Kiddushin, Daf Yod Zayin, Part 6
Introduction
The Talmud continues to discuss the baraita that listed which types of slaves are bequeathed as an inheritance and which are not.
הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת :
נרצע דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע ועבדו לעולם ולא את הבן ואת הבת
One who was bored, or was sold to a non-Jew, serves neither the son nor the daughter.
One who was bored, as it is written, And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: and he shall serve him forever (Exodus 21:6) but neither the son nor the daughter.
The Torah says that the slave who has his ear bored shall serve the master forever he serves the master but if the master dies he goes free. He does not serve the master s children.
נמכר לעובד כוכבים מנין אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו
One who is sold to a non-Jew from where do we know this? Hizkiyah said: The verse says, And he shall reckon with his purchaser (Leviticus 25:50), but not with his purchaser’s heirs.
Leviticus 25:50 refers to a Jew sold to a non-Jew. When being redeemed the Torah refers to a negotiation with the Jew s purchaser. From here we can conclude that only the purchaser can own the slave, and not one of his children. The slave goes free if his/her master dies.
אמר רבא דבר תורה עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו שנאמר וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו מכלל דאית ליה יורשים
Rava said: According to biblical law, a non-Jew inherits from his father, for it is said: And he shall reckon with his purchaser [implying,] but not with his purchaser’s heirs, from which it follows that he has heirs.
The above baraita implies that a non-Jew inherits from his father. That is why the baraita had to say that the son/daughter does not inherit the slave. They do inherit, just not this slave. [We should note that we do at times find rabbis legislating laws for non-Jews even though it is quite clear that non-Jews do not obey rabbinic law].
גר את העובד כוכבים אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים
A convert inheriting [the estate of] a non-Jew is not biblical law but the law of the scribes.
When a non-Jew converts to Judaism, he no longer inherits from his parents from biblical law. But he does inherit from them from rabbinic law. Below is proof.
דתנן גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים גר יכול לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות משבאו לרשות גר אסור ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כי לא באו לרשותו נמי כי שקיל חילופי עבודת כוכבים הוא דקא שקיל
For we learned A convert and a gentile who inherited [the property of] their father, a gentile: he (the convert) can say [to his brother the gentile]: You take the idols and I will take the money, or: You take the wine and I will take the produce.
But from the time [that any part of the inheritance] came into the possession of the convert, he is forbidden [to say so].
Now, should you think that [the convert inherits] by Biblical law, even if they have not yet come into his possession, when he takes [the money or the produce], he takes something in exchange for an idol!
A Jew cannot derive benefit from idols or non-Jewish wine. Therefore, once the convert actually takes possession of his father s inheritance, it would be prohibited to exchange them for other parts of the inheritance. This would be considered deriving benefit. But he can exchange them before he takes possession because he does not yet own them. This proves that the convert does not inherit from his non-Jewish father from biblical law, because if he did, then as soon as his father died the son would be considered as if he owned the idols or wine and he would not be able to exchange them.
אלא מדרבנן גזירה הוא דעבוד רבנן שמא יחזור לסורו
Rather the rabbis made [his inheritance] to be [only] from rabbinic law, lest he return to his wayward path.
The rabbis decreed that the convert should inherit from his non-Jewish father. They feared that if he did not do so, he might return to being a non-Jew just so he could claim his inheritance.
תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים כשירשו אבל כשנשתתפו אסור
It was also taught in a baraita: When was this said? If they inherited [the property]. But if they went into partnership, it is forbidden.
By contrasting inheritance with partnership the baraita implies that inheritance is not considered possession, and therefore the convert can exchange the idols or wine for permitted property.
עובד כוכבים את הגר וגר את הגר אינו לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים דתנן לוה מעות מן הגר שנתגיירו בניו עמו לא יחזיר לבניו ואם החזיר אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו
A non-Jew does not inherit from a convert, or a convert from another convert neither by Biblical law nor by the law of the scribes. As we have learned: If a man borrows money from a convert whose children were converted together with him, he must not return it to his children, and if he does, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him.
A non-Jew does not inherit from his father, should his father have converted. Similarly, a convert does not inherit from his father if both of them have converted. The issue here is that the rabbis think of conversion as a rebirth of sorts one loses all ties with one s previous family. Therefore, if the laws of inheritance applied, it would be as if conversion is not actually a rebirth.
This is illustrated by a mishnah in Sheviit. Normally, if one s creditor dies, one must repay his inheritors. But not if they are all converts. Indeed, the rabbis were not happy with one who did so.
והתניא רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו לא קשיא כאן שהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה וכאן שהורתו שלא בקדושה ולידתו בקדושה
But it was taught: The spirit of the Sages is pleased with him?
There is no difficulty. The former refers to a case where both his conception and birth were not in sanctity: the latter to where his conception was not in sanctity, but his birth was.
A different baraita states that the sages were pleased with one who repays the converts converted children. [Note that the simple reading of these two sources is that there was some dispute over the matter. Some rabbis thought that it is always good to pay one s debts. Other rabbis feared that by repaying the converted children, there would not be recognition that conversion is like rebirth. In other words, which is more important, money or ideology?]
The Talmud, as it usually does, harmonizes the two sources. If the child was conceived and born before the father and the children converted, then the sages did not want the borrower to repay the debt. But if the child was conceived, and then the parents converted, while the child still does not inherit from his parents, the rabbis were pleased with one who repaid the debt.