## Kiddushin Daf 21a

###### Kiddushin 21a:1
[Kiddushin 21a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:1)

הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** second *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and **that** *baraita*, which teaches that one can borrow money and redeem the house and partially redeem it, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:2
[Kiddushin 21a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:2)

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין, וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין. לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבָּנַן, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara states: It **is taught** in **one** *baraita* with regard to the houses of walled cities: **One can borrow** money **and redeem** it, **and** one can **partially redeem** it, **and** it **is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **One cannot borrow** money **and redeem** it, **nor** can one **partially redeem.** Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two *baraitot*. The Gemara answers as above: This is **not difficult. This** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis,** and **that** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:3
[Kiddushin 21a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:3)

(סִימָן: חָרַשׁ חָבַשׁ זְמַן)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides **a mnemonic** device for the names of the Sages who raise the dilemmas cited below and those to whom the questions are addressed: ***Ḥeresh*, *ḥavash*, *zeman*.** They allude to the following interlocutors: *Ḥeresh* alludes to Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, and Rav Ashi; *ḥavash* alludes to Rav Aḥa Sava and Rav Ashi; and *zeman* alludes to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, and Ravina.


###### Kiddushin 21a:4
[Kiddushin 21a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְמוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה – שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל לְעוֹלָם, תֹּאמַר בְּמַקְדִּישׁ – שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל לְעוֹלָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:** The comparison detailed earlier (20b) between one who sells a house and one who consecrates a field, **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is unique about **one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities** is that **his power is diminished,** in that he is not able **to redeem** it **forever,** since he cannot redeem it after a year has passed (see Leviticus 25:30). Shall **you say** the same **with regard to one who consecrates** his field, **as his power is enhanced** in that he is able **to redeem forever?**


###### Kiddushin 21a:5
[Kiddushin 21a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר נֶיהְדַּר דִּינָא, תֵּיתֵי בְּמָה הַצַּד: מוֹכֵר שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל לְעוֹלָם וְאֵין לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין. מָה לְמוֹכֵר שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה, שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל מִיָּד. מוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa Sava said to Rav Ashi:** The comparison is valid, **because it can be said** that **the argument returns,** as one can learn in a different manner. **Let** this matter **be derived by** an analogy derived from **the common factor** of two sources: The *halakha* of **one who sells an ancestral field can prove it, as his power is enhanced** in that he is able **to redeem** the field **forever, and he cannot borrow** money **and redeem** it, **and** he cannot **partially redeem** it. And if you say: **What** is unique about **one who sells an ancestral field is that his power is diminished** in that he is not able **to redeem** it **immediately,** the case of **one who sells a house from among houses of walled cities can prove** otherwise. Although one can redeem the house immediately, he cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor partially redeem it.


###### Kiddushin 21a:6
[Kiddushin 21a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:6)

וְחָזַר הַדִּין, לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁנִּגְאָלִין, וְאֵין לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין, אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא מַקְדִּישׁ – שֶׁנִּגְאָל, וְאֵין לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the derivation has reverted** to its starting point, as one could alternate the explanations for each side with their respective refutations. Ultimately, the **aspect of this** case, an ancestral field, **is not like the aspect of that** case, a house from among houses of walled cities. **Their common denominator is that they can be redeemed, and one cannot borrow** money **and redeem** them, **and** likewise, one cannot **partially redeem** them. **I will also bring** the case of **one who consecrates** his field and rule **that it may be redeemed, but one cannot borrow** money **and redeem** it, **and** one cannot **partially redeem** it.


###### Kiddushin 21a:7
[Kiddushin 21a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן הוֹרַע כֹּחָם לִיגָּאֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה, תֹּאמַר בְּמַקְדִּישׁ שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina:** This derivation, based on the common denominator, **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is unique **to their common denominator is that their power is diminished** in that they are unable **to redeem** the respective properties **during the second year,** as in neither case can they be redeemed in the second year. One who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem it beyond the first year, while one who sells an ancestral field cannot redeem it during the first two years. Shall **you say** the same **with regard to one who consecrated** his field, **as his power is enhanced** in that he is able **to redeem** the field **in the second year?**


###### Kiddushin 21a:8
[Kiddushin 21a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי יוֹכִיחַ, שֶׁיִּפָּה כֹּחוֹ לִיגָּאֵל בְּשָׁנָה שְׁנִיָּה וְאֵין לֹוֶה וְגוֹאֵל וְגוֹאֵל לַחֲצָאִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to him** that the derivation is valid **because it can be said** that the case of **a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can prove** otherwise, **as his power enhanced** in that he is able **to redeem** himself **in the second year, and** nevertheless **he cannot borrow** money **and redeem** himself, **and** he cannot **partially redeem** himself.


###### Kiddushin 21a:9
[Kiddushin 21a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:9)

בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא מֵרַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הַמּוֹכֵר בַּיִת בְּבָתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, נִגְאָל לִקְרוֹבִים אוֹ אֵין נִגְאָל לִקְרוֹבִים? ״גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ ״גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ מִשְּׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה גָּמַר: מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה אֵינָהּ נִגְאֶלֶת לַחֲצָאִין וְנִגְאֶלֶת לִקְרוֹבִים – אַף הַאי נָמֵי אֵין נִגְאָל לַחֲצָאִין וְנִגְאָל לִקְרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses a similar matter. **Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet:** In the case of **one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, can** it **be redeemed by relatives or can** it **not be redeemed by relatives?** Is the ability to redeem a house limited to the seller himself? The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one **derive** the verbal analogy of **“*ge’ullato*”** (Leviticus 25:29) and **“*ge’ullato*”** (Leviticus 25:26) **from an ancestral field** in this manner: **Just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed and** yet it **can be redeemed by relatives, so too, this** house **also cannot be partially redeemed and** yet **it can be redeemed by relatives?**


###### Kiddushin 21a:10
[Kiddushin 21a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:10)

אוֹ דִילְמָא: כִּי כְּתִיבָא ״גְּאוּלָּה״ – בַּחֲצָאִין הוּא דִּכְתִיבָ[א], בִּקְרוֹבִים לָא כְּתִיבָ[א]? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps, when** the word ***ge’ula* is written** in the case of an ancestral field, **it is written with regard to partial** redemption; but the word redemption **is not written with regard to relatives.** If so, the verbal analogy does not apply to the *halakha* of redemption by relatives. Rav Sheshet **said to him:** The house **cannot be redeemed** by relatives.


###### Kiddushin 21a:11
[Kiddushin 21a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:11)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״בְּכֹל גְּאֻלָּה תִּתְּנוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת בָּתִּים וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. מַאי לָאו בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה? לָא, בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana **raised an objection to** the ruling of Rav Sheshet from a *baraita* that deals with the verse: “And **in all** of your ancestral land **you shall grant redemption** for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). This verse serves **to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not** correct to say that the term houses is referring to **houses of walled cities,** indicating that they can also be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **No,** this is referring to **houses in open areas** without walls.


###### Kiddushin 21a:12
[Kiddushin 21a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:12)

בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״עַל שְׂדֵה הָאָרֶץ יֵחָשֵׁב״! הָהוּא לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to **houses in open areas** without walls, **it is explicitly written: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country”** (Leviticus 25:31), meaning that they are like ancestral fields. If so, there is no need for another verse to teach this *halakha*. The Gemara answers: **That** verse: “And in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the land” (Leviticus 25:24), serves **to establish** that redemption by relatives is **an obligation, and** this is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:13
[Kiddushin 21a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְגָאַל אֵת מִמְכַּר אָחִיו״ – רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹבָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאִישׁ כִּי לֹא יִהְיֶה לּוֹ גֹּאֵל״ – וְכִי יֵשׁ אָדָם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גּוֹאֲלִים? אֶלָּא זֶה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ וְאֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה לִיקַּח, שֶׁהָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*, with regard to a verse that deals with one who sells ancestral land: **“And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold”** (Leviticus 25:25), this redemption is **optional,** i.e., if he wishes to do so he may redeem the land. Do **you say** that it is **optional or is it nothing other** than **an obligation? The verse states** concerning an ancestral field that was sold: **“And if a man has no one to redeem it”** (Leviticus 25:26). This verse is puzzling: **But is there a man in Israel who does not have redeemers?** Every Jew has a relative of some sort, even if he must trace his family tree back all the way to Jacob. **Rather,** this is referring to **one who has** a relative **who does not want to purchase,** i.e., redeem, the land, **as he has permission** to refrain from doing so, since this redemption is optional. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:14
[Kiddushin 21a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:14)

רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״וְגָאַל אֵת מִמְכַּר אָחִיו״ – חוֹבָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר חוֹבָה אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא רְשׁוּת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּכֹל... גְּאֻלָּה תִּתְּנוּ״ – הַכָּתוּב קְבָעוֹ חוֹבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer says** that when the verse states: **“And he shall redeem that which his brother has sold,”** this redemption is **an obligation.** Do **you say** that it is **an obligation, or is it only optional? The verse states:** “And **in all** of your ancestral land **you shall grant redemption** for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). Here **the verse established it as obligatory.** This is the interpretation of the verses according to Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Kiddushin 21a:15
[Kiddushin 21a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:15)

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְרַב אָשֵׁי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב ״בְּכֹל״, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לְרַבּוֹת בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים – מַאי ״בְּכֹל״? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages said to Rav Ashi, and some say Ravina** said this **to Rav Ashi: Granted, according to the one who says** that the verse serves **to include houses of walled cities, this is as it is written “in all.”** “In all” serves to include a case omitted by the phrase “you shall grant a redemption for the land.” **But according to the one who says** that it serves **to include houses in open areas** without walls, **what** is meant by the term **“in all”?** It was already taught that these houses are included in the category of ancestral fields, and therefore they are referred to by the expression “redemption for the land.” No answer was found to this question and the Gemara states that it is **a difficulty.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:16
[Kiddushin 21a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:16)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים? לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל הַגְּאוּלּוֹת שֶׁנִּגְאָלוֹת כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. מַאי לָאו בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה, וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי? לָא, בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** this opinion that houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives. It is taught in a *baraita*: **What** does it mean when **the verse states: “May redeem him,” “may redeem him,”** and **“may redeem him”** (Leviticus 25:48–49), **three times?** This serves **to include all redemptions,** and **that they are redeemed in this order:** In the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, if he does not redeem himself he can be redeemed by a brother; if he is not redeemed by a brother, then he can be redeemed by an uncle or some other relative. **What, is it not** correct to say that this inclusion is referring to **houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave,** that they too can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: **No,** it includes **houses in open areas and an ancestral field.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:17
[Kiddushin 21a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:17)

בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב: ״עַל שְׂדֵה הָאָרֶץ יֵחָשֵׁב״! כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְקָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם, הָכִי נָמֵי לְקָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But the cases of **houses in open areas and** the case of **an ancestral field** are **written explicitly: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country”** (Leviticus 25:31). The Gemara answers: This is **as Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said,** that the verse detailing the redemption by relatives stated with regard to an ancestral field teaches that **the closer** of a relative one is to the seller, the **earlier** one is in the order of redeeming the ancestral field. The obligation or merit to redeem the field applies first to one who is more closely related to the seller. **So too,** with regard to houses in open areas, this verse teaches that **the closer** of a relative one is to the seller, the **earlier** one is in the order of redeeming the house.


###### Kiddushin 21a:18
[Kiddushin 21a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:18)

הֵיכָא אִיתְּמַר דְּרַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק? אַהָא, דְּאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִגְאָל לִקְרוֹבִים אוֹ אֵינוֹ נִגְאָל לִקְרוֹבִים? אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר: מִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִגְאָל בְּאֵלֶּה – נִגְאָל בְּשֵׁשׁ, אַלְמָא לָא מִיפְּרֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where was** this opinion **of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak** originally **stated?** The Gemara answers that it was stated **with regard to this** issue, **as a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Can **a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew be redeemed by** his **relatives or can he not be redeemed by** his **relatives?** The Gemara comments: **According to** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **you should not raise the dilemma, as he says: One who is not redeemed by these** relatives **is redeemed by six** years of service. **Evidently,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile **cannot be redeemed** by his relatives.


###### Kiddushin 21a:19
[Kiddushin 21a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:19)

כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן מַאי? יָלְפִינַן ״שָׂכִיר״ ״שָׂכִיר״, וְלָא דָּרְשִׁי ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״, אוֹ דִילְמָא ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ – לָזֶה וְלֹא לְאַחֵר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When you raise the dilemma,** it is **according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis. What** is the *halakha*? Does one **derive** the verbal analogy comparing **“hired worker”** (Leviticus 25:40) and **“hired worker”** (Leviticus 25:53) from the case of a Jew sold to a gentile, and say that just as one can be redeemed by one’s relatives if sold to a gentile, so too, one can be redeemed if sold to a Jew? **And** at the same time **one does not interpret homiletically** the phrase **“may redeem him”** (Leviticus 25:48), stated with regard to one sold to a gentile, as a restricting term. **Or perhaps** the phrase **“may redeem him”** is in fact a restricting term, which indicates that this *halakha* applies only **to this** slave, i.e., only one sold to a gentile can be redeemed by relatives, **and** it does **not** apply **to another** slave, one sold to a Jew.


###### Kiddushin 21a:20
[Kiddushin 21a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:20)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״בְּכֹל... גְּאוּלָּה תִּתְּנוּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת בָּתִּים וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. מַאי לָאו בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל? לָא, עֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: “And **in all** of your ancestral land **you shall grant redemption** for the land” (Leviticus 25:24). The inclusive expression “in all” serves **to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not** correct to say that this includes **houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew?** The Gemara rejects this interpretation: **No,** one can say that this is referring to **a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.**


###### Kiddushin 21a:21
[Kiddushin 21a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/21a:21)

עֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״אוֹ דֹדוֹ אוֹ בֶן דֹּדוֹ יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It is **explicitly written with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him”** (Leviticus 25:49). If so, it is unnecessary to derive the option of redemption by a relative from an inclusive expression in a different verse.