Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 2

 

Introduction

Our sugya is about whether a house sold in a walled city can be redeemed by relatives.

Again, I am quoting here the relevant verses from Leviticus 25:29-30:

 

If a man sells a dwelling house in a walled city, it may be redeemed until a year has elapsed since its sale; the redemption period shall be a year.

If it is not redeemed before a full year has elapsed, the house in the walled city shall pass to the purchaser beyond reclaim throughout the ages; it shall not be released in the jubilee.

 

בעא מיניה רב הונא בר חיננא מרב ששת המוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נגאל לקרובים או אין נגאל לקרובים גאולתו גאולתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת לחצאין ונגאלת לקרובים אף האי נמי אין נגאל לחצאין ונגאל לקרובים או דילמא כי כתיבא גאולה בחצאין הוא דכתיב בקרובים לא כתיב א"ל אינו נגאל

 

R. Huna b. Hinena asked of R. Sheshet: If one sells a house in a walled city, can [the house] be redeemed by relatives or not? Do we learn the meaning of his redemption from an ancestral field: just as an ancestral field cannot be half redeemed, but can be redeemed by relatives, so too this cannot be half redeemed, but can be redeemed by relatives; or perhaps, redemption is written only in reference to redeeming a half, but not in reference to relatives?

He answered: It cannot be redeemed [by relatives].

 

In last week s daf we learned that a like an ancestral field, a house in a walled city cannot be half redeemed. Leviticus 25:25 explicitly says that the ancestral field can be redeemed by relatives. So the question is does the comparison of the two carry over for that issue as well. Or does it only teach that neither can be redeemed in halves.

 

איתיביה (ויקרא כה, כד) בכל גאולה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי

מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה לא בתי חצרים

 

He raised a difficulty against him: Throughout the land that you hold, you must provide for the redemption of the land (Leviticus 25:24): this comes to include houses and Hebrew slaves. Does this not mean houses in a walled city?

No. It means houses in villages.

 

The midrash reads Leviticus 25:24 as teaching that relatives may redeem houses and Hebrew slaves. The assumption is that this refers to a house in a walled city.

The Talmud then rejects this and posits that it refers to a house sold in a village that does not have a wall.

 

בתי חצרים בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא כה, לא) על שדה הארץ יחשב

 

But about houses in villages it is explicitly written, they shall be classed as a field in the land (Leviticus 25:31).

 

The Torah seems to explicitly say that houses in open villages are not classed as houses in walled cities, and thus can be redeemed by relatives. So why would need a midrash to teach this.

 

ההוא לקובעו חובה ואליבא דרבי אליעזר דתניא (ויקרא כה, כה) וגאל את ממכר אחיו רשות אתה אומר רשות או אינו אלא חובה ת"ל (ויקרא כה, כו) ואיש כי לא יהיה לו גואל וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא זה שיש לו ואינו רוצה ליקח שהרשות בידו דברי רבי יהושע

ר"א אומר וגאל את ממכר אחיו חובה אתה אומר חובה או אינו אלא רשות ת"ל בכל גאולה תתנו הכתוב קבעו חובה

 

That is to make it an obligation, and it follows R. Eliezer. For it was taught: And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold (Leviticus 25:25): this is an option. You say it is an option: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather it is an obligation? Scripture says: And if a man has no redeemer (Leviticus 25:26). But is there a person in Israel who has no redeemer? Hence it must refer to one who has [a redeemer,] who but who does not want repurchase it, [thus teaching] that it is an option.

R. Eliezer said: And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold [this teaches that it is] an obligation. You say, an obligation; yet perhaps it is not so, but an option? Hence it is taught: And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land (Leviticus 25:24).

 

The Talmud responds that the similarity between houses in a walled city and open fields is that relatives have an obligation to redeem both of them (as long as they have the ability to do so). This accords with R. Eliezer, who holds that whenever relatives can redeem land or houses sold by their family, they must do so. R. Joshua holds that it is an option, not an obligation.

This allows us to restore R. Sheshet s answer relatives may not redeem houses in walled cities.

 

אמרי ליה רבנן לרב אשי ואמרי לה רבינא לרב אשי בשלמא למ"ד לרבות בתי ערי חומה היינו דכתיב בכל אלא למ"ד לרבות בתי חצרים מאי בכל קשיא

 

The rabbis said to R. Ashi, and others say, Ravina said to R. Ashi: It makes sense to the one that says that it includes houses in walled cities, that is why it says in all; but to the one who says that it includes [only] houses in villages, what does in all mean? This is indeed a difficulty.

 

Leviticus 25:24 uses the word in all. This inclusive phrase should mean that even houses in walled cities and not just even house in villages can be redeemed by relatives. But to R. Sheshet, who held that they can t, what does in all come to include? After all, we already know that houses in villages can be redeemed by relatives.

 

איתיביה אביי מה ת"ל יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו ג’ פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה

מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי

 

Abaye raised an objection before him: Why does Scripture states, He shall redeem him, he shall redeem him he shall redeem three times? To include all cases of redemption, that they are to be redeemed in this order.

Surely that refers to houses in walled cities and Hebrew slaves?

 

Abaye raises another difficulty against R. Sheshet who held that houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives.

A midrash reads the repetition of the word he shall redeem him as indicating that all cases of redemption have the same order of redemption that appears in connection with a Hebrew slave sold to a Gentile first the brother should redeem him, next the uncle or some other relative and if not, then anyone else. So too, Abaye argues, when it comes to houses in walled cities or Hebrew slaves sold to Jews.

 

לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה

בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה בהדיא כתיב על שדה הארץ יחשב

 

No, it was stated about houses in villages and ancestral fields.

But about houses in villages and ancestral fields it is explicitly written, they shall be classed as a field in the land (Leviticus 25:31).

 

The Talmud resolves Abaye s difficulty by saying that the midrash refers only to houses in villages and ancestral fields.

But again, there is a problem, same as above. We have a verse that explicitly teaches that houses in villages have the same rule as ancestral fields. So why would we need a midrash to teach that.

 

כדאמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם ה"נ לקרוב קרוב קודם

 

It is as R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said [elsewhere], to teach that the nearest relative comes first; so here too, the nearest relative comes first.

 

The Talmud solves this by referring to a statement made in another context that the nearest relative has the first obligation to redeem the house in the village. That is what this midrash teaches. But neither midrash need be read as teaching that houses in walled cities can be redeemed by relatives.