The Gemara objects: This works out well according to the Rabbis, who say that the fiftieth year is not included in the counting of the cycle of Sabbatical Years. It was therefore necessary to count the Jubilee Year. But according to Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the fiftieth year is counted for here and for there, i.e., it is both the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the subsequent cycle, why do I need for them to count the Jubilee Years? If the Jubilee Year is not in effect, then it is enough to count the Sabbatical Years. The Gemara explains: That baraita is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

The Gemara asks: And did they not count Sabbatical Years and Jubilee Years once the tribes of Reuben and Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled? But isn’t it written that Jeremiah, who lived many years later, said: ''At the end of seven years you shall let go every man his brother that is a Hebrew, that has been sold unto you, and has served you six years, you shall let him go free from you; but your fathers did not listen unto Me, nor inclined their ear'' (Jeremiah 34:14)?

The Gemara continues: And we discussed this verse: Why does it state: ''At the end of seven years you shall let go every man''? But isn’t it written in the same verse: ''And has served you six years''? And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse is referring to two separate individuals. The phrase ''and has served you six years'' is referring to a typical Hebrew slave who was sold, who goes free after six years (see Exodus 21:2), and the phrase ''at the end of seven years'' is referring to a slave whose ear was pierced with an awl to extend his tenure. Such an individual remains a slave until the Jubilee Year, even if that is the following year, i.e., the end of the seventh year. If so, the verse indicates that the Jubilee Year was in effect in the times of Jeremiah, even though the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled.

The Gemara answers: That verse was not stated by Jeremiah in the form of a command; rather, it is written in the form of reproof. That is, the prophet Jeremiah is saying to the Jewish people: Did you send free the pierced slaves when the Jubilee Year was observed? The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written there: ''And they listened and let them go'' (Jeremiah 34:10)? Evidently, the entire passage is referring to matters occurring in the present.

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Indeed, the Jubilee Year was not in effect once the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled. But Jeremiah brought back all the exiled tribes, and Josiah, son of Amon, ruled over them. And from where do we derive that Jeremiah brought them back? As it is written: ''For the seller shall not return to that which he has sold'' (Ezekiel 7:13). Ezekiel prophesied that there will come a time when fields will not be returned to the owners in the Jubilee Year. Now, is it possible that the Jubilee Year had already been nullified and yet the prophet is prophesying that it will be annulled in the future? Rather, this teaches that Jeremiah brought back the exiled tribes.

And from where do we derive that Josiah ruled over all the ten tribes exiled by Assyria? As it is written: ''And as Josiah turned himself, then he spied the sepulchres…then he said: What monument is that which I see? And the men of the city told him: It is the tomb of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things that you have done against the altar of Bethel'' (II Kings 23:16–17).

Now, what connection does Josiah, king of Judah, have with the altar at Bethel, a city in the kingdom of Israel? Rather, this indicates that when Jeremiah brought back the ten tribes, Josiah ruled over them. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The fact that the tribes returned may be derived from here: ''Also, O Judah, there is a harvest appointed for you, when I would return the captivity of My people'' (Hosea 6:11). That is, when the ten tribes will return from their captivity, a king of Judah will rule over them.

MISHNA With regard to the houses of the unwalled courtyards mentioned in the Torah (see Leviticus 25:31), i.e., houses in villages that are not surrounded by walls, one accords them the exceptional provisions that apply to houses of walled cities and the exceptional provisions that apply to fields. Therefore, they are redeemed immediately and for the entire twelve months following the sale, like in the sale of houses of walled cities, and not like fields, which may be redeemed only after two years. And they leave the possession of the buyer during the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, like the sale of fields. By contrast, houses of walled cities become the possession of the buyer in perpetuity after one year, and if they are redeemed within the year, one pays the full sale price.

GEMARA The Sages taught: The verse states: ''But the houses of the courtyards that have no wall round about them shall be reckoned with the fields of the country; they may be redeemed, and they shall go out in the Jubilee'' (Leviticus 25:31). The verse juxtaposed houses of unwalled courtyards to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field leaves the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with a per annum deduction from the money of the sale price, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year or with the per annum deduction from the money of the sale price.

The baraita continues: If one derives the halakha from an ancestral field, then just as an ancestral field may not be redeemed less than two years after its sale, so too, houses of the unwalled courtyards may not be redeemed less than two years after their sale. Therefore, the verse states: ''They may be redeemed,'' indicating that they may be redeemed immediately. The baraita continues: Since you have accorded houses of the unwalled courtyards the exceptional provisions that apply to fields and the exceptional provisions that apply to the houses of walled cities, one might have thought that they do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: ''And they shall go out in the Jubilee.''

The Gemara asks: What is the tanna of the baraita saying in the last clause, i.e., why might one think that such houses do not leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year? After all, ancestral fields leave the possession of the buyer in the Jubilee Year, and the tanna teaches that the exceptional provisions of an ancestral field apply to houses in unwalled courtyards. Rav Huna said: The verse is necessary only for the case of one who consecrates a house among the houses of the unwalled courtyards, and another redeemed it from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the Jubilee Year arrived in the second year after its redemption.

Rav Huna elaborates: To what will you compare this case? If you compare this house to houses of walled cities that were consecrated and redeemed by another, then the house belongs to the buyer in perpetuity by the end of the first year (see 31b). If you compare it to an ancestral field that was consecrated and redeemed by another, it leaves to the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year (see 25a). For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: ''And they shall go out in the Jubilee,'' to teach that houses in unwalled courtyards which were consecrated and redeemed by another are returned to their owners in the Jubilee Year.

Rav Zeira objects to this: Why is it necessary to interpret this verse as referring specifically to a case where another redeemed the house from the Temple treasury? Even if another did not redeem it, the house should also be returned to its owner in the Jubilee Year, as the verse states simply: ''And they shall go out in the Jubilee.'' Abaye said to Rav Zeira: An unredeemed house is not returned to its owners in the Jubilee Year, so that people will not say that consecrated property can leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption.

The Gemara adds: And from where do we derive that consecrated property does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption? We derive it from the halakha with regard to a Levite: And what, if with regard to a Levite, whose power is enhanced with regard to his sale, as a Levite may always redeem a field or house that he sold (see mishna in 33b), his power is diminished with regard to his consecration, as a field that he consecrated does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury until he redeems it; then with regard to an Israelite, whose power is diminished with regard to his sale, since if he sells an ancestral field he may not redeem it for the first two years, and he may redeem a house of a walled city only within one year of the sale, is it not logical that his power is diminished with regard to his consecration and that if he consecrated a house of an unwalled courtyard he must redeem it from the Temple treasury before it enters his possession?

The Gemara asks: And there, with regard to a Levite, from where do we derive that his consecrated property does not leave the possession of the Temple treasury without redemption? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: ''And if a man purchases from the Levites, the house that was sold in the city of his possession shall go out during the Jubilee Year'' (Leviticus 25:33). From the phrase ''that was sold…shall go out'' I would derive that any item sold by a Levite returns to him in the Jubilee Year, even his slaves, movable property, and promissory notes. Therefore, the verse states: ''House…in the city of his possession,'' which teaches that these items do not return to the Levite without redemption.

The baraita continues: What is the meaning when the verse states: ''That was sold''? The verse teaches that a house or field that was sold by a Levite leaves the possession of the buyer and enters the Levite’s possession for free in the Jubilee Year, but the consecration of a Levite does not leave for free in the Jubilee Year; rather, it leaves only with redemption.

The Gemara notes: And Rav Huna, who says that a house in an unwalled courtyard that was consecrated and subsequently redeemed by another returns to the original owner in the Jubilee Year, disagrees with Rabbi Oshaya. As Rabbi Oshaya says: All items were included in the command: And he will give the money and it will be assured to him (see Leviticus 27:19), i.e., one who redeems an item from the Temple treasury becomes its owner in all regards.

When the verse specified with regard to an ancestral field: ''But the field, when it goes out in the Jubilee, shall be holy unto the Lord, as a field dedicated; his ancestral field shall be for the priest'' (Leviticus 27:21), one derives that it is only with regard to a field that one can redeem it and yet it leaves the possession of the Temple treasury to enter the possession of the priests in the Jubilee Year. But with regard to these houses in unwalled courtyards that were consecrated and redeemed by another, they remain in their current state, i.e., in the possession of the one who redeemed them.

The Gemara asks: According to Rabbi Oshaya, why do I need the phrase ''and they shall go out in the Jubilee''? Rav Pappa said: It is necessary only for the case of one who sells a house among the houses of the unwalled courtyards and the Jubilee Year arrived in the second year. The verse indicates that the house is nevertheless returned to the seller.

Rav Pappa elaborates: To what will you compare this case? If you compare this case to one of the houses of walled cities that was sold, then the house belongs to the buyer in perpetuity at the end of the first year. And if you compare it to the case of an ancestral field that was sold, then it requires completion of another year after the Jubilee Year, as taught in a baraita cited earlier (29b): If the buyer consumed an ancestral field’s produce for one year before the Jubilee Year, he completes another year after the Jubilee Year. For this reason it was necessary for the verse to state: ''And they shall go out in the Jubilee,'' to teach that in such a case the house of an unwalled courtyard returns to the possession of the original owner.

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, and this baraita is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya: With regard to one who consecrates a house among the houses of unwalled courtyards, this individual may redeem the house immediately and he may redeem it always. If another individual redeemed it from the possession of the Temple treasury, and the Jubilee Year arrived and it was not redeemed by the original owner, the house returns to the owner in the Jubilee Year.