Kiddushin 20b — the Talmud in English

This is one sold for idol worship itself,

to chop wood for it, and likewise for its other needs. ,

This concludes the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina, which “one of the Rabbis” brought in order to ask against Abaye: Why should we not say that there is reason to be stringent with the slave and increase the money of his redemption, so that he will be unable to go free, as punishment for having traded in the produce of the Sabbatical year?!

He said to him,

Abaye answered:

There,

after it was stated in the Torah that one who trades in the produce of the Sabbatical year is punished and in the end is sold for idol worship,

the verse restored him,

for the verse caused all Israel to return to having compassion on him, as follows:

For the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught: Since this one went and became a priest for idol worship,

having been sold to serve it,

I might say: Let one push away a stone after the fallen one,

I could say that it is proper to push away a stone after the fallen one and not raise him up, so that he should never be redeemed.

The verse therefore says,

for this reason it was stated:

“After he has been sold, redemption [ [A0020]]redemption ]

[release]

shall be for him; one of his brothers shall redeem him.”

From here you learn that although he was sold for idol worship, he has redemption.

And since the verse had compassion on him despite the fact that he traded in the produce of the Sabbatical year and was even sold for idol worship itself, if so, it is proper to be lenient with him also concerning the case in which he increased in value or deteriorated: he pays his redemption according to the lenient side.

And we raise an objection against Abaye’s answer:

But say,

say that the reason that

“redemption shall be for him”,

is

so that [ [A0030]]in order

[so that]

that he not become assimilated among the idol worshippers,

and not because it is proper to be lenient with the slave.

As for the matter of

the money of the

redemption

of the slave—

we shall be stringent with him

to make him pay as much as possible,

because

of the

words

of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina,

for he traded in the produce of the Sabbatical year!

And by force of this difficulty the Gemara rejects Abaye’s answer and brings another answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Two verses are written,

two verses were stated concerning the redemption of a slave:

a.

It is written [Leviticus 25:51]:

“If there are still many years”

—according to them he shall return his redemption money ‘from the money of his purchase.’”

—according to them he shall return his redemption money, from the money for which he was purchased.”

b.

And it is written

[there, 52]:

“And if few years remain”

—according to the “years” he shall return his redemption.

In the preceding verse [verse 50] it was stated: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser [how many years there are] from the year of his being sold to him until the year of the Jubilee.”

And concerning this the verse said [in verse 51]: “If there are still many years”—if there are many years among those years mentioned in the preceding verse, the years from the year of the sale until the year of the Jubilee. And the question is asked: An Israelite slave is sold only for six years, no fewer and no more,

and is there

in an Israelite slave a concept of

“many years”

and “

few years”?!

How is it possible that there should be an increase in the years of the slave’s sale beyond six years?

Rather,

necessarily, the increase and decrease mentioned here are not an increase and decrease in the years, and this is how the verse should be explained:

Verse 51: “If there are still many years”—if he increased in value and

his money increased,

and from now on each year is worth more, then—“according to them he shall return his redemption

from the money of his purchase.”

The redemption shall be according to the money of his sale and not according to the amount the slave is presently worth.

Verse 52: “And if few years remain”—if he deteriorated and

his money decreased,

and from now on each year is worth less. Then—

“according to his years

he shall return his redemption.” The redemption shall be according to the value of his years of service today, and not according to the money of his sale.

And we raise an objection against Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s answer is based on the fact that it is impossible to explain the verse according to its plain meaning, since an increase in years is not applicable, and one is compelled to remove the verse from its plain meaning and explain that the increase and decrease are an increase and decrease in his money.

And it is difficult: The verse can be reconciled according to its plain meaning.

But say, this is what it is saying,

and let us say that this is what the verse intended to say:

The verse is not referring to the years that have passed from the year of the sale until now, but to the years that remain from the time of the redemption onward, and this is what the verse said: “

If there are still many years,” meaning:

Where he worked two, and four remain.

In a case where the slave has already worked two years and he has another four years remaining until the end of his six years of servitude, then “he shall return his redemption from the money of his purchase.” That is,

he shall give him four

he shall return to his master the money for four years

from the money of his purchase. “And

if few years remain,” if

he worked four [ [A0101]]four years ],

[four years]

and two remain for him,

and he has another two years remaining until the end of his years of servitude, then

he shall give him two

he shall return to his master the money for two years,

“according to his years.”

And according to this, the verse speaks neither of a slave who improved nor of a slave whose value decreased.

And if so, it is difficult: From where did the tannai learn that one is always lenient with the slave, to make him pay as little as possible?

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak answers: If indeed the verse were referring to the years remaining from the year of the redemption until the end of six years,

then

it would have been proper that it

write [ [A0114]]that it write

[say]

in the verse: “If there are still many ‘years’” [and not “in years”], meaning that many years remain. And likewise—

“if few ‘years’ remain” [and not “in years”],

meaning that few years remain !!

What is the meaning of “in years”?

What is the intention of the expression “in years”? —

Necessarily, this is the intention of the verse: “If there are still many years,” if

his money increased through the years

because he improved, then his redemption is

“from the money of his purchase,”

and not according to the value of the years now. “And

if few years remain,” if

his money decreased through the years

because his value decreased, then his redemption is

“according to his years”—

according to what the years are worth at the time of the redemption.

And Rav Yosef praises Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s answer:

Rav Yosef said: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak expounded these verses like Sinai,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak expounded the verses correctly, and it is as though we received this from our teachers as a law given to Moses at Sinai.

The Gemara now brings four problems [questions] that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana asked Rav Sheshet concerning the laws of redemption [redemption] mentioned in the Torah.

Two of the problems concern the redemption of a slave, and two of the problems concern the redemption of houses in walled cities. [

and

a mnemonic

will be for you in order to remember the problems in their order:

a.

Slave

b.

House—

The first two questions concern redemption by

halves.

c.

House

d.

Slave—

The last two questions concern redemption by

relatives.]

The first problem:

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana asked [ [A0154]]asked

[he asked]

Rav Sheshet:

An Israelite slave sold to an idol worshipper,

who does not have the means to pay the entire money of his redemption—does he

become redeemed by halves?

Can he give his master half his value, and thereby reduce in that redemption half the number of years of his service [for example, if he had another five years of work remaining and he paid his master half his value, his years of servitude were thereby reduced, and he had only two and a half years of work remaining]?

Or does he not become redeemed by halves,

so that there is no possibility of redeeming him by giving half his value? Now, according to both sides of the uncertainty, the slave is not freed now, for he paid only for half the years.

And conversely, even if we say that the slave does not become redeemed by halves, certainly that money which the slave gave his master for the redemption of half his years of service does not become acquired by the master as a gift; rather, it lies as a deposit in his possession until half his years pass, and at that time the slave will be redeemed with that money.

And Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana’s uncertainty is: Does the redemption of half his years take effect already now [when the slave gives half his value], or will the redemption take effect only afterward, when half his years have passed?

And the practical difference in this question is when a change occurs in the price of the slave after the slave gave his master half his value.

If we say that the redemption of half his years takes effect already when the slave gave his master half his value, the change in price does not affect him, since his release from half his years of service had already taken effect when he gave the money.

But if we say that the redemption did not take effect at the time the money was given, but only after half his years have passed, the price of the redemption changes according to the change in the price of the slave.

And in this matter there is a side of leniency and a side of stringency, as will be explained below in the Gemara, at length. And this is the explanation of the sides of the uncertainty: One who sells his ancestral field to his fellow can redeem it from his possession immediately.

As it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “And his hand attains, and he finds enough for his redemption. And he shall return to his ancestral land.”

And an ancestral field certainly does not become redeemed by halves, for it is stated [in the aforementioned verse]: “And his hand attains, and he finds enough for his redemption.”

And it implies that if he did not attain all the money “enough for his redemption,” he cannot redeem the field by halves.

But concerning the redemption of an Israelite slave sold to a gentile, “enough for his redemption” was not stated; rather, it was stated only [there]: “He shall return his redemption,” and there is no proof from this verse that the slave does not become redeemed by halves.

Therefore one must be uncertain: On the one hand, it is possible to say that an Israelite slave also does not become redeemed by halves, since

“his redemption, his redemption”

from the ancestral field—we derive.

That is, the laws of the redemption of the slave should be learned from the redemption of an ancestral field by a gzera shava, because “his redemption” is stated concerning both of them. Therefore, just as a field does not become redeemed by halves, so too the slave does not become redeemed by halves.

Or perhaps,

perhaps we should say the opposite side: Since concerning a slave who improved or whose value decreased, in his redemption we proceed to be lenient with the slave, also concerning redemption by halves we should not fully compare him to an ancestral field, but rather

we say [this] for leniency.

that is, only with regard to the lenient side

of the matter do we say that the slave, too, is not redeemed in halves.

But

with regard to stringency —

we do not say so.

As for the stringent side of the matter,

we do not derive the law of a slave from the law of a field of ancestral holding.

He said to him:

Rav Sheshet answered Rav Huna bar Hinena: [b] Apparently because of this difficulty, Rashba explains Rashi’s words differently: if the gezera shava was indeed accepted, certainly we would derive from it both for a leniency and for a stringency. Rather, Rav Huna bar Hinena is uncertain about this very matter—whether the gezera shava, “his redemption, his redemption,” was accepted. The first side: the gezera shava was accepted both for a leniency and for a stringency. The second side: the gezera shava was not accepted at all, and from reasoning we say that he is redeemed in halves, since Scripture was lenient with the Hebrew slave with regard to a slave who became cheaper or more expensive. And all this is when redemption in halves is a leniency, but with regard to a stringency he is not redeemed in halves [just as we found with regard to a slave who became more expensive or cheaper]. However, Ramban argues against this explanation: according to this explanation, when the Gemara says, “Perhaps we say it for a leniency, but we do not say it for a stringency,” this is not an attribution of a reason why we do not derive “his redemption,” “his redemption,” by a gezera shava. And this is difficult: the Gemara ought to have given a reason why we do not derive the gezera shava; or it should have said, “Where it was revealed, it was revealed; where it was not revealed, it was not revealed,” as below in the Gemara! [That is: just as the first side—“he derived ‘his redemption,’ ‘his redemption’”—is an explanation and an attribution of a reason, so too the opposing second side in the Gemara must contain an explanation and an attribution of a reason opposed to the first side, and it does not come to state the law itself. Whereas according to Rashba’s explanation, the Gemara lacks a reason opposed to what was said on the first side, namely, that we derive by a gezera shava, “his redemption,” “his redemption”]. [c] In another manner, Rashi’s interpretation can be reconciled in its plain sense on the basis of the words of Rabbeinu Tam in Tosafot [and according to this, Ramban’s difficulty is resolved]: “his redemption,” “his redemption,” is not a complete gezera shava; rather, this is merely a clarification of the expression [that is: it is reasonable that “his redemption,” mentioned with regard to a slave, is like “his redemption,” mentioned with regard to a field of ancestral holding. But this is not a gezera shava accepted as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, that one matter is derived from the other]. Therefore, Rav Huna bar Hinena was uncertain whether, from reasoning, one should say that specifically with regard to a leniency it is proper to derive “his redemption” of the slave from “his redemption” of the field of ancestral holding, but with regard to a stringency one should not say this—just as we found with regard to a slave who became more expensive or cheaper. [From Rashi below, 21a, s.v. O dilma, it is implied that “his redemption,” “his redemption,” is a gezera shava and not a clarification of the expression, but Maharit there maintains that Rashi’s view is that this is a clarification of the expression, and it can be reconciled]. [d] According to the last interpretation, this is difficult: why was Rav Huna bar Hinena uncertain only whether we derive “his redemption,” “his redemption,” from the field of ancestral holding at all? As he was uncertain below with regard to houses of walled cities? See Rashash and Lechem Mishneh there. For additional explanations of Rav Huna bar Hinena’s question, see Ramban and Ritba].

A thief who has no possibility of paying for the theft—the court sells him as a slave, as it is stated [Exodus 22]: “If he has no [possibility of paying], he shall be sold for his theft.”

And we learned in a beraita above [18a] that if the theft was five hundred zuz, while the thief is worth one thousand zuz, he is not sold, because it is stated, “he shall be sold.” And it implies: all of him shall be sold, and not only half of him.

And Rav Sheshet proves from that beraita that even with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave sold to an idolater, he is not redeemed in halves: for

did you not say there

that this is what you said in the discussion there [above, 18a]: “

and

he shall be sold”—

all of him and not half of him.

And if so,

so too,

also with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave from his non-Jewish master, one should expound the verse in the same manner, for it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “or his hand reaches, and he is redeemed.”

And it implies:

he is entirely redeemed, and not half of him!

And from here it follows that a Hebrew slave sold to an idolater is not redeemed in halves.

Abaye explains what the practical difference is in Rav Huna bar Hinena’s uncertainty, if we say that a slave is redeemed in halves: And this is difficult: seemingly, there is an obvious practical difference in the matter—if the slave gave the master half his value and then wished to retract and demanded that the master return the money to him, without his going free, and the master refused, then, if we say that the slave is redeemed in halves, his redemption has already taken effect and he cannot retract; but if we say that he is not redeemed in halves, he is able to retract! One may answer: it would have been proper to compel the slave to redeem himself if he has money, because of the family’s disgrace; except that we do not compel him to do so because he is able to retract and redeem himself later. But when the slave has already given the money of his redemption to the master, he certainly cannot retract because of the family’s disgrace, even if redemption in halves has not taken effect. [Hamakneh, s.v. Mishkahat lah, at the end of his words, based on the Gemara above, 18a; and see there further].

Abaye said: If you should determine to say

that a Hebrew slave

is redeemed in halves,

you find it

you find a practical difference in this matter both

for a leniency and

both

for a stringency— However, Rambam [Slaves 2:7] ruled that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile is redeemed in halves. Kesef Mishneh wrote that according to Rambam, Abaye disagrees with Rav Sheshet’s conclusion. Lechem Mishneh there added that according to Abaye we do not derive “his redemption,” “his redemption,” from the field of ancestral holding at all, even as a leniency. [Rather, one finds a case both for a leniency and for a stringency in which he is redeemed in halves]. [The later authorities were astonished by Rambam’s words and expanded on their explanation; see their words, and see Meiri].

You find it

for a leniency—

When

he bought him,

if the master bought the slave

for one hundred

zuz, and

he gave him,

and the slave subsequently gave him

fifty

zuz, which are

half the value,

half his value.

And

afterward

he increased in value,

the slave became more valuable,

and reached

two hundred,

his price stood at a value of two hundred zuz for his remaining years of labor.

If you say

that the slave

is redeemed in halves,

it follows that the redemption of half of him has already taken effect through the fifty zuz.

And if the slave wishes to complete his redemption money and go free now, he has only the price of his second half left to pay at the time of the increase in price.

Therefore,

he gives him one hundred

zuz,

and goes out.

The slave gives his master one hundred zuz, as the value of half his years now, and goes free. It follows that altogether this slave gives the master 150 zuz for his redemption.

And if you say

that

the slave does not

redeem himself

in halves,

it follows that the redemption did not take effect at all. Therefore, if the slave wishes to complete his redemption money and go free now, he must pay 200 zuz, according to what he is now worth for the labor of his remaining years.

And since the fifty zuz that he initially gave him are now in the master’s possession as a deposit—

he gives him one hundred and fifty, and goes out.

He thus gives his master 150 zuz, in addition to the fifty zuz that he gave initially; and since he has now paid the entire value of his labor, he goes free.

And it follows that altogether he gave the master 200 zuz for his redemption.

Before Abaye managed to finish his words, the Gemara immediately raised an objection to his words:

But you said,

for we learned in the beraita above that if the slave increased in value and

his money increased [the slave’s value], they calculate the money of his redemption

according to

the money of his purchase,

and not according to his present value!

And if so, whether we say that the slave is redeemed in halves or whether he is not redeemed in halves, he must add only another fifty zuz, since he was purchased for only one hundred zuz!

And the Gemara answers Abaye’s words:

Here it is speaking of a different situation: of a slave

whose price rose,

whose purchase price at the outset, at the time of the sale, was high—two hundred zuz—

and

afterward

fell,

the slave’s price became cheaper and stood at one hundred zuz, and the slave came to redeem half of himself for fifty zuz, according to his years; but he did not manage to complete his entire redemption before he again

became expensive,

and stood at two hundred zuz, as much as he had been worth at the time of his sale.

Therefore, if we say that a slave is redeemed in halves, half of him was already redeemed for fifty, and at the time of the increase in price he has only the price of half of him left to pay. Therefore, he adds one hundred zuz, since both “the money of his purchase” and “according to his years” are two hundred zuz.

But if we say that the slave is not redeemed in halves, it follows that the redemption did not take effect at all, and he must complete 150 zuz and redeem himself for two hundred zuz.

And after the Gemara answered the difficulty against Abaye from the beraita, the Gemara continues to bring the continuation of Abaye’s words, to explain what the stringent side of the matter is according to the side that a slave is redeemed in halves:

You find it for a stringency,

you find stringency in the matter when

he bought him for two hundred—

He gives one hundred, half the value.

And he became cheaper.

If the master bought the slave for two hundred zuz, and afterward the slave gave him one hundred zuz in order to redeem half of himself, and afterward the slave deteriorated,

and reached

and his price stood

at one hundred

zuz.

If you say

that the

slave is redeemed in halves,

it follows that the slave acquired half of his years of labor through those one hundred zuz that he gave the master for the redemption of half of himself, and the master acquired those one hundred zuz for himself.

And now, if the slave comes to redeem his second half, he must pay the master another fifty zuz [half of one hundred] for his second half.

And if you say there is no

slave

redeemed in halves,

it follows that the master did not acquire those one hundred zuz at all, for the redemption did not take effect through them.

And if so,

these one hundred are a deposit in his possession.

Those one hundred zuz are a deposit in the master’s possession.

Therefore,

he gives them to him, and goes out.

The slave can now transfer them to the master and go completely free, for now the slave in his entirety is worth only one hundred zuz. And for a slave whose value has decreased, they calculate for him according to his years [as he is worth now].

Rav Huna bar Hinena’s second problem:

he asked him

[he asked]

Rav Huna bar Hinena asked Rav Sheshet: [a] One who sells a field of ancestral holding [a field that comes to him as an inheritance from his forefathers who inherited the Land] cannot redeem it until two years have passed from the sale. From then onward, if his hand reaches, he redeems it, and calculates according to the money he received how much it costs for each year. If he does not have money sufficient for his redemption, he does not borrow and redeem, and he is not redeemed in halves. But his relatives can redeem the field. [b] One who sells a house among the houses of walled cities [in a city surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua son of Nun] may redeem it until twelve months from day to day have passed from the day of the sale. When he redeems it, he deducts nothing; rather, he pays the entire purchase price in full. If he did not redeem it within twelve months, the house is permanently confirmed to the buyer. It does not return at the Jubilee. [That is: if the Jubilee occurs within a year of the sale, it does not return to the seller; rather, it remains in the buyer’s possession until he wishes to redeem it within the year or until it becomes permanently confirmed to the seller. Likewise, if the Jubilee occurs after a year, the house has already become permanently confirmed to the buyer and never leaves his possession]. The discussion before us considers whether one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities may borrow and redeem, and whether it is redeemed in halves. And whether it is redeemed by relatives. [c] One who consecrates a field of ancestral holding: its redemption measure is fifty silver shekels for a field containing the measure required for sowing a homer of barley seed, and he may redeem it immediately [and need not wait two years like one who sells a field of ancestral holding]. If he does not have money, he borrows and redeems, and it is redeemed in halves. If the field was not redeemed by him or by his son until the Jubilee, then it is divided among the kohanim at the Jubilee [and they give money for the repair of the Temple so that people will not say that consecrated property leaves without redemption. But if the treasurer sold it to another and the owners did not redeem it, it is divided among the kohanim at the Jubilee and they need not give money for the repair of the Temple]. [d] One who sells a house among the houses of the open settlements [that is, in a city not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua] has the same law as a field of ancestral holding with regard to the fact that he may redeem it until the Jubilee, does not borrow and redeem, is not redeemed in halves, and is redeemed by relatives. But he has a greater right than a field of ancestral holding in one matter: in a field of ancestral holding he may not redeem it until two years have passed from the sale, whereas in the houses of the open settlements he may redeem it immediately. [From Meiri, based on the words of the Gemara in tractate Arakhin, and as follows from the discussion of the Gemara and Rashi here].

in tractate Arakhin, and as also emerges from the discussion of the and Rashi here.]

One who sells

to his fellow

a house among the houses of walled cities,

to whom the Torah gave the right to redeem the house until a year from the time of the sale—does that house

become redeemed in halves

if the seller gave the buyer half the value of the house within the year, does half of the house become redeemed,

or is it not redeemed in halves?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

One side: A hereditary field is not redeemed by halves, as it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “according to the measure of its redemption.” But regarding houses in walled cities it is stated: “its redemption shall be for a year.”

And therefore one can say:

“Its redemption, its redemption”—from a hereditary field the matter is derived.

They learn the law of “its redemption” stated regarding houses in walled cities from “its redemption” stated regarding a hereditary field:

What

just as

a hereditary field is not redeemed by halves, so too

also a house in cities surrounded by a wall

is not redeemed by halves!

The other side:

Or perhaps

perhaps

where it was revealed, it was revealed;

where it was not revealed, it was not revealed.

Only regarding a hereditary field, in which the verse revealed that there is no redemption by halves, did it reveal that there is no redemption by halves.

But regarding houses in walled cities, in which the verse did not reveal this, we do not learn from a hereditary field; rather, it is redeemed by halves.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet answered Rav Huna bar Hinena:

From the exposition of Rabbi Shimon,

which will be brought below,

it is heard that

the law of houses in walled cities differs from the law of a hereditary field in two matters:

a. One who sells a house among the houses in walled cities, and does not have money to redeem it,

borrows

money from other people

and redeems

the house with it.

This is not so with a hereditary field: if the seller does not have money of his own, he cannot redeem the field with money that he obtains through a loan, because it is stated regarding a hereditary field [there]: “his hand reaches it.”

b. One who sells a hereditary field does not redeem it by halves.

And

if regarding houses in walled cities, the seller

redeems it by halves.

And Rav Sheshet brings the exposition of Rabbi Shimon:

For it was taught:

Regarding one who consecrates a hereditary field it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “And

if he shall indeed redeem

the field.”

The repetition of the words [“indeed redeem”]

teaches that he borrows and redeems.

And also that he

redeems it by halves.

From here, the law of one who consecrates a hereditary field differs from the law of one who sells a hereditary field.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason?

Why did the verse change the law of one who consecrates from the law of one who sells?

The reason for the matter is that the Torah wanted the hereditary property not to be removed from the heirs’ possession—

since we find regarding one who sells a hereditary field that his power is enhanced,

in that his inheritance is never entirely removed from him—

for

indeed,

if the Jubilee arrived

and

it was not redeemed—

it

returns to its owners at the Jubilee.

Therefore, on the other hand,

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

he does not

redeem it by halves.

For the Torah did not need to be lenient with him, since even if he does not redeem the field, in the end it will return to his possession [or to the possession of his heirs, if he dies] at the Jubilee.

But

one who consecrates, whose power is diminished,

because it is possible that his inheritance will be removed from him forever,

for

indeed

if the Jubilee arrived and it was not redeemed,

his field, it

leaves

the authority of the consecrated property and is divided

among the priests at the Jubilee,

and never returns to its owners.

Therefore,

the verse enhanced

the

power

of one who consecrates, by

his borrowing and redeeming, and

also

redeeming it by halves,

so that he can easily return his field to his own authority, and it will not be removed from him forever.

This concludes the exposition of Rabbi Shimon. [Because Rabbi Shimon expounded here the reason for the verse].

And from Rabbi Shimon’s exposition Rav Sheshet proves that one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities also borrows and redeems, and likewise redeems by halves:

For

this seller of a house among the houses in walled cities also,

his power too is diminished, since he can redeem it only during one year; and if he does not redeem it within one year, it remains in the purchaser’s possession forever and does not return to him at the Jubilee like a hereditary field.

And

since his power is diminished, in that if a complete year passes for it and it is not redeemed

from the purchaser, the house is

permanently confirmed

to the purchaser; therefore it is appropriate to be lenient with him and say that

his power is enhanced,

in that

he borrows and redeems, and

likewise he

redeems it by halves. [

Just as Rabbi Shimon said regarding one who consecrates a hereditary field].

He raised an objection to him,

Rav Huna bar Hinena challenged Rav Sheshet’s proof from the words of the following beraita:

For we learned in a beraita:

“If he shall indeed redeem”—

it teaches

the verse

that

one who consecrates his hereditary field

borrows and redeems, and

likewise he

redeems it by halves.

And the beraita explains why the verse needed to teach this: Had the verse not said this, I

could

have said that one who consecrates his hereditary field does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem it by halves,

and is this not a kal va-chomer,

for this can be learned by a kal va-chomer from one who sells a hereditary field:

And if one who sells a hereditary field, whose power is enhanced

in that

if the Jubilee arrived and

the field

was not redeemed,

it

returns to its owners at the Jubilee,

nevertheless

his power is diminished

in that

he does not

himself

borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem it by halves,

one who consecrates

a hereditary field,

whose power is diminished

in that

if the

Jubilee

arrived and it was not redeemed,

it

leaves

his authority and is divided

among the priests at the Jubilee—

and is it

not logically necessary that his power is diminished

also concerning

not borrowing and redeeming, and

not

redeeming it by halves?!

Therefore the verse needed to teach explicitly that one who consecrates borrows and redeems and redeems by halves.

Perhaps you will say: How do we learn the law of one who consecrates from the law of one who sells? Is it not possible to reject the kal va-chomer and say:

What is true of one who sells a field

a hereditary field, who does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves—

this is because

his power is correspondingly diminished

also concerning the fact that he cannot

be redeemed immediately,

for one who sells his field cannot redeem it until it has been in the purchaser’s possession for two years.

Can you say that regarding one who consecrates, whose power is enhanced,

in that it is within his power

to be redeemed

immediately,

and if so, correspondingly his power is also enhanced concerning borrowing and redeeming and redeeming by halves?

And since one cannot prove the law of one who consecrates from the law of one who sells, the difficulty is: Why did the verse need to say regarding one who consecrates, “If he shall indeed redeem,” to teach that one who consecrates borrows and redeems and redeems by halves?

Your answer is:

One who sells a house among the houses in walled cities proves it,

that the law of borrowing and redeeming and redeeming by halves cannot be attributed to the law of immediate redemption:

For

indeed, one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities

has enhanced power

concerning the fact that it is within his power

to be redeemed immediately.

Nevertheless,

he does not

himself

borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem it by halves.

And if so, even one who consecrates a hereditary field, despite the fact that his power is enhanced concerning immediate redemption, nevertheless it is appropriate to say that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

Therefore the verse needed to teach explicitly that one who consecrates his hereditary field borrows and redeems and redeems by halves.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

And from the conclusion of the beraita Rav Huna challenged Rav Sheshet’s words: Rav Sheshet learned from what Rabbi Shimon said regarding one who consecrates his field—that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves—that the same law applies to houses in walled cities.

Whereas in the beraita we learned explicitly that one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

And from here it follows that the law of one who sells houses in walled cities should not be compared to the law of one who consecrates his field!

And Rav Sheshet answers:

There is no difficulty!

According to Rabbi Shimon, indeed there is no distinction between one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities and one who consecrates his field. For the reason that one who consecrates his field borrows and redeems and redeems by halves is that if he does not redeem the field, it will be removed from him forever; and this reason applies also to one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities. Therefore, one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities also borrows and redeems and redeems by halves.

But one can say that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon’s words, since everywhere Rabbi Shimon expounds the reason of the verse, while the Sages disagree with him and hold that one may not expound the reason of a verse on one’s own initiative. And according to the Sages, who do not assign a reason to a verse on our own initiative, there is no logical basis for comparing one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities to one who consecrates a hereditary field [since the reason of the verse concerning one who consecrates a field is not known to us].

And according to the Sages, the law of “its redemption” stated regarding one who sells a house among the houses in walled cities should be learned from the law of “its redemption” stated regarding one who sells a hereditary field.

And according to this, Rav resolves the difficulty against him from the beraita: