OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses the laws of redeeming a Sedeh Achuzah that was donated to Hekdesh. The Mishnah states that if the field contains pits deeper than ten Tefachim, or rocks higher than ten Tefachim, those areas are not calculated together with the field with the prescribed formula of fifty silver Shekalim per every area of the field in which a Kor of barley seed can be planted.

The Gemara asks that although the pits and rocks cannot be calculated together with the field, they should become Hekdesh in their own right and be redeemed accordingly.

The Gemara's question implies that the Mishnah maintains that the pits do not become Hekdesh at all. What is the status of the pits in the field?

(a) RASHI and TOSFOS in Kidushin (61a) explain that the pits are Hekdesh. The Gemara's question is that even if the pits are not considered part of the Sedeh Achuzah, they should be considered a Sedeh Achuzah by themselves and be redeemed accordingly. The Gemara supports this assertion from a Beraisa which explicitly states that a field does not have to have a large area in order to be called a Sedeh Achuzah. The Gemara answers that if the pits are empty, then they indeed should have the status of a Sedeh Achuzah by themselves. However, the pits mentioned in the Mishnah have water in them, rendering them unfit to be sowed. Since the formula of redeeming a Sedeh Achuzah is based on the amount of area in which a Kor of barley seed can be planted, a water-filled pit cannot be a Sedeh Achuzah, since nothing can be planted in it. Nevertheless, it still can be Hekdesh, just as one may be Makdish any type of item that is not an arable field, and it is redeemed like any other type of Hekdesh, based on its appraised value.

Accordingly, when the Mishnah states that these pits are not measured together with the Sedeh Achuzah, it means that they are not redeemed based on the formula with which a Sedeh Achuzah is redeemed. If the pits do not have water in them, then they are redeemed like an ordinary Sedeh Achuzah, even though they are not considered part of the rest of the field.

(b) The RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, and in Hilchos Erchin 4:14) learns differently. The Rambam seems to understand that the Gemara is asking that the pits should be considered Hekdesh in their own right, as ordinary Hekdesh, but not Hekdesh as a Sedeh Achuzah. Accordingly, the Gemara's conclusion is that pits with water in a consecrated Sedeh Achuzah are not considered Hekdesh at all, while empty pits in a field become Hekdesh but do not have the status of a Sedeh Achuzah. (See YAD BINYAMIN for different opinions regarding the Rambam's intention.)

The LECHEM MISHNEH (Hilchos Ishus 7:5) asks that this explanation does not seem consistent with the flow of the Gemara. After the Gemara asks that the field should be considered Hekdesh on its own accord, it continues and says that the size of the field poses no inherent problem, since the Beraisa says that even a small field can become a Sedeh Achuzah. According to the Rambam, why does the Gemara mention the size of a Sedeh Achuzah at all? According to the Rambam, the Gemara is trying to establish only that the pits in the field should have the status of ordinary Hekdesh!

The ERKI ALAI answers that the intent of the questioner in the Gemara is to exclude other possibilities: it is impossible that the pit mentioned in the Mishnah should be considered ordinary Hekdesh, because if it is Hekdesh, then it should be considered a Sedeh Achuzah, as a Sedeh Achuzah does not have to be a large field. The Gemara's answer is that the Mishnah is discussing a pit that contains water and does not become Hekdesh at all.

This explanation, however, is difficult to understand. Why is a pit with water unable to become Hekdesh? When a person sanctifies his field, he is Makdish any wells and chicken coops that are in the field. Certainly, then, when a person sanctifies his Sedeh Achuzah, the entire field becomes Hekdesh (of some form or other). Why does the pit in his field not become Hekdesh?

The LIKUTEI HALACHOS quotes the RASHBA who explains that a pit filled with water differs from a well. A well, and other similar items that become Hekdesh with the field, are there to improve and help the field. A pit in one's field that happens to contain water but is not there for irrigation purposes is not something that helps the field. On the contrary, it is considered something that is detrimental to and degrades the field. This is why it does not become Hekdesh along with the field. (Y. MONTROSE)

(See Insights to Kidushin 61:1.)

QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that when the owner of a Sedeh Achuzah sanctifies his field and another person (other than his son) redeems it from Hekdesh, even if the original owner later redeems it from that person the field goes back to the Kohanim upon the arrival of the Yovel year (see RASHI DH Ga'alah Echad, and TOSFOS to 26a, DH Ileima).

However, the RAMBAM (in Perush ha'Mishnayos, and in Hilchos Erchin 4:20) rules that if someone redeems the field from Hekdesh and then the original owner in turn redeems it from the first redeemer, it returns to the original owner's possession (and does not go to the Kohanim at Yovel).

The Rambam's ruling seems to contradict the Mishnah. The RA'AVAD points out the contradiction but mentions that he found a different edition of the Mishnah in which the text of the Mishnah matches the ruling of the RAMBAM. (The text of the Mishnah as printed in the Mishnayos is also consistent with the Rambam's ruling.)

However, the verse itself seems to contradict the Rambam's ruling. The verse states, "If he (the original owner) did not redeem his field, or if it was sold to another person (by the Gizbar of Hekdesh), then the field may no longer be redeemed. When it leaves his domain in Yovel... it becomes the property of the Kohen" (Vayikra 27:20-21). As the TOSFOS YOM TOV points out, this verse clearly contradicts the Rambam's ruling. The verse says that when another person buys the field from Hekdesh, even if the original owner does not redeem it, the field becomes the property of Hekdesh upon the arrival of Yovel and no longer can be redeemed. How does the Rambam explain the verse?

ANSWER: Perhaps the Rambam understands the verse to mean that after the field is sold by Hekdesh, the original owner cannot force the buyer to sell it back to him. If, however, the buyer willingly consents to sell it back to the original owner, then the field indeed returns to his possession forever. (HA'EMEK DAVAR)

OPINIONS: When the Torah teaches the law of a Sedeh Achuzah that was sanctified to Hekdesh, it says that if the owner redeems his field from Hekdesh before Yovel, he keeps his field during and after Yovel as well. If he fails to redeem it before Yovel, the field immediately goes (according to most opinions; see Mishnah later) to the Kohanim at Yovel.

What is the Halachah in a case in which someone else redeems the field from Hekdesh? The Gemara explains that even if the owner purchases the field from the redeemer before Yovel, the field goes back to the Kohanim at Yovel. There is one exception to this Halachah, which is derived from the verse, "v'Im Machar Es ha'Sadeh l'Ish Acher Lo Yiga'el Od" -- "and if he sells the field to another person, it may no longer be redeemed" (Vayikra 27:20). The Gemara explains that the "he" in the verse refers to the Gizbar (the treasurer) of Hekdesh. If the Gizbar sells the field to "another person," then it goes to the Kohanim at Yovel. The Gemara derives from these words that there is a person who is not called "another" and who is like the person himself; if this person redeems the field and the owner purchases it from him before Yovel, the field does not go back to the Kohanim at Yovel. Who is this person who is not called "another"? This is the son of the man who was Makdish the field. This is the reason why the Mishnah earlier (25a) states that if a son redeems the field and then sells it back to his father, the field does not go to the Kohanim at Yovel.

Rebbi Zeira asks, what happens when the original owner who was Makdish the Sedeh Achuzah is a woman and not a man? Who is considered not "another person" with regard to a woman, her son or her husband? Perhaps her husband is more closely related to the woman, because he inherits her when she dies, and thus he is not considered "another" person. On the other hand, perhaps the son is more closely related, because when he inherits his mother, he inherits even property that is "Ra'uy," property that she did not own when she died and that only came into her estate after her death, while her husband inherits only property that was in her possession when she died ("Muchzak"). The Gemara leaves this question unanswered ("Teiku").

The HAFLA'AH SHEB'ERCHIN asks that this question apparently is answered by the Gemara in Bava Basra (113a). The Gemara there teaches that land in Eretz Yisrael that a woman inherits from her father should not be inherited by her husband from a different Shevet. For this reason, the daughters of Tzelofchad were required to marry men from their own Shevet. Rav Ashi quotes the verse, "An inheritance shall not be transferred from one tribe to another tribe" (Bamidbar 36:9). Rav Ashi explains that the Torah means that a woman may not pass an inheritance to "another tribe," meaning the tribe of her husband who is called "another." She may pass, however, such inheritance to someone who is not called another, namely her son, even though he belongs to another tribe (the tribe of her husband; see RASHBAM there, DH Rav Ashi).

Rav Ashi clearly teaches that the son is the one who is not called "another" and is more closely related to the woman than her husband. Why, then, does the Gemara here not quote Rav Ashi's opinion to answer its question? Does Rebbi Zeira argue with Rav Ashi?

ANSWER: The HAFLA'AH SHEB'ERCHIN answers that the Gemara here and the Gemara in Bava Basra are in total agreement. A husband and wife are considered to be very closely related, as the Gemara in Kesuvos (66a) says, "Ishto ki'Gufo" -- "his wife is like himself." When the husband, son, and wife are all alive, the question of the Gemara here applies: who is closer to the wife?

Rav Ashi in Bava Basra is discussing a case in which the wife has died, in which case the son is now considered closer to the woman than her husband. This is because when the wife dies, she no longer is considered married to her husband. Although the surviving spouse still feels very close to his deceased wife, their relationship according to Halachah has been terminated; it was based on a bond of Kidushin which becomes severed with her death. Her bond with her son, however, is never terminated; he always remains the son of this woman. This is why Rav Ashi's statement is not relevant to the case of the Gemara here. (Y. MONTROSE)