Arakhin 30b (ל:) — the Talmud in English

And

Abaye said:

I am

proud in my place, where I live, that I am a preacher and well versed,

like ben Azzai,

who was proud

in the marketplaces of Tiberias,

saying: “All the Sages of Israel are before me like the peel of a garlic.”

And

a certain scholar said to Abaye,

and wondered:

Since these verses, “the money of his purchase” and “according to his years,” one of which indicates that the calculation is made according to the time of his purchase and not according to his present value, while the other indicates that the calculation is made according to his present value—

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—

it is possible to interpret them

as always going

leniently

for the redeemer;

and it is possible

also

to interpret them

the opposite way, so that one always goes

stringently

for the redeemer: If the slave has appreciated, the calculation is made according to his present value, and if he has depreciated, the calculation is made according to the time of his purchase.

From where

do we know that

we interpret the verses leniently

for the redeemer? Perhaps say that we interpret them stringently for the redeemer?!

Abaye replied to that scholar:

It should not enter your mind

to interpret the verse stringently against the redeeming slave, for it is reasonable to be lenient with the slave “in his redemption,”

since the Merciful One was lenient with him

regarding the slave “in his labor,” as

it is taught in a beraita: “For it is good for you

[for the slave sold to an Israelite]

with you

[with the master],” and it is expounded:

“With you,”

the slave shall be with his master

in food, with you in drink. You shall not

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 on woolen cushions

of wool,

while he sleeps on the ground. From here they said: Whoever acquires a Hebrew slave acquires a master for himself!”

And we challenge this:

On the contrary,

let us interpret the verse stringently and

be stringent with him,

the slave, for he is certainly wicked!

As is evident from the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

For Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Come and see how severe

the punishment of

even the dust

[the peripheral aspect, and not the essence of the prohibition]

of the Sabbatical year is. If a person engages in commerce with Sabbatical-year produce,

which is prohibited for commercial purposes,

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

nearby:

“And when you sell anything to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow,”

and this acquisition refers to movable property, as “from the hand of your fellow”

means an item acquired from hand to hand,

teaching that if you do not observe the mitzva of the Jubilee [in which commerce is prohibited, as in the Sabbatical year], by selling an item and making a purchase that I prohibited in the Jubilee, you will ultimately sell your merchandise and all your household utensils [Rashi, Kiddushin 20a].

And if

he does not take heed,

if the merchant is not shaken into turning back from the transgression after selling his movable property, but persists in his rebellion and continues trading in Sabbatical-year produce,

ultimately he sells his fields, as it is stated

adjacent to the passage concerning the sale of movable property:

“And if your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral holding.”

Repentance does not come to him,

meaning that no thought of repentance comes to the sinful merchant [Rashi, Kiddushin 20a], for it does not even occur to him that he has committed a transgression, and he persists in his rebellion,

until he sells his house, as it is stated

adjacent to the passage concerning the sale of an ancestral field:

“And if a man sells a residential house in a walled city.”

The Gemara explains the beraita incidentally and asks:

What is different there,

at the beginning of the beraita,

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

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

and what is different here,

at the end of the beraita,

where it says: “Repentance does not come to him,”

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

The Gemara answers: At the beginning, when he has still transgressed only once, it says: “He does not take heed.” But at the end of the beraita, after he has transgressed and repeated the transgression [for he has already been punished by selling his movable property, and also by selling his fields], it says: “Repentance does not come to him,”

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

And the Gemara explains:

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

that it is actually permitted to him?!

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

and “repentance does not come to him,” for he no longer recognizes that it is a transgression.

The Gemara returns to the substance of the beraita of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

Repentance does not come to him

after he has already been punished by selling his movable property, his fields, and his house, while he nevertheless continues trading 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.”

The Gemara wonders, while explaining the beraita incidentally:

And although his daughter

who is sold

in this context

—the context of commerce and the sale of his movable property and all the rest—

is not mentioned

in the Torah, how do we know that he will come to sell his daughter as a maidservant?!

The Gemara explains: Since immediately adjacent to the passage concerning the sale of a house in a walled city the Torah wrote the prohibition against lending with interest, it is certain that he first sold his daughter as a maidservant, for

it is preferable

for him

for a person to sell his daughter

[whom he sells as a maidservant]

rather than to lend with interest

[to borrow with interest].

And the reason is:

For there,

in the sale of his daughter as a maidservant, since a Hebrew maidservant is redeemed from her master through a reduction of money, if he comes to redeem her immediately, he returns to the master all the money paid for her. But if, after some time, he comes to redeem her, he deducts from the amount the master paid for her for each year that has passed, according to the division of the purchase price between the sale and the time when she is due to leave him upon reaching adolescence. Thus the principal in the father’s possession

decreases continually

[it becomes progressively smaller].

Whereas here,

in a loan with interest,

it increases continually

[the principal he received from the lender becomes progressively larger through the additional interest].

The Gemara returns to the substance of the beraita of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

Repentance does not come to him

even after he has sold his daughter, while he nevertheless continues trading in Sabbatical-year produce,

ultimately

[the text should read: “until,” Rashi, Kiddushin 20a]

he borrows with interest

23, as it is stated

adjacent to the passage concerning the sale of his house:

“And if your brother becomes poor

and his means fail with you, and you shall support him, and so on,”

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

Repentance does not come to him

even after he has borrowed with interest,

ultimately

[the text should read: “until,” Rashi, Kiddushin 20a]

he sells himself

as a slave,

as it is stated

adjacent to the passage concerning interest:

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

[to an Israelite].

And not to you,

meaning that sometimes he will not merit being sold to you,

but rather to a ger,

which is a far greater degradation, for he works for a ger—Rabbeinu Gershom—

as it is stated

in the passage adjacent to the one concerning a person who sells himself to an Israelite: “And if a resident ger becomes wealthy with you, and your brother becomes poor with him and is sold

to a ger

and so on,”

and not

that he is sold

to a righteous convert, but rather to a resident ger! As it is stated: “He shall be sold to a resident ger

and so on,

a resident ger

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

“family of a ger,” meaning an idolater, when he

[the verse]

says: “or to the root of a family”—this is one who is sold and becomes a servant to idolatry

[which is destined to be uprooted—Tosafot]

itself.

That is, sometimes he will even be sold to serve idolatry. And from the beraita of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, that scholar raised an objection to Abaye: Since one who is sold to an Israelite or to an idolater does so because he traded in Sabbatical-year produce, it follows that we should interpret the verses stringently against the slave and make his redemption more burdensome?

The Gemara answers:

He said to him,

Abaye:

The verse restored him,

teaching that they should have compassion on the slave, although he was wicked.

For the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

One might have said:

Since this man went and became a priest of idolatry,

having been sold to the “root,” which is idolatry itself, therefore

let us cast a stone

[throw a stone]

after one who has fallen,

and not redeem him ever?

The verse therefore states

in that passage:

“He shall have redemption; one of his brothers shall redeem him,”

showing that the Torah commanded that compassion be shown on him, and since this is so, the verses are interpreted leniently regarding his redemption.

The Gemara challenges this:

Perhaps say

[that it means]: Although the Torah commanded

“He shall have redemption,”

this is in order

that he not become assimilated

[become assimilated], the slave

among the idolaters, but, with regard to

the amount of

his redemption, we should be stringent,

so that he always pays according to the higher value?

The Gemara answers: Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said another reason to interpret the verses as we did—that “the money of his purchase” refers to a case in which he appreciated and he pays only according to the time of his purchase, while “according to his years” refers to a case in which he depreciated and he pays according to his years: Since

it is written: “If there are still many years

”—meaning: If many days remain in the years until the Jubilee, “according to them he shall pay his redemption from the money of his purchase”—

and it is written: “But if few years remain,”

meaning: If few days remain in the years until the Jubilee, “he shall calculate for himself according to his years and pay his redemption”—

are there many years

[in terms of days, relative to the other years],

and few years

in terms of days, relative to the other years, so that the Torah would say that if many years remain until the Jubilee he pays more, while if few days remain he pays less?!

Rather,

this is the meaning of the verses: “If there are still many years”—if

his money has increased

and the slave’s value in the years in which he now stands, at the time of his redemption, is greater than his value at the time of the purchase, then “according to them he shall pay his redemption”

“from the money of his purchase,”

and not according to what he is worth now. “But if few years remain”—if

his money has decreased

in the years in which he now stands, then

“according to his years,”

the years in which he now stands, he shall pay his redemption.

The Gemara challenges this:

But perhaps

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

where he worked two

years for his master

and four

[years] remained,

four

[years] until the Jubilee—then

he should pay him

[return to him]

four from the money of his purchase,

calculating the money of his purchase as divided among six years, and returning four portions for the four years that he did not work. And

where he worked

the slave

four

years for his master

and two

only a few years, namely

two

years, remained, regarding this the Torah says: “But if few years remain”:

he should pay him two, according to his years,

the few years that remained for him. Thus the verse comes only to say that he always pays according to the number of years remaining to him, whether many or few, and does not refer to whether the slave appreciated or depreciated?

The Gemara answers:

If so, it should have written: “If there are still many years,”

and “if few years remain”;

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

It must mean:

His money increased in the years

in which he now stands at the time of redemption—meaning that the slave appreciated; then he pays

“from the money of his purchase,”

and if

his money decreased in these years

—meaning that the slave depreciated—then he pays

“according to his years,”

the years in which he now stands.

Rav Yosef said

and praised Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman interpreted these verses

like Sinai!

We learned in the Mishna:

He may not sell a distant field

and redeem a nearby one; [he may not sell] an inferior one and redeem a superior one; he may not borrow money and redeem; and he may not redeem in installments.

The Gemara asks:

From where are these matters [derived]?

The Gemara answers:

For the Sages taught:

It is written in the passage concerning the redemption of an ancestral field: “And his means suffice and he finds enough for its redemption.”

And we expound:

“And his

hand”

means

his own hand

of the redeemer, teaching:

“that he may not borrow and redeem. ‘And he finds,’

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

except for something already available

to him at the time of the sale,

that he may not sell

a field that he possessed at the time of the sale

in a distant place

from his location

and redeem a nearby one

to his location. And likewise he may not sell

an inferior field

that he possessed

and redeem a superior one

that he sold.

“Enough for its redemption,”

teaches:

“Enough for its redemption”

—that is, everything that he sold—

he redeems, but he does not redeem in installments

of what he sold.

The Gemara asks:

Does this imply that “he finds” now means

—as you expounded, “except for something that was available from the outset”—

but we raise a contradiction:

It is written: “And when a man goes with his fellow into the forest to cut wood, and his hand is thrust out with the ax 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 it is expounded:

“And finds”

means that the victim was already present when the other raised the ax, teaching:

except for one who causes

[the victim]

himself

to be present after the killer raised the ax; in that case the killer is exempt from exile to the cities of refuge.

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

of the killer,

the other brought out

[the victim]

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

on the contrary,

“he finds” refers to something that was present from the outset

and means

that, whereas regarding redemption you expound it in the opposite manner?!

The Gemara answers:

Rava said: Here,

with regard to redemption,

the subject matter of the verse

teaches us to interpret “he finds” as referring to the present;

whereas here,

with regard to exile,

the subject matter of the verse

teaches us to interpret “he finds” as referring to the outset.

Here,

with regard to redemption:

It is analogous to “his hand suffices.”

This implies:

Just as “his hand suffices”

“now”

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

so too, “he finds” means “now,”

as well.

But here,

with regard to exile:

“He finds” is analogous to

“when he comes with his fellow into the

“forest,”

which implies:

Just as “forest” refers to something that was present from the outset, so too “he finds” refers to something that was present from the outset.

We learned in the Mishna:

But with regard to consecrated property

he is permitted in all these matters.

From where are these matters [derived]?

The Gemara answers:

For the Sages taught:

It is written with regard to a consecrated ancestral field:

“And if he surely redeems”

the field that he consecrated, and so on.

This teaches that he may borrow and redeem, and he may redeem in installments 27.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason

that with regard to consecrated property he may borrow and redeem, and redeem in installments, unlike the case of a sale?

Because we find that, with regard to one who sells an ancestral field, the owner’s power is enhanced,

of the owner,

for if the Jubilee arrives and it has not been redeemed

from the purchaser,

it returns to the owners at the Jubilee.

Therefore,

his power is diminished, in that he may not borrow and redeem, and he may not redeem in installments,

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

But one who consecrates an ancestral field, since his power is diminished

in one respect,

for if the Jubilee arrives and it has not been redeemed, the field leaves

the owner and goes

to the priests

and does not return to the owners, therefore

his power is enhanced

in another respect:

he may borrow and redeem, and he may redeem in installments.