Kiddushin 16b — the Talmud in English

And from where is it said that the signs were assigned a lower limit?

For it was taught:

Since we learned in a beraita concerning a minor: From when does the bringing of two hairs constitute a sign that he has matured?

A minor

of nine years,

within the ninth year of his life,

who brought two hairs,

everyone agrees that these hairs are the result of

a wart,

and are not signs of his maturity.

And if he brought them

from

the time he became

nine years and one day old

until he became twelve years and one day old,

if he brought two hairs during that time,

and they were still on him

until he became twelve years and one day old, and they had not fallen out beforehand—the tannaim disagreed concerning the matter:

The first tanna holds: Since he brought the hairs before he became twelve years and one day old, they are the result of

a wart.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda says:

Since the hairs remained on him while he was twelve years and one day old and did not fall out, they are

a sign

that he has become mature.

And if he brought hairs from the time he became

thirteen years and one day old, everyone agrees

that they are

a sign

that he has become mature.

At the beginning of the beraita it is implied that the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda disagreed specifically when he brought hairs between nine years and twelve years and one day old, and they were still on him. But if he brought two hairs from the time he became twelve years and one day old, according to everyone they are a sign.

Yet at the end of the beraita we learned that if he brought hairs from the age of thirteen years and one day, they are a sign. And it is implied that if he brought them from the age of twelve years and one day, they are not a sign.

It follows that the beginning and the end contradict one another! In the Gemara in tractate Niddah [46a], several resolutions were stated concerning this, and one of the resolutions is: At the beginning, it is speaking of a girl, who becomes mature at the age of twelve years and one day. Whereas at the end, it is speaking of a boy, who becomes mature at the age of thirteen years and one day.

In any event, we learned from the words of the beraita that the signs have a lower limit; that is, a girl who brought signs before their proper time—the signs are not signs.

And since the signs have a lower age limit, the tanna mentioned them in our Mishna. But the father’s death, which has neither a lower nor an upper limit, was not mentioned in our Mishna.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

to the words of Reish Lakish, who said that a Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through the death of the father:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15:12–14]: “When your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years. And in the seventh year you shall send him free from you. When you send him free from you, you shall not send him away empty-handed. [Rather,] you shall surely furnish him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.”

And it is explained from the words of the verse that regarding a slave or maidservant who leave after six years, the master is commanded to furnish them with a grant.

But the status of the other ways in which a slave or maidservant leaves was not stated explicitly [such as the Jubilee]: whether even when they leave through the other ways of leaving, the master is commanded to furnish them.

The tannaim disagreed about this, and so we learned in a beraita:

These are the ones for whom they furnish a grant: [a] a [slave] who leaves after six years; [b] and through the Jubilee; [c] and through the death of the master; [d] and the Hebrew maidservant through signs.

And “the death of the master” refers to a pierced slave, but a Hebrew slave who was not pierced does not leave through the death of the master; rather, he serves the son of the master who died.

But one who flees and one who leaves through deduction of money are not furnished a grant. These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Meir says: One who flees is not furnished a grant. And one who leaves through deduction of money is furnished a grant.

Rabbi Shimon says: Four

alone

are furnished a grant.

The Gemara now assumed that Rabbi Shimon intended the four mentioned by the first tanna: [a] six years; [b] the Jubilee; [c] the death of the master in the case of a pierced slave; [d] signs in the case of a girl.

And Rabbi Shimon comes to say that specifically in these four is the mitzva of the grant stated, but not for one who flees or one who leaves through deduction of money [and not in accordance with Rabbi Meir’s words].

And Rabbi Shimon adds: What I said, that four are furnished a grant—

three

of them apply

to a man, and three

of them apply

to a woman:

In the case of a man, three apply: [a] six years; [b] the Jubilee; [c] the death of the master in the case of a pierced slave. And in the case of a woman, three apply: [a] six years; [b] the Jubilee; [c] signs.

Three cases apply to a woman: (a) six years; (b) the Jubilee year; and (c) the signs of maturity.

And you cannot say

that all the

four

apply

to one of them—

to the man by himself or to the woman by herself,

because there is no

leaving through

signs in the case of a man, and there is no piercing in the case of a woman.

Therefore, it is not possible to say that the death of the master effects the release of a pierced maidservant.

And the Gemara raises an objection from the words of Rabbi Shimon to the words of Reish Lakish, who said that a Hebrew maidservant leaves through the death of the father:

And if it is so,

and if the words of Reish Lakish are correct,

let us also teach,

it is fitting to teach also

the death

of the

father,

which removes her from the authority of the master and makes her subject to the grant!

And why did we learn that four are furnished a grant, and not five?

And should you say: Here too, teach and omit,

and if you wish to resolve that Rabbi Shimon taught some of the ways of leaving and omitted some, as we resolved earlier concerning our Mishna—

It is impossible to resolve so! For—

But

surely

“four” it teaches,

and since the tanna teaches a number, it implies that specifically four are furnished a grant, and no more!

And it is proven from here that the death of the father does not release the maidservant to freedom! And seemingly it would have been possible to resolve that Rabbi Shimon did not teach the death of the father because it has no fixed limit, just as we resolved earlier that the tanna in our Mishna did not teach something that has no fixed limit. And the “four” that Rabbi Shimon mentioned means four departures that have a fixed limit.

But the Gemara rejects this:

And should you say,

and if you wish to say:

it taught

only

a matter that has a fixed limit,

whereas

a matter that has no fixed limit, it did not teach.

Then we shall raise an objection to your words:

But signs, which have no fixed limit, and it teaches them!

And should you say, here too, in accordance with Rav Safra,

and if you wish to resolve that signs have a lower limit, as Rav Safra resolved earlier [concerning our Mishna], then we shall raise an objection to your words:

But there is,

for among the four departures that Rabbi Shimon mentioned there is also

the death

of the

master,

and this departure is among the departures

that have no fixed limit, and

nevertheless

it teaches

it!

And we answer: Indeed, the tanna did not teach matters that have no fixed limit, and

the death of the master also it did not teach

[it did not teach], and the death of the master is not included among the four departures that Rabbi Shimon mentioned.

But rather,

according to this,

four—

what are they?

Who are the four slaves who leave through four separate departures, for whom a grant is given?

These are they:

a. Six

years.

b.

And the Jubilee

that occurred within the six years.

c.

And the Jubilee of piercing.

That is, a slave who served six complete years, and at their completion was pierced, and he then leaves through the Jubilee. This departure is considered a departure in its own right, besides the Jubilee that releases the slave during the six years.

d.

And the Hebrew maidservant

who leaves

through signs.

And according to this, Rabbi Shimon did not teach the death of the master among the four departures because it has no fixed limit.

Therefore, it may be said that the death of the father also releases the maidservant, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon did not teach it, since it has no fixed limit.

And the Gemara proves that the death of the master is not included among the four departures, but the Jubilee and the Jubilee of piercing were counted as two departures:

This too is reasonable,

indeed it is reasonable that Rabbi Shimon did not teach the death of the master:

For he teaches at the end,

for Rabbi Shimon taught at the end of his words:

You cannot say

that all the

four

apply

to one of them, because there is no

departure through

signs

that applies

to a man, and there is no piercing

that applies to a woman. Therefore, the departure stated in the case of a pierced slave does not apply to her.

And if it is so,

and if we explain that Rabbi Shimon counted the death of the master among the four departures, it follows that he considered the departure of a slave through the Jubilee within his six years of service and the departure through the Jubilee of a pierced slave as one departure.

[And these are the four departures: a. years; b. the Jubilee; c. the death of the master, in the case of a pierced slave; d. departure through signs.]

And if so, one must raise the following objection:

Why did Rabbi Shimon say that it is impossible to say four in the case of one of them?

For

in the case of a woman, at least, four can be found!

At least four departures apply to a woman, for the death of the master releases a woman even when she was not pierced!

Rather,

learn from this

that Rabbi Shimon did not count the death of the master among the four departures. Rather, he considered the departure of a Hebrew slave through the Jubilee and the departure through the Jubilee of a pierced slave as two departures. And the Jubilee of piercing does not apply to a woman, because there is no piercing in the case of a woman.

And the tanna did not teach the death of the master because it has no fixed limit.

And accordingly, it may be said that the death of the father releases a maidservant, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish, and Rabbi Shimon did not teach it because it has no fixed limit.

Rav Amram raised an objection

to the words of Reish Lakish, from a beraita:

For we learned in a beraita:

And these are the ones for whom they furnish a grant: the one who leaves through

six

years, and through the Jubilee, and through the death of the master, and the Hebrew maidservant through signs.

And if it is so,

and if indeed the death of the father releases the maidservant, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish,

let us also teach,

it is fitting to teach also

the death of the father!

And why was it not taught in the beraita?

And the Gemara explains that none of the resolutions mentioned earlier in the Gemara can be offered for this objection:

a.

And should you say,

if you resolve

“it taught some and omitted some”—

that the tanna taught some of the departures and omitted some of them, your words must be rejected:

But “these” it teaches!

For here we learned “these,” implying that the tanna emphasizes that a grant is given specifically to these and not to others.

And it is proven from here that there is no additional departure besides these four departures!

b.

And should you say,

and if you resolve that specifically

a matter that has a fixed limit it teaches,

but

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

and therefore we did not teach the death of the father, your words must be rejected:

But signs, which have no fixed limit, and it teaches them!

And should you say, here too, in accordance with Rav Safra,

if you wish to resolve here also in accordance with Rav Safra above, that signs have a lower limit, we shall raise an objection to your words:

There is,

for we learned in the beraita

the death

of the

master,

and it has no fixed limit, and it is proven from here that the tanna teaches even a matter that has no fixed limit!

And if so, the earlier objection returns: according to the words of Reish Lakish, who holds that the death of the father releases the maidservant—why did we not teach this in the beraita? And we conclude: Indeed,

a refutation of Reish Lakish—

a refutation!

The contradiction that we brought from the beraita against the words of Reish Lakish is indeed a contradiction, and the words of Reish Lakish have been rejected. Rather, the death of the father does not remove the maidservant from the authority of the master.

And we ask: How is it possible to reject the words of Reish Lakish?

But Reish Lakish—

a kal va-chomer he stated!

For Reish Lakish learned his words by means of a kal va-chomer: If signs, which do not remove her from the authority of the father, remove her from the authority of the master, then the death of the father, which removes her from the authority of the master, should it not logically remove her from the authority of the master?!

And we answer:

The kal va-chomer—

it is refutable

[refuted]

it is.

Because it is possible to refute it,

it is possible to refute the kal va-chomer:

What is there about signs

that remove her from the authority of the master? It is because

the body has changed

of the maidservant!

Say: through the death of the father,

which does not remove her from the authority of the master, because

the body was not changed!

And the Gemara attempts to prove that the death of the father removes the maidservant from the authority of the master, in accordance with the view of Reish Lakish:

One [baraita] teaches

that we learned in one beraita:

The grant [

the grant]

of a Hebrew slave

belongs

to himself.

And

also

the grant [

and the grant]

of a Hebrew maidservant

belongs

to herself.

And another [baraita] teaches,

and we learned in another beraita:

The grant

the grant

of the Hebrew maidservant

when she goes out to freedom,

and

also

her lost property

that she found during her years of servitude—these belong

to her father.

But Rabba has

no share in her lost property

except

that the master takes from the father

only compensation for idleness.

Compensation for the fact that she was idle from her work at the time she lifted the lost property.

In any event, we learned in this beraita that the maidservant’s grant belongs to her father.

Whereas in the preceding beraita we learned that the maidservant’s grant belongs to herself.

And if so, the beraitot contradict one another!

Is it not,

that this is how one must explain:

Here,

the second beraita spoke of a maidservant

who went out [

who went out]

through signs,

and her father was still alive, and therefore the grant belongs to her father.

And

if

here,

the first beraita spoke of a maidservant

who went out from her [

who went out]

through the death of the father.

And since the father no longer exists, the grant belongs to her herself.

And from here, the death of the father removes her from the authority of the master, in accordance with the words of Reish Lakish!

And we reject this:

No!

Actually, the death of the father does not remove her from the authority of the master.

And

both this and that are cases where she went out through signs.

Both beraitot spoke of a maidservant who went out through signs,

and

nevertheless

it is not difficult;

there is no difficulty of a contradiction between the two beraitot:

Here, where the father exists.

The second beraita spoke of a maidservant who went out through signs while her father was still alive.

But

here,

the first beraita spoke of

where the father does not exist,

when the father died before the maidservant went out through signs, and since the father does not exist, she acquires the grant.

And incidentally, since we brought the beraita, “The grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to himself, and the grant of a Hebrew maidservant belongs to herself,” the Gemara explains what the beraita comes to teach us:

Granted,

it is understandable that there is a novelty in the fact that

the grant of the Hebrew

maidservant

belongs

to herself,

for even though she has no father who will take her grant, nevertheless the beraita comes

to exclude brothers,

to say that the brothers do not inherit from their father the right to take her grant. And as follows:

For it was taught:

It is stated [Leviticus 25] concerning Canaanite slaves:

“And you shall bequeath them to your sons after you.”

The word “them” is superfluous,

and it comes to exclude—

Specifically,

“them”

you bequeath

to your sons.

And not

your

daughters

do you bequeath

to your sons.

From here, a person does not bequeath

the

right

that the Torah granted him through profits that come on account of

his daughter, to his son.

For example: her labor and the money of her grant—even though they belong to the father, nevertheless, if the father dies, the sons do not inherit this right; rather, it belongs to the daughter herself.

And therefore it is understood that what we learned, “The grant of the Hebrew maidservant belongs to herself,” comes to teach us: and not to the brothers.

Rather,

but there is a difficulty concerning what we learned at the beginning of the beraita,

“The grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to himself”—

obviously! But to whom else!?

To whom could I have given the grant of a Hebrew slave? For neither the father nor any other person has any right in the slave at all!

Rav Yosef said: I see here a small yod made into a city,

I see here that the tanna took the letter yod, which is small, and made it as though it were a large city. This is a metaphor; that is, the tanna lengthened his teaching without need. And indeed there is no novelty in the fact that the grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to himself.

Abaye said: Thus [

so]

said Rav Sheshet:

There is a novelty in what we learned, that the grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to himself. For

whose opinion is this,

who taught this beraita?—

It is Tutai

who taught it, as follows:

For it was taught: Tutai says:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15], “You shall generously provide him.” The word “him” is superfluous, and comes to exclude, so that specifically

to him

they provide,

and not to his creditor.

For example: If the slave owes money to any person, we do not say that the creditor should take the grant from the master for his debt; rather, the master gives the grant to the slave alone. And therefore we learned in the above beraita, “The grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to himself.” That is, specifically to himself and not to his creditor.

The Gemara above brought the words of the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon, concerning the slaves to whom they give a grant. And now the Gemara brings the beraita in its entirety, and what the members of the academy discussed concerning it:

The body [of the matter],

the body of the words of the above beraita is as follows:

These are the ones to whom they give a grant: [

a] a slave

who goes out in

six

years, [

b]

and in the Jubilee, [

c]

and through the death of the master

in the case of a pierced slave. [d]

And the Hebrew maidservant through signs.

But a fugitive and one who goes out through deduction of money are not given a grant.

These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Meir says: A fugitive

indeed

is not given a grant.

But

however,

one who goes out through deduction of money is given a grant.

Rabbi Shimon says: Four are given a grant: [

a] one who goes out after six years; [b] one who goes out in a Jubilee that occurred within the six years; [c] a pierced slave who goes out in the Jubilee after six years; [d] a Hebrew maidservant who goes out through signs. And Rabbi Shimon adds:

three

of them apply

to a man: [

a] six years; [b] a Jubilee that occurred within the six; [c] the Jubilee that releases the pierced slave.

And three

of them apply

to a woman: [

a] six years; [b] a Jubilee that occurred within the six; [c] signs.

And you cannot say

that all the

four

apply

to one of them,

to the man by himself or to the woman by herself,

because

going out through

signs

applies

to a man, and

there is no

piercing

that applies

to a woman,

and therefore, obviously, it is not applicable that the Jubilee should release her after piercing.

The Gemara discusses the explanation of the words of the beraita.

We learned in the beraita that according to the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon, a grant is not given to a fugitive or to one who goes out through deduction of money. Whereas according to Rabbi Meir, a fugitive is not given a grant, but one who goes out through deduction of money is given a grant.

And we inquire:

From where are these matters,

from where did we learn this?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15:12–14]: “When your brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall send him free from you. And when you send him free from you, you shall not send him away empty-handed; [rather,] you shall generously provide him.” And so on.

We learned from the words of the verse that when a slave or maidservant goes out after six years, the master is commanded to give them a grant.

And we learned concerning this in a beraita:

One might have thought that grants would be given only to

a slave

who goes out after six,

for he is the one concerning whom the verse spoke.

From where

did the Sages know

to include

also

one who goes out in the Jubilee, and through the death of the master, and the Hebrew maidservant through signs,

that grants are also given to them?

The verse says,

for this is what is stated in the verse:

“You shall send him

free from you,

and when you send him away.”

It was not necessary to write “you shall send him away” except once. And why was it written twice? To include the other forms of sending away, that even in those cases a grant is given to the slave.

And since the verse also included the other forms of sending away, if so

one might have thought that I include

among them also the

fugitive and

the

one who goes out through deduction of money,

that grants are also given to them.

The verse says,

for this is what is stated [there]:

“When you send him away free from you.”

The word “from you” is superfluous, and comes to exclude, for the verse speaks specifically of

one whose sending away is from you,

with your consent.

Excluded is

the

fugitive and

the

one who goes out through deduction of money,

about whom the verse did not speak, because

they

are in the category of

whose sending away is not

from you,

with your consent, for the release comes through the act of the slave himself. And therefore no grant is given to them.

Rabbi Meir says:

Indeed,

a fugitive is not given a grant,

because

his sending away is not from you

but against your will.

But one who goes out through deduction of money

is given a grant, because

his sending away is from you.

That is, it is a mitzva for the master to accept the deduction from the slave and send him away.

And in any event, according to everyone, a fugitive is not given a grant.

And we are astonished: After all,

a fugitive—

he requires completion!

A fugitive does not go out to freedom through his flight; rather, he must complete the six years of his servitude, and before he completes them it is certainly self-evident that it is not fitting to give him a grant, for he has still not gone out to freedom.

And necessarily, the verse is speaking after his completion, when he goes out after six years like the other slaves, and if so it is fitting to give him a grant, according to the law of one who goes out after six years!

And the Gemara explains from where it is obvious to us that the fugitive is obligated to complete the six years of his servitude:

For it was taught: From where [do we know] that a fugitive is obligated to complete [his term]?

The verse says [

Exodus 21] concerning a Hebrew slave:

“Six years he shall serve.”

And this one did not serve six years.