Kiddushin 35

וכאן שהורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה

the latter to where his conception was not In sanctity, but his birth was.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the Rabbis are pleased that he returns it (Rashi) .');">¹</span> R'Hiyya B'Abin said in R'Johanan's name: A heathen succeeds his father by Biblical law, since it is written, because I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for an inheritance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. II, 5.');">²</span>

רב חייא בר אבין א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו דבר תורה דכתיב (דברים ב, ה) כי ירושה לעשו נתתי את הר שעיר ודלמא ישראל מומר שאני אלא מהכא (דברים ב, ט) כי לבני לוט נתתי את ער ירושה

Yet perhaps an apostate Israelite is different?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Esau having been such. - Though all people, including Abraham and his descendants, were accounted as Noachides until the Revelation, and thus not subject to Jewish law (cf. Sanh. p. 384, n. 6) , it would appear that this was not held to apply to inheritance, probably because Palestine itself was given to the Jews as a heritage from Abraham.');">³</span> - But [it follows] from this: Because I have given Are unto the children of Lot as a heritage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. II, 9.');">⁴</span>

ורב חייא בר אבין מאי טעמא לא אמר כרבא מי כתיב (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו

Now, R'Hiyya B'Abin, why does he not agree with Raba? - Is it then written: 'And he shall reckon with his purchaser' but not with his purchaser's heirs! And Raba, why does he not agree with R'Hiyya B'Abin? - There it is different, [it being] on account of Abraham's honour.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that reason the descendants of Lot, Abraham's nephew, were given the privilege of inheritance.');">⁵</span> Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew bondman has features which a Hebrew bondwoman lacks, and there are features in a Hebrew bondwoman which a Hebrew bondman lacks.

ורבא מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב חייא בר אבין משום כבודו דאברהם שאני :

A Hebrew bondman has [these] features, viz. : he goes out [free] through [the passage of six] years, by jubilee, and by his master's death, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew bondwoman. And a Hebrew bondwoman has [these] features, viz. : a Hebrew bondwoman goes out by 'signs', she cannot be sold and re-sold, and is redeemed against her will, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew bondman.

תנו רבנן יש בעברי שאין בעבריה ויש בעבריה שאין בעברי יש בעברי שהוא יוצא בשנים וביובל ובמיתת האדון מה שאין כן בעבריה ויש בעבריה שהרי עבריה יוצאה בסימנין ואינה נמכרת ונשנית ומפדין אותה בעל כורחו מה שאין כן בעברי :

The Master said: 'A Hebrew bondman has features which a Hebrew bondwoman lacks.' But the following contradicts this: A HEBREW MAIDSERVANT IS MORE [PRIVILEGED] THAN HE, IN THAT SHE ACQUIRES HERSELF BY 'SIGNS'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'More privileged' implies that 'signs' are additional.');">⁶</span>

אמר מר יש בעברי שאין בעבריה ורמינהי יתירה עליו אמה העבריה שקונה עצמה בסימנין אמר רב ששת כגון שיעדה

- Said R'Shesheth: E.g. , if he designated her [as his wife].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then she is not freed by these.');">⁷</span> 'He designated her? ' But that is obvious: she needs a divorce! - I might have thought, The regulations<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Relating to a Hebrew bondwoman.');">⁸</span>

יעדה פשיטא גיטא בעיא מהו דתימא לא ליבטלה הילכתא מינה קמ"ל אי הכי אמאי יוצאה בסימנין ה"ק אם לא יעדה יוצאה אף בסימנין :

are not annulled in her case. Hence we are informed otherwise.

ואינה נמכרת ונשנית : מכלל דעבד עברי נמכר ונשנה והתניא (שמות כב, ב) בגניבתו ולא בכפילו בגניבתו ולא בזממו בגניבתו כיון שנמכר פעם אחת שוב אי אתה רשאי למוכרו

If so, why does she go out free by 'signs'? - This is its meaning: If he [her master] did not designate her, she goes out free by 'signs' too.' And she cannot be sold and re-sold.'

אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בגניבה אחת כאן בשתי גניבות

Hence it follows that a Hebrew male slave may be sold and re-sold. But it was taught: [If he have nothing, then he shall be sold] for his theft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXII, 2.');">⁹</span>

א"ל אביי בגניבתו טובא משמע אלא אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן באדם אחד כאן בשני בני אדם

but not for his double repayment;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A convicted thief had to repay double; ibid. 3.');">¹⁰</span> 'for his theft,' but not for his refuted testimony;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his scheming.' If one preferred a false charge, he was punished with the same penalty that he had sought to impose; v. Deut. XIX, 19. But if he falsely testified to theft, though he thereby sought to have the accused sold as a slave, if he could not make restitution, he is nevertheless not sold himself.');">¹¹</span>

ת"ר גניבו אלף ושוה חמש מאות נמכר וחוזר ונמכר גניבו חמש מאות ושוה אלף אינו נמכר כלל ר' אליעזר אומר אם היה גניבו כנגד ממכרו נמכר ואם לאו אינו נמכר

for his theft': having been sold once, he may not be sold again! - Said Raba: There is no difficulty: the latter refers to one theft, the former to two thefts Abaye demurred: 'for his theft' may imply even many thefts!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Theft' being understood generically.');">¹²</span> But, said Abaye, there is no difficulty; the latter refers to one man, the former to two men.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he robs one man, even twice, and is charged with both thefts simultaneously, he can only be sold once. But if he robs two men, each of whom sues him at court at different times, he may be sold twice. Tosaf. reverses it.');">¹³</span>

אמר רבא בהא זכנהו ר"א לרבנן דמאי שנא גניבו חמש מאות ושוה אלף דאין נמכר דנמכר כולו אמר רחמנא ולא חציו ה"נ נמכר בגניבתו אמר רחמנא ולא נמכר בחצי גניבתו :

Our Rabbis taught: If his theft was thousand [zuz], and he was [only] worth five hundred, he is sold and then sold again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the reading of curr. edd. The Wilna Gaon and Maim. read: he is sold but not sold again. This is preferable, and agrees with the previous statements.');">¹⁴</span> If his theft was five hundred, whereas he is worth thousand, he is not sold at all.

ומפדין אותה בעל כרחו : סבר רבא למימר בעל כרחיה דאדון א"ל אביי מאי ניהו דכתבנא ליה שטרא אדמיה אמאי נקיט מרגניתא בידיה יהיבנא ליה חספא

R'Eliez said: If his theft corresponded to his purchase price,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being neither more nor less.');">¹⁵</span> he is sold; if not, he is not sold.

אלא אמר אביי בעל כרחיה דאב משום פגם משפחה אי הכי עבד עברי נמי נכפינהו לבני משפחה משום פגם משפחה הדר אזיל ומזבין נפשיה

Raba said: In this matter R'Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis. For why is it different if his theft was five hundred and he was worth thousand, that he is not sold: because Scripture said: 'then he shall be sold' - all of him, but not half?

ה"נ הדר אזיל ומזבין לה הא קתני אינה נמכרת ונשנית ומני ר"ש היא דתניא מוכר אדם את בתו לאישות ושונה לשפחות ושונה לאישות אחר שפחות אבל לא לשפחות אחר אישות רש"א כשם שאין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר אישות כך אין אדם מוכר את בתו לשפחות אחר שפחות

Then here too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If his theft was thousand and he is worth five hundred.');">¹⁶</span> Scripture ordered, 'he shall be sold for his theft,' but not for half his theft.'

ובפלוגתא דהני תנאי דתניא (שמות כא, ח) בבגדו בה

And is redeemed against his will.' Raba thought to interpret: against the master's will. Said Abaye to him: How so - that a bond is drawn up for him for her value? But why:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Must he accept it?');">¹⁷</span> he holds a pearl in his hand - shall we give him a shard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' With a double meaning: he holds something of value, must he accept something valueless; also, must he accept the shard on which such a bond may be written?');">¹⁸</span> But, said Abaye, against her father's will,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he can afford it, he is forced to redeem her (Rashi) . Tosaf.: the family is compelled to redeem her against her father's desire, who may not wish to have her back at home and to keep her.');">¹⁹</span> on account of the family disgrace. If so, i the case of a Hebrew bondman too, let the members of his family [be forced to redeem him] on account of the family disgrace? - Then he will go and sell himself again. Then here too, he [the father] will go and sell her again? - Was it not taught: She cannot be sold and then sold again? And this agrees with R'Simeon, For it was taught: A man may sell his daughter for marital relationship, and then repeat it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One may accept kiddushin on behalf of his daughter, a minor: and if she is widowed or divorced while an arusah (q.v. Glos.) he can do so again, on each occasion the money of kiddushin belonging to himself.');">²⁰</span> for servitude, and then repeat it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If she became free through six years, jubilee, or her master's death, and is still a minor (ketannah) .');">²¹</span> for marriage after servitude,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been freed from servitude, she can then be given in marriage.');">²²</span> but not for servitude after marriage. R'Simeon said: Just as a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after marriage, so a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after servitude. Now this enters into the dispute of the following Tannaim. For it was taught: [To sell her unto a strange people he shall have no power], seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her [be-bigedo bah]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 8.');">²³</span>