Their general rules and specifications. You might ask: How does Rashi know that all of them [including] their general rules and specifications were said at Sinai? Obviously, because the superfluous words “on Mount Sinai” indicate that the general rules and specifications were said at Mount Sinai. But perhaps this only comes to teach [the laws] of about the Sabbatical year itself, and not about other mitzvos? Also, regarding [the claim that these words are superfluous] itself you can object, from where [does Rashi know this]? Perhaps [the verse writes] “on Mount Sinai” so that you do not say that “(And Hashem spoke to him from) the Tent of Meeting” written at the beginning of parshas Vayikra refers to all the parshiyos after parshas Vayikra, and therefore it writes “on Mount Sinai” here? The answer is: This is why Rashi writes “And it seems to me, etc.” He means as follows: Since we do not find that [the laws of] shemittoh of the land whose general rules principles were taught at Sinai were repeated at the Plains of Moab in Sefer Devorim., Tthis could make lead one to mistakenly say that all the mitzvos were repeated taught at the Plains of Moav because of their details and specifications, and are [thus] not from Sinai. Even though it is written later at the end of Vayikra (27:34), “These are the commandments which Hashem commanded Moshe for Bnei Yisroel on Mount Sinai,” which implies that all the mitzvos are from Sinai, this may apply only to the general rules of mitzvos but not to their details. However, since the Sabbatical year is not repeated there except in the hint of “Suspend (every creditor’s hand from his loan to his neighbor)” (Devorim 15:2), if so, its general rules and details must all have been said at Sinai. If so, why does the verse here [superfluously] say “Mount Sinai”? It must be to teach us that every utterance which was prophetically said to Moshe, that all of them were from Sinaiùtheir general rules and their specifications. And [the Sabbatical year] is an example that applies to the entire Torah.

The Shabbos of Ccreation. You might ask: What has this [Shabbos] to do with that [the Sabbatical year]? The answer is: A person sometimes stops plowing his land for its benefit, so that the land should be fertile. Therefore, Rashi explains, “As it was said regarding the Shabbos of creation.” I.e., it says there (Shemos 20:10), “But the seventh day is Shabbos to Hashem, your God,” since the Holy One rested on the seventh day. Here too, we are commanded to keep the Sabbatical year in the seventh year in order to remind us that the Holy One rested on the seventh day. And the verse is commanding to not plow the land for the sake of Hashem, and his intent should not be for his own benefit.

For the fields. Because if not [for this limitation], even making a hole in the earth [for non-agricultural purposes] would be forbidden. Therefore, Rashi explains: “For the fields and vineyards.” His proof for this is that it is written, “You shall not plant your field and you shall not prune your vineyard,” indicating that only fields and vineyards are forbidden, whereas making a hole is permitted. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it says “The land shall be at rest”? The answer is: [If he said it there] you might object, how does he know that? Perhaps even digging the earth is forbidden? Here, however, it is explicitly written a “field” and a “vineyard.”

That they cut off its branches. You might ask: Why does Rashi not explain this above where it states “You shall prune your vineyard”? The answer is: Above you might have thought that תזמור is an expression of planting, [meaning] that one should not plant branches that grow will beinto a vineyard. But now that it is written וכרמך לא תזמור (your vineyard you shall not prune), by writing “vineyard” first indicates that the vineyard has already been planted, and if so, what is the meaning of לא תזמור? Thus, it must be an expression of pruning.

And its Targum is: “you shall not cut off.” You might ask: Why does Rashi not [simply] explain, “Like its Targum?” The answer is: [He wanted to add] that it is also an expression found in Scripture, “as thorns cut off.” We find the same in parshas Vayeitzei (Bereishis 30:32) [regarding the word] חום (dark) where Rashi explains שחום (dark brown), which is [actually] like its Targum. [If so], why does Rashi not [simply] explain “Like its Targum”? Because [he wants to explain that] it is also an expression found in the Mishnah, “[It was sold as] dark brown (שחמתית) etc.”

To retain it with the rest of the harvest. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say קצירך (your harvest)? It should have just said “Crops that grew on their own you shall not reap.” He answers, “To retain it...” Alternatively, Rashi is answering [the question of] how can Scripture write “you shall not reap,” when it is written [later], “The [produce] ... shall be for yourselves, for food,” indicating that one may eat it, and it is unreasonable [to suggest] that one eats it from the field like an animal without reaping it. Regarding this he explains, “To retain it...”

But from [that which is] ownerless. Re’m explains that the first command [of this verse] teaches us that one may not even reap even crops that grew on their own unless they are ownerless, and the same applies to grapes that grew without pruning or digging. The second command teaches that even if the owner kept people away from the grapes, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten and the owner may gather them like any poor person. The same applies to crops. If the owner kept people away from them, or even if he transgressed by plowing and sowing and only then he made them ownerless, the grapes may be eaten, and the owner too may reap them like any poor reaper.

All shall be equal in it. You might ask: Rashi already explained above, “’You shall not reap,’ [in order] to retain it with the rest of the harvest, but it should be ownerlessùfree to all,” which implies that one may benefit from it or eat it. The answer is: Above too, Rashi proved this from here. Because if not for this verse, “[It] shall be for yourselves, for food,” I would say that “you shall not reap” forbids even eating and benefit.

**From that which has been “rested.”**שבות is an expression of permission. I.e., you may eat whatever everyone has permission to take from, i.e., [whatever is] ownerless.

From that which is kept. Explanation: From the fruits of the Sabbatical year that someone kept for himself, by not making them ownerless. [Rashi understands that שבת means שבות] because the verse writes “The land’s Shabbos[-year] (shall be for yourselves),” instead of writing, “The produce of the land’s Shabbos[-year] shall be for yourselves.” Thus [he understands that] שבת means שבות. Even though above, Rashi commented on the verse “You shall not gather,” that “Those you may not gather, but from [that which is] ownerless, [you may gather],” there he was only talking about grapes, whereas here the verse includes all produce from the land. Alternatively, that [law of the earlier verse] is derived from here, because, as I explained above, if not for this verse, you would think that one may not gather at all.

By the wealthy. And you might think that when the verse includes the owner by writing, “The [produce] of the land’s Shabbos[-year] shall be for yourselves, for food,” that is only if he too is poor since it is written (Shemos 23:11), “And let the needy among your people eat it.” Therefore Scripture writes, “For you, and for your servant,” to teach that even if he is wealthy he may eat it. You might ask: Why does it write here “(you), your servant and your maidservant?” It should only write “you,” since poor people are already mentioned in the verse “And let the needy among your people eat it”? The answer is: Here it is speaking of before [the time of] bi’ur, when there is still produce in the field, [in which case rich and poor are equal]. But there it is talking about after [the time of] bi’ur, when the householder has to put his [produce that he had taken indoors back] in the field. Therefore it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it,” because [only] they eat without having to put [anything] in the field. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask: If so, why do I need [the words] “And let the needy among your people eat it”? If a wealthy person may eat, how much more a poor person! The answer is: “The needy among your people” have precedence over a wealthy person. Therefore, it is written “And let the needy among your people eat it.”

Even the non-Jews. Nachalas Yaakov explains: You cannot say the verse is talking about a Jew and that שכיר (hired hand) means [a Jew] acquired for [six] years, and (resident sojourner) means [a Jew] acquired forever [i.e., until the Yovel], like every [other use of the words] שכיר and תושב in Scripture, because the verse already said “your slave and your female slave,” and these are Jews. The verse is telling us that even though the year is called “holy,” its fruit is permitted to non-Jews. Gur Aryeh asks: Why does the verse need to write [both] “for your hired hand” [and also “for your resident sojourner”]? The answer is: If it only wrote “for your hired hand,” I might think that only he [eats Sabbatical year produce] because he is a Jew’s worker and it is normal to give him food, whereas, since a Jew is not responsible to provide food for “your resident sojourner,” I might think he may not [eat food of the Sabbatical year]. So it tells us [otherwise]. And if it [only] wrote “for your sojourner,” I might think [only] a sojourner who accepted upon himself not to serve idols [may eat food of the Sabbatical year], but not a regular non-Jew, so it tells us [otherwise].

Since you are obligated to feed it. Nachalas Yaakov explains as follows: Because the verse is permitting the [Sabbatical year’s] fruits even to non-Jews, domesticated animals and beasts, even though the fruits are holy, it would be more logical to permit them [only] to a domesticated animal which is a mitzvah to feed since it belongs to you and you are obligated to feed it, unlike the beast [which you are not obliged to feed]. [Therefore Rashi is answering the question]: If so, why does the verse need to say “for your domesticated animals”? This answers the question of Re’em, see there.

**Put at an end (to that stored) for your domesticated animal [removing it] from the house.**I.e., you must remove whatever fruit you gathered for your domesticated animals from the house when they those [fruits] are gone no longer [growing] infrom the field [and no longer available] for wild beasts. And one has to make ownerless all the Sabbatical fruit that he had gathered into the house.

Seven sabbatical years. Explanation: The sabbatical year is called Shabbos as it says (later 26:34), “The land will then be appeased for its Shabbosos.” So translates Onkelos, “Seven sabbatical years.” The proof [that “Shabbos” means “sabbatical year” and not “a period of seven years”], is because Scripture writes [afterwards], “seven years, seven times,” which indicates that [Shabbos] refers to [sabbatical] years and not to a period of seven years. [Otherwise, why should the verse repeat the same thing twice?] [Translating שבתת as “a period of seven years] would have been] similar to “Seven complete weeks (שבתות) they shall be” (earlier 23:15), which Onkelos translates as “seven complete weeks.” [See Re’m]

That even if, etc., declare the jJubilee. Explanation: Expound the verse as follows: “And it shall be for you, the days (period) of the seven sabbatical years forty-nine years,” then [even if you did not declare the sabbatical years], “you shall make a proclamation with the shofar” and declare the Jubilee.

Add up to the number forty-nine. You might ask: Does the verse need to tell us the number? The Re’m answers: This is the way of Scripture in many places. But, it seems to me [that Rashi says this] since the year of yovel counts for here and for there. I.e., during this year of yovel, one [already] begins to count [towards] the [next] sabbatical year [that is to arrive] after the yovel (Rosh Hashana 9a). If so, I might say that every the sabbatical year too also counts for here and for there, and the sum of the years would only be forty-three. Therefore, Rashi explains, forty-nine. Another answer is that Scripture writes “seven sabbatical years” and then writes “You shall make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month, on Yom Kippur.” If so, I might have said that the forty-nine years end on Yom Kippur, and there will be ten days extra. Therefore, Rashi explains “forty-nine.”

An expression of “proclaiming.” Not [an expression of] moving something with one’s hand (Rosh Hashanah 34a).

Since it is said, “onOn Yom Kippur.” Gur Aryeh asks: Why does Rashi not ask this question according to the order of the verse as follows: Since it states, “On the tenth day of the (seventh) month,” do I not know that it is on Yom Kippur?. If so, why does it say, “on Yom Kippur”? The answer is: Rashi thinks it is no coincidence that the verse makes the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. There is certainly a reason for this, and therefore the verse has to write, “On Yom Kippur shall this shofar-proclamation be made,” making the mitzvah of the Jubilee contingent on Yom Kippur. The reason is, as understanding people know, that the yovel and Yom Kippur share common features, because during the yovel everything reverts to its original state [of ownership] as in the beginning, and so too on Yom Kippur everything returns to its original status because Hashem atones gives atonement to people and they return to their original condition.

They sanctify it in Beis Din. But not on the tenth of the month when they proclaim the JjubileeJubilee with the shofar. Because if it was so, why write “the year of the fiftieth year”? We already know that they are sanctifying the fiftieth year [from the previous verse]. You need not ask: This verse implies that that people are freed from the beginning of the year, while above it writes, “You shall make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth day of the seventh month.” Why make a proclamation with the shofar on the tenth [day] if the year is already sanctified in every way from the beginning of the year? The Gemara already answered this in the first chapter of Rosh Hashana (8b): “From Rosh Hashanah until Yom Kippur, slaves did not leave for home and did not work for their masters. Rather, they ate and drank and had crowns on their heads. Once Yom Kippur arrived, Beis Din blew the shofar and slaves would leave for their homes and fields would return to their owners.”

As one [=a free man] who dwells at an inn, etc. And takes merchandise around the whole country. The Aruch explains, “’Like a runner with a load.’ Explanation. The carrier of the load [of] a merchant, who runs and takes merchandise everywhere. מדייר is an expression of running, and דיירא means a load. [It is actually spelled] מדוור with two vavs.” But Rashi there explains, “As one who dwells at an inn. Someone who is in his own jurisdiction and can dwell in any inn he pleases.” **

The fields return. According to this, the verse is in the wrong order. It should say, “The ancestral land should return to each man,” and not that the owners return to the fields as is implied in “Each man shall return, etc.”

To include one who[se ear has been] pierced. Explanation: [This refers to] tThe person [whose ear has been] pierced person who reached the Jubilee before six years passed since his piercing, as is taught in the Beraisa of Toras Kohanim and Kiddushin (15a). You might ask: Since it is already written (verse 10) “proclaim freedom,” and Rashi explained, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” why [also] write, “Each man shall return to his family”? The answer is: When Rashi explained that “proclaim freedom” means, “To slaves, whether [one whose ear has been] pierced, etc.,” he actually derived this from “Each man shall return to his family,” as this is the main verse. Proof for this is that Rashi comments on the verse in Ve’eileh Hamishpatim (Shemos 21:6), “He then serves his master forever,” that “[This means] until the Jubilee year.” He then asks, “Or perhaps it means forever as is its literal meaning? The Torah therefore says: ’And each man will return to his family.’” He does not cite the verse, “And proclaim freedom,” indicating that it (the latter part of the verse) is the main source. Another answer is that if the Torah only wrote “And proclaim freedom,” I might think that he only leaves at the yovel if beis din had sold him, but not if he sold himself. Therefore, it says “Each man will return to his family.” Or [I may have thought the inference of each of the two verses may be] the opposite.

As it is [stated] in Rosh Hashanah. Explanation: Wherever it says “holy,” such as pertaining to Shabbos and Yom Tov, we add from secular to the holy, and here pertaining to the Jubilee too it is written (verse 10) “You shall sanctify.” Thus, one may have thought that we add to the Jubilee from the year following the Jubilee. Therefore it says, “It is a Jubilee, the year of the fiftieth year,” only this year and no more, and one does not need to add from the following year.

Just as this is said, etc. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain, “Just as this is said, etc.,” on the phrase “You shall not gather the [grapes of] its untended vineyard,” more than on the phrase “You shall not plant and you shall not reap”? The answer is: Rashi writes “Just as this is said, etc.,” because regarding the JjubileeJubilee it is written “You shall not gather its untended vineyard [lit. fruits]” without specifying, and one might think that this applies to other fruits but not to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” since there by the sabbatical year it says “The grapes of your untended vines (את ענבי נזירך) you shall not gather,” and here too likewise it writes, “its untended vineyard” (את נזיריה). Just as it applies to grapes there as it is explicitly written, “The grapes of your untended vines you shall not gather,” so here too it applies to grapes. Therefore Rashi explains, “Just as, etc.,” i.e., the sabbatical year and the Jubilee are the sameidentical in everything [restriction]. (Kitzur Mizrachi) You might ask: What is Rashi telling us? Does the verse not state explicitly, “You shall count for yourself seven sabbatical years... You shall sanctify the year of the fiftieth year”? The Kitzur Mizrachi found written [an answer] written: From the verses it is not obvious that they are [both] equally holy, and one may have thought that one has greater sanctity than the other does. But now that he explained, “Just as this is said in regard to the sabbatical year, so it is said in regard to the Jubilee,” we know their sanctity is equal. (R. Noson)

Its sanctity attaches its worth as Temple property [does]. Explanation: If one redeemed the fruit of the sabbatical year or JjubileeJubilee with money, this money attaches [to itself the] sanctity [of the fruits]. It is like hekdesh (Temple property) that was redeemed for its monetary worth, where the money is attached and become hekdesh.

Perhaps it becomes common food? Like Temple property redeemed for its worth, where the money because attached in its stead and [the Temple property] becomes non-sanctified. [Perhaps] fruit of the sabbatical year is the same? The verse thus teaches, “It shall be,” [i.e., it remains sanctified.]

Just as it was said in regard to the seventh [year]. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain “Just as, etc.” He already explained this above regarding the untended vineyard? The answer is that this is proof to what he explained, “If [the crops] of the field have ended for the beast, you have to remove [crops that have been stored] from the house.” You might have asked, how does Rashi know this? Perhaps even if the crops have ended for the beast, you still do not have to remove [the crops] from the house. And when it is written, “Whatever is in the field, you may eat of its produce,” it means that what you bring from the field you [must] eat on that day, and [you may] not [eat] from what you stored of it in the house. [Rashi’s answer] is: Do you not agree that whatever is stated in regard to the sabbatical year, so too it is stated in regard to the Jubilee? And regarding the sabbatical year it is written (verse 7), “For your domesticated animals and for the [wild] beasts,” and Rashi asked, “If a [wild] beast may eat, certainly a domesticated animal”? And he answered, “[When the produce] is gone from the field for beasts, put at an end (to what you stored) for your domesticated animal [by removing it] from the house.” Thus, the same applies to the Jubilee. This is why Rashi said, “Just as it was said, etc.”

It returns to his father in the Jjubilee. I.e., do not say that since his son will inherit him [anyway], the field should not return to his father in the jubileeJubilee.

This refers to cheating in monetary matters. I explained this in parshas Kedoshim (above 19:33). (Kitzur Mizrachi) [says] in the name of R. Noson: Although our Sages said that the laws regarding to cheating in monetary matters do not apply to [buying or selling] land, however this only pertains to [not] having to return the money when the cheating was by more than one sixth. Nonetheless, he transgresses a negative commandment [by doing so].

How many years there are until the jubileeJubilee. (Divrei Dovid) You might ask: According to Rashi’s explanation that the verse “according to the number of years” is explaining the cheating involved in selling land, would we not know this ourselves? Since he is obligated to return it in the jubileeJubilee, the sale [price] obviously depends on the time left until the jubileeJubilee. Perhaps the difference that arises from this [Rashi’s explanation] is when a first buyer sold to a second buyer. You might have thought that he [the first buyer] can say to him, “I am selling it to you forever! Even though you have to return it to the [original] seller, I have nothing to do with that! The obligation is upon you to fulfill the mitzvah.” This would be similar to someone who sells an animal to a slaughterer, where the obligation to give the gifts to a kohein rests upon the slaughterer and not upon the seller. Here too regarding the jubileeJubilee [one might have thought it is the same and that] one is permitted to “cheat” him [the second buyer]. So it comes to teach us that even in this case do not cheat, and you are included in the obligation [to ensure that the field returns to its original owner].

And according to the years [remaining] and the crops. Explanation: This verse, “according to the number of years,” is explained afterwards in the next verse, “Based on the abundance of years, etc.” Even though the first verse is speaking of the years that passed since the [last] jubileeJubilee, while the next verse is speaking of the years until the [next] jubileeJubilee, this is because the one results from the other, since the buyer and seller only look at the years remaining until the jubileeJubilee and calculate according to them. Therefore, Rashi explains both verses according to the years remaining. Re’m

In less than two years. Because they find it problematical to explain [verse 14 in a way] that the first verse (verse 14) is connected with the second verse (verse 15). [See Re’m]

Lessen its price. Because תרבה or תמעיט מקנתו implies to increase or decrease the [number of the] field’s sales, which is not the verse’s meaning. Therefore Rashi explains, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price,” and “’You shall decrease its purchase price,’ lessen its price.” Rashi says, “’You shall increase its purchase price,’ sell it at a high price (תמכרנה ביוקר),” instead of saying “increase its price” (תרבה בדמיה) as he said “lessen its price” (תמעיט בדמיה), so that you do not think that one should increase and lessen its price more than it is worth. The expression תמכרנה ביוקר, however, does not imply selling for more than its worth, but rather [implies] that it is worth a lot. Re’m

Here [the verse] forbids insulting others with words. Rashi specifically says “here,” because since it is written עמיתו(his fellow), annoying someone with words is applicable. But in verse 14 where it says אל תונו איש את אחיו (do not cheat, a man his brother), one cannot say it means annoying with words because however he denigrates [his brother], he is denigrating with his own flaw since his brother’s honor is his own honor, and by insulting his brother he himself is insulted. Therefore, over there he explains it as cheating in monetary matters, and here he explains it as insulting with words. And so writes the Sheloh. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

For, by the sin of [neglecting] the sabbatical year Israel is exiled. And when the beginning of the verse says, “You shall fulfill My statutes and keep My laws and fulfill them,” it is referring to the statutes and laws pertaining to the sabbatical year, because if not what is its relevance to here?

Within your stomach. Because once it is explicitly written “The land will give forth its fruit,” we already know that you will eat one’s your fiull, so why write “You will eat your fill”? Therefore Rashi explains, “Within your stomach...” You might ask: Why does Rashi turn the verse around and explain “You will live securely on it,” before explaining “You will eat your fill”? Also, why does Rashi cite two phrases of the verse, “The land will give forth..., etc. and you will live securely on it,” and then only explain “And you will securely on it”? The answer is: Learning the verse according to its order one could understand that “you will live securely” refers to “you will eat your fuill,” and is answering the question that once [the Torah writes] “the land will give its fruit,” why does it need to write “you will eat your fill”? If it is to tell you that “there will be blessing even within your stomach,” as meaning that you will eat [only] a little and it will bring provide blessing in your stomach, as implied by the verse writing לשובע (to fullness) and not ושבעתם (you will be filled), as the satiation will come afterwards by itself, why should the Torah give such a blessing? Is it not better to taste food and enjoy eating one’s food? The verse answers this question by saying “you will live securely.” You will not need to worry about years of famine (בצורת) that might come. [Even though the Torah promised there will always be fruit], בצורת can also mean that money will be scarce. Thus the Torah blesses you that you will be filled with the little food that you buy with a few coins. And thus it [the verse] is all one blessing. Rashi rejects this explanation of the verse, because if so, the verse could have omitted “you will live securely.” Because if it comes to explain why the food needs to be blessed in one’s stomach, people would in any case understand the reason when a shortage [of money] occurs, as [explained] above. Therefore, he explains that “You will live securely” refers to “the land will give its fruit,” and means that both fruit and money will be available so that there will never be any shortage. And if so, [the blessing] that “you will eat your fill” even by eating a little, is perforce another blessing, that you will have more than you need and be able to buy whatever items you want [by selling your surplus food]. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Into the house. And it is an expression of bringing [produce] into the house. You cannot say it means we did not gather [the produce] into a pile in the field, and that it means to gather to one place, because what does it help if the produce is gathered in a pile in the field and not brought into the house?

Which grow on their own. Because once it is written “we have not planted,” why write the obvious fact that “we have not gathered our produce.”? Therefore, when it says “We have not gathered our produce,” it must refer to things like wine, fruit, and crops that do not need to be sown.

Tishrei is the season of gathering into the house. This implies that they did not eat from the produce until Sukkos. But above Rashi explained:, “’For three years,’ for part of the sixth, from Nisan until Rosh Hashanah and the seventh and eighth [years], since they would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” This implies that they ate immediately in Nissan, which is an apparent contradiction. The answer is: Above (verse 20) it is written “If you shall say (ask).” I.e., “If you shall say (ask), ’What will we eat in the seventh year, for lo! we have not planted nor gathered our produce?’” The Holy One answers them, “I shall command (direct) My blessing to you... and it will produce [enough] for three years.” And as Rashi explains, “They would sow in the eighth during Marcheshvon, and harvest in [the following] Nisan.” [Thus, by Nissan their question regarding what they will eat will no longer apply]. But they actually did not eat [that produce] until the ninth year on Sukkos. So when it is written, “You will still be eating... until the ninth year,” it is saying even more. That the old produce will be enough not only for three years from Nissan of the sixth year until Nissan of the eighth year, but will even be enough until the end of the eighth year and the beginning of the ninth year. You will eat from it as you do every year when you eat from the old produce until Sukkos of the following year. Re’m

[However,] this verse was said regarding all other sabbatical cycles. (Gur Aryeh) You might ask, why does Scripture not write more, that it will produce for four years. The answer is that the verse is answering the people’s’ question regarding what they will eat. This question does not apply to the jubileeJubilee as they will not ask about one year [that only comes once every fifty years], as for one year people can make an effort to get produce. But for every sabbatical year it would be impossible.

The buyer should not hold it. In other words, the buyer should not hold it and refuse to return it, resulting in it being sold forever.

For it is not yours. Rashi does not cite the reason written in the verse, that it “is Mine,” because for the reason the buyer should not hold it in his hand and refuse to return it to the owners is not because “the land is Mine.” Rather, the verse should have said: Do not begrudge returning it because the land is theirs, or because the land is not yours. Therefore Rashi writes, “For it is not yours.”

Houses [and] a Hebrew slave. Because if not so, why write “in all”? Thus, it comes to include [the law] that even relatives may redeem houses of a walled city or a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew. [See Re’m]

Adjacent to the following section. Re’m writes: “I do not know what forced him to say that it is adjacent to the following section, and not [connected] to the beginning of the same section (v. 15), and that it is telling us that the buyer cannot refuse; rather, ‘you shall grant redemption to the land.’” It seems that Rashi had to explain like this as he is answering the question: why do we need the verse “In all of your ancestral lands, etc.”? In the second [following] section in v. 25 it is written that the buyer cannot refuse? Therefore, he explains that this verse too is adjacent to the following section. Analyze this.

Proper behavior: that he should leave over some of his field. Because since he may only sell under pressure, why does the verse write “some of his ancestral land”? Since he is under pressure and has to sell, [why not sell] even all of it? Therefore he writes, “The (Torah) taught, etc.” I.e., even if he is under pressure, he should restrict his [expenses] to the best of his ability and not sell it all, but leave for himself, etc. This is easy to understand.

And the buyer cannot impede [it]. Re’m writes: This is according to the opinion (Kiddushin 21a) that [when the verse writes], “(a close relative comes) and redeems,” this is a voluntary (Kiddushin 21a). Therefore the verse “and redeems” is saying that the buyer cannot impede the redemption, because if not so, for what do I need “and redeems”? However, according to the opinion that [the relative has] an obligation [to redeem the field] this is no difficulty, as the verse is coming to obligate the closest relative to redeem it. But according to the opinion that it is voluntary, why do I need “and redeems”? Would you think that if he wants to redeem he is not allowed to? Perforce, it is telling us that the buyer cannot impede the redemption.

Who has no redeemers. I.e., is there any Jew who receives a portion in the land who does not have redeemers from the seed of Yaakov?

Who can redeem. I.e., because they are poor. Re’m writes: But in Kiddushin (ibid.) it says, “Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], because he has permission [not to redeem].” [In fact], Rabbi Yehoshua [there] proves from this verse that the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” is voluntary. As he says there, “You [would] say it is voluntary. Or [perhaps] it is obligatory? The verse says, ‘If the man has no redeemer.’ Is there any person in Yisroel who has no redeemer? Rather, this is someone who has [money] but does not want [to redeem], he has the option [not to not redeem].” However, according to Rashi that having no redeemer means that he cannot afford it, this verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold,” would be no proof that it is optional, as perhaps it is obligatory, and what is the meaning of the verse, “And redeems that which his brother sold”? That he has no redeemer who can afford it. But if so, according to Re’m, Rashi would be contradicting himself. Because above (verse 25) Rashi explains according to the opinion that it is voluntary [to redeem], as the Re’m explained, while here he explains according to the opinion that it is obligatory [to redeem]. Though we often find that Rashi explains sometimes like one opinion and sometimes like another even when they are apparently contradictory, but that is [only] in two [different] places [in Scripture]. But[to make such a claim that Rashi does so] in the same place like here, presents a difficulty. Therefore, it seems, unlike Re’m, that Rashi holds like the opinion that redemption is obligatory, and above too he learns that redemption is obligatory. You might ask: What is answered with this [Rashi’s answer]? Is there any Jew who has no redeemer wealthy enough to redeem his sale? The answer is that Rashi means as follows: He has no closest relative who can redeem his sale, since the obligation lies [only] on his closest relative, and that relative is not wealthy enough to redeem his sale. (Divrei Dovid) In parshas Naso (Bamidbar 5:8) Rashi asks this same question [regarding a case where there are no heirs to whom to return a stolen item], and he says that the verse there is speaking of a convert who has no heirs. That answer cannot be applied here in the case of an ancestral field, as a convert has no portion in the land of Yisroel. So answer Gur Aryeh and Maharan. I have difficulty with this, as a convert could own an ancestral field by gaining permanent ownership of a field he bought from a Jew in a walled city. [This could happin in a case where] hHe bought it from him and the seller did not come to him [to redeem] it within its [first] year, and it [then] belongs to him permanently. Then the convert left the field to his son who was born a Jew. This law would be applicable if the son of the convert sold [the field] to a Jew, as there would be no paternal relatives to redeem it. The answer is: Rashi prefers to learn the verse according to its plain meaning, as talking of a regular Jew [whose closest relative] cannot afford to redeem.

This [original] seller who comes. Explanation: To the first buyer. Because if not, the seller of an ancestral field will sometimes lose, as perhaps when the first buyer buys for a hundred and then sells for two-hundred.

He may not redeem it by halves. Because if not, why does the verse write “enough”? Thus it must be telling us that if he has within his means enough to redeem the whole field, he redeems, and if not, [he does] not. Nachalas Yaakov asks: Why does Rashi not say this on the verse “And finds [it] enough to redeem it [himself]” above (verse 26)? Perhaps Rashi thinks that this is more obvious over here, as the verse concludes, “That which he sold remains in the possession of the buyer until the Jubilee year,” and returns nothing to him. This indicates that he may not redeem it by halves. But above it said that if he finds enough to redeem it, he should calculate with the buyer, and one could say that the same applies if he did not have enough to redeem it [all], that he redeems it according to the money he has. And that the verse is speaking of a normal case where he had [money] equal to the whole field. Therefore Rashi delayed his explanation until here.

For the jubileeJubilee releases from its beginning. Erchin 28b. Rashi [there] explains, “At twilight of the [first] evening of the Jubilee year the sabbatical year ends, and at that time both of them release.” [I.e., the sabbatical year releases loans, and the Jubilee year releases sold lands].

Surrounded by a wall: Explanation: It was first surrounded by a wall and then settled [with people]. He says “from the days of Yehoshua bin Nun,” because the verse is probably only speaking of a town surrounded by a wall at the time of the conquest when the land was first settled.

[Referring to] the house (בית). But it is not referring to his sale of the house. It is not like “enough for its redemption” above (verse 26), which has to be translated as “the redemption of its sale (ממכר),” and it cannot mean “the redemption of the ancestral land (אחוזה)” since אחוזה is a word in the female form. Here, however, בית is a word in the male form. In addition, the word ממכר [connoting “sale”] is not mentioned in this verse that “its redemption” could refer to it. Therefore, it must mean the redemption of the house. (Re’m)

Under the control of the buyer. I.e., even though it was in the hands of the buyer [beforehand], it was also under the control of the seller because he could still redeem it. [But now] it remains in the hand of the buyer, as the seller can no longer take it from his hand. Re’m writes: You might ask: [Why does Rashi [say that “it will remain” refers to “its purchaser”]? Why does he not explain that “it will remain” refers to “in perpetuity,” that until now it was only acquired for a year in the purchaser’s hand, [but now it is acquired forever]? It seems that Rashi deduces this since it is written “in perpetuity to its purchaser.” “Its purchaser” is apparently superfluous as it is obvious that this refers to the purchaser. Thus, one can deduce from [the superfluous] “to its purchaser,” that the verse means “for its purchaser and not for its seller.” I.e., until now, the seller had the right to redeem it, but now, after the year has passedt, it left the jurisdiction of the seller, etc.

Without cost. I.e., without compensation. Because regarding an ancestral field it is taught in a Beraisa, “If [the buyer] used it for a year and the jubileeJubilee year arrived, he has to add another year for [the buyer] after the jubileeJubilee year [because generally one cannot redeem a field before two years have passed]. Therefore one needs the extra words “and it is released by the jubileeJubilee,” to teach that it goes out without cost, without adding [an extra year]. [See] Erchin 29b.

This “redemption” is an expression of “selling.” R. Noson wrote: I found written somewhere that the verse calls the selling here “redemption” because anything belonging to Levites once belonged to Israelites, since they received no portion or inheritance with the Israelites except the forty-eight towns the Israelites gave them in exchange for their service [in the Temple]. Therefore, when an Israelite buys from a Levite, it is as if he is redeeming it from him, as this inheritance too once belonged to the Israelites.

An Israelite who buys a house. The “another interpretation” means as follows: ואשר יגאל means to actually redeem, an expression of actual redeeming and not an expression of buying, and it is referring to where it is written is written above, “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption.” This verse is telling us that not only when an Israelite buys from a Levite can the Levite redeem it forever, but even when a Levite bought from a Levite the seller has eternal right of redemption.

This is another mitzvoh. I.e., according to the “another interpretation,” it is not connected to the “eternal right of redemption” of the previous phrase, as that refers to redeeming. However, according to the first interpretation, the entire verse discusses [the] one same subject [of selling to a Yisroel].

Like fields. When Rashi says “They have [a rule] of redemption like fields,” and does not also say, “And they go out in the jubileeJubilee year like fields,” this is imprecise, since they too go out in the jubileeJubilee year, but Rashi only mentions one of these [points]. Re’m writes: You might ask: The reasonis rationale that, “For the houses of the Levitic cities, etc.,” only applies when an Israelite buys from a Levite. However, when the buyers are Levites and this rationale does not apply, since it will remain in the hands of a Levite and their inheritance will not be removed,, perhaps [Therefore] perhaps this case has the law of houses of an Israelite walled city, etc. The answer might be: Since most people who buy from Levites are Israelites, as they are the majority, the Torah gives a rationale that applies to them and it is not concerned about the minority of buyers who are Levites. It seems to me that we learn that it makes no difference whether the buyers are Israelites or Levites from what the verse writes, “(This) is their ancestral lands among Bnei Yisroel.” Why write “among Bnei Yisroel”? This must come for us to expound that the inheritance of the Levites should remain whole as it was originally “among Bnei Yisroel.” And since you do not need this regarding Israelite buyers, you expound it regarding Levite [buyers], that they [the houses they buy] return in the Jubilee year.

It does not go out to the kohanim. Re’m writes: You might ask: The Rrabbis need to bring a proof from “it is their perpetual ancestral land” that their fields cannot be sold forever. This is taught in a Beraisa of in Toras Kohanim that says, “Does ’it may not be sold’ refer to the treasurer selling it [saying that the treasurer cannot sell it forever], or does ’it may not be sold’ mean that it cannot be sold forever [by the Levite himself],” i.e., that the Levite cannot sell it [forever]? [The Beraisa continues]: “The verse says, ’It is their perpetual ancestral land,’ [which teaches that the Levite cannot sell it forever. Therefore, ’it may not be sold’ must be teaching that the treasurer cannot sell it forever.”] Since the Beraisa does not cite verse (33) “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” [to prove that a Levite cannot sell their fields forever], this indicates that the Beraisa holds that the verses above are dealing with houses and towns and not with a field on the outskirts. But if so, why does the Beraisa not explain that “it may not be sold” teaches that the Levite cannot sell a field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verses above [that allow him to sell] are talking only about houses and towns, and not about a field onf the outskirts? This question requires investigation. [S.ifsei Chachomim. answers]: It seems to me that this is how the Beraisa expounds the verse “It is their perpetual ancestral land.” If the Torah had not stated “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” I would think that when the Torah writes of the outskirts, “It may not be sold,” it [indeed] means that the Levite cannot sell his field onf the outskirts [at all], and that the verse “The Levites shall have an eternal right of redemption” is speaking of houses and towns and not of fields onf the outskirts. But now that it says “it is their perpetual ancestral land,” we derive through [a gezeiroh shovoh] “ancestral land,” “ancestral land” from houses and towns, [that] just as houses can be sold, so too a field of the outskirts can be sold, the same as houses that cannot be sold forever. But if so, since we derive that houses and towns and a field of the outskirts all have the same law, why does the verse not combine them and write them together [in one verse]. Therefore one must say that “it may not be sold” must is certainly be teaching about the treasurer selling it [that he cannot sell it forever]. This also answers the second question of Re’m regarding the Beraisa of the Toras Kohanim.

And what is a “sojourner”? Explanation: But [the verse does not mean] literally “a stranger and [non-Jewish] sojourner” [i.e., a stranger who is a non-Jewish sojourner, because the word גר here refers to a proselyte who converted to Judaism] similar [the commandment] to not to cause anguish to a גר (see above 19:33), and “You are to love the [righteous] convert (גר)” (Devarim 10:19). [גר here must be referring to someone who converted to Judaism] because in the beginning of the verse it is written “If your brother becomes impoverished” and a תושב [i.e. if we translated גר ותושב as “a stranger and sojourner”] would not be considered your brother since he eats neveilos, even though he fulfills the seven Noahide mitzvos and he does not worship idols.

For whoever dwells in the land of Israel. (Gur Aryeh). The reason for this is well known. The Holy Land belongs to Hashem as it is written (Yechezkel 36:20), “These are the nation of Hashem and they went out of His land.” Therefore, when one dwells in the Land of Israel, the Holy One is his God. But outside the Land, because it is under the hand of the supernal [angelic] princes, someone whowhen on dwells outside the Land it is considered as if he serves idols. Since “In a multitude of people is the king’s glory” (Mishlei 14:28), someone who lives there, glorifies and honors foreign gods [by increasing the population there].

If the jubileeJubilee [year] met him. Explanation: There are four verses. One, “He shall serve you until the jubileeJubilee year,” which is speaking of someone who sold himself [into servitude] and whom the jubileeJubilee year met [and set free] before six years [of slavery had passed]. “Return to his own family” refers to someone sold by beis din whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years. “Each man shall return to his family” (verse 10) refers to someone whose ear was pierced whom the jubileeJubilee year met before six years passed since his piercing, and “He then serves his master forever” (Shemos 21:6) [refers to someone] whom the jubileeJubilee year met after six years since his piercing. Beraisa first chapter of Kiddushin 15a.

This master is obligated to feed his children. (Kitzur Mizrachi) It is not talking about any sons, but [only] of sons whom the father is obligated to feed; i.e., until they are six years old.

To the honor of his ancestors. It does not mean his ancestral land, because [if so,] once it is written “estate,” why write “ancestral”? In addition, the verse is not speaking of someone who sold his land. Rather, it means the honor of his ancestors, which means that people should not denigrate him for being a slave. (Divrei Dovid).

If you say: “If so, etc.” It seems that the verse is the source of this question. I.e., [the verse itself is hinting at the question], “If you say, etc.” Because if not so [that the verse is hinting at question], why does it say “And your slaves (ועבדך)” with a vav, connecting it to the above. Why do we need this? Therefore Rashi writes that there is a question here, and answers it.

Them you may buy. You might ask: Why does Rashi have to explain “Them you may buy”? The answer is: If he did not explain this, I would say that if they had slaves who were sold to them, you may buy those slaves from [among] them, [but the children of the sojourners you may not buy]. Therefore, Rashi explains, “Them you may buy.” I.e., you can buy even them. Another reason Rashi says “Them you may buy” is to say that one may buy the fathers of the sons and even more so the children. But simply understood, I would say that “from them” means one can buy the children of the fathers as slaves, but not the fathers themselves. Therefore Rashi explains, “’From them you may purchase [slaves].’ Them you may buy.” You may buy even the fathers themselves, like the children. [Alternatively], you might ask: Why did Rashi not explain this above in [the previous verse], “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants?” The answer is: Above, Rashi does not have to explain anything because the verse itself explains, “From them you may purchase slaves and maidservants.” But here where the verse says nothing afterwards and I do not know to what “from them you may purchase” refers., Pperhaps it refers to animals and means as follows, “From them you may purchase animals.” Therefore Rashi has to explain, “Them you may buy.” (Re’m) You might ask: How does Rashi know that “from them” means “them you may buy?” Perhaps “from them” simply means [buying their animals] and not [buying] them? The answer is: Above in parshas Shemos (1:7), it is written, “The land was filled with them (אותם),” and Rashi explains “From them (מהם).” And it is obvious there that the meaning of אותם is ’from them.” Therefore, [Conversely] here too, מהם means “from them.”

Do not leave him to sink (שיטמע). I found in the name of the Aruch, that the Aramaic translation of מטמון (a hidden treasure) is טמוע. And in the Aruch I found, ויחפרוהו ממטמונים, (“They dig for it more than buried treasures)”) (Iyov 2:21), the Aramaic translation [of this] is מן טומעיא. כי בא השמש לּ, “Because the stun had set” (Bereishis 28:11), Targum Yerushalmi [translates this as] טמעת שמשא. Thus here Rashi means,means do not leave him until he is sunk among idolaters.

Who is in your power. Rashi is saying this out offrom logic. Because if it is speaking of a non-Jew who is not in your power, what can you do to him that results with the verse saying of him, “He then goes out in the jubileeJubilee year.”

While you look on. You might ask: How do I know whether his intent is to rule over him, to crush him? Above (verse 43) Rashi explained, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him.” But here one cannot know, [as] perhaps it is necessary? You might also ask: Rashi explained above, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” What is Rashi’s difficulty? One may use a Hebrew slave for whatever one needs? The answer is: When Rashi explains above, “’You must not rule over him to crush him,’ refers to unnecessary labor, in order to torment him,” he means as follows: “Do not say to him: ’Warm this glass for me,’ while not needing it; ’Hoe beneath this vine until I come.’” [The latter case is forbidden] even when necessary, as perhaps he will never come. If so, everything is answered. When Rashi explained, “If you say: ’If so, by whom shall I be served?’” this is because one may not use him even for necessary work, as Rashi explained. It also answers that which Rashi explained, “While you look on,” as you can see whether he is saying, “Do this work until I come.” This is called ruling over him even if it is necessary, since he said to him “until I come.”