Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 3

 

Introduction

Yesterday s section concluded with the statement of R. Nahman b. Yitzchak, that the closer a relative is, the more he takes precedence in the obligation to redeem a field, a slave or a house. Today s section examines where he made this statement.

Note that the structure and content of this section is very similar to yesterday s. So my comments here will be a bit briefer.

 

היכא איתמר דר"נ בר יצחק אהא דאיבעיא להו עבד עברי הנמכר לישראל נגאל לקרובים או אינו נגאל לקרובים

אליבא דרבי לא תבעי לך דאמר מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש אלמא לא מיפרק כי תיבעי לך אליבא דרבנן מאי ילפינן שכיר שכיר ולא דרשי יגאלנו או דילמא יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר

 

In what context was R. Nahman’s statement made? On that which was asked: Can a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite be redeemed by relatives or not?

On Rabbi’s view, that is no question, since he said: He who cannot be redeemed by these [relatives] can be redeemed by [the passage of] years, thus proving that he cannot be redeemed [by relatives].

When we asked, it was about the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the law? Do we derive sakhir from sakhir and not expound [the emphasis of, one of his brothers] may redeem him or perhaps, [one of his brothers] may redeem him implies him, but not another?

 

The Talmud shifts to the question of whether a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite, and not a Gentile, can be redeemed. Rabbi clearly holds that he cannot, but what about the rabbis. The rabbis could employ either of two midrashic techniques. They could expound on the use of the word sakhir and say that the laws referring to being sold to a non-Jew apply to the case of a slave sold to a Jew. Or they could read the word may redeem him exclusively relatives may redeem him, the one sold to a non-Jew. But they may not redeem the one sold to a Jew.

 

תא שמע בכל גאולה תתנו לרבות בתים ועבד עברי

מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל לא עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים

 

Come and hear: In all . . . you shall grant redemption this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves.

Surely that means houses in a walled city, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites?

No; it means Hebrew slaves sold to non-Jews.

 

Again, the Talmud invokes a term read as inclusive in all. This is read as teaching that Hebrew slaves can be redeemed by relatives. The initial assumption is that this refers even to Hebrew slaves sold to other Jews. But then the Talmud rejects this and says it refers only to slaves sold to non-Jews.

 

עבד עברי הנמכר לעובד כוכבים בהדיא כתיב ביה (ויקרא כה, מט) או דודו או בן דודו יגאלנו

ההוא לקובעו חובה ואפי’ לרבי יהושע

 

But a Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew is explicitly stated, or his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him? (Leviticus 25:49).

That is to make it an obligation, and even according to R. Joshua.

 

The Torah explicitly states that a Hebrew slave may be redeemed by a relative. So why would we need a special midrash to teach this elsewhere?

The answer is that the verse in all comes to add that redeeming a Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew is obligatory, even according to R. Joshua who holds that redeeming land is optional. We have now rejected the first answer to the question as to whether Hebrew slaves sold to Jews may be redeemed. We need another source to find an answer.

 

ת"ש מה ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מח) יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו ג’ פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל

לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה

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

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם:

 

Come and hear: Why does Scripture state, 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 sold to Israelites?

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).

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: This comes to teach that the nearest relative comes first.

 

This section is nearly identical to that found in the end of yesterday s section.

The repetition of he shall redeem him is read as teaching that all redemptions are the same, and by this the Talmud tries to extend it to the ability of relatives to redeem Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites.

The Talmud then rejects that and claims that the verse refers only to the redemption of houses in villages and ancestral fields. But then, again, the difficulty is raised that it is explicitly stated that these may be redeemed by relatives. So what then does the midrash in all come to include.

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak reads this midrash as teaching that the nearest relative comes first. So again, we arrive at the conclusion that according to the rabbis while Hebrew slaves sold to non-Jews, fields and houses in villages may be redeemed by relatives, Jews sold to other Jews may not. They will need to either redeem themselves or complete their six year term.