Kiddushin

And if he be not redeemed by these, etc.:1 Rabbi said: He may be redeemed by these, but not by Six [years].2 For I might have argued, Does it not follow a minori: if he3 who cannot be redeemed by these4 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, should you think that he [Rabbi] accepts the deduction from ‘sakir’, used twice, why does he Say, ‘if he who cannot be redeemed by these’: let us deduce [similarity of law from] the repetition of sakir?5 — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: After all, he does accept the deduction of ‘sakir’, ‘sakir’; yet here it is different, because Scripture saith, [one of his brethren] shall redeem him.6 [implying] him, but not another.7 And what Tanna disagrees with Rabbi? — R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba. For it was taught: ‘And if he be not redeemed by these’ — R. Jose the Galilean said: If ‘by these’, it is for freedom, if by strangers,8 it is for servitude.9 R. Akiba said: If ‘by these’,it is for servitude: if by strangers, it is for freedom. What is the reason of R. Jose the Galilean? — Scripture saith, ‘And if he be not redeemed by these’ — but by a stranger — ‘then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’.10 While R. Akiba interprets: ‘And if he be not redeemed by any but these, then he shall go out in the year of jubilee’. And R. Jose the Galilean?11 — Is it then written: ‘by any but these’?12 But they differ in respect of the following verse: Or his uncle, or his uncle's son may redeem him:13 this is redemption by relations; or if he be waxen rich:13 this is self redemption: and he shall be redeemed:13 this is redemption by strangers. Now, R. Jose the Galilean holds: a verse is interpreted with what precedes it. [Hence] link14 redemption by relations with self-redemption: just as self-redemption is for freedom, so is that by relatives. While R. Akiba maintains: a verse is interpreted with what follows: [hence] link redemption by strangers with self redemption: just as the latter is for freedom, so is the former. If so, why state ‘by these’?15 — But for ‘by these’, I would have said: the verse is interpreted with what precedes and what follows it, so that [the redemption of] all is for freedom. If so, the difficulty remains in16 its place?17 — But they differ on a matter of logic. R. Jose the Galilean holds: It is logical that redemption by strangers is for servitude; for should you say it is for freedom, they will refrain from redeeming him. While R. Akiba holds: It is logical that redemption by kinsmen is for servitude: for should you say that it is for freedom, he will go every day and sell himself!18 R. Hiyya b. Abba said: These are the views of R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba: but the Sages maintain, [The redemption of] all is for freedom. Who are the Sages? — Rabbi, who employs this ‘by these’ for a different exegesis,19 while the verse is interpreted with both what precedes and what follows it.20 And Rabbi, how does he utilize 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’: vv. 48f. etc.? This is both more logical and in keeping with what follows. that if redeemed by relatives it is for servitude?