Kiddushin, Daf Yod Zayin, Part 3
Introduction
According to R. Judah, the master must grant the slave thirty shekels
רבי יהודה אומר שלשים כשלשים של עבד
מאי טעמא דרבי יהודה יליף נתינה נתינה מעבד מה להלן שלשים אף כאן שלשים
R. Judah said: Thirty, as the thirty [paid] for a slave.
What is R. Judah’s reason? He derives the meaning of giving from a slave: just as there, the amount is thirty, so too here it is thirty.
R. Judah derives the amount of thirty shekels from the fact that both this law in Deuteronomy 15 and the law of the ox that kills a slave in Exodus 21:32 use the word give.
ונילף נתינה נתינה מערכין מה להלן חמשים אף כאן חמשים
חדא דתפשתה מרובה לא תפשתה תפשתה מועט תפשתה
ועוד עבד מעבד הוה ליה למילף
But let us learn the meaning of giving from evaluations: just as there, fifty, so here too, fifty?
Firstly, because if you seize much, you have not seized; if you seize a little, you have seized;
Moreover, it is better for him to rather deduce a law about slaves from another law about slaves.
The word giving is also used in the context of evaluations of a person s worth (Leviticus 27). But there are two reasons R. Judah prefers to learn from the context of killing a slave. First of all, there is a general principle according to which when there are two options, go with the smaller one. Essentially what this means in this context is that we know the master is liable for at least thirty, but we cannot be sure that he is liable for fifty. Thirty is a safe bet, fifty is not.
The second reason is obvious better to learn from a similar context.
ר’ שמעון אומר חמשים כחמשים שבערכין
מאי טעמיה דרבי שמעון גמר נתינה נתינה מערכין מה להלן חמשים אף כאן חמשים
ואימא בפחות שבערכין אשר ברכך יי’ אלהיך כתיב
Rabbi Shimon said: Fifty, as the fifty of evaluations.
What is R. Shimon’s reason? He derives the meaning of giving from evaluations: just as there, fifty, so here too, fifty.
But why not say with the least [sum] of the evaluations?
It is written, As the Lord your God has blessed you.
As stated above, Rabbi Shimon derives the amount the master must give the slave from the use of the word giving in both this context and in the context of dedicating the value of something to the Temple. The highest value is 50 shekels.
But why not learn from the lowest value which is 5 shekels?
Again, the Talmud answers with the verse as the Lord God blesses you. This is read as mandating a higher amount.
ונילף נתינה נתינה מעבד מה להלן שלשים אף כאן שלשים
חדא דתפשתה מרובה לא תפשתה
ועוד עבד מעבד הוה ליה למילף
But let us derive the meaning of giving from a slave: just as there, thirty, so here too thirty: [for] firstly, if you seize much, you have not seized; if you seize little, you have seized; and moreover, he should rather deduce slave from slave?
The two claims that helped explain why R. Judah learned thirty from the context of the slave are both difficulties on R. Shimon.
ר’ שמעון מיכה מיכה גמר
R. Shimon deduces poverty from poverty.
R. Shimon does not learn from the repetition of the word giving. Rather he learns from the repetition of the word poverty, which appears in Leviticus 27:8 (evaluations) and Leviticus 25:3 (slavery). Note that the problem with this is that the law that the master must grant the slave a gift does not appear in Leviticus, so to accomplish this we have to do a double jump, from Leviticus 27 to Leviticus 25 to Deuteronomy 15.
בשלמא לר’ מאיר היינו דכתיב צאן גורן ויקב
אלא לר’ יהודה ורבי שמעון האי צאן גורן ויקב למה לי
Now, as for R. Meir, it makes sense that flocks, threshing floor and wine press are written.
But to R. Judah and R. Shimon, why are these necessary?
R. Meir derives from these three words that fifteen shekels, three times five, must be given. But what do R. Judah and R. Shimon do with them?
האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא יכול לא יהו מעניקין אלא מצאן גורן ויקב מנין לרבות כל דבר ת"ל אשר ברכך יי’ אלהיך א"כ מה ת"ל צאן גורן ויקב לומר לך מה צאן גורן ויקב מיוחדים שישנן בכלל ברכה אף כל שישנן בכלל ברכה יצאו כספים דברי ר’ שמעון
רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר יצאו פרדות
They are necessary, as it was taught: I might have thought that the gift can be made only of flocks, the threshing floor, and the wine-press: how do I know that all things are included? From the verse: As the Lord your blessed you, you shall give him. If so, why state flocks, threshing floor, and wine-press ? To inform you: just as these are exceptional in that they are included in blessing, so must everything [given to the slave] be included blessing, thus excluding money, the words of R. Shimon. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: excluding mules.
The Talmud now weaves in a baraita in which tannaim debate what types of things a master may not grant the slave. The grant must come from things that are considered a blessing. R. Shimon excludes from here money. Money is easily lost, devaluated etc. And therefore, it is problematic. [One might thing that today we value money over many things, but we really do not. That s why we put most of our money in a bank where it is transformed into an investment. Furthermore, our money is totally symbolic. In fact, most of the money in the world, probably well over 99 per cent is just a number in a computer. In the ancient world money was actual silver. But this is a larger topic]. R. Eliezer ben Jacob excludes mules. The rabbis had two problems with mules. 1) They were considered violent. 2) They do not reproduce. [I discuss this in volume 1 of Reconstructing the Talmud.]
ור’ שמעון פרדות משבחן בגופייהו
ורבי אליעזר בן יעקב כספים עביד בהו עיסקא
And R. Shimon? Mules, their own bodies grow.
And R. Eliezer b. Jacob? One can engage in business with money.
R. Shimon says that despite the fact that mules cannot procreate, their own bodies grow and can be used to perform other tasks.
And R. Eliezer b. Jacob points out that there is some usefulness to cash it is the easiest way to engage in business.
וצריכא דאי כתב רחמנא צאן הוה אמינא בעלי חיים אין גידולי קרקע לא כתב רחמנא גורן ואי כתב גורן הוה אמינא גידולי קרקע אין בעלי חיים לא כתב רחמנא צאן יקב למה לי למר למעוטי כספים למר למעוטי פרדות
Now, they are [all] necessary. For had the Torah written flocks, I would have thought, only animals [may be given], but not agricultural produce: [therefore] the Torah wrote threshing floor.
And had it written threshing-floor , I would have said, only agricultural produce; [therefore] Scripture wrote threshing-floor. And had it written threshing-floor, I would have said, only agricultural produce, but not livestock: hence the Torah wrote flocks .
Why do I need wine-press ? According to one Master, to exclude money; according to the other, to exclude mules.
The Talmud explains why all three examples were necessary. Flocks and threshing floor teach that animals and produce are acceptable. Wine-press excludes either money or mules.