See Kithvei Haramban, Vol. I, p. 186, where in his sermon on Ecclesiastes Ramban alludes to a text from the Sefer Habahir which asks: “But does not a generation first ‘come’ and then ‘pass away,’ so why then does the verse change the order? It is to allude to the fact that a generation cometh ¹⁶¹ Abusaula.

OUT OF THE FIELD YE SHALL EAT THE INCREASE THEREOF. “By virtue of the produce to be found in the field, you may eat of what is in the house, but if it is no longer to be found by the beast in the field, you must remove it from the house, just as it is said in the case of the Sabbatical year.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, the verse is not well-connected [to the preceding part].¹⁶². And then it continues: out of the field ye shall eat … Now according to Rashi’s interpretation there is no connection between these two parts of the verse. Instead, the verse is stating etc. Ramban, in other words, is explaining that the end of Verse 12 before us continues from the end of Verse 11 above, as stated in the text. Instead, Scripture is stating: *Ye shall not sow, neither reap that which groweth of itself in it …*¹⁴⁷ For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy unto you, and out of the field ye shall eat the increase thereof, and not out of the house. And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted: “out of the field ye shall eat, out of what the field brings forth of its own accord you shall all eat, as is written in the case of the Sabbatical year.” In my opinion Scripture is stating: “You shall not reap nor gather in this year, for it is a Jubilee and it shall be holy unto you; out of the field you shall bring the produce and eat, meaning: that you are to go forth into the field to glean and eat together with the poor and destitute, the beast and cattle, and it is not to be for you a time of reaping and gathering in the produce, and bringing it into your house and store-houses like the produce of all other years.” Now we are taught in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁶³ 3:5. See above, Note 129. “From this the Sages have inferred that if one preserves three kinds of vegetables in a single barrel, Rabbi Elazar¹⁶⁴ says: ‘They may be eaten only as long as the first [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field’ [but as soon as one vegetable is no longer found in the field, all three are forbidden to be eaten, since by preserving them together he makes all three as one]. Rabbi Yehoshua says: ‘Even as long as the last [to ripen of the three kinds] remains in the field’ [they may all be eaten, although the first two vegetables are no longer to be found in the field]. Rabban Gamaliel says: ‘When any one of the species comes to an end in the field, he is to remove that kind from the house’. And the final decision of the law is according to him. Rabbi Shimon says: ‘All vegetables are considered one with regard to the law of Removal.’”¹⁶⁵ All this interpretation is because Scripture does not say “out of the field you shall bring and eat,” but instead [said, out of the field ye shall eat, thus] placing “the eating” next to “the field,” meaning that one may eat [what is stored in the house] only because of it [that which is still to be found in the field]. It is possible that this matter¹⁶⁶ is only a Scriptural support for a law of Rabbinic origin, and that is why Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient [even] about it [the actual vegetable], and Rabban Gamaliel [who was more stringent about it than Rabbi Yehoshua, also] was lenient about the taste [of the vegetable which remains in the other vegetables after it is taken out of the barrel]. I have already written on this subject above.¹⁶⁷ It is possible that according to Rabban Gamaliel the commandment of Removal is by law of the Torah, but the taste of a vegetable, once it is absorbed [by other food] at the beginning [i.e., before the time of the Removal], is considered as if it were “removed” [since it is absorbed and has no independent existence].

footnotes: ¹⁶² The preceding part of the verse reads: For it is a Jubilee; it shall be holy unto you ¹⁴⁷ Verse 11. ¹⁶³ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹⁶⁴ In Shevi’ith 9:5, and Pesachim 52 a: “Rabbi Eliezer.” ¹⁶⁵ Thus even though all the vegetables preserved in the barrel no longer remain in the field, as long as other kinds of vegetables are still found in the fields the law of Removal does not apply to those in the barrel [[illegible]] “for all vegetables are considered one with regard to the law of Removal.” ¹⁶⁶ I.e., the subject of Removal. See Ramban above at the end of Verse 7 in greater detail. ¹⁶⁷ Verse 7.

YE SHALL NOT WRONG ONE ANOTHER. “This refers to overcharging in money matters.” 15. ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF YEARS AFTER THE JUBILEE THOU SHALT BUY OF THY NEIGHBOR. “The plain meaning of the verse as indicated by its context is that Scripture is admonishing here against overcharging [as mentioned in the preceding verse, and explains here in detail]: When you sell or buy land, ascertain how many years there are left till the Jubilee, and according to these years the vendor is to sell and the purchaser to buy, for in the end the purchaser must return him [the land] in the year of the Jubilee. Thus if there are but a few years [till the Jubilee] and he sells it at a high price, the purchaser has been wronged, and if there are many years so that the purchaser can eat many crops from it, he must buy it according to the [greater] time [remaining till the Jubilee]. It is referring to this that it is said, according to the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee,¹⁶⁸ [meaning]: according to the number of years of crops which the land will remain in the hand of the purchaser, you shall sell it to him. Now our Rabbis have derived from here [the law] that one who sells his field has no right to redeem it before two years [after the date of the sale, for the verse states, according to the number of ‘years’ of the crops he shall sell, and the minimum number of the term ‘years’ is two], even if there were three crops in those two years. [However, although this interpretation of the Rabbis indicates that the verse in speaking of shnei means ‘two years’], it does not lose its literal meaning [i.e., ‘years of’], that is to say, he is to sell by the number of ‘years of’ crops, and not by years when the produce is smitten by blast,¹⁶⁹ and the minimum number implied in ‘years’ is two.” Thus far is Rashi’s language. Now this is indeed the correct interpretation of the verse; however, our Rabbis have said that overcharge does not apply in [the sale of] land, for it is said:¹⁷⁰ “Or buy of thy neighbor’s ‘hand’,¹⁷¹ and this refers to something which is transferred from ‘hand’ to ‘hand’” [i.e., movable goods or chattels]. But this verse according to the Rabbi [Rashi], both in its plain meaning and in its [Rabbinical] interpretation, speaks of [overcharging in the sale of] land! We must then perforce turn the verses away from their simple meaning, and say that each one stands independently [of the others].¹⁷² Thus Scripture is stating: And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buy of thy neighbor’s hand,¹⁷¹ that is, something which is transferred from hand to hand, ye shall not wrong one another. Then He states further: “According to the number of years after the Jubilee thou shalt buy¹⁶⁸ of him the crops, and according unto the number of years of the crops he shall sell them unto thee. According to the years you shall increase and reduce the price,¹⁷³ for you will have to return it [i.e., the land] to him in the Jubilee.” All this is an admonition regarding the Jubilee, that they should keep it forever [but it is not intended as a law against overcharging in the sale of land, for in such a transaction the law of overcharge does not apply]. Then He said further, And ye shall not wrong one another, [referring to wronging] by words [i.e., offending]. And it further seems to me logical that one who intentionally overcharges his fellowman, definitely transgresses a negative commandment, whether it be [in a sale of] chattels or land, for it is with reference to them that Scripture is saying, Ye shall not wrong one another. According to the number of years after the Jubilee,¹⁷⁴ admonishing that one must buy and sell according to the years [after the Jubilee], and that no man shall wrong another. But our Rabbis laid down a new law regarding overcharge, namely, that [if the amount overcharged was] one-sixth of the total purchase price, [the sale is valid and that extra amount] must be paid back, but the sale is totally invalidated if the amount overcharged was more than one-sixth of the purchase-price. It is only from this law that land has been excluded, since [a person] foregoes an overcharge of even more than a sixth [of the purchase price] in the case of [the sale of land], just as one [is prepared to] forego in the case of chattels an overcharge of less than a sixth [of the purchase-price], although it is forbidden to overcharge intentionally by such [amounts], but people do not usually go back on their purchase on account of such a small overcharging. The Sages interpreted [Scripture to give a basis for this law] because the verse states, And if thou sell aught unto thy neighbor, or buy something which is transferred from hand to hand, ye shall not wrong one another. From this we learn that in the matter of overcharging there is a special law for chattels which does not apply to land, namely, the return of the money, [i.e., the cancellation of the entire sale if the amount overcharged was more than a sixth of the purchase price], but the negative commandment [forbidding overcharging] applies to all transactions. That is why He said, ‘v’chi thim’kru mimkar’ [“if ‘ye’ sell aught”], which is a plural expression, referring to one who sells land and to one who sells chattels; ‘o kanoh’ (or buys) of thy neighbor’s hand, referring to an individual, who sells chattels from hand to hand, and with reference to all of them He said ye shall not wrong. But since He singled out and specified chattels, [it indicates that] He gave concerning them an additional law regarding overcharging, namely the [right to] return the money [of the purchase-price and thereby cancel the sale]. This is a correct interpretation according to the expositions which our Rabbis have received on the allusions of the Torah. Perhaps all this is only a Scriptural support [for a Rabbinical enactment], for the negative commandment [ye shall not wrong one another] constitutes an admonition applying to both land and chattels [but does not refer at all to cancellation of the entire purchase], and [the right to return] the money the Rabbis received by tradition as applying to chattels and not to [transactions of] land, just as they have said¹⁷⁵ that [land] is a possession that is worth any price. For all these [differing] standards of one-sixth [of the purchase-price, in which case the sale is valid and the amount overcharged must be returned], and more than one-sixth [in which case the entire sale may be cancelled] are based on people’s opinions [and since “land is worth any price” to most people, the Rabbis did not institute these laws of overcharging with respect to land]. And why should the Rabbis not exclude [transactions of] land from this law [of overcharging] just as they excluded from it wares bought from a householder? Thus they said:¹⁷⁶ “[The law of overcharging] is taught only if one buys from a merchant, but if one buys from a private householder, the law of overcharging does not apply,” because private people are not in the habit of selling the possessions that they use [and hence if they do sell them, it is considered as if they had made a specific condition that the buyer cannot complain about the price].¹⁷⁷, in the name of the She’iltoth of Rav Achai Gaon. It is also possible to say that Scripture is warning that they [sellers and purchasers] should take cognizance of the number of years till the Jubilee, and according to them they should sell and buy, and no one should wrong another because of them by misleading him about the number [of years], or by deceiving him about the sale, so that he thinks that it is in perpetuity, and thus he leads him astray thereby. Instead, they must both know and inform one another of this number, since the sale is according to the number of years [remaining] until the Jubilee, for even in [transactions of] land the law of overcharging applies as regards size and number,¹⁷⁸ even if the misleading referred to was less than one-sixth [of the size or the number], and all the more so in the case of chattels [one must be careful not to overcharge].

footnotes: ¹⁶⁸ Verse 15. ¹⁶⁹ Thus, if during one of the two years after the sale the produce was smitten by blast, the vendor does not have the right to redeem his field until three years have elapsed, so that the purchaser has enjoyed at least two crops. ¹⁷⁰ Baba Metzia 56 b. ¹⁷¹ Verse 14 before us. ¹⁷² Thus while Rashi interpreted all three verses [14-16] as applying to business transactions, Ramban interprets only Verse 14 in that way, while Verses 15-16 refer only to keeping the laws of the Jubilee, and Verse 17 prohibits all kind of wronging by words. Thus, as Ramban expresses it, “we must perforce turn the verses away from their simple meaning, and say that each one stands independently of the others.” ¹⁷¹ Verse 14 before us. ¹⁶⁸ Verse 15. ¹⁷³ See Verse 16. ¹⁷⁴ Verses 14-15. ¹⁷⁵ Baba Kamma 14 b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 177, Note 96. ¹⁷⁶ Baba Metzia 51 a. ¹⁷⁷ Rashi ibid. ¹⁷⁸ In other words, it is only with reference to price that specific laws of overcharging do not apply to land, but not with reference to size or number.

AND YE SHALL DO MY STATUTES, AND KEEP MINE ORDINANCES. He warned [here] concerning [all] the statutes on account of the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee mentioned [above], because these [commandments] are in the category of “statutes” [for which no explicit reason is given], and [He warned concerning all] the ordinances on account of the law of the return of sales and servants in the Jubilee, and [the law of] overcharging [which are “ordinances” for which the reasons are obvious]. He said, and ye shall dwell in the Land in safety, because it is for the sin of [transgressing the laws of] the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee that Israel goes into exile. He then said again, And the Land shall yield her fruit, and ye shall eat until ye have enough, and dwell therein in safety,¹⁷⁹ meaning that you will not have to go out of the Land in the Sabbatical year in order to live in another land on account of lack of food [because the Land shall yield enough fruit].

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Verse 19.

AND IF YE SHALL SAY: ‘WHAT SHALL WE EAT THE SEVENTH YEAR?’ The verse is, as it were, inverted, meaning: “and if you shall say in the seventh year, ‘What shall we eat [in the eighth year]?’ for their worry would be about the eighth year. For since the beginning of the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee is in Tishri, then they would eat of the produce of the sixth year during the seventh year, as is the normal way in all other years to eat [of the old produce] until after the reaping [of the new], which is at the time of the Festival of Weeks, and even afterwards until the work of fanning and sifting the produce is finished. Therefore the correct interpretation of the verse, and it shall bring forth produce for the three years¹⁸⁰ is that on account of the year of Jubilee [which always follows a Sabbatical year, G-d will command His blessing in the sixth year,¹⁸⁰ meaning] that the sixth year will bring forth [sufficient produce] for the whole of the Sabbatical year, the Jubilee and the year after the Jubilee, and during all these [three years] they will eat of the old crop. Thus Scripture is assuring them that should they fear in the seventh year saying, “What shall we eat?” then I will command My blessing in the sixth year that it shall bring forth produce for the three years following after [the sixth year], this being an additional blessing [to that of every Sabbatical year, when the sixth year brings forth sufficient produce for the seventh and eighth years; and when in addition there is a Jubilee year, it will bring forth enough for three years] so that it should suffice also for the Sabbatical year and the Jubilee. He states, And ye shall sow the eighth year,¹⁸¹ meaning to say that you should sow in the eighth year in the customary manner of every year, and you should not hurry to plow and sow, or to reap, for until her produce come in into the house at the time that the harvest [usually] takes place every year, at the Festival of Tabernacles, ye shall eat the old crop. And in the Torath Kohanim [it is stated]:¹⁸² 4:6. “For the three years¹⁸⁰ — for the sixth, the seventh, and the year after the seventh. Another interpretation: For the three years — for the Seventh year, the Jubilee, and the year after the Jubilee.”

footnotes: ¹⁸⁰ Verse 21. ¹⁸⁰ Verse 21. ¹⁸¹ Verse 22. ¹⁸² Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹⁸⁰ Verse 21.

AND THE LAND SHALL NOT BE SOLD IN PERPETUITY. “This is to declare a negative commandment affecting [one who refuses] to return fields to their [original] owners in the Jubilee, so that the purchaser should not retain it.” This is Rashi’s language. But if so, why does He warn about “selling” [saying, the Land shall not be ‘sold’ in perpetuity], when it should rather have said: “Thou shalt not buy in perpetuity”? Perhaps [the meaning of the verse is as if] it said, “and the Land shall not be sold to you in perpetuity” [and thus the prohibition refers to the buyer]. Similarly, they shall not be sold as bondmen¹⁸³ is an admonition to the purchaser, that he must send forth to freedom [a Hebrew servant] in the Jubilee year, according to the plain meaning of the verse. It is, [however], possible that the Land shall not be sold in perpetuity is a negative commandment referring to the seller, that he is not to sell it permanently by saying: “I am selling it to you forever, even for after the Jubilee.” For although the Jubilee [in fact] takes it out of his possession [despite his intention of buying it permanently], Scripture nonetheless admonishes the seller or both of them that they should not [attempt to] make their transaction in perpetuity, and if they did so stipulate, they transgress this negative commandment, and [additionally] it will be of no avail to them, for the land will return in the Jubilee. And so did Rabbi Moshe [ben Maimon] explain it.¹⁸⁴ 11:1. And the reason for this prohibition [of stipulating a permanent sale, although such a stipulation is completely ineffective], is because it is well-known in human thought that if people take into account from the beginning of the transaction the number of years until the Jubilee, it will [in the end] be easier for them [i.e., for the purchasers, to return it in the Jubilee], but if one [intends to] buy it in perpetuity, one will find it very difficult to return. This prohibition, then, is similar to what the Sages have said:¹⁸⁵ “That which the Merciful One said one may not do, if one does do, has no legal effect, but the transgressor is liable to the punishment of whipping because he violated the Royal decree.” The correct opinion appears to me to be that this is not a negative commandment [for the transgression of which] one is liable to whipping. Rather, [the verse merely states] a reason [for the Jubilee], saying: “Observe between you [the law of] the Jubilee, and be not resentful about it, for the Land is Mine, and I do not want that it should be sold in perpetuity as [in the case of] other transactions.” This is the meaning [of the Rabbis’ interpretation] in the Torath Kohanim:¹⁸⁶ 4:8. “And the Land shall not be sold ‘litzmithuth’ — permanently. For the Land is Mine — [therefore] be not resentful about it. For ye are strangers and settlers — do not consider yourselves the main [proprietors]. Ye are with Me — it is enough for the servant to be as his Master. When it is Mine it is yours.”¹⁸⁷ By way of the Truth, [the mystic teachings of the Cabala], the meaning of the expression for the Land is Mine [literally: “for ‘unto Me’ is the Land”] is like and they take ‘unto Me’ an offering.¹⁸⁸ It is this which the Rabbis have alluded to here [by saying in the Torath Kohanim]:¹⁸⁶ 4:8. “It is enough for the servant to be as his Master,” for the Jubilee will be applying [even]¹⁸⁹ in the world. The person learned [in the mysteries of the Cabala] will understand.

footnotes: ¹⁸³ Further, Verse 42. ¹⁸⁴ Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Shmitah V’yoveil ¹⁸⁵ Temurah 4 b. ¹⁸⁶ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹⁸⁷ This is a euphemism, the intent of which is as follows: “When you [Israel] are there upon the Land, G-d considers it as His, since the laws of the Jubilee then apply, but this is not so when Israel is exiled.” See my Hebrew commentary p. 179. ¹⁸⁸ Exodus 25:2. ¹⁸⁶ Torath Kohanim, Behar ¹⁸⁹ Abusaula. See further in Vol. II, p. 341, Note 23.

AND IN ALL THE LAND OF YOUR POSSESSION [YE SHALL GRANT A REDEMPTION FOR THE LAND]. “This [expression of ‘in all the land’] includes houses and Hebrew servants [that they too be granted the right of redemption]. This matter is explained in the first chapter of Tractate Kiddushin.¹⁹⁰ And according to the plain meaning thereof, it is to be connected with the section [immediately] following, [thus teaching] that he who sells [his land] has the right of redeeming it after two years, either personally or through his relative, and the purchaser cannot prevent it.” This is Rashi’s language. But it does not appear to me to be correct that Scripture should state in general terms in the section dealing with the Jubilee, [mentioned above], And in all the land of your possession ye shall grant a redemption [which according to Rashi speaks of the right of the seller to redeem the land of his possession], and then explain in the second section how this law applies: If thy brother be waxen poor etc.¹⁹¹ The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Scripture is stating: “And in all the land of your possession, that is, the land which I give you for a possession, ye shall grant this redemption of the Jubilee.” The term “redemption” is like the Eternal hath redeemed His servant Jacob,¹⁹² which means that He brought out His servant from the hand of those who held him [captive]. Similarly, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm¹⁹³ [means “I will take Israel out of Egypt”]. So also [the expression before us] ye shall grant a redemption for the Land means that I wish to redeem My Land from the hand of those who hold it, as I have not given it to them as a part of their possession. It was necessary that this be stated because He had said [as a reason for this law], for ‘ha’aretz’ (the earth) is Mine,¹⁹⁴ as referring to the entire earth, and not to any particular land. and since the whole earth is His, therefore He stated additionally that the Jubilee only applies in the Land of our possession, not outside the Land [of Israel]. He stated and in all [‘and in all’ the land of your possession …] meaning that it is to apply to all our possessions, including the other side of the Jordan and all places of [our] possession, and not only in “the Land of the Eternal” wherein the Sanctuary is located [i.e., westward of the Jordan, but the law of the Jubilee is to apply also in the land east of the Jordan where the Sanctuary of G-d may not be built — see Ramban Numbers 21:21].

footnotes: ¹⁹⁰ Kiddushin 21 a. ¹⁹¹ Further, Verse 25. In other words, since this verse [25] begins a new section in the Torah, and is thereby disconnected from the preceding verse [before us], it is not likely that this new section is the explanation of the preceding verse. ¹⁹² Isaiah 48:20. ¹⁹³ Exodus 6:6. ¹⁹⁴ Verse 23. It is clear from the following text that Ramban understands here the word ha’aretz

AND IF A MAN SELL A DWELLING-HOUSE IN A WALLED CITY. Since a man finds it very difficult to sell his house, and be disconcerted at the time of the sale, therefore the Torah wanted that he [have the right to] redeem it within the first year [after the sale]. And because man is servant to the field,¹⁹⁵ and the bread of his sustenance comes from it, the Torah wanted [that if the seller did not redeem it before the Jubilee], it should go back [to him] in the Jubilee.¹⁹⁶ But with regard to a house [in a walled city], after [the seller] has given up hope [of regaining it], by changing his residence and staying for a year in another house, it can no longer cause him harm [if he cannot redeem it after a year], since his [source of] livelihood will not be diminished if it will be forfeited [to the purchaser]. And the houses of the villages [which have no wall round about them]¹⁹⁶ are made for the purpose of protecting the fields, and to serve as dwelling-places for those who cultivate the earth; therefore their law [of redemption] is similar to that of the fields of the country [i.e., they may be redeemed at any time until the Jubilee, and in the Jubilee they go back without compensation].

footnotes: ¹⁹⁵ Ecclesiastes 5:8. ¹⁹⁶ Verse 31. ¹⁹⁶ Verse 31.

AND IF ONE OF THE LEVITES REDEEM. The plain meaning of this verse appears to be as follows: He had stated [in the previous verse], the Levites have a perpetual right of redemption, to redeem immediately [even before the period of two years after the sale of the fields, which an Israelite must wait before he is allowed to redeem], and to redeem at any time [a house in a walled city, even after the expiration of a year since the sale, after which time an Israelite cannot redeem]. But He did not explain with reference to them [the Levites] whether their relatives [also] have the right of redemption, nor whether the Jubilee applies to them. Therefore He stated again, And if one of the Levites redeem, be the redeemer the seller himself or his relative a Levite, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the Jubilee from the hand of the purchaser. He should redeem it on this understanding, that he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof and restore the overplus,¹⁹⁷ meaning to say that the Jubilee does apply to them [the Levites], and the manner of their redemption shall be as He said of the Israelites, and he shall reckon the years of the sale thereof etc.¹⁹⁷ And our Rabbis have said¹⁹⁸ that the verse speaks of a Levite who buys from a Levite. According to their word, the interpretation of the verse appears to me to be as follows: It was the custom in former times in Israel that when a man had to sell his field, the person who had precedence in his inheritance [i.e., who was the nearest relative who could inherit] would come and buy it, and it was this that was called “redemption,” as it is said, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth, for the right of redemption is thine to buy it,¹⁹⁹ and so also is it explained there in the matter of Boaz.²⁰⁰ And it appears to me that they administered a law of precedence for him, just as our Rabbis enacted for us the law of [the prerogative of] the neighbor,²⁰¹ and [if other people wanted to buy it], they would acquire [the right of possession] from the “first redeemer” by the [symbolic act of] acquisition of a scarf, as did Boaz.²⁰². See Ramban on Exodus 28:41. Thus Scripture is stating here that when a Levite redeems the inheritance of a Levite, that is to say, when he buys it from him as is the law of redemption, then that [land] acquired shall go out in the Jubilee. It thus teaches that the Jubilee applies to them [the Levites] in the case of “redemption” just as in the case of any other sale [among Israelites]. Scripture did not have to mention this law in the case of a plain sale [i.e., to say that if a Levite sold his field to a non-Levite, who is not his near relative, that it goes back to its original owner, the Levite, in the Jubilee], for they [Levites] are part of all Israel [and it is self-understood that the same laws apply to them]; except that He strengthened their legal right [by giving them, as explained above], a perpetual [privilege of] redemption. This law of “redemption” applies also to Israelites [i.e., that if they bought from Levites, the Levites have an unrestricted right of redemption forever]. Scripture, however, mentioned it with reference to the Levites, in order that one should not say that the [forty-eight] cities²⁰³ were only given to the whole tribe of Levi [and not to any particular person], and that therefore [fields which a Levite had sold] go back from an Israelite [in the Jubilee, i.e., if the purchaser was an Israelite he must give them back], but they do not go back from a Levite [i.e., if the purchaser was a Levite he does not have to give them back, since they remain anyway in the hands of the Levitical tribe], and certainly [we might think that] from a near kinsman [i.e., a Levite] whom we have made liable to buy [the field of his poor brother-Levite, those fields surely do not go back in the Jubilee]; therefore He said that this redemption too goes back in the Jubilee, and from the [law stated in connection with the] Levite we deduce [that the same law applies] to the Israelites. It is possible also that the Levites are not permitted to sell of their cities in any transaction [i.e., whether a field or house] to an Israelite, and therefore all their purchases are termed redemption [because only other Levites, who are their kinsmen, can buy from them].

footnotes: ¹⁹⁷ Verse 27. He calculates how many years remain until the Jubilee, and divides the total purchase-price by the number of years of crops that the purchaser will have until the Jubilee. This gives the value of each crop bought. If the purchaser or his relative redeems the field before the Jubilee, he deducts from the purchase-money paid the value of the crops eaten by the purchaser during the years that the field was in his possession, and gives him the balance. ¹⁹⁷ Verse 27. He calculates how many years remain until the Jubilee, and divides the total purchase-price by the number of years of crops that the purchaser will have until the Jubilee. This gives the value of each crop bought. If the purchaser or his relative redeems the field before the Jubilee, he deducts from the purchase-money paid the value of the crops eaten by the purchaser during the years that the field was in his possession, and gives him the balance. ¹⁹⁸ Arakhin 33 a. ¹⁹⁹ Jeremiah 32:7. ²⁰⁰ Ruth 4:4. ²⁰¹ Baba Metzia 108 a. If a man wishes to sell his field, his neighbor has the special right of pre-emption — the right of purchasing before or in preference to others. ²⁰² Ruth 4:8: So the near kinsman said unto Boaz: ‘Buy it for thyself.’ And he drew off his shoe ²⁰³ Numbers 35:6-7.

THAT HE MAY LIVE WITH THEE. The meaning thereof is that he [i.e., the stranger or settler]²⁰⁴ that we derive the principle that the saving of life overrides the Sabbath etc., as Ramban continues. shall [be enabled to] live with you, it being a positive commandment to support him, and it is from here [that we deduce] that we are commanded by means of a positive commandment to save life. It is from here too, that the Sages have said:²⁰⁵ 5:3. Baba Metzia 62 a. “That thy brother may live with thee.²⁰⁶ This was explained by Ben Peturi: If two people were going on a journey [in the desert], and one of them has a pitcher of water which [contains such an amount that] if he [alone] drinks it, [it would suffice to enable him to] reach an inhabited place, but if both drink from it, both would die. Ben Peturi stated: ‘It is better that both should drink and die, rather than that one should witness the death of his colleague,’ until Rabbi Akiba came and taught: that thy brother may live with thee²⁰⁶ — thy life takes precedence over the life of thy colleague.” He repeated [the phrase] that thy brother may live with thee,²⁰⁶ in order to emphasize and stress [that we are not to take from him any interest or increase, as is stated in the first part of that verse]. And the Rabbinical interpretation is as follows:²⁰⁷ “Return to him the interest, so that he may live with you.” Thus He commanded the return of [previously] stipulated interest, similar to that which He said in the case of robbery, and he shall restore that which he took by robbery.²⁰⁸ Now Onkelos rendered ‘geir v’thoshav vachai imach’ [generally translated: a stranger and a settler that he may live with thee] as part of the positive commandments [enumerated here, thus meaning:] “he shall sojourn and settle and live with you.”²⁰⁹. And the verse continues to explain how you are to uphold him: “he is to sojourn and settle and live with thee.” But according to the Rabbis, as Ramban continues, the sense of the verse is etc. But according to the opinion of our Rabbis in the Gemara,²¹⁰ the sense of the verse is as follows: [“And if thy brother be waxen poor …] then thou shalt uphold him, and [thou shalt also uphold] a stranger and a settler, so that each one of them shall live with thee.”

footnotes: ²⁰⁴ See Note 33 in my Hebrew Commentary pp. 180-181, that this is the correct interpretation of the intent of Ramban. Thus the expression before us speaks of our duty to help the stranger and settler, “and surely [this duty applies to] one of our brethren of the children of Israel, who had become poor.” It is from this positive commandment that he may live with thee ²⁰⁵ Torath Kohanim, Behar ²⁰⁶ Verse 36. ²⁰⁶ Verse 36. ²⁰⁶ Verse 36. ²⁰⁷ Baba Metzia 62 a. ²⁰⁸ Above, 5:23. Interest is only forbidden by law of the Torah if it is previously stipulated, i.e., at the time of the loan, although the Rabbis forbade all interest. ²⁰⁹ The sense of the verse according to Onkelos is thus as follows: And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee — then thou shalt uphold him ²¹⁰ Baba Metzia 71a. See my Hebrew Commentary p. 181.

TAKE THOU NO ‘NESHECH’ (INTEREST) OF HIM OR ‘RIBITH’ (INCREASE). “The Rabbis explained [these two terms — ‘interest’ and ‘increase’] as one, and [the reason why Scripture mentioned two different words is to teach us that he who transgresses this law] violates two negative commandments.” This is Rashi’s language. The plain meaning of the verse appears to me to be that neshech (interest) is where, [for example], he lends him a hundred [shekels] and [the borrower is] to give him five shekels each year [for the use of the money, without deducting it from the capital sum of the loan]. It is so called [neshech, literally “biting”] because at the last ‘yishach’ (it biteth) like a snake,²¹¹ [the effect of whose bite is not noticed immediately, but which] spurts and increases. Tarbith [or ribith — “increase”], however, is if he lends him [a sum of money] until a certain time, and then [the borrower is to] repay him and give him an increase of five shekels, but [even if the repayment should be delayed], there is no [additional] increase after that time [i.e., there is one fixed sum and not an annual percentage]; this [form of interest] does not “bite”, since it will not go up more than that [fixed] sum, but it is [nonetheless] “an increase.” Therefore He stated, Thou shalt not give him thy money ‘b’neshech’ (upon interest), nor give him thy food ‘b’marbith’ (for increase),²¹² for it is customary to lend money for neshech (interest), [the borrower being obliged] to give every year [a certain amount of money for the use of the capital borrowed], but food is [usually] lent until the time of reaping, and then he pays him back out of his granary with a stipulated addition.

footnotes: ²¹¹ Proverbs 23:32. ²¹² Verse 37.

AS A HIRED SERVANT, AND AS A SETTLER, HE SHALL BE WITH THEE. The meaning of this is that he [your brother who sold himself to you] shall not be with you in your house as a bondservant, but as a laborer hired year by year²¹³ who hires himself out to do work as a freeman, and who is not subjected to heavy work; or [he is to be in your house] as a settler, for it is customary that settlers who come to sojourn in [another] land work for the head of the household with whom they reside to their satisfaction, similar to the case of Jacob with Laban, where [Laban] said [to Jacob], *Because thou art my brother, shouldest thou therefore serve me for nought? tell me, what shall thy wages be?*²¹⁴ And in the Torath Kohanim it is written:²¹⁵ 7:3. “As a hired servant — just as [in the case of] a hired servant in the same day thou shalt give him his hire,²¹⁶ so too, this one must be given his hire in the same day.²¹⁷). As a settler — just as [in the case of] a settler he shall dwell with thee … where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him,²¹⁸, 23:17. this one also where it liketh him best; thou shalt not wrong him. — He shall be with thee, with thee concerning [the same kind of] food, with thee concerning [the same kind of] drink, with thee concerning [the same kind of] clean garment, etc.”²¹⁹).

footnotes: ²¹³ Further, Verse 53. ²¹⁴ Genesis 29:15. ²¹⁵ Torath Kohanim, Behar ²¹⁶ Deuteronomy 24:15. ²¹⁷ If he did some extra work outside his strict duty, his master must pay him on the day he completes it (Malbim in his commentary to the Torath Kohanim ibid. ²¹⁸ Ibid. ²¹⁹ “So that you [the master] should not eat bread of refined flour, and he eat black bread; you drink old wine, and he drink new wine; you sleep on pillows, and he sleep on straw” (Torath Kohanim ibid.

AND IF A STRANGER WHO IS A SETTLER WITH THEE BE WAXEN RICH, AND THY BROTHER BE WAXEN POOR BESIDE HIM, AND SELL HIMSELF UNTO THE STRANGER WHO IS A SETTLER WITH THEE, OR ‘L’EIKER’ (TO THE STOCK OF) THE FAMILY OF ‘GEIR’ (A STRANGER). “The family of ‘geir’ — this means an idolater. Since Scripture [also] stated l’eiker (‘to the stock of’ the idolater), it refers to one who sold himself to the idol itself — to be its servant; not to worship it as a deity, but to hew wood and draw water for its service.” This is Rashi’s language derived from the Torath Kohanim.²²⁰ 5:1. And if so, the verse is saying: l’eiker ‘u’mishpachath geir [“to the stock of ‘and’ to the family of the stranger,” — since according to Rashi the verse speaks of two different people — and omits the conjunctive “and” and merely says, l’eiker mishpachath geir — literally “to the stock of the family of a stranger”]. Scripture calls the idol eiker [“plucking” or “uprooting”] because a person is dutybound to uproot thoroughly an object of idol-worship and to extirpate it. But Onkelos translated l’eiker — l’armai (“to a gentile”), and this is the correct interpretation. Scripture is thus mentioning [the case of a Hebrew who] sold himself to a stranger who dwells with us, or who sold himself ‘l’eiker mishpachath geir’ (to the stock of the stranger’s family), who is himself a gentile, the word eiker thus being related to the expression ‘ikar sharshohi’ (the stump of its roots).²²¹ Scripture states ‘mishpachath geir’ (the family of the stranger) [in order to indicate that] the stranger or the settler who became rich with us brought it about that the brother [i.e., the Israelite] become poor beside him [because he had emulated his ways] and thus be sold to the stock of the family of the stranger. Scripture commanded that he must be redeemed,²²² this being a positive commandment upon all Israel that we are to redeem him, and then it commanded his kinsmen that they are the first [in this duty].²²³ The purpose of the commandment is clear, that he should not become assimilated and learn from the ways [of his purchasers]. For in the case of [all] other sales, the redemption by kinsmen is a matter of choice [but here it is an obligation]. Therefore He said here, For unto Me the children of Israel are servants; they are My servants,²²⁴ meaning to say that “although the stranger who settled [with us] and the stock of his family do not have to observe the commandment of the Jubilee, they cannot buy My servants to be their [permanent] servants.”

footnotes: ²²⁰ Torath Kohanim, Behar ²²¹ Daniel 4:12. ²²² Verse 48. ²²³ Verse 49. ²²⁴ Verse 55.