Kiddushin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

You might not have noticed but we still have not identified the tanna that does not learn from the repetition of the word sakhir in Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the context of the Hebrew slave. The search goes on!

 

אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר רבי היא דתניא (ויקרא כה, נד) ואם לא יגאל באלה רבי אומר באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש זה שנגאל באלה אינו דין שנגאל בשש ת"ל באלה באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש

ואי סלקא דעתך יליף שכיר שכיר אמאי קאמר ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נילף שכיר שכיר

 

Then which Tanna does learn from the repetition of sakhir ? It is Rabbi. For it was taught: And if he is not redeemed by these (Leviticus 25:54): Rabbi said: He may be redeemed by these, but not by six [years]. For I might have argued, Does it not follow from a kal vehomer argument: if he who cannot be redeemed by these is redeemed by six [years], then this one, who may be redeemed by these, is surely redeemed by six years? Therefore it is written: by these : teaching, he may be redeemed by these, but not by six years.

Now, if you thought that he [Rabbi] learns from the repetitions of the word sakhir , why does he say, if he who cannot be redeemed by these : let us learn from the repetition of the word sakhir.

 

Leviticus 25:54 refers to an Israelite sold to a Gentile. The Torah says that he may be redeemed by his relative. Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] rules that he does not go free after six years. Rabbi points out that we might have made a kal vehomer from a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew. He cannot be redeemed by his relatives and yet he does go free at six years. This proves that Rabbi does not learn from the repetition of the word sakhir for the word sakhir is used in both the context of a Jew sold to Gentiles and a Jew sold to other Jews. If Rabbi learned from sakhir then both types of slaves could be redeemed by their relatives.

 

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, מח) יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר

 

R. Nahman b. Yitzchak said: In fact, he does learn from the repetition of the word sakhir ; but here it is different, because Scripture says, [One of his brethren] shall redeem him him, but not another.

 

As occurred earlier, the Talmud rejects the notion that Rabbi does not learn from the repetition of the word sakhir. In general he does, but in this case he does not because he reads the verse as specifically limiting the one able to be redeemed by relatives to the Hebrew sold to a Gentile. Thus according to Rabbi we could say that the laws of Exodus apply to the slave described in Leviticus. But we could also distinguish between a slave sold to a Gentile and one sold to a Jew.

ומאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי ר’ יוסי הגלילי ור"ע דתניא (ויקרא כה, נד) לא יגאל באלה ר’ יוסי הגלילי אומר באלה לשחרור בשאר כל אדם לשעבוד ר"ע אומר באלה לשעבוד בשאר כל אדם לשחרור

 

And what Tanna disagrees with Rabbi? R. Yose the Galilean and R. Akiva. For it was taught: And if he is not redeemed by these : R. Yose the Galilean said: By these , he goes free, if by any other man, it is for servitude.

R. Akiva said: By these , it is for servitude: if by any other man, it is for freedom.

 

Rabbi reads the words by these as teaching that a slave purchased by a Gentile does not go free after six years. In contrast, two other tannaim read the phrase as teaching something different. R. Yose the Galilean reads them as teaching that if a relative redeems the slave, he goes free. But if he is redeemed by a non-relative, then he becomes a slave to that redeemer. R. Akiva reads this opposite if he is redeemed by the relative, then he remains a slave. If by any other man, then he goes free.

 

מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי הגלילי אמר קרא אם לא יגאל באלה אלא באחר ויצא בשנת היובל ור"ע אומר אם לא יגאל אלא באלה ויצא בשנת היובל

ור’ יוסי הגלילי מידי אלא באלה כתיב

 

What is the reason of R. Yose the Galilean? The verse says, And if he is not redeemed by these but by a stranger then he shall go out in the year of Jubilee .

While R. Akiva interprets: And if he be not redeemed by anyone but only by these, then he shall go out in the year of Jubilee.

And R. Yose the Galilean? Is it written: by anyone but only by these ?

 

The Talmud shows how each of these two rabbis reads the verse. R. Yose inserts the difference between a relative and a stranger straight into the verse.

R. Akiva reads the verse slightly differently. If he is not redeemed by any but these, then he goes free. But if he is redeemed by these, i.e. the relatives, he does not go free until the Jubilee year.

R. Yose counters that R. Akiva s reading is not actually written in the verse and requires the insertion of several words.

 

אלא בהאי קרא קמיפלגי (ויקרא כה, מט) או דודו או בן דודו יגאלנו זה גאולת קרובים (ויקרא כה, מט) או השיגה ידו זה גאולת עצמו ונגאל זו גאולת אחרים ר’ יוסי הגלילי סבר מקרא נדרש לפניו שדי גאולת קרובים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת קרובים לשחרור ור"ע סבר מקרא נדרש לאחריו שדי גאולת אחרים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת אחרים לשחרור

 

Rather they differ in respect of the following verse: Or his uncle, or his uncle’s son may redeem him (Leviticus 25:49): this refers to redemption by a relative; Or if he becomes rich (ibid): this refers to self-redemption: and he shall be redeemed, this refers to redemption by others. Now, R. Yose the Galilean holds: a verse is interpreted with what precedes it. [Hence] link redemption by relatives with self-redemption: just as self-redemption is for freedom, so is redemption by relatives. While R. Akiva holds: a verse is interpreted with what follows: [hence] link redemption by others with self-redemption: just as the latter is for freedom, so is the former.

 

The Talmud now offers a different reason for their dispute, which is anchored in the words of the verse. There are three forms of redemption alluded to in the verse by relatives, by oneself, by strangers. Rabbi Yose Hagalili says that redemption by oneself teaches something about what appears before redemption by relatives. Just as self-redemption is (obviously) for freedom, so is redemption by relatives. R. Akiva says that the verse teaches about that which follows. Just as redemption by oneself leads to freedom, so does redemption by others.

 

אי הכי באלה למה לי אי לאו באלה ה"א מקרא נדרש בין לפניו בין לאחריו והכל לשחרור

אי הכי הדר קושיא לדוכתיה

 

If so, why state by these ? If it were not for the word by these , I would have said: the verse is interpreted with what precedes and what follows it, so that [any redemption] is for freedom.

If so, the difficulty returns to its place?

 

The phrase by these is used to offer some limitation. The words indicate that some sort of redemption leads to freedom and some sort does not.

But now that we have said this, the original difficulty returns. R. Yose Hagalili s reading makes sense, but R. Akiva s does not.

 

אלא בסברא קמיפלגי רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר מסתברא גאולת אחרים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור הוו מימנעי ולא פרקי ליה

ור"ע סבר מסתברא גאולת קרובים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור כל יומא ויומא אזל ומזבין נפשיה

 

Rather they differ on a matter of logic. R. Yose Hagalili holds: It is logical that redemption by strangers is for servitude; for should you say it is for freedom, they would refrain from redeeming him.

While R. Akiva holds: It is logical that redemption by relatives is for servitude: for should you say that it is for freedom, he will go every day and sell himself!

 

Rather, the Talmud suggests that their dispute is due to differing assessments of psychology. R. Yose Hagalili argues that by allowing the slave to remain in servitude, we are encouraging Jews to redeem him from non-Jews. In contrast, R. Akiva argues that if he were to go free when redeemed by relatives, he would just sell himself into slavery over and over again, knowing that a relative would redeem him and he would go free.

 

א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן זו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ור"ע אבל חכ"א הכל לשחרור

מאן חכמים רבי היא דמפיק ליה להאי באלה לדרשה אחרינא ומקרא נדרש בין לפניו ובין לאחריו

 

R. Hiyya b. Abba said: These are the words of R. Yose Hagalili and R. Akiva: but the Sages hold, [The redemption of] anyone is for freedom. Who are the Sages? Rabbi, who uses this by these for a different derashah, and the verse is interpreted with both what precedes and what follows it.

 

According to Rabbi, no matter who redeems the slave, the slave goes free. By these implies, as we learned above, that a slave sold to a Gentile does not go free after six years.

 

ורבי האי (ויקרא כה, נד) ויצא בשנת היובל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצא בשנת היובל בעובד כוכבים שישנו תחת ידך או אינו אלא בעובד כוכבים שאינו תחת ידך אמרת וכי מה אפשר לעשות לו הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בעובד כוכבים שישנו תחת ידך :

 

And Rabbi, how does he use this [verse] then he shall go out in the year of Jubilee ? He needs it for what was taught: Then he shall go out in the year of Jubilee : this refers to a Gentile who is under your rule. Or might it refer to a Gentile who is not under your rule? You can answer; [If so,] what can be done to him? Hence the verse speaks only of a Gentile who is under your rule.

 

According to Rabbi, the verse in Leviticus refers to a Gentile who lives under Israelite rule. He owns the Hebrew slave and must send him free at the Jubilee. It cannot refer to the Gentile not living under Israelite rule because such a Gentile would not listen to the Jew in the first place.