Traité Kiddushin

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : And here it is referring to a case where he was not conceived in sanctity, i.e., his mother conceived him before she converted, and only his birth was in sanctity, as she converted when pregnant. It is appropriate to return money to this individual.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law a gentile inherits from his father, as it is written: “Because I have given mount Seir to Esau as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 2:5). The Gemara asks: But perhaps it is different with regard to an apostate Jew? In other words, it is possible that Esau was not considered a gentile but rather Jewish, like the Patriarchs. Consequently, he is categorized as an apostate Jew. Rather, the proof is from here: “Because I have given Ar to the children of Lot as an inheritance” (Deuteronomy 2:9), and the descendants of Lot were certainly gentiles.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rava, who derives the inheritance of gentiles from the verse: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser” (Leviticus 25:50)? The Gemara answers: Is it written explicitly in the Torah: And he shall reckon with his purchaser and not with the heirs of his purchaser? This proof is based on an exposition, not on an explicit source.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara further asks: And Rava, what is the reason that he did not state his opinion in accordance with the explanation of Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin? The Gemara answers: Perhaps due to the honor of Abraham it is different. It is possible that for the sake of Abraham an inheritance was given to the members of his family. The same may not apply to gentiles in general.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The Sages taught: There are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant and there are details of the halakhot of a Hebrew maidservant that do not apply to a Hebrew slave. The baraita elaborates: There are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave, as he leaves through serving a term of six years, and he leaves through the Jubilee Year, and he leaves through the death of the master, which is not the case for a Hebrew maidservant. And there are unique details in the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew maidservant, as a Hebrew maidservant leaves through signs indicating puberty, and she is not sold for a second time, and one can redeem her against his will, as the Gemara will explain, which is not the case for a Hebrew slave.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: There are details of the halakhot of emancipating a Hebrew slave that do not apply to the case of a Hebrew maidservant. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. The expression: More than him, indicates that all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed apply to a Hebrew maidservant as well. Rav Sheshet said: This baraita is referring to a case where the master designated her to marry him during the six years. Consequently, she cannot be released from his authority by all of the modes through which a Hebrew slave can be freed, as she is his wife.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Gemara asks: If he designated her, it is obvious that she cannot be released in the manner of a slave, as she is his wife and therefore requires a bill of divorce. The Gemara says: It is necessary to state this explicitly, lest you say that the primary halakha is not nullified with regard to her, i.e., even after she has been designated she can still be freed as a slave would be, without a bill of divorce. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this is not the case. The Gemara asks: If so, that this is referring to a case where he designated her, why does she leave through signs indicating puberty? If he designated her she becomes his wife, and signs indicating the onset of puberty should not affect her status. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he did not designate her, she leaves also through signs indicating puberty.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : § The baraita teaches: And a Hebrew maidservant is not sold a second time. The Gemara comments: From the fact that the baraita says this about a Hebrew maidservant, it can be inferred that a Hebrew slave can be sold a second time. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse: “And he is sold for his theft” (Exodus 22:2), means that he can be sold to pay for the items that he has stolen but not to pay for his double payment? Although one can be sold into slavery to reimburse the owner for the principal of his theft, he cannot be sold to pay the fine. Furthermore, “for his theft” indicates: But not to pay for his conspiring testimony. If he is a conspiring witness, who is required to pay the value of what he testified that another had stolen but he does not have the money to do so, he is not sold as a slave. Additionally, the phrase “for his theft” teaches that he can be sold for stealing only once, and once he has been sold one time you may not sell him again.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one theft, i.e., he stole a large amount but he is not worth enough as a slave for the proceeds of his sale to repay his entire debt. In that case he cannot be sold a second time. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to two thefts, as he may be sold a second time if he stole once, was sold, and subsequently stole again.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Abaye said to Rava: The expression “for his theft” indicates even many thefts. Rather, Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, in the second baraita, it is referring to one who stole from one person. This thief cannot be sold a second time even for several thefts. There, in the first baraita, it is referring to thefts from two people.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : The Sages taught: If the property he stole was worth one thousand and as a slave he is worth only five hundred, he is sold and sold again. If the property he stole was worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand, he is not sold at all. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the property he stole was exactly equal to his value if he were sold, he is sold; and if not, he is not sold.

Traduction française en préparation — version anglaise (Steinsaltz) : Rava said: In this case Rabbi Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis, as what is different in a case where the property he stole is worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand that they concede that he is not sold? The reason is that the Merciful One states that he is sold in his entirety, and not part of him. So too, if he is worth less than the value of the property he stole, one can say: The Merciful One states that he is sold for his theft, and he is not sold for part of his theft.