Kiddushin 14b — the Talmud in English

And so,

a detail ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

for the paths.

Which is a shoe

that has no heel,

which is not fit for walking in.

And we learned from the words of the beraita that from “a shoe” we learn that even another person’s shoe is fit for halitza, whereas from “his shoe” we learn that a shoe fit for him is required. And it follows that the word “a shoe” did not come to exclude that the yevama is not released by a bill of divorce.

And if so, the question raised above returns: From where did the Sages learn that the yevama does not acquire herself by a bill of divorce?

And we answer:

If so,

if indeed the word “a shoe” came only to teach that even another person’s shoe is fit,

let the verse write,

it would have been fitting for it to write “the house of the one who removes the

shoe.”

What is “

the shoe”?

For what purpose did the verse say “the shoe,” with the addition of the definite article? —

You may infer two things from it.

We have two matters to learn from the words of the verse, through two expositions: [A]

“A shoe” teaches that even another person’s shoe is fit to remove with. [B]

“His shoe,” with the addition of the definite article, teaches that specifically the removal of the shoe releases the yevama to marry outside, and not a bill of divorce.

Mishna:

The first Mishna of our chapter deals with the matter of the acquisitions of a woman and of the yevama. Therefore, the Mishna before us, and the Mishnayot following it, continue to explain the manner of the acquisitions of slaves [Hebrew and Canaanite], and acquisitions of objects.

Our Mishna explains the acquisitions of the Hebrew slave and the Hebrew maidservant:

A. Acquisitions of a Hebrew slave.

A Hebrew slave is acquired

through two acquisitions:

He is acquired

with money and with a document.

And he acquires

his

own self

to become free in three ways:

By years,

when six years have passed from the day of his acquisition, he goes free.

And by the Jubilee,

if the Jubilee year occurs within six years from the day he was sold, he goes free.

And through deduction of money.

For he is able to redeem himself and go free by paying money to his master for the years that remain for him to work.

That is, his master [and in the language of the Sages, “his master”] deducts from the payment of his redemption the amount corresponding to the years for which he worked. For the calculation of the payment of his redemption, and the deduction, are made according to the money for which the slave was acquired.

For example: If the slave was acquired for six hundred zuz for six years of work, then the work of each year is worth one hundred zuz, because the slave is destined to go out at the end of six years.

B. Acquisitions of the Hebrew maidservant:

She has an additional advantage over him [

over the Hebrew slave]

the Hebrew maidservant [

who is also acquired with money and with a document, and she too goes out through a document, the Jubilee, and deduction of money, as is the law of a Hebrew slave],

in that

she

acquires herself

to become free, also

through

bringing

the signs

of maidenhood.

For when the Hebrew maidservant brings the signs of maidenhood, she goes free, without the need for any act of acquisition.

C. Acquisitions of a pierced-ear slave:

It is stated in the Torah [Exodus 21:5]: “But if the slave shall surely say [after six years from his sale]: I love my master, my wife, and my children; I shall not go free, then his master shall bring him to the judges, and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.”

A Hebrew slave

who is pierced —

is acquired

by his master [to continue in his service even after six years

through piercing

by which his master pierces his ear.

And he acquires himself

to become free:

Through the Jubilee, and through the death of the master.

That is, if the master dies, the pierced-ear slave does not serve his heirs, but goes free.

But a Hebrew slave whose master dies within six years of his sale must complete his service for his heirs.

And the reasons for all the laws mentioned in our Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A Hebrew slave is acquired with money.

There are three forms of Hebrew slave:

a. A Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

b. A Hebrew slave who sells himself to an Israelite.

c. A Hebrew slave whom the court sells.

For example, a thief who has no possibility of paying for his theft: the court sells him to another Israelite against his will, and with the money that the purchaser gives for him, they pay the one robbed the value of the object that he stole from him [Exodus 22:2].

The acquisition with money mentioned in our Mishna is effective for the acquisition of a Hebrew slave in all three of the described forms.

And we inquire into it: This matter, that

a Hebrew slave is acquired with money —

from where do we know it,

from where did we learn this?

And we answer:

The verse says

concerning the redemption of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile [Leviticus 25]: “If there are still many years — according to them he shall return his redemption price,

from the money of his acquisition” [

from the money with which he was acquired].

The verse teaches

that

the

Hebrew slave

is acquired with money,

and when he comes to be redeemed, he returns the remainder of the money of his acquisition to the master who acquired him.

The Gemara asks: Indeed,

we find

we have found in this verse that

a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile

is acquired with money.

But from where do we know that a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is also acquired with money?

And one cannot learn the law of a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite from the law of one sold to a gentile. For one can distinguish between them and say:

A Hebrew slave sold to a gentile is acquired with money

since all the acquisitions

of a gentile in land and movable property are

with money [

and a gentile does not acquire movable property through pulling].

And therefore, the gentile also acquires the Hebrew slave with money.

But an Israelite acquires movable property through pulling and not with money, and therefore it is possible that also with regard to the acquisition of a slave, his law differs from the law of the gentile, and he does not acquire a Hebrew slave with money.

And if so,

one sold to an Israelite —

from where?

From where did we learn that he too is acquired with money?

And we answer: This may be learned from what

the verse says

concerning a Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21]:

It is a mitzva for the master to designate the maidservant [to take her as a wife]. And the verse says: “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who [was fit] to designate her,

then he shall enable her redemption!”

It does not say, “and she shall be redeemed,” but rather, “then he shall enable her redemption,” implying that the master himself shall redeem her. Certainly, the intention of the verse is not that the master should give himself money for her redemption; rather, the intention of the verse is that the master must assist her in her redemption.

And how can the master assist in her redemption?

The verse teaches

that he

deducts

from the payment of

her redemption, and she goes out.

For the master assists her to be redeemed from him by deducting from the payment of her redemption. For example, if she was acquired for six maneh of silver and worked three years, the master deducts from the payment of her redemption, so that she need not pay six maneh, corresponding to the money of her acquisition; rather, it is sufficient for her to pay three maneh.

And from this verse it is proven that the maidservant is acquired with money. For if she was not acquired with money, how could the master deduct from the payment of her redemption? And the law of a Hebrew slave is learned from the law of the Hebrew maidservant: just as the Hebrew maidservant is acquired with money, so a Hebrew slave is acquired with money.

And we object: Indeed,

we find,

we have found in the verse that

the Hebrew maidservant

is acquired with money, but one cannot learn from this that a Hebrew slave is also acquired with money. For one can distinguish between them and say:

Why is the Hebrew maidservant acquired with money? It is

since she is betrothed [

and becomes betrothed]

with money

and thereby acquired by the husband, and therefore the law dictates that she also

is acquired [

is acquired]

with money.

But

a Hebrew slave

sold to an Israelite: We have not found elsewhere that he is acquired with money! And if so,

from where

did we learn that he too is acquired with money?

And we answer:

The verse says [

Deuteronomy 15]: “

When your Hebrew brother or the Hebrew woman is sold to you, and he shall serve you six years.”

The verse compares

the law of a slave

the Hebrew to

the law of the maidservant, the

Hebrew.

And just as a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with money [as we learned from the verse “then he shall enable her redemption”], so a Hebrew slave too is acquired with money.

And we object: The verse that compares the Hebrew slave to the Hebrew maidservant speaks of a Hebrew slave whom the court sold, for it says, “When your brother [the Hebrew or the Hebrew woman] is sold to you,” and it does not say, “When your brother sells himself to you.” The wording of the verse, “when he is sold to you,” implies that your brother is sold to you by others, namely, by the court, which has the power to sell a person in payment for his theft.

And indeed,

we find,

we have found in this verse that if

the court sold him,

the Hebrew slave is compared to the Hebrew maidservant and is acquired with money.

But from where shall we learn that one who sells himself is also acquired with money? And one cannot learn the law of one who sells himself from the law of one whom the court sold, for one can distinguish between them and say:

One whom the court sold is acquired with money

since

he

is sold against his will.

And since the Torah was lenient concerning his acquisition, in that he is acquired by his master even without his consent, the Torah was therefore lenient concerning his acquisition also in this: that he is acquired with money alone, without the need for acquisition through possession.

But a Hebrew slave

sells

himself,

himself,

for we have not found that the Torah made it easier with regard to acquiring him [so that he would be acquired against his will],

from where do we know this? From where did we learn that he too is acquired with money alone, without the master using him in the manner of “ḥazaka”?

And we answer:

it is derived—the law of a Hebrew slave who sells himself to an Israelite is to be learned from the law of a Hebrew slave whom the court sold, by a gzera shava

“hired worker, hired worker”—

“hired worker, hired worker”—

it is stated concerning a Hebrew slave whom the court sold [Deuteronomy 15]: “For double the wage of a ‘hired worker’ your slave has served you.”

And it is stated concerning one who sells himself to an Israelite [Leviticus 25:40–41]: “And when your brother becomes impoverished with you and is sold to you [because of his distress], as a ‘hired worker’ and as a resident shall he be with you.”

And by the gzera shava of “hired worker, hired worker,” the law of one who sells himself is learned from the law of a slave whom the court sold: just as a slave whom the court sold is acquired with money, so one who sells himself is acquired with money.

And we object: for below it will be explained that the tannaim disagreed whether they derive a gzera shava from “hired worker, hired worker.”

And if so,

this works according to the one who derives “hired worker, hired worker,”

for according to the tannai who expounds “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava, indeed we learn that one who sells himself is acquired with money from the case of one whom the court sold.

But according to the one who does not derive

“hired worker, hired worker,”

what is there to say!?

According to the tannai who does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava, from where will we learn that even one who sells himself to an Israelite is acquired with money?

And we conclude:

the verse says at the beginning of the passage concerning a Hebrew slave who sells himself to a gentile [Leviticus 25:47]: “And when the hand of a resident alien and sojourner [a resident who is a sojourner, and not a righteous convert] with you attains wealth, and your brother becomes impoverished with him, and he is sold to a resident alien.”

“And when you attain”

is written with the additional letter vav, to tell you: the matter of a Hebrew slave who sells himself to a gentile is

added to

the

matter

of the

first

matter

before it.

It is joined as a continuation and addition to the matter mentioned before it, which is the matter of one who sells himself to an Israelite [mentioned in the preceding verses].

And the

upper

matter, one who sells himself to an Israelite, which was stated above,

shall be learned

from

the lower

matter, from one who sells himself to a gentile, who was mentioned after it—

just as one who sells himself to a gentile is acquired with money [as it is stated, “from the money of his purchase,” and as above], so one who sells himself to an Israelite is also acquired with money.

And since the Gemara mentioned that the tannaim disagreed whether one should expound the gzera shava of “hired worker, hired worker,” the Gemara now clarifies who those tannaim are who disagreed about this.

And we inquire about it:

and who

is the

tannai who does not derive

“hired worker,

hired worker”?

Who is that tannai who does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava?

And we answer:

this tannai is—

as it was taught:

In three places the verse explained the law of a Hebrew slave. A. In the portion of Mishpatim [Exodus 21:2–6] it is stated: “When you acquire a Hebrew slave.” This implies that you acquire the slave from others [the court]. It does not refer to one who sells himself.

And three laws were stated there:

a. “Six years he shall serve, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for no payment.”

b. “And if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master—I shall not go out free,’ his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.”

c. “If his master gives him a wife.” This means a Canaanite maidservant.

From here [it follows] that the master may give his Hebrew slave a Canaanite maidservant, to father slaves through her.

B. In the portion of Re’eh [Deuteronomy 15:12–18] it is stated: “When your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you.”

This implies that the slave is sold by others [the court], and it does not refer to one who sells himself.

And there too some of the laws mentioned in the portion of Mishpatim were stated [the slave’s departure after six years and the law of piercing].

And another additional law was stated there: “And when you send him away from you [after six years], you shall not send him away empty-handed, [rather] you shall surely furnish him.”

For the master is commanded to give a gift to his slave when he goes out free, and this law is called by the Sages “ha’anaka.”

C. In the portion of Behar [Leviticus 25:39–46] it is stated: “When your brother becomes impoverished and is sold to you [because of his distress].”

And this portion speaks of one who sells himself. No law from among all the laws mentioned concerning a slave whom the court sold was mentioned there; only the law of departure at the Jubilee was mentioned there. And below the Gemara discusses this.

And therefore the Sages stated four distinctions in law between one who sells himself and one whom the court sold: concerning a sale for more than six years, concerning piercing, concerning ha’anaka, and concerning his being permitted a Canaanite maidservant.

a.

One who sells himself—

if he wishes, he sells himself

for six

years.

And

if he wishes, he sells himself for

more than six

years, because the law of departure after six years was not stated concerning him.

But if

the court sold him—

he is sold only for six

years, and no more. As was explicitly stated in the Torah.

b.

One who sells himself—

if he wishes to continue serving his master after the completion of the years of his sale, he

is not pierced,

because the law of piercing was stated only concerning one whom the court sold.

But if

the court sold him—then he

is

pierced,

if he did not wish to go out free after six years, as was explicitly stated in the Torah.

c.

One who sells himself—

when he goes out free,

they do not furnish him,

the owners are not obligated to furnish him, because the mitzva of ha’anaka was not stated concerning him.

But if

the court sold him—

the owners

furnish him

when he goes out free, as was explicitly stated in the Torah.

d.

One who sells himself—

his master does not give him a Canaanite maidservant,

because this law was not stated concerning him.

But if

the court sold him—

his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant.

Rabbi Elazar

disagrees and

says:

a.

Both this and that [one who sells himself and one whom the court sold]

is sold only for six.

b.

Both this and that,

if the slave did not wish to go out free after six years, then he is

pierced.

c.

Both this and that, they furnish him

a gift when he goes out free.

d.

Both this and that, his master

the slave’s

gives him a Canaanite maidservant.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And the Gemara discusses:

is it not reasonable to say that the root of the disagreement between the first tannai and Rabbi Elazar is

that they disagree about this,

that they disagree about the following:

For the first tannai does not derive [he does not learn]

“hired worker

hired worker”

as a gzera shava. Therefore, we do not learn the law of one who sells himself from the law of one whom the court sold. And what was not stated concerning him does not apply to him.

And if

Rabbi Elazar derives “hired worker, hired worker”

as a gzera shava, then everything stated concerning one whom the court sold applies also to one who sells himself.

And from here [it follows] that according to the first tannai they do not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava!

Rav Taviumi said in the name of Abaye:

It cannot be proven from the words of the first tannai that he does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava, because one may reject this—

For according to

everyone, “hired worker, hired worker” is derived [it is learned]

as a gzera shava, to compare them with other laws that were not mentioned in the beraita. However, concerning the laws mentioned in the beraita, according to the first tannai the Torah explicitly excluded them from the gzera shava. And as follows:

The words of the first tanna do not prove that he does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” in this way, because they can be rejected as follows:

And here, they disagree concerning this verse.

Here the first tannai and Rabbi Elazar disagree over how to expound the verses below: a.

What is the reason [what is his reason]

of the first tannai, who says: One who sells himself is sold for six and for more than six,

even though he too derives “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava?

as a derivation based on an identical expression, to equate them with regard to other laws not mentioned in the beraita. However, with regard to the laws mentioned in the beraita, according to the first tanna the Torah explicitly excluded them from this derivation, as follows:

And here, they disagree about this verse.

Here the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar disagree about how the following verses are to be interpreted: (a).

What is the reason [

what is his reasoning]

of the first tanna, who says: One who sells himself is sold for six years and for more than six,

even though he too derives “hired laborer, hired laborer” through an identical-expression derivation?—

His reason is that

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to

one whom the court sold [Deuteronomy 15]

“and he shall serve you six years.”

“And he shall serve you,” and not “and he shall serve,” was stated, in order to teach you: only

this one [the one whom the court sold]

works six years,

but not one who sells himself.

The Gemara now explains what Rabbi Elazar will expound from “and he shall serve you”:

And the other one,

and Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one who sells himself is also sold only for six, expounds the word “and he shall serve you” for another exposition:

“

And he shall serve you”—

the slave shall serve only you,

you, but not an heir!

For if the master dies and has no sons, the slave is not subjugated to another heir, such as a daughter or a brother [but if he has a son, the slave serves the son, as will be explained in the Gemara below, 17b].

And the other one,

and the first tannai, who expounds from “and he shall serve you six years” the exclusion of one who sells himself, so that he can sell himself for more than six years—from where will he learn that a Hebrew slave does not serve the heir? For he too agrees that the slave does not serve the heir!

Because

“

and he shall serve you”

is written elsewhere, as it is stated a second time, “For double the wage of a hired worker your slave has served you,” to teach that the slave shall serve only you and not the heir.

The Gemara now explains what Rabbi Eliezer will do with the second “and he shall serve you”:

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar will not expound the second verse for any exposition, because

that

verse came for the appeasement of the master!

The intention of the verse is to appease the master, so that he will agree to give the slave the ha’anaka.

For this is what the verse said: “It should not be difficult in your eyes when you send him away free from you [for you also furnish him], because for double the wage of a hired worker your slave has served you six years.”

In summary: everyone agrees that “hired worker, hired worker” is expounded as a gzera shava, but according to the Sages “and he shall serve you” excludes this one, who is sold only for six, but not one who sells himself [and Rabbi Elazar expounded it for another exposition].

b. And

what is the reason of the first tannai, who says: One who sells himself is not pierced,

even though “hired worker, hired worker” is stated as a gzera shava?

Because

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to

the slave whom

the court sold [Exodus 21]: “

And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl.”

The verse did not need to say that the piercing is done in the ear, since the verse already said [Deuteronomy 15], “And you shall take the awl, and place it in his ear and in the door.” If so, it did not need to say here as well that the place of the piercing is the ear.

[Exodus 21]: “

His master shall pierce his ear with an awl.”

The verse did not need to say that the piercing is performed on the ear, since it already states [Deuteronomy 15]: “You shall take the awl and place it in his ear and in the door.” Therefore, it was unnecessary to state here as well that the place of piercing is the ear.

And why is it stated, “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl”?—

To exclude that specifically

his own ear

is pierced,

and not the ear of one who sells himself.

And the Gemara now explains what Rabbi Eleazar expounds from this verse: