Question (Mishnah): We do not redeem less than one year after Yovel.

Granted, according to Shmuel, the Mishnah teaches that there is no need to redeem in Yovel itself. (Hekdesh does not take effect);

According to Rav, why must we wait a year after Yovel?

Answer: It means that at any later point in Yovel we are not Megare'a (reduce the redemption) until a full year.

Question: The Seifa explicitly teaches that we do not calculate months (a partial year) with Hekdesh (to reduce the redemption)!

Answer: The Seifa gives the reason for the Reisha. After Yovel, we are not Megare'a until a full year because we do not calculate months with Hekdesh.

(Mishnah): We do not calculate months...

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that we do not calculate months with Hekdesh?

Answer: "V'Chishav Lo... Al Pi ha'Shanim ha'Nosaros" teaches that we count (full) years, but not months.

Question: What is the source that Hekdesh considers months to be like a full year (Rashi on the Mishnah - if this benefits Hekdesh; Rambam, and Rashi here - if this benefits the Makdish)?

Question: What is the case?

Answer: He was Makdish (or wants to redeem) one and a half years before Yovel. (Rashi on the Mishnah - if we reckon with (do not ignore) the months that passed in year 48, less than two years remain before Yovel, so there is no reduced redemption. Rambam - if we consider the months (above one year) remaining until Yovel like a full year, two years remain until Yovel, so there is reduced redemption.)

Answer: "V'Chishav Lo ha'Kohen" - in any case.

(Mishnah): If one was Makdish his Sedeh Achuzah at a period when Yovel applies, the redemption is 50 silver Shekalim for a Beis Chomer;

If there were ditches 10 Tefachim deep or rocks 10 Tefachim tall, they are (redeemed like regular Hekdesh, according to their value. They are) not redeemed like a field. If they are less than 10 Tefachim, they are like part of the field.

If he was Makdish two or three years before Yovel, he gives a Sela and Pundyon per year to redeem it;

If he wants to give the amount per year each year, we do not consent. Rather, he must give the entire redemption at once.

The redemption is the same for the original owner or anyone else. The only difference is that the original owner adds a Chomesh, but others do not.

(Gemara - Beraisa): (Fifty Shekalim is for a field in which one sows) a Kor of seed, but not (for a field in which one grows) a Kor of grain;

We gauge based on the way seed is sown by hand, not based on (a bag with a hole on a wagon pulled by) oxen;

(Levi): We gauge according to a medium seeding, not too dense nor too sparse.

Question: (When they are 10 Tefachim, granted they are judged separately from the field, but still) they should be Hekdesh (with the fixed redemption of 50 Shekalim)!

Suggestion: The fixed redemption price does not apply to fields less than a Beis Kor.

Rejection (Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps "Zera Chomer Se'orim" is the smallest field with a fixed redemption!

Rejection: "V'Im Ga'ol Yig'al Es ha'Sadeh" teaches that a field of any size has a fixed redemption.

Answer (Rav Ukva bar Chama): The case is, the ditches are full of water, so they cannot be seeded. (Therefore they are not redeemed like fields.)

Support: They were taught along with rocks, which cannot be seeded.

Question: If so, even if they are less than 10 Tefachim they should not be like the field!

Answer: Those are like cracks of the field. Small rocks are like mounds of the field, they are not considered by themselves.

(Mishnah): If he was Makdish two or three years before Yovel...

(Beraisa): "V'Nigra me'Erkecha" - we deduct even for the time the field was Hekdesh (before redemption);

Whether Hekdesh benefited from it (rented it out, or grew produce) or not, the redemption is a Sela and Pundyon for each remaining year until Yovel.

(Mishnah): If he wants to give...

(Beraisa) Question: What is the source that if he wants to give the amount per year each year, we do not consent?

Answer: "V'Chishav Lo ha'Kohen Es ha'Kesef" teaches that all the money must be together;

The same applies to the original owner or anyone else. The only difference is that the original owner adds a Chomesh, but others do not.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was Makdish his field and redeemed it, he keeps it in (and after) Yovel;

If his son redeemed it, it returns to Reuven in Yovel;

If a stranger or any other relative redeemed it, and Reuven bought it back before Yovel, it is (Rashi; Rambam - not) given to the Kohanim in Yovel.

If a Kohen redeemed it and still has it when Yovel comes, he cannot say "since I have it now, I will keep it" - rather, it is divided among all the Kohanim (Rambam; R. Gershom - of the Beis Av serving that day).

(Gemara - Beraisa): "V'Im Lo Yig'al Es ha'Sadeh" discusses when the (original) owner did not redeem it. "V'Im Machar Es ha'Sadeh" teaches about if the Gizbar sold it. "L'Ish Acher" excludes the (owner's) son. (If he redeemed it, it is not given to Kohanim in Yovel.)

Question: Perhaps "l'Ish Acher" rather excludes the owner's brother!

Answer: "L'Ish" includes if it was sold to the brother (then, it is given to Kohanim in Yovel), so "Acher" excludes the son. (If the son redeemed it, it returns to his father in Yovel.)

Question: (These words do not specify which is which.) Why do we include the brother and exclude the son, and not vice-versa?

Answer: It is more reasonable this way (if the son redeemed it, it returns to the father), for a son can be in place of his father regarding Yi'ud (a father can be Mekadesh his Amah Ivriyah to his son instead of to himself) and Eved Ivri. (If the father dies, the slave works the remainder of his six years for the son.)

Question: Rather, we should rather exclude the brother, for he is in place of his brother regarding Yibum!

Answer: The Mitzvah if Yibum applies only if there is no son. (This shows that a son is in place of his father more than a brother)!

Note: If not for this answer, the brother would be considered closer.

Question: Even without this answer a son is closer. He is in place of his father regarding two laws, but a brother is in place of his brother for only one law!

Answer: Also regarding Eved Ivri, the Torah said that he works for the closest relative. It did not specify who is closest;

Note: If a brother were considered closer regarding Yibum, we would have one source to say that a brother is closer, and one source (Yi'ud) to say that the son is closer.

However, since we say that even regarding Yibum, a son is closer, the same applies to Eved Ivri.

Question (Rabah bar Avuha): If a daughter redeemed her father's Sedeh Achuzah, does she cause it return to him (in Yovel, or is it given to Kohanim, as if a stranger redeemed it)?

Since a daughter is like a son to exempt from Yibum, she returns it;

Or, since she does not inherit when there are sons, she is like a stranger, so she does not return it!

Answer (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): Anyone who does not inherit when there are sons does not cause a field to return.

Question (R. Zeira): Who returns a field (of Melug property, i.e. that a wife brought into the marriage and will get back later unless she dies during the marriage) to a woman?

Since her husband inherits her, he returns her field;

Or perhaps her son returns it, for (when he inherits) he is in place of her place more than her husband. He inherits even Ra'uy (what was destined to come to her but she never owned, e.g. property that she would have inherited had she lived longer).

This question is not resolved.

Question (Rami bar Chama): If one was Makdish a field less than two years before Yovel (and he redeemed it), is it given to Kohanim in Yovel?

Answer: (Rav Chisda): You suspect that it does not because it says "v'Nigra me'Erkecha," and later "v'Hayah ha'Sadeh b'Tzeiso va'Yovel," i.e. it goes to Kohanim only if it could have been redeemed b'Gir'u'a;

This is wrong. Rather, the previous verse "v'Im Lo Yig'al Es ha'Sadeh" teaches that it goes to Kohanim if it could have been redeemed, and this was redeemable!

(Mishnah): If a Kohen redeemed it...

(Beraisa) Question: What do we learn from "la'Kohen Tihyeh Achuzaso"?

Answer: This teaches that if a Kohen redeemed a field that will be given to Kohanim in Yovel, he cannot say "since it is given to Kohanim, and I have it now, I will keep it. A Kal va'Chomer supports me!

I acquire (a share of) things I had no rights to, e.g. a field that a Yisrael (not the original owner) redeemed. (It is given to Kohanim in Yovel.) All the more so, I acquire this field, which I already have!"

Rejection: "Achuzaso" teaches that a Kohen keeps his Achuzah, but not this. (It is not his Achuzah);

Rather, it is divided among the Kohanim.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If one was Makdish his field and did not redeem it before Yovel, Kohanim receive it and give its (true) value (Rambam; Rashi - 50 Shekalim per Beis Kor) to Hekdesh.

R. Shimon says, Kohanim receive it and do not pay Hekdesh;

R. Elazar says, Kohanim neither receive it nor pay for it. It is called Sedeh Retushin (an abandoned field);

If it is not redeemed before the second Yovel, it is called Retushei Retushin until the third Yovel;

It is not given to Kohanim until someone else redeems it.

(Gemara) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer: He learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" from one who was Makdish his house:

Just like a house does not lose its Kedushah until it is redeemed, also a field.

Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?

Answer: He learns the Gezeirah Shavah "Kodesh-Kodesh" from the two lambs brought on Shavu'os (Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur):

Just like Kohanim receive the lambs for free, also a field.