Kiddushin 21a (כא.) — the Talmud in English

Ah,

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

the Rabbis.

Whereas

this

the first beraita was taught by

Rabbi Shimon,

who expounds the reason of the verse; and according to him, even one who sells a house in a walled city borrows and redeems and redeems by halves.

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

One beraita teaches:

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

borrows and redeems, and redeems by halves.

And another beraita teaches,

another beraita: One who sells a house in the walled cities,

does not borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem by halves.

The difficulty is: These beraitot contradict one another!

And we answer:

It is not difficult.

This

the second beraita [which states that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves] follows the opinion of

the Rabbis.

And this,

the first beraita [which states that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves], follows the opinion of

Rabbi Shimon.

The Gemara now discusses the second beraita cited above:

A mnemonic

will help you remember the names of the amoraim who discussed this matter:

Heresh, Havash, Zeman.

We learned above in a beraita [at the end of 20b]: “One who sells a house in a walled city proves the point: His power is enhanced in that it can be redeemed immediately, but he does not borrow and redeem, and does not redeem by halves.” —

Consequently, even in the case of one who consecrates an ancestral field, whose power is enhanced in that it can be redeemed immediately, it should follow that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the statement of the beraita:

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said

a difficulty

to Rav Ashi:

But

there is a basis for refuting

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

What is the case of one who sells a house in a walled city

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

there

his power was weakened

also with regard to another matter: If he did not redeem his house within the year of its sale, he can no longer

redeem it ever.

Can you say the same with regard to one who consecrates

an ancestral field,

whose power is enhanced

in that he can

redeem it ever

until the Jubilee? Therefore, it should follow that correspondingly his power is also enhanced with regard to this matter, so that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves!

Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi:

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

One cannot say that the reason that in the case of a house in a walled city he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves is that his power was weakened with regard to redeeming it ever—

Because one can say: Let us reverse the reasoning; let it come by

“the common denominator.”

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

One who sells an ancestral field proves the point: His power is enhanced in that it can be redeemed ever

until the Jubilee,

and

nevertheless his power was weakened with regard to

not borrowing and redeeming and

not

redeeming by halves.

If so, even in the case of one who consecrates an ancestral field, despite the fact that his power is enhanced in that it can be redeemed until the Jubilee, his power was weakened with regard to not borrowing and redeeming and not redeeming by halves.

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

What is the case of one who sells an ancestral field

that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves? It is because his power was likewise weakened with regard to another matter: He cannot

redeem it immediately,

but only after two years.

But in the case of one who consecrates an ancestral field, whose power is enhanced in that he can redeem it immediately, let us enhance his power also with regard to borrowing and redeeming and redeeming by halves!

Rather,

one who sells a house in a walled city proves the point,

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

And the reasoning returns,

for one can again refute this: What is the case of one who sells a house? His power was weakened in that he cannot redeem it at all after a year. One can then return and prove the matter from one who sells an ancestral field, and refute it as above, and so on forever.

And since

this one is not like that one,

since the weakening of power in the case of one who sells a house is not equivalent to the weakening of power in the case of one who sells a field, it necessarily follows that the weaknesses we found in them are not what cause the law that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

Rather, the law that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves derives from the common denominator that applies to both.

And

the common denominator between them

is that

they are redeemed,

for the law of redemption is stated with regard to both,

and

that redemption is described as one in which

the

seller

does not borrow and redeem, and

does not

redeem by halves.

Therefore,

I, too, will bring in one who consecrates

an ancestral field,

which is redeemed,

for the law of redemption is stated with regard to 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 a basis for refuting

even this common denominator, and saying:

What is the common denominator between them,

the seller of a field and the seller of a house, that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves? It is

because their power was weakened

with regard to this matter: They cannot

be redeemed in the second year.

For a house in a walled city can be redeemed only in the first year after its sale, and an ancestral field can be redeemed only after two years from the sale. It follows that there is a shared weakening of power in both cases: They cannot be redeemed in the second year.

Therefore, one can say that anything whose power was weakened with regard to the second year likewise has its power weakened with regard to not borrowing and redeeming and not redeeming by halves.

But in the case of one who consecrates a field, which can be redeemed in the second year, it should follow that he borrows and redeems and redeems by halves! But

can you say the same with regard to one who consecrates

a field,

whose power is enhanced

in that he can

be redeemed in the second year,

so that it should follow that his power is likewise enhanced with regard to borrowing and redeeming and redeeming by halves!

Ravina said

a resolution: One cannot say 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 with regard to the fact that they cannot be redeemed in the second year.

Because one can say [

that one can say]:

An Ivri slave sold to a gentile proves the point: His power is enhanced

with regard to

being redeemed in the second year, and

nevertheless his power was weakened with regard to

not borrowing and redeeming and

not

redeeming by halves.

If so, correspondingly one can say the same with regard to one who consecrates property: Despite the fact that his power is enhanced with regard to being redeemed in the second year, it should nevertheless follow that his power is weakened in that he does not borrow and redeem and does not redeem by halves.

The third question of Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana: A. One who sells a house in a city surrounded by a wall can redeem it against the will of the purchaser, as it is stated [Leviticus 25:29]: “And when a man sells a residential house 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, as it is stated [there, 25:25–26]: “When your brother becomes poor and sells part of his ancestral property, his redeemer who is near to him shall come and redeem what his brother sold. And if a man has no redeemer, but his means become sufficient and he acquires enough for its redemption.”

He asked him [

asked]

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana asked Rav Sheshet:

With regard to one who sells a house in a walled city,

should we derive 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 should apply to houses in walled cities:

is the house redeemed

also

for relatives,

by the seller’s relatives against the will of the purchaser?

Or is it not redeemed for relatives,

but only for the seller himself?

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

For with regard to 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 equated with one another.

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

There is nevertheless a question according to the Rabbis: Should the law of the redemption of houses in walled cities also be equated with the law of the redemption of an ancestral field with regard to redemption by relatives?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

One possibility:

“Its redemption” and “its redemption”—a complete derivation.

Since the law of “its redemption” stated with regard to houses in walled cities is learned from the law of “its redemption” stated with regard to an ancestral field, they should consequently be equated in every respect:

Just as

an

ancestral field

field

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

so too this one, also,

a house in a walled city:

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

The other possibility:

Or perhaps [

perhaps], the law of “its redemption” mentioned with regard to houses in walled cities is not learned from “its redemption” in the case of an ancestral field in every respect, since

when “redemption” is written,

it is written with regard to halves.

The word “its redemption” in the case of an ancestral field was stated with regard to redemption by the owner himself, who is not redeemed by halves, as it is stated [there]: “And his means become sufficient, and he finds enough for his redemption.”

Whereas

with

regard to redemption by

relatives,

“its redemption” is not written—“its redemption.”

Therefore, when the verse again wrote “its redemption” with regard to houses in walled cities, it came to teach a gezeira shava only with regard to redemption by halves, where “its redemption” is 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 Ḥinnana: A house in a walled city

cannot be redeemed

by relatives.

He raised an objection to him:

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana challenged him with a contradiction from a beraita: It is stated [Leviticus 25:24]: “And throughout the land of your possession, you shall provide redemption for the land.”

This verse is superfluous, and it was not explained what it comes to teach us.

And concerning this we learned in a beraita: The verse

“Throughout

the land of your possession

you shall provide redemption,”

comes

to include houses and a Hebrew slave

which may also be redeemed by relatives.

What

which “houses” does the beraita discuss? Is it

not houses in walled cities?!

And this indicates that houses in walled cities are redeemed by relatives, contrary to Rav Sheshet’s statement!

Rav Sheshet answers:

No!

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

houses in unwalled towns,

houses in towns that were not surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua. Only these may be redeemed by relatives.

But houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana returned and challenged him:

Houses in unwalled towns—

it is explicitly written concerning them!

For it is explicitly stated with regard to them [there, verse 31]: “But the houses of the unwalled towns that have no surrounding wall

shall be reckoned as the fields of the country.”

Their law is like that of an ancestral field.

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

Rav Sheshet answers:

Indeed, the verse “Throughout the land of your possession, you shall provide redemption” did not come to teach us that houses in unwalled towns are redeemed by relatives, since we have already learned this from the verse “But the houses of the unwalled towns shall be reckoned as the fields of the country.”

Rather,

that

verse [“Throughout the land of your possession, you shall provide redemption”] comes

to establish it

as a

duty,

meaning that the seller’s relatives are obligated to redeem the houses in unwalled towns from the purchaser.

And

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

according to the view

of

Rabbi Eliezer:

As it was taught:

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

And the question arises: Does the verse intend to teach that the relative is obligated to redeem his brother’s sale, or that he has the option to redeem it and the purchaser cannot prevent him?

And concerning this we learned in a beraita:

“And he shall redeem the sale of his brother”—

This is not an obligation, but

an option

alone.

And if you ask: Indeed,

you say

that this is

an option,

but from where do you know this?

Or

perhaps

it is not

as you say,

but an obligation!

Your answer is:

The verse states,

and therefore it says [verse 26]:

“And if a man has no redeemer

but his means suffice.”

This verse speaks of an ancestral field, which is a field that a person inherits from his ancestors, who received a portion in the division of the land.

If so, it certainly speaks of a full-fledged Israelite, and not of a convert.

Is there a person among Israel who has no redeemers

relatives? Even if only one Israelite remains, he is his relative!

Rather,

necessarily, the verse speaks of

one who has

a relative,

and

that relative

does not wish to acquire

the field.

And the verse teaches

that he has the option

not to acquire it.

These are

the words of Rabbi Yehoshua.

But

Rabbi Eliezer

disagrees and

says: “And he shall redeem the sale of his brother”

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

an option!

Your answer is:

The verse states,

and therefore it says [there, verse 24]:

“Throughout

the land of your possession

you shall provide redemption.”

This verse

therefore

established it as an obligation,

obligating the relative to redeem his relative’s field.

The Sages said to him,

the students raised a difficulty with

Rav Ashi.

And some say,

there are those who say that

Ravina

raised the following difficulty

to Rav Ashi:

The verse “Throughout you shall provide redemption” implies that this is what the verse is saying: In addition to what the Torah explicitly mentioned as subject to redemption, you shall provide redemption for every other matter as well.

Granted,

it is understandable

according to the one who says

that the verse “Throughout you shall provide redemption” comes

to include houses in walled cities—

this is why it is written “throughout.”

The verse properly comes to include redemption by relatives in a matter 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 in unwalled towns,

which the verse established as an obligation, this is difficult:

What is the meaning of “throughout”?

Why did the verse use language of inclusion by saying, “Throughout—you shall provide redemption”? Redemption by relatives is explicitly stated with regard to houses in unwalled 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 provide redemption”; it should have said only, “You shall provide redemption for the land,” and from the superfluity of the verse we would learn that it established it as an obligation! And Rav Ashi answers:

It is difficult!

Indeed, this is a difficulty.

Abaye raised an objection to him,

Abaye challenged Rav Sheshet, since the following beraita contradicts his statement:

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 this:

What does the verse mean to teach

by stating

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

Why was it necessary to say “he shall redeem him” only 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 comes

to include

the

all the other redemptions

that are subject to redemption in other contexts,

that

they

shall be redeemed in this order.

That is, in the order mentioned with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

The Gemara now assumes that the beraita means that all redemptions are to be carried out by the relatives mentioned here.

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

Abaye argues:

What

are the two redemptions under discussion?

Is it not

the redemption of

houses in walled cities and

the redemption of

a Hebrew slave

sold to a Jew, concerning which redemption by relatives was not explicitly stated?

If so, the beraita contradicts your statement, Rav Sheshet,

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

Rav Sheshet answers:

No!

The verse does not include houses in walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew, but the redemption of

houses in unwalled towns and

the redemption of

an ancestral field.

Abaye immediately objects: But

houses in unwalled towns and an ancestral field—

it is explicitly written concerning them

that they are redeemed by relatives!

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

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

And concerning houses in unwalled towns it is stated [verse 31]:

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

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

J

ust as we find elsewhere

that Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said

that the verse refers

to “the closer relative has precedence”

—as will be explained shortly—

so too

we can explain my statement and say that the verse refers

to

the matter that

“the closer relative has precedence”:

And this is as it was stated: with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, it is said [there]:

“One of his brothers shall redeem him.”

And afterward it is said: “Or his uncle or his cousin.”

And afterward it is said: “Or any other relative from his family.”

And from this we learn that the relative who is closer takes precedence over another relative [for example, his brother takes precedence over his uncle, and so on].

However, with regard to an ancestral field, the redemption by relatives is stated without qualification, and it is not mentioned that the closer relative takes precedence.

Therefore, with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, “he shall redeem him” is stated three times, to include the redemption of an ancestral field and of houses in unwalled villages, teaching you that when these are redeemed by relatives, they are redeemed in this order [with the closer relative taking precedence]. The Gemara now asks:

Where was this statement of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak stated?

With regard to what matter were these words of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said [when he stated that the verse refers to “the closer relative taking precedence”]?

For they raised the following dilemma

—is he

For

,

[perhaps] they too expound

the redemption of

houses and a Hebrew slave.

[explicitly]

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”?