כענין שנאמר (ויקרא יג, יב) מראשו ועד רגליו ראשו ולא ראשו בכלל רגליו ולא רגליו בכלל This is similar to the matter that is stated with regard to a leper: “And the leprosy covers all the skin of him who has the mark from his head to his feet, as far as the priest can see…it is all turned white: He is pure” (Leviticus 13:12–13). This verse is understood as follows: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. Therefore, one might have thought the prohibition against consuming leaven on the festival of Passover likewise does not apply to the endpoints mentioned in the verse.
ת"ל (שמות יב, יח) עד יום האחד ועשרים לחודש בערב רבי אומר אינו צריך ראשון וראשון בכלל שביעי ושביעי בכלל Therefore, the verse states: “You shall eat unleavened bread, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening” (Exodus 12:18). This proves that the seventh day of the Festival is included. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: It is not necessary to cite this verse, as the prohibition against consuming leaven is from the first day of Passover, and the first day is included; and the ban continues until the seventh day, and the seventh day is included. Accordingly, with regard to valuations, even without a verbal analogy Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi should maintain that the twentieth year is included in the preceding period.
אפי' תימא רבי שקולי משקלי קראי מכדי כתיב (ויקרא כז, ו) מבן חודש ועד בן חמש שנים תו מבן חמש (ועד בן כ') למה לי הילכך אישתקלו להו The Gemara answers: You may even say that the opinion in the mishna is in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as the verses offset each other, and therefore their meaning is unclear without the verbal analogy. The Gemara elaborates: Since it is written: “From one month old until five years old” (Leviticus 27:6), this ostensibly includes the fifth year within the stated category. If so, why do I need this mention of five years as well: “And if it is from five years old until twenty years old, then your valuation shall be for the male twenty shekels” (Leviticus 27:5)? Therefore, with regard to the fifth year, as both verses mention that year, the verses offset each other. Consequently, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the verbal analogy is necessary.
אמר מר ראשו ולא ראשו בכלל רגליו ולא רגליו בכלל מנלן איבעית אימא שאני סימנים דגופו מסימנים דראשו איבעית אימא (ויקרא יג, יב) לכל מראה עיני הכהן: The Master said above, with regard to a leper: The mark reaches from his head, but his head is not included; it reaches to his feet, but his feet are not included. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this interpretation? If you wish, say that it is deduced logically: The signs of leprosy of his body are different from the signs of leprosy of his head with regard to the different colors of hair that indicate leprosy. Alternatively, if you wish, say instead that it is derived from the phrase in that verse: “As far as the priest can see.” This excludes a leprous mark on the head, which is obscured from the priest’s view by the hair, as well as leprous marks between the toes.
ר"א אומר עד שיהו יתירות על השנים חודש ויום אחד: תניא ר"א אומר נאמר כאן למעלה ונאמר להלן (במדבר ג, טו) חודש ומעלה מה להלן מבן חודש ויום אחד אף כאן (מבן) חודש ויום אחד § The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer says: Their halakhic status remains like that of the period preceding it, until they will be aged one month and one day beyond the respective years. With regard to this opinion, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here, with regard to valuations, “upward” (Leviticus 27:7), and it is stated there, with regard to the census of the Levites in the wilderness: “From one month old and upward you shall number them” (Numbers 3:15). Just as there, in the case of the census, the verse means: From one month and one day old, so too here, with regard to valuations, the verse means that each respective category is counted from one month and one day old beyond the stated ages of five years, twenty years, or sixty years.
ואימא כי התם מה התם חד יומא אף כאן חד יומא א"כ ג"ש מאי אהני The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rabbi Eliezer say that the verse dealing with valuation should be understood like the verse written there, with regard to the census, in the following manner: Just as there it is one day more than the enumerated age of thirty days, so too here, it should be one day more than the enumerated ages of five years, twenty years, and sixty years. Why does Rabbi Eliezer add a month? The Gemara answers: If so, that only one day should be added, what purpose does this verbal analogy from the census serve? Even without any connection to the verse dealing with the census, it would be understood in the case of valuations that the new period begins from the day after the respective year is fully completed.
ת"ר שנה האמורה בקדשים שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה ושש שנים שבעבד עברי וכן שבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת § The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the period of one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, e.g., “sheep in their first year” (Numbers 28:3); and the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, during which time it is permitted to redeem a sold house in a walled city (Leviticus 25:29); and the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, during which one may not yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (Leviticus 25:15); and the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave (Exodus 21:2); and similarly, the years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, as explained below; all of these are calculated from the time of day at the start of the period to the time of day at the end of the period, i.e., these periods are units of whole years; they do not expire on predetermined dates, such as at the end of the calendar year.
שנה האמורה בקדשים מנלן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ו) כבש בן שנתו שנתו שלו ולא של מנין עולם The Gemara asks: With regard to the one year stated with regard to sacrificial animals, from where do we derive that it is calculated by whole years rather than calendar years? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says that the verse states: “A sheep in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A sheep in the first year, it means a year based on the calculation of its own life, and not a year based on the counting of the world, i.e., the calendar year.
שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, כט) עד תום שנת ממכרו ממכרו שלו ולא שנה למנין עולם The Gemara continues clarifying the baraita: The halakha that the one year stated with regard to houses of walled cities is calculated by a whole year and not a calendar year is derived from the fact that it is written: “Then he may redeem it within a whole year after it is sold, for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day of its own sale, and not the year of the counting of the world.
שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, טו) במספר שני תבואות ימכר לך פעמים שאדם אוכל שלש תבואות בשתי שנים The Gemara states: Concerning the two years stated with regard to an ancestral field, this is derived from the fact that it is written: “According to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15). The plural form of both “years” and “crops” indicates that the number of years does not necessarily correspond to the quantity of crops. Consequently, there are times when a person might eat three yields of crops in two years. If one purchased a field at the end of the calendar year when its yield had not yet been harvested, and he harvested that yield and subsequently grew and harvested two more crops before the completion of two whole years from the sale, he would have eaten three yields in less than two years. This is not possible if one follows the calendar years, as a new year would start soon after the purchase.
שש שבעבד עברי דכתיב (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבוד ובשביעית זימנין דבשביעית נמי יעבוד The Gemara states: The halakha that the six years stated with regard to a Hebrew slave is calculated by whole years, not calendar years, is derived from the fact that it is written: “Six years he shall work; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2). The word “and” in the phrase: “And in the seventh,” teaches that sometimes it turns out that he shall also work in the seventh calendar year, if six full years have not passed from when he was sold. For example, if he was sold in the month of Nisan, although five years and six months have passed when Tishrei, the first month of the seventh year, arrives, since he has not yet completed six years of service he must work in this seventh calendar year as well, until the day of the month in which he was sold.
ושבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת למאי הילכתא אמר רב גידל אמר רב לערכין רב יוסף אמר לפרקין דיוצא דופן The baraita also teaches: The years stated with regard to a son and with regard to a daughter are among these terms calculated from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this stated? Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to valuations, i.e., that the age of a valuated male or female is calculated in whole years from the date of their birth, not by calendar years. Rav Yosef said: The halakha is stated with regard to the matters taught in the fifth chapter of tractate Nidda, which is called after its opening words: Yotze Dofen, i.e., an animal born by caesarean section. In other words, when a mishna in that chapter, which deals with various matters related to the ages of sons and daughters, mentions years, it means full years, even when it does not state this explicitly.
א"ל אביי לרב יוסף מי פלגיתו א"ל לא אנא אמרי חדא והוא אמר חדא הכי נמי מסתברא דאי ס"ד פליגי מ"ד לערכין לא אמר ליוצא דופן והאמר רב הילכתא בכולה פירקא מעת לעת Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Do you and Rav dispute this matter, i.e., when you apply the mention of a son and a daughter to different cases, do each of you reject the opinion of the other? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: No, we do not disagree; I said one matter and he said one different matter. The Gemara adds: This too stands to reason, as if it enters your mind that they disagree on this matter, then with regard to the one who says full years are required for determining valuations, does he not also say that full years are used for the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? But doesn’t Rav say, like Rav Yosef, that the halakha in that entire chapter is that the ages of the sons and daughters are determined from the time at the start of the period to the time at the end of the period, not by calendar years?
ואלא למאן דאמר לערכין מ"ט לא אמר ליוצא דופן דומיא דהנך מה הנך דכתיבא אף הנך דכתיבא The Gemara asks: But if that is the case, then according to the one who says that the reference to full years mentioned in the baraita is for determining valuations, i.e., Rav, what is the reason he did not say that the baraita is referring to the halakhot of Yotze Dofen? The Gemara answers: Rav would claim that the years of a son and a daughter in the baraita are similar to these other cases mentioned in the baraita: Just as those numbers of years are explicitly written in the Torah, so too these years of the sons and daughters are referring to matters where the years are written in the Torah, i.e., the years of valuations, unlike the topics discussed in Yotze Dofen, where the years are not mentioned expressly in the Torah.
ואידך אי סלקא דעתך דכתיבא האי שבבן ושבבת The Gemara asks: And with regard to the other, Rav Yosef, how would he respond to this contention? He would maintain that if it enters your mind that the baraita is referring to the years of valuations, which are written in the Torah, then this phrase in the baraita: With regard to a son and with regard to a daughter, is unsuitable.