Twice Sold?
In today’s daf (Kiddushin 18), we encounter the following brayta, plus Rava’s comment:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גְּנֵיבוֹ אֶלֶף, וְשָׁוֶה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת – נִמְכָּר וְחוֹזֵר וְנִמְכָּר. גְּנֵיבוֹ חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, וְשָׁוֶה אֶלֶף – אֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר כְּלָל. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיָה גְּנֵיבוֹ כְּנֶגֶד מִמְכָּרוֹ – נִמְכָּר, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינוֹ נִמְכָּר.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: בְּהָא זְכָנְהוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְרַבָּנַן, דְּמַאי שְׁנָא גְּנֵיבוֹ חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשָׁוֶה אֶלֶף דְּאֵין נִמְכָּר, דְּנִמְכַּר כּוּלּוֹ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלֹא חֶצְיוֹ, הָכִי נָמֵי: נִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵיבָתוֹ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלֹא נִמְכַּר בַּחֲצִי גְנֵיבָתוֹ.
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.
The brayta seems contradictory to the immediately preceding gemara, within the position of Rava and I think even Abaye, and the preceding brayta. Thus, we just read that a Jewish person cannot be sold multiple times for a single large theft!
אָמַר רָבָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן בִּגְנֵיבָה אַחַת, כָּאן בִּשְׁתֵּי גְּנֵיבוֹת.
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.
So we would perhaps need to read the sugya as bringing the brayta as an attack on the preceding. This works with girsa of Rashi as we have it, matching our printed girsa of the gemara.
However, the Gra says that the Rambam’s girsa, matching the Mechilta, has the brayta saying that he would NOT be sold multiple times.
This makes sense to me. The purpose of the brayta is to make a minimal contrast, between if he’s worth 500 and the theft was 1000, that he can be sold, vs. if he’s worth 1000 and the theft was 500, he is not sold. With Rabbi Eliezer then even more severely limiting the scope of when he can be sold, and Rava then endorsing Rabbi Eliezer. Introducing multiple sales, even if it were true, is beyond the scope and purpose of this brayta. If so, this brayta is not brought as an attack on the prior.
Rav Steinsaltz, besides noting the Gra, Mechilta, and kitvei yad, also notes that the Ri”d had a girsa of Rashi which was closer to that attributed to the Rambam. Here is what Tosafot Rid has on our sugya:
ת"ר גניבו אלף ושוה חמש מאות אינו נמכר. פי' המורה אינו נמכר וחוזר ונמכר. ויפה פירש ובהא פליג רבי אליעזר ואמר דאינו נמכר דבגניבתו אמר רחמנא ולא בחצי גניבתו. אבל להימכר פעם אחת לא פליג רבי אליעזר דאם כן אין לך עבד עברי נמכר בגניבתו לעולם שאי איפשר לצמצם שיהא ממכרו כנגד גניבתו לא פחות ולא יתר אלא ודאי להכי בעי כנגד גניבתו שלא ימכר פעמים כי אם פעם אחת:
with המורה referring to Rashi.
Here are the variant girsaot of this passage, courtesy of Hachi Garsinan. Venice, Vilna, and Costa printings have that he can be sold twice:
The Guadalajara printing just says “he can be sold”, nimkar:
This matches Munich 95, which has nimkar, contrasting with aino nimkar:
Oxford 367 has like our printed text, that he can be sold repeatedly.
Also interesting is Vatican 110-111, which has just nimkar as the basic text, but then inserts vechozer venimkar above the line: