Kiddushin 16a — the Talmud in English

The verse is needed to teach the law that we learned in a beraita: We learned in a beraita: The verse

“and he shall go out in the year of the Jubilee”

speaks

of a gentile who is under your authority.

That is, even though the gentile is under Israelite rule, it is forbidden to circumvent the gentile master and take his Hebrew slave from him against his will before the Jubilee.

Lest you say: From where do we know that it is speaking of a gentile who is under your authority [under Israelite rule]?

Or,

perhaps the verse

does not

speak of this,

but of a gentile who is not under your authority.

But with regard to a gentile who is under Israelite rule, it is permitted to free his slave against his will before the Jubilee!

The beraita answers:

You said:

That is to say, if indeed the verse were speaking of one who is not under your authority,

then what could be done to him?!

For we do not have the power to take him against his will before the Jubilee! If so, why did the verse need to say that we should not take him against his will?

Rather,

it follows necessarily that

the verse speaks only of a gentile who is under your authority.

And even so, it is forbidden to take his slave from him before the Jubilee. We learned in the Mishna [above, 14b]: A Hebrew slave is acquired with money

and with a document.

And we raise a difficulty:

From where do we know

that a Hebrew slave is acquired with a document?

And we answer:

Ulla said: The verse says

[Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew maidservant:

“If

[a woman]

he takes another”

[the master].

The verse likened

the taking of the maidservant

to “another,”

to the taking of a woman through kiddushin.

Just as

the

“another”

woman

is acquired

[acquired] by her husband

with a document—

so too the Hebrew maidservant is acquired

by her master

with a document.

And a Hebrew slave was likened to a Hebrew maidservant, as it is stated [Deuteronomy 15]: “When your Hebrew brother, or the Hebrew woman, is sold to you.” [As explained above, 14b.] And just as a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document, so too a Hebrew slave is acquired with a document.

And according to Ulla, who learns the document of the Hebrew maidservant from the document of the woman, it is appropriate to compare the wording of the acquisition in a document between them: Just as one who betroths a minor writes to her father in a document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives the document to her father, and through this she is acquired by him,

so too, one who acquires a maidservant from her father should write to her father in a document, “Your daughter is acquired by me,” and give it to her father, and through this she will be acquired by him.

But below, the amoraim disagree concerning the document of the Hebrew maidservant: Who writes it?

According to Rav Huna, the master who acquires the maidservant writes in the document, “Your daughter is acquired by me,” and gives it to her father, just as with kiddushin, when the husband who acquires the woman writes to her father in the document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to her father.

Whereas Rav Hisda holds that the father who sells his daughter as a maidservant is the one who writes in the document to the master, “My daughter is acquired by you,” and gives it to the master, in the manner of a document of sale of land, where the seller is the one who writes a document concerning the sale of his field to the purchaser and gives it to the purchaser.

Therefore, according to Ulla, who learns the document of the Hebrew maidservant from the document of kiddushin, the Gemara discusses:

This works well according to the one who says: The document of the Hebrew maidservant

the

master

who acquires the maidservant

writes it

and gives it to the father [that is, according to Rav Huna]; Ulla correctly says that the document of the acquisition of the maidservant can be learned from the document of the kiddushin of a woman, since also in the document of kiddushin, the husband who acquires the woman writes it and gives it to the father.

But

however,

according to the one who says

that the document of the Hebrew maidservant

the father writes it

[Rav Hisda], it follows that the document of the acquisition of the maidservant is not similar to the document of kiddushin. For with kiddushin, the husband who is the purchaser writes the document, whereas with the maidservant, the father who is the seller writes it.

And according to Rav Hisda, necessarily, the document of the maidservant is not learned from the document of kiddushin. If so,

what is there to say,

from where is the acquisition of the maidservant with a document learned?

Rav Aha bar Yaakov said

a resolution:

The verse says

[Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew maidservant:

“She shall not go out as the slaves go out.”

The verse said that the maidservant does not leave her servitude in the manner of departure by which Canaanite slaves leave [through tooth and eye and the tips of the limbs].

And it follows from this verse that specifically with regard to departure, the verse excluded the maidservant, making her different from Canaanite slaves.

But

with regard to her acquisition by the master,

she is acquired

by him

through the acquisition of slaves.

And what is it? —

What is the acquisition of slaves through which the maidservant is acquired? —

A document!

And we learn that Canaanite slaves are acquired with a document because a Canaanite slave was likened to land, as will be explained below, 22b, and land is acquired with money, with a document, and with possession.

And just as with a document of the sale of land, the seller writes it, so too, with a document of the sale of a Canaanite slave, the seller writes it. And likewise, with the document of the sale of the maidservant, the father writes it, because the father is the seller.

And from here we learn that a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document. And a Hebrew slave is also acquired with a document. [For the Hebrew slave and the Hebrew maidservant were likened to one another, as above, 15b.]

And we challenge: If indeed the maidservant is acquired through the acquisition of slaves, from where do we know that the intention of the verse is acquisition with a document and not acquisition through possession?

For Canaanite slaves are also acquired through “possession,” that is, if the purchaser compels the slave to perform work for him and uses him, the slave is thereby acquired by him.

And

if so,

say:

Let us expound the verse in this manner:

“She shall not go out [the maidservant] as the slaves go out” —

but she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves!

And what is it,

what is that acquisition through which slaves are acquired? — Acquisition through

possession!

And we answer: It is not possible to learn from the verse that the maidservant is acquired through possession.

For

the verse says

[Leviticus 25], concerning Canaanite slaves:

“And you shall take them as an inheritance for your sons after you.”

The word “them” is superfluous [for the entire passage speaks of Canaanite slaves]. And it comes to exclude that specifically

“them”

[the Canaanite slaves] are acquired

through possession, and not

a

different

[Hebrew slave or maidservant] slave is acquired

through possession.

And immediately we are astonished: From where do we know that “them” excludes that a Hebrew slave is acquired through possession?

And say:

Say that the verse comes to exclude something else:

“Them”

are acquired

with a document, and not

a

different

[Hebrew or Hebrew] slave is acquired

with a document!!

And we answer:

The writing—

behold, it is written

“She shall not go out

[the maidservant]

as the slaves go out,”

and it implies: but she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves, namely, a document.

And we are astonished:

And what did you see!?

Why did you choose to exclude from “them” that a Hebrew slave is acquired through possession, and to include a document from “she shall not go out as the slaves go out”?

For one could say the opposite: Let us include possession from “she shall not go out as the slaves go out,” and exclude a document from “them”!

And we answer:

It is reasonable that a document should have been included.

It is more reasonable to include a document, that it should acquire the Hebrew maidservant, because we find with a document

that it effects departure in the case of an Israelite woman,

for a woman is divorced from her husband through a document [a bill of divorce], whereas possession does not effect departure in the case of an Israelite woman.

And since the power of a document is greater than the power of possession, it is more reasonable to include a document.

And we challenge:

On the contrary! Possession should have been included,

it is more reasonable to include possession, because we find with possession

that it acquires the property of a convert.

For if a convert dies and has no heirs, his property is ownerless, and it is acquired through possession, but it cannot be acquired with a document, since it has no owners who can give the document!

And we answer with two answers:

a. Indeed, we find that with the acquisition of land, possession acquires in a place where a document does not acquire, but

with regard to marriage, at least, we have not found this.

In any event, with regard to the acquisition of marriage, we have not found that possession acquires at all, and the power of a document is superior, because it is effective with regard to marriage.

b.

If you wish, say

another answer:

Since we are uncertain whether to include a document or possession,

for this purpose it is effective

“

if he takes another.”

For this matter, the verse “if he takes another” is effective: The verse likened the acquisition of the maidservant to the acquisition of “another,” that is, to the kiddushin of a woman. Just as a woman is acquired with a document, so too the maidservant is acquired with a document.

And it is impossible to learn the document of the maidservant from the verse “if he takes another” by itself. For the husband writes the document of kiddushin, whereas, according to Rav Hisda, the father writes the document of the maidservant. But since it is stated, “she shall not go out as the slaves go out,” but she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves, and we are uncertain whether the verse includes acquisition with a document that the seller writes [in the manner of the document used for Canaanite slaves] or acquisition through possession—for this matter, “if he takes another” is effective [the verse likened her to “another”], to reveal that “she shall not go out as the slaves go out” teaches that she is acquired with a document, like slaves.

And all this is according to Rav Hisda, who holds that the father writes the document of the Hebrew maidservant, and it is thus similar to the document of slaves, which the seller writes.

But according to Rav Huna, the master writes the document of the Hebrew maidservant. And this is learned from “if he takes another”: The verse likened her to “another” [to a woman]—just as a woman is acquired with a document, and the husband who is the purchaser writes it, so too a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document, and the master who is the purchaser writes it.

And we challenge Rav Huna:

And Rav Huna,

who learns the document of the maidservant from the document of the kiddushin of a woman,

this “she shall not go out as the slaves go out” —

what does he expound from it?

What does he expound from the verse “she shall not go out as the slaves go out,” which implies that she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves?

And we answer: The verse did not come to teach that the maidservant is acquired through the acquisition of slaves.

Rather,

that

verse

is needed for him

the verse is needed to teach

that

the maidservant

does not go out through the tips of the limbs like a slave

Canaanite, as follows:

A Canaanite slave whose master knocked out his eye or his tooth, or one of his twenty-four tips of the limbs, goes free.

And it might have entered our minds to say: Just as a Canaanite slave goes free through this, so too a Hebrew maidservant goes free through this.

Therefore it is stated concerning a Hebrew maidservant: “She shall not go out as the slaves go out,” through tooth and eye. Rather, if the master knocked out her eye or her teeth, he pays her their value. And she continues to work until six years are completed. The same law applies to a Hebrew slave.

And since we have said that the verse, “She shall not go out in the manner of the slaves,” comes to teach that the maidservant does not go out through [the loss of] the tips of limbs, this is difficult according to Rav Hisda: From where do we know that the verse comes to teach that she is acquired in the manner of the acquisition of slaves?

And the Gemara explains—

And Rav Hisda

holds: If the verse came only to teach us that the maidservant does not go out through [the loss of] a tooth or an eye,

then

the difficulty is:

Let the verse write, “She shall not go out like slaves,”

without the word “in the manner of going out”

! What

“in the manner of going out”

of the slaves

is the reason that the verse added and said

“in the manner of going out of the slaves”?

Rather,

learn from it two [teachings],

from here that the verse comes to teach us two expositions:

a. “She shall not go out like slaves” through [the loss of] a tooth or an eye.

b. “In the manner of going out of the slaves”—the addition of the word “in the manner of going out” teaches that specifically in the manner of the going out of slaves she does not go out, but she is acquired in the manner of the acquisition of slaves, through a document.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he acquires

the slave

himself through years.

The Gemara brings the source for the matter:

As it is written

[Exodus 21]: “When you acquire a Hebrew slave,

for six years he shall work, and in the seventh

he shall go out free, for no payment.”

We learned in the Mishna: And he acquires himself

in the Jubilee.

And the Gemara brings the source for the matter:

As it is written

[Leviticus 25] concerning a Hebrew slave:

“Until the year of the Jubilee he shall work with you.”

We learned in the Mishna: And he acquires himself

through the deduction of money.

And the Gemara brings the source for the matter:

Hezekiah said: For the verse says

[Exodus 21] concerning the Hebrew maidservant: “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master, who designated her for himself [if the master does not wish to designate the maidservant for himself as a wife],

then he shall redeem her.”

And it is implied that the master himself assists in the redemption of the maidservant. And how does he assist in her redemption?

The verse teaches

that

he deducts her redemption,

the master deducts from the money of her redemption,

and she goes out.

[For example, if she was acquired by him for six maneh, and she worked for three years, and she still had three more years to work, the master does not take six maneh in her redemption, according to the amount for which she was acquired by him, but only three maneh].

And the Hebrew slave was juxtaposed to the Hebrew maidservant. As it is stated, “When your Hebrew brother or the Hebrew woman is sold to you” [Deuteronomy 15].

The tanna

in a beraita concerning a Hebrew slave:

And he acquires himself through money, through an object worth money, and through a document.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

And we raised it as a problem:

Granted,

it is understandable that the slave acquires himself through

money, as it is written

[Leviticus 25] concerning a Hebrew slave:

“From the money of his acquisition.”

And likewise it is understandable that the slave acquires himself through

an object worth money as well,

for

the Merciful One said, “He shall return his redemption”

[Leviticus 25], and the Sages expounded that the word “he shall return” includes that an object worth money has the status of money.

But this document—

what are the circumstances,

but the document mentioned in the beraita, what document is it referring to?

For it is possible to explain the words of the beraita concerning a document in two ways:

[a] A promissory document—that the slave obligates himself in a document to pay his master his value, and thereby goes out to freedom, as though he paid him money.

[b] A document of release—that the master writes to the slave in a document, “Behold, you are a free man.”

And the Gemara discusses:

If you say

that the beraita spoke of a promissory document,

that he wrote him a document for his value,

that the slave writes his master a promissory document to pay him his value.

It is impossible to say this, because if so there is a difficulty: Why did we learn in the beraita, “through money, through an object worth money, and through a document”? For this document

is

an acquisition of

money,

and not an acquisition through a document!

Rather,

necessarily, the beraita spoke of a document of

release.

But there is still a difficulty to raise:

For the Gemara assumes that the body of a Hebrew slave is not acquired by his master, as an ox and a donkey are acquired by their owner. Rather, the slave is only obligated to his master to work for him for six years, and this is like a person who owes his fellow a monetary obligation.

And therefore the difficulty is:

A document—

why do I need it?

Why does the master need to write the release in a document?

For just as a person who waives his fellow’s debt does not need to write his waiver in a document, so too his master can waive, even without a document, the monetary debt owed to him by the slave, and

let him say to him before two: Go!

Let the master say to the slave in the presence of two witnesses, “Go.” I have no claim of right against you.

And consequently he goes out to freedom.

Alternatively,

let him say to him

in the presence of the court: Go!

Or let him say to him in the presence of the court, “Go,” and this is like a waiver of his debt, and the slave is immediately released from his bondage!

Rava said

a resolution:

That is to say,

one should learn from the words of this beraita that

the body of a Hebrew slave is acquired

by his master until the time of his going out to freedom arrives.

And he is like the master’s property, and is not in his own possession. Therefore, the master cannot “waive” it for him, but must “release” him, in order to remove the acquisition that he has in him.

And

therefore,

the master

[the master]

who waived

the slave

the

money of

his deduction

[his redemption], and wished to release him through this—

the

money of

his deduction is not waived.

And it is within the master’s power to return and enslave him, so long as he has not released him with the release stated in the Torah. But if the master wrote to his slave language of release [“Behold, you are a free man”] in a document, and delivered it to him, the Hebrew slave is released through this. For we have found that a Canaanite slave is released through a document, even though he is acquired by the master with an eternal acquisition, and his acquisition is stronger than the acquisition of a Hebrew slave. Therefore, all the more so a Hebrew slave is released through a document. We learned in the Mishna:

In addition to him

[to a Hebrew slave]

the Hebrew maidservant,

for besides the fact that she acquires herself through years, in the Jubilee, and through the deduction of money, she also acquires herself through signs.

The Gemara cites in the name of Resh Lakish that there is an additional acquisition through which the maidservant acquires herself. Below, the Gemara will explain why we did not learn this in our Mishna.

Resh Lakish said: The Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through the death of her father, from the authority of the master,

when the maidservant’s father dies, she thereby goes out from the authority of the master.

And this matter is learned

through a kal va-chomer,

from the fact that a maidservant goes out through signs—

And what

is the comparison:

signs that do not remove

the daughter

from the authority of the father,

nevertheless they

remove

the maidservant

from the authority of the master.

And it is proven from here that it is easier to remove the maidservant from the authority of the master than to remove the daughter from the authority of her father.

The death

of the father,

which removes her from the authority of the father,

is it

not a logical inference

to say

that it removes her from the authority of the master?!

For it is easier to remove the maidservant from the authority of the master than to remove the daughter from the authority of her father!

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection

a contradiction to the words of Resh Lakish from our Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

In addition to him, the Hebrew maidservant

in addition to a Hebrew slave,

who acquires herself through signs.

And if it is so,

and if indeed the Hebrew maidservant is acquired through the death of her father,

let it also teach

it would also have been appropriate to teach in our Mishna

the death of the father!

And we answer: The tanna who taught our Mishna

taught some and left some.

That is, he taught some of the acquisitions through which the maidservant acquires herself, and left some of the acquisitions, and did not teach them.

And we object: It is true that the tanna sometimes teaches only part of the acquisitions and not all of them. But it is not his practice to teach all the acquisitions except for only one acquisition.

And since we have said that the tanna left the death of the father, we are forced to say that he also left another acquisition [for it is not the practice of the tanna to leave one matter]. And the difficulty is:

What did he leave, that he left this?

What additional acquisition did the tanna leave, so that we can say that he also left the death of the father?

And we answer: The tanna

left

the

death of the master,

through which as well the maidservant goes out. Therefore, it may be said that the tanna also left the death of the father.

And the Gemara rejects this:

If

the tanna indeed left the death of the father

because

he also left the

death

of the master, then there is a difficulty: The death of the master

is not an omission.

This is not in the category of an omission, for there is a reason that the tanna could not teach this in our Mishna—

For since it also exists with regard to a man,

since with regard to a man [a slave] as well there is a way in which he goes out through the death of the master [as below], therefore

he did not teach it,

the tanna did not teach this concerning a maidservant, for we learned, “In addition to him [to the slave], the Hebrew maidservant.” It is impossible to teach the death of the master, for the master’s death also releases a slave, and there is no advantage in this of a maidservant over a slave.

And in what manner does the death of the master release a slave?

If the slave had his ear pierced, and afterward his master died, he goes out to freedom through his death, as we learned in our Mishna [above, 14b]: One whose ear was pierced acquires himself through the death of the master.

, rather,

since the tanna could not teach, “Furthermore, the maidservant acquires herself through the death of the master,” and this is not included within the category of an omission, the question returns:

, let him teach it,

it would be fitting for the tanna also to teach in our Mishna the death of the father; and why did he not teach it?

And we answer: only

a matter that has a fixed limit does he teach.

The tanna taught in our Mishna releases that have a fixed limit, such as: [a] monetary deduction—for it is a fixed sum, according to the money with which she was acquired.

[b] six years—a fixed period.

[c] Jubilee—it too comes at a fixed time.

But

a matter that has no fixed limit, he does not teach,

we did not teach in the Mishna, and therefore we did not teach in our Mishna the death of the father, since there is no fixed known time in it.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty against this answer:

but

the bringing

of signs

of maidenhood, through the bringing of which the maidservant goes out,

which have no fixed limit,

for there is a maiden who hastens to bring signs, and there is one who delays,

and

and nevertheless

he teaches

we taught this release in our Mishna!

And it is proven from here that the tanna teaches even releases that are a matter having no fixed limit, and the question returns: why did he not teach her release through the death of her father?!

Rav Safra said:

an answer: indeed, signs

have no fixed upper limit,

that is, above the age of twelve years there is no fixed limit for signs of maidenhood; rather, whenever she brings two hairs, she becomes an adult and goes out through that,

but they do have

for the signs

a fixed limit ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

below,

before the age of twelve, for if she brought signs then, they are not signs of maidenhood.

And since the release through signs is a matter that has a fixed limit “below,” for certainly she will not go out before the age of twelve years, the tanna taught it.