The Gemara raises a contradiction between two baraitot with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury: It is taught in one baraita: One may borrow money and redeem a field, and one may partially redeem it. And it is taught in another baraita: One may not borrow money and redeem a field, nor may one partially redeem it. The Gemara explains: It is not difficult. This baraita, which teaches that one may not borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; and that baraita, which states that one may borrow money and redeem his field, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who is lenient with regard to redeeming a field from the Temple treasury.

MISHNA: One who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities may redeem the house immediately, even without the consent of the buyer, and he may redeem the house during the entire twelve months following the sale, but not after that. When he redeems the house within the twelve-month period, he returns the sale price to the buyer, and this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the buyer has effectively resided in the house for free in exchange for the fact that the buyer’s money was in the possession of the seller. It is not considered interest, because the buyer owned the house during the period in which he resided in it.

If the seller died, his son may redeem the house from the buyer. If the buyer died, the seller may redeem it from the possession of the buyer’s son. If the buyer sold the house to another, one calculates the year only from the time that the owner sold the house to the first buyer, as it is stated: “And if it is not redeemed until the passage of a full year for him, then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30). The term “for him” indicates that the year is calculated from when the initial owner sold the house.

When it says: “A full year,” this serves to include the intercalated month in the year calculated from the sale, if it was a leap year. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The word “full” serves to give the seller a year and its addition, i.e., the year during which the house may be redeemed is not the 354-day lunar year, but the 365-day solar year. If the final day of the twelve-month period arrived and the house was not redeemed, the house has become the property of the buyer in perpetuity. This is the halakha with regard to both one who buys a house in a walled city and one to whom it is given as a gift, as it is stated: “Then the house that is in the walled city shall stand in possession of the one who bought it in perpetuity” (Leviticus 25:30).

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that one who sells a house in a walled city may redeem it immediately. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah states: “And if a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, then he may redeem it until the completion of the year after it is sold; for days he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The word “days” means no fewer than two days, i.e., the house cannot be redeemed during the first two days after the sale.

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this word “days”? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis require it to teach the halakha that the year does not conclude with the arrival of Rosh HaShana, at the end of the calendar year; rather, it is calculated from day to day, that is, until the arrival of the date of the sale in the subsequent year. The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from day to day? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the phrase: “Until the completion of the year after it is sold” (Leviticus 25:29).

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this phrase? The Gemara responds: Actually, they require that phrase to teach that the calculated year is a year from his sale and not the year of the counting of the world, i.e., not the calendar year. And the Rabbis require the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated not only from day to day, but also from hour to hour, i.e., the year is completed only when the hour of the sale arrives in the subsequent year. As if one sought to derive this from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold,” I would say that with regard to calculating the year from day to day, yes, it is calculated in this manner, but with regard to calculating the year from hour to hour, no, it is not calculated in this manner. Rather, once the beginning of the day arrives the seller can no longer redeem the house. The Merciful One therefore wrote the word “days” to teach that the year is calculated from hour to hour.

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, from where does he derive that the year is calculated from hour to hour? The Gemara answers that he derives it from the term “a full year” (Leviticus 25:30). The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they derive from the term “a full year”? The Gemara responds: The Rabbis require that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale.

The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi also requires that term to teach that the intercalated month of a leap year is included in the year of sale. The Gemara explains: Indeed, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the inclusion of the intercalated month from the term “a full year.” Rather, according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the fact that the year is calculated from day to day and from hour to hour constitutes one halakha, which is derived from the phrase “until the completion of the year after it is sold.”

§ The mishna teaches: When one redeems a house among those of a walled city, this is ostensibly like a form of interest, as the seller returns the original sale price to the buyer and he does not subtract from it in exchange for the period during which the buyer resided in the house. This is not considered interest because the buyer owned the house during that period. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is fully considered interest, but in this case the Torah permitted it?

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is not difficult. This mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita: Consider the case of one who had a debt of one hundred dinars against another, and the borrower made a conditional sale of his field to the lender, stipulating that if he does not repay the loan on time then the sale shall take effect retroactively from the present moment. As long as the seller, i.e., the borrower, consumes the produce of that field until the time the loan comes due, this arrangement is permitted. But if the buyer, i.e., the lender, consumes the produce during this time, the arrangement is prohibited, as it constitutes interest. The reason is that if the loan is repaid on time, the sale is nullified, which means that the produce consumed by the lender will have been consumed as payment for allowing the loan to remain in the borrower’s possession.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Even when the buyer consumes the produce, such an arrangement is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda said in support of his opinion: There was an incident involving Baitos ben Zunin, who made a conditional sale of his field by a similar arrangement under the direction of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and in this case the buyer was consuming the produce. The Rabbis said to him: Do you seek to bring proof from there? Actually, it was the seller who was consuming the produce, and not the buyer.

The Gemara asks: What is the basis for the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? The Gemara responds: The dispute between them concerns the permissibility of an agreement involving an uncertain interest, i.e., an agreement that will involve interest only under certain circumstances. This is the case here, since if the loan is repaid the produce consumed by the lender constitutes interest, but if the loan is not repaid then the field is acquired retroactively by the lender and no interest is involved. The Gemara elaborates: The first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that uncertain interest is prohibited, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that uncertain interest is permitted.