1)

(a)The Beraisa states that Charamim cannot be redeemed, and that as long as they are in the possession of the owner, they are like Hekdesh - in that they are Asur be'Hana'ah and someone who does derive benefit from them is Chayav Me'ilah (Rabeinu Gershom).

(b)The source for this is the Pasuk "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael Kodesh Kodshim hi la'Hashem". The Tana then learns from "Kol Cherem be'Yisrael l'cha Yih'yeh" that - once they are given to the Kohen, they are his personal property (like any other Chulin).

2)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira ('S'tam Charamim le'Bedek ha'Bayis') learns from the Pasuk "ki'Sedei ha'Cherem la'Kohen Tih'yeh Achuzaso" like a second Beraisa (written in connection with the Sadeh Achuzah of a Kohen). The problem the Tana there has with this Pasuk is - what we can possibly learn with regard to the Sadeh Achuzah of a Kohen from the Sadeh Cherem that he receives from a Yisrael?

(b)He solves it - by reversing the roles, to learn Sadeh Cherem from Sadeh Achuzah (though not of a Kohen, but) of a Yisrael, in that just as the latter goes in the Yovel to all the Kohanim of the current Mishmar, so too, does the Sadeh Cherem of a Yisrael that the Kohen declared Hekdesh.

(c)Otherwise, we would have thought that it goes back to the Kohen who was Makdish it - because of a Kal va'Chomer (If the Kohen receives the fields of others, how much more so ought he to receive his own fields!), as we explained in the previous Perek.

(d)The Chachamim learn this Halachah - from the 'Hey' of "ha'Cherem" (in the words "ki'Sedei ha'Cherem ... ").

3)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - does not consider the 'Hey' of "ha'Cherem" redundant.

(b)And he learns that Charamim take effect on Kodshim - from the same source as Rebbi Yishmael in the following Mishnah.

4)

(a)It is strange that Rav rules like Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira - against the majority opinion of the Chachamim.

(b)We explain it - by switching the opinions in the Beraisa ...

(c)... as well as in the Mishnah.

(d)Even though Rav cited the opinions the other way round, he said 'Halachah ke'Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira' - to conform to the current version, which cited the opinions the other way round.

5)

(a)When a man in Pumbedisa declared his property Cherem, Rav Yehudah instructed him to take four Zuzim - redeem the property with them and throw them into the river, and the property would become permitted (see Tosfos DH 'Sh'kol').

(b)The property was really worth much more than that - but Rav Yehudah followed the opinion of his Rebbe, Shmuel, who holds that 'Hekdesh Shaveh Manah she'Chil'lo al Shaveh P'rutah, Mechulal' ...

(c)... and the reason that he specified four Zuzim and not just a P'rutah - was because that amount is Chashuv and will elicit more publicity.

(d)Even though Shmuel said 'Hekdesh she'Chil'lo ... ', Bedi'eved, but not Lechatchilah - that is only in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash, where doing so would have caused Hekdesh a loss, but nowadays, he too, would have permitted it even Lechatchilah.

(e)Ula declared that had he been there - he would have instructed the owner to give it to the Kohanim (like the Rabbanan in our Mishnah).

6)

(a)We query Rav Yehudah and Ula from a Beraisa, where the Tana Kama rules that - Eved Ivri, Sadeh Achuzah and Batei Arei Chomah do not apply nowadays.

(b)Rebbi ...

1. ... Shimon bar Yochai (based on the Pasuk "Kodesh la'Hashem ki'Sedei ha'Cherem") adds - Sadeh Cherem to the list.

2. ... ben Elazar (based on the Gezeirah-Shavah "Tov" "Tov" from Eved Ivri, as Rav Bibi explains) - adds Ger Toshav.

(c)The Din of the Beraisa concerns Eved Ivri inasmuch as he cannot be sold nowadays and Sadeh Achuzah, in that the seller can only redeem it at its market value and with the consent of the purchaser - and inasmuch as a field that one declared Hekdesh, even in the time of the Beis-Hamikdash after the ten tribes went into Galus and the Yovel was no longer practiced, is redeemed for its full value and not at the rate of fifty Shekalim per Chomer of barley.

(d)The source for all these rulings is - the fact that the Torah connects them all to the Yovel (either directly or indirectly).

(e)The ramifications of the ruling concerning ...

1. ... Batei Arei Chomah are that - the seller cannot force the purchaser to sell him back the land during the first year.

2. ... Ger Toshav (who undertakes not to worship idols) are that - we are not obligated to sustain him.

7)

(a)The problem the Beraisa creates for Rav Yehudah and Ula is that - they apply the Din of Cherem nowadays (even though Yovel no longer applies).

(b)And we answer the Kashya by differentiating between Karka - which is connected with the Yovel (the Beraisa) and Metaltelin - which are not (Rav Yehudah and Ula).

(c)The case of Rav Yehudah and Ula did indeed concern Karka - but Karka in Chutz la'Aretz (where Yovel does not apply anyway) has the same Din as Metaltelin in Eretz Yisrael in this regard.

8)

(a)Rebbi Yishmael in our Mishnah, explains the fact that the Pasuk writes in one place "Takdish" - to teach us that one cannot declare a B'chor intrinsically Kadosh; whereas in another, it writes "Lo Yakdish" - to teach us that one can declare it Kadosh regarding its Tovas Hana'ah (as we explained in our Mishnah),

(b)The Rabbanan cannot agree with Rebbi Yishmael - since they already know that from "Kol Cherem Kodesh Kodashim hu la'Hashem" (as we learned in our Mishnah).

(c)Consequently, they learn "Lo Yakdish" as a La'av, whereas they interpret "Takdish" like another Beraisa - which extrapolates from it that it is a Mitzvah to declare a B'chor Kadosh (even though it is automatically Kadosh from birth).

(d)Rebbi Yishmael argues that - since a B'chor is Kadosh anyway, it would be illogical to demand that the owner has also to declare it Kadosh.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor lach" - that one is not permitted to redeem a field within two years of having sold it.

(b)The seller will not be permitted to buy his field back for even more than two years - if one of those years was a year of drought, if the crops were smitten with a plague or if it was a Sh'mitah year ...

(c)... but not if the purchaser did not sow the field or where he left it completely fallow for one year.

(d)According to Rebbi Elazar, the purchaser will even reap the benefit of three harvests - if the seller sold him the field before Rosh Hashanah, with the produce fully-grown and ready to cut.

10)

(a)We extrapolate from the Lashon of the Mishnah ' ... Eino Mutar li'Ge'ol Pachos mi'Shetei Shanim' - that during those two years, the seller is not permitted to make any effort to persuade the purchaser to sell him back the field.

(b)And we learn from the Pasuk "be'Mispar ha'Shanim Achar ha'Yovel Tikneh" - that not only the seller, but the purchaser too, transgresses an Asei, if he returns the field before two years.

11)

(a)When Rav says that if someone sells his field in the Yovel, the sale is valid and goes out, he means - that the purchaser loses his money.

(b)Shmuel holds that the sale is not valid at all - on the basis of a 'Kal-Va'Chomer', because if a field that has been sold goes out in the Yovel, it is obvious that it cannot be sold then.

(c)Should a father sell his daughter after she has turned twelve, the Beraisa declares the sale invalid - on the basis of a Kal-va'Chomer, because if a girl goes out from the domain of her master when she turns twelve, it is obvious that she cannot enter his domain then.

(d)To reconcile his own ruling in the current case (where he declines to learn the identical 'Kal-va'Chomer') - Rav will confine the Kal-va'Chomer to the case there, where the father will never be able to sell her again, unlike his case where after the Yovel, the opportunity to sell one's property will recur.

12)

(a)We query Rav from a Beraisa, where the Tana learns from the Pasuk in B'har ...

1. ... "be'Mispar Shanim achar ha'Yovel Tikneh" - that one is permitted to sell a field shortly after the Yovel, even though it was already sold once and the Yovel returned it to the owner (see Shitah Mekubetzes 6).

2. ... "L'fi Rov ha'Shanim ... " - that one may even sell a field many years after the Yovel (i.e. within two years of the next one, in which case, the purchaser will only eat his second year's produce after the Yovel (See Shitah Mekubetzes 7).

(b)Rav will interpret the Beraisa which continues 'u'vi'Shenas ha'Yovel Atzmah Lo Yimkor, ve'Im Machar, Einah Mechurah' to mean - that although it is not sold as far as the Din of two year's produce is concerned, the money is nevertheless not returned.

(c)Another Beraisa rules that if someone purchased a field one year before the Yovel - he considers the year after the Yovel as the second year of the sale.

(d)Rav reconciles this with his previous statement - by confining it to where he at least ate one year's fruit before the Yovel, but where he actually purchased it in the Yovel, he does not begin the two years after the Yovel, even though the sale is valid.

13)

(a)Rav Anan heard two rulings from Shmuel, one of them his previous one ('Einah Mechurah Kol Ikar'), the other one concerning someone who sells his Eved to a Nochri, or to a purchaser in Chutz la'Aretz (even a Yisrael), where he ruled - that the Eved goes free (since we punish the seller and force him to redeem him).

(b)The reason in the first of the last two rulings is - that we penalize him for selling him to a Nochri, who will inevitably cause him to contravene some of the Mitzvos.

(c)Rav Anan's Safek was based on what he heard - that by one of them not only is the sale Bateil, but the money is also returned to the purchaser, whereas by the other it is not (since the money is considered a gift).

(d)Even if Shmuel holds in our current case that the money is a gift and need not be returned, he will argue with Rav a. in a case where the purchaser cut down trees (which he must replace according to Shmuel, but not according to Rav, who holds that the sale is valid), and b. in a case where the purchaser bought Metaltelin together with the field (which he acquires according to Rav, but not according to Shmuel).

14)

(a)Rav Yosef resolves Rav Anan's dilemma from a Beraisa, where the Tana rules that if someone sells his Eved, besides going free - he also requires a Get Shichrur (a document of freedom) from his second master.

(b)He extrapolates - that the sale is not Bateil, from the fact that the Tana refers to the purchaser as 'his second master' (and that he therefore loses his money).

(c)In which case, Shmuel will hold that if someone sells his field in the Yovel - the sale is Bateil.

(d)Rav Anan did not cite this Beraisa to resolve his quandary - because he was not aware that it existed.

15)

(a)Neither could Rav Anan have extrapolated from Shmuel's statement 'Einah Mechurah' that the money must be returned, due another Machlokes between Rav and Shmuel, regarding someone who betroths his sister with money, where Rav says that she must return the money, whereas Shmuel holds - that the man gave her the money as a gift ...

(b)... based on the fact that everyone knows that a person cannot betroth his sister.

(c)We learn from there - that 'Einah Mechurah' does not necessarily mean that the money must be returned.

(d)Abaye asked Rav Yosef why in the case of ha'Mocher Avdo le'Chutz la'Aretz', we punish the purchaser and not the seller, to which he replied ...

1. ... initially - that it is not the mouse that is the thief but the hole (in other words, were it not for the willing purchaser, the seller would not be able to sell his Eved).

2. ... when Abaye countered with 'Were it not for the mouse, of what use would the hole be' - that nevertheless, since the 'stolen article' is currently in the domain of the purchaser, he is the one whom we penalize.