this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship. The baraita teaches that it is only due to a person’s sins that he reaches a point where he has to sell himself as a slave. Therefore, one should be stringent with him with regard to his redemption and not allow him to be redeemed easily.

Abaye said to that Sage: There, the verse brings him back, i.e., one must strive to redeem a Jew who has been sold as a slave. As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this person who sold himself as a slave has gone and become a priest for idol worship, one might say: Let us throw a stone after the fallen, that is, since he has reached this nadir one should abandon him. Therefore, the verse states: “After he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48).

The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: “He shall be redeemed,” so that he will not be assimilated among the gentiles. But with regard to the matter of his redemption and freedom, let us act strictly with him, as derived from that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: “If there be yet many of the years, according to them he shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: “And if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his years” (Leviticus 25:52). But how can there be both many years and few years when, in any case, he will not serve for more than six years? Rather, this means that as the money of his value increased with the passage of time, he is redeemed “out of the money that he was bought for,” i.e., the price for which he was originally sold, which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over time, one determines his value “according to his years,” i.e., according to his current value.

The Gemara asks: But one can say that this is what the Torah is saying: In a case where he served for two years and an additional four years remain for his service, as indicated by the phrase “if there be yet many of the years,” let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him “out of the money that he was bought for.” If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated “and if there remain but few of the years,” let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, “according to his years.”

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, let the verse write: If there be yet many years, and: If there remain but few years. What is the meaning of the phrase “of the years”? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed “out of the money that he was bought for,” which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value “according to his years.” Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak homiletically interpreted these verses like Sinai. His exposition reflects the truth of Torah as it was given at Mount Sinai, as every matter is fully resolved.

The Gemara records a mnemonic device for the upcoming discussions: Slave, house, partial, house, slave, and relatives. Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is sold to a gentile, can he be partially redeemed, or can he not be partially redeemed? Does this slave have the option of paying part of his value and thereby reducing his remaining period of service?

The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: “According to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [ge’ullato]” (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term “ge’ullato” can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: “And he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [ge’ullato]” (Leviticus 25:26). Accordingly, just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed, but is either fully redeemed or not at all, so too, this slave cannot be partially redeemed. Or perhaps we say that he cannot be partially redeemed only if that leads to a leniency, but we do not say that he cannot be redeemed if it leads to a stringency.

Rav Sheshet said to him: Didn’t you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: “And he is sold” (Exodus 22:2), teaches that all of him is sold but not part of him? If he is worth one thousand, and he owes five hundred for theft, he cannot be sold. So too, in the case of one who was sold to a gentile, the phrase “he is redeemed” (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.

Abaye said: If you say that he is partially redeemed, you find elements of leniency and stringency. This ruling can lead to a leniency in the following case: A master purchased a Hebrew slave for one hundred and the redeemer gives him fifty, which is half of his value, and afterward the slave increased in value and stood at two hundred. If you say that he can be partially redeemed he is already half-redeemed. Consequently, the redeemer gives him one hundred, half of his current value, and the slave goes out, i.e., is redeemed. And if you say that he cannot be partially redeemed, the redeemer gives the owner an additional one hundred and fifty and the slave goes out, as the initial fifty serves merely as the first payment, and he is now worth two hundred.

The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays “out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51), i.e., one calculates the value of the slave in accordance with his value at the time when he was acquired, even if that is less than his present value. Why, then, should one have to pay the full two hundred? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he initially, before being sold, increased in value, was then sold for two hundred, and afterward decreased in value to one hundred, and subsequently he again increased in value so that he was worth the same amount as he was originally. In this case, his value of two hundred remains determinative.

Abaye proceeds to describe how you find a case that leads to a stringency. A master purchased a Hebrew slave for two hundred and the redeemer gave one hundred, which is half of his value, and the slave decreased in value and stood at a value of one hundred. If you say that he can be partially redeemed, the redeemer gives fifty and the slave goes out, i.e., is redeemed. And if you say that he cannot be partially redeemed, these one hundred are a deposit with him. Therefore, the redeemer gives it to him at the time of the redemption and the slave goes out. There is no reason to pay him more money, as he is now worth one hundred.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet with regard to a similar topic: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, which can be redeemed only during the first year after the sale, can it be partially redeemed, or can it not be partially redeemed? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Does he derive the verbal analogy of “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:29) and “ge’ullato” (Leviticus 25:26) from the case of an ancestral field and say that just as ancestral land cannot be partially redeemed, so too, this house cannot be partially redeemed?

Or perhaps one should say: In a case where the verse explicitly revealed that it cannot be redeemed partially, as it does in the context of an ancestral field, it revealed it. With regard to one who redeems an ancestral field, it is written: “And he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it” (Leviticus 25:26), indicating that he has enough money to redeem the whole field, not part of it. By contrast, in a case where the Torah did not reveal that it cannot be redeemed, it did not reveal it, and therefore a house from a walled city can be partially redeemed, as the verse does not state this condition in that context.

Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimon’s interpretation one learns that with regard to houses in walled cities, one can borrow money and redeem them, and similarly that one can partially redeem them. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to a verse that describes one who consecrates his field: “And if he will redeem [ga’ol yigal] the field” (Leviticus 27:19). The repetition of the verb teaches that one can borrow money and redeem houses in walled cities and that one can also partially redeem them.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason for this halakha? This is because we find with regard to one who sells his ancestral field that his power is enhanced, as, if the Jubilee Year arrives and it is not redeemed, the ancestral field returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year without them having to pay for it. Therefore, the power of the seller is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field but must have the money to do so on his own, and he cannot partially redeem it.

By contrast, if one consecrates his field his power is diminished, as, if the Jubilee Year arrives and he did not redeem it in the meantime, and the Temple treasurer sold it to someone else, the ancestral field goes out and becomes the property of the priests in the Jubilee Year and does not return to its original owners. Consequently, in order to offset this stringency his power is enhanced in that he may borrow money and redeem the field, and partially redeem it.

According to this explanation, with regard to this one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, since his power is also diminished, as, if a full year passes and the house has not been redeemed it remains the permanent property of the buyer, in order to offset this stringency, his power should be enhanced in that he may borrow money and redeem the house, and partially redeem it.

Rava bar Ḥinnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: “And if he will redeem [ga’ol yigal] the field” (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.

The baraita continues: As one might have thought: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to one who sells an ancestral field that his power is enhanced, as if the Jubilee Year arrives and it is not redeemed, it returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year, and yet his power is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field and he cannot partially redeem it; with regard to one who consecrates a field, where his power is diminished, for if the Jubilee Year arrives and it was not redeemed it goes out to the priests in the Jubilee Year, is it not logical that his power is diminished in that he cannot borrow money and redeem the field and he cannot partially redeem it?

The baraita raises a difficulty against this a fortiori inference: What is unique about one who sells his ancestral field is that his power is diminished with regard to redeeming it immediately, as he cannot redeem his field right away but must wait at least two years. Shall you say that the same halakhot apply with regard to one who consecrates his field, as his power is enhanced with regard to redeeming it immediately? One who has consecrated his field can redeem it as soon as he has the money to do so. If so, the a fortiori inference is not valid.

The baraita responds: The case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities can prove otherwise, as his power is enhanced with regard to redeeming it immediately, and yet he cannot borrow money and redeem the house and he cannot partially redeem it. In any case, with regard to the issue at hand, the baraita indicates the opposite of the previous conclusion: One who sells a house in a walled city cannot partially redeem it. Rav Sheshet answers: This is not difficult.