Kiddushin 15a — the Talmud in English

And the other one,

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

that one comes for a gzera shava.

The superfluous word “his ear” was stated in order to derive from it a gzera shava,

as follows:

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer [

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

says: From where [do we know] that piercing is

done specifically

in the

right

ear?

It is stated here,

in connection with piercing, “

ear,”

and it is stated below [

Leviticus 14] in connection with a poor leper, “

ear,” [“

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

Just as below,

in the case of the leper, it is explicit in the Torah that it refers to the

right ear.

So too here,

in the case of piercing, it refers to the

right ear.

And we explain from where the first tanna will learn that piercing is performed on the right ear:

And the other one,

and the first tanna agrees that the word “his ear” is expounded for a gzera shava [to teach that piercing is performed on the right ear], and nevertheless he also expounds from here “his 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 a gzera shava,

let the verse say “ear,”

it would have been appropriate for the verse to write, to say, “ear”;

what is the meaning of “his ear,”

and why was “his ear” stated?

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

And we explain according to Rabbi Elazar: Why was “his ear” stated and not “ear”?

And the other one,

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

that

is needed for him,

for the verse needs to say “his ear” [with the additional letter vav] in order to teach another derivation: “

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 learn that the Hebrew maidservant is not pierced:

And the other one,

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

rather

he derives it,

this derivation is learned

from

the verse [Exodus 21], “

And if the slave shall plainly say: I love my master—I shall not go free! And his master shall pierce his ear.”

The word “the slave” is superfluous,

and comes to teach that specifically the slave [

who said “I shall not go free”]

is pierced,

but not

the

maidservant.

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

And the other one,

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

needs it—

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

Until he says it while he is a slave!

That is to say, specifically a slave who said, “I love my master; I shall not go free,” during the six years while he is still a slave—he 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 teaching:

And the other one,

and the first tanna, who expounded from the word “the slave” to exclude the maidservant, also agrees that a slave who said this after 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 said “the slave.”

And we explain Rabbi Elazar’s view:

And the other one,

and Rabbi Elazar, who learned this derivation from the word “slave”—

he does not expound ‘slave, the slave.’

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

In summary: Everyone agrees that “hired man, hired man” is expounded for a gzera shava, but according to the first tanna, one who sells himself is not pierced because it is stated, “his ear”— \-

his ear, and not that of one who sells himself [and they disagree concerning the derivation 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 granted a severance gift,

even though he expounds “hired man, hired man” for a gzera shava?

His reason is: because

the Merciful One excluded

for

one sold by the court [Deuteronomy 15], “

You shall surely provide him.”

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

him

you shall provide,

but not one who sells himself.

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

And the other one,

and Rabbi Elazar, who holds that one who sells himself is also granted a severance gift, holds that the word “him” is needed for another derivation:

That one, it is needed for him,

that verse is needed to exclude: specifically

him [

the slave] himself you shall provide,

but not

shall you provide

to his heirs.

That is to say, if the slave went free and the master did not manage to provide him his gift before he died, he is not commanded to provide it to the slave’s heirs.

And we raise an objection:

Why not his heirs,

why should he not be commanded to provide it to the slave’s heirs? For it can be proven from the verse that one is commanded to provide it even to heirs, since

the Torah called him a hired man,

the Torah called the slave a “hired man” [“for double the wages of a hired man your slave has served you”].

And therefore the wages of the slave’s labor should be compared to the wages of the hired man’s labor: Just as the wages of a hired man’s labor go to his heirs,

just as when a hired man dies, the wages of his labor are given to his heirs,

so too this one

the 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 expounds the word “him” for another derivation: “You shall surely provide him”—

him, but not his creditor.

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

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

From

Because

we hold generally

that concerning other monetary obligations that a person is obligated to give to his fellow, we hold

like Rabbi Natan

as follows:

As it was taught: Rabbi Natan said: From where [do we know] concerning

a person who

has a claim against his fellow

for a maneh that he owes him,

and his fellow

himself also had a claim

against his fellow,

against another person—for example, Reuven lent a maneh to Shimon, and Shimon lent a maneh to Levi—

from where [do we know] that they take it from this one

from Levi

and give it to that one,

to Reuven, even though Levi borrowed from Reuven only through Shimon?

The verse says

therefore it is stated [Numbers 5]

“to the one to whom he is liable.”

It would have been appropriate to write “to the one who has a claim against him”; why, then, was “to the one to whom he is liable” stated? Rather, because “liability” means the principal.

And so the verse says: “He shall give”—to the one whose principal it is [that is owed to him]. That is, to Reuven.

And since concerning other monetary obligations imposed upon a person, the borrower must pay the creditor of the lender, therefore concerning the severance gift too we would think that the master must grant 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”—him, but not his creditor.

It follows that the first tanna expounds: “You shall surely provide him,” but not one who sells himself. And Rabbi Elazar expounds: “You shall surely provide him,” but not his creditor.

And the Gemara explains from where the first tanna learned that one does not grant it to his creditor:

And the other one: Generally too, we do not hold like Rabbi Natan.

According to the first tanna, even concerning other monetary laws the halakha is not like Rabbi Natan; rather, Levi pays Shimon, who lent to him, and not Shimon’s creditor [Reuven]. Therefore the verse did not need to inform us of this law concerning the severance gift.

In summary: Everyone agrees that “hired man, hired man” is expounded for a gzera shava. But according to the first tanna, one does not grant the gift to one who sells himself because it is stated “him,” but not one who sells himself. And Rabbi Elazar holds that the word “him” is expounded for another derivation [him, but not his creditor].

4.

What is the reason of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself, his master does not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant,

even though he expounds “hired man, hired man” for a gzera shava? His reason is: because

the Merciful One excluded

for

one sold by the court [Exodus 21], “

If his master gives him a woman” [

Canaanite maidservant].

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

him

the master is permitted to give a Canaanite maidservant,

but not one who sells himself.

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

And the other one,

and Rabbi Eliezer expounds “him”—

against his will.

That is to say, the master is permitted to provide the slave with a Canaanite maidservant against the slave’s will, so that she will bear slaves from him for the master.

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 from the slave.

And the other one,

and the first tanna,

from “

For double the wages of a hired man,”

he derives it.

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

As it was taught:

It is stated concerning the mitzva of granting to a slave whom the court sold when he completes his service: “

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

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

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

From here

[we learn that] a hired man works only by day.

Whereas

a Hebrew slave works both by day and by night.

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

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

But has it not already been stated [

Deuteronomy 15] concerning a Hebrew slave: “

For it is good for him with you,”

and the Sages expounded from the word “with you”:

with you in food, with you in drink,

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

And it is proven from here that the slave sleeps at night like his master. How, then, can it be said that the slave also works at night?

And

he said

concerning this

Rabbi Yitzhak: From here [we learn] that his master provides him with a Canaanite maidservant

to have intercourse with her at night. Therefore it is as though the slave served his master also at night.

Up to here are the words of the beraita.

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

And we challenge:

And the other one,

and Rabbi Elazar, why, according to his view, was it stated “to him” [“if his master gives him a woman”]—against his will? For this can be learned from the verse, “for he is double the wage of a hired worker, your slave,” as explained in the aforementioned beraita

? And we answer:

If from there, I would have said, these words are with his consent,

if we were to come to learn this from the verse, “for he is double the wage of a hired worker, your slave,” I would say that indeed the master gives his slave a Canaanite maidservant to serve him at night, but when do these words apply? Specifically, with the consent of the slave.

But against his will, say

say

no!

It makes this known,

therefore Scripture had to say “to him,” to make known to us that the master gives him a Canaanite maidservant even against his will.

What emerges from the words of the Gemara: Abaye said that it cannot be proven from the words of the First Tanna that he does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava; rather, it is possible that even according to the First Tanna they expound “hired worker,” “hired worker.” It is only that Scripture explicitly excluded the four laws mentioned in the beraita, that they apply only to one whom the court sold and not to one who sells himself.

If so, the question of the Gemara above returns:

Rather, who is the Tanna who does not derive “hired worker, hired worker,”

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

And we answer:

This Tanna is,

the Tanna brought in the following beraita is:

For it was taught:

It is stated in the section of the laws of the Jubilee [Leviticus 25:40], concerning a slave who sells himself: “Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you.”

And it is stated there [verse 41]]

: “

And he shall return to his family

in the Jubilee

and

said concerning this

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: What does Scripture

in verse 41

speak of?

If it is concerning one who sells himself,

it has already been stated

in verse 40, that he goes out in the Jubilee [“Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work

”]! If it is concerning the pierced one,

and Scripture comes to say that even he goes out in the Jubilee,

behold

this matter

has already been stated

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

Rather, this

necessarily,

Scripture speaks only of one whom the court sold two or three years before the Jubilee.

And Scripture comes to teach us

that the Jubilee releases him

before he has finished working his six years of servitude.

And

there is proof from the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov that he does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava:

For,[ [A0051]]if it would enter your mind that he derives,

if it could enter your mind that he derives,

if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov derives

“hired worker, hired worker”

as a gzera shava, then it is difficult:

why do I need

to derive from the verse, “And he shall return to his family,” that even one whom the court sold goes out in the Jubilee?

Let us derive “hired worker, hired worker”!

Let us learn this by a gzera shava, “hired worker,” “hired worker,” from one who sells himself! And we reject this:

Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak said:

In truth, even Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

derives

learns

“hired worker, hired worker”

as a gzera shava.

And

nevertheless,

it was necessary,

Scripture had to explicitly include that even a slave whom the court sold goes out in the Jubilee:

For

it might enter your mind to say,

it might enter your mind to say that

one who sells himself

only

he

goes out in the Jubilee, because

he did not commit a transgression,

he was not sold because he had committed a transgression.

But one whom the court sold, since he committed a transgression,

for he was sold because he had committed a transgression [he stole],

say that we penalize him,

say that we penalize him, and he does not go out in the Jubilee —

It makes this known,

therefore Scripture said, “And he shall return to his family,” to make known to us that even a slave whom the court sold goes out in the Jubilee.

What emerges from the words of the Gemara is that it cannot be clearly proven from the words of any of the Tannaim among the Tannaim we brought that they do not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava. And below the Gemara continues to search for who that Tanna is who does not expound “hired worker, hired worker” as a gzera shava.

And incidentally, since we brought during the course of the discussion the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, the Gemara returns and discusses them:

The Master said

in the beraita [Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov]: “And he shall return to his family [in the Jubilee]”—what does Scripture speak of? If it is concerning the pierced one,

behold

this law

has already been stated

elsewhere.

And we inquire about it:

What is it?

Where is it stated elsewhere that the pierced one goes out in the Jubilee?

And we answer:

For it was taught

in a beraita: It is stated concerning the matter of the Jubilee [Leviticus 25:10]: “It is a Jubilee; it shall be for you,

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

you shall return.”

And the question is asked:

What does Scripture speak of?

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

If it is concerning one who sells himself

as a slave, behold,

it has already been stated

there, verse 40: “Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you”! And why did Scripture have to say this a second time?

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

there, verse 41: “And he shall return to his family.” And we established this verse above as referring to one whom the court sold! And why did Scripture have to say this a second time?

Rather, this

necessarily,

Scripture speaks only of the pierced one for two or three years

before the Jubilee,

and Scripture comes to teach us

that the Jubilee releases him.

What emerges from the beraitot brought in our discussion is that there are three places where Scripture teaches that a Hebrew slave goes out in the Jubilee:

A. Concerning one who sells himself, it is stated in verse 40: “Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you.”

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

C. Above, in verse 10, it is stated: “And each man to his family you shall return.”

And since we have already learned that the Jubilee applies both to one who sells himself and to one whom the court sold [and the Jubilee overtook him within his six years of servitude], necessarily this verse speaks of the pierced one.

And we challenge: Behold, in the last two verses [41, 10], it was not stated explicitly whether the matter concerns the pierced one or one whom the court sold. According to what did we establish that verse 41 speaks of one whom the court sold, and verse 10 of the pierced one?

He said:

Rava bar Sheila said: The verse says

in verse 10: “And you shall return,

each man

to his holding.”

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

You must say: This is piercing!

For the Hebrew maidservant is not pierced [as explained above at the beginning of the page].

And since this verse speaks of the pierced one, necessarily verse 41 speaks of one whom the court sold.

And now the Gemara clarifies why Scripture had to teach us that the Jubilee releases both the pierced one and one whom the court sold:

And it was necessary to write,

Scripture had to say that the Jubilee applies to

one whom the court sold, and

also

it was necessary to write

that the Jubilee applies to the

pierced one:

For if it had made known to us,

if Scripture had made known to us only concerning

one whom the court sold,

in which case the Jubilee overtook him within his six years of servitude, I would say that specifically he goes out in the Jubilee

because his time had not arrived,

because his six years of servitude had not been completed and his time to go out had not arrived.

But the pierced one, whose time had arrived,

whose time of release had arrived and he refused to be released,

say that we penalize him,

I would say that we penalize him because he committed a transgression by refusing to be released, as it is stated [Leviticus 25]: “For they are My slaves,” and not slaves to slaves. And he acquired a master for himself willingly, for no payment.

And if it had made known to us,

and if Scripture had made known to us only concerning

the pierced one,

I would say that specifically he goes out in the Jubilee

because he served him

the master

six

years before the Jubilee, and the master does not suffer a monetary loss through releasing him.

But one whom the court sold,

and the Jubilee overtook him within six years,

because he did not serve him

the master

six

years of his servitude,

say,

I would say that

he does not

go out in the Jubilee.

It is necessary

therefore Scripture had to teach us explicitly that the Jubilee applies to both.

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

In the section of Mishpatim [Exodus 21:6], it is stated concerning a pierced slave: “And he shall serve him forever.” Since we have learned from the aforementioned verse that a pierced slave goes out in the Jubilee, necessarily the meaning of the verse is that the slave shall work until the Jubilee, and this is called “forever.”

If so, the question arises: Why did Scripture have to say two verses concerning the pierced one: A. “And each man to his family you shall return,” B. “And he shall serve him forever”? After all, the meaning of both verses is one—that a pierced slave works until the Jubilee!

And in order to answer this, we say:

And it was necessary to write,

Scripture had to write

“And you shall return

each man to his holding and each man to his family you shall return [in the Jubilee].”

And

also

it was necessary to write “

And he shall serve

forever”:

For if the Merciful One had written

only, “And he shall serve

forever,” I would have said

that he would work

literally forever

and would not go out even in the Jubilee; therefore

the Merciful One wrote, “And you shall return,”

to teach that the pierced one goes out in the Jubilee.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“And you shall return,” I would have said: These words apply where he did not serve six,

I would have said that the fact that the pierced one goes out in the Jubilee, and not earlier, applies only when the Jubilee arrived before six years had elapsed from the piercing of the slave.

But where he has served six,

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

not

it is reasonable that

his end should be more stringent than his beginning.

It is not reasonable 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 its

beginning?

Six

years! If so,

even

the servitude at

his end

after he has been pierced,

likewise six

years only is it, and no more.

Therefore

this teaches us

the verse has made known to us, “And he shall serve

forever.”

That is, until a time that is fitting to be considered as an eternal slave, namely

until the world of the Jubilee.

For fifty years are called “forever.” And the intention is not that the slave will serve fifty complete years, but rather he serves until the year of the Jubilee [which is the fiftieth year], whether the Jubilee occurs close to his piercing or whether it occurs far from it.

And since the baraitot discussing the law of release at the Jubilee were brought in our sugya, the Gemara discusses their words 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

gzera shava:

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:

Which tanna is it 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: