Kiddushin 16a (טז.) — the Talmud in English

The verse is necessary 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, although the gentile is under Jewish rule, it is forbidden to outwit 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 the verse is speaking of a gentile who is under your authority [under Israelite rule]?

Or,

perhaps the verse

does not

speak of that,

but of a gentile who is not under your authority.

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

The beraita answers:

You have said

: If indeed the verse were speaking of one who is not under your authority,

what could be done to him?!

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

Rather,

it necessarily follows that

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

Nevertheless, 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.

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know

that a Hebrew slave is acquired with a document?

And we answer:

Ulla said: The verse states [Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew maidservant:

“

If

[a woman]

he takes another

[the master].”

The verse juxtaposes

the taking of the maidservant

to “another,”

to the taking of a woman through kiddushin.

Just as

“

another

” woman

is acquired [

[is acquired] by her husband]

with a document—

so too, a Hebrew maidservant is acquired

by her master

with a document.

And a Hebrew slave is juxtaposed 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.] Just as a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document, so too, a Hebrew slave is acquired with a document.

According to Ulla, who derives the document of a Hebrew maidservant from the document of a woman, it would be appropriate to compare the wording of the acquisition document in the two cases: Just as one who betroths a minor writes to her father in the document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives the document to her father, thereby acquiring her,

so too, one who acquires a maidservant from her father should write to her father in the document, “Your daughter is acquired by me,” and give it to her father, thereby acquiring her.

However, below, the amoraim disagree concerning the document of a 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 in kiddushin the husband who acquires the woman writes in the document, “Your daughter is betrothed to me,” and gives it to her father.

Rav Hisda, however, 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, just as with a document for the sale of land: The seller writes the document concerning the sale of his field to the buyer and gives it to the buyer.

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

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

is written by the

master

who acquires the maidservant,

who writes it

and gives it to the father [that is, according to Rav Huna]. Ulla’s statement is properly understood as deriving the acquisition document of a maidservant from the document of a woman’s kiddushin, since in the document of kiddushin as well, the husband who acquires the woman writes it and gives it to her father.

But

according to

the one who says

that the document of the Hebrew maidservant is written by the

father [Rav Hisda],

the acquisition document of the maidservant is not analogous to a kiddushin document. For in kiddushin, the husband who is the acquirer writes the document, whereas in the case of the maidservant, the father, who is the seller, writes it.

According to Rav Hisda, the document of the maidservant cannot be derived from the document of kiddushin. If so,

what can be said

—from where is the acquisition of a maidservant by means of a document derived?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said

as an answer:

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

“

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

The verse states that the maidservant does not leave her servitude by the manner of release by which Canaanite slaves go out [through the loss of a tooth, an eye, or other principal limbs].

It follows from this verse that specifically with regard to the maidservant’s release, the verse excludes her from being like Canaanite slaves.

But

with regard to her acquisition by the master,

she is acquired

by him

through the acquisition of slaves.

And what is that? —

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

A document!

We learn that Canaanite slaves are acquired with a document because a Canaanite slave is juxtaposed to land, as explained below, 22b, and land is acquired with money, a document, and possession.

Just as in a document of sale for land, the seller writes it, so too, in a document of sale for a Canaanite slave, the seller writes it. Likewise, in the document of sale for a maidservant, the father writes it, because the father is the seller.

From here we learn that a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document. A Hebrew slave is likewise acquired with a document. [For the Hebrew slave and the Hebrew maidservant are juxtaposed to one another, as above, 15b.]

The Gemara challenges: If the maidservant is indeed acquired through the acquisition of slaves, from where do we know that the verse refers to acquisition with a document and not to acquisition through possession?

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

And

if so,

say

that we should expound the verse as follows: “

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

but she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves!

And what is that,

what is the acquisition through which slaves are acquired? Acquisition through

possession!

The Gemara answers: It is not possible to learn from the verse that the maidservant is acquired through possession.

For

the verse states [Leviticus 25], concerning Canaanite slaves: “

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

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

“them”

[the Canaanite slaves] are acquired

through possession, and not

a

different

slave

[a Hebrew slave or maidservant], who is not acquired

through possession.

The Gemara immediately asks: From where do we know that “them” excludes a Hebrew slave from being acquired through possession?

And say

that the verse comes to exclude something else:

“Them”

are acquired

with a document, and not

a

different

slave

[a Hebrew slave or maidservant] is acquired

with a document!!

The Gemara answers:

The writing

“She shall not go out

[the maidservant]

as the slaves go out,”

implies: But she is acquired through the acquisition of slaves, namely, with a document.

The Gemara asks:

And what have you seen!?

Why did you choose to exclude from “them” that a Hebrew slave is not 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: Include possession from “She shall not go out as the slaves go out,” and exclude a document from “them”!

The Gemara answers:

It is reasonable that a document should be included.

It is more reasonable to include a document as a means by which the Hebrew maidservant is acquired, because we find with regard to a document

that it releases a Jewish woman

: a woman is divorced from her husband by means of a document [a get], whereas possession does not release a Jewish woman.

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

The Gemara challenges:

On the contrary! Possession should be included.

It is more reasonable to include possession, because we find with regard to possession

that it acquires the property of a convert.

If a convert dies without heirs, his property becomes ownerless, and it is acquired through possession; it cannot be acquired with a document, since there is no owner to give the document!

The Gemara offers two answers:

1. Indeed, we find that with regard to the acquisition of land, possession acquires property in a case where a document does not acquire it, but

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

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

2.

Alternatively, if you wish, say

another answer:

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

for this purpose the verse

“If he takes another”

is useful. The verse juxtaposes the acquisition of the maidservant to the acquisition of “another,” namely, the kiddushin of a woman. Just as a woman is acquired with a document, so too, a maidservant is acquired with a document.

It would be impossible to derive the document of a maidservant from the verse “If he takes another” by itself. For the husband writes the kiddushin document, whereas, according to Rav Hisda, the father writes the maidservant’s document.

However, 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 written by the seller [as in the document for a Canaanite slave] or acquisition through possession—for this purpose, “If he takes another” [the verse juxtaposes her to “another”] is useful, to reveal that “She shall not go out as the slaves go out” teaches that she is acquired with a document, like slaves.

All this is according to Rav Hisda, who holds that the father writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, making it analogous to the document for slaves, which is written by the seller.

But according to Rav Huna, who holds that the master writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, this is learned from “If he takes another”: The verse juxtaposes her to “another” [a woman]. Just as a woman is acquired with a document, and the husband who is the acquirer writes it, so too, a Hebrew maidservant is acquired with a document, and the master who is the acquirer writes it.

The Gemara challenges Rav Huna:

And Rav Huna,

who derives the document of the maidservant from the document of a woman’s kiddushin,

this verse, “She shall not go out as the slaves go out”—

what does he expound from it?

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

The Gemara answers: The verse does not come to teach that the maidservant is acquired through the acquisition of slaves.

Rather,

that

verse

is needed

because the verse is needed to teach

that

the maidservant

does not go free through the loss of principal limbs, like a Canaanite slave

as follows:

If a Canaanite slave’s master knocks out his eye or his tooth, or destroys one of his twenty-four principal limbs, he goes free.

It might have occurred to us to say that just as a Canaanite slave goes free in this manner, so too, a Hebrew maidservant goes free in this manner.

Therefore, it is stated with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “She shall not go out as the slaves go out,” through the loss of a tooth or an eye. Rather, if the master knocks out her eye or her teeth, he pays her their value, and she continues to work until the completion of six years. The same law applies to a Hebrew slave.

And since we have said that the verse, “She shall not go out as the slaves go out,” comes to teach that the maidservant does not go free through the loss of a tooth or an eye, this is difficult for Rav Ḥisda: From where do we know that the verse comes to teach that she is acquired in the manner in which slaves are acquired?

The Gemara explains:

And Rav Ḥisda

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

then

it is difficult:

let the verse write, “She shall not go out as slaves go out,”

without the word “as they go out”

! What is

“as they go out

the slaves”?

Why did the verse add and say

“as the slaves go out”?

Rather,

infer two things:

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

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

b. “As the slaves go out”—the addition of the word “as they go out” teaches that specifically in the manner in which slaves go out she does not go out, but she is acquired in the manner in which slaves are acquired, through a document.

We learned in the Mishna:

And he acquires

the slave

himself through the passage of the years.

The Gemara cites the source for this:

As it is written

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

for six years he shall serve, and in the seventh

he shall go free without payment.”

We learned in the Mishna: And he acquires himself

in the Jubilee year.

And the Gemara cites the source for this:

As it is written

[Leviticus 25] concerning a Hebrew slave:

“Until the Jubilee year he shall serve with you.”

We learned in the Mishna: And he acquires himself

through the reduction of money.

And the Gemara cites the source for this:

Ḥizkiyya said: 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 as his wife],

then he shall enable her redemption.”

This indicates that the master himself assists in the maidservant’s redemption. And how does he assist in her redemption?

The verse teaches

that

her redemption payment is reduced:

the master deducts from the money of her redemption payment,

and she goes free.

For example, if he acquired her for six maneh and she worked for three years, with another three years of work remaining, the master does not take six maneh for her redemption, the amount for which he acquired her; rather, he takes only three maneh.

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

The tanna

in a beraita concerning a Hebrew slave states:

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

And the Gemara explains the statement of the beraita:

And we raised a discussion:

Granted,

it is understood that the slave acquires himself through

money, as it is written

[Leviticus 25] concerning a Hebrew slave:

“From the money of his purchase.”

And likewise it is understood that the slave acquires himself through

an article worth money as well,

for

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

[Leviticus 25], and the Sages expounded that the word “return” includes an article worth money, whose legal status is that of money.

But this document—

what are the circumstances?

But the document mentioned in the beraita: What kind of document is being discussed?

For the statement of the beraita concerning a document can be explained in two ways: [A]

A promissory document—in which the slave undertakes in a document to pay his master his value, and thereby goes free, as though he had paid him money. [B]

A document of emancipation—in which the master writes to the slave in a document: “You are hereby a free man.”

The Gemara analyzes this:

If you say

that the beraita is speaking of a promissory document,

that he wrote him a document for his value,

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

It is impossible to say this, because if so it is difficult: Why did we learn in the beraita, “through money, through an article worth money, and through a document”? This document

is

an acquisition through

money,

and not an acquisition through a document!

Rather,

the beraita must be speaking of a document of

emancipation.

But a difficulty still remains:

The Gemara assumes that the body of a Hebrew slave is not acquired by his master, as an ox or donkey is acquired by its owner. Rather, the slave is merely obligated to his master to work for him for six years, like a person who owes another a monetary obligation.

Accordingly, it is difficult:

A document—

why do I need it?

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

Just as a person who waives another’s debt does not need to write his waiver in a document, so too the slave’s master should be able to waive, even without a document, the monetary debt owed to him; and

let him say to him in the presence of two witnesses: Go!

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

And he thereby goes free.

Alternatively,

he could say to him

in the presence of the court: Go!

Or he could say to him in the presence of the court, “Go,” and this would be equivalent to waiving his debt, and the slave would immediately be released from his obligation!

Rava said

in response:

This means

that one can learn from the statement of this beraita that

the body of a Hebrew slave is acquired

by his master until the time arrives for his going free.

He is therefore like the master’s property and is not in control of himself. Consequently, the master cannot “waive” his obligation; rather, he must “emancipate” him, in order to nullify the acquisition that he has in him.

And

therefore,

the master

the master

who waived

the slave’s

claim to

money

of his reduction payment

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

the

money

of his reduction payment is not waived.

The master may return and subject him to servitude, so long as he has not emancipated him through the emancipation prescribed by the Torah. But if the master wrote his slave an expression of emancipation [“You are hereby a free man”] in a document and delivered it to him, the Hebrew slave is emancipated through it. Because we find that a Canaanite slave is emancipated through a document, even though he is acquired by his master through an eternal acquisition, and his acquisition is stronger than that of a Hebrew slave. Therefore, all the more so, a Hebrew slave is emancipated through a document. We learned in the Mishna:

In addition to him

in addition to the Hebrew slave,

the Hebrew maidservant

who, besides acquiring herself through the passage of the years, in the Jubilee year, and through the reduction of money, also acquires herself through signs.

The Gemara cites a statement in the name of Reish Lakish that there is another means through which the maidservant acquires herself. Below, the Gemara will explain why this was not taught in our Mishna.

Reish Lakish said: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through the death of her father, leaving the master’s authority;

when the maidservant’s father dies, she thereby leaves the master’s authority.

And this matter is derived

by means of a kal va-chomer,

from the fact that a maidservant goes free through signs:

And

just as

signs that do not remove

the daughter

from her father’s authority,

nevertheless they

remove

the maidservant

from the master’s authority.

It follows from here that it is easier to remove the maidservant from the master’s authority than to remove the daughter from her father’s authority.

The death

of the father

which removes her from the father’s authority,

is it

not the case

to say

that it removes her from the master’s authority?!

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

Rav Hoshaya raised an objection

to Reish Lakish’s statement from our Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

In addition to him, the Hebrew maidservant

in addition to the Hebrew slave,

acquires herself through signs.

And if it is so,

if indeed a Hebrew maidservant is acquired out of the master’s possession through her father’s death,

let it also teach

it would also have been appropriate for our Mishna to teach

the death of the father!

And we answer: The tanna who taught our Mishna

taught some and omitted some.

That is, he taught some of the acquisitions through which the maidservant acquires herself, and omitted some acquisitions, not teaching them.

And we ask: It is true that sometimes the tanna’s practice is to teach only some of the acquisitions and not all of them. But it is not his practice to teach all the acquisitions except for only one.

And since we have said that the tanna omitted the father’s death, we are compelled to say that he also omitted another acquisition [since it is not the tanna’s practice to omit only one matter]. This is difficult:

What did he omit, that he omitted this?

What additional acquisition did the tanna omit, so that we can say that he also omitted the father’s death?

And we answer: The tanna

omitted

the

death of the master,

through which the maidservant also goes free. Therefore, it may be said that the tanna also omitted the father’s death.

The Gemara rejects this:

If

the tanna indeed omitted the father’s death

because

he also omitted the

death

of the master, this is difficult: The master’s death

is not an omission.

It is not considered an omission, since there is a reason why the tanna could not teach it in our Mishna:

Since it also applies to a man,

since there is also a case involving a man [the slave] in which he goes free through the master’s death [as follows],

he did not teach it.

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

And in what manner does the master’s death release the slave?

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

Rather,

since the tanna could not have stated, “In addition to it, the maidservant frees herself through the death of the master,” and this is not considered an omission, the question returns:

Let him state

it! It would have been appropriate for the tanna to state in our Mishna also the father’s death; why did he not state it?

And we answer: Only

a matter that has a fixed limit, he states.

The tanna stated in our Mishna forms of release that have a fixed limit, such as: [a] monetary deduction—that is a fixed sum, determined according to the money for which she was acquired.

[b] six years—a fixed period.

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

But

a matter that has no fixed limit, he does not state;

[we did not state it in the Mishna], and therefore we did not state in our Mishna the father’s death, since it has no fixed period of time.

And the Gemara raises an objection to this answer:

But

you included the

signs

of puberty, through which the maidservant is released,

which have no fixed limit,

since there is a girl who brings the signs early, and there is one who brings them late,

and

nevertheless

he states

we stated this form of release in our Mishna!

It is therefore demonstrated that the tanna states even forms of release that are matters without a fixed limit, and the question returns: Why did he not state her release through the death of her father?!

Rav Safra said:

An answer: Indeed, the signs

have no upper limit,

meaning that after the age of twelve years there is no fixed limit for the signs of puberty; rather, whenever she brings two hairs, she becomes an adult and is released through that fact,

but they do have

the signs

a fixed

lower limit,

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

And since the release through signs involves a matter that has a fixed limit “below”—for she certainly does not leave before the age of twelve years—the tanna stated it.