Kiddushin 20a — the Talmud in English

teaches

the verse

that he may sell her ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

to relatives,

who have no grasp of kiddushin over her, because she is forbidden to them by a prohibition whose punishment is karet.

Were it not for the words of the verse, I would have said: since designation cannot apply in the case of relatives, her sale to them should not be a sale. And Rabbi Eliezer objects to his words: why did the verse need to say “for a maidservant” in order to teach us this?

But is this not an inference,

it can be learned by a kal va-chomer:

For we have already learned from the verse “if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master” that the father may sell his daughter to disqualified men. And these words of the verse are a novelty, for it would have been reasonable to forbid the father to sell his daughter to disqualified men, such as a mamzer or a netin, for two reasons: [

a] One who sells his daughter to a mamzer or a netin causes her disgrace [shame] through this. [

b] Since kiddushin takes effect with her, there is concern that the master might designate her and thereby come to the stumbling block of marriage in violation of a prohibition.

And the verse “if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master” teaches that the Torah did not take these matters into consideration; rather, it permitted the father to sell his daughter to disqualified men.

And if so, a kal va-chomer can be learned from here concerning relatives:

If he sells her

the father

to disqualified men,

although he causes her disgrace or a stumbling block, is it possible to say that he

may not sell her to relatives?!

But with relatives there is no disgrace, and it is not even possible to come to the stumbling block of marriage in violation of a prohibition, for marriage does not take effect with them at all!

And since it can be learned by a kal va-chomer that the father may sell his daughter to relatives, the difficulty is: why did the verse need to say “for a maidservant” in order to teach us this? This can be learned from the fact that the father sells his daughter to disqualified men!

And Rabbi Eliezer answers that the kal va-chomer can be refuted:

What is special about selling her to disqualified men?

The reason that he may sell her to them is that

if

the disqualified master

wanted to designate

her, he

designates

her, because kiddushin takes effect for him with her. And it follows that all the laws stated in the Torah concerning a Hebrew maidservant can be fulfilled through a sale to disqualified men!

And if so, is it possible to learn from here by a kal va-chomer that

he should sell her to relatives, such that

through a sale to them,

if

the master

wanted to designate

his relative,

he does not designate her,

designation does not take effect with her at all, and she does not become betrothed through it. And it follows that the law of designation stated in the Torah concerning a Hebrew maidservant cannot be fulfilled with her!

And if so, it cannot be learned from the fact that the father sells her to disqualified men that he may also sell her to relatives.

Therefore

the verse says,

the verse needed to say

“for a maidservant” —

the verse teaches

that

he may sell her to relatives.

It follows that the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree over whether a person may sell his daughter to relatives: according to Rabbi Eliezer, “for a maidservant” teaches that he may sell her to relatives. And according to the Rabbis, “for a maidservant” teaches that he may sell her to disqualified men with whom kiddushin takes effect. But it does not teach that he may sell her to relatives. Therefore, a person may not sell his daughter to relatives.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

According to this beraita, the Gemara’s earlier question is resolved:

The Sages said above that one who sells his daughter and stipulates with the master that he will not be able to designate her, his stipulation is void. And we asked above: Rabbi Meir derives from the verse “for a maidservant” that the father may sell her only as a maidservant and not for designation! What will the Sages derive from the word “for a maidservant”?

According to the beraita that we have now brought, it is understood that the Sages will derive from “for a maidservant” that the father sells her to disqualified men [according to the view of the Rabbis in this beraita], or that he sells her to relatives [according to the view of Rabbi Eliezer].

But according to this it is difficult: Rabbi Meir derived from “for a maidservant” that the father can stipulate with the master that he sells her only as a maidservant. If so, from where does he know that the father may not sell her to disqualified men or to relatives?

And the Gemara answers this:

And Rabbi Meir,

the sale

to disqualified men —

he derives it from the place from which Rabbi Eliezer derives it.

Rabbi Meir learned the law that “he may sell her to disqualified men” from the same place from which Rabbi Eliezer learned it; namely, from the verse “if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master,” for she is “displeasing” in her marriage.

But

with regard to

the matter of selling to

relatives —

he holds like the Rabbis, who say that he may not sell her to relatives.

And if so, according to Rabbi Meir, the verse “for a maidservant” does not come to teach that he may sell her to relatives or to disqualified men. For him it is superfluous, to derive from it that the father may sell his daughter only as a maidservant, without designation.

And the Gemara brings several beraitot concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis regarding the sale of the maidservant to relatives:

One taught,

we learned in one beraita: One who wishes to sell his daughter as a maidservant to his relatives,

may sell her to his father,

but

may not sell her to his son [

and below the words of the beraita will be explained].

And another taught,

and we learned in another beraita:

He may sell her neither to his father nor to his son.

And we inquire:

Granted,

it is understandable what we learned in the second beraita,

“he may sell her neither to his father nor to his son,”

because this beraita holds

like the Rabbis,

who say that it is impossible to sell the daughter as a maidservant to relatives with whom designation cannot apply at all.

But the first beraita, which says

“he may sell her to his father but may not sell her to his son” —

“he may sell her to his father, but he may not sell her to his son”—

like whom

does it follow?

Not like the Rabbis,

for according to them he may not sell her to relatives who cannot designate her, and neither his father nor his son can designate her! If so, why did we learn “he may sell her to his father”?

And not like Rabbi Eliezer,

for according to him he may sell her to relatives! If so, why did we learn “but he may not sell her to his son”?

And if so, it is difficult: according to whose view does this beraita hold?

And we answer:

In truth,

this beraita holds

like the Rabbis,

who say that he may not sell her to relatives with whom the law of designation cannot be fulfilled.

And this beraita teaches that

the Rabbis concede where there is an aspect of designation,

the Rabbis concede that it is not necessary for the purchaser himself to be able to designate the maidservant; rather, even if his son can designate her, this is considered to contain an “aspect of designation” [one manner in which the law of designation can be fulfilled].

Therefore a person may sell his daughter to his father. Although his father himself cannot designate her, since she is his granddaughter, and a person is forbidden to marry his son’s daughter, nevertheless he can designate her for his son, for a person is permitted to marry his brother’s daughter.

But a person cannot sell his daughter to his son, because the son himself cannot designate the maidservant, since she is his sister; and even the son of the son cannot designate her, because she is his father’s sister, and a person is forbidden to marry his father’s sister.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave [Exodus 21:1]:

“If he enters by himself” —

“by himself he shall leave.”

The verse teaches that if, at the time of the sale,

the slave enters with his body

into the master’s authority, then

with his body he shall leave.

These are the words of the Sages. The Gemara below will explain their intention.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

Indeed, “by himself” means with his body, as the Sages explained, but this verse comes to teach us something else:

If

he enters alone —

he leaves alone.

The Gemara below explains the intention of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

First, the Gemara explains the words of the Sages:

What

is the intention of the Sages, who derived from the verse that if

he enters with his body, he leaves with his body?

Rava said:

The verse comes

to say that

a Hebrew slave whose master blinded his eye or removed one of his limb-tops —

does not go out

to freedom

through the limb-tops like a Canaanite slave.

And this is what the verse said: “If he enters by himself”—if the slave entered his master’s authority with his body intact, then “by himself he shall leave,” meaning that in every matter he leaves with his body intact.

That is, even if his master deprived him of a limb, we do not say that his law is like that of a Canaanite slave, whose master sends him to freedom and is exempt from paying him the value of the limb that he removed from him. Rather, since he is a Hebrew slave, if his master deprived him of a limb, he must pay him the value of that limb. But he does not go out to freedom.

And for this the verse called it “by himself he shall leave”: the master pays him the value of the limb that he deprived him of, and he leaves at the completion of his years of service as though his body were intact.

Abaye said

to Rava: There is something to wonder about in your words —

That very law

which

you said, that a Hebrew slave does not go out through limb-tops,

is derived from “he shall not go out as the slaves go out”!

This law is learned from what is stated concerning a Hebrew maidservant [Exodus 21]: “She shall not go out as the slaves go out.”

The verse teaches that the maidservant does not go out to freedom through limb-tops, as do Canaanite slaves.

Rava answered him:

If [you derive it] from there,

if you were to learn from there [from “she shall not go out as the slaves go out”] that a Hebrew slave does not go out through limb-tops, then

I would have thought

I would say that this verse did not come to say that the maidservant does not go out to freedom through limb-tops. Rather, this is the meaning of the verse: “

She shall not go out [the maidservant] as the slaves go out”—the slaves go out through limb-tops, and they do not receive payment for the limb from the owners. But the maidservant goes out to freedom through limb-tops, and she also takes the value of the limb from her owner.

And similarly I would say concerning a Hebrew slave whose master removed one of his limbs, such as his eye, that

he should give him

the master should give him

the value of her eye,

his eye,

and he should go out,

and he should also go out to freedom.

Therefore,

it teaches us,

the verse “If he enters by himself, by himself he shall leave,” which is superfluous, teaches us that the slave does not go out through limb-tops at all.

And now the Gemara explains the words of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

We learned in a beraita:

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

The verse “If he enters by himself” teaches that if

he enters alone,

then

he leaves alone.

And we inquire:

What

is the meaning of

“he leaves alone”?

And we answer:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This is what he means,

this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov intended to say in explaining the verse:

Only if, when the slave enters the master’s authority,

he has a wife and children,

then

his master gives him a Canaanite maidservant

so that she will bear offspring from him for the master, even against the slave’s will.

But “if he enters by himself”—if, when the slave enters the master’s authority,

he has no wife and children,

then also “by himself he shall leave,” meaning that

his master does not give him a Canaanite maidservant.

We learned in the Mishna [above, 14b] that a Hebrew slave goes out through payment of money, and the Gemara brings a beraita concerning this:

The Sages taught:

A slave who is

sold

to his master for six years

for a maneh [one hundred zuz],

(one hundred zuz),

and increased in value [his labor became more expensive, or he improved himself and exchanged his strength],

[because his labor became more valuable, or because he himself became stronger and more capable],

and stood at two hundred,

which are two manehs, and now the slave comes to deduct from his value and redeem himself and go out to freedom—

there is room to discuss how it is proper to assess his value: according to his value now, or according to the money that the master received for him?

For example, if the slave comes to redeem himself after five years, and one year of his servitude remains, then, if we calculate his value according to his value now, it follows that each year’s labor is worth one-third of a maneh. [1/3=2/6].

But if we calculate his value according to what the master received for him, it follows that each year’s labor is worth one-sixth of a maneh [1/6=1/6].

And the question is asked: Must the slave pay one-third of a maneh, or need he pay only one-sixth of a maneh?

And concerning this the tanna says:

From where

do I know

that they calculate for him

with regard to his redemption

only

according to

one maneh,

as the master received for him?

The verse states,

therefore it is stated [Leviticus 25] concerning a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile [and comes to leave his master through a deduction of money]:

“If many years remain, according to them he shall return his redemption money

from the money of his purchase.”

That is, according to the money of his purchase [with which he was bought] he shall return his redemption [ransom], and not according to what he is worth now.

And from here there is proof that each year’s labor is assessed at one-sixth of a maneh, and not at one-third of a maneh.

B. And the beraita explains another law:

A slave who is

sold

to his master

for two hundred [two manehs],

[two manehs],

and became devalued,

he deteriorated,

and stood at one maneh

one.

Apparently, it would be proper to say that we follow the money of his purchase, as we said above, but the tanna innovates that in this manner we follow the slave’s value at the time of redemption:

From where that they calculate for him only

according to

one maneh,

as he is worth at the time of redemption?

The verse states,

therefore it is stated [there]: “And if few years remain

according to his years

he shall return his redemption.”

“According to his years,” that is, according to the value of the years now, and not according to the money that the master received for them [at the time of the sale].

And from here, each year is assessed at one-sixth of a maneh and not at one-third of a maneh.

And below the Gemara will explain why they always proceed for the benefit of the slave and to the detriment of his master.

C. And the tanna continues and says:

From the verses brought until now,

I have

no source

except

for a

slave

Hebrew

sold to a gentile,

but not for one sold to an Israelite.

For there is room to distinguish between them and say that specifically in the case of one sold to a gentile they proceed to the detriment of the master,

since

the Torah said that he is

redeemed by relatives,

against the master’s will, and thereby the Torah revealed that

his

the master’s

hand is lower.

Therefore, even with regard to the redemption money, they take account of the slave’s benefit and to the detriment of the master.

But

one sold to an Israelite,

who is not redeemed by relatives against the master’s will, it is possible that even with regard to redemption the master’s hand is not lower. And if so,

from where,

from where do we know that even in the case of one sold to an Israelite they proceed to the detriment of the master with regard to his redemption money?—

The verse states, “a hired laborer, a hired laborer,” for a gezerah shavah.

Concerning one sold to an Israelite it is stated, “Like a hired laborer, like a resident, he shall be with you” [Leviticus 25], and concerning one sold to a gentile [there] it is stated, “Like a hired laborer, year by year, he shall be with him.”

And we learn the law of one sold to an Israelite from the law of one sold to a gentile—

Just as in the case of one sold to a gentile, the master’s hand is lower with regard to redemption, so in the case of one sold to an Israelite, the master’s hand is lower with regard to redemption.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And the Gemara brings an incident involving Abaye, who explained the words of the beraita:

One day

Abaye said:

I am ready

to answer all who ask me with depth and sharpness,

like

the

Ben Azai,

who was sharp and expounded

in the marketplaces of Tiberias,

and used to say about himself, “All the Sages of Israel are before me like garlic peel” [Bekhorot 58a].

A certain scholar

[one student who heard Abaye’s proclamation]

to Abaye

said to him: I have a question concerning the words of the beraita that the Gemara brought above:

For we learned in the first clause: “He was sold for a maneh, and increased in value, and stood at two hundred. From where that they calculate for him only a maneh? It says: ‘From the money of his purchase’”—and from here, they follow the money that the master received, and not the slave’s value now.

And in the latter clause we learned: “He was sold for two hundred, became devalued, and stood at one maneh. From where that they calculate for him only a maneh? The verse states: ‘According to his years’”—and from here, they follow the value of the slave’s years, and not according to the money that the master received for him.

And it is difficult: The verses brought in the beraita contradict one another [“from the money of his purchase” implies that they follow the purchase money, while “according to his years” implies that they follow the slave’s value now]. Necessarily, one must say that each verse speaks of a different case. But this requires examination—

Since,

behold,

these verses can be expounded leniently, and they can be expounded stringently.

Since it is possible to expound the verses in a manner that always proceeds to ease the slave: [if he increased in value, they follow the time of his sale, and if he deteriorated, they follow the time of redemption].

And it is also possible to expound the verses to be stringent for the slave [if he increased in value, they follow his value now, and if he deteriorated, they follow the time of the sale], if so—

What have you seen that you expound them leniently; let us expound them

stringently—

what have you seen to expound the verses in the manner lenient for the slave? On the contrary! Let us expound the verses in the manner stringent for the slave!

Abaye answered that student:

It does not enter your mind,

do not entertain the thought of being stringent for the slave! For it can be proved that it is proper to be lenient for the slave,

from the fact that the Merciful One was lenient with regard to him,

from what we find that the Holy One, blessed be He, was lenient with him concerning another matter, as we learned in a beraita:

For it was taught:

It is stated concerning a Hebrew slave [Deuteronomy 15]:

“For it is good for him with you.”

The word “with you” is superfluous, and they expound from it:

“With you” in food, and “with you” in drink.

You shall not be

the master

eating fine bread

from sifted flour,

while he

[the slave]

eats coarse bread

from unsifted flour. [And this is “with you in food.”]

Likewise, you shall not be

you,

the master,

drinking aged wine, while he

the slave

drinks new wine.

Likewise, you shall not be

you,

the master,

sleeping on soft cushions

while

he

the slave

sleeps on straw

that is hard.

From here they said

the Sages:

Whoever acquires a Hebrew slave

behold, he is

as one who acquires a master for himself.

And since the verse was lenient for the slave concerning eating and drinking, so it is proper to be lenient for him concerning his redemption, and to proceed for his benefit and not for the master’s benefit.

The student returned and challenged Abaye: On the contrary

! And say,

I can say: What the verse was lenient for the slave,

these words

apply only

with regard to eating and drinking,

for it is proper to be lenient for the slave in this

so that he not be distressed,

so as not to distress him, since he eats inferior foods to those eaten by his master.

But,

however,

with regard to redemption,

on the contrary,

let us be stringent with him!

For there is a rationale to be stringent with him

from

the force of the words of

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina,

who said: A person who is sold as a slave, this is punishment for him because he engaged in business with seventh-year produce, as follows.

Therefore it is proper to be stringent with him, so that he should not be able to redeem himself.

And the Gemara brings the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina at length:

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina says: Come and see how severe

the punishment is for a transgression called

“the dust of the seventh year,”

for a light prohibition [like dust] among the prohibitions of the seventh year:

Concerning the seventh year, several prohibitions were stated in the language “you shall not do,” such as [Leviticus 25]: “You shall not sow your field,” and “You shall not prune your vineyard.” And more.

And it is stated [there]: “And the sabbath of the land shall be for you for food.”

And the Sages expounded: The fruits of the seventh year were given for food, and not for commerce. It is forbidden to trade in seventh-year produce.

And this prohibition is lighter than the other prohibitions of the seventh year, because the other prohibitions of the seventh year were stated in the language “you shall not do,” whereas this prohibition is a “negative command derived from a positive command.”

And nevertheless, the verse was very stringent in the punishment for this prohibition—

A person

who

conducts business with seventh-year produce, in the end

is punished by

selling his movable property

because he is pressed for money.

And this is learned from what is stated concerning the Jubilee year, in which as well the laws of release of the land apply, like in the seventh year:

As it is stated

[Leviticus 25]:

“In this Jubilee year you shall return, each man, to his holding.”

And immediately afterward

it is juxtaposed to it

[it is stated near it]:

“And when you sell a sale to your fellow, or acquire from the hand of your fellow.”

And from the juxtaposition of the verses, the verse is expounded as follows:

“In this Jubilee year—and when you sell.”

That is, if you trade in seventh-year produce, whose commerce I prohibited for you in the Jubilee, then “a sale to your fellow—from the hand of your fellow.”

You will be punished by being forced to sell

an item acquired from hand to hand,

that is, movable property.

And if, even after he was forced to sell his movable property, he

did not sense

that this was punishment for his sin, and that it was proper for him to repent of the transgression in his hand —

then

in the end, he sells

his

fields.

And this is a harsher punishment than selling movable property, because a person is more attached to his fields than to his movable property.

As it is stated

in juxtaposition to that passage [there]:

“When your brother becomes impoverished, and he sells part of his holding.”

And even after he sells his lands, nevertheless

it did not come into his hand,

the thought of repentance does not enter his heart, and he continues to deteriorate,

until he sells

even

his house.

As it is stated

in juxtaposition to that passage [there]:

“When he sells a house of residence in a walled city.”

And before the Gemara finishes bringing the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina, it challenges his wording:

At the beginning of the beraita we learned: “‘He did not sense’; in the end he sells his fields.” But afterward we learned: “‘It did not come into his hand,’ until he sells his house.”

And the question is asked:

What is different there,

what is different at the beginning of the beraita,

that

the tanna

said, “If he

does not

‘did not sense,’ in the end he sells his fields,” implying that there are two possibilities: it is possible that he will sense and repent, and it is possible that he will not sense and will not repent.

And what is different here,

and what is different here, at the continuation of the beraita,

that

the tanna

said, “It did not come into his hand,” implying that it is obvious to the tanna that a person’s way is that the thought of repentance will not enter his heart until he receives an additional punishment?

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina changed his wording in order to teach us

in accordance with

the words of

Rav Huna:

For Rav Huna said: Once a person has committed a transgression and repeated it

a second time—then

it is permitted to him

that transgression.

And one should wonder about Rav Huna’s words: “Is it that

it is permitted to him,”

could this enter your mind!?

Would it enter your mind to say that the transgression is permitted to him?

Rather,

certainly this is what Rav Huna intended to say: “Once a person has committed a transgression and repeated it, then it

becomes for him as

if it had been

permitted.”

For he repeats and commits it, and does not feel that he is committing a transgression.

And therefore, at the beginning of the baraita, after he was punished once by selling his movable property, the tanna said, “He did not notice,” because it is possible that he will notice and it is possible that he will not notice, since he committed a transgression only once.

But after he was punished once, and returned and repeated his sin, and was punished a second time, the tanna teaches, “It did not come to his hand,” because it is the way of a person who has committed a transgression and repeated it that the thought of repentance does not come into his heart, because the transgression has become for him like something permitted.

And the Gemara returns and brings the continuation of the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina: After the sinner was punished by selling his house, still

“it did not come to his hand,”

the thought of repentance will not come into his heart,

until he sells his daughter

as a maidservant.

As it is stated [Exodus 21]:

“And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant.”

And

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina expounds it in this way:

Even though

the sale of his

daughter is not written in this matter!

For the sale of his daughter was not written among the passages adjacent to the matter of the Jubilee, since all the verses that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina brought above were all stated in the Book of Leviticus, in the passages adjacent to the passage of the Jubilee [and as was explained above], and from the adjacency of the passages to the passage of the Jubilee Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina learns that they are punishments for having traded in the produce of the Jubilee or of the sabbatical year.

Whereas the verse that Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina brought here, “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant,” was stated in the Book of Exodus, and is not adjacent to the passage of the Jubilee at all—

and nevertheless, one may learn indirectly, from the order of the passages adjacent to the passage of the Jubilee, that the sale of his daughter as a maidservant also constitutes a punishment for trading in the produce of the sabbatical year, although it is not mentioned there explicitly.

For after the passage of the sale of his house, the passage of a loan at interest is stated adjacent to it.

And one may learn from the adjacency of the passages that the sinner, after he was forced to sell his house, was forced to borrow money at interest, and certainly he had already managed to sell his daughter as a maidservant.

For since he was forced to borrow at interest, this is proof that the person had already lost all his property.

And it is also clear [“we are witnesses,” Rashi] that he had already sold his daughter as a maidservant, before he reached the situation in which he needed to borrow money at interest.

And Scripture hinted to us that certainly he had already managed to sell his daughter beforehand as a maidservant, as a punishment for his trading in the produce of the sabbatical year. For if he had had the possibility of selling his daughter as a maidservant, he would not have borrowed at interest; rather, he would have sold her and lived on the money from her sale.

And

this is what he teaches us:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina teaches us this: If a person has reached the point at which he has no choice but either to borrow at interest or to sell his daughter, then

a person should sell his daughter, and not borrow at interest.

It is preferable for a person to sell his daughter as a maidservant than to borrow at interest.

What is the reason,

and what is the reason for this matter?

His daughter—

she diminishes and goes out.

His daughter is sold only until the days of maidenhood arrive, and if the father comes to redeem her, he calculates according to the money that he received for her sale, how much is due for each year during which she was fit to be in the master’s possession, and he deducts from the money of her redemption the money due for the time during which she worked for the master, and he can redeem her at the price he received for her labor when he sold her.

And

if

this,

a loan at interest [even a permitted loan, when the lender is a gentile],

increases and goes on,

for it grows and continues to grow all the time.

And the Gemara brings the continuation of the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina:

After the sinner sold his daughter as a maidservant, still

the thought of repentance

did not come

to his hand until he borrowed at interest.

According to

what is stated

in the continuation of the verse [Leviticus 25]:

“And when your brother becomes impoverished, and his hand falters with you.”

And it is adjacent to it,

and it is written adjacent:

“You shall not take from him

interest or increase

and so on,”

and the like.

And

the thought of repentance

did not come

to his hand until he sells himself

as a Hebrew slave to an Israelite master.

As it is stated

adjacent to the passage of interest [there]:

“And when your brother becomes impoverished, he shall be sold to you

[as a slave].”

And not to you

the Israelite

alone

is he sold,

but

ultimately even

to a convert

does he need to sell himself.

As it is stated

in the adjacent passage [there]: “And he shall be sold

to a convert.”

And not

only

to a righteous convert

is he sold,

but

even

to a resident convert,

who accepted upon himself to observe the seven commandments of the descendants of Noah, and not the entire Torah.

As it is stated

[there]: “And he shall be sold to a

resident convert.” And in the continuation of that same verse it is stated: “And he shall be sold to a resident convert among you, or to the eker, the family of a convert.”

The continuation of that same verse states: “And he shall be sold to a resident convert among you, or to the eker, the family of a convert.”

And Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina explains who “the eker” is and what “the family of a convert” is:

“The family of a convert”—

this is a gentile

and planets, who did not accept upon himself the seven commandments of the descendants of Noah.

And Scripture said that even to him the person who trades in the produce of the sabbatical year is sold.

And “eker” mentioned in Scripture is a designation for idolatry.

When it

[Scripture]

says “to the eker”—