Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

September 1, 2023 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ืืœื•ืœ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 20

Today’s daf is sponsored by Marsha Wasserman in honor of her husband, Manny. ” Happy anniversary to my beloved husband Manny. Itโ€™s been an amazing 61 years of marriage. May we be blessed to continue enjoying each otherโ€™s company, sharing daf yomi as we explore our new life in Israel. I love you.”ย 

Does the master have to be able to marry the maidservant? What if the father conditioned the sale upon a condition that he not marry her? What if the maidservant is forbidden to him by marriage by a negative commandment? What if he is a relative that is forbidden by the punishment of karet? ย If the slave wants to redeem himself and while he was a slave, his value either increased or decreased, at what value is he redeemed? The slave always gets the financial advantage. On what is this based? Can one partially redeem a slave? Can one partially redeem a house sold in a walled city?

ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


to relatives, e.g., his father, despite the fact that sexual intercourse between them is prohibited.


ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืžื›ืจื ื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ื™ืขื“ ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ื™ืžื›ืจื ื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืฉืื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ื™ืขื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืืžื” ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


The baraita asks: Why is it necessary to derive that halakha from the verse? But could this not be derived through logical inference: If he can sell her to people of flawed lineage, can he not sell her to relatives? The baraita answers: The verse is necessary, as what is unique about selling her to people of flawed lineage is that if that master wants to designate her, he can designate her. Although it is prohibited for these people to marry her, nevertheless the betrothal would take effect. Therefore, one cannot learn from this that he can also sell her to relatives. This is a situation where if this master wants to designate her, he cannot designate her, as betrothal is ineffective. Therefore, the verse states โ€œas a maidservant,โ€ which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term โ€œas a maidservantโ€ that one can stipulate that she cannot be designated, how does he know that one can sell her as a maidservant to people of unflawed lineage or relatives? The Gemara answers: He derives that she can be sold to people of flawed lineage from the verse where Rabbi Eliezer derives it: โ€œIf she does not please her masterโ€ (Exodus 21:8). With regard to relatives, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives.


ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื›ืžืืŸ


It is taught in one baraita: One can sell his daughter to his father, but he cannot sell her to his son. And it is taught in another baraita: He cannot sell her to his father nor to his son. The Gemara clarifies this issue: Granted, the baraita that states that he cannot sell her to his father nor to his son is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives whom she cannot marry. But in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that states that he can sell her to his father but he cannot sell her to his son?


ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ ื™ืขื•ื“:


It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who forbid selling her to any relative, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits selling her to all relatives. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Although they say he cannot sell her to relatives, the Rabbis concede that he is permitted to do so where there is a possibility of designation. In this case, although the father of the girlโ€™s father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girlโ€™s uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ื‘ื’ืคื• ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื’ืคื• ื™ืฆื ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฆื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฆื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืขื‘ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืœื ืชืฆื ื›ืฆืืช ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ืคืงื


ยง The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: โ€œIf he comes in begappo he shall leave begappoโ€ (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If he enters alone he shall leave alone. The Gemara clarifies. What is the meaning of the ruling that if he enters with his body he shall leave with his body? Rava said: This means to say that he is not released through the loss of his extremities like a Canaanite slave (Exodus 21:26), meaning he does not leave his master because of damage done to his body. Abaye said to Rava: This halakha is derived from a different verse: โ€œShe shall not go out as the men slaves doโ€ (Exodus 21:7).


ืื™ ืžื”ืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื ื™ืคื•ืง ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


Rava answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say: The master should give him the value of the eye that he took out and let him be released. In other words, one could say that the verse which states that a Hebrew maidservant does not leave as Canaanite slaves leave, which would serve as the source for the halakha of a Hebrew slave as well, does not mean that she is not released at all due to the loss of her extremities. Rather, it means that unlike Canaanite slaves, she receives compensation for the injury as well as being released. Therefore, the verse: โ€œIf he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,โ€ teaches us that this is not so. Rather, although the master must reimburse him for the loss of his eye, he is not freed as a result of the injury.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช


The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov is saying: If the Hebrew slave has a wife and children when he is purchased, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. But if he did not have a wife and children, i.e., he enters alone, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื›ืจ ื‘ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื•


ยง The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who was sold for one hundred dinars and increased in value during his term, and his value stood at two hundred dinars, from where is it derived that if he wishes to redeem himself one assesses him, for the payment of the remainder of his service, based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars, his value when originally purchased? As it is stated: โ€œOut of the money that he was bought forโ€ (Leviticus 25:51).


ื ืžื›ืจ ื‘ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืกื™ืฃ ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืžื ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


If he was sold for two hundred dinars and decreased in value and stood at one hundred dinars, from where is it derived that when he is redeemed one assesses him based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars? The verse states: โ€œAccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemptionโ€ (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.


ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื”


I have derived this halakha only in the case of a slave sold to a gentile, since the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption, as he may be redeemed even by relatives who pay his money and free him. Consequently, in this case the owner is at a disadvantage, and regardless of whether his value increased or decreased the slave always pays the lower amount.


ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื ืœืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื”


In a case where the slave was sold to a Jew, from where do we derive that this halakha also applies to him? The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew: โ€œAs a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: โ€œAs a hired worker year by year he shall be with himโ€ (Leviticus 25:53), for a verbal analogy. This verbal analogy teaches that the same halakha applies to one sold to a gentile as to one sold to a Jew.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœืงื•ืœื ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœืงื•ืœื ื ื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื


When he was in a good mood, Abaye once said: Behold I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound on the Torah in the markets of Tiberias. I too am ready to answer any question put to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye: After all, with regard to those verses: โ€œOut of the money that he was bought forโ€ and โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ one could expound them leniently, and assess the cost of redemption at the lower amount. And one could, in equal measure, expound them stringently, i.e., one could say that if a slave was worth more when he was purchased, he pays according to โ€œthe money that he was bought for,โ€ and if he increased in value he must pay โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently.


ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžื“ืืงื™ืœ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืœื• ืขืžืš ืขืžืš ื‘ืžืื›ืœ ื•ืขืžืš ื‘ืžืฉืชื”


Abaye answered: It cannot enter your mind to expound the verses stringently, as indicated from the fact that the Merciful One is lenient with regard to a slave and is concerned about his well-being. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: โ€œBecause he fares well with youโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink.


ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืคืช ื ืงื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ื›ืœ ืคืช ืงื™ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉ ืืชื” ื™ืฉืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ื›ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืชื‘ืŸ ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ื›ืœ ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ืงื•ื ื” ืื“ื•ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื•


The baraita continues: This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slaveโ€™s living conditions are equal to his own.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืœื™ืฆื˜ืขืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืจืื” ื›ืžื” ืงืฉื” ืื‘ืงื” ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช


That Sage asked Abaye: But one can say that this leniency in the case of a Hebrew slave applies only to the matter of eating and drinking, so as not to cause him suffering. But with regard to the matter of redemption, perhaps one should be stringent with him. The reason to be stringent is based on a statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., how great are the punishments not just for working the land, but also for treating lightly the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.


ืื“ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืœืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื ืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืชืฉื‘ื• ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื–ืชื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชืžื›ืจื• ืžืžื›ืจ ืœืขืžื™ืชืš ืื• ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืขืžื™ืชืš ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“


If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: โ€œIn this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his landโ€ (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œAnd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighborโ€™s handโ€ (Leviticus 25:14), which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical halakhot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.


ืœื ื”ืจื’ื™ืฉ ืœืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื•ืชื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืžื›ืจ ืžืื—ื–ืชื• ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืขื™ืจ ื—ื•ืžื”


If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: โ€œIf your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral landโ€ (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled cityโ€ (Leviticus 25:29).


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ืจื’ื™ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื•ืฉื ื” ื‘ื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ืœื• ื”ื•ืชืจื” ืœื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื• ื›ื”ื™ืชืจ


The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the first sentence, in which the tanna says: He does not sense, and what is different here, in the continuation, in which he says: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him merely because he has sinned twice? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it is permitted. Therefore, when he violates a prohibition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.


ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ืชื• ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืขื ื™ื ื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื ื™ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืฉ ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ื ื™ื–ื™ืฃ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ืžื’ืจืขื ื•ื ืคืงื ื•ื”ื ืžื•ืกืคื ื•ืื–ืœื


The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, his poverty will increase until he sells his daughter, as it is stated: โ€œAnd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though โ€œhis daughterโ€ is not written with regard to that matter in Leviticus 25 but in Exodus, nevertheless, it teaches us this principle: A person will sell his daughter rather than borrow with interest. What is the reason for this? His daughter can occasionally deduct money from her debt and use it to leave her master, but this interest continuously increases.


ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืžื˜ื” ื™ื“ื• ืขืžืš ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืœ ืชืงื— ืžืืชื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ื ืžื›ืจ ืœืš


The baraita continues its exposition of the verses in Leviticus: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to borrow with interest, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if your brother grows poor and his means fails with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œTake no usury or interest from himโ€ (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:39).


ืœื ืœืš ืืœื ืœื’ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื’ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื’ืจ ืฆื“ืง ืืœื ืœื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืžืฉืคื—ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื” ื ื›ืจื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขืงืจ


The baraita further states: Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: โ€œAnd sells himself to a stranger [ger]โ€ (Leviticus 25:47). And this sale to a ger is not referring to a sale to a righteous convert [ger tzedek], but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: โ€œAnd sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]โ€ (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, โ€œor to an offshoot of a strangerโ€™s family,โ€ the Gemara expounds: โ€œA strangerโ€™s familyโ€; this is a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it says: โ€œTo an offshoot of a strangerโ€™s family,โ€


ื–ื” ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขืฆืžื”


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 personโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ื”ื ืื”ื“ืจื™ื” ืงืจื ื“ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืœืš ื–ื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื›ื•ืžืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ื“ื—ื™ ืื‘ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื”ื ื•ืคืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ ื ืžื›ืจ ื’ืืœื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืื—ื“ ืžืื—ื™ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื•


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: โ€œAfter he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48).


ื•ืื™ืžื ื’ืื•ืœื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืœื™ื˜ืžืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื ื›ืจื™ื ื”ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื


The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: โ€œHe shall be redeemed,โ€ 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 แธคanina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืžืขื˜ ื ืฉืืจ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืจื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื•ืขื˜ื•ืช ืืœื ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื ืชืžืขื˜ ื›ืกืคื• ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: โ€œIf 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 forโ€ (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: โ€œAnd if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his yearsโ€ (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 โ€œout of the money that he was bought for,โ€ 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 โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ i.e., according to his current value.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจื™ ื•ืคืฉ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ืขื‘ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืคืฉื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืชืจืชื™ ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


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 โ€œif there be yet many of the years,โ€ let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him โ€œout of the money that he was bought for.โ€ If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated โ€œand if there remain but few of the years,โ€ let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, โ€œaccording to his years.โ€


ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืื ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื ืื ืžืขื˜ ื ืฉืืจ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื ืชืžืขื˜ ื›ืกืคื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืกื™ื ื™


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 โ€œof the yearsโ€? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed โ€œout of the money that he was bought for,โ€ which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value โ€œaccording to his years.โ€ Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.


(ืกื™ืžืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืขื‘ื“ ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื) ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


The Gemara records a mnemonic device for the upcoming discussions: Slave, house, partial, house, slave, and relatives. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana 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?


ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœืงื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: โ€œAccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [geโ€™ullato]โ€ (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: โ€œAnd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [geโ€™ullato]โ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื ื ืžื›ืจ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื ื’ืืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื•


Rav Sheshet said to him: Didnโ€™t you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: โ€œAnd he is soldโ€ (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 โ€œhe is redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœืงื•ืœื ื•ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืœืงื•ืœื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ื‘ืžืื” ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืคืœื’ื ื“ื“ืžื™ ื•ืืฉื‘ื— ื•ืงื ืขืœ ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžืื” ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื™ืง


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.


ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืงื™ืจ ื•ื–ืœ ื•ืื•ืงื™ืจ


The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays โ€œout of the money that he was bought forโ€ (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.


ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ื‘ืžืืชืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืžืื” ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืงื ืขืœ ืžืื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื”ื ืš ืžืื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื•ื ืคื™ืง


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.


ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื ื’ืืœืช ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rav Huna bar แธคinnana 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 โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:29) and โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (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?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื’ืœื™ ื’ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื’ืœื™ ืœื ื’ืœื™


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: โ€œAnd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem itโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืžื“ืจืฉื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืฉืžืข ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื ื’ืืœ ื™ื’ืืœ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimonโ€™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: โ€œAnd if he will redeem [gaโ€™ol yigal] the fieldโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ื”ืื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ืžืœืื” ืœื• ืฉื ื” ืชืžื™ืžื” ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื ื—ืœื˜ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื ื’ืืœ ื™ื’ืืœ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rava bar แธคinnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: โ€œAnd if he will redeem [gaโ€™ol yigal] the fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.


ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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?


ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“


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.


ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื


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.


  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 18- 24 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how a Jewish slave and maidservant go free. We will also learn about the Jewish...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 20: When Poverty Happens to Good People

Abaye compares himself to Ben Azzai [brief recall of Who's Who]. How does one figure out the purchase price of...
On Second Thought (2)

Defining Slavery in the Torah – On Second Thought

The Laws and their Significance   Kiddushin 14-24 On Second thought Kiddushin 14-24 On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya...
ben azzai roman gate tverya

The Market and the Orchard

โ€œAbaye said: Behold I am like Ben Azzai, [who would regularly expound on the Torah] in the markets of Tiberias.โ€...

Kiddushin 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 20

ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


to relatives, e.g., his father, despite the fact that sexual intercourse between them is prohibited.


ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ื™ืžื›ืจื ื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ื™ืขื“ ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ื™ืžื›ืจื ื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืฉืื ืจืฆื” ืœื™ื™ืขื“ ืื™ื ื• ืžื™ื™ืขื“ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืœืืžื” ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


The baraita asks: Why is it necessary to derive that halakha from the verse? But could this not be derived through logical inference: If he can sell her to people of flawed lineage, can he not sell her to relatives? The baraita answers: The verse is necessary, as what is unique about selling her to people of flawed lineage is that if that master wants to designate her, he can designate her. Although it is prohibited for these people to marry her, nevertheless the betrothal would take effect. Therefore, one cannot learn from this that he can also sell her to relatives. This is a situation where if this master wants to designate her, he cannot designate her, as betrothal is ineffective. Therefore, the verse states โ€œas a maidservant,โ€ which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.


ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื ืคืงื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื


The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term โ€œas a maidservantโ€ that one can stipulate that she cannot be designated, how does he know that one can sell her as a maidservant to people of unflawed lineage or relatives? The Gemara answers: He derives that she can be sold to people of flawed lineage from the verse where Rabbi Eliezer derives it: โ€œIf she does not please her masterโ€ (Exodus 21:8). With regard to relatives, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives.


ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืœื ืœื‘ื ื• ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืœื ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืจื” ืœื‘ื ื• ื›ืžืืŸ


It is taught in one baraita: One can sell his daughter to his father, but he cannot sell her to his son. And it is taught in another baraita: He cannot sell her to his father nor to his son. The Gemara clarifies this issue: Granted, the baraita that states that he cannot sell her to his father nor to his son is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives whom she cannot marry. But in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that states that he can sell her to his father but he cannot sell her to his son?


ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื•ื“ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฆื“ ื™ืขื•ื“:


It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who forbid selling her to any relative, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits selling her to all relatives. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Although they say he cannot sell her to relatives, the Rabbis concede that he is permitted to do so where there is a possibility of designation. In this case, although the father of the girlโ€™s father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girlโ€™s uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื ื‘ื’ืคื• ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื’ืคื• ื™ืฆื ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฆื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื ื›ื ืก ื‘ื’ื•ืคื• ื™ืฆื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื•ืฆื ื‘ืจืืฉื™ ืื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืขื‘ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืœื ืชืฆื ื›ืฆืืช ื”ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื ืคืงื


ยง The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: โ€œIf he comes in begappo he shall leave begappoโ€ (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If he enters alone he shall leave alone. The Gemara clarifies. What is the meaning of the ruling that if he enters with his body he shall leave with his body? Rava said: This means to say that he is not released through the loss of his extremities like a Canaanite slave (Exodus 21:26), meaning he does not leave his master because of damage done to his body. Abaye said to Rava: This halakha is derived from a different verse: โ€œShe shall not go out as the men slaves doโ€ (Exodus 21:7).


ืื™ ืžื”ืชื ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื“ืžื™ ืขื™ื ื™ื” ื•ื ื™ืคื•ืง ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ


Rava answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say: The master should give him the value of the eye that he took out and let him be released. In other words, one could say that the verse which states that a Hebrew maidservant does not leave as Canaanite slaves leave, which would serve as the source for the halakha of a Hebrew slave as well, does not mean that she is not released at all due to the loss of her extremities. Rather, it means that unlike Canaanite slaves, she receives compensation for the injury as well as being released. Therefore, the verse: โ€œIf he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,โ€ teaches us that this is not so. Rather, although the master must reimburse him for the loss of his eye, he is not freed as a result of the injury.


ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืžืื™ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื™ืฆื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื™ืฉ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ื ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืฉื” ื•ื‘ื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช


The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov is saying: If the Hebrew slave has a wife and children when he is purchased, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. But if he did not have a wife and children, i.e., he enters alone, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.


ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ืžื›ืจ ื‘ืžื ื” ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื™ื— ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืžืืชื™ื ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื•


ยง The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who was sold for one hundred dinars and increased in value during his term, and his value stood at two hundred dinars, from where is it derived that if he wishes to redeem himself one assesses him, for the payment of the remainder of his service, based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars, his value when originally purchased? As it is stated: โ€œOut of the money that he was bought forโ€ (Leviticus 25:51).


ื ืžื›ืจ ื‘ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื”ื›ืกื™ืฃ ื•ืขืžื“ ืขืœ ืžื ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ืžื ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


If he was sold for two hundred dinars and decreased in value and stood at one hundred dinars, from where is it derived that when he is redeemed one assesses him based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars? The verse states: โ€œAccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemptionโ€ (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.


ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืขื‘ื“ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื™ื“ื• ืขืœ ื”ืชื—ืชื•ื ื”


I have derived this halakha only in the case of a slave sold to a gentile, since the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption, as he may be redeemed even by relatives who pay his money and free him. Consequently, in this case the owner is at a disadvantage, and regardless of whether his value increased or decreased the slave always pays the lower amount.


ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื ืœืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืœื’ื–ื™ืจื” ืฉื•ื”


In a case where the slave was sold to a Jew, from where do we derive that this halakha also applies to him? The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew: โ€œAs a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: โ€œAs a hired worker year by year he shall be with himโ€ (Leviticus 25:53), for a verbal analogy. This verbal analogy teaches that the same halakha applies to one sold to a gentile as to one sold to a Jew.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืงื™ ื˜ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื”ื•ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื›ื“ื™ ื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœืงื•ืœื ื•ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ืช ื“ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœืงื•ืœื ื ื™ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืœื—ื•ืžืจื


When he was in a good mood, Abaye once said: Behold I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound on the Torah in the markets of Tiberias. I too am ready to answer any question put to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye: After all, with regard to those verses: โ€œOut of the money that he was bought forโ€ and โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ one could expound them leniently, and assess the cost of redemption at the lower amount. And one could, in equal measure, expound them stringently, i.e., one could say that if a slave was worth more when he was purchased, he pays according to โ€œthe money that he was bought for,โ€ and if he increased in value he must pay โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently.


ืœื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžื“ืืงื™ืœ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœื’ื‘ื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ ื˜ื•ื‘ ืœื• ืขืžืš ืขืžืš ื‘ืžืื›ืœ ื•ืขืžืš ื‘ืžืฉืชื”


Abaye answered: It cannot enter your mind to expound the verses stringently, as indicated from the fact that the Merciful One is lenient with regard to a slave and is concerned about his well-being. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: โ€œBecause he fares well with youโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink.


ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืืชื” ืื•ื›ืœ ืคืช ื ืงื™ื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ื›ืœ ืคืช ืงื™ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ืฉืŸ ื•ื”ื•ื ืฉื•ืชื” ื™ื™ืŸ ื—ื“ืฉ ืืชื” ื™ืฉืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืžื•ื›ื™ื ื•ื”ื•ื ื™ืฉืŸ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืชื‘ืŸ ืžื›ืืŸ ืืžืจื• ื›ืœ ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ืงื•ื ื” ืื“ื•ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื•


The baraita continues: This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slaveโ€™s living conditions are equal to his own.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืื›ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืชื™ื” ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืœื™ืฆื˜ืขืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ื ื•ืจืื” ื›ืžื” ืงืฉื” ืื‘ืงื” ืฉืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช


That Sage asked Abaye: But one can say that this leniency in the case of a Hebrew slave applies only to the matter of eating and drinking, so as not to cause him suffering. But with regard to the matter of redemption, perhaps one should be stringent with him. The reason to be stringent is based on a statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says: Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., how great are the punishments not just for working the land, but also for treating lightly the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.


ืื“ื ื ื•ืฉื ื•ื ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืขื™ืช ืœืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื ืช ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืชืฉื‘ื• ืื™ืฉ ืืœ ืื—ื–ืชื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชืžื›ืจื• ืžืžื›ืจ ืœืขืžื™ืชืš ืื• ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืขืžื™ืชืš ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“


If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: โ€œIn this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his landโ€ (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œAnd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighborโ€™s handโ€ (Leviticus 25:14), which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical halakhot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.


ืœื ื”ืจื’ื™ืฉ ืœืกื•ืฃ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืฉื“ื•ืชื™ื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืžื›ืจ ืžืื—ื–ืชื• ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ื‘ื™ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืžื•ืฉื‘ ืขื™ืจ ื—ื•ืžื”


If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: โ€œIf your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral landโ€ (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled cityโ€ (Leviticus 25:29).


ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ืจื’ื™ืฉ ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ื”ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ื›ื“ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉืขื‘ืจ ืื“ื ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื•ืฉื ื” ื‘ื” ื”ื•ืชืจื” ืœื• ื”ื•ืชืจื” ืœื• ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืœื ื ืขืฉื™ืช ืœื• ื›ื”ื™ืชืจ


The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the first sentence, in which the tanna says: He does not sense, and what is different here, in the continuation, in which he says: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him merely because he has sinned twice? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it is permitted. Therefore, when he violates a prohibition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.


ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื›ืจ ืื™ืฉ ืืช ื‘ืชื• ืœืืžื” ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ื‘ืชื• ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื‘ื”ืื™ ืขื ื™ื ื ื”ื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื ื™ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ืฉ ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ื•ืœื ื ื™ื–ื™ืฃ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ืชื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ืจืชื™ื” ืžื’ืจืขื ื•ื ืคืงื ื•ื”ื ืžื•ืกืคื ื•ืื–ืœื


The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, his poverty will increase until he sells his daughter, as it is stated: โ€œAnd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservantโ€ (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though โ€œhis daughterโ€ is not written with regard to that matter in Leviticus 25 but in Exodus, nevertheless, it teaches us this principle: A person will sell his daughter rather than borrow with interest. What is the reason for this? His daughter can occasionally deduct money from her debt and use it to leave her master, but this interest continuously increases.


ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ืžื˜ื” ื™ื“ื• ืขืžืš ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืœ ืชืงื— ืžืืชื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืœื ื‘ืืช ืœื™ื“ื• ืขื“ ืฉืžื•ื›ืจ ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืžื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื•ื ืžื›ืจ ืœืš


The baraita continues its exposition of the verses in Leviticus: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to borrow with interest, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if your brother grows poor and his means fails with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: โ€œTake no usury or interest from himโ€ (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: โ€œAnd if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:39).


ืœื ืœืš ืืœื ืœื’ืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ืœื’ืจ ื•ืœื ืœื’ืจ ืฆื“ืง ืืœื ืœื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื’ืจ ืชื•ืฉื‘ ืžืฉืคื—ืช ื’ืจ ื–ื” ื ื›ืจื™ ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœืขืงืจ


The baraita further states: Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: โ€œAnd sells himself to a stranger [ger]โ€ (Leviticus 25:47). And this sale to a ger is not referring to a sale to a righteous convert [ger tzedek], but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: โ€œAnd sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]โ€ (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, โ€œor to an offshoot of a strangerโ€™s family,โ€ the Gemara expounds: โ€œA strangerโ€™s familyโ€; this is a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it says: โ€œTo an offshoot of a strangerโ€™s family,โ€


ื–ื” ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืขืฆืžื”


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 personโ€™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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืชื ื”ื ืื”ื“ืจื™ื” ืงืจื ื“ืชื ื™ ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ืœืš ื–ื” ื•ื ืขืฉื” ื›ื•ืžืจ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ื“ื—ื™ ืื‘ืŸ ืื—ืจ ื”ื ื•ืคืœ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ ื ืžื›ืจ ื’ืืœื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื• ืื—ื“ ืžืื—ื™ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื•


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: โ€œAfter he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48).


ื•ืื™ืžื ื’ืื•ืœื” ืชื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื ืœื™ื˜ืžืข ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื ื›ืจื™ื ื”ื ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ืคื“ื™ื•ืŸ ื ื—ืžื™ืจ ืขืœื™ื” ืžื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื


The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: โ€œHe shall be redeemed,โ€ 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 แธคanina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ืžืขื˜ ื ืฉืืจ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืจื•ื‘ื•ืช ื•ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ืžื•ืขื˜ื•ืช ืืœื ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื ืชืžืขื˜ ื›ืกืคื• ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: โ€œIf 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 forโ€ (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: โ€œAnd if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his yearsโ€ (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 โ€œout of the money that he was bought for,โ€ 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 โ€œaccording to his years,โ€ i.e., according to his current value.


ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืขื‘ื“ ืชืจื™ ื•ืคืฉ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืืจื‘ืข ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ืขื‘ื“ ืืจื‘ืข ื•ืคืฉื• ืœื™ื” ืชืจืชื™ ื ื™ืชื™ื‘ ืชืจืชื™ ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื•


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 โ€œif there be yet many of the years,โ€ let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him โ€œout of the money that he was bought for.โ€ If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated โ€œand if there remain but few of the years,โ€ let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, โ€œaccording to his years.โ€


ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ืื ืขื•ื“ ืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉื ื™ื ืื ืžืขื˜ ื ืฉืืจ ืฉื ื™ื ืžืื™ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื ืชืžืขื˜ ื›ืกืคื• ื‘ืฉื ื™ื ื›ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื“ืจืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœื”ื ื™ ืงืจืื™ ื›ืกื™ื ื™


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 โ€œof the yearsโ€? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed โ€œout of the money that he was bought for,โ€ which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value โ€œaccording to his years.โ€ Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.


(ืกื™ืžืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ื‘ื™ืช ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืขื‘ื“ ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื) ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


The Gemara records a mnemonic device for the upcoming discussions: Slave, house, partial, house, slave, and relatives. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana 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?


ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืœืงื•ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืœื ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ


The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: โ€œAccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [geโ€™ullato]โ€ (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: โ€œAnd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [geโ€™ullato]โ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืืžืจืช ื”ืชื ื ืžื›ืจ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื ื’ืืœ ื›ื•ืœื• ื•ืœื ื—ืฆื™ื•


Rav Sheshet said to him: Didnโ€™t you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: โ€œAnd he is soldโ€ (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 โ€œhe is redeemedโ€ (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœืงื•ืœื ื•ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ืœืงื•ืœื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ื‘ืžืื” ื™ื”ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ืคืœื’ื ื“ื“ืžื™ ื•ืืฉื‘ื— ื•ืงื ืขืœ ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžืื” ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ืžืื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื™ืง


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.


ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ื ืชืจื‘ื” ื›ืกืคื• ืžื›ืกืฃ ืžืงื ืชื• ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืื•ืงื™ืจ ื•ื–ืœ ื•ืื•ืงื™ืจ


The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays โ€œout of the money that he was bought forโ€ (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.


ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ืœื” ืœื—ื•ืžืจื ื–ื‘ื ื™ื” ื‘ืžืืชืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืžืื” ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ื“ืžื™ ื•ืื™ื›ืกืฃ ื•ืงื ืขืœ ืžืื” ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฉื™ืŸ ื•ื ืคื™ืง ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื”ื ืš ืžืื” ืคืงื“ื•ืŸ ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื’ื‘ื™ื” ื™ื”ื™ื‘ ืœื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื•ื ืคื™ืง


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.


ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื ื’ืืœืช ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rav Huna bar แธคinnana 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 โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:29) and โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (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?


ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื’ืœื™ ื’ืœื™ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ื’ืœื™ ืœื ื’ืœื™


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: โ€œAnd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem itโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืžื“ืจืฉื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืฉืžืข ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื ื’ืืœ ื™ื’ืืœ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimonโ€™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: โ€œAnd if he will redeem [gaโ€™ol yigal] the fieldโ€ (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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ื˜ืขื ืœืคื™ ืฉืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ื ื• ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ื”ืื™ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ืžื™ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ืžืœืื” ืœื• ืฉื ื” ืชืžื™ืžื” ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื ื—ืœื˜ ื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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.


ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื ื’ืืœ ื™ื’ืืœ ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


Rava bar แธคinnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: โ€œAnd if he will redeem [gaโ€™ol yigal] the fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.


ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ื•ื”ืœื ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ืžื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ืœื ื ื’ืืœื” ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ


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?


ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“


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.


ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื


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.


Scroll To Top