## Kiddushin Daf 17b

###### Kiddushin 17b:1
[Kiddushin 17b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:1)

לְמָר – לְמַעוֹטֵי כְּסָפִים, לְמָר – לְמַעוֹטֵי פְּרָדוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According **to** one **Master,** Rabbi Shimon, this term serves **to exclude money.** According **to** the other **Master,** Rabbi Eliezer, it serves **to exclude mules.**


###### Kiddushin 17b:2
[Kiddushin 17b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״, יָכוֹל נִתְבָּרֵךְ בַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ, לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ בַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַעֲנֵק תַּעֲנִיק״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֲשֶׁר בֵּרַכְךָ״ – הַכֹּל לְפִי בְּרָכָה תֵּן לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** with regard to the verse: “And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, **of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you”** (Deuteronomy 15:14). One **might** have thought that if the **house is blessed due to him,** then the master **grants him a severance gift,** and if the **house is not blessed due to him,** he **does not grant him a severance gift.** Therefore, **the verse states: “You shall grant severance [*ha’anek ta’anik*],”** with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift **in any case. If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “Of that with which** the Lord your God **has blessed you”?** This teaches that **all** that one **gives him** as a severance gift should be **in accordance with the blessing** one possesses.


###### Kiddushin 17b:3
[Kiddushin 17b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:3)

רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: דְּבָרִים כִּכְתָבָן. נִתְבָּרֵךְ בַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ, לֹא נִתְבָּרֵךְ בַּיִת בִּגְלָלוֹ – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ. אִם כֵּן מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הַעֲנֵיק תַּעֲנִיק״? דִּבְּרָה תוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says:** The meaning of the **statements** of the Torah is **as they are written,** i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if **the house was blessed due to him,** the master **grants him a severance gift,** and if **the house was not blessed due to him,** he **does not grant him a severance gift** at all. **If so, what** is the meaning when **the verse states: “You shall grant severance [*ha’anek ta’anik*],”** with the doubled form of the verb? **The Torah spoke in the language of people,** i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel *halakha*.


###### Kiddushin 17b:4
[Kiddushin 17b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:4)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבַּת. אָמָה עִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ עוֹבֶדֶת לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. הַנִּרְצָע וְהַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. אָמַר מָר: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבַּת. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son** of his deceased master **but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter,** but only the master. **A pierced** slave **and** a Hebrew slave **sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said** above: **A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter.** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived?


###### Kiddushin 17b:5
[Kiddushin 17b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:5)

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים״ – לְךָ וְלֹא לַיּוֹרֵשׁ. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: לְךָ וְלֹא לַיּוֹרֵשׁ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא: לְךָ וְלֹא לַבֵּן? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד״, הֲרֵי לַבֵּן אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים״ לְךָ – וְלֹא לַיּוֹרֵשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As the Sages taught,** with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: **“And he shall serve you six years”** (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves **you and not an heir,** i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do **you say: You and not an heir, or** perhaps **is it even: You and not a son?** The Gemara answers: **When it says: “Six years he shall labor”** (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of **a son is** thereby **stated. How** then **do I uphold** the other verse: **“And he shall serve you six years”?** The expression “serve you” emphasizes that he serves only **you but** he does **not** serve **an heir** other than a son.


###### Kiddushin 17b:6
[Kiddushin 17b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:6)

מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַבֵּן, וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָאָח? מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הַבֵּן – שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָבִיו לִיעִדָה וְלִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What did you see** that led you **to include the son** who inherits a Hebrew slave **and to exclude the brother** from inheriting his brother’s slave? The Gemara answers: **I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her.** Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. **And** similarly, he replaces his father with regard **to an ancestral field** (see Leviticus 27:16–21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.


###### Kiddushin 17b:7
[Kiddushin 17b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:7)

אַדְּרַבָּה, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת הָאָח שֶׁכֵּן קָם תַּחַת אָחִיו לְיִבּוּם! כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן? הָא יֵשׁ בֵּן – אֵין יִבּוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **On the contrary, I** should **include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage.** The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as **is there levirate marriage other** than **in a case when there is no son?** If **there is a son, there is no levirate marriage.** This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.


###### Kiddushin 17b:8
[Kiddushin 17b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:8)

אֶלָּא טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא הָא פִּירְכָא, הָא לָאו הָכִי אָח עֲדִיף? וְתִיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָכָא תַּרְתֵּי, וְהָכָא חֲדָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, the reason for** this *halakha* is specifically that **there is this refutation** that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that **without this** consideration I would say that **a brother is preferable** to a son? **But let me derive** that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother **from** the fact that **here,** with regard to the preference of a son, there are **two** cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, **and here,** in the case of a brother, there is only **one:** Levirate marriage.


###### Kiddushin 17b:9
[Kiddushin 17b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:9)

שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה נָמֵי, מֵהַאי פִּירְכָא הוּא דְּקָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְתַנָּא: כְּלוּם יֵשׁ יִבּוּם אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין בֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: With regard to **an ancestral field too, the *tanna* derives** the *halakha* **from this** same **refutation.** The *tanna* learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: **Is there levirate marriage other** than **in a case when there is no son?** Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.


###### Kiddushin 17b:10
[Kiddushin 17b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:10)

אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ עוֹבֶדֶת לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי פְּדָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְאַף לַאֲמָתְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה כֵּן״ – הִקִּישָׁהּ הַכָּתוּב לַנִּרְצָע, מָה נִרְצָע אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת – אַף אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ עוֹבֶדֶת לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. וְהַאי ״לַאֲמָתְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה כֵּן״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא? הָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְאַף לַאֲמָתְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה כֵּן״ – לְהֶעֱנֵיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* taught that **a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter.** The Gemara asks: **From where is this matter** derived? **Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states** with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: **“And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise”** (Deuteronomy 15:17). **The verse juxtaposes** a Hebrew maidservant **to a pierced** slave: **Just as a pierced** slave **serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter.** The Gemara asks: **And** does **this** verse: **“And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” come** to teach **this** matter? The *tanna* **requires it for that which is taught** in a *baraita*, that the verse: **“And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,”** is a command **to grant** her **a severance gift.**


###### Kiddushin 17b:11
[Kiddushin 17b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:11)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְהֶעֱנֵיק, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לִרְצִיעָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד״ – ״[הָעֶבֶד]״ וְלֹא אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה. (הֲרֵי רְצִיעָה אָמוּר),

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Do **you say** that this comparison obligates one **to grant a severance gift** to a Hebrew maidservant, **or is it** teaching **only** that the *halakha* of **piercing** a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: **When it says** with regard to piercing: **“But if the slave shall say”** (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration **but a Hebrew maidservant cannot,** the *halakha* of **piercing is** thereby **stated** and accounted for.


###### Kiddushin 17b:12
[Kiddushin 17b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:12)

הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״וְאַף לַאֲמָתְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה כֵּן״ – לְהֶעֱנֵיק! אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״לַאֲמָתְךָ כֵּן״, מַאי ״תַּעֲשֶׂה״? שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**How do I realize** the meaning of the verse: **“And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise”?** This obligates a master **to grant a severance gift** to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: **If so,** that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, **let the verse write** merely: **To your maidservant likewise. What** is the meaning of the additional phrase: **“You shall do”? Draw two conclusions from** this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.


###### Kiddushin 17b:13
[Kiddushin 17b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:13)

הַנִּרְצָע וְהַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי אֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. נִרְצָע? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אׇזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם״ – וְלֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְאֶת הַבַּת. נִמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי מִנַּיִן? אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְחִשַּׁב עִם קֹנֵהוּ״ – וְלֹא עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי קוֹנֵהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The *baraita* further teaches that **a pierced** Hebrew slave **and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter.** The Gemara explains: The *halakha* of **a pierced** slave is **as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever”** (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, **but not the son or the daughter.** The Gemara asks: **From where** is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave **sold to a gentile? Ḥizkiyya says** that **the verse states** with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: **“And he shall reckon with his purchaser”** (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser **but not to the heirs of his purchaser.**


###### Kiddushin 17b:14
[Kiddushin 17b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה נׇכְרִי יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אָבִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְחִשַּׁב עִם קֹנֵהוּ״ – וְלֹא עִם יוֹרְשֵׁי קוֹנֵהוּ. מִכְּלָל דְּאִית לֵיהּ יוֹרְשִׁים. גֵּר אֶת הַנׇּכְרִי – אֵינוֹ מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits** the property of **his father, as it is stated** with regard to one sold to a gentile: **“And he shall reckon with his purchaser,” but not with his purchaser’s heirs.** One can derive from here **by inference** that ordinarily a gentile **has heirs.** By contrast, **by Torah law a convert does not** inherit the property of his father or any other **gentile,** as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. **Rather,** a convert inherits the property of his father **by rabbinic law.**


###### Kiddushin 17b:15
[Kiddushin 17b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:15)

דִּתְנַן: גֵּר וְנׇכְרִי שֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ אֶת אֲבִיהֶם נׇכְרִי, גֵּר יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לְנׇכְרִי טוֹל אַתָּה עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה וַאֲנִי מָעוֹת, טוֹל אַתָּה יַיִן נֶסֶךְ וַאֲנִי פֵּירוֹת. מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לִרְשׁוּת גֵּר – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Demai* 6:10): With regard to **a convert and a gentile who inherited** property **from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take** the objects of **idol worship and I** will take **money; you take wine** used for **a libation** to idolatry **and I** will take **produce.** Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But **once they have come into the convert’s possession,** it is **prohibited** for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry.


###### Kiddushin 17b:16
[Kiddushin 17b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:16)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, כִּי לֹא בָאוּ לִרְשׁוּתוֹ נָמֵי – כִּי שָׁקֵיל חִילּוּפֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הוּא דְּקָא שָׁקֵיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it would enter your mind** that a convert inherits property from his father **by Torah law, it** should be prohibited **when** these objects **have not** yet **come into his possession as well,** as **when he takes** money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, **he takes** an item that has been **exchanged for** objects of **idol worship.** Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well.


###### Kiddushin 17b:17
[Kiddushin 17b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:17)

אֶלָּא: מִדְּרַבָּנַן, גְּזֵירָה הוּא דַּעֲבוּד רַבָּנַן שֶׁמָּא יַחְזוֹר לְסוֹרוֹ. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁיָּרְשׁוּ, אֲבָל כְּשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּתְּפוּ – אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** a convert inherits property from his father **by rabbinic law,** as this is **a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his** previous **wayward path [*suro*].** The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father’s property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. **This** *halakha* **is also taught** in a *baraita*: **In what** case **is this statement said?** He may do this **when they inherited. But when** the convert and the gentile **formed a partnership, it is prohibited** for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.


###### Kiddushin 17b:18
[Kiddushin 17b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:18)

נׇכְרִי אֶת הַגֵּר, וְגֵר אֶת הַגֵּר – אֵינוֹ לֹא מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה וְלֹא מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים. דִּתְנַן: לָוָה מָעוֹת מִן הַגֵּר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ בָּנָיו עִמּוֹ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר לְבָנָיו. וְאִם הֶחֱזִיר – אֵין רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the same issue it is taught: **By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not** inherit property **from** his father who is **a convert, nor** does **a convert** inherit property **from** his father who is **a convert. As we learned** in a mishna (*Shevi’it* 10:9): If one **borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him,** and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, **he does not return** it **to** the creditor’s **sons,** as they are not considered his heirs. **And if he** does **return** it, **the Sages are not pleased with him.**


###### Kiddushin 17b:19
[Kiddushin 17b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/17b:19)

וְהָתַנְיָא רוּחַ חֲכָמִים נוֹחָה הֵימֶנּוּ! לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן שֶׁהוֹרָתוֹ וְלֵידָתוֹ שֶׁלֹּא בִּקְדוּשָּׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* that **the Sages are pleased with him?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult. Here,** it is referring to a convert **whose conception and birth were not in sanctity** of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son.