Kiddushin 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And from where is it derived that the signs have a lower limit?

As it was taught:

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

A minor

who is nine years old,

during his ninth year of life,

who grew two hairs,

everyone agrees that these hairs result from

a wart,

and are not signs of his having reached maturity.

But if he grew them

from

the time he became

nine years and one day old

until he became twelve years and one day old,

if he grew two hairs during that period

and they remained on him

until he became twelve years and one day old, and did not fall out beforehand—the tannaim disagree concerning the matter:

The first tanna maintains: Since he grew the hairs before he became twelve years and one day old, they result from

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 reached maturity.

But if he grew hairs from the time he became

thirteen years and one day old, everyone agrees

that they are

a sign

that he has reached maturity.

At the beginning of the beraita it appears that the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree only when he grew hairs between the ages of nine and twelve years and one day, and they remained on him. But if he grew 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 grew hairs from the time he became thirteen years and one day old, they are a sign. This implies that if he grew them from the time he became twelve years and one day old, they are not a sign.

It follows that the first clause and the final clause contradict one another! In the Gemara in tractate Niddah [46a], several answers are given concerning this matter. One of the answers is: The first clause is speaking of a girl, who reaches maturity at the age of twelve years and one day. Whereas the final clause is speaking of a boy, who reaches maturity at the age of thirteen years and one day.

In any event, we have learned from the words of the beraita that the signs have a lower limit; that is, if a girl developed signs before the appropriate time, they are not signs.

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

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

contradicting the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that a Hebrew maidservant acquires her freedom through the father’s death:

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 provide him with gifts from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.”

It is explained by the words of the verse that when a slave or maidservant leaves after six years, the master is commanded to provide them with a gift.

But the status of the other forms of a slave’s or maidservant’s release [such as the Jubilee] is not stated explicitly: Is the master also commanded to provide them with a gift when they leave through the other forms of release?

The tannaim disagree concerning this, and so we learned in a beraita:

These are the ones for whom gifts are provided: [a] a [slave] who leaves after six years; [b] one who leaves at the Jubilee; [c] one who leaves upon the master’s death; [d] and a Hebrew maidservant who leaves through signs.

And “upon the master’s death” refers to a pierced slave. But a Hebrew slave who has not been pierced does not leave upon the master’s death; rather, he serves the son of the deceased master.

But one who runs away and one who leaves through a deduction from the purchase price are not provided with gifts. These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Meir says: One who runs away is not provided with a gift, but one who leaves through a deduction from the purchase price is provided with a gift.

Rabbi Shimon says: Four

alone

are provided with gifts.

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

Rabbi Shimon is saying that the mitzva of providing a gift applies specifically in these four cases, and not to one who runs away or one who leaves through a deduction from the purchase price [and contrary to Rabbi Meir’s statement].

Rabbi Shimon adds: What I said, that four are provided with gifts—

three

of them apply

to a man, and three

of them apply

to a woman:

Three apply to a man: [a] six years; [b] the Jubilee; [c] the master’s death in the case of a pierced slave. And three apply to a woman: [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

four

apply

to one of them—

to a man individually or to a woman individually—

since there is no

release 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 master’s death effects the release of a pierced woman.

The Gemara raises an objection from Rabbi Shimon’s words to the statement of Reish Lakish, who said that a Hebrew maidservant leaves upon the father’s death:

And if it is so,

and if Reish Lakish’s statement is correct,

let us also teach

that

the death

of

the father,

which removes her from the master’s authority and entails the obligation to provide her with a gift!

And why did we learn that gifts are provided to four, and not five?

And if you would say: Here too, he taught some and omitted some,

and if you wish to answer that Rabbi Shimon taught some of the forms of release and omitted others, as we answered earlier concerning our Mishna—

It is impossible to answer this way! For—

But

indeed,

“four” he teaches,

and since the tanna states a number, it implies that gifts are provided specifically to four and no more!

It is thus demonstrated that the father’s death does not release the maidservant! And apparently it would have been possible to answer that Rabbi Shimon did not teach the father’s death because it has no fixed limit, just as we explained earlier that the tanna in our Mishna did not teach a matter that has no fixed limit. The “four” mentioned by Rabbi Shimon would then mean the four forms of release that have a fixed limit.

But the Gemara rejects this:

And if you would say,

and if you wish to say:

The tanna taught

only

a matter that has a fixed limit,

whereas

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

Then we can object to your words:

But signs have no fixed limit, and he teaches them!

And if you would say, this too is in accordance with Rav Safra,

and if you wish to answer that signs have a lower limit, as Rav Safra answered earlier [concerning our Mishna], then we can object to your words:

But there is

among the four forms of release mentioned by Rabbi Shimon also

the death

of

the master,

and this form of release is among those

that have no fixed limit, and

nevertheless

he teaches it

[we learned it]!

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

also did not teach the master’s death

[he did not teach it]; the master’s death is not included among the four forms of release mentioned by Rabbi Shimon.

Rather,

according to this,

the four—

what are they?

Who are the four slaves who leave through four separate forms of release and are provided with gifts?

They are:

[a] Six

years.

[b]

The Jubilee

that occurs within the six years.

[c]

The Jubilee of piercing.

That is, a slave who served six complete years and was pierced at their conclusion, and then leaves at the Jubilee. This release is considered a form of release in its own right, in addition to the Jubilee that releases the slave during the six years.

[d]

The Hebrew maidservant

who leaves

through signs.

Accordingly, Rabbi Shimon did not include the master’s death among the four forms of release because it has no fixed limit.

Therefore, it may be said that the father’s death does release the maidservant, but Rabbi Shimon did not teach it since it has no fixed limit.

The Gemara proves that the master’s death is not included among the four forms of release, but that the Jubilee and the Jubilee of piercing were counted as two forms of release:

This too is evidently so,

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

For he teaches in the final clause,

as Rabbi Shimon taught at the end of his statement:

You cannot say

that all

four

apply

to one of them, since

release through

signs

applies

to a man, and piercing

does not apply to a woman. Therefore, the form of release stated in the case of a pierced slave does not apply to her.

And if it is so,

if we explain that Rabbi Shimon included the master’s death among the four forms of release, it follows that he considered the slave’s release at the Jubilee during his six years of service and the release at the Jubilee of a pierced slave to be one form of release.

[And these are the four forms of release: a. Six years. b. The Jubilee. c. The master’s death, in the case of a pierced slave. d. Release through signs.]

If so, one can raise the following objection:

Why did Rabbi Shimon say that it is impossible to say that four apply to one of them?

For

in the case of a woman, at least, one can find four!

At least four forms of release apply to a woman, since the master’s death releases her even when she was not pierced!

Rather,

learn from here

that Rabbi Shimon did not include the master’s death among the four forms of release. Rather, he considered the release of a Hebrew slave at the Jubilee and the release at the Jubilee of a pierced slave to be two forms of release. 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 master’s death because it has no fixed limit.

Accordingly, it may be said that the father’s death releases the 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

contradicting the statement of Reish Lakish, from a beraita:

For we learned in the beraita:

These are the ones for whom gifts are provided: one who leaves after

six

years, at the Jubilee, upon the master’s death, and the Hebrew maidservant through signs.

And if it is so,

if the father’s death indeed releases the maidservant, in accordance with Reish Lakish,

let us also teach

that

the father’s death!

Why was it not taught in the beraita?

The Gemara explains that none of the answers mentioned earlier in the Gemara can be given to this objection:

a.

And if you would say,

if you answer

“he taught some and omitted some,”—that the tanna taught some forms of release and omitted others—your statement can be rejected:

that the tanna taught some forms of release and omitted others, your answer must be rejected:

But “these” he teaches!

Here we learned the word “these,” implying that the tanna emphasizes that gifts are provided specifically to these and not to others.

It is thus demonstrated that there is no additional form of release besides these four!

b.

And if you would say,

if you answer that he taught specifically

a matter that has a fixed limit,

but

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

and therefore we did not teach the father’s death, your statement can be rejected:

But signs have no fixed limit, and he teaches them!

And if you would say, this too is in accordance with Rav Safra,

if you wish to answer here as Rav Safra answered above, that signs have a lower limit, we can object to your words:

There is

also

the death

of

the master

in the beraita, and it has no fixed limit. This proves that the tanna also teaches a matter that has no fixed limit!

If so, the earlier objection returns: According to Reish Lakish, who maintains that the father’s death releases the maidservant, why did we not teach this in the beraita? And we conclude: Indeed,

it is a refutation of Reish Lakish—

a refutation!

The contradiction that we cited from the beraita against Reish Lakish is indeed a contradiction, and Reish Lakish’s statement is rejected. Rather, the father’s death does not release the maidservant from the master’s authority.

And we ask: How can Reish Lakish’s statement be rejected?

But Reish Lakish

derived it by a kal va-chomer!

Reish Lakish derived his statement by a kal va-chomer: If signs, which do not release her from her father’s authority, release her from the master’s authority, then the father’s death, which releases her from her father’s authority, should certainly release her from the master’s authority?!

We answer:

The kal va-chomer

is refutable

[it can be refuted]

.

Because it can be refuted,

the kal va-chomer can be refuted:

What is true of signs

that they release her from the master’s authority? That is because

the body has changed

of the maidservant!

You might say: upon the father’s death,

which does not remove her from the master’s authority, because

the body has not changed!

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

One baraita states

that we learned in one baraita:

The grant [

the grant]

of a Hebrew slave

belongs

to him himself.

And

likewise

the grant [

and the grant]

of a Hebrew maidservant

belongs

to her herself.

And another baraita was taught,

and we learned in another baraita:

The grant

the grant

of a Hebrew maidservant

when she goes free,

and

likewise,

her found property,

which she found during her years of servitude, belong

to her father.

And Rabba has

no share in her found property;

rather,

the master takes from the father

only compensation for loss of work.

Payment for the fact that she was prevented from performing her work while picking up the found property.

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

Whereas in the earlier baraita we learned that the maidservant’s grant belongs to her herself.

And if so, the baraitot contradict one another!

Is it not the case,

that this is how one must resolve the contradiction:

This,

the second baraita, spoke of a maidservant

who went out [

who went out]

through the signs,

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

And

whereas

this,

the first baraita, spoke of a maidservant

who went out from it [

who went out]

through the father’s death.

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

And from here it follows that the father’s death removes her from the master’s authority, in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish!

And we reject this:

No!

In fact, the father’s death does not remove her from the master’s authority.

And

both this and that refer to one who went out through the signs.

Both baraitot spoke of a maidservant who went free through the signs,

and

nevertheless

there is no difficulty,

and no contradiction need be raised between the two baraitot:

This one refers to a case where the father is present.

The second baraita spoke of a maidservant who went free through the signs while her father was still alive.

Whereas

this one,

the first baraita, spoke of a case

where the father is absent,

where the father died before the maidservant went free through the signs; and since the father no longer exists, she receives the grant.

And in connection with having cited the baraita, “The grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to him himself, and the grant of a Hebrew maidservant belongs to her herself,” the Gemara explains what the baraita is coming to teach us:

Granted,

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

the grant of a Hebrew maidservant

belongs to her,

herself,

herself,

for although she has no father who can take her grant, nevertheless the baraita comes

to exclude the brothers,

teaching that the brothers do not inherit from their father the right to take her grant. As follows:

As 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 shall bequeath

to your sons.

But not

your

daughters

shall you bequeath

to your sons.

From here it follows that a person does not bequeath

the

right

that the Torah granted him to receive profits generated through

his daughter, to his son.

For example: her earnings and the money of her grant—although 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 a Hebrew maidservant belongs to her herself,” comes to teach us: and not to the brothers.

Rather,

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

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

It is obvious! But to whom else!?

To whom could I have given the grant of a Hebrew slave? After all, neither his father nor anyone else has any rights to the slave at all!

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

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 extended his teaching unnecessarily. Indeed, there is no novelty in the fact that the grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to him himself.

Abaye said: This [

thus]

said Rav Sheshet:

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

whose opinion is this,

who taught this baraita?

It is Tutai

who taught it, as follows:

As it was taught: Tutai says:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15], “You shall surely grant him.” The word “him” is superfluous, and it comes to exclude, teaching that specifically

to him

they grant,

but 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 in payment of the debt. Rather, the master gives the grant to the slave alone. Therefore, we learned in the baraita cited above, “The grant of a Hebrew slave belongs to him himself.” That is, specifically to him himself, and not to his creditor.

The Gemara above cited the words of the first tanna, Rabbi Shimon, concerning the slaves who receive grants. Now the Gemara cites the baraita in its entirety, along with the discussion that took place concerning it among the members of the academy:

The main text:

The full wording of the baraita cited above is as follows:

These are the ones who receive grants:

a slave

who goes out after

six

years,

and

in the Jubilee,

and

upon the death of the master,

in the case of a pierced slave.

And a Hebrew maidservant through the signs.

But a fugitive and one who goes out through a deduction of money do not receive a grant.

These are the words of the first tanna.

Rabbi Meir says: A fugitive

indeed

does not receive a grant.

But

one who goes out

through a deduction of money receives a grant.

Rabbi Shimon says: Four receive grants: [A] one who goes out after six years; [B] one who goes out in the Jubilee that occurs 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 the signs.

And Rabbi Shimon adds:

Three

of them apply

to a man: [A] six years; [B] a Jubilee that occurs within the six years; [C] the Jubilee that takes out the pierced slave.

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 occurs within the six years; [C] the signs.

And you cannot say

And you cannot say

that all

four

apply

to one of them,

to a man individually or to a woman individually,

because

going out through

the signs

applies

to a man, and

a

piercing

applies

to a woman,

and therefore, obviously, it is not possible for the Jubilee to take her out after piercing.

The Gemara discusses the explanation of the baraita.

We learned in the baraita that, according to the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon, a fugitive and one who goes out through a deduction of money do not receive a grant. According to Rabbi Meir, a fugitive does not receive a grant, but one who goes out through a deduction of money does receive a grant.

And we raised the question:

From where are these matters derived,

from where did we learn this?

And we answered:

As 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 for 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 surely grant him,” and so on.

We learn 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 it was taught concerning this in a baraita:

I might have thought that grants are given only to

a slave

who goes out after six,

since this is the case mentioned by the verse.

From where

did the Sages know

to include

also

one who goes out in the Jubilee, one who goes out upon the master’s death, and a Hebrew maidservant through the signs,

so that they too receive grants?

The verse states,

for this reason the verse says:

“You shall send him

free from you,

and when you send him.”

It would have been sufficient to write “you shall send him” only once. Why was it written twice? To include the other forms of sending away, in which the slave also receives a grant.

And since the verse included the other forms of sending away as well,

I might include

among them also

the fugitive and

the one

who goes out through a deduction of money,

so that they too receive grants.

The verse states,

for this reason it says [there]:

“And when you send him free from you.”

The word “from you” is superfluous, and comes to exclude, teaching that 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 a deduction of money,

for the verse did not speak of them, because

they

are in the category of

“whose sending away is not

from you,”

with your consent, since the release comes about through the slave’s own action. Therefore, they do not receive grants.

Rabbi Meir says:

Indeed,

a fugitive does not receive a grant,

because

“his sending away is not from you”

but against your will.

But one who goes out through a deduction of money

receives 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.

In any event, according to everyone, a fugitive does not receive a grant.

And we ask: But a

fugitive—

he must complete his term!

A fugitive does not go free through his flight. Rather, he must complete his six years of servitude, and before he has completed them it is certainly self-evident that he should not receive a grant, since he has not yet gone free.

It must therefore be that the verse is speaking after he has completed his term, when he goes out after six years like other slaves; if so, he should receive a grant, in accordance with the law of one who goes out after six years!

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

As it was taught: From where do we know that a fugitive must complete his term?

The verse states

[Exodus 21], concerning a Hebrew slave:

“He shall serve six years.”

And this one did not serve six years.