Kiddushin 20b (כ:) — the Talmud in English

This is one sold for actual idolatry,

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

This concludes the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, which “one of the Sages” brought in order to question Abaye: Why should we not say that there is reason to be stringent with regard to the slave and increase his redemption price so that he will be unable to go free, as punishment for having engaged in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical year?!

He said to him

—Abaye offered the following answer:

There,

after the Torah stated that one who trades in produce of the Sabbatical year is punished and ultimately sold for idolatry,

the verse restored him,

for the verse caused all of Israel to have compassion on him, as follows:

As the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Since this man went and became a priest for idolatry

—he was sold to serve it—

I might say: Push away a stone after one who has fallen,

that is, I might have said that it is proper to push away a stone after one who has fallen and not raise him up, so that he should never be redeemed.

The verse states,

for this reason it is stated:

“After he is sold, there shall be redemption [

redemption]

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

From here you learn that despite the fact that he was sold for idolatry, he has a means of redemption.

And since the verse had mercy on him despite his having engaged in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical year and even having been sold for actual idolatry, it is therefore appropriate to be lenient with him even with regard to the case where he appreciated or depreciated in value, so that he pays his redemption price in the more lenient manner.

The Gemara raises an objection to Abaye’s answer:

And say

that the reason that

“there shall be redemption for him”

is

so that [

in order]

he will not become assimilated among the idolaters,

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

With regard to

the money of the slave’s

redemption

—

we should be stringent with him

and require him to pay as much as possible,

because of

the

words of

Rabbi

Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina,

as he engaged in commerce with produce of the Sabbatical year!

On the basis of this objection, the Gemara rejects Abaye’s answer and presents 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 yet many years

—according to them he shall return his redemption price ‘from the money for which he was purchased.’” [

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

B]

And it is written

[there, verse 52]:

“But if few years remain

—according to ‘his years’ he shall return his redemption price.”

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

And concerning this the verse said [in verse 51]: “If there are yet 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 arises: An Israelite slave is sold only for six years, neither fewer nor more,

so are there

with regard to an Israelite slave such a concept as

“many years”

and

“few years”?!

How can it be possible for there to be an increase in the years of the slave’s sale beyond six years?

Rather,

necessarily, the increase and decrease mentioned here do not refer to an increase or decrease in the years. The verse must therefore be explained as follows:

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

his money increased,

so that from then onward each year is worth more, then: “According to them he shall return his redemption price

from the money for which he was purchased.”

The redemption payment is to be calculated according to the money of his sale, and not according to the amount that the slave is currently worth.

Verse 52: “But if few years remain”—if he depreciated in value and

his money decreased,

so that from then onward each year is worth less. Then:

“According to his years

he shall return his redemption price,” meaning that the redemption payment is to be calculated according to the present value of his years of service, and not according to the money of his sale.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s answer is based on the premise that it is impossible to interpret the verse according to its straightforward meaning, since an increase in years is not applicable; necessarily, the verse must be removed from its straightforward meaning and explained as referring to an increase or decrease in his monetary value.

But this is difficult: The verse can in fact be reconciled with its straightforward meaning.

And 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 elapsed from the year of the sale until now, but to the years remaining from the time of the redemption onward, and this is what the verse said: “

‘If there are yet many years,’ that is:

where he worked two, and four remain.

In a case where the slave has already worked two years and has four years remaining until the end of his six years of servitude, then ‘he shall return his redemption price from the money for which he was purchased.’ That is,

he shall give him four

—he shall return to his master the value of four years—

from the money for which he was purchased.” “

‘But if few years remain,’ if

he worked four [

four years],

and two remain for him,

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

he shall give him two

—he shall return to his master the value of two years—

‘according to his years.’”

According to this, the verse speaks neither of a slave who appreciated in value nor of a slave whose value depreciated.

If so, this is difficult: From where did the tanna learn that the slave is always treated leniently, so that he pays as little as possible?

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

then

it would have been appropriate for it to

write [

write]

the verse: “If many ‘years’ remain” [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 meaning of the expression “in years”? —

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

his money increased through the years

because he appreciated in value, then his redemption is

“from the money for which he was purchased,”

and not according to the value of the years at present. “

But if few years remain,” if

his money decreased through the years

because his value depreciated, 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 as at Sinai,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak expounded the verses correctly, and it is as though we had received this halakha from our Sages at Sinai.

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

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

And a

sign

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

A.

Slave

B.

House—

The first two questions concern redemption in

halves.

C.

House

D.

Slave—

The last two questions concern redemption by

relatives].

The first problem:

He asked him [

he asked]

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana asked Rav Sheshet:

With regard to an Israelite slave sold to an idolater,

who does not have the means to pay the entire amount of his redemption, is he

redeemed in halves?

Can he give his master half of his value and thereby reduce by half the number of years of his service [for example, if he has five more years of service remaining and he pays his master half his value, are his years of servitude thereby reduced, leaving him with only two and a half years of service remaining]?

Or is he not redeemed in halves,

meaning that it is impossible to redeem him by giving half his value? In either case of the uncertainty, the slave is not released immediately, since he paid only for half the years.

Conversely, even if we say that the slave is not redeemed in halves, certainly the money that the slave gave his master for the redemption of half his years of service does not become the master’s as a gift. Rather, it remains as a deposit in his possession until half of the slave’s years have passed, at which time the slave will be redeemed with that money.

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

The practical difference in this question arises when the slave’s price changes after he has given his master half his value.

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

But if we say that the redemption does not take effect when the money is given, but only after half his years have passed, the redemption price changes in accordance with the change in the slave’s price.

This matter contains a lenient side and a stringent side, as will be explained below in the Gemara at length. This is the explanation of the two sides of the uncertainty: One who sells his ancestral field to another person can redeem it from his possession.

As it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “And if his means suffice, and he finds enough for its redemption, he shall return to his ancestral property.”

And an ancestral field certainly cannot be redeemed in halves, since it is stated [in the cited verse]: “And if his means suffice, and he finds enough for its redemption.”

This indicates that if he did not obtain all the money “enough for its redemption,” he cannot redeem the field in halves.

But with regard to the redemption of an Israelite slave sold to a gentile, it does not say “enough for his redemption”; rather, it says only [there]: “He shall return his redemption price.” There is no proof from this verse that the slave cannot be redeemed in halves.

Therefore the question remains: On the one hand, it is possible to say that an Israelite slave likewise cannot be redeemed in halves, since

“his redemption, his redemption”

from an ancestral field establishes an analogy.

That is, the laws of the redemption of a slave are derived from the redemption of an ancestral field by means of a gzera shava, because “his redemption” is stated with regard to both. Therefore, just as a field cannot be redeemed in halves, so too a slave cannot be redeemed in halves.

Or perhaps,

we should say the opposite: Since, with regard to a slave who appreciated or depreciated in value, his redemption is calculated in the manner lenient for the slave, even with regard to redemption in halves we should not equate him entirely with an ancestral field, but rather

we say this only for leniency.

That is, only with regard to the leniency involved,

we say that the slave, too, is not redeemed in stages.

But

as a stringency—

we do not say so.

With regard to the stringency involved,

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

He said to him:

Rav Sheshet answered Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana:

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

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

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

did you not say there

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

and

he shall be sold”—

in his entirety and not merely half of him.

And if so,

here too,

with regard to the redemption of a Hebrew slave from his gentile master, we should interpret the verse in the same manner, for it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “Or his means suffice, and he shall be redeemed.”

And this implies:

he is redeemed in his entirety, and not merely half of him!

It follows from here that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile is not redeemed in stages.

Abaye explains what practical difference there is in Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana’s uncertainty if we say that a slave is redeemed in stages:

Abaye said: If you should conclude

that a Hebrew slave

is redeemed in stages,

you find it

a practical difference in this matter, both

as a leniency

and

as a stringency—

You find it

as a leniency—

When

he purchased him,

if the master purchased the slave

for one hundred

zuz, and

he gave him

the slave subsequently gave him

fifty

zuz, which are

half his value,

half his value.

And

afterward

his value increased,

the slave increased in value,

and stood at

two hundred,

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

If you say

that the slave

is redeemed in stages,

it follows that the redemption of half of him already took effect with the fifty zuz.

And if the slave wishes to complete the payment of his redemption and leave immediately, he need pay at the time of the increased value only for the price of the second half.

Therefore,

he gives him one hundred

zuz

and leaves.

The slave gives his master one hundred zuz, the current value of half of his remaining years, and goes free. It follows that this slave gives the master a total of 150 zuz for his redemption.

And if you say

that

the slave is not

redeemed

in stages,

it follows that the redemption did not take effect at all. Therefore, if the slave wishes to complete the payment of his redemption and leave now, he must pay 200 zuz, his current value for the work of the years remaining to him.

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

he gives him 150, and leaves.

He gives his master 150 zuz in addition to the fifty zuz that he gave him initially; and since he has now paid the full value of his work, he goes free. [

It follows that this slave gave the master a total of 200 zuz for his redemption.]

Before Abaye had time to finish his words, the Gemara immediately raised an objection to them:

But you said,

did we not learn in the beraita above that if the slave increased in value and

his money increased [

the slave’s value], his redemption money is calculated

from the money of his purchase,

and not according to his current value!

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

The Gemara answers Abaye’s words:

Here we are dealing with a different situation: a slave

whose value initially rose,

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

and

afterward

decreased,

the slave’s price decreased and stood at one hundred zuz, and the slave came to redeem half of himself with fifty zuz, according to his current value, but before he managed to complete his redemption, it once again

rose,

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

Therefore, if we say that a slave is redeemed in stages, half of him was already redeemed with fifty zuz, and at the time of the increased value he need pay only for the other half. He therefore adds one hundred zuz, since both “the money of his purchase” and “according to his current value” amount to two hundred zuz.

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

After the Gemara answered the difficulty raised against Abaye from the beraita, the Gemara continues by citing the continuation of Abaye’s words, to explain the aspect of stringency according to the possibility that a slave is redeemed in stages:

You find it as a stringency,

you find a stringency in the matter when

he purchased him for two hundred—

He gives one hundred, half his value.

And his value decreased.

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

and stood

at a price of

one hundred

zuz.

If you say

that the slave

is redeemed in stages,

it follows that the slave acquired half of his years of service with the 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.

Now, if the slave comes to redeem his second half, he must pay the master an additional fifty zuz [half of one hundred] for his second half.

And if you say that he is not

a slave

redeemed in stages,

it follows that the master did not acquire those one hundred zuz at all, since the redemption did not take effect with 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 leaves.

The slave can now transfer them to the master and go completely free, since the slave as a whole is now worth only one hundred zuz. And in the case of a slave whose value has decreased, his redemption is calculated according to his current value [as he is worth now].

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana’s second question:

he asked him

asked]

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana asked Rav Sheshet:

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

One who sells

to his fellow

a house in a walled city,

which the Torah granted him the right to redeem until a year from the time of the sale—does that house

become redeemed in stages?

If the seller gave the purchaser half the value of the house within the year, was half the house redeemed,

or is it not redeemed in stages?

And the two sides of the uncertainty are:

One side: An ancestral field is not redeemed by halves, as it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “According to the measure of its redemption.” And with regard to houses in walled cities it is stated: “For a full year shall its redemption be.”

Therefore, one may say:

“Its redemption, its redemption”—from an ancestral field we derive

the law of “its redemption” stated with regard to houses in walled cities, from “its redemption” stated with regard to an ancestral field:

What

just as

an ancestral field is not redeemed by halves, so too

a house in a walled city

is not redeemed by halves!

The other side:

Or perhaps

perhaps

where the Torah revealed, it revealed

and where it did not reveal, it did not reveal.

Only with regard to an ancestral field, concerning which the verse revealed that there is no redemption by halves, did it reveal that there is no redemption by halves.

But with regard to houses in walled cities, concerning which the verse did not reveal this, we do not derive the law from an ancestral field; rather, it can be redeemed by halves.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet answered Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana:

From Rabbi Shimon’s exposition,

which will be cited below,

it can be heard that

the law of houses in walled cities differs from the law of an ancestral field in two respects:

A. One who sells a house in a walled city, and does not have money to redeem it,

borrows

money from other people

and redeems

the house with it.

This is not so with regard to an ancestral field: If the seller does not have money of his own, he cannot redeem the field with money that he obtains through a loan, since it is stated with regard to an ancestral field [there]: “If his means suffice.”

B. One who sells an ancestral field does not redeem it by halves.

But

if with regard to houses in walled cities, the seller

can redeem it by halves.

Rav Sheshet cites Rabbi Shimon’s exposition:

As it was taught:

With regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field, it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “And

if he shall indeed redeem

the field.”

The repetition of the words [“indeed redeem”]

teaches that he may borrow and redeem.

And

that he can redeem it by halves.

From here it follows that the law of one who consecrates an ancestral field differs from the law of one who sells an ancestral field.

Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason?

Why did the verse differentiate the law of one who consecrates a field from that of one who sells it?

The reason is that the Torah wanted the ancestral property not to pass out of the heirs’ possession

since we find with regard to one who sells an ancestral field that his power is enhanced,

in that his inheritance is never permanently removed from him—

for

indeed,

if the Jubilee

has

arrived and it has not been redeemed,

it

returns to its owners at the Jubilee.

Therefore, conversely,

his power is diminished, in that he cannot borrow and redeem, and

he cannot

redeem it by halves.

For the Torah did not need to be lenient with him, since even if he does not redeem the field, ultimately it will return to his possession [or to that 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 pass from him permanently,

for

indeed,

if the Jubilee arrives and it has not been redeemed,

his field, it

leaves

the possession of the Temple treasury and is divided

among the kohanim at the Jubilee,

and never returns to its owners.

Therefore,

the verse enhanced

the

power

of one who consecrates a field, by stating

that he may borrow and redeem, and

also

redeem it by halves,

so that he can readily return his field to his possession and it will not pass from him permanently.

This concludes Rabbi Shimon’s exposition. [It is called an exposition because Rabbi Shimon expounded here the reason for the verse.]

From Rabbi Shimon’s exposition, Rav Sheshet proves that one who sells a house in a walled city may also borrow and redeem it, and may likewise redeem it by halves:

For

this seller of a house in a walled city also,

has his power diminished, since he can redeem it only during one year, and if he does not redeem it within that year, it remains permanently in the buyer’s possession and does not return to him at the Jubilee, as an ancestral field does.

And

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

the house from the buyer, it is

secured

to the buyer permanently, it is therefore appropriate to be lenient with him and say that

his power is enhanced,

in that

he may borrow and redeem, and

he may likewise

redeem it by halves. [Just as Rabbi Shimon stated with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field.]

Just as Rabbi Shimon said with regard to one who consecrates an ancestral field.]

He challenged him,

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana challenged Rav Sheshet’s proof from the following beraita:

For we learned in a beraita:

“If he shall indeed redeem”—

the verse teaches

that

one who

consecrates his ancestral field

may borrow and redeem it, and

he likewise

can redeem it by halves.

The beraita explains why the verse needed to teach this: Were it not for the words of the verse, I

could

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

and this follows logically,

as it can be derived by a kal va-chomer from one who sells an ancestral field:

And if one who sells an ancestral field, whose power is enhanced

in that

if the Jubilee arrives and

the field

has not been redeemed,

it

returns to its owners at the Jubilee,

nevertheless

his power is diminished

in that

he cannot

borrow and

redeem it, and

he cannot

redeem it by halves,

one who consecrates

an ancestral field,

whose power is diminished

in that

if

the

Jubilee arrives and it has not been redeemed,

it

leaves

his possession and is divided

among the kohanim at the Jubilee—

and is it

not logical that his power is diminished

also with regard to

not being able to borrow and redeem it, and

that he cannot

redeem it by halves?!

Therefore, the verse needed to teach explicitly that one who consecrates a field may borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves.

Perhaps you will say: How can the law of one who consecrates a field be derived from the law of one who sells it? The kal va-chomer can be refuted as follows:

What is true of one who sells a field,

an ancestral field, who may not borrow and redeem it and may not redeem it by halves—

this is because

his power is likewise diminished

in that he cannot

redeem it immediately,

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

You can say that with regard to one who consecrates a field, whose power is enhanced,

in that he is able

to redeem it

immediately,

and therefore, correspondingly, his power is also enhanced with regard to being able to borrow and redeem it and to redeem it by halves.

And since the law of one who consecrates a field cannot be proved from that of one who sells it, the difficulty remains: Why did the verse need to state with regard to one who consecrates a field, “If he shall indeed redeem,” teaching that he may borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves?

The answer is:

One who sells a house in a walled city proves

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 in a walled city

has his power enhanced

with regard to being able

to redeem it immediately.

Nevertheless,

he cannot

borrow and

redeem it, and

he cannot

redeem it by halves.

If so, even one who consecrates an ancestral field, despite having his power enhanced with regard to being able to redeem it immediately, should nevertheless be considered unable to borrow and redeem it and unable to redeem it by halves.

Therefore, the verse needed to teach explicitly that one who consecrates his ancestral field may borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

From the end of the beraita, Rav Huna challenged Rav Sheshet’s statement: Rav Sheshet had derived from Rabbi Shimon’s statement concerning one who consecrates his field—that he may borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves—that the same law applies to houses in walled cities.

But in the beraita we learned explicitly that one who sells a house in a walled city may not borrow and redeem it and may not redeem it by halves.

From here it follows that the law of one who sells a house in a walled city should not be compared to that of one who consecrates his field!

Rav Sheshet answered:

It is not difficult!

According to Rabbi Shimon, there is indeed no distinction between one who sells a house in a walled city and one who consecrates his field. The reason that one who consecrates his field may borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves is that if he does not redeem the field, it will pass from him permanently; and this reason applies equally to one who sells a house in a walled city. Therefore, one who sells a house in a walled city may also borrow and redeem it and may redeem it by halves.

But it may be said that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Shimon’s statement, for everywhere Rabbi Shimon expounds the reason of the verse, whereas the Sages disagree with him and maintain that we do not expound the reason of a verse on our own initiative. According to the Sages, who do not assign a reason to a verse on our own initiative, there is no basis for equating one who sells a house in a walled city with one who consecrates an ancestral 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 with regard to one who sells a house in a walled city, is to be derived from the law of “its redemption,” stated with regard to one who sells an ancestral field.

Accordingly, Rav resolves the difficulty raised against him from the baraita: