“But if he be too poor for your valuation” (Leviticus 27:8). The word “he” [hu] is interpreted as a variation of havaya, existence or sustenance. In this manner the verse can be read as an instruction to the treasurer: Sustain him from that which he is obligated to pay for your valuation.

The mishna teaches that food and garments are left for him, but not for his wife or his children. The Gemara asks: What is the reason? The verse states: “If he be too poor for your valuation,” which indicates that he must be sustained from your valuation, but his wife and his children are not sustained from your valuation.

The mishna teaches: Rabbi Eliezer says that if he was a farmer, the treasurer gives him his pair of oxen; if he was a donkey driver, the treasurer gives him his donkey. The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, why do they rule that these animals are repossessed? The Gemara responds: According to the Rabbis, these animals are not tools of his craft; rather, they are his property.

The mishna teaches that if one had many tools of one type that he was allowed to keep and few tools of one other type, e.g., three adzes and one saw, the treasurer does not sell tools of the type of which there are many in order to purchase for him tools of the type of which he has few. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Just as it was sufficient for him until now to work with one saw, now too a single saw should be sufficient for him.

The Gemara explains that the ruling is necessary lest you say that until now, when he was capable of lending one of his many adzes, if he required an additional saw someone would lend one to him, whereas now that his property has been repossessed there is no one who will lend such a tool to him, when he has nothing to offer in exchange. Consequently, the treasurer should not leave him with only one saw, but he should sell some of his adzes in order to purchase an additional saw. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that there is no concern that he might not be able to borrow a tool.

§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries. The Gemara relates that there was a certain man who sold his property. He came before Rav Yeimar, who said to the members of the court: Remove his phylacteries from his head and his arm and give them to the buyer, as they are included in his property. The Gemara asks: What is this incident teaching us? It is an explicit ruling of the mishna: With regard to one who consecrates all his property, the treasurer takes his phylacteries.

The Gemara explains: It is necessary, lest you say that it is only there, when one consecrates his property, that the halakha is that his phylacteries are taken, as he thinks to himself: I am performing a mitzva, and therefore he intended for his phylacteries to be included. But with regard to a sale, a person would not sell an item used for a mitzva that he performs with his body without explicitly stating so. The Gemara therefore teaches us by means of the above incident that phylacteries are included in the property of such a sale.

MISHNA: Both in the case of one who consecrates his property and the case of one who valuates himself, when the Temple treasurer repossesses his property he has the right to repossess neither the garment of his wife nor the garment of his children, nor the dyed garments that he dyed for their sake, even if they have yet to wear them, nor the new sandals that he purchased for their sake.

Although the merchants said: Slaves are sold in their garments for profit, as if a fine garment worth thirty dinars would be purchased for him, his sale price appreciates by one hundred dinars; and likewise with regard to a cow, if one waits to sell it until the market [la’itlis] day, when demand is high, its sale price appreciates; and likewise with regard to a pearl, if one brings it to sell it in the city, where demand is high, its sale price appreciates; nevertheless, one does not make such a calculation in this case. Rather, the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its price at the present time.

GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the Temple treasury has the right to collect the item based only on its current location and its present time, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states, with regard to the redemption of a consecrated item: “And he shall give your valuation as of that day” (Leviticus 27:23). The phrase “as of that day” indicates that he should not delay the sale of a pearl for the light ones, i.e., for poor people, in order that they should take it to the city to sell it. Rather, it is appraised according to its present location. The verse continues: “As a holy thing unto the Lord,” which teaches that unspecified vows of consecration, e.g., when one states: My property is consecrated, are given for Temple maintenance, rather than to the priests.

MISHNA: One may neither consecrate an ancestral field, i.e., a field that he inherited, less than two years before the Jubilee Year, nor may one redeem such a field less than one year after the Jubilee Year. When redeeming an ancestral field that has been consecrated, the sum paid to redeem the field is calculated based on the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year. When performing this calculation, one does not count months of a partial year in order to lower the price to be paid to the Temple treasury; rather, he pays for the entire year. But the Temple treasury may count months in order to raise the price of redemption, as will be explained.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one may not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee Year. And with regard to this, the Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: One may consecrate an ancestral field both before the Jubilee Year and after the Jubilee Year. But during the Jubilee Year itself, one may not consecrate it, and if he nevertheless did consecrate it, it is not consecrated. Although consecration of an ancestral field is ineffective during the Jubilee Year, it is clear that such a field may be consecrated at any time prior to the start of the year.

In response, Rav and Shmuel both say: The mishna means that one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction, i.e., such that the redemption price will be reduced to reflect the number of years remaining until the Jubilee Year, less than two years before the Jubilee Year. If such a field is consecrated less than two years before the Jubilee, it is redeemed according to its full valuation, as though it had been consecrated and redeemed immediately after the Jubilee. And since one may not consecrate an ancestral field for it to be redeemed with a deduction less than two years before the Jubilee, the mishna teaches that a person should be concerned about his property, and should therefore not consecrate an ancestral field less than two years before the Jubilee.

§ It was stated: With regard to one who consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, Rav says: It is consecrated, and if he wishes to redeem it he gives the full valuation of fifty sela, i.e., fifty silver biblical shekels, per unit of area required for sowing one kor of seed [beit kor], and Shmuel says: It is not consecrated at all, and therefore it is not redeemed for any sum.

Rav Yosef objects to this: Granted, with regard to the sale of an ancestral field during the Jubilee Year, it is logical that Shmuel disagrees with Rav and maintains that such a sale is invalid, as one can say the following a fortiori inference: And if a field that was already sold before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the buyer and returns to the original owner now in the Jubilee Year, then with regard to a field that has not been sold, is it not logical to conclude that it cannot be sold during the Jubilee Year?

But here, with regard to the consecration of a field during the Jubilee Year, can one say such an a fortiori inference? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (25b): If one consecrated his ancestral field and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the owner, the priests enter into the field and give its redemption payment to the Temple treasury; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda? Since a field that was consecrated before the Jubilee Year does not return to its original owner without redemption, one cannot infer that if one consecrates his field during the Jubilee Year itself, it returns to him without redemption.

The Gemara answers: Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that the priests enter into the field, but they do not give its redemption value to the Temple treasury. According to this opinion, a field consecrated before the Jubilee Year leaves the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption during the Jubilee Year, and therefore by a fortiori inference, if it was consecrated during the Jubilee Year, it does not require redemption.