Kiddushin 17a — the Talmud in English

It could have said,

lest you say

even

if the slave

fell ill

during the time of his six years of servitude, he is obligated to complete [the term].

The verse therefore says,

for this reason it is stated [Exodus 21]:

“And in the seventh he shall go free.”

To teach that there is a slave who goes free in the seventh [year], even though he did not work six complete years, namely, a slave who fell ill.

And since the beraita says that a slave who fled is obligated to complete his years of servitude, and he goes free after he completes them, if so, it is fitting to grant him [a gift], as is the law concerning a slave who goes free after six [years]! And this is difficult: Why did we learn that one who fled is not granted [a gift]?

Rav Sheshet said

a resolution:

Here, with what are we dealing?

The beraita that said that one who fled is not granted [a gift] is dealing with

a case such as one who fled and

afterward

the Jubilee encountered him,

before he returned to complete his work. And the Jubilee releases him to freedom.

What might you have said,

lest you would say:

Since the Jubilee released him,

since it was the Jubilee that released him to freedom, therefore

“his sending him away from you” applies to him, and we should not penalize him, and we should grant him [a gift].

Therefore,

it teaches us,

the verse teaches us that since he ceased from work through his fleeing, he is not granted [a gift].

And since we brought the beraita concerning the obligation to complete six years, the Gemara discusses its words:

The Master said

in the beraita:

It could have said even

if

he fell ill,

the slave is obligated to complete [the term],

the verse therefore says: “And in the seventh he shall go free.”

And the beraita did not explain how long the slave was ill, and it is implied that there is no distinction in the matter; even if he was ill throughout all six years of his servitude, he is not obligated to complete [the term].

And we are astonished: Is it so that

even

if

he was ill throughout all six

years of his servitude, he is not obligated to complete [the term]?!

But it was taught in a beraita: He was ill for three

years

and worked for three

years,

he is not obligated to complete [the term].

But if

he was ill throughout all six

years,

he is obligated to complete [the term]!

He said

a resolution,

Rav Sheshet

a resolution: The beraita above spoke

of

one who is ill and is prevented from difficult work, but he performs light work, such as

making needlework

[sewing], and therefore, even if he was ill for six years, he does not complete [the term], since he did not cease from all work.

We learned in the beraita: He was ill for three [years] and worked for three [years], he is not obligated to complete [the term]; he was ill throughout all six [years], he is obligated to complete [the term].

And we object:

This itself is difficult,

for the beraita contradicts itself:

At the beginning

you said: “He was ill for three [years] and worked for three [years], he is not obligated to complete [the term],”

which implies that specifically if he was ill for three [years], he is not obligated to complete [the term].

But

if he was ill for more than three [years], such as

four [years], he is obligated to complete [the term].

And now,

say

the

end [of the beraita]:

He was ill throughout all six [years], he is obligated to complete [the term].

And it is implied:

but

if he was ill for fewer than six [years], such as

four [years], he is not obligated to complete [the term]!

It emerges that the beginning and the end contradict one another!

And we resolve:

This is what it is saying,

This is what the tannai intended to say: Specifically if “he was ill for three [years] and worked for three [years], he is not obligated to complete [the term].”

But if he was ill for more than three [years], such as

he was ill for four [years],

he is considered as one who was ill throughout all six [years], and he is obligated to complete [the term].

And since in the course of the discussion we brought several beraitot that speak about the mitzva of granting [a gift], the Gemara now explains how much is granted to the slave:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 15:14]: “You shall surely grant him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress; that which Hashem, your God, has blessed you with, you shall give him.”

The Sages taught:

How much is granted to him

to the slave?—The value of

five selaim from each kind and each kind,

five from your flock, five from your threshing floor, and five from your winepress,

which are

in total

fifteen selaim.

The words of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Judah says:

They grant the slave

thirty

selaim,

like the thirty of a slave,

just as we find that when an ox known to be dangerous gored a Canaanite slave and killed him, it pays his owner thirty selaim as his monetary value.

And below it will be explained what follows from the fact that we find that when an ox known to be dangerous gored a Canaanite slave, it pays thirty selaim.

Rabbi Shimon says:

They grant the slave

fifty

selaim,

like the fifty of valuations.

Just as we find that one who evaluates a male from twenty years old until sixty years old pays the Temple treasury fifty selaim, the monetary value of his valuation.

And below it will be explained what connection valuations have here.

And the Gemara now explains the words of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita: How much is granted to him?—

Five selaim from each kind and each kind.

Five from your flock, five from your threshing floor, and five from your winepress.

Which are

in total

fifteen selaim.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And we are astonished concerning the “total” of the number fifteen selaim, which Rabbi Meir added at the conclusion of his words:

And Rabbi Meir—

does the number come to teach us something?

Is Rabbi Meir coming to teach us the calculation, that five selaim from three kinds are in total fifteen?!

And we resolve:

This teaches us,

this is what Rabbi Meir came to teach us:

It is only that he may not diminish it from this number.

And if he diminished it from one kind and increased it from another kind—

we have no concern.

That is to say, it is forbidden for the master to reduce the grant that is equal to fifteen selaim in total; but if he reduced from five selaim of one kind, and in its place increased from another kind by more than five selaim, there is no disqualification in the matter, provided that in total he granted the slave fifteen selaim.

And therefore Rabbi Meir taught, “which are fifteen selaim,” to teach that only the total number is decisive.

And we inquire about it:

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason?

From where did Rabbi Meir learn that from each kind mentioned in the verse one must grant five selaim?

And we answer: It is stated concerning granting [a gift] [Deuteronomy 15:13]: “When you send him away free from you, you shall not send him away ‘empty’; rather, you shall surely grant him.”

And Rabbi Meir

learns

the measure of the grant by a gzera shava:

“Empty, empty” from the firstborn. ‘

Empty,’ which is mentioned here, is learned from ‘empty,’ which is mentioned concerning the redemption of the firstborn [Exodus 34]: “And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and they shall not appear before Me ‘empty.’”

What

just as the measure that is mentioned

below,

concerning the redemption of the firstborn, is

five selaim—

so here,

the measure of the grant to the slave is

five

selaim from each of the three kinds mentioned in the verse.

And we object:

But say: Five selaim from all of them!

Say that the measure of the grant is five selaim from all the kinds mentioned in the verse together! And from where did you learn that the measure of five selaim applies to each kind individually? And we resolve: This is the order of the verses concerning granting [a gift] [Deuteronomy 15:13–14]: “

You shall not send him away ‘empty’; rather, you shall surely grant him—from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.”

The word ‘empty’ is mentioned in the verse before the three kinds—your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress—are mentioned in it.

Indeed,

if “empty” had been written at the end,

if the word ‘empty’ had been written after the three kinds, and the verse had thus said, “You shall surely grant him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress, and you shall not send him away empty,” then I would expound the verse

as you say,

that the measure of the grant is five selaim in total, from all three kinds together.

But

now, since it is written “

empty”

at the beginning,

now that ‘empty’ was stated before the three kinds, “your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress,” you have to expound the verse as follows—

Apply

the statement “You shall not send him away

empty” —

to “

flock.”

That is to say, expound the verse as though it said, “You shall not send him away empty” with regard to “your flock.” And likewise you have to expound the verse, “And you shall not send him away

empty,”

empty,

as though the verse said it

to “

threshing floor.” And likewise you have to expound the verse, “You shall not send him away

empty,”

empty,

to “

winepress.”

And from here we learned that there must be a grant from each kind and each kind, in the measure of five selaim.

And we object: Also concerning the festival offering it is stated in the Torah, ‘empty.’ And the festival offering must be worth two silver coins.

And if so, this is difficult: Why do they derive “empty-handed, empty-handed” from the redemption of the firstborn, whose measure is five selaim?

And let us derive

[let us learn] “empty-handed, empty-handed”

from the olah offering of appearing

whose measure

is only two silver ma’ot!

And we answer:

The verse says

[Deuteronomy 15, concerning the grant]:

“which the Lord your God has blessed you.”

This teaches that we should expound the verse to include, and not to exclude.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Judah says:

They grant the slave

thirty

selaim

like the thirty of a slave.

Just as when an ox gores a Canaanite slave and kills him, the owner of the ox pays thirty selaim to the owner of the slave.

And we examine it:

What is Rabbi Judah’s reason?

What difference is it that when an ox gores a slave, it pays thirty according to his value?

And we answer: It is stated concerning the grant [there]: “Which the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give him.” And Rabbi Judah derives

“giving, giving”

by a gzera shava

from a slave.

For it is stated concerning an ox accustomed to gore that gored a slave [Exodus 21]: “Thirty shekels of silver he shall give to his master.”

Just as

the measure of the giving that was mentioned

there,

in the ox that killed a slave, is

thirty

shekels—

so too

the measure of the “giving” that was mentioned

here,

in the grant to the slave, is

thirty

selaim.

And we raise an objection: For also concerning valuations the expression “giving” is stated [Leviticus 27:23]: “And he shall give the valuation.”

And the highest measure of a valuation is fifty shekels. And if so, this is difficult: Why does Rabbi Judah derive “giving, giving” from the thirty of a slave?

And let us derive

[let us learn]

“giving, giving” from valuations,

and say that the measure of the grant is fifty selaim!

And we answer: It is preferable to learn the law of the grant from the law of the thirty of a slave, for two reasons:

One,

one reason:

for

if two possibilities are before you—to learn from the greater or to learn from the lesser—

if

you grasp

[you grasp] the

greater,

there is concern that perhaps

you did not grasp it

[you did not grasp it] properly.

For it is possible that you should have grasped the lesser.

But if

you grasp

the

lesser,

there is no doubt that

you grasped

it properly, for the lesser is also included within the greater.

And therefore they learn the measure of the grant from the thirty of a slave, and not from the fifty selaim of valuations.

And furthermore

another reason:

A slave from a slave he should have learned.

It is fitting to learn the law of the grant to a slave from the law of payment of thirty for a slave, since both are laws stated concerning slaves.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says:

They grant the slave

fifty

selaim,

like the fifty of valuations.

And we examine it:

What is Rabbi Shimon’s reason?

And we answer: It is stated concerning the grant [Deuteronomy 15]: “Which the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give him.”

And Rabbi Shimon

derived

[learned]

“giving, giving”

by a gzera shava

from valuations,

for concerning valuations also the expression “giving” is stated [Leviticus 27:23]: “And he shall give the valuation.”

Just as

the measure of the giving that was mentioned

there

in valuations is

fifty

shekels—

so too

the measure of the giving that was mentioned

here,

in the grant, is

fifty

selaim.

And we raise an objection: “Valuations” refers to one who says, “The valuation of so-and-so is upon me,” and he is obligated to pay to the Temple treasury the valuation fixed in the Torah [Leviticus 27], according to the age of the one valued and according to his sex.

And several valuations are stated in the Torah. The highest valuation is for a male from twenty years of age until sixty years of age, and its measure is fifty selaim. And the lowest valuation is for a female from one month of age until five years of age, and its measure is three selaim.

Rabbi Shimon learns that the measure of the grant is fifty selaim by a gzera shava from valuations.

And this is difficult: There are several measures among valuations. Why did Rabbi Shimon say that the measure of the grant is fifty selaim, like the highest measure among valuations?

And let us say,

say that the measure of the grant is like the measure that is

the lesser among valuations,

namely, three selaim!

And we answer:

“Which the Lord your God has blessed you” is written.

And from here it follows that one should expound by a gzera shava to include and not to exclude.

Now, a person may not derive a gzera shava on his own unless he received it from his teachers as a law given to Moses at Sinai, and there was a tradition in the hands of the tannaim as to which words in the Torah were stated for a gzera shava.

And since we have said that Rabbi Shimon learned “giving, giving” as a gzera shava, it follows that Rabbi Shimon received from his teachers that the expression “giving” was stated in the Torah for a gzera shava. And if so, this is difficult:

Why did Rabbi Shimon derive “giving, giving” from valuations?

And let us derive

let us learn

“giving,” “giving,” from

the damages caused by a

slave,

as it is stated [Exodus 21] concerning an ox accustomed to gore that gored a slave: “Thirty shekels of silver he shall give to his master”!

Just as

the measure of the giving that was mentioned

there

with regard to a slave is

thirty—

so here too,

the measure of the giving mentioned concerning the grant is

thirty

selaim!

And why did Rabbi Shimon say that the measure of the grant is fifty selaim?

And the Gemara strengthens the objection:

Although we found the expression “giving” in valuations, whose measure is fifty selaim, nevertheless Rabbi Shimon should have learned the giving of the grant from the giving in the damages caused by a slave, whose measure is thirty selaim, for two reasons:

One,

one reason: if the choice is before you between two possibilities—to learn from the greater or to learn from the lesser—the rule is:

for

if

you grasp

the

greater,

there is concern that perhaps

you did not grasp it properly, for it is possible that you should have grasped the lesser.

But if

But if

you grasp

the

lesser,

there is no doubt that

you grasped

it properly, for the lesser is also included within the greater.

And furthermore

another reason:

A slave from a slave—

he should have learned.

It would have been fitting to learn the measure of the grant to a slave from the measure of thirty for a slave, since both are laws stated concerning slaves!

And since it would have been fitting to learn “giving,” “giving,” from a slave, so that the measure of the grant would be thirty selaim, why did Rabbi Shimon say that they grant the slave fifty selaim?

And by force of this objection the Gemara retracts what we said above, that Rabbi Shimon learns “giving, giving” as a gzera shava. Rather, it must be said that Rabbi Shimon did not receive from his teachers that the expression “giving” was stated in the Torah for a gzera shava.

But according to this, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Shimon learn the measure of the grant from the measure of valuations? What connection do valuations have with the grant?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon derived it by “poor, poor.”

Rabbi Shimon received from his teachers that the expression “poor” was stated for a gzera shava. And it is stated concerning a slave [Leviticus 25]: “And when your brother becomes poor.” And concerning valuations it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “And if he is poor.” And from here it is proven that one must learn the measure of the grant to a slave from the measure of valuations, whose measure is fifty selaim.

It is stated concerning the grant [Deuteronomy 15:14]: “You shall generously furnish him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress, with which the Lord your God has blessed you; you shall give him.”

And from what is stated at the end of the verse, “which the Lord your God has blessed you; you shall give him,” we learn that there is no obligation to grant the slave specifically from the flock, the threshing floor, or the winepress mentioned at the beginning of the verse; rather, it is possible to grant him from anything.

And since it is possible to grant the slave from anything, we must ask: If so, why were flock, threshing floor, and winepress stated?

Granted, according to Rabbi Meir,

according to Rabbi Meir, it is understandable why flock, threshing floor, and winepress were stated, for Rabbi Meir learns the measure of the grant by the gzera shava “empty-handed, empty-handed” from the redemption of the firstborn. And the measure of the redemption of the firstborn is only five selaim—

and therefore,

this is what is written, “

flock, threshing floor, and winepress,”

in order to teach by a gzera shava that the measure of each one of them is five selaim.

And it is proven from here that altogether the measure of the grant is fifteen selaim.

But,

however,

according to Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Shimon,

who do not learn the measure of the grant from flock, threshing floor, and winepress, this is difficult:

This,

the verse

“flock, threshing floor, and winepress”—

why do I need it?

And we answer:

This—

is needed for that which is taught in the beraita,

the verse is needed in order to teach us the law taught in the following beraita:

We learned in a beraita: “You shall generously furnish him from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.”

One might have thought that they would grant

the slave

only from flock, threshing floor, and winepress

alone.

From where

shall we know

to include everything?

The verse says,

for this reason it is stated later in the verse: “

with which the Lord your God has blessed you

you shall give him,” from here it follows that they grant the slave from everything.

And since they grant the slave from everything,

if so

this is difficult:

What does the verse teach,

for what purpose was

“flock, threshing floor, and winepress” stated?

The beraita answers: The verse comes

to tell you: just as

as

flock, threshing floor, and winepress are distinctive

in this respect,

that they are included within blessing,

that they increase [flock increases through reproduction, while one sows the threshing floor and winepress and they produce fruit].

so too, every

thing included by the verse “which the Lord your God has blessed you” was included only if it consists of things

that are included within blessing.

Money is excluded,

for since it does not increase, it is not included within “which the Lord your God has blessed you,” and the master does not grant it to his slave.

These are

the words of Rabbi Shimon.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Money is not excluded from the category of “everything with which the Lord your God has blessed you.” Rather,

mules are excluded,

which do not reproduce and are not included within “blessing.” And the master does not grant them to his slave.

And the Gemara discusses in what Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov disagree.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Shimon,

why does he exclude only money and not mules? For mules do not reproduce, and if so, they are not included within blessing!

And we answer: Indeed,

mules

do not give birth, but they are

improved in their bodies,

for the mules grow fatter and their bodies grow, and therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, they are included in “the blessing.”

And we object:

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

why does he exclude only mules and not money? After all, money is not improved, and if so, it is not included in “the blessing”!

And we answer: Indeed,

money

is not improved in its body, but

one does business with it,

it is possible to conduct a business venture with it and profit money, and therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, it is included in “the blessing.”

Thus far, the Gemara has explained the words of the beraita.

And from the words of the beraita we learned that “flock, threshing floor, and winepress” were stated to teach us that one grants a slave only things that are included in “the blessing.”

But it is still necessary to ask: Why did Scripture need to state the three types [flock, threshing floor, and winepress]? It would have sufficed to state one of them, and from it we would have learned that only things included in “the blessing” were multiplied!

And in order to answer this question, we say:

And it is necessary,

Scripture needed to state these three types:

For had the Merciful One written “flock”

alone,

I would have thought

I would say:

Animals—yes,

specifically animals were multiplied from “that the Lord your God has blessed you,” because they resemble the flock explicitly mentioned in Scripture, but

produce of the ground—not!

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “threshing floor,”

to teach us that produce of the ground too is included in “that the Lord your God has blessed you.”

And if He had written

Scripture

“threshing floor”

alone,

I would have thought

I would say:

produce of the ground—yes,

only produce of the ground is included in “that the Lord your God has blessed you,” but

animals—not.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “flock,”

to teach us that animals too are included in “that the Lord your God has blessed you.”

And until now we have explained why Scripture needed to state both “flock” and “threshing floor.”

But it is still necessary to ask:

“winepress”—

why do I need it?