Arakhin

And R. ‘Anan?1 — As to the Baraitha, he had not heard it and as far as Samuel's [teaching] is concerned, whence [the evidence that it means] that it is not sold and the money is returned? Perhaps [it means]: ‘It is not sold and the money is [to be considered] a gift’; just as is the case of one who betroths his sister; for it was stated: If one betroths his sister, Rab said the [betrothal] money is to be returned, and Samuel holds that the money is regarded as a gift!2 Abaye said to R. Joseph: Why do you find it proper that we penalize the purchaser. let us penalize the seller!3 — He answered: ‘Not the mouse has stolen, the hole has stolen. But if there were no mouse, whence would the hole [have its theft]? — It is reasonable that we penalize him with whom the forbidden stuff is [found].4 IF THERE WAS A YEAR OF BLIGHT, etc. If it is included in the reckoning even when he left it fallow [for a year], is it necessary to state that [it is included] if he broke the ground?5 — It is necessary. For you might have thought: We say to him,6 pay him the money [which the breaking of the ground cost] and he will go;7 therefore we are informed [that we do not say so]. R. ELEAZAR SAID: IF HE SOLD IT TO HIM, etc. It was taught: R. Eleazar said, Whence do we know that if he sold him [the field] before the New Year whilst it was full of fruit, that he cannot say to him: ‘Leave it before me as I have left it before you’,8 therefore it is said: ‘According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell unto thee’, i.e., it may happen that a man enjoys three crops in two years.9 MISHNAH. IF HE SOLD IT TO THE FIRST FOR ONE HUNDRED [DENARS]. AND THE FIRST SOLD IT TO THE SECOND FOR TWO HUNDRED, THEN HE NEED RECKON ONLY WITH THE FIRST,10 FOR IT IS WRITTEN: [THEN LET HIM COUNT THE SALE THEREOF] . . . UNTO THE MAN TO WHOM HE SOLD IT.11 IF HE SOLD IT TO THE FIRST FOR TWO HUNDRED, AND THE FIRST SOLD IT TO THE SECOND FOR A HUNDRED, THEN HE NEED RECKON ONLY WITH THE SECOND, FOR IT IS SAID: THEN LET HIM COUNT THE YEARS OF THE SALE THEREOF AND RESTORE THE OVERPLUS UNTO THE MAN TO WHOM HE SOLD IT.11 I.E., UNTO THE MAN WHO IS IN POSSESSION THEREOF.12 ONE MAY NOT SELL A DISTANT FIELD IN ORDER TO REDEEM A NEARER ONE, NOR REDEEM A POOR FIELD IN ORDER TO REDEEM ONE THAT IS GOOD. NOR BORROW [MONEY] IN ORDER TO REDEEM IT, NOR REDEEM IT BY HALVES, BUT IN THE CASE OF OBJECTS CONSECRATED ALL THESE THINGS ARE PERMITTED. IN THIS RESPECT MORE STRINGENCY ATTACHES TO COMMON PROPERTY THAN TO CONSECRATED OBJECTS. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If he sold it to the first one for one hundred, and the first sold it to the second for two hundred, whence do we know that he need reckon but With the first? There fore it is said: ‘Unto the man to whom he sold it’. If he sold it to the first for two hundred, and the first sold it to the second for a hundred, whence do we know that he need reckon but with the second? Therefore it is said: ‘Unto the man’ in whose possession it is. These are the words of Rabbi. R. Dosethai b. Judah said: If he sold it to him for one hundred and he improved it so that it[s value] amounted now to two hundred, whence, do we know that he need reckon it only as worth one hundred? Therefore it is said: ‘Let him restore the overplus’, i.e., the overplus which is left in his hand. If he sold it to him for two hundred and it depreciated and is worth now only one hundred, whence do we know that he need reckon it only as worth one hundred? Therefore it is said, ‘Let him restore the overplus’, i.e., the overplus that is in the soil.13 What is the practical difference between these two [authorities]?14 — If it was more valuable, then became less valuable, then more valuable again.15 But whence do we know that [the counting] is in the direction of leniency.16 Perhaps it is to be on the side of stringency? — Do not think so! For we infer it from ‘redemption’ [written here]17 and ‘redemption’ [written] in connection with the Hebrew slave.18 But whence do we know it there? For it was taught: If he was sold for a hundred and appreciated in value and stood at two hundred, whence do we know that he is assessed only at one hundred?19 Therefore it is said: [He shall give back the price of his redemption] out of the money that he was bought for.20 If he was sold for two hundred and depreciated and stood at a hundred, whence do we know that he is assessed only at a hundred? Therefore it is said: According unto his years shall he give back the price of his redemption.21 Now I know only for the case of a slave sold to an idolater that since he may be redeemed [by his own kinsmen] his [the slave's] hand is uppermost. Whence do I know it for the case of one who is sold to an Israelite? Therefore it is said: ‘A hired servant’, ‘a hired servant’,22 for the purpose of a gezerah shawah. Abaye said: gift. V. Kid. 46b. punish the seller by decreeing that he should return the money to the would-be purchaser and imposing upon the seller the duty of manumitting him? would have chosen another expression, such as ‘number of years’ or ‘number of crops’. need reckon only according to the purchase money he himself received from the first buyer. From that sum he would deduct the amounts due for the years during which the field was in the buyer's possession. means then to whom the first purchaser sold it. These interpretations in both instances favour the owner. hundred in the possession of the second buyer. According to Rabbi the reckoning is on the basis of one hundred, the price paid by the second buyer, who is the man who is in possession. But on the view of R. Dosethai, the reckoning is on the basis of two hundred.