Arakhin 30b — the Talmud in English

And

Abaye said:

![](pamud.bmp "

") Behold, I am

boasting in my place that I am a preacher and an expert,

like Ben Azzai

who used to boast

in the marketplaces of Tiberias,

for he would say: All the sages of Israel are before me like a garlic peel.

And

a certain scholar said to Abaye,

and he wondered:

Since these verses, “the money of his purchase” and “according to his years”—

from one it follows that one calculates according to the time of his purchase and not according to his present value, while from the other it follows that one calculates according to his present value—

can be expounded

so that one always goes

leniently

for the redeemer,

and it is possible

also

to expound them

the opposite way, so that one always goes

stringently

for the redeemer: If he appreciated, he calculates according to his value, and if he depreciated, he calculates according to the time of his purchase.

From where

do we derive that it is

leniently

for the redeemer? Say: We derive that it is stringently for the redeemer?!

And Abaye answered that scholar:

It does not enter your mind

to expound it to be stringent for the redeeming slave! For it is logical to be lenient for the slave “in his redemption,”

since the Merciful One was lenient with regard to him

with regard to the slave “in his service,” as

for it was taught: “For it is good for you

for the slave sold to an Israelite

with you

of the master,” and they expound:

“With you,”

the slave shall be with the master

in food, with you in drink. It shall not be that

you, the master,

eat fine bread, while he

the slave

eats coarse bread

filled with bran!

You drink aged wine

which is superior,

while he drinks new wine! You sleep upon woolen cushions

of wool,

while he sleeps upon the ground. From here they said: One who acquires a Hebrew slave is like one who acquires a master for himself!

And we challenge this:

On the contrary,

let us expound it stringently and

be stringent with him,

with the slave, for he is certainly wicked!

From [the statement of] Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina:

For Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina said: Come and see how severe

the punishment of

the mere dust

of the prohibition

of the Sabbatical year is: A person engages in business with the produce of the Sabbatical year

which is forbidden for commerce;

in the end he sells his movable property, as it is stated: “In this year of the Jubilee you shall return each man to his holding,” and it is written

near this: “

And when you sell a sale to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow,”

and this acquisition speaks of movable property, for so “from the hand of your fellow” means:

something acquired from hand to hand,

to teach: If you do not safeguard the commandment of the Jubilee [forbidden for commerce as is the Sabbatical year] by selling a sale and acquiring a purchase that I prohibited in the Jubilee, in the end you will sell your sales and all your household vessels [Rashi, Kiddushin 20a].

And if

he did not take heed,

the merchant, and was not shaken into returning from the transgression after he sold movable property, but persists in his rebellion and trades in Sabbatical-year produce,

in the end he sells his fields, as it is stated

near the passage of the sale of movable property:

“And when your brother becomes poor and sells some of his holding.”

It did not come into his hand

that is, a thought of repentance did not come into the hand of the merchant, for it did not even occur to him that he had committed a transgression, and he persists in his rebellion,

until he sells his house, as it is stated

near the passage of the sale of a holding-field:

“And a man, when he sells the house of his dwelling in a walled city.”

And incidentally we explain the beraita and challenge:

What is different there

at the beginning of the beraita,

where it says: “He did not take heed,”

which implies that he knows it is a transgression, only he did not take heed and recoil from committing it,

and what is different here

at the end of the beraita,

where it says: “It did not come into his hand,”

which implies that he no longer knows that it is a transgression?

And we answer: At the beginning, when he had transgressed only once, it says, “He did not take heed”; but at the end of the beraita, when he had transgressed and repeated [for he had already been punished by selling his movable property, and also by selling his fields], it says, “It did not come into his hand,”

in accordance with Rav Huna, for Rav Huna said: Once a person has committed a transgression and repeated it, it becomes permitted to him!

And they explain:

Does it enter your mind that it becomes permitted to him,

that it is truly permitted to him?!

Rather, say: It becomes for him like something permitted,

and “it did not come into his hand” that it is a transgression.

And we return to the substance of the beraita of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina:

It did not come into his hand

after he had already been punished by selling his movable property, his fields, and his house, and he still trades in Sabbatical-year produce,

until he sells his daughter

as a maidservant,

as it is stated

in the passage of Mishpatim:

“And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.”

And we wonder, in explaining the beraita incidentally:

And although his daughter

who is sold

in this matter

of commerce and the sale of his movable property and everything else,

is not present

in the Torah, if so, from where will he come to sell his daughter as a maidservant?!

And we explain: Since near the passage of the sale of a house in walled cities the Torah wrote the passage prohibiting lending with interest, it is certain that initially he sold his daughter as a maidservant, for

it is preferable

for him

for a person to sell his daughter

as a maidservant,

and not to borrow at interest

to lend at interest.

And the reason is:

For there

in the sale of his daughter as a maidservant—since a Hebrew maidservant is redeemed from the master by deducting money, and if he comes to redeem her immediately, he returns to the master all her value, whereas later, when he comes to redeem her, he deducts from what the master paid for her for each year that passes, according to the division of the purchase money from the sale until the time when she is destined to leave him upon reaching maturity—it follows that the principal in the father’s hands

decreases and goes on decreasing

decreases progressively.

Whereas here

in a loan with interest,

it increases and goes on increasing

the principal that he received from the lender, according to the additional interest.

And we return to the substance of the beraita of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina:

It did not come into his hand

even after he sold his daughter, and he still trades in Sabbatical-year produce,

in the end

it should read: “until,” Rashi, Kiddushin 20a

he borrows at interest

23, as it is stated

near the passage of the sale of his house:

“And when your brother becomes poor

and his hand falters with you, and you shall support him, and so on,”

and it is written: “Do not take from him usury and increase.”

It did not come into his hand

even after he borrowed at interest,

in the end

it should read “until,” Rashi, Kiddushin 20a

he sells himself

as a slave,

as it is stated

near the passage of interest,

“When your brother becomes poor with you and is sold to you”

to an Israelite.

“And not to you,”

that is, sometimes he will not merit that he be sold to you,

but to a resident alien,

which is a far greater degradation, that he serves a resident alien—Rabbeinu Gershom,

as it is stated

in the passage adjacent to the one concerning one who sells himself to an Israelite: “And when you attain, and he is sold

to a resident alien

and so on,”

and not

that he be sold

to a righteous convert, but to a resident alien! As it is stated: “

And he is sold

to a resident alien

with you, or to the family of a resident alien,” and sometimes he will be sold to

“the family of a resident alien,” this means one who worships the stars, when he

the verse

says: “or to a chief,” this is one who is sold and becomes a servant for idolatry

whose end is to be uprooted—Tosafot

itself,

that is: Sometimes he will even be sold to serve the idolatry. And from the beraita of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Hanina, that scholar challenges Abaye: Since the one sold to an Israelite or to a gentile came to this because he traded in Sabbatical-year produce, it follows that it is proper that we expound stringently regarding the slave, to make his redemption more burdensome?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Abaye:

This the verse restored,

that they should have compassion on the slave, even though he was wicked.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

It might be said:

Since this one went and became a priest for idolatry,

for he was sold to the chief, which is idolatry itself, if so,

let us cast away a stone

let us throw a stone

after the fallen one

without this, and never redeem him?

The verse therefore says

in that passage:

“There shall be redemption for him; one of his brothers shall redeem him,”

for it is evident that the Torah said to have compassion on him, and since this is so, the verses are expounded leniently concerning his redemption.

And we challenge:

Say

perhaps let us say: Even though the Torah commanded

“There shall be redemption for him,”

this is in order

that he not become assimilated

become assimilated—the slave

among the idolaters, but always, concerning

the amount of

his redemption, let us be stringent,

so that he always give according to the higher price?

And we answer: Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said another reason to expound the verses as we expounded them—that “the money of his purchase” refers to a case in which he appreciated and gives only according to the time of his purchase, while “according to his years” refers to a case in which he depreciated and gives according to his years: Since

it is written: “If there are still many years”

and this implies as follows: If there are still many days in the years remaining until the Jubilee, “according to them he shall return his redemption money from the money of his purchase,”

and it is written: “And if few years remain”

and it implies: If few days remain in the years “until the Jubilee, he shall calculate for himself according to his years and return his redemption,”

are there many years

in days—relative to the other years—

and are there few years

in days—relative to the other years—so that the Torah should say that if many years remain until the Jubilee he returns more, and if there are few days he gives less?

Rather,

this is the meaning of the verses: “If there are still many years,” that

his money increased

and the value of the slave in the years in which he now stands, at the time of his redemption, is greater than his value was at the time of the purchase, then: According to them he shall return his redemption

“from the money of his purchase,”

and not from what he is worth now. “And if few years remain,” that

his money diminished

in the years in which he now stands, then:

“According to his years,”

in which he stands, he shall return his redemption.

And we challenge:

But say

that the meaning of the verses is: “If there are still many years [until the Jubilee],” that is,

where he worked two

years with his master

and there remain

many years, which are

four

years until the Jubilee, then

let him give him

return to him

four from the money of his purchase,

for he calculates the division of the money of his purchase over six years, and returns four portions of it for the four years that he did not work. And

where he worked

the slave

four

years with his master,

and there remain

only a few years, which are

two

years, concerning this the Torah said, “And if few years remain”:

let him give him two according to his years,

the few that remain for him. And the verse comes only to say that he always gives according to the number of years that remain for him, whether many or few, and it does not speak of a slave who appreciated or depreciated?

And we answer:

If so, let it write: “If there are still many years,”

and “if few years remain,”

what is the meaning of “in the years”?!

Inevitably:

his money increased in the years

in which he now stands, at the time of redemption—that the slave appreciated—then he gives

“from the money of his purchase,”

and if

his money diminished in these years,

that the slave depreciated, then he gives

“according to his years”

in which he stands.

Rav Yosef said

and praised Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman expounded these verses—

like Sinai!

We learned in the Mishna:

He may not sell in the far place

and redeem in the near place; in a bad one, and redeem in a good one; and he may not borrow, and redeem; and he may not redeem in halves.

And we challenge:

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the passage of the redemption of a holding-field: “And his hand will attain and he will find sufficient for his redemption.”

And we expound:

“And his

hand”

that is

the hand of himself,

the redeemer himself, to teach:

“He will find,” and it implies that he found, after he sold his field, something new with which to redeem it, to teach:

which implies that after he sold his field he found something new with which to redeem it, teaches:

excluding what is available

to him at the time of the sale,

that he may not sell

a field that belonged to him at the time of the sale

in the far place

from his place,

and redeem in the near place

to his place; and likewise he may not sell

in a bad one

that belonged to him,

and redeem in a good one

that he sold.

“Sufficient for his redemption,”

to teach:

sufficient for his redemption

that is, everything that he sold—

he redeems it, and he does not redeem in halves

of what he sold.

And we wonder:

Does this mean that “he found” now implies

as you expounded, excluding what was available from the beginning,

but we oppose it:

It is written: “And when a man goes with his fellow into the forest to cut wood, and his hand is driven back with the axe to cut the tree, and the iron slips from the wood and finds his fellow and he dies, he shall flee to one of these cities and live.” And they expound:

“And finds”

and it implies that the slain person was present when this one raised the axe, to teach:

excluding one who makes himself present

the slain person

himself

after the murderer raised the axe, for the murderer is exempt from exile to the cities of refuge.

From here Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, after the stone left his hand

of the murderer,

the other brought out

the murdered man

his head and received it, he is exempt! Evidently,

on the contrary,

“and finds” means something that was present from the beginning

it implies, whereas concerning redemption we expound the opposite?!

that, whereas with regard to redemption the opposite interpretation is given?!

And we answer:

Rava said: Here,

concerning redemption,

from the subject matter of the verse

we learn to interpret “and he finds” as implying now;

and here,

concerning exile,

from the subject matter of the verse

we learn to interpret “and he finds” as implying from the beginning!

Here,

concerning redemption:

it is analogous to “his hand attained”

and it implies,

just as “his hand attained”

is “now,”

for at the time of the sale he did not have money with which to redeem it, for it is written, “When your brother becomes poor and sells some of his holding,”

so too “he found” also means “now”

it implies.

And here,

concerning exile:

“he found” is analogous to

“when he goes with his fellow into the

“forest,”

and it implies:

Just as “forest” is something that was present from the beginning, so “he found” is something that was present from the beginning.

We learned in the Mishna:

And with consecrated property

he is permitted in all of them.

From where are these matters?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is written concerning a consecrated holding-field:

“And if he surely redeems”

the field, the one who consecrated it, and so on,

it teaches: He may borrow and redeem, and he may redeem in halves 27.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

that with consecrated property he may borrow and redeem, and redeem in halves, and in this it differs from a sale?

Because we find that with one who sells a holding-field the power of the owner is superior,

of the owner,

for if the Jubilee arrives and it was not redeemed

from the purchaser,

it returns to the owners at the Jubilee,

therefore

his power is weakened, so that he may not borrow and redeem, and may not redeem in halves,

since even if he does not redeem it, it will return to him.

But one who consecrates a holding-field, since his power is weakened

in one matter,

for if the Jubilee arrives and it was not redeemed,

the field

goes to the priests

and does not return to the owners, therefore

his power is superior

in another matter,

that he may borrow and redeem, and may redeem in halves.