Kiddushin, Daf Kaf, Part 6
Introduction
Today s sugya asks again about half redeeming, but this time in the case of house in a walled city. The Torah (Leviticus 25:29-30) states the following with regard to this issue:
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 לחצאין או אינו נגאל לחצאין גאולתו גאולתו משדה אחוזה גמר מה שדה אחוזה אינה נגאלת לחצאין אף האי נמי אינו נגאל לחצאין או דילמא היכא דגלי גלי היכא דלא גלי לא גלי
R. Huna b. Hinena asked R. Sheshet: If one sells a house in a walled city, can it be half-redeemed? Do we learn the meaning of his redemption [stated in the case of selling a house in a walled city] from his redemption from an ancestral field: just as an ancestral field cannot be half redeemed, so too this cannot be half redeemed; or perhaps, where [Scripture] revealed it, it revealed it; where not, it did not?
The word his redemption is used both in the case of the walled city and in the case of redeeming an ancestral field. When it came to the ancestral field, there was a midrash that taught that in order to be redeemed, the whole field must be redeemed. It cannot be half-redeemed. So do we apply this law to the walled city as well? Or do we say that the Torah specified in the case of the ancestral field that it cannot be half-redeemed, but it did not specify this in the case of the walled city, therefore it can be half-redeemed.
א"ל ממדרשו של ר"ש נשמע שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין דתניא (ויקרא כז, יט) אם גאל יגאל מלמד שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
He said to him: From the midrash of R. Shimon we learn that he can borrow and redeem, and he can redeem half. For it was taught: And if he [that sanctified the field] will redeem it (Leviticus 27:19): this teaches that he can borrow and redeem, and redeem half.
The answer will come from a midrash stated by R. Shimon below. The verse quoted here refers to one who consecrates his ancestral field. Such a person can borrow money in order to redeem it, and he can redeem half of it. This differs from one who sells his ancestral field, who can neither borrow to redeem it, nor redeem half.
אמר ר"ש מה טעם לפי שמצינו במוכר שדה אחוזה שיפה כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה חוזרת לבעליה ביובל הורע כחו שאינו לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
R. Shimon said: What is the reason? Because we find in the case of he who sells an ancestral field, that [since] he has enhanced power, in that if Jubilee comes and it has not been redeemed, it reverts to its owners, [as a consequence] his rights are weakened in that he cannot borrow and redeem, or redeem half;
R. Shimon explains why one who sells his field cannot borrow and redeem or redeem half. Since he will get the field back anyway at the Jubilee year, if he wants to redeem it, he must redeem it fully and without borrowing.
מקדיש שהורע כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל יפה כחו שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
He who sanctifies [an ancestral field] whose rights are impaired in that if Jubilee comes and it has not been redeemed, it goes out to the priests at the Jubilee, [therefore] his privilege is strengthened in [so far] that he may borrow and redeem, and redeem half.
One who dedicates a field to the Temple, loses the field permanently at the Jubilee if he does not redeem it before then. Therefore, since he has more to lose, he may borrow and redeem, or redeem just a half.
האי מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה נמי הואיל והורע כחו שאם מלאה לו שנה תמימה ולא נגאלה נחלט יפה כחו שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
This one who sells a house in a walled city, since his rights are impaired in that if a complete year elapsed and it is not redeemed, it is [sold] in perpetuity, therefore his privilege is strengthened in that he can borrow and redeem, and redeem half.
One who sells his house in a walled city may also lose it permanently, even before the Jubilee. If he does not redeem it within a year, the house permanently goes to the purchaser. Therefore, like the one who dedicates a field to the Temple, he can redeem it in halves.
איתיביה (ויקרא כז, יט) אם גאל יגאל מלמד שלוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה מוכר שדה אחוזה שיפה כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה חוזרת לבעליה ביובל הורע כחו שאין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין מקדיש שהורע כחו שאם הגיע יובל ולא נגאלה יוצאה לכהנים ביובל אינו דין שהורע כחו שאין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
He raised an objection: And if he will indeed redeem it (Leviticus 27:19) this teaches that he may borrow and redeem, and redeem half. For it would have been logical [to argue the following]: if he who sells an ancestral field, whose power is great in that if the Jubilee comes and it has not been redeemed it reverts to its original owner, yet his power is impaired in that he cannot borrow and redeem, and redeem half; then he who sanctifies, whose rights are impaired in that if the Jubilee comes and it has not been redeemed it goes out to the priests at the Jubilee, it surely follows that his rights are [also] impaired in that he cannot borrow and redeem, and redeem half.
This baraita is brought as an objection against R. Sheshet. The baraita learns from a midrash that one may redeem half of a field that he has dedicated to the Temple (this is the same as above). But then it argues that from a logical perspective, just as one who sells his field cannot redeem half of it, so too one who dedicates his field cannot redeem half of it. This is the opposite of R. Shimon s midrash from above.
מה למוכר שדה אחוזה שכן הורע כחו ליגאל מיד תאמר במקדיש שיפה כחו ליגאל מיד
מוכר בית בבתי ערי חומה יוכיח שיפה כחו ליגאל מיד ואין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין
As for one who sells an ancestral field , that is because his power is weak in that he [cannot] redeem it immediately; will you say [the same] of one who sanctifies, whose power is strong, that he can redeem it immediately? Let one who sells a house in a walled city prove it, whose power is strong to redeem it immediately, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem, and redeem half!
The baraita now continues and argues that deriving the law about one who consecrates his field from one who sells his field is not possible, because the latter cannot redeem his field immediately, whereas the former can. To prove therefore that it would have been logical to claim that one who consecrates his field cannot redeem half, the baraita turns to the one who sells a house in a walled city. He too can redeem immediately, and yet he can still redeem half. This final line is where the difficulty on R. Sheshet lies it proves that one who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem half.
לא קשיא הא רבנן הא ר"ש
There is no difficulty: the one agrees with the Rabbis, the other with R. Shimon.
Indeed, the two baraitot do disagree, but that is because they represent two tannaitic opinions. The rabbis hold that he may not redeem half and R. Shimon holds that he may.
תני חדא לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין ותניא אידך אין לוה וגואל וגואל לחצאין ל"ק הא רבנן הא ר"ש
One [baraita] taught: He [who sells a house in a walled city] may borrow and redeem, and redeem half.
Another taught: He may not borrow and redeem, nor redeem half.
There is no difficulty: the latter agrees with the sages, the former with R. Shimon.
These two baraitot express precisely the disagreement between the sages and R. Shimon over whether one may borrow and redeem or redeem half of a house in a walled city.