Kiddushin

the one agrees with the Rabbis, the other with R. Simeon.1 One [Baraitha] taught: He [who sells a house in a walled city] may borrow and redeem, and redeem half. Another taught: He may not borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. There is no difficulty: the latter agrees with the Rabbis, the former with R. Simeon. (Mnemonic; Harash, Habash, Zeman.)2 R. Aha, son of Raba, said to R. Ashi: It3 can be refuted: as for one who sells a house in a walled city, that4 is because his privilege is impaired, that he can never redeem it [any longer];5 will you say the same of him who sanctifies, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever?6 — R. Aha Saba [the Elder] remarked to R. Ashi: Because one can say: Let the argument revolve, and infer it by what is common [to both. Thus!] Let him who sells ‘a field of possession’ prove it, whose privilege is great, that he can redeem it for ever, and yet he may not borrow and redeem, or redeem half. As for him who sells ‘a field of possession’, that is because his rights are impaired, in that he [cannot] redeem it immediately. Then let one who sells a house in a walled city prove it.7 And thus the argument revolves: the feature of one is not that of the other. What is common to both [cases] is that they8 may be redeemed, and he [the vendor] cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. So may I also adduce the case of one who sanctifies [an inherited field]: it may be redeemed, and he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem half. Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina: This may be refuted. What is their common feature? That their privileges are impaired. for they [cannot] redeem it in the second year;9 will you say [the same] of him who sanctifies, seeing that his privilege is strong to redeem in the second year? — Rabina answered him: Because one may reply. Let a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen prove it: his rights are unimpaired. for he may be redeemed in the second year, and yet he cannot borrow and redeem, nor redeem by half.10 R. Huna b. Hinena propounded of R. Shesheth: If one sells a house in a walled city, can [the house] be redeemed by relations or not? Do we learn the meaning of ‘his redemption’ from ‘a field of possession’:11 just as ‘a field of possession’ cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations,12 so this too cannot be half redeemed, yet can be redeemed by relations; or perhaps, ‘redemption’ is written only in reference to half,13 but not in reference to relations? — It cannot be redeemed [by relations], answered he. He objected before him: And in all [the land of your possession] ye shall effect a redemption for the land:14 this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves.15 Surely that means houses in a walled city? — No. It means houses in villages. But of houses in villages it is explicitly stated, they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country?16 — That is to make an obligation,17 and is in accordance with R. Eliezer. For it was taught: [If thy brother be waxen poor, and sell some of his possessions, then shall his kinsman that is next unto him come,] and shall redeem that which his brother hath sold:18 that is an option.19 You say, an option: yet perhaps it is not so, but an obligation? Hence it is taught: And if a man have no kinsman.20 But is there a man in Israel who has no kinsman?21 Hence it must refer to him who has [a kinsman,] who [however] refuses to repurchase it, [thus shewing] that he has [merely] an option. R. Eliezer said: ‘and he shall redeem that which his brother hath sold’ [implies] an obligation. You say, an obligation; yet perhaps it is not so, but an option? — Hence it is taught: and in all . . . ye shall effect a redemption.22 The Rabbis said to R. Ashi, or as others state, Rabina said to R. Ashi: On the view that it includes houses in walled cities, it is well;23 but on the view that it includes houses in villages, why ‘in all’?24 This is indeed a difficulty. Abaye raised an objection before him: Why is ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him’, stated three times?25 To include all cases of redemption, that they are to be redeemed in this order.26 Surely that refers to houses in walled cities and Hebrew slaves? — No: to houses in villages and ‘fields of possession’. ‘Houses in villages and fields of possession!’ these are explicitly provided for, ‘they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country’? — It is as R. Nahman b. Isaac said [elsewhere], to teach that the nearer the relation, the greater his precedence; so here too, it is to shew that the nearer the relation, the greater is his precedence.27 Whereon was R. Nahman's dictum stated? — On what was propounded: Can a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite be redeemed by kinsmen or not? On Rabbi's view, that is no question, since he said: He who cannot be redeemed by these [sc. relations] can be redeemed by [the passage of] years,28 thus proving that he cannot be redeemed. Our question is on the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the law? Do we infer ‘sakir’, ‘sakir’29 and do not interpret [the emphasis of, one of his brethren] may redeem him;30 or perhaps, ‘may redeem him’ implies him, but not another?31 — Come and hear:’ ‘In all . . . ye shall effect a redemption’: this is to include houses and Hebrew slaves. Surely that means houses in a walled city, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites? No; it means Hebrew slaves sold to heathens. But of a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen it is explicitly stated, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him? 32 — Scriptural law must be sought, and when found it may modify it and provide a basis for other laws; but the Rabbis disagree. Hence R. Simeon argues that one's very disabilities require compensating privileges, and finds this embodied in the laws of the sanctification of ‘a field of possession’, from which the same principles are applied to analogous cases. Whereas the Rabbis argue that when Scripture impairs one's privileges in one direction they are weakened in all, a minori, the sanctification of an inherited field being explicitly excepted by Scripture. Mari said to Rabina. a walled city. cannot redeem it after the first year.