Kiddushin 17a (יז.) — the Talmud in English

One might have thought that

perhaps

even if

the slave

fell ill

during the six years of his servitude, he would be obligated to complete the remaining time.

The verse therefore states:

for this reason it says [Exodus 21]:

“And in the seventh year he shall go free.”

This teaches 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.

Since the beraita states that a slave who fled must complete his years of servitude and goes free only after completing them, he should consequently be entitled to the emancipation grant, like a slave who goes free after six years! And it is difficult: Why did we learn that one who flees does not receive the grant?

Rav Sheshet said

in answer:

With what are we dealing here?

The beraita that said that one who flees does not receive the grant is dealing with

a case where he fled and

afterward

the Jubilee year overtook him,

before he returned to complete his service. The Jubilee year sets him free.

You might have thought

that perhaps you would say:

Since the Jubilee year set him free,

since it was the Jubilee year that set him free, therefore

“his release by you” applies to him, so let us not penalize him, and let us give him the grant.

Therefore,

it teaches us

that the verse teaches us that since he was absent from work because of his flight, he does not receive the grant.

Since we cited the beraita concerning the obligation to complete the six years, the Gemara discusses its wording:

The Master said

in the beraita:

One might have thought even

if

he fell ill,

the slave would be obligated to complete the time;

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

The beraita did not specify how long the slave was ill, implying that there is no distinction in this matter: Even if he was ill throughout all six years of his servitude, he is not obligated to complete the time.

And we raise an objection: Is it really

even

if he

was ill throughout all six

years of his servitude, that he is not obligated to complete the time?!

But it was taught in a beraita: If he was ill for three

years

and worked for three

years,

he is not obligated to complete the time.

But if he

was ill throughout all six

years,

he is obligated to complete the time!

He said

in answer:

Rav Sheshet

answered: The earlier beraita was speaking

of

a sick man who was unable to perform difficult labor but could perform light labor, such as

needlework

—that is, sewing—and therefore, even if he was ill for six years, he does not complete the time, since he was not completely idle from all work.

We learned in the beraita: If he was ill for three years and worked for three, he is not obligated to complete the time; if he was ill throughout all six years, he is obligated to complete it.

And we challenge this:

This itself is difficult,

for the beraita contradicts itself:

In the beginning,

you stated: “If he was ill for three years and worked for three, he is not obligated to complete the time,”

implying that specifically if he was ill for three years, he is not obligated to complete it.

This implies

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

four, he is obligated to complete the time.

But now,

say

the

end:

If he was ill throughout all six years, he is obligated to complete the time.

And this implies that

if

he was ill for fewer than six years, such as

four, he is not obligated to complete the time!

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

And we answer:

This is what it means:

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

But if he was ill for more than three years, such as if 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 time.

Since in this discussion we cited several beraitot that speak of the mitzva of the emancipation grant, the Gemara now explains how much is granted to the slave:

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

The Sages taught:

How much does one grant him

to the slave? — The value of

five selaים from each and every type,

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

which are

in total

fifteen selaים.

This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One grants the slave

thirty

selaים,

like the thirty for a slave,

just as we find that when a goring ox kills a Canaanite slave, it pays his owner thirty selaים as his value.

[Below it will be explained what follows from the fact that we find that a goring ox that kills a Canaanite slave pays thirty selaים.]

Rabbi Shimon says:

One grants the slave

fifty

selaים,

like the fifty prescribed by valuations.

Just as we find that one who assigns a valuation to a male between the ages of twenty and sixty pays the Temple treasury fifty selaים as his assigned value.

[Below it will be explained what the laws of valuations have to do with this matter.]

The Gemara now explains the words of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita: How much does one grant him? —

Five selaים from each and every type.

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

Which are

in total

fifteen selaים.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And we question the total of fifteen selaים that Rabbi Meir added at the conclusion of his statement:

And Rabbi Meir —

does he come to teach us a calculation?

Did Rabbi Meir really come to teach us that five selaים from each of three types amount in total to fifteen?!

And we answer:

This teaches us

that Rabbi Meir came to teach us the following:

The total may not be less than this number.

But if he decreases the amount from one type and increases it from another type —

we have no objection.

That is, the master may not reduce the emancipation grant below a total value of fifteen selaים; but if he gives less than five selaים from one type and, in its place, gives more than five selaים from another type, there is no defect in this, provided that in total he granted the slave fifteen selaים.

Accordingly, Rabbi Meir taught: “Which are fifteen selaים,” to teach that only the total amount is indispensable.

And we inquire:

What is Rabbi Meir’s reason?

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

And we answer: With regard to the grant it is stated [Deuteronomy 15:13]: “When you send him away free from you, you shall not send him away empty-handed; you shall surely grant him.”

And Rabbi Meir

derives

the amount of the grant by means of a gzera shava:

“Empty-handed” from “empty-handed” concerning the firstborn.

The word “empty-handed” mentioned here is derived from the word “empty-handed” mentioned concerning the redemption of the firstborn: “And every firstborn of your sons you shall redeem, and they shall not appear before Me empty-handed” [Exodus 34].

Just as

the amount mentioned

there,

concerning the redemption of the firstborn, is

five selaים —

so too here,

the amount of the grant for a slave is

five

selaים from each of the three types mentioned in the verse.

And we challenge this:

But say: five selaים from all of them!

Say that the amount of the grant is five selaים from all the types mentioned in the verse together! From where did you learn that the amount of five selaים applies to each type individually? And we answer: This is the order of the verses concerning the grant [Deuteronomy 15:13–14]:

“You shall not send him away empty-handed; you shall surely grant him—from your flock, from your threshing floor, and from your winepress.”

The word “empty-handed” appears in the verse before the three types—your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress—are mentioned.

Indeed,

if “empty-handed” had been written at the end,

if the word “empty-handed” had been written after the three types, and the verse had 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-handed,” then I would expound the verse

as you said,

that the total amount of the grant is five selaים from all three types together.

But

now, since it is written

“empty-handed”

at the beginning,

now that “empty-handed” is stated before the three types—“your flock, your threshing floor, and your winepress”—you must expound the verse as follows:

Apply

the words “You shall not send him away

empty-handed” —

to “

flock.”

That is, expound the verse as though it said, “You shall not send him away empty-handed” with regard to “your flock.”

Similarly, you must expound the verse, “You shall not send him away

empty-handed,”

as though the verse had said it

to “

threshing floor.”

And similarly, you must expound the verse, “You shall not send him away

empty-handed,”

to “

winepress.”

From here we learn that there must be a grant from each and every type in the amount of five selaים.

And we challenge this: Also concerning the pilgrimage offering it is stated in the Torah, “empty-handed.” Yet the pilgrimage offering must be worth two silver coins.

If so, this is difficult: Why do we derive “empty-handed, empty-handed” from the redemption of the firstborn, whose amount is five sela?

And let us derive [

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

from the burnt-offering of appearance

whose amount

is only two silver ma'a!

And we answer:

The verse states [Deuteronomy 15], concerning the grant:

[the verse] “according to what the Lord your God has blessed you.”

“According to what the Lord your God has blessed you.”

This teaches that we should interpret the verse so as to include rather than exclude.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

One grants a servant

thirty

sela

like the thirty for a servant.

Just as when an ox gored a Canaanite servant and killed him, the owner of the ox pays thirty sela to the owner of the servant.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda?

What does it matter that when an ox gores a servant, its owner pays thirty as his value?

And we answer: It is stated concerning the grant [Deuteronomy 15]: “According to what the Lord your God has blessed you, you shall give him.” And Rabbi Yehuda derives [

“giving, giving”

by means of a gezeira shava

from a servant.

For it is stated concerning an ox proven to be dangerous that gored a servant [Exodus 21]: “He shall give his master thirty shekels of silver.”

Just as,

just as the amount of the giving mentioned

below,

for an ox that killed a servant, is

thirty

shekels—

so too

the amount of the “giving” mentioned

here,

in the grant to the servant, is

thirty

sela.

And we challenge this: In the context of valuations, too, the expression “giving” is stated [Leviticus 27:23]: “And he shall give the valuation.”

And the highest valuation is fifty shekels. If so, this is difficult: Why does Rabbi Yehuda derive “giving, giving” from the thirty for a servant?

And let us derive [

let us learn]

“giving, giving” from valuations,

and say that the amount of the grant is fifty sela!

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

First,

one reason:

for

if two possibilities are before you—whether to derive from the greater amount or to derive from the lesser—

if

you grasp [

you take] the

greater,

there is a concern that perhaps

you have not grasped it [

you have not taken it] correctly.

For perhaps you should have taken the lesser amount.

But if

you grasp

the

lesser,

there is no doubt that

you have grasped it correctly, for the lesser is also included within the greater.

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

Therefore, we derive the amount of the grant from the thirty for a servant, and not from the fifty shekels of valuations.

And furthermore,

an additional reason:

A servant should have been derived from a servant.

It is fitting to derive the law of the grant to a servant from the law of the payment of thirty for a servant, since both are laws stated with regard to servants.

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon says:

One grants a servant

fifty

sela,

like the fifty of valuations.

And we inquire about it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon?

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

And Rabbi Shimon

derives [

learns]

“giving, giving”

by means of a gezeira shava

from valuations,

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

Just as,

just as the amount of the giving mentioned

below

in valuations is

fifty

shekels—

so too

the amount of the giving mentioned

here,

in the grant, is

fifty

sela.

And we challenge this: “Valuations” refers to one who says, “The valuation of so-and-so is incumbent upon me,” and he is obligated to pay the Temple treasury the valuation fixed by the Torah [Leviticus 27], according to the age and sex of the person being valued.

Several valuations are stated in the Torah. The highest valuation is for a male from twenty years old until sixty years old, and its amount is fifty sela. The lowest valuation is for a female from one month old until five years old, and its amount is three sela.

Rabbi Shimon derives that the amount of the grant is fifty sela by means of a gezeira shava from valuations.

And this is difficult: There are several amounts in valuations. Why did Rabbi Shimon say that the amount of the grant is fifty sela, corresponding to the highest valuation?

And say,

say that the amount of the grant is like the amount that is

the lesser of the valuations,

namely, three sela!

And we answer:

“According to what the Lord your God has blessed you,” is written.

And from this we learn that the gezeira shava should be expounded so as to include rather than exclude.

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

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

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

And let us derive

let us learn

“giving” and “giving from

the damages caused by a

servant,

as it is stated [Exodus 21] concerning an ox proven to be dangerous that gored a servant: “He shall give his master thirty shekels of silver”!

Just as,

just as the amount of the giving mentioned

below

concerning a servant is

thirty—

so here too,

the amount of the giving mentioned concerning the grant is

thirty

sela!

And why did Rabbi Shimon say that the amount of the grant is fifty sela?

And the Gemara reinforces the difficulty:

Although we find the expression “giving” in valuations, whose amount is fifty sela, nevertheless Rabbi Shimon should have derived the giving associated with the grant from the giving associated with the damages caused by a servant, whose amount is thirty sela, for two reasons:

First, one reason: If there are two possibilities before you—whether to derive from the greater or to derive from the lesser—the rule is:

for

if

you

grasp

the

greater,

there is a concern that perhaps

you have not grasped it correctly, for perhaps you should have taken the lesser.

But if

you

grasp

the

lesser,

there is no doubt that

you have grasped it correctly, for the lesser is also included within the greater.

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

And furthermore,

an additional reason:

A servant from a servant—

he should have derived it.

It would have been fitting to derive the amount of the grant to a servant from the amount of thirty for a servant, since both are laws stated concerning servants!

And since it is fitting to derive “giving” and “giving” from a servant, so that the amount of the grant is thirty sela, why did Rabbi Shimon say that one grants a servant fifty sela?

On the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts what we said above: that Rabbi Shimon derives “giving, giving” by means of a gezeira 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 gezeira shava.

However, according to this, it is difficult: Why did Rabbi Shimon derive the amount of the grant from the amount of valuations? What connection do valuations have to the grant?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shimon derived “mikhah, mikhah.”

Rabbi Shimon received from his teachers that the expression “mikhah” was stated for a gezeira shava. It is stated concerning a servant [Leviticus 25]: “And if your brother becomes poor,” while concerning valuations it is stated [Leviticus 27]: “And if he is poor.” From this it is proven that the amount of the grant to a servant is to be derived from the amount of valuations, whose amount is fifty sela.

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

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

And since one may grant a servant 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 mentioned, since Rabbi Meir derives the amount of the grant by means of the gezeira shava “empty-handed, empty-handed” from the redemption of the firstborn. And the amount of the redemption of the firstborn is only five sela—

and therefore,

this is what is written, “

flock, threshing floor, and winepress,”

to teach by means of the gezeira shava that the amount of each of them is five sela.

It follows from here that the total amount of the grant is fifteen sela.

But,

however,

according to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon,

who do not derive the amount 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 was taught in a beraita,

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

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

One might have thought that one does not grant

a servant

except from flock, threshing floor, and winepress

alone.

From where

shall we know

to include everything?

The verse states,

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

According to what the Lord your God has blessed you

you shall give him.” From here we learn that one grants a servant from anything.

And since one grants a servant from anything,

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

just as

flock, threshing floor, and winepress are distinctive

in that

they are included in the category of blessing,

for they increase [flock increases through reproduction, while a threshing floor and winepress produce crops when they are planted].

so too, everything

that was included by the verse “according to what the Lord your God has blessed you” was included only if it consists of things

that are included in the category of blessing.

This excludes money,

since it does not increase, and therefore it is not included in “according to what the Lord your God has blessed you,” and the master does not grant it to his servant.

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,

for they do not reproduce and are not included in the category of “blessing.” The master does not grant them to his servant.

And the Gemara discusses the subject of the disagreement between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

And we challenge this:

And Rabbi Shimon,

why does he exclude only money and not mules? Mules do not reproduce, and if so, they are not included in the category of blessing!

And we answer: Indeed,

mules

do not give birth, but they

improve in themselves,

as mules become fatter and their bodies grow; therefore, according to Rabbi Shimon, they are included in the category of “blessing”.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

why does he exclude only mules and not money? After all, money does not improve, and if so, it should not be included in the category of blessing!

And we answer: Indeed,

money

does not improve in itself, but

it can be used for business dealings;

one can conduct business with it and earn money. Therefore, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, it is included in the category of blessing.

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

And from the statement of the beraita we have learned that “flock, threshing floor, and winepress” was stated to teach us that a slave is granted only items that are included in the category of blessing.

But it is still necessary to ask: Why did the verse need to mention all three types [flock, threshing floor, and winepress]? It would have sufficed to mention one of them, and we would have learned from it that only items included in the category of blessing are included!

And in order to answer this question, we say:

And it is necessary,

the verse needed to mention all three of these types:

Had the Merciful One written “flock”

alone,

I would have thought

that

living creatures, yes,

only living creatures would be included in the phrase “that Hashem your God has blessed,” because they resemble the flock explicitly mentioned in the verse; but

produce of the ground, no!

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “threshing floor,”

to teach us that produce of the ground is also included in the phrase “that Hashem your God has blessed.”

And had He written

the verse

“threshing floor”

alone,

I would have thought

that

produce of the ground, yes,

only produce of the ground would be included in the phrase “that Hashem your God has blessed,” but

living creatures, no.

Therefore

the Merciful One wrote “flock,”

to teach us that living creatures are also included in the phrase “that Hashem your God has blessed.”

Up to this point, we have explained why the verse needed to mention both “flock” and “threshing floor.”

But it is still necessary to ask:

“winepress”—

why do I need it?