Question: If so, why is it necessary to leave any Hekdesh for sixty days, seeing as all of the current cases one does not wait, even if there would be a benefit for Hekdesh?

Refuted Answer: Nor can one answer that it speaks here where he was Makdish all his property, and that is why announcing is not applicable (See Avodah Berurah) ...

Refutation: This is not correct, because we learned in the Tosefta in this Perek (4:3) that even if he only declared Hekdesh a single pearl, the Din is not to wait?

Answer: It is speaking here about Metaltelin ...

Source: About which the Gemara says in Almanah Nizonis (Kesuvos, Daf 100b) that one does not announce ...

Reason: In case people will steal them.

Answer (cont.): Whereas the Reisha of the Mishnah which requires announcing for sixty days is speaking about Karka'os.

Clarification: To redeem in less than two years for two Sela'im and two Pundiyonim (See Avodah Berurah).

Clarification: If he or somebody else were to redeem the field in one of the years of the Yovel - after ten, twenty, thirty or any of the other years, it would be redeemed according to the remaining years up to the Yovel, a Sela and Pundiyon per year ...

Clarification (cont.): Because forty-nine Sela'im for forty-nine years makes an excess of one Sela - which is forty-eight Pundiyon ...

Clarification (cont.): And this is the Pundiyon that one brings as a premium - as the Gemara states in Bechoros (Daf 50a).

Clarification (concl.): But if he redeems it less than two years before the Yovel, he does not deduct anything, but redeems a Kur of barley-seeds for fifty complete Sela'im ...

Source: As the Torah writes in Vayikra (27) "And he shall reckon the money according to the years that remain until the Yovel and deduct from the 'value' ...

Source (cont.): And the minimum of "years" is two - but less than two, there is no reduction ...

Conclusion: That is why the Tana comes to teach us that a person should have pity on his money, and refrain from being Makdish his field less than two years before the Yovel, so as not to have to redeem it without a reduction, but for fifty complete Sela'im (See Shitah Mekubetzes 17)..

Question: Why does the Tana not also state that one re3frain from being Makdish in the first year after the Yovel, to have pity on his money - since he will then have to redeem it without a reduction?

Answer #1: It is unnecessary to mention that ...

Reason: Because the Makdish already knows that if he redeems it, he will have to redeem it without the reduction, and he accepts the increase, since it amounts to fifty Sela'im for the forty-nine years according to the Cheshbon of a Sela and a Pundiyon p.a..

Answer #1 (cont.): Whereas in our case, since only one year remains until the Yovel, the Tana is coming to teach us that one should have pity on one's money and not be Makdish his field less than two years before the Yovel, because if he does, he will not receive a reduction.

Answer #2: Furthermore one can answer that the Tana does not also mention not to be Makdish in the first year of Yovel - seeing as one wait until three years before the Yovel - at which point he will only need to pay three Sela'im and three Pundiyonim ...

Answer #2 (cont.): That is why he only mentions less than two years before the Yovel, since then he will have to pay fifty complete Sela'aim ...

Answer #2 (concl.): Whereas if he waits till the Yovel, the field will not be returned to him at all.

Question: What is (the Beraisa - See Avodah Berurah DH 've'Zeh L'shon ... ') coming to teach us, seeing as the the Beraisa (cited on Amud Alef) has already stated that one can be Makdish both before the Yovel and after it?

Answer: That what the Tana means (when he says 'Bein Lifnei ha'Yovel') is that even though the year begins on Rosh ha'Shanah, nevertheless Yovel begins on Yom Kipur (and if he is Makdish the field between Rosh ha'Shanah and Yom Kipur in the year of the Yovel, the Hekdesh is effective - Tzon Kodshim).

Answer (cont.): 'Bein le'Achar ha'Yovel' - This refers to after Rosh ha'Shanah at the end of the Yovel (when the Hekdesh also takes effect - [Ibid.) ...

Answer (concl.): And we do not say that the Yovel year extends till Yom Kipur.

Question: Why is it necessary to answer like this? Why not simply say that Rav does not hold of Shmuel's Kal va'Chomer?

Answer: Because further on (on Daf 29b) in connection with the Machlokes Rav and Shmuel by 'Someone who sells a filed in the Yovel year itself', the Gemara presents Shmuel's reason as a Kal va'Chomer - 'If a field that is already sold ... ' ...

Answer (cont.): Then, in answer to the question "Does Rav not learn a similar Kal va'Chomer? And quoting a Beraisa to explain why a father cannot sell his daughter when she is a Na'arah, it cites a Kal va'Chomer 'If a Na'arah she goes out ... ' ...

Answer (cont.): It answers 'There he cannot sell her later; whereas here he can sell the field later'.

Answer (cont.): So we see that, if not for the Pircha, Rav would also learn the Kal va'Chomer, as he does in the case of the father who sells a his daughter when she is a Na'arah.

Answer (concl.): That is why Rav needs here to disprove the Kal va'Chomer ...

Conclusion: And what the Gemara means is that when all's said and done does it go back? And since it doesn't go back, one cannot be Makdish it like the Din of a Sadeh Achuzah.

Question: Now that Rav has refuted Sh'muel's Kal va'Chomer, why does the Gemara find it necessary to explain Rav's reason - seeing as Shmuel's basic reason is based on the Kal va'Chomer?

Answer #1: Rav must explain the Pasuk "Im mi'Shenas ha'Yovel" to mean that the Yovel year is included - like Rebbi who says at the beginning of Perek Heseg Yad (above, Daf 18b & 19a) that "Rishon" incorporates the first day ...

Reason: Because if he were to learn that "mi'Shenas ha'Yovel" would refer exclusively to the year after the Yovel, like Shmuel ...

Reason: Then the Din ought to be that, in the Yovel year itself, seeing as the Pasuk does not refer to it, the field will be redeemed for its regular value - and not like the other years, when it is redeemed at the rate of a Chomer (Kur) of barley seeds for fifty silver Shekel (i.e. Sela [So Tosfos explained - Gilyon. See Avodah Berurah]).

Question: This is a little difficult however from the Gemara shortly (See following Dibur).

Answer #2: Mori ve'Rebi R. Mordechai therefore explains that seeing as the Pasuk does not refer to the Yovel year itself, we should have said that it is not Kadosh at all, like Shmuel ...

Answer #2: That is why it is necessary to explain that Rav holds like Rebbi that "mi'Shenas ha'Yovel" includes the Yovel year itself.

Question: Since Rav holds that "mi'Shenas ha'Yovel" includes the Yovel year itself, why do we then need to refute the Kal va'Chomer - seeing as the Pasuk specifically includes the Yovel year itself?

Answer: If the Kal va'Chomer was sound, even Rebbi would not maintain "mi'Shenas ha'Yovel" includes the Yovel year

Answer (cont.): Only we would say that based on the Kal va'Chomer, even he would concede that it refers to the year after, like Shmuel ...

Answer (concl.): And it also fits nicely, becase we can now say that Shmuel too, says that it is not Kadosh even according to Rebbi - since the power of the Kal va'Chomer causes us to reject the argument that "mi'Shenas ha'Yovel incorporates the Yovel itself ...

Reason: Because we cannot say that Rav holds like Rebbi and Shmuel, like the Rabbanan.

Conclusion: And that explains why Rav Yosef finds it necessary to explain Shmuel's reason to the Kal va'Chomer, since it would not be correct to hinge the Machlokes of Rav and Shmuel on a Machlokes Tana'im ...

Conclusion (cont.): It is therefore clear that they are arguing according to Rebbi, as Tosfos just explained, whereas according to the Rabbanan even Rav will agree that if someone is Makdish in the Yovel year itself it is not Kadosh.

Support: And so the Gemara will say later in the Sugya.

Clarification: Whereas I hold like Rebbi.

Introduction to Question: According to Tosfos, who explained earlier (in the previous Dibur), who explained that 'Since the Pasuk does not mention the Yovel year itself, we should have said that if one is Makdish a field on itm it is Kadosh to be redeemed according to its intrinsic value ...

Question: Why do the Rabbanan say that in the Yovel year itself one cannot be Makdish, and that if one is, it is not Kadosh? They ought to have said that if he is, it is Kadosh to be redeemed according to its intrinsic value?

Resolution: But according to Tosfos' Rebbe, R. Mordechai, there is no problem (See Avodah Berurah.)

Question: Why does the Gemara establish the Kashya according to Rebbi? It ought to have queried him from the Mishnah later (on Daf 25a) 'If he was Makdish it two or three years before the Yovel a Sela and a Pundiyos for each year ...

Question (cont.): Since the Yovel year itself is Kadosh like the other years, why must he pay the Pundiyon?

Answer: The Gemara Gemara could have answered that the Mishnah goes according to the Rabbanan, as it answered earlier ...

Answer: Whereas to ask from Rebbi is justifiable, since Rebbi specifically says (that he pays a Sela and a Pundiyon p.a.) as the Gemara will cite him.