Kiddushin 41

הא רבנן הא ר"ש

the one agrees with the Rabbis, the other with R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Shesheth's answer having been deduced from R. Simeon's dictum. - R. Simeon holds that the reason of a Scriptural law must be sought, and when found it may modify it and provide a basis for other laws; but the Rabbis disagree. Hence R. Simeon argues that one's very disabilities require compensating privileges, and finds this embodied in the laws of the sanctification of 'a field of possession', from which the same principles are applied to analogous cases. Whereas the Rabbis argue that when Scripture impairs one's privileges in one direction they are weakened in all, a minori, the sanctification of an inherited field being explicitly excepted by Scripture.');">¹</span> One [Baraitha] taught: He [who sells a house in a walled city] may borrow and redeem, and redeem half. Another taught: He may not borrow and redeem, nor redeem half.

תני חדא לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין ותניא אידך אין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין ל"ק הא רבנן הא ר"ש

There is no difficulty: the latter agrees with the Rabbis, the former with R'Simeon,<br>(Mnemonic; Harash, Habash, Zeman).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Harash - R.AHa son of Raba to R. Ashi; Habash = R.AHa Saba said to R. ASHi; Zeman = Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina.');">²</span> R'Aha, son of Raba, said to R'Ashi: It<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The argument in the Baraitha cited above that would derive the case of one who sanctifies from the sale of a house in a walled city.');">³</span> can be refuted: as for one who sells a house in a walled city, that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. his inability to borrow and redeem, and redeem half.');">⁴</span>

(סימן חרש חבש זמן)

is because his privilege is impaired, that he can never redeem it [any longer];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the first year; Lev. XXV, 30.');">⁵</span> will you say the same of him who sanctifies, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., until jubilee, if the Temple Treasurer has not sold it in the meanwhile.');">⁶</span> - R'Aha Saba [the Elder] remarked to R'Ashi: Because one can say: Let the argument revolve, and infer it by what is common [to both.

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה למוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל לעולם תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם

Thus!] Let him who sells 'a field of possession' prove it, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever, and yet he may not borrow and redeem, or redeem half. As for him who sells 'a field of possession', that is because his rights are impaired, in that he [cannot] redeem it immediately. Then let one who sells a house in a walled city prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can redeem it immediately, and yet cannot borrow etc.');">⁷</span>

א"ל רב אחא סבא לרב אשי משום דאיכא למימר ניהדר דינא תיתי במה הצד מוכר שדה אחוזה יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין מה למוכר שדה אחוזה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל מיד מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה יוכיח

And thus the argument revolves: the feature of one is not that of the other. What is common to both [cases] is that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The properties.');">⁸</span> may be redeemed, and he [the vendor] cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half.

וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שנגאלין ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין אף אני אביא מקדיש שנגאל ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

So may I also adduce the case of one who sanctifies [an inherited field]: it may be redeemed, and he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. Mar Zutra son of R'Mari said to Rabina: This may be refuted. What is their common feature?

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן הורע כחם ליגאל בשנה שניה תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה

That their privileges are impaired. for they [cannot] redeem it in the second year;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One who sells an inherited field cannot redeem it before the third year; and the vendor of a house in a walled city cannot redeem it after the first year.');">⁹</span> will you say [the same] of him who sanctifies, seeing that his privilege is strong to redeem in the second year? - Rabina answered him: Because one may reply.

א"ל רבינא משום דאיכא למימר עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

Let a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen prove it: his rights are unimpaired. for he may be redeemed in the second year, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem by half.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As supra 20b.');">¹⁰</span> R'Huna B'Hinena propounded of R'Shesheth: If one sells a house in a walled city, can [the house] be redeemed by relations or not?

בעא מיניה רב הונא בר חיננא מרב ששת המוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נגאל לקרובים או אין נגאל לקרובים גאולתו גאולתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת לחצאין ונגאלת לקרובים אף האי נמי אין נגאל לחצאין ונגאל לקרובים

Do we learn the meaning of 'his redemption' from 'a field of possession':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the quotations v. p. 96, n. 3.');">¹¹</span> just as 'a field of possession' cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 25.');">¹²</span> so this too cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations; or perhaps, 'redemption' is written only in reference to half,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And find sufficient for his redemption (Lev. XXV, 26) ; 'sufficient' shews that the whole must be redeemed.');">¹³</span>

או דילמא כי כתיבא גאולה בחצאין הוא דכתיב בקרובים לא כתיב א"ל אינו נגאל

but not in reference to relations? - It cannot be redeemed [by relations], answered he. He objected before him: And in all [the land of your possession] ye shall effect a redemption for the land:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 24.');">¹⁴</span> this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they can be redeemed by relations.');">¹⁵</span>

איתיביה (ויקרא כה, כד) בכל גאולה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה לא בתי חצרים

Surely that means houses in a walled city? - No. It means houses in villages. But of houses in villages it is explicitly stated, they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 31; i.e., the same law applies to them as to 'a field of possession.');">¹⁶</span>

בתי חצרים בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא כה, לא) על שדה הארץ יחשב ההוא לקובעו חובה ואליבא דרבי אליעזר

- That is to make an obligation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not only have the relations the right, but also the duty of redemption.');">¹⁷</span> and is in accordance with R'Eliezer. For it was taught: [If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his possessions, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come,] and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 25.');">¹⁸</span>

דתניא (ויקרא כה, כה) וגאל את ממכר אחיו רשות אתה אומר רשות או אינו אלא חובה ת"ל (ויקרא כה, כו) ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גואל וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא זה שיש לו ואינו רוצה ליקח שהרשות בידו דברי רבי יהושע

that is an option.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'a permitted thing'.');">¹⁹</span> You say, an option: yet perhaps it is not so, but an obligation? Hence it is taught: And if a man have no kinsman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26.');">²⁰</span>

ר"א אומר וגאל את ממכר אחיו חובה אתה אומר חובה או אינו אלא רשות ת"ל בכל גאולה תתנו הכתוב קבעו חובה

But is there a man in Israel who has no kinsman?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Every Jew must have relatives, if he goes back far enough.');">²¹</span> Hence it must refer to him who has [a kinsman,] who [however] refuses to repurchase it, [thus shewing] that he has [merely] an option. R'Eliezer said: 'and he shall redeem that which his brother hath sold' [implies] an obligation.

אמרי ליה רבנן לרב אשי ואמרי לה רבינא לרב אשי בשלמא למ"ד לרבות בתי ערי חומה היינו דכתיב בכל אלא למ"ד לרבות בתי חצרים מאי בכל קשיא

You say, an obligation; yet perhaps it is not so, but an option? - Hence it is taught: and in all. ye shall effect a redemption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This emphasis - since it is already stated elsewhere - proves that redemption is a duty.');">²²</span> The Rabbis said to R'Ashi, or as others state, Rabina said to R'Ashi: On the view that it includes houses in walled cities, it is well;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since redemption by relations is not mentioned there.');">²³</span>

איתיביה אביי מה ת"ל יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו ג' פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה

but on the view that it includes houses in villages, why 'in all'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies even in those cases where it is not explicitly provided for.');">²⁴</span> This is indeed a difficulty. Abaye raised an objection before him: Why is 'he shall redeem him,' 'he shall redeem him,' 'he shall redeem him', stated three times?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to the redemption of a Jewish slave from a heathen master: Ibid. 48, 49.');">²⁵</span>

בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה בהדיא כתיב על שדה הארץ יחשב כדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם ה"נ לקרוב קרוב קודם

To include all cases of redemption, that they are to be redeemed in this order.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is assumed to mean that in all cases where redemption is stated it may be by relatives.');">²⁶</span> Surely that refers to houses in walled cities and Hebrew slaves? - No: to houses in villages and 'fields of possession'.' Houses in villages and fields of possession!' these are explicitly provided for, 'they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country'? - It is as R'Nahman B'Isaac said [elsewhere], to teach that the nearer the relation, the greater his precedence; so here too, it is to shew that the nearer the relation, th greater is his precedence.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the same order of priority as the kinsmen enumerated in Lev. XXV, 48, 49.');">²⁷</span>

היכא איתמר דר"נ בר יצחק אהא דאיבעיא להו עבד עברי הנמכר לישראל נגאל לקרובים או אינו נגאל לקרובים אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך דאמר מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש אלמא לא מיפרק

Whereon was R'Nahman's dictum stated? - On what was propounded: Can a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite be redeemed by kinsmen or not? On Rabbi's view, that is no question, since he said: He who cannot be redeemed by these [sc. relations] can be redeemed by [the passage of] years,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, 15b, q.v.');">²⁸</span> thus proving that he cannot be redeemed.

כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן מאי ילפינן שכיר שכיר ולא דרשי יגאלנו או דילמא יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר

Our question is on the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the law? Do we infer 'sakir', 'sakir'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 92, n. 5; hence he can be redeemed by kinsmen.');">²⁹</span>

תא שמע בכל גאולה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל לא עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים

and do not interpret [the emphasis of, one of his brethren] may redeem him;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 48, referring to a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen.');">³⁰</span> or perhaps, 'may redeem him' implies him, but not another?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite.');">³¹</span> - Come and hear:' 'In all.

עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כה, מט) או דודו או בן דודו יגאלנו

ye shal effect a redemption': this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves. Surely that means houses in a walled city, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites? No; it means Hebrew slaves sold to heathens. But of a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen it is explicitly stated, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 49.');">³²</span> -