Kiddushin, Daf Yod Het, Part 3

Introduction

Today s sugya discusses whether a slave can be sold, freed and resold. A female slave cannot. Once she goes free, there is essentially no longer anyone with the power to sell her, and women are not sold due to thievery or for debt recollection.

ואינה נמכרת ונשנית : מכלל דעבד עברי נמכר ונשנה והתניא (שמות כב, ב) בגניבתו ולא בכפילו בגניבתו ולא בזממו בגניבתו כיון שנמכר פעם אחת שוב אי אתה רשאי למוכרו

And she cannot be sold and re-sold. From here it follows that a Hebrew male slave may be sold and re-sold. But has it not been taught: [If he lacks the means, he shall be sold] for his theft but not [to recover] his double repayment; for his theft, but not for his refuted testimony; for his theft: having been sold once, he may not be sold again!

A Jew may be sold to recover the value of an item he stole. But if he cannot afford to pay the double payment owed by a thief, he is not sold for the double payment. If a Jew falsely testifies that another person stole, then the false witness must pay back the amount he accused the other of stealing. But if he cannot afford this payment, he is not sold to recover it. And if he was sold once, and then went free, he cannot be sold again.

אמר רבא לא קשיא כאן בגניבה אחת כאן בשתי גניבות

Rava said: There is no difficulty: the latter refers to one theft, the former to two thefts.

Rava resolved the difficulty by claiming that although he may not be sold twice for two different thefts, he may be sold twice to recover one debt. Let s say he stole a large amount of money. By selling him once, the theft might not be recovered. In such a case, he may be sold twice.

א"ל אביי בגניבתו טובא משמע אלא אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן באדם אחד כאן בשני בני אדם

Abaye said to him: For his theft implies even many thefts.

Rather Abaye said: there is no difficulty; the latter refers to one man, the former to two men.

Abaye offers another resolution. If a person stole from one man, he may only be sold once. If this is not enough to recover the debt, then so be it. This is true even if he stole multiple times from the same man. But if he stole from two men, he may be sold twice.

ת"ר גניבו אלף ושוה חמש מאות נמכר וחוזר ונמכר גניבו חמש מאות ושוה אלף אינו נמכר כלל

ר’ אליעזר אומר אם היה גניבו כנגד ממכרו נמכר ואם לאו אינו נמכר

Our Rabbis taught: If his theft was thousand [zuz], and he was worth five hundred, he is sold and then sold again. If his theft was five hundred, and he was worth thousand, he is not sold at all.

R. Eliezer said: If his theft corresponded to his purchase price, he is sold; if not, he is not sold.

This baraita has variant opinions about whether a thief can be sold at all, and whether he can be sold twice. Amazingly, R. Eliezer almost legislates this entire law out of existence. If the slave is not worth exactly what he stole, then he is not sold at all.

אמר רבא בהא זכנהו ר"א לרבנן דמאי שנא גניבו חמש מאות ושוה אלף דאין נמכר דנמכר כולו אמר רחמנא ולא חציו ה"נ נמכר בגניבתו אמר רחמנא ולא נמכר בחצי גניבתו :

Rava said: In this matter R. Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis. For why is it different if his theft was five hundred and he was worth thousand, that he is not sold. Because the Torah said, then he shall be sold all of him, but not half. Here too, the Torah said, He shall be sold for his theft, but not for half his theft.

Rava points out that R. Eliezer is more consistent than the rabbis. According to the rabbis if his theft was worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand he is not sold because we cannot sell half of him. But so too we could read the other word in the the verse with precision that he cannot be sold to recover half of his theft, not even once. Thus, according to R. Eliezer, unless the theft and purchase price are exactly the same, the slave cannot be sold.