Text #1: Rashi explains that this is the text of the Ri Halevi.

Text #2: Rashi says that his other teachers have the text, "they may sell it forever and redeem it forever."

Implied Question: Both of these are Mishnayos in Erchin (26b, 33b). Whether the text is "dedicate to Hekdesh" or "sell" they are both extra Mishnayos. (Why, indeed, are they written?)

Answer: Rather, since the (first part of the) Mishnah states regarding a Yisrael (24a) that one cannot sanctify less than two years before Yovel and one cannot redeem less than a year after Yovel, the second part of the Mishnah also discusses sanctifying and redeeming.

Answer (cont.): Since the Mishnah discussed sanctifying and redeeming together, it also stated regarding the redemption of a sale that sales can always be done. This is the Gemara's understanding in Erchin (27a).

Explanation: Redeeming forever is because it says regarding a Yisrael who sells a Sdeh Achuzah, "with the number of years of produce it will be sold to you." This teaches that one may not redeem a Sdeh Achuzah less two years after he is Makdish it. However, Levites can redeem immediately and they may do so forever.

Explanation (cont.): Dedicating is (said regarding Levites) because one who is Makdish a Sdeh Achuzah (eventually) cannot redeem it any longer, rather it goes to the Kohanim at Yovel. Levites can always redeem.

Question #1: The text of Rabeinu Yitzchak Halevi is understandable, as Yovel does not take away from a Makdish if he is a Levite just as it does not do so regarding a Yisrael. However, selling and redeeming right away, or regarding Batei Arei Chomah that they are still able to be redeemed after a year, seemingly has nothing to do with Yovel. (What is the explanation of the text of the other Rabbis?)

Answer: This is despite the fact that these laws do not apply when Yovel does not apply. (Perhaps this is what these laws have to do with Yovel.)

Question: The terminology, "that they do not have to do with the Mitzvah of Yovel" does not imply this.

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara should have quoted the first Mishnah regarding being Makdish forever that is in the chapter "One cannot be Makdish" (26b) and not the one regarding selling forever in the last chapter of Erchin (33b).

Text #1: This is the text in most Sefarim.

Text #2: Rashi's text is only "Ka Mashma Lan," and he does not have the text, "Nehi d'Lesnehu b'Hashmatah" - "Granted that they do not have the laws of relinquishing (land)."

Text #2 (cont.): This is because they certainly are included! If they bought a field from a Yisrael, they have to give it back at Yovel, as they are not exempt from this Mitzvah. This is also true if a Yisrael bought a field from the two thousand cubits given to the Levites outside of the cities. The field is returned at Yovel. Even Batei Arei Chomah (houses in walled cities) that do not go back to a Yisrael during Yovel go back to a Levite, as the Pasuk says, "And that will be redeemed from the Levites." This is the question of Rashi (on Text #1).

Answer: This is not a difficult question, as one can explain that "laws of relinquishing" refers to being Makdish a Sdeh Achuzah, not redeeming it, and it being sold by the caretaker of Hekdesh. Yovel does not take away the field from going back to the one who dedicated it if he is a Levite, as opposed to if it was a Yisrael who owned the field, in which case it would go to the Kohanim during Yovel. When the Gemara says, "Granted that they do not have the laws of relinquishing" it means that they do not fully have the laws of relinquishing land.

Question #1: However, this is certainly difficult. The Gemara should have said that they are included in relinquishing land that they sell. For example, if a field was sold to them or they sold a field to others, just as they included in relinquishing loans and sending servants they are included in these laws as well.

Question #2: Additionally, what does relinquishing loans have to do with Yovel? The Sifri explicitly states in Parshas Re'ah that only Shemitah causes the relinquishing of loans, as opposed to Yovel that does not. This is excluded from the Pasuk, "And this is the word of Shemitah - relinquish" implying that only Shemitah takes away loans as opposed to Yovel that does not.

Answer: It is difficult to say that this is according to Rebbi, as Rebbi says that relinquishing loans only happens when Yovel applies. This is as the Gemara states in Gitin (36a) that when Yovel applies relinquishing money applies (according to Rebbi).

Explanation: The question is specifically regarding the blessing of Hamotzi on Matzah on Pesach night and the blessing of Borei Pri Hagefen said during Kidush since they are not made primarily for benefit (but rather because they must be said to fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah or Kidush).

Explanation: This is both in Yerushalayim and outside of it, as explained by Rashi.

Implied Question: The Mishnah states that any city that sees Yerushalayim and hears should blow. (This implies that cities outside of Yerushalayim blew, and certainly Yerushalayim!)

Answer: This was the law after the destruction due to the decree of Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai.

Question: Why is this different than Lulav that was even taken in the border cities when the Beis Hamikdash was extant, as implied in Sukah (43a) that they would bring their Lulav to shul?

Answer: Lulav is different as it is only a matter of carrying. Since it was permitted in the Mikdash, they were not stringent regarding the other cities. However, blowing a Shofar is a skill.

Question: However, there is a difficulty, as after the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash they were more lenient regarding Shofar than Lulav. Rebbi Yochanan ben Zakai instituted that they should blow Shofar anywhere where there is a Beis Din. However, Lulav did not become permitted on Shabbos. This is implied from the Gemara that establishes the case where people used to take their Lulavs to shul as being during the time of the Beis Hamikdash. This implies that in other cities, when the Beis Hamikdash was no longer extant, it was never permitted to blow Shofar anywhere!

Answer #1: It is possible to answer that Chazal did not want to completely abolish Shofar, which is in order to bring the remembrance of Bnei Yisrael before their Father in Heaven. Since they instituted that it should still be done in one Beis Din, they instituted that it should also be done anywhere where there is a Beis Din. This is despite the fact that during the time of the Beis Hamikdash it was only done in the Mikdash.

Answer #2: It is also possible to answer that it is understandable that Lulav should push aside Shabbos in the cities more than Shofar, as on Rosh Hashanah they only knew the exact day of Rosh Hashanah in Yerushalayim. However, everyone knew when the first day of Sukos was, even those who lived in the cities. (The Maharsha says this is actually an answer to (d), not (f).)

Question: This is difficult. On the contrary, if it is a Melachah it does not require a Pasuk, as it is derived from the Pasuk, "Kol Melachah Lo Sasu!" The reason why it needs a Pasuk is because it is not a Melachah!

Answer: It seems to me that if it is not a Melachah it obviously should not be forbidden. However, if it is a Melachah, we need a Pasuk. This is because one might think that it should be permitted because of the Pasuk, "Yom Teruah Yihyeh Lachem," implying it should even be done on Shabbos (despite the fact that it is a Melachah). This is why a special Pasuk is needed to say it is forbidden, and to establish that "Yom Teruah" is only referring to during the week, not on Shabbos.

Explanation: This Pasuk is stated regarding Yom Tov.

Observation: The Gemara could also have stated, "Kol Melachah Lo Sasu" (perhaps the intent of Tosfos is Lo Saseh Kol Melachah, see note on Tosfos) as even on Shabbos it is not forbidden (according to Torah law to blow the Shofar), even though this Pasuk does not state, "Avodah" (and the Pasuk in our Gemara does state Avodah).

Explanation #1: Rabeinu Chananel explains that the taking the bread out of the oven discussed here is after it has been baked, and it is permitted Lechatchilah. The Rabbinic prohibition regarding taking out of the oven discussed in Shabbos (3b), where the Gemara discusses whether they permitted one to take it out before the bread is baked and the person who put it in is liable to be stoned, is where the bread is not yet baked and he is taking out a dough. This is similar to kneading, as he is softening it when he takes it down with his hand.

Explanation #2: He said a forced explanation for no reason, as here too taking the bread out of the oven is only permitted according to Torah law, as is apparent from the Gemara in Shabbos (117b) regarding saving bread from an oven (when there is a fire). One is allowed to save three meals worth of bread. The Gemara there says that when he saves the bread he should not do so with a special tool used to do so, but rather with a knife.

Explanation #2 (cont.): Similarly, blowing the Shofar is forbidden on Shabbos according to Rabbinic law, as is apparent from the Gemara in Chulin (84b) where the Gemara says that we can prove this from blowing the Shofar in the cities which pushes aside Yom Tov when there is a doubt, but it does not push aside Shabbos even where there is a certainty. Even so, Chazal would not have forbidden blowing Shofar on Shabbos were it not for the law of Rabah who states that one may come to carry it four cubits in the public domain.

Explanation: Rashi explains in Sukah (43a) that the Gemara does not suspect he will take it out from the private domain to the public domain because it is not clear (he will transgress a Torah law). If he picked it up in order to put it somewhere else in his house and he changed his mind and took it outside, he is exempt.

Question: This is difficult. Regarding carrying four cubits in the public domain one also is not liable unless he picked up the object in order to carry it four cubits.

Answer: It seems that a person is more aware of his carrying from the private domain to the public domain, and there is therefore no reason to make a decree lest he might do so. However, in the public domain he sometimes will not realize and will carry four cubits at once. [See Tosfos in Megilah 4b, in Sukah 43a, and in Beitzah 18a.]