Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf continues with the same subject that we dealt with last week borrowing and redeeming or redeeming half of a field consecrated to the Temple.

 

(סימן חרש חבש זמן) א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי איכא למיפרך מה למוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל לעולם תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם

 

(Mnemonic; Harash, Habash, Zeman.)

R. Aha, son of Rava, said to R. Ashi: It can be refuted: as for one who sells a house in a walled city, that is because his power is impaired, in that he cannot redeem it [forever]; will you say the same of him who sanctifies, in that his power is great, in that he can redeem it forever?

 

R. Aha son of Rava argues that one cannot derive the laws regarding redeeming a consecrated field from the laws governing redeeming half of a house in a walled city. The latter may not be redeemed in halves because he has less power in general it must be redeemed within a year. But one who consecrates a field can redeem it until the Jubilee. So maybe he should be able to redeem it in halves. This is the opposite of what the baraita at the end of last week s daf stated.

 

א"ל רב אחא סבא לרב אשי משום דאיכא למימר ניהדר דינא תיתי במה הצד מוכר שדה אחוזה יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל לעולם ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין מה למוכר שדה אחוזה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל מיד מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה יוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שנגאלין ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין אף אני אביא מקדיש שנגאל ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

 

R. Aha Saba said to R. Ashi: Because one can say: Let the argument return, and let it be inferred by what is common [to both.] One who sells an ancestral field can prove it, since his power is great, in that he can redeem it forever, and yet he may not borrow and redeem, or redeem half.

But [countering this we could argue] one who sells an ancestral field, that is because his power is impaired, in that he [cannot] redeem it immediately.

Then let one who sells a house in a walled city prove it.

And thus the argument returns: the feature of one is not that of the other. What is common to both [cases] is that they may be redeemed, and he [the seller] cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. So may I also add the case of one who sanctifies [an ancestral field]: it may be redeemed, and he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half.

 

Consecrating an ancestral field is both similar and different to the case of selling an ancestral field and selling a house in a walled city. Since there is something different from both, we cannot use either one to prove that one cannot borrow and redeem or redeem half of a consecrated ancestral field. But together, the commonality can be used to prove that just as in the other two cases one cannot borrow and redeem or redeem half, so too one cannot borrow and redeem or redeem half of a consecrated ancestral field.

We should note that this is a common midrashic technique it is easier to learn one unknown from two knowns then from one known.

 

א"ל מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא איכא למיפרך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן הורע כחם ליגאל בשנה שניה תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה

 

Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Ravina: This may be refuted. When it comes to their common feature, in that their power is impaired, for they [cannot] be redeemed in the second year; will you say [the same] of him who sanctifies, seeing that his power is strong in that he can redeem in the second year?

 

To refute the above argument, we would need to find a feature common to the two known cases (selling an ancestral field, selling a house in walled city) that is not shared by the unknown (consecrating an ancestral field). And this is exactly what Mar Zutra does. The first two have an impaired power, in that they cannot be redeemed in the second year the one who sells an ancestral field cannot redeem it during the first two years, whereas the one who sells a walled house cannot redeem it after the first year. But one who consecrates an ancestral field can redeem it during the second year. So maybe he can also borrow and redeem or redeem it in halves.

 

א"ל רבינא משום דאיכא למימר עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל בשנה שניה ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין

 

Ravina answered him: Because one may say. Let a Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew prove it: his power is great. for he may be redeemed in the second year, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem by half.

 

Ravina brings in yet another case to compare, one that is further removed from the issue of selling/consecrating ancestral lands. A Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew may be redeemed in the second year, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem or redeem half. This is a law we learned earlier on the last daf. So too we could say about the one who consecrates an ancestral field. Just because he can redeem in the second year, does not mean that he redeem half or borrow and redeem.