Kiddushin

the latter to where his conception was not In sanctity, but his birth was.1 R. Hiyya b. Abin said in R. Johanan's name: A heathen succeeds his father by Biblical law, since it is written, because I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for an inheritance.2 Yet perhaps an apostate Israelite is different?3 — But [it follows] from this: Because I have given Are unto the children of Lot as a heritage.4 Now, R. Hiyya b. Abin, why does he not agree with Raba? — Is it then written: ‘And he shall reckon with his purchaser’ but not with his purchaser's heirs! And Raba, why does he not agree with R. Hiyya b. Abin? — There it is different, [it being] on account of Abraham's honour.5 Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew bondman has features which a Hebrew bondwoman lacks, and there are features in a Hebrew bondwoman which a Hebrew bondman lacks. A Hebrew bondman has [these] features, viz.: he goes out [free] through [the passage of six] years, by jubilee, and by his master's death, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew bondwoman. And a Hebrew bondwoman has [these] features, viz.: a Hebrew bondwoman goes out by ‘signs’, she cannot be sold and re-sold, and is redeemed against her will, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew bondman. The Master said: ‘A Hebrew bondman has features which a Hebrew bondwoman lacks.’ But the following contradicts this: A HEBREW MAIDSERVANT IS MORE [PRIVILEGED] THAN HE, IN THAT SHE ACQUIRES HERSELF BY ‘SIGNS’!6 — Said R. Shesheth: E.g., if he designated her [as his wife].7 ‘He designated her?’ But that is obvious: she needs a divorce! — I might have thought, The regulations8 are not annulled in her case. Hence we are informed otherwise. If so, why does she go out free by ‘signs’? — This is its meaning: If he [her master] did not designate her, she goes out free by ‘signs’ too. ‘And she cannot be sold and re-sold.’ Hence it follows that a Hebrew male slave may be sold and re-sold. But it was taught: [If he have nothing, then he shall be sold] for his theft,9 but not for his double repayment;10 ‘for his theft,’ but not for his refuted testimony;11 for his theft’: having been sold once, he may not be sold again! — Said Raba: There is no difficulty: the latter refers to one theft, the former to two thefts. Abaye demurred: ‘for his theft’ may imply even many thefts!12 But, said Abaye, there is no difficulty; the latter refers to one man, the former to two men.13 Our Rabbis taught: If his theft was thousand [zuz], and he was [only] worth five hundred, he is sold and then sold again.14 If his theft was five hundred, whereas he is worth thousand, he is not sold at all. R. Eliezer said: If his theft corresponded to his purchase price,15 he is sold; if not, he is not sold. Raba 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 Scripture said: ‘then he shall be sold’ — all of him, but not half? Then here too,16 Scripture ordered, ‘he shall be sold for his theft,’ but not for half his theft. ‘And is redeemed against his will.’ Raba thought to interpret: against the master's will. Said Abaye to him: How so — that a bond is drawn up for him for her value? But why:17 he holds a pearl in his hand — shall we give him a shard?18 But, said Abaye, against her father's will,19 on account of the family disgrace. If so, in the case of a Hebrew bondman too, let the members of his family [be forced to redeem him] on account of the family disgrace? — Then he will go and sell himself again. Then here too, he [the father] will go and sell her again? — Was it not taught: She cannot be sold and then sold again? And this agrees with R. Simeon. For it was taught: A man may sell his daughter for marital relationship, and then repeat it;20 for servitude, and then repeat it,21 for marriage after servitude,22 but not for servitude after marriage. R. Simeon said: Just as a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after marriage, so a man cannot sell his daughter for servitude after servitude. Now this enters into the dispute of the following Tannaim. For it was taught: [To sell her unto a strange people he shall have no power], seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her [be-bigedo bah]: 23 until the Revelation, and thus not subject to Jewish law (cf. Sanh. p. 384, n. 6), it would appear that this was not held to apply to inheritance, probably because Palestine itself was given to the Jews as a heritage from Abraham. impose; v. Deut. XIX, 19. But if he falsely testified to theft, though he thereby sought to have the accused sold as a slave, if he could not make restitution, he is nevertheless not sold himself. robs two men, each of whom sues him at court at different times, he may be sold twice. Tosaf. reverses it. and agrees with the previous statements. shard on which such a bond may be written? father's desire, who may not wish to have her back at home and to keep her. (q.v. Glos.) he can do so again, on each occasion the money of kiddushin belonging to himself.