Rav Sheishes has a problem that if a kidnapper sells the victim to the victims family the Tana in the braisa says Chayav.
Rav Sheishes quotes Rav Shimon that to be Chayav the victim needs to be separated from his family. Ergo how can the Tana say Chayav for selling the victim to his family.
Honestly I fail to see the logic inherent in the question. Many who kidnap, do so for a ransom. We know that the family has an obligation to attain him back regardless of the cost. I'm aware that redeeming is with Nochrim kidnappers.
If a Jew kidnaps a Jew and demands a ransom and if he isn't paid by the family he won't have a problem selling the Vic to a Nochri... the kidnapper is using his ability at that juncture to blackmail the victims family...
I understand if the reason was that the kidnapper did not utilize the victim for work, because that would be the Pasuk.
However based on the way Rav Sheishes understands Rav Shimon, if the kidnapper brought the victim into his own property, put him to work, and blackmailed the family he would be Patur?
Simply, the fact that he has to be removed me'Echav I find difficulty with Rav Shmion's limitation to the "family"...when that normally means Klal Yisrael.
We also learnt a Ger (who has no immediate family till marriage) according to Rav Shimon would one not be Chayav for kidnapping a Ger?
Avrahom , United States
Shalom Avrahom,
Let's start from the end: When Rav Sheshes answered "Teni Patur," he was not disagreeing with the Beraisa. Rather, he was editing the Beraisa. The Talmudic structure of "Tani Tana Kamei d'[Rav Ploni]" means that there were "Tana'im" who were experts at memorizing Mishnayos and Beraisos who would sit before a Chacham who understood them at a high level. They would quote their "Girsa" and he would listen, and he would correct what needed to be corrected. As a result, there is no "Machlokes" here; the other (original) version of the Beraisa has been officially invalidated.
Now let's go to the beginning: Rebbi Shimon's Halachah states that it is a prerequisite of capital punishment that the kidnapped person be forcibly removed (by sale) from his natural social environment. Being sold to one's family is the antithesis of removal. Although you have aptly compared this to the family ransoming back their next of kin, that is not what has occurred; they did not "buy" him, they "ransomed" him. Technically speaking, these are two distinct and disparate acts.
You asked: "If the kidnapper brought the victim into his own property, put him to work, and blackmailed the family he would be Patur?" I think the answer is yes; that is to say, if the Kidnapper does not actually "kidnap" but rather enters the domain of the victim, takes him forcibly as hostage (again, in the victim's home) and demands a ransome from the family to leave the premises, he would not be culpable for the death penalty for his actions.
About kidnapping a Ger, the Beraisa states openly that one is Chayav for kidnapping a Ger, and Rav Sheshes did not emend that portion of the Beraisa, so one would would certainly be Chayav for kidnapping a Ger.
I hope I have properly understood your question and I also hope that you consider it duly answered. If not, please don't hesitate to send a clarification/follow-up question.
Pesach Kasher v'Same'ach,
Shimon Brodie