Kiddushin 34

למר למעוטי כספים למר למעוטי פרדות

- According to one Master, to exclude money; according to the other, to exclude mules. Our Rabbis taught : 'As the Lord thy God hath blessed thee': I might think, if the house was blessed on his account 'a gift is made to him; but if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him; therefore Scripture states, thou shalt surely furnish him [etc.], teaching, in all cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed by the emphasis in the doubling of the verb (translated here, 'surely'; E.V. 'liberally') .');">¹</span> If so, what is intimated by 'as [the Lord thy God] hath blessed thee'?

ת"ר (דברים טו, יד) אשר ברכך ה' אלהיך יכול נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו ת"ל (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל אשר ברכך הכל לפי ברכה תן לו

Give him according to thy blessing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: the amounts stated above are the minimum, but should be increased proportionately to the blessing received.');">²</span> R'Eleazar B'Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by 'thou shalt surely furnish him'?

ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר דברים ככתבן נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו א"כ מה ת"ל הענק תעניק דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם :

The Torah employed human idiom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where this repetition of the verb is quite common, and has no particular significance, v. B.M. 31b.');">³</span> Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew male slave serves [his master's] son, but does not serve [his] daughter;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the master died within the six years, leaving one of these as his heir.');">⁴</span> a Hebrew female slave serves neither son nor daughter; one who was bored, or is sold to a heathen, serves neither son nor daughter.

תנו רבנן עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת אמה עבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אמר מר עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת מנהני מילי

The Master said: 'A Hebrew male slave serves [his master's] son, but not [his] daughter.' How do we know this? - For our Rabbis taught: [If thy brother. be sold unto thee,] he shall serve thee six years<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 12.');">⁵</span>

דתנו רבנן (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש אתה אומר לך ולא ליורש או אינו אלא לך ולא לבן כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד הרי לבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש

- thee, but not thine heir'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Other than the son.');">⁶</span> You say: 'thee, but not thine heir': yet perhaps it is not s but 'thee, but not thy son'? When it is said, six years he shall serve,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 2.');">⁷</span>

מה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח מרבה אני את הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה

the son is included;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'stated,' since 'thee' is not mentioned.');">⁸</span> then how am I to interpret,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fulfil'.');">⁹</span> he shall serve thee six years?

אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו ליבום כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום

Thee, but not thine heir. Why do you choose<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'see'.');">¹⁰</span> to include the son and exclude the brother?

אלא טעמא דאיכא הא פירכא הא לאו הכי אח עדיף ותיפוק לי דהכא תרתי והכא חדא

I include the son, because he arises in his father's place to designate her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a female slave, as his wife; v. p. 45, n. 9.');">¹¹</span> and in respect of an ancestral field.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one sanctifies an ancestral field, he can redeem it at a fixed rate, proportionate to its area, after which it belongs to him for good. If he does not redeem it, the Temple treasurer sells it, and it belongs to the purchaser until jubilee, when it becomes the property of the priests. But if the sanctifier's son redeems it, it is as though he himself does so, and it remains his for good.');">¹²</span> On the contrary, I should include the brother, since he takes his brother's place for yibum?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹³</span>

שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא הוא דקא נפקא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן :

Is there yibum excepting in the absence of a son? but if there is a son, there is no yibum. Now it is only because there is this refutation; but otherwise, the brother would be preferable?

אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת : מנהני מילי אמר רבי פדא דאמר קרא (דברים טו, יז) ואף לאמתך תעשה כן הקישה הכתוב לנרצע מה נרצע אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אף אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת והאי לאמתך תעשה כן להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק

Yet it [the reverse] may be inferred from the fact that here [in the case of a son] there are two [points in his favour], whereas there, only one? - [The preference for a son in respect of] an ancestral field is likewise inferred from this same refutation: is there yibum excepting in the absence of a son?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But it is not explicitly stated. For fuller notes, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 449ff.');">¹⁴</span> 'A Hebrew female slave serves neither son nor daughter.' Whence do we know this? - Said R'Papa, Because Scripture writes, [And.

אתה אומר להעניק או אינו אלא לרציעה כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ה) ואם אמר יאמר העבד ולא אמה העבריה הרי רציעה אמור

if he say unto thee, I will not go out from thee. then thou shalt take awl, and thrust it through his ear.] and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 16f.');">¹⁵</span> thus Scripture assimilated her to one who is bored.

הא מה אני מקיים ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק א"כ נכתוב קרא לאמתך כן מאי תעשה שמעת מינה תרתי

Just as the latter serves neither son nor daughter, so the former too serves neither son nor daughter. Now this [verse,] 'and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise' - does it come to teach this? But it is required for what was taught: And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise - i.e., furnish [her with] a gift.

: הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת : נרצע דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע ועבדו לעולם ולא את הבן ואת הבת נמכר לעובד כוכבים מנין אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו

You say, furnish a gift; yet perhaps it is not so, but in respect boring? When it is stated: But if the manservant shall plainly say,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 5.');">¹⁶</span> boring is already dealt with:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., manservant excludes maidservant.');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא דבר תורה עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו שנאמר וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו מכלל דאית ליה יורשים גר את העובד כוכבים אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים

how then do I interpret<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'fulfil'.');">¹⁸</span> and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise? In respect of a gift! If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the only purpose of the verse is as stated before.');">¹⁹</span>

דתנן גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים גר יכול לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות משבאו לרשות גר אסור

Scripture should write, 'and also to thy bondwoman likewise;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would suffice for the analogy.');">²⁰</span> why state, 'thou shalt do'? [Hence] both may be inferred.'

ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כי לא באו לרשותו נמי כי שקיל חילופי עבודת כוכבים הוא דקא שקיל

One who was bored, or is sold to a heathen, serves neither son nor daughter.' One who was bored, for it is written, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: and he shall serve him for ever,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 6.');">²¹</span> - but neither son nor daughter.

אלא מדרבנן גזירה הוא דעבוד רבנן שמא יחזור לסורו תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים כשירשו אבל כשנשתתפו אסור

Whence do we know it of one who is sold to a heathen? - Said Hezekiah, because Scripture writes, And he shall reckon with his purchaser<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV,50; the verse treats of redeeming a Jewish slave from a heathen owner.');">²²</span> - but not with his purchaser's heirs. Raba said: By Biblical law, a heathen is his father's heir, for it is said: 'and he shall reckon with his purchaser', [implying,] but not with his purchaser's heirs, whence it follows that he has heirs.

עובד כוכבים את הגר וגר את הגר אינו לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים דתנן לוה מעות מן הגר שנתגיירו בניו עמו לא יחזיר לבניו ואם החזיר אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו

[But the succession of] a proselyte [to the estate of] a heathen is not in accordance with Biblical law but by the law of the Soferim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'scribes,' the designation of the early body of teachers beginning with Ezra and ending with Simeon the Just, though sometimes it would appear to apply to later Talmudists too; e.g., in R.H. 19a. The Rabbis derive the word from safar, to count: hence the body who counted the letters of the Torah or grouped subjects by number; e.g., four chief causes of damage, thirty-nine principal modes of labour forbidden on the Sabbath (infra 30a; Sanh. 106b) . Weiss, Dor, I, 50, maintains that they were so called on account of their skilled calligraphy; and also, because they taught from a scroll (sefer) . This body has been identified with the Men of the Great Synagogue (Z. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 8; N. Krochmal, More Nebuke ha-Zeman, ch. X, 186) . Weiss op. cit. p. 58 maintains that they were separate bodies, though their objects were alike. The Soferim were the theoretical scholars who interpreted the law; the Men of the Great Synagogue were the practical legislators.');">²³</span> For we learnt: If a proselyte and a heathen succeed their father, a heathen: the proselyte may say to the heathen, 'You take the idols, I [will take] money'; 'you take the wine of libation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Wine handled by a Gentile, so called as he might have dedicated the wine for a libation to a heathen deity.');">²⁴</span> and I will take fruit.'

והתניא רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו לא קשיא כאן שהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה

But once they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the idols or the wine.');">²⁵</span> have come into the proselyte's possession, this [exchange] is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because one may not benefit from these in any way.');">²⁶</span> Now, should you think that [the proselyte succeeds] by Biblical law, even if they have not yet come into his possession, when he takes [the money or the produce], he takes something in exchange for an idol!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if he inherits by Biblical law, he automatically has a half-share in everything, whether he has taken possession or not.');">²⁷</span> Hence it [his succession] is [only] by Rabbinical law, the Rabbis having enacted a preventive measure, lest he return to his evil ways.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the sake of the estate. - The reason that he cannot succeed by Biblical law is that 'a proselyte is as a new-born babe,' who has no kinsmanship whatsoever with any of his pre-conversion relations.');">²⁸</span> It has been taught likewise: When was this said? If they inherited [the property]. But if they went into partnership,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a business, or in property, among which were idols and forbidden wine.');">²⁹</span> it is forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that he does not inherit by Biblical law, for in that case it would be partnership.');">³⁰</span> A heathen [succeeds] a proselyte, or a proselyte [succeeds] a proselyte, neither by Biblical law nor by the law of the Soferim. For we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is no Mishnah, hence Var. lec. 'it has been taught'.]');">³¹</span> If a man borrows money from a proselyte whose children were converted together with him, he must not return it to his children,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are not his heirs.');">³²</span> and if he does, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him. But it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [This is a Mishnah, Sheb. X, 9, hence Var. lec., 'we learnt'.]');">³³</span> The spirit of the Sages is pleased with him? - There is no difficulty. The former refers to where his [sc. the child's] conception and birth were not In sanctity:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the father's conversion. If the debtor returns the money to his child, he ipso facto recognises him as heir against the desire of the Rabbis, who held that there is absolutely no relationship between them.');">³⁴</span>