Kiddushin 14b (יד:) — the Talmud in English

And likewise,

except for

for the lame.

that it is a shoe

that has no heel,

which is unfit for walking.

And we learn from the words of the beraita that from “a shoe” we learn that even another person’s shoe is valid for halitza, whereas from “his shoe” we learn that the shoe must be suitable for him. It follows that the word “a shoe” does not come to exclude the possibility that a yevama is released by a bill of divorce.

If so, the above question returns: From where did the Sages learn that the yevama does not release herself through a bill of divorce?

And we answer:

If so,

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

the verse should write,

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

shoe.”

What is

“the shoe”?

Why did the verse say “the shoe,” with the definite article? —

You may derive two matters from it.

We must learn two points from the words of the verse, through two interpretations: [

a. “A shoe”—this teaches that even another person’s shoe is valid for performing halitza with it.

b. “His shoe,” with the definite article—this teaches that specifically removal of the shoe permits the yevama to marry outside the levirate bond, and not a bill of divorce.]

Mishna:

The first Mishna of our chapter deals with the acquisitions of a woman and a yevama. Therefore, the Mishna before us, as well as the following mishnayot, continues by explaining the manner of acquiring slaves [Hebrew and Canaanite] and objects.

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

a. The acquisitions of a Hebrew slave.

A Hebrew slave is acquired

through two modes of acquisition:

He is acquired

with money and with a document.

And he acquires

his

own person,

to become free in three ways:

Through years,

when six years have passed from the day he was acquired, he goes free.

And through the Jubilee,

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

And through deduction of money.

He can redeem himself and go free by paying his master money for the years of labor that remain for him.

That is, his master [in the language of the Sages, “his master”] deducts from the amount of his redemption payment the value of the years that he has already worked. The calculation of his redemption payment, 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 to work for six years, the labor of each year is worth one hundred zuz, because the slave is destined to go free at the end of six years.

b. The acquisitions of a Hebrew maidservant:

In addition to him

over the Hebrew slave,

the Hebrew maidservant

who is likewise acquired with money and with a document, and likewise goes free through a document, the Jubilee, and deduction of money, as does a Hebrew slave,

in that

she

acquires herself

to become free, also

through

bringing forth

the signs

of puberty.

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

c. The acquisitions of a pierced slave:

The Torah states [Exodus 21:5]: “But if the slave shall clearly say [after six years from his sale]: ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go free,’ then his master shall bring him before 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 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 slave does not work for his heirs; rather, he goes free.

However, if a Hebrew slave’s master dies within the six years following his sale, the slave must complete his service for the heirs.

The basis of 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 categories of Hebrew slave:

a. A Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

b. A Hebrew slave who sells himself to a Jew.

c. A Hebrew slave whom the court sells.

For example, if a thief has no way to pay for what he stole, the court sells him against his will to another Jew, and with the money that the buyer gives for him, they pay the victim the value of the object that he stole from him [Exodus 22:2].

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

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

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

from the money of his purchase”

[from the money with which he was acquired].

The verse teaches

that

the

Hebrew slave

is acquired with money,

and when he comes to redeem himself, he returns the remainder of the money of his purchase to the master who acquired him.

The Gemara asks: Indeed,

we have found

in this verse that

a Hebrew slave sold to an idolater

is acquired with money.

But from where do we know that a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew is likewise acquired with money?

We cannot derive the law of a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew 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

because all the acquisitions

of a gentile, whether of land or movable property, are

with money [

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

Therefore, the gentile acquires the Hebrew slave with money as well.

But a Jew acquires movable property through pulling and not with money, and therefore it is possible that with regard to acquiring a slave as well, his law differs from that of a gentile, and he does not acquire a Hebrew slave with money.

And if so,

one sold to a Jew—

from where do we know?

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

And we answer: This may be learned from what

the verse states, concerning a Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21]:

regarding a Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21]:

The master is commanded to designate the maidservant [to take her as a wife]. And the verse states: “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who [would otherwise have been fit] to designate her,

then he shall enable her to be redeemed!”

It does not say, “She shall be redeemed,” but rather, “He shall enable her to be redeemed,” implying that the master himself should redeem her. Certainly, the verse does not mean that the master should give himself money for her redemption. Rather, it means that the master must assist her in redeeming herself.

And how can the master assist in her redemption?

The verse teaches

that he

deducts

from the payment of

her redemption, and she goes free.

The master assists her in redeeming herself from him by deducting from her redemption payment. For example, if she was acquired for six maneh of silver and worked for three years, the master deducts from her redemption payment, 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.

This verse proves that the maidservant is acquired with money. For if she was not acquired with money, how could the master deduct from her redemption payment? And the law of a Hebrew slave is derived from the law of the Hebrew maidservant: Just as the Hebrew maidservant is acquired with money, so too a Hebrew slave is acquired with money.

And we object: Indeed,

we have found

in the verse that

the Hebrew maidservant

is acquired with money, but we cannot derive from this that a Hebrew slave is likewise acquired with money, for one can distinguish between them and say:

Why is the Hebrew maidservant acquired with money? It is

because she is betrothed

[and becomes betrothed]

with money

and thereby acquired by her husband; therefore, it follows that

she is acquired

[acquired]

with money.

But

a Hebrew slave

sold to a Jew—we have not found elsewhere that he is acquired with money! If so,

from where do we know

that he too is acquired with money?

And we answer:

The verse states [

Deuteronomy 15]: “

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

The verse compares

the law of the slave

the Hebrew slave to

the law of the

Hebrew maidservant.

And just as a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with money [as we learned from the verse, “He shall enable her to be redeemed”], so too a Hebrew slave 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 sells, since 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 “is sold to you” indicates that your brother is sold to you by others, namely, by the court, which has the authority to sell a person in payment for his theft.

Indeed,

we have found

in this verse that if

the court sells him,

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

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

One whom the court sells is acquired with money

because

he

is sold against his will.

Since the Torah made his acquisition easier, so that he is acquired by his master even without his consent, the Torah likewise made his acquisition easier by allowing him to be acquired with money alone, without the need for acquisition through possession.

But a Hebrew slave

sells

himself, since we have not found that the Torah was lenient with regard to his acquisition, so that he could be acquired against his will

not

,

from where do we derive this? From where do we learn that he, too, is acquired with money alone, without the master performing an act of ḥazaka—an act demonstrating possession?

And we answer:

He derives it—the law of a Hebrew slave who sells himself to an Israelite is learned from the law of a Hebrew slave sold by the court, by means of a gezerah shava, the verbal analogy of

“hired servant, hired servant”:

“hired servant, hired servant”—

with regard to a Hebrew slave sold by the court it is stated [Deuteronomy 15]: “For double the wage of a hired servant he has served you.”

And with regard to one who sells himself to an Israelite it is stated [Leviticus 25:40–41]: “And should your brother become impoverished alongside you and be sold to you [because of his distress], he shall be with you as a hired servant and as a resident.”

And by means of the verbal analogy of “hired servant, hired servant,” the law of one who sells himself is learned from the law of a slave sold by the court: Just as a slave sold by the court is acquired with money, so one who sells himself is acquired with money.

And we challenge this: It will be explained below that the tannaim disagree as to whether the verbal analogy of “hired servant, hired servant” is derived.

If so,

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

for according to the tanna who expounds “hired servant, hired servant” as a verbal analogy, we indeed learn that one who sells himself is acquired with money from the case of one sold by the court.

But according to the one who does not derive “hired servant,

hired servant”—

what can be said!?

According to the tanna who does not expound “hired servant, hired servant” as a verbal analogy, from where do 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 should the means of a convert and a resident [a convert who is a resident and not a righteous convert] with you increase, while your brother becomes impoverished alongside him, and he is sold to the resident convert.”

“And should the means increase”

is written with the additional letter vav, to teach you that the passage concerning a Hebrew slave who sells himself to a gentile is

an addition to

the

matter of

the

first

matter before it.

It is connected as a continuation and addition to the matter mentioned previously, namely, 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,

above,

the person who sells himself to an Israelite, stated above,

from

the

lower

matter, concerning one who sells himself to a gentile, which was mentioned afterward,

shall be learned— 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 stated above], so one who sells himself to an Israelite is also acquired with money.

Since the Gemara mentioned that the tannaim disagree as to whether the verbal analogy of “hired servant, hired servant” is to be expounded, the Gemara now clarifies who those tannaim are who disagreed about this.

And we inquire:

And who

is the

tanna who does not derive “

hired servant, hired servant”?

Who is that tanna who does not expound “hired servant, hired servant” as a verbal analogy?

And we answer:

This is that tanna—

as it was taught:

The verse explains the law of a Hebrew slave in three places. A. In the passage 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.

Three laws are stated there:

(a) “For six years he shall work, and in the seventh he shall go free without payment.”

(b) “But if the slave should plainly say, ‘I love my master; I shall not go free,’ his master shall bring him to the doorpost … and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever.”

(c) “If his master gives him a wife.” This refers to a Canaanite maidservant.

It follows that the master may give his Hebrew slave a Canaanite maidservant with whom to have children who will be slaves.

B. In the passage 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]; it does not refer to one who sells himself.

Some of the laws mentioned in the passage of Mishpatim are also stated there [the slave’s release after six years and the law of ear-piercing].

Another law is stated there: “And when you send him away free from you [after six years], you shall not send him away empty-handed; you shall generously provide for him.”

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

C. In the passage of Behar [Leviticus 25:39–46] it is stated: “And should your brother become impoverished alongside you and be sold to you [because of his distress].”

This passage speaks of one who sells himself. None of the laws mentioned with regard to a slave sold by the court is mentioned there; only the law of release at the Jubilee is mentioned. The Gemara will discuss this below.

Therefore, the Sages stated four differences in law between one who sells himself and one sold by the court: concerning sale for more than six years, ear-piercing, the severance gift, and permission to have 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 release after six years was not stated with regard to him.

But if

the court sold him—he

is sold only for six

years, and no more. This is stated explicitly in the Torah.

B.

One who sells himself—

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

is not pierced,

because the law of ear-piercing was stated only with regard to one whom the court sold.

But if

the court sold him—

he is

pierced,

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

C.

One who sells himself—

when he goes free,

no severance gift is given to him.

The owners are not obligated to provide him with a severance gift, because the commandment of the severance gift was not stated with regard to him.

But if

the court sold him—

the owners

give him a severance gift

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

D.

One who sells himself—

his master does not give him a Canaanite maidservant,

because this law was not stated with regard to him.

But if

the court sold him—

his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant.

Rabbi Elazar

disagrees and

says:

A.

Both this one and that one

[one who sells himself and one sold by the court]

are sold only for six years.

B.

Both this one and that one,

if the slave did not wish to go free after six years,

is pierced.

C.

Both this one and that one are given a severance gift

as a gift when the slave goes free.

D.

With regard to both this one and that one, his master

of the slave

gives him a Canaanite maidservant.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

And the Gemara discusses this:

Is it not

reasonable to say that the root of the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar is that

they disagree about this,

that is, they disagree as follows:

The first tanna does not derive

[does not learn]

“hired servant

hired servant”

as a verbal analogy. Therefore, we do not learn the law of one who sells himself from the law of one sold by the court; whatever was not stated with regard to him does not apply to him.

And

if

Rabbi Elazar derives “hired servant, hired servant”

as a verbal analogy, then everything stated with regard to one sold by the court also applies to one who sells himself.

It follows that according to the first tanna, “hired servant, hired servant” is not expounded as a verbal analogy!

Rav Taviyomi said in the name of Abaye:

It cannot be proven from the words of the first tanna that he does not expound “hired servant, hired servant” as a verbal analogy, for this can be rejected:

For

according to

everyone, it is derived

[learned]

“hired servant, hired servant”

as a verbal analogy, to equate them with regard to other laws that were not mentioned in the beraita. However, concerning the laws mentioned in the beraita, according to the first tanna the Torah explicitly excluded them from the verbal analogy. As follows:

And here, they disagree about this verse.

Here the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar disagree as to how the following verses are to be expounded: A.

What is the reason

[what is his reasoning]

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

even though he, too, derives “hired servant, hired servant” as a verbal analogy?—

His reasoning is that

the Torah excluded

with regard to

one sold by the court

[Deuteronomy 15]

“And he shall serve you six years.”

It says “and he shall serve you,” rather than merely “and he shall serve,” to teach you that only

this one

[the one sold by the court] works for 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,

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

And he shall serve you”—

the slave shall serve only you,

you, but not an heir!

If the master dies and has no sons, the slave is not bound to another heir, such as a daughter or a brother [but if he has a son, the slave works for the son, as the Gemara will explain below, 17b].

And the other one,

the first tanna, who derives from “and he shall serve you six years” an exclusion of one who sells himself, allowing him to sell himself for more than six years, from where does he learn that a Hebrew slave does not work for an heir? For he, too, agrees that the slave does not work for an heir!

Because

“

and he shall serve you”

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

The Gemara now explains what Rabbi Elazar does with the second “and he shall serve you”:

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, does not derive any teaching from the second verse, because

that verse

came only to placate the master!

The intent of the verse is to persuade the master to consent to give the slave the severance gift.

For the verse says: “Let it not seem difficult to you when you send him away free from you [and also give him the severance gift], for double the wage of a hired servant he has served you six years.”

In summary: Everyone agrees that “hired servant, hired servant” is expounded as a verbal analogy. However, according to the Sages, “and he shall serve you” excludes this one: He is sold only for six years, but not one who sells himself [while Rabbi Elazar derives it for a different teaching].

B. And

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

even though “hired servant, hired servant” is stated as a verbal analogy?

Because

of the fact

that the Torah excluded

with regard

to

a slave

sold by the court

[Exodus 21]: “

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

The verse did not need to say that the piercing is performed in the ear, since the verse says [Deuteronomy 15]: “And you shall take the awl and place it in his ear and in the door.” Thus, 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, specifically

his own ear

is pierced,

and not the ear of one who sells himself.

The Gemara now explains what Rabbi Elazar derives from this verse: