Kiddushin 15a (טו.) — the Talmud in English

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, who said that even one who sells himself is pierced, holds that

that verse is needed for a gezerah shavah.

The superfluous word “ear” was stated in order to derive a gezerah shavah from it,

as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer [

Rabbi Elazar; see Tosafot, “And the other one”]

says: From where is it derived that the piercing is

performed specifically

on the

right

right ear?

It is stated here,

with regard to piercing, “

ear,”

and it is stated there [

Leviticus 14, with regard to the poor leper] “

ear,” [“

And the priest shall take from the blood of the guilt-offering and place it on the lobe of the right ear of the one being purified”].

Just as there,

with regard to the leper, the Torah explicitly states that it concerns the

right

ear,

so too here,

with regard to piercing, it concerns the right ear.

And we explain: From where will the first tanna derive that the piercing is performed on the right ear?

And the other one,

the first tanna, agrees that the word “his ear” is expounded for a gezerah shavah [to teach that the piercing is performed on the right ear], and nevertheless he also derives from here: “his ear”—his own ear, and not the ear of one who sells himself.”

Because

if so,

if indeed the word “his ear” was not stated to exclude one who sells himself, but only for the gezerah shavah,

let the verse say ‘ear’;

it would have been appropriate for it to write simply “ear,”

why

does it say “his ear”?

Rather, necessarily, the verse comes to exclude the ear of one who sells himself.

And we explain, according to Rabbi Elazar: Why does the verse say “his ear” and not “ear”?

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, who holds that even one who sells himself is pierced, holds that

that

is needed: the verse must say “his ear” [with the additional letter vav] in order to teach another exposition:

“

his ear”

of the male slave is pierced,

but not her ear

of the Hebrew maidservant.

And now the Gemara explains from where the first tanna will derive that the Hebrew maidservant is not pierced:

And the other one,

the first tanna agrees that the maidservant is not pierced, but this law is not derived from the word “his ear” [since “his ear” comes to exclude one who sells himself],

rather

he derives it

this exposition is learned

from

the verse [Exodus 21]: “

And if the slave shall plainly say:

I love my master—I will not go free! Then his master shall pierce his ear.”

The word “the slave” is superfluous, and comes to teach that specifically

the slave [

who said, “I will not go free”] is pierced,

but not

the

maidservant.

And we explain what Rabbi Elazar will derive from the word “the slave”:

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar [who derives this from “his ear,” and not her ear, the ear of the maidservant],

needs it—

he needs the word “the slave” for another exposition:

Until he says it while he is a slave!

That is, specifically a slave who says, “I love my master; I will not go free,” during the six years, while he is still a slave, is pierced.

But if he did not say this until after his six years of service had ended, he is not pierced.

And we explain from where the first tanna will derive this exposition:

And the other one,

the first tanna, who derives from the word “the slave” the exclusion of the maidservant, also agrees that a slave who made this declaration after the six years is not pierced, but

from

‘slave’

‘the slave’

he derives it: this law is learned from the fact that the verse could have said “slave,” but says “the slave.”

And we explain Rabbi Elazar’s position:

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, who derives this exposition from the word “slave”—

“

slave, the slave, he does not expound.”

He does not derive anything from the fact that it says “the slave” rather than “slave,” because it is the way of the verse to speak in this manner.

In summary: Everyone agrees that “hired laborer, hired laborer” is expounded as a gezerah shavah. However, according to the first tanna, one who sells himself is not pierced because it is stated, “his ear” -

his own ear, and not that of one who sells himself [and they disagree regarding the exposition of all the verses mentioned in the Gemara].

3.

What is the reason of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself

is not given a severance gift,

despite the fact that “hired laborer, hired laborer” is expounded as a gezerah shavah?

His reason is: Because

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to

one whom the court sold [Deuteronomy 15]: “

You shall surely provide him.”

You shall surely provide him with a severance gift.”

The word “him” is superfluous and comes to exclude: specifically

him

shall you provide with a severance gift,

but not one who sells himself.

And we explain what Rabbi Elazar will derive from the word “him”:

And the other one,

Rabbi Elazar, who holds that a severance gift is also given to one who sells himself, holds that the word “him” is needed for another exposition:

That verse is needed:

the verse is needed to exclude: specifically

him [

the slave] himself shall you provide with a severance gift,

but not

provide it

to his heirs.

That is, if the slave was released and the master did not have time to give him the severance gift before he died, he is not obligated to give it to the slave’s heirs.

And we challenge this:

Why not his heirs?

Why should he not be obligated to give the severance gift to the slave’s heirs? Surely it can be demonstrated from the verse that it is a mitzva to give it even to the heirs, since

the Torah called him a hired laborer,

the Torah called the slave a “hired laborer” [“for double the wages of a hired laborer he has served you”]. Therefore, the wages of the slave’s labor should be derived by analogy from the wages of a hired laborer:

Just as a hired laborer’s earnings go to his heirs,

just as the wages of the labor of a hired laborer who died are given to his heirs,

so too this

slave

also

the wages

of his labor go to his heirs,

and the severance gift is included among the wages of his labor!

Rather,

Rabbi Elazar derives the word “him” for another exposition: “You shall surely provide him with a severance gift”—

to him, but not to his creditor.

If the slave owes money to another person, the master is not obligated to transfer his severance gift to the creditor.

And why would we think that the master should be obligated to transfer the severance gift to his creditor?

From

Because

we hold generally

that with regard to other monetary obligations that a person owes to another, we rule

in accordance with Rabbi Natan,

as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Natan said: From where is it derived that a

person who

is owed

a hundred dinars by his fellow,

and his fellow

himself was also owed money

by another,

for example: Reuven lent a hundred dinars to Shimon, and Shimon lent a hundred dinars to Levi—

from where is it derived that we take it from this one,

from Levi,

and give it to that one,

to Reuven, even though Levi borrowed from Shimon and not from Reuven?

The verse states: Therefore it is stated [Numbers 5],

“to whom he is indebted.”

It would have been appropriate for the verse to say, “to whom he owes money”; why does it say, “to whom he is indebted”? Rather, because “indebted” refers to the principal.

It would have been appropriate for the verse to say, “to the one who has a claim against him.” Why does it say, “to the one to whom he is indebted”? Because the word “indebted” refers to the principal sum.

And so the verse says: “He shall give it”—to the one to whom the principal belongs [to whom it is owed], namely, Reuven.

And since with regard to other monetary obligations imposed upon a person, the borrower must pay the creditor of the lender, we would likewise think with regard to the severance gift that the master must give it to the slave’s creditor.

Therefore,

“him” comes to exclude.

The word “him” comes to exclude and negate this, and to say: “You shall surely provide him with a severance gift”—to him, but not to his creditor.

It follows that the first tanna expounds: “You shall surely provide him with a severance gift”—but not one who sells himself. And Rabbi Elazar expounds: “You shall surely provide him with a severance gift”—but not to his creditor.

And the Gemara explains from where the first tanna learned that the severance gift is not given to the slave’s creditor:

And the other one: Generally as well, we do not hold in accordance with Rabbi Natan.

According to the first tanna, even with regard to other monetary laws the halakha is not in accordance with Rabbi Natan. Rather, Levi pays Shimon, who lent him the money, and not Shimon’s creditor [Reuven]. Therefore, the verse did not need to teach us this law with regard to the severance gift.

In summary: Everyone agrees that “hired laborer, hired laborer” is expounded as a gezerah shavah. However, according to the first tanna, no severance gift is given to one who sells himself, because it is stated, “to him,” but not to one who sells himself. Rabbi Elazar holds that the word “to him” is expounded for another purpose [to him, but not to his creditor].

4.

What is the reason of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself is not given by his master a Canaanite maidservant,

despite the fact that “hired laborer, hired laborer” is expounded as a gezerah shavah? His reason is: Because

the Merciful One excluded

with regard to

one whom the court sold [Exodus 21]: “

If his master gives him a woman” [

If his master gives him a wife” [

a Canaanite maidservant].

The word “him” is superfluous and comes to exclude: specifically

him

may the master give a Canaanite maidservant,

but not one who sells himself.

And we explain what Rabbi Eliezer will derive from the word “him”:

And the other one,

Rabbi Eliezer expounds “to him”:

against his will.

And now the Gemara explains from where the first tanna will learn that the master provides his slave with a maidservant against his will:

That is, the master may give the slave a Canaanite maidservant against the slave’s will, so that she will bear slaves for him.

And now the Gemara explains from where the first tanna will derive that the master gives his slave a maidservant against his will:

And the other one,

the first tanna,

from

“for double the wages of a hired laborer”

he derives it.

This law is learned from the verse [Deuteronomy 15]: “For double the wages of a hired laborer your slave has served you,” as follows:

As it was taught in a beraita:

It is stated with regard to the mitzva of the severance gift for a slave whom the court sold, when he completes his service: “

For double the wages of a hired laborer your slave has served you.”

That is, your slave worked for you [the master] twice as much as one who receives “the wages of a hired laborer” in return for his work.

And in what way did the slave work for his master twice as much as one who works for “the wages of a hired laborer”?

From here it follows that

a hired laborer works only during the day.

Whereas

a Hebrew slave works both during the day and during the night.

It follows that a Hebrew slave works twice as much as a hired laborer.

Would it enter your mind that a Hebrew slave works both during the day and during the night?

But it has already been stated [

Deuteronomy 15, with regard to a Hebrew slave]: “

For it is good for him with you,”

and the Sages expounded the word “with you”:

with you in food, with you in drink,

you should not eat fine bread while the slave eats coarse bread; you should not drink aged [superior] wine while he drinks new wine; you should not sleep on soft mattresses while he sleeps on straw.

This proves that the slave sleeps at night as his master does. How, then, can one say that the slave also works at night?

And

concerning this

Rabbi Yitzhak said: From here it follows that his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant

with whom he has intercourse at night. Therefore, it is as though the slave worked for his master at night as well.

These are the words of the beraita up to this point.

And from here the first tanna learned that the master gives his slave a Canaanite maidservant against his will.

And we challenge this:

And the other one,

and Rabbi Elazar—why, according to his opinion, does the verse say “to him” [“if his master gives him a wife”], indicating that it may be done against his will? Should this not be derived from the verse “for he is a hired laborer’s double wage,” as explained in the aforementioned beraita? !!

And we answer:

If it were derived from there, I would say that this applies only with his consent,

if we were to derive this from the verse “for he is a hired laborer’s double wage,” I would say that although the master gives his slave a Canaanite maidservant to serve him at night, this applies only when the slave consents.

But with regard to against his will, I would say

[that is, I would say]

no!

It teaches us,

and therefore the verse had to say “to him,” to teach us that the master gives him a Canaanite maidservant even against his will.

The conclusion from the words of the Gemara is that Abaye said that one cannot prove from the words of the first tanna that he does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava. Rather, it is possible that even according to the first tanna, “hired laborer, hired laborer” is derived by means of a gzera shava. However, the verse explicitly excluded the four laws mentioned in the beraita, teaching that they apply only to one whom the court sold, but not to one who sells himself.

If so, the earlier question of the Gemara returns:

Rather, who is the tanna who does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer,”

who is that tanna who does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava?

And we answer:

This tanna is

the tanna cited in the following beraita:

As it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the laws of the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:40), with regard to a slave who sells himself: “Until the Jubilee year he shall work with you.”

And it is stated there (verse 41): “And he shall return to his family

[at the Jubilee].”

And

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said

concerning this:

What is the verse

speaking about?

If it is speaking of one who sells himself,

it has already been stated

[in verse 40] that he leaves at the Jubilee [“Until the Jubilee year he shall work”]!

If it is speaking of one whose ear was pierced,

and the verse comes to say that he too leaves at the Jubilee,

it is

this matter

already stated

elsewhere [and below it will be explained where this matter is stated].

Then

necessarily,

the verse can be speaking only of one whom the court sold two or three years before the Jubilee.

And the verse comes to teach us

that the Jubilee releases him,

before he has completed serving his six-year term of slavery.

And

there is a proof from the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that he does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava:

For

if it could enter your mind that he derives,

if it were to enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov derives

“hired laborer, hired laborer”

by means of a gzera shava, then it would be difficult:

why do I need

to derive from the verse “And he shall return to his family” that one whom the court sold also leaves at the Jubilee?

Let us derive it through “hired laborer, hired laborer”!

Let us derive this by means of a gzera shava, “hired laborer, hired laborer,” from one who sells himself. And we reject this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Actually, even Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

derives

[that is, he derives]

“hired laborer, hired laborer”

by means of a gzera shava.

And

nevertheless,

it was necessary:

the verse had to explicitly include a slave whom the court sold, teaching that he too leaves at the Jubilee:

For

it could enter your mind to say

that

one who sells himself

only

he

leaves at the Jubilee, because

he did not commit a transgression,

as he was not sold because he committed an offense.

But one whom the court sold, who committed a transgression,

as he was sold because he committed an offense [that is, he stole],

I would say: let us penalize him,

meaning, let us say that he is penalized and does not leave at the Jubilee —

It teaches us,

and therefore the verse says “And he shall return to his family,” to teach us that even a slave whom the court sold leaves at the Jubilee.

The conclusion from the words of the Gemara is that one cannot establish with certainty from the words of any of the tannaim we have cited that they do not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava. And below, the Gemara continues to seek which tanna does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava.

And in passing, since we brought the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov during the course of the discussion, the Gemara returns to discuss them:

The Master said

[Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov] in the beraita: “And he shall return to his family [at the Jubilee]”—what is the verse speaking about? If it is speaking of one whose ear was pierced,

it is

this law

already stated

elsewhere.

And we inquire about this:

What is it?

Where is it stated elsewhere that one whose ear was pierced leaves at the Jubilee?

And we answer:

As it was taught

in a beraita: It is stated concerning the Jubilee (Leviticus 25:10): “It is a Jubilee; it shall be for you,

and you shall return, each man to his ancestral holding and each man to his family,”

you shall return.

And the question arises:

What is the verse speaking about?

With regard to which man did the verse say that he shall return to his family at the Jubilee?

If it is referring to one who sells himself

as a slave,

it has already been stated

[there, verse 40]: “Until the Jubilee year he shall work with you”! Why did the verse need to state this a second time?

If it is referring to one whom the court sold, it has already been stated

[there, verse 41]: “And he shall return to his family.” And we explained above that this verse refers to one whom the court sold! Why did the verse need to state this a second time?

Then

necessarily,

the verse can be speaking only of one whose ear was pierced two or three years

before the Jubilee,

and the verse comes to teach us

that the Jubilee releases him.

The conclusion from the beraitot cited in our discussion is that there are three places in which the verse teaches that a Hebrew slave leaves at the Jubilee:

a. Concerning one who sells himself, verse 40 states: “Until the Jubilee year he shall work with you.”

b. Later in the passage, verse 41 states: “And he shall return to his family.” Since this verse is superfluous, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov expounded that it refers to one whom the court sold.

c. Above, verse 10 states: “And each man to his family you shall return.”

Since we have already learned that the Jubilee applies both to one who sells himself and to one whom the court sold [if the Jubilee occurred during his six-year term of slavery], this verse must necessarily be speaking of one whose ear was pierced.

And we challenge this: In the last two verses (41 and 10), it is not stated explicitly whether the reference is to one whose ear was pierced or to one whom the court sold. On what basis did we establish that verse 41 refers to one whom the court sold, and verse 10 to one whose ear was pierced?

He said:

Rava bar Sheila said: The verse states

in verse 10: “And you shall return

each man

to his ancestral holding.”

What is a matter that applies to a man but does not apply to a woman?—

You must say: This is piercing the ear!

For a Hebrew maidservant does not have her ear pierced [as explained above, at the beginning of the page].

And since this verse speaks of one whose ear was pierced, verse 41 must necessarily refer to one whom the court sold.

The Gemara now clarifies why the verse had to teach us that the Jubilee releases both one whose ear was pierced and one whom the court sold:

And it was necessary to write

that the verse had to state that the Jubilee applies to

one whom the court sold, and

also

it was necessary to write

that the Jubilee applies to

one whose ear was pierced:

For if it had taught us

that only

one whom the court sold

[when the Jubilee occurred during his six-year term of slavery] leaves at the Jubilee, I would have said that only he leaves at the Jubilee

because his time had not arrived,

as he had not completed his six-year term of slavery and the time for his release had not arrived.

But with regard to one whose ear was pierced, whose time had arrived,

as the time for his release had arrived and he refused to be released,

I would say: let us penalize him,

I would say that he is penalized because he transgressed by refusing to be released, as it is stated (Leviticus 25): “For they are My slaves,” and not slaves to slaves. He acquired a master for himself willingly, for no benefit.

And if it had taught us

that only

one whose ear was pierced

leaves at the Jubilee, I would have said that only he leaves at the Jubilee

because he served him

the master

six

years before the Jubilee, and the master does not suffer a monetary loss by sending him away.

But one whom the court sold,

when the Jubilee occurred during his six years,

who did not serve him

the master for the full

six

years of his term of slavery,

I would say

that

he does not

leave at the Jubilee.

It is necessary

and therefore the verse had to teach us explicitly that the Jubilee applies to both of them.

The Gemara returns to the words of the beraita that expounded the verse “And each man to his family you shall return [at the Jubilee]” as referring to a slave whose ear was pierced.

In the passage of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:6), it is stated concerning a slave whose ear was pierced: “And he shall serve him forever.” Since we have learned from the aforementioned verse that a slave whose ear was pierced leaves at the Jubilee, the verse must necessarily mean that the slave serves until the Jubilee, and this is called “forever.”

If so, the question arises: Why did the verse need to state two verses concerning one whose ear was pierced: (a) “And each man to his family you shall return,” and (b) “And he shall serve him forever”? After all, both verses have the same meaning—that one whose ear was pierced serves until the Jubilee!

And in order to answer this, we say:

And it was necessary to write,

the verse needed to write

“And you shall return”

each man to his ancestral holding and each man to his family you shall return [at the Jubilee].

And

also

it was necessary to write

“And he shall serve

forever”:

For had the Merciful One written

only “And he shall serve

forever,” I would have said

that he serves

literally forever

and does not leave even at the Jubilee. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “And you shall return,”

to teach that one whose ear was pierced leaves at the Jubilee.

And had the Merciful One written

only

“And you shall return,” I would have said: this applies only where he did not serve six years;

I would have said that the fact that one whose ear was pierced leaves at the Jubilee, and not earlier, applies only when the Jubilee arrived before six years had elapsed from the piercing of the slave’s ear.

But where he has worked six,

but in a case where the slave has already worked six years from the date of his piercing,

not

it is logical that

his end should be more stringent than his beginning.

It is not logical that the servitude imposed upon the slave by virtue of his piercing should be more stringent than the servitude that was imposed upon him at the beginning of his sale:

What

is the servitude imposed upon him at

his beginning?

Six

years! If so,

even

the servitude at

his end

after he was pierced,

likewise six

years only, and no more.

Therefore,

the verse teaches us

that it states, “And he shall serve him

forever.”

That is, until the time when he is fit to be considered a slave forever, namely,

the world of Jubilee.

For fifty years are called a world. This does not mean that the slave serves for a full fifty years; rather, he serves until the Jubilee year [which is the fiftieth year], whether the Jubilee occurs soon after his piercing or whether it occurs long after it.

Since the baraitot discussing the law of release at the Jubilee were brought in our sugya, the Gemara discusses their statements at length.

And now the Gemara returns to discuss who is the tanna who does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a

But

since it cannot be proven from the words of any of the tannaim mentioned above that they do not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava, the question returns:

Who is the tanna who does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer”?

Who is that tanna who does not derive “hired laborer, hired laborer” by means of a gzera shava?

And we answer:

It is Rabbi.