Kiddushin 21a — the Talmud in English

This,

the second beraita, in which we learned that one who sells a house in walled cities does not borrow and redeem, and does not redeem by halves, was stated by

the Rabbis.

Whereas

this,

the first beraita, was stated by

Rabbi Shimon,

who expounds the reason of the verse, and according to his words, one who sells a house in walled cities also borrows and redeems and redeems by halves.

And the Gemara proves from several beraitot that the Sages indeed disagree with Rabbi Shimon on this matter:

One taught,

we learned in one beraita: one who sells a house in a walled city,

borrows and redeems, and redeems by halves.

And another taught,

another beraita: one who sells a house in walled cities,

does not borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem by halves.

And it is difficult: do the beraitot not contradict one another!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

second beraita [which says that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves] is according to

the Rabbis.

And this

first beraita [which says that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves] is according to

Rabbi Shimon.

It now discusses the words of the second beraita brought above: [

A sign

will be in your hand to remember the names of the amoraim who discussed the matter:

deaf, imprisoned, time ]

We learned in the beraita above [at the end of 20b]: “One who sells a house in walled cities shall prove that his power is improved, in that it can be redeemed immediately, but he does not borrow and redeem, and does not redeem by halves” -

Therefore, even one who consecrates an ancestral field, whose power is improved in that it can be redeemed immediately, should have been said not to borrow and redeem and not to redeem by halves.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against the words of the beraita:

Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ivia said to

a difficulty

to Rav Ashi:

Behold,

there is room to refute,

the proof from one who sells a house in walled cities:

What is true of one who sells a house in walled cities,

that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves? This is because

therefore

his power was weakened

also concerning another matter: if he did not redeem his house within the year of its sale, he cannot

be redeemed forever.

Can you say this concerning one who consecrates

an ancestral field,

whose power was improved

concerning the fact that he can

be redeemed forever

until the Jubilee, and therefore it should properly be said that, correspondingly, his power is also improved concerning the fact that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves!

Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi:

This is how Rav Aḥa son of Rav Ivia’s difficulty can be answered:

It cannot be said that in walled cities he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves because his power was weakened concerning being redeemed forever -

because one can say: let us return the judgment; let there come a

“common denominator.”

For one can say that we should return and prove from one who sells an ancestral field [who does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves], and learn by means of the common denominator that exists in one who sells an ancestral field and one who sells a house in walled cities, as follows:

One who sells an ancestral field shall prove, whose power is improved in that it can be redeemed forever

until the Jubilee,

and

nevertheless his power was weakened concerning the fact that he

does not borrow and redeem and

does not

redeem by halves.

If so, also in the case of one who consecrates an ancestral field, although his power is improved in that it can be redeemed until the Jubilee, his power was weakened concerning the fact that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

However, one cannot learn from one who sells an ancestral field alone concerning one who consecrates an ancestral field, because this can be refuted by saying:

What is true of one who sells an ancestral field,

that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves? This is because his power was likewise weakened concerning another matter, in that he cannot

be redeemed immediately

but only after two years.

But one who consecrates an ancestral field, whose power is improved in that he redeems immediately—let us improve his power also concerning the fact that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves!

Rather,

one who sells a house in walled cities shall prove,

for although he redeems immediately, nevertheless he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

And the judgment returns,

one should return and refute: what is true of one who sells a house, whose power is weakened in that he cannot redeem at all after a year; and return and prove from one who sells an ancestral field, and refute as above, and so on forever.

And since

this one is not like that one,

since the weakening of power in one who sells a house is not equal to the weakening of power in one who sells a field, necessarily the weakenings that we found in them do not cause the fact that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

Rather, it is through the common denominator in both of them that the law was renewed that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

And

the common denominator between them

is that

they are redeemed,

for the law of redemption is stated concerning both of them,

and

it is stated concerning that redemption that

the

seller

does not borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem by halves.

Therefore,

I too shall bring one who consecrates

an ancestral field,

which is redeemed,

for the law of redemption is stated concerning it as well,

and

therefore it too

does not borrow and redeem and

does not

redeem by halves.

Mar Zutra son of Rav Mari said to Ravina: There is room to refute

even this common denominator, and say:

What is true of the common denominator between them,

in one who sells a field and one who sells a house, that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves? This is

because their power was weakened,

of both of them, concerning this matter: they cannot

be redeemed in the second year.

For a house in a walled city is redeemed only in the first year of its sale, and an ancestral field is redeemed only after two years from the sale. It follows that there is a shared weakening of power in both of them: they are not redeemed in the second year.

Therefore, one can say that anything whose power was weakened concerning the second year had its power weakened also concerning the fact that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

But one who consecrates a field, who redeems in the second year, should properly be said to borrow and redeem and redeem by halves! But

can you say concerning one who consecrates

a field,

whose power was improved

concerning the fact that he can

be redeemed in the second year,

that it is proper to improve his power also concerning the fact that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves!

Ravina said

a resolution: it cannot be said that the common denominator between them—that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves—is because their power was weakened concerning the fact that they are not redeemed in the second year.

Because one can say [

that one can say]:

An emancipated Hebrew slave sold to an idolater shall prove, whose power was improved

concerning

being redeemed in the second year, and

nevertheless his power was weakened concerning the fact that he

does not borrow and redeem and

does not

redeem by halves.

If so, correspondingly one can say even concerning one who consecrates—although his power is improved concerning being redeemed in the second year, nevertheless it is proper to say that his power was weakened, in that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

The third problem of Rav Huna bar Ḥinana: a. One who sells a house in a walled city can redeem it against the will of the purchaser. For it is stated [Leviticus 25:29]: “And when a man sells a house of habitation in a walled city, its redemption shall be until the completion of the year of its sale.”

b. One who sells his ancestral field can redeem it against the will of the purchaser, and even his relatives can redeem it, for it is stated [there, 25:25–26]: “When your brother becomes impoverished and sells part of his ancestral property, then his redeemer who is near to him shall come, and he shall redeem the sale of his brother. And if a man has no redeemer, but his hand reaches and he finds enough for its redemption, he shall return to his ancestral property.”

He asked him [

he asked]

Rav Huna bar Ḥinana of Rav Sheshet:

One who sells a house in walled cities,

shall we learn from an ancestral field that just as he himself can redeem his field, so too his relatives can redeem it against the will of the purchaser, and the same law applies to houses in walled cities—

is the house redeemed

also

for relatives,

by the relatives of the seller, against the will of the purchaser?

Or is it not redeemed for relatives,

but only for him himself?

Now, according to Rabbi Shimon above [20b], it is certainly not the case that we learn the law of the redemption of houses in walled cities from the redemption of an ancestral field.

For concerning redemption by halves, an ancestral field is not redeemed by halves, whereas houses in walled cities are redeemed by halves.

And according to him it is proven that the laws of these redemptions are not compared to one another.

But according to the Sages, houses in walled cities are not redeemed by halves [as the Gemara proved above]. And certainly this law is learned from the law of the redemption of an ancestral field, concerning which it is stated, “and he finds enough for its redemption.”

And according to the Sages one should be uncertain: is it also proper, concerning redemption by relatives, to compare the law of the redemption of houses in walled cities with the law of the redemption of an ancestral field?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

One side:

“Its redemption, its redemption” is learned completely,

since the law of “its redemption” stated concerning houses in walled cities is learned from the law of “its redemption” stated concerning an ancestral field, therefore they should be compared completely:

Just as

like

an ancestral field

field

is not redeemed by halves, and is redeemed for relatives.

So too this one, also,

also a house in a walled city:

it is not redeemed by halves, and is redeemed for relatives.

A second side:

Or perhaps [

perhaps], we do not learn the law of “its redemption” mentioned concerning houses in walled cities from “its redemption” concerning an ancestral field in every respect, since

when “redemption” is written—

it is concerning halves that it is written.

The word “its redemption” concerning an ancestral field was stated with regard to the redemption of oneself, who is not redeemed by halves, as it is stated [there]: “And his hand reaches, and he finds enough for its redemption.”

Whereas

with

regard to the redemption of

relatives—

“its redemption” is not written.

Therefore, when Scripture again wrote “its redemption” concerning houses in walled cities, it came to teach a gezera shava only concerning redemption by halves, in which “its redemption” was mentioned.

Therefore, when the verse repeats the word “its redemption” concerning houses in walled cities, it teaches a same-expression derivation only with regard to redemption in installments, where the word “its redemption” is mentioned.

He said to him,

Rav Sheshet replied to Rav Huna bar Hinena: A walled city house

is not redeemed

by relatives.

He challenged him,

Rav Huna bar Hinena raised an objection to him from a beraita: It is stated [Leviticus 25:24]: “And throughout the land of your possession you shall give redemption to the land.”

And this verse is superfluous, and it was not explained in it what it comes to teach us.

And we learned concerning this in a beraita: The verse

“throughout

the land of your possession

you shall give redemption,”

comes

to include houses and a Hebrew slave

that they too are redeemed even by relatives.

What

does the beraita mean by “houses”? Is it

not walled city houses?!

And from here it follows that walled city houses are redeemed by relatives. And this is unlike the words of Rav Sheshet!

And Rav Sheshet answers:

No!

The houses mentioned in the beraita are not walled city houses, but

houses of open towns,

houses in towns that were not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua. And only they are redeemed by relatives.

But walled city houses are not redeemed by relatives.

And Rav Huna bar Hinena returned and challenged:

Houses of open towns —

it is written explicitly concerning them!

For it is stated explicitly concerning them [there, verse 31]: “And the houses of the open towns, which have no surrounding wall,

shall be reckoned as the fields of the land.”

Their law is like the law of an ancestral field.

And just as an ancestral field is redeemed by relatives, so houses of open towns are redeemed by relatives. If so, why is it necessary to learn this from “Throughout the land of your possession you shall give redemption,” to inform us that relatives can redeem houses of open towns?

And Rav Sheshet answers:

Indeed, the verse “Throughout the land of your possession you shall give redemption” did not come to teach us that houses of open towns are redeemed by relatives, for we already learned this from the verse “And the houses of the open towns shall be reckoned as the fields of the land.”

Rather,

that

verse [“Throughout the land of your possession you shall give redemption”] came

to establish it

as a

duty,

to say that the seller’s relatives are obligated to redeem the houses of open towns from the purchaser.

And

this beraita, which holds that relatives are obligated to redeem, was stated

according to

the view of

Rabbi Eliezer:

For it was taught:

It is stated concerning an ancestral field [there, verse 25]: “And his redeemer who is nearest to him shall come and redeem the sale of his brother.”

And the matter is to be considered: Is the intention of the verse to teach that the relative is obligated to redeem his brother’s sale, or to teach that he has permission to redeem it and the purchaser cannot prevent him?

And we learned concerning this matter in a beraita:

“And he shall redeem his brother’s sale” —

this is not an obligation, but

permission

only.

And if you ask: Indeed,

you say

that this is

permission,

but from where do you know this?

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you say,

but an obligation!

Your answer is:

The verse teaches,

therefore it is stated [verse 26]:

“And if a man has no redeemer

and his hand reaches.”

And this verse speaks of an ancestral field, which is a field that a person inherits from his forefathers, who took a portion in the division of the land.

And if so, it certainly refers to a fully-fledged Israelite, and not to a convert.

But is there a person in Israel who has no redeemers

relatives?! For even if only one person from Israel exists, he is his relative!

Rather,

necessarily, the verse speaks of

one who has

a relative,

and

that relative

does not wish to take

the field.

And the verse teaches

that he has permission

not to take it.

These are

the words of Rabbi Joshua.

But

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees, and

says: “And he shall redeem his brother’s sale,”

it is

an obligation.

And if you ask: Indeed,

you say

that it is

an obligation,

but from where do you know this?

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you say,

but

it is

permission!

Your answer is:

The verse teaches,

therefore it is stated [there, verse 24]:

“Throughout

the land of your possession

you shall give redemption.”

This verse

has

established it as an obligation,

obligating the relative to redeem his relative’s field.

The Sages said to him,

the students raised a difficulty to

Rav Ashi.

And some say,

and there are those who say that

Ravina

raised the following difficulty

to Rav Ashi:

For from the verse “Throughout every redemption you shall give,” it is implied that this is what the verse says: Besides what was explicitly mentioned in the Torah as having redemption, you shall give redemption also for every matter.

It is well

that this is understandable

according to the one who says

that the verse “Throughout every redemption you shall give” comes

to include walled city houses —

that is why it is written “throughout.”

The verse properly comes to include redemption by relatives in something that was not explicitly mentioned in the following verses, and therefore the verse said “throughout,”

but according to the one who says

that the verse comes

to include houses of open towns,

that this verse established it as an obligation, it is difficult:

What is the meaning of “throughout”?

Why did the verse use an expression of inclusion by saying “Throughout — you shall give redemption”? For redemption by relatives is stated explicitly concerning houses of open towns, and the verse comes only to add that it is an obligation. If so, there is no need for it to say “Throughout you shall give redemption”; rather, it should have said “You shall give redemption to the land,” and from the superfluity of the verse it would be learned that the verse came to establish it as an obligation! And Rav Ashi answers:

It is difficult!

Indeed, this is a difficulty.

Abaye challenged Rav Sheshet,

Abaye challenged Rav Sheshet, for the following beraita contradicts his words:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile [Leviticus 25:48–49]: “One of his brothers shall redeem him; or his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him; or one of his close relatives from his family shall redeem him.”

And the beraita discusses:

What does the verse teach,

for what purpose did the verse say

“he shall redeem him, he shall redeem him, he shall redeem him,” three times?

For it would have been sufficient for it to say “he shall redeem him” once [“One of his brothers, or his uncle or his uncle’s son, or one of his close relatives from his family — he shall redeem him”]. Rather, the verse came

to include

all

the other redemptions

that stand to be redeemed in the other places,

that

they shall be

redeemed according to this order.

That is, according to the order mentioned concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

And the Gemara now assumes that the intention of the beraita is that all redemptions shall be redeemed by the relatives mentioned here.

And since “he shall redeem him” was stated three times, and two of them are superfluous, the verse comes to include two redemptions, which shall be redeemed by relatives.

And Abaye argues:

What

are the two redemptions under discussion?

Is it not

the redemption of

walled city houses and

the redemption of

a Hebrew slave

sold to an Israelite, concerning which redemption by relatives was not stated explicitly?!

If so, it follows that the beraita contradicts your words, Rav Sheshet.

For you say that walled city houses are not redeemed by relatives, whereas we learned in the beraita that walled city houses are redeemed by relatives!

Rav Sheshet answers:

No!

The verse does not include walled city houses and a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite, but the redemption of

houses of open towns and

the redemption of

an ancestral field.

And Abaye immediately wondered: But

houses of open towns and an ancestral field —

it is written explicitly concerning them

redemption by relatives!

For it is stated explicitly concerning them that they are redeemed by relatives. If so, why is it necessary to include them from “he shall redeem him,” “he shall redeem him”?

And so it is stated [Leviticus 25:25] concerning an ancestral field: “And his redeemer who is nearest to him shall come and redeem his brother’s sale.”

And concerning houses of open towns it is stated [verse 31]:

“They shall be reckoned as the fields of the land!”

Rav Sheshet answers: What we learned in the beraita, “to include all the redemptions that are redeemed according to this order,” does not mean that they are redeemed by relatives, as you, Abaye, understood; rather, it means something else:

J

ust as we found elsewhere,

as Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said,

that the verse refers

to “the closer relative precedes,”

[and this will be explained shortly],

so too

here, this is how to explain my words, and to say that the verse refers

to

the matter that

“the closer relative precedes”:

And this is so: concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, it is stated [there]:

“One of his brothers shall redeem him.”

And afterward it is stated: “Or his uncle or his uncle’s son.”

And afterward it is stated: “Or from the rest of his flesh, from his family.”

And from here we learned that the relative who is closer is prior to another relative [for example, his brother is prior to his uncle, and so on].

But concerning an ancestral field, the redemption by relatives is stated without qualification, and it is not mentioned that the closer relative is prior.

And therefore, concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, “he shall redeem him” is stated three times, to include the redemption of an ancestral field and houses of the open towns, to teach you that when they are redeemed by relatives, they are redeemed in this order [the closer relative is prior]. And the Gemara now asks:

Where was this statement of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak stated?

Concerning what matter were these words of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said [when he said that the verse refers to “the closer relative being prior”]?

And we answer:

With regard to this

His words were stated concerning this discussion:

For they raised the following dilemma

The members of the academy were uncertain:

A Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite

—is he

redeemed by relatives

[by his relatives],

or is he not redeemed by relatives?

And we explain the question:

According to Rabbi

you need not raise the dilemma!

You have no reason to be uncertain about the matter according to Rabbi.

For

Rabbi

said

[above, on 15b] concerning a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite:

“One who is not redeemed through these”

by relatives

“is redeemed in six.”

Apparently, he does not become free

It is proven from here that one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives, for one sold to an Israelite is redeemed in six.

When you raise the dilemma

Everything about which you have reason to be uncertain is only

according to the Sages

who disagree with Rabbi, for Rabbi said there that one sold to a gentile does not go out in six, whereas the Sages disagree and hold that he does go out in six. And according to the Sages, the question is:

What?

Do the Sages disagree with Rabbi even concerning one sold to an Israelite, so that according to Rabbi he is not redeemed by relatives, whereas according to the Sages he is redeemed by relatives?

Or perhaps in this matter the Sages agree with Rabbi that he is not redeemed by relatives?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

We learned in the Gemara above [14b] that “hired servant” and “hired servant” is stated for a gzera shava. That is to say, every slave concerning whom “hired servant” is stated has a law equal to that of the other slaves concerning whom “hired servant” is stated.

Concerning a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “As a hired servant, as a resident, he shall be with you.” And concerning one sold to a gentile it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “As a hired servant, year by year, he shall be with him.”

If so, it would be appropriate to say: just as one sold to a gentile is redeemed by relatives, so one sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives.

But Rabbi holds that one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives, because concerning the redemption by relatives of one sold to a gentile it is stated, “he shall redeem him.” And Rabbi expounded that the verse came to exclude: “he shall redeem this one and not another.”

That is to say, the verse came to exclude one sold to an Israelite, who is not redeemed by relatives.

And one must be uncertain according to the Sages:

According to their view,

do we derive

we learn

“hired servant” and “hired servant”

by means of a gzera shava,

and do not expound,

and they do not expound

“he shall redeem him

“this one and not another.”

And therefore even one sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives.

Or perhaps

[perhaps] they too expound

“he shall redeem him”

“this one and not another.”

And therefore one sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives.

Come and hear,

come and hear a proof from a beraita that a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives:

We learned in a beraita: The Torah said

“In every

redemption shall you give.”

This verse came

to include

the redemption of

houses and a Hebrew slave.

And the amora who brought this beraita understood that the verse came to teach that houses and a Hebrew slave, although redemption by relatives was not stated concerning them, are also redeemed by relatives.

And the question is asked: Which “houses and Hebrew slave” are being discussed?

Is it not

does this not refer to

houses of walled cities, and

to

a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite,

concerning which redemption by relatives was not explicitly stated, and the verse “In every redemption shall you give” came to include them!

And from here there is proof that a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives.

And we reject this:

No!

It is not referring here to a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite! Rather, it is referring specifically to

a Hebrew slave sold to an idolater.

But a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives.

And immediately the Gemara expresses astonishment: the redemption of

a Hebrew slave sold to an idolater

explicitly

[explicitly]

is written concerning him

[Leviticus 25:49]:

“Or his uncle or his uncle’s son shall redeem him.”

The verse stated that he is redeemed through relatives! Why, then, is it necessary to include him from the verse “In every redemption shall you give”?