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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 31, 2016 | 讻状讗 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 20

Does the master have to be able to marry the maidservant? 聽What if the father conditioned the sale upon his not being able to marry her? 聽What if the maidservant is forbidden to him by marriage by聽a negative commandment? 聽What if he is a relative that is forbidden by punishment of karet? 聽If the slave wants to redeem himself and during the time he was a slave, his value either increased or decreased, at what value is he redeemed?

Study Guide Kiddushin 20

诇拽专讜讘讬诐

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

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讜讻专讛 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 诪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬讬注讚 诪讬讬注讚 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬讬注讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讬注讚 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗诪讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

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 鈥渁s a maidservant,鈥 which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term 鈥渁s a maidservant鈥 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: 鈥淚f she does not please her master鈥 (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.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讘谞讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讜 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讘谞讜 讻诪讗谉

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?

诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪讚 讬注讜讚

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 girl鈥檚 father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girl鈥檚 uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讘讙驻讜 讬讘讗 讘讙驻讜 讬爪讗 讘讙讜驻讜 谞讻谞住 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚讬 谞讻谞住 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讜驻讜 谞讻谞住 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讻注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 谞驻拽讗

The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: 鈥淚f he comes in begappo he shall leave begappo (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7).

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 注讬谞讬讛 讜谞讬驻讜拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淚f he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚讬 谞讻谞住 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞诪讻专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜

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: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51).

谞诪讻专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬祝 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

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: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讙讗诇 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

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: 鈥淎s a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎s a hired worker year by year he shall be with him鈥 (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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘砖讜拽讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 谞讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗

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: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 and 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 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 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 and if he increased in value he must pay 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗拽讬诇 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 讜注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛

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: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (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.

砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛转讘谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜

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 slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬爪讟注专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转

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 岣nina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讝转讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚

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: 鈥淚n this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand鈥 (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.

诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛

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: 鈥淚f your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city鈥 (Leviticus 25:29).

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 讗讚诐 注讘讬专讛 讜砖谞讛 讘讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 讻讛讬转专

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 prohi-bition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.

诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘转讜 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讬讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞砖 讘专转讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讬讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘专转讬讛 诪讙专注讗 讜谞驻拽讗 讜讛讗 诪讜住驻讗 讜讗讝诇讗

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: 鈥淎nd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though 鈥渉is daughter鈥 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.

诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讟讛 讬讚讜 注诪讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜谞诪讻专 诇讱

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: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor and his means fails with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淭ake no usury or interest from him鈥 (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:39).

诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 讙专 转讜砖讘 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 谞讻专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇注拽专

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: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a stranger [ger]鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, 鈥渙r to an offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 the Gemara expounds: 鈥淎 stranger鈥檚 family鈥; 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: 鈥淭o an offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥

讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注爪诪讛

this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship. The baraita teaches that it is only due to a person鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜谞注砖讛 讻讜诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬 讗讘谉 讗讞专 讛谞讜驻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬 谞诪讻专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讞讬讜 讬讙讗诇谞讜

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: 鈥淎fter he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem him鈥 (Leviticus 25:48).

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讗讜诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪注 讘讬谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: 鈥淗e shall be redeemed,鈥 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 岣nina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: 鈥淚f there be yet many of the years, according to them he shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: 鈥淎nd if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his years鈥 (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 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for,鈥 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 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 转专讬 讜驻砖 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 注讘讚 讗专讘注 讜驻砖讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬 谞讬转讬讘 转专转讬 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

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 鈥渋f there be yet many of the years,鈥 let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for.鈥 If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated 鈥渁nd if there remain but few of the years,鈥 let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 砖谞讬诐 讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖谞讬诐 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚专砖讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讻住讬谞讬

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 鈥渙f the years鈥? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥 Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

(住讬诪谉 注讘讚 讘讬转 讞爪讗讬谉 讘讬转 注讘讚 拽专讜讘讬诐) 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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

讙讗诇转讜 讙讗诇转讜 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讙诪专 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [ge鈥檜llato]鈥 (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term 鈥ge鈥檜llato鈥 can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: 鈥淎nd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [ge鈥檜llato]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讛转诐 谞诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讗诇 讻讜诇讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜

Rav Sheshet said to him: Didn鈥檛 you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: 鈥淎nd he is sold鈥 (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 鈥渉e is redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘诪讗讛 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 驻诇讙讗 讚讚诪讬 讜讗砖讘讞 讜拽诐 注诇 诪讗转谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讜谞驻讬拽

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.

讜讛讗诪专转 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝诇 讜讗讜拽讬专

The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (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.

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘诪讗转谉 讬讛讬讘 诪讗讛 驻诇讙讬 讚讚诪讬 讜讗讬讻住祝 讜拽诐 注诇 诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讛谞讱 诪讗讛 驻拽讚讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜谞驻讬拽

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讙讗诇转讜 讙讗诇转讜 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讙诪专 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet with regard to a similar topic: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, which can be redeemed only during the first year after the sale, can it be partially redeemed, or can it not be partially redeemed? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Does he derive the verbal analogy of ge鈥檜llato (Leviticus 25:29) and ge鈥檜llato (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?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讙诇讬 讙诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙诇讬 诇讗 讙诇讬

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: 鈥淎nd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讚专砖讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞砖诪注 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd if he will redeem [ga鈥檕l yigal] the field鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬讛 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

诪拽讚讬砖 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

讛讗讬 诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 诪诇讗讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 谞讞诇讟 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rava bar 岣nnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: 鈥淎nd if he will redeem [ga鈥檕l yigal] the field鈥 (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬讛 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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?

诪讛 诇诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 转讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚

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.

诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 20

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 20

诇拽专讜讘讬诐

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

讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讗诐 诪讜讻专讛 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 诪讛 诇诪讜讻专讛 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬讬注讚 诪讬讬注讚 讬诪讻专谞讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐 砖讗诐 专爪讛 诇讬讬注讚 讗讬谞讜 诪讬讬注讚 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗诪讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

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 鈥渁s a maidservant,鈥 which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇驻住讜诇讬谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 住讘专 诇讛 讻专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇拽专讜讘讬诐

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term 鈥渁s a maidservant鈥 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: 鈥淚f she does not please her master鈥 (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.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讘谞讜 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗 诇讗讘讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讘谞讜 讻专讘谞谉 讗诇讗 诪讜讻专讛 诇讗讘讬讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讛 诇讘谞讜 讻诪讗谉

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?

诇讗 讻专讘谞谉 讜诇讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘谞谉 诪讜讚讜 专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪讚 讬注讜讚

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 girl鈥檚 father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girl鈥檚 uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讘讙驻讜 讬讘讗 讘讙驻讜 讬爪讗 讘讙讜驻讜 谞讻谞住 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚讬 谞讻谞住 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讘讙讜驻讜 谞讻谞住 讘讙讜驻讜 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 讘专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讻注讘讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讛讜讗 诪诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 谞驻拽讗

The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: 鈥淚f he comes in begappo he shall leave begappo (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7).

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讚诪讬 注讬谞讬讛 讜谞讬驻讜拽 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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: 鈥淚f he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,鈥 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.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讞讬讚讬 谞讻谞住 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 诪讗讬 讬讞讬讚讬 讬爪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 谞诪讻专 讘诪谞讛 讜讛砖讘讬讞 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪讗转讬诐 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 砖谞讗诪专 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜

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: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51).

谞诪讻专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讻住讬祝 讜注诪讚 注诇 诪谞讛 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

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: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.

讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讘讚 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讙讗诇 讘拽专讜讘讬诐 讬讚讜 注诇 讛转讞转讜谞讛

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.

谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

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: 鈥淎s a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎s a hired worker year by year he shall be with him鈥 (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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讛专讬谞讬 讻讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘砖讜拽讬 讟讘专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讻讚讬 讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 讜讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇拽讜诇讗 谞讬讚专砖讬谞讛讜 诇讞讜诪专讗

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: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 and 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 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 鈥渢he money that he was bought for,鈥 and if he increased in value he must pay 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently.

诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讚讗拽讬诇 专讞诪谞讗 诇讙讘讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 讜注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛

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: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (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.

砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬诐 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛转讘谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜

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 slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬爪讟注专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 讘讗 讜专讗讛 讻诪讛 拽砖讛 讗讘拽讛 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转

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 岣nina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讗讚诐 谞讜砖讗 讜谞讜转谉 讘驻讬专讜转 砖讘讬注讬转 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 诪讟诇讟诇讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 转砖讘讜 讗讬砖 讗诇 讗讞讝转讜 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚

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: 鈥淚n this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land鈥 (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淎nd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand鈥 (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.

诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 诇住讜祝 诪讜讻专 讗转 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讻专 诪讗讞讝转讜 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘讬转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讬诪讻专 讘讬转 诪讜砖讘 注讬专 讞讜诪讛

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: 鈥淚f your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land鈥 (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city鈥 (Leviticus 25:29).

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讛专讙讬砖 讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 讻讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讬讜谉 砖注讘专 讗讚诐 注讘讬专讛 讜砖谞讛 讘讛 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 讛讜转专讛 诇讜 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诇讗 谞注砖讬转 诇讜 讻讛讬转专

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 prohi-bition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.

诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 讘转讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讻专 讗讬砖 讗转 讘转讜 诇讗诪讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘转讜 诇讗 讻转讬讘讗 讘讛讗讬 注谞讬谞讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 谞讬讝讘讬谉 讗讬谞砖 讘专转讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讬讝讬祝 讘专讬讘讬转讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘专转讬讛 诪讙专注讗 讜谞驻拽讗 讜讛讗 诪讜住驻讗 讜讗讝诇讗

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: 鈥淎nd when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant鈥 (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though 鈥渉is daughter鈥 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.

诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诇讜讛 讘专讘讬转 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜诪讟讛 讬讚讜 注诪讱 讜住诪讬讱 诇讬讛 讗诇 转拽讞 诪讗转讜 讜讙讜壮 诇讗 讘讗转 诇讬讚讜 注讚 砖诪讜讻专 讗转 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讬 讬诪讜讱 讗讞讬讱 讜谞诪讻专 诇讱

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: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor and his means fails with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: 鈥淭ake no usury or interest from him鈥 (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:39).

诇讗 诇讱 讗诇讗 诇讙专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讙专 讜诇讗 诇讙专 爪讚拽 讗诇讗 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 砖谞讗诪专 讙专 转讜砖讘 诪砖驻讞转 讙专 讝讛 谞讻专讬 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇注拽专

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: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a stranger [ger]鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, 鈥渙r to an offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥 the Gemara expounds: 鈥淎 stranger鈥檚 family鈥; 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: 鈥淭o an offshoot of a stranger鈥檚 family,鈥

讝讛 讛谞诪讻专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 注爪诪讛

this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship. The baraita teaches that it is only due to a person鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 讛讗 讗讛讚专讬讛 拽专讗 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜谞注砖讛 讻讜诪专 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬讚讞讬 讗讘谉 讗讞专 讛谞讜驻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗讞专讬 谞诪讻专 讙讗诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讗讞讚 诪讗讞讬讜 讬讙讗诇谞讜

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: 鈥淎fter he is sold he shall be redeemed; one of his brothers may redeem him鈥 (Leviticus 25:48).

讜讗讬诪讗 讙讗讜诇讛 转讛讬讛 诇讜 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟诪注 讘讬谉 讛谞讻专讬诐 讛讗 诇注谞讬谉 驻讚讬讜谉 谞讞诪讬专 注诇讬讛 诪讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗

The Gemara further asks: But one can say as follows: 鈥淗e shall be redeemed,鈥 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 岣nina, said, that one is sold as a slave due to his sins.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬 讻转讬讘 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讻讬 讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪专讜讘讜转 讜讬砖 砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 讗诇讗 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Two verses are written with regard to the redemption of a slave sold to a gentile. It is written: 鈥淚f there be yet many of the years, according to them he shall give back the price of his redemption out of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), and it is written: 鈥淎nd if there remain but few of the years until the Jubilee Year, and he shall reckon with him, according to his years鈥 (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 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for,鈥 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 鈥渁ccording to his years,鈥 i.e., according to his current value.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讬讻讗 讚注讘讚 转专讬 讜驻砖 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 谞讬转讬讘 诇讬讛 讗专讘注 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 注讘讚 讗专讘注 讜驻砖讜 诇讬讛 转专转讬 谞讬转讬讘 转专转讬 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜

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 鈥渋f there be yet many of the years,鈥 let him give his redemption money for the four years he owes him 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for.鈥 If he served four years and two years remain for his service, as is stated 鈥渁nd if there remain but few of the years,鈥 let him give his redemption money the value of the two years, 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥

讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗诐 注讜讚 专讘讜转 砖谞讬诐 讗诐 诪注讟 谞砖讗专 砖谞讬诐 诪讗讬 讘砖谞讬诐 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 谞转诪注讟 讻住驻讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讻驻讬 砖谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚专砖讬谞讛讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讛谞讬 拽专讗讬 讻住讬谞讬

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 鈥渙f the years鈥? This teaches that if his monetary value increased over the years of his servitude, he is redeemed 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for,鈥 which is the lower sum. And if his monetary value decreased over the years of his servitude, one determines his value 鈥渁ccording to his years.鈥 Upon hearing this statement, Rav Yosef said: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

(住讬诪谉 注讘讚 讘讬转 讞爪讗讬谉 讘讬转 注讘讚 拽专讜讘讬诐) 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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

讙讗诇转讜 讙讗诇转讜 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讙诪专 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇讞讜诪专讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara analyzes the sides of the dilemma: With regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, the verse states: 鈥淎ccording to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption [ge鈥檜llato]鈥 (Leviticus 25:52), and the meaning of the term 鈥ge鈥檜llato鈥 can be derived from the same term stated with regard to the redemption of an ancestral field: 鈥淎nd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it [ge鈥檜llato]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讛转诐 谞诪讻专 讻讜诇讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讙讗诇 讻讜诇讜 讜诇讗 讞爪讬讜

Rav Sheshet said to him: Didn鈥檛 you say there, with regard to a thief who is sold to repay what he stole, that the verse: 鈥淎nd he is sold鈥 (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 鈥渉e is redeemed鈥 (Leviticus 25:49) means all of him and not part of him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇拽讜诇讗 讜诇讞讜诪专讗 诇拽讜诇讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘诪讗讛 讬讛讘 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 驻诇讙讗 讚讚诪讬 讜讗砖讘讞 讜拽诐 注诇 诪讗转谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜讞诪砖讬谉 讜谞驻讬拽

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.

讜讛讗诪专转 谞转专讘讛 讻住驻讜 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜拽讬专 讜讝诇 讜讗讜拽讬专

The Gemara asks: But you said that if the money of his value increased, one always pays 鈥渙ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (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.

诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 诇讞讜诪专讗 讝讘谞讬讛 讘诪讗转谉 讬讛讬讘 诪讗讛 驻诇讙讬 讚讚诪讬 讜讗讬讻住祝 讜拽诐 注诇 诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讞诪砖讬谉 讜谞驻讬拽 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讛谞讱 诪讗讛 驻拽讚讜谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讙讘讬讛 讬讛讬讘 诇讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜谞驻讬拽

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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 诪专讘 砖砖转 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讙讗诇转讜 讙讗诇转讜 诪砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讙诪专 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讙讗诇转 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讗祝 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 谞讙讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Huna bar 岣nnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet with regard to a similar topic: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, which can be redeemed only during the first year after the sale, can it be partially redeemed, or can it not be partially redeemed? The Gemara explains the sides of the dilemma: Does he derive the verbal analogy of ge鈥檜llato (Leviticus 25:29) and ge鈥檜llato (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?

讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讙诇讬 讙诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讙诇讬 诇讗 讙诇讬

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: 鈥淎nd he becomes rich and finds sufficient means to redeem it鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪诪讚专砖讜 砖诇 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 谞砖诪注 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Sheshet said to him: From Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 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: 鈥淎nd if he will redeem [ga鈥檕l yigal] the field鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讛 讟注诐 诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬讛 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

诪拽讚讬砖 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

讛讗讬 诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 诪诇讗讛 诇讜 砖谞讛 转诪讬诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 谞讞诇讟 讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗诐 讙讗诇 讬讙讗诇 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rava bar 岣nnana raised an objection to this opinion from a baraita. The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: 鈥淎nd if he will redeem [ga鈥檕l yigal] the field鈥 (Leviticus 27:19). This teaches that he may borrow money and redeem it, and partially redeem it.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬讛 讘讬讜讘诇 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诪拽讚讬砖 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗诐 讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 讜诇讗 谞讙讗诇讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讛讜专注 讻讞讜 砖讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉

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?

诪讛 诇诪讜讻专 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 砖讻谉 讛讜专注 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 转讗诪专 讘诪拽讚讬砖 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚

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.

诪讜讻专 讘讬转 讘讘转讬 注专讬 讞讜诪讛 讬讜讻讬讞 砖讬驻讛 讻讞讜 诇讬讙讗诇 诪讬讚 讜讗讬谉 诇讜讛 讜讙讜讗诇 讜讙讜讗诇 诇讞爪讗讬谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗

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