Kiddushin 21b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

that

verse, “In every redemption you shall give,” does not come to inform us that relatives can redeem a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

Rather, the verse comes

to establish it

as a

obligation,

that the relatives must redeem him.

And even according to

the view of

Rabbi Joshua,

who holds concerning an ancestral field that redemption by relatives is optional, nevertheless, concerning a slave sold to a gentile, he too concedes that redemption by relatives is an obligation, so that the slave will not become assimilated among the gentiles.

Come and hear,

come and hear another proof that the Sages hold that a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives—

For we learned in a beraita:

What does the verse come to teach,

why was it stated concerning a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile [there, Leviticus 25:48–49]:

“He shall redeem him, he shall redeem him, he shall redeem him,” three times?

Would it not have been sufficient for the verse to say “he shall redeem him” once?!

Necessarily, this verse comes

to include

all

the other redemptions

that are awaiting redemption,

so that they

will be

redeemed according to this order.

And the amora who brought this beraita understood that the intention of the beraita was to say that all the redemptions are carried out by relatives.

And one must consider:

What?

Which redemptions are being discussed?

Is it not

the redemption of

houses in walled cities, and

the redemption of

a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite,

with regard to which redemption by relatives was not stated, and therefore the verse had to include that they too are redeemed by relatives?!

And it is proved from here that a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is redeemed by relatives according to the opinion of the Rabbis. And we reject this:

No!

The verse does not include houses in walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite. Rather,

unwalled houses and an ancestral field.

But a Hebrew slave sold to an Israelite is not redeemed by relatives.

And immediately the Gemara is astonished:

Unwalled houses

and an ancestral field—surely

it is explicitly written concerning them,

that they are redeemed by relatives, and if so, why is it necessary to include them from “he shall redeem him, he shall redeem him”?

For concerning an ancestral field it is stated [there, Leviticus 25:25], “And his redeemer who is nearest to him shall come,” and concerning unwalled houses it is stated:

“It shall be considered like a field of the land”!

And Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak answered this difficulty:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

What we learned in the beraita, “to include all the redemptions that are redeemed according to this order,” does not mean to say that they are redeemed by relatives, but

with regard

to the matter of

“the nearest relative has precedence,”

to teach us: Just as with a Hebrew slave who is redeemed by relatives, the relative who is closer takes precedence over the other relatives [as was explained above], so too with unwalled houses and an ancestral field, concerning which redemption by relatives was stated, also with regard to them the nearest relative has precedence.

Thus far, the laws of a Hebrew slave and his redemption, which were mentioned at the beginning of the Mishna above, on 14b, have been explained.

And since the Gemara discussed the redemption of a Hebrew slave, it also discusses the laws of redemption with regard to land.

And in the continuation of the Mishna we learned:

And one whose ear was pierced is acquired through piercing.

The Gemara brings a source for the statement of our Mishna:

For it is written [

Exodus 21]:

“And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl

and he shall serve him forever.”

We learned in the Mishna:

And he acquires

himself [

the one whose ear was pierced] through the Jubilee and through the death of the master.

And the Gemara brings the source for the statement of our Mishna:

For it is written

at the end of the aforementioned verse, “And he shall serve him forever.”

“And he shall serve him”—

he shall serve specifically the master who acquired him,

and not

serve

the son, and not the daughter.

“Forever”—

that is

“the world of the Jubilee,”

and no longer.

And just as the Gemara proved above [15a] from what is stated concerning the Jubilee, “And you shall return, each man to his possession.” And this verse speaks about one whose ear was pierced.

The Gemara brings a beraita that discusses the piercing of the slave:

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Exodus 21]: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an

awl.”

I have

to learn from this verse

only

that the piercing is performed with an

awl.

From where

do we learn

to include

other tools, such as:

a pointed piece of wood

and a thorn [

which are wooden tools],

and a needle, a drill, and a stylus, [

which are metal tools], that the piercing is performed with them as well?

The verse says [

Deuteronomy 15:17]:

“And you shall take

the awl and place it in his ear and in the door.”

The word “and you shall take” comes

to include every object that is taken in the hand.

These are

the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi

disagrees and

says:

Not all these tools are valid for piercing, for an awl was mentioned in the verse, and therefore only tools that resemble an awl should be deemed valid.

What

is like an

awl?

It is

distinctive

in that it is

of metal.

So too every

tool was included only when it is

of metal.

Alternatively,

another exposition may be derived from the verse, “And you shall take the awl”:

“The awl”

is stated with the definite article—

to include

the

large awl.

Rabbi said:

Elazar,

Yudan bar Rabbi,

the greatest of his generation,

used to expound

as follows:

When they pierce

the one whose ear was pierced,

they do not pierce

him

except in the soft part,

in the soft flesh of the ear; but they do not pierce the cartilage, because if the slave is a kohen and they pierce him in the cartilage with the large awl, the slave will become blemished.

For the large awl makes a hole the size of a karshina, and one who has a hole of this size in the cartilage is blemished, and is disqualified from the priestly service.

And the Sages say:

On the contrary! It should be proved that the piercing is performed in the cartilage and not in the flesh: for we have a received halakha:

“A Hebrew slave who is a kohen is not pierced, because he is made

through the piercing

blemished.”

And if you say

that

they pierce in the soft part,—

how will a Hebrew slave who is a kohen become

through the piercing

blemished?

For one who has a hole in the soft part does not become blemished through this!

Then

you must learn from here that

the

slave is

pierced only in the upper part of the ear—in the cartilage. And therefore a slave who is a kohen is not pierced, since through this he becomes blemished.

в хряще. Поэтому рабу-коэну не прокалывают ухо, поскольку в результате этого он становится человеком с физическим недостатком.

Thus far the words of the beraita.

At the beginning of the beraita we learned: From where is it learned to include the pointed piece of wood and the thorn [which are wooden tools], and the needle, the drill, and the stylus [which are metal tools]? The verse says: “And you shall take.” These are the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi says: What is distinctive about an awl? [That it is] of metal! So too every [tool] of metal.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

With regard to what do they disagree,

what does their dispute depend on, and what are their rationales? Whenever a general expression is stated in the Torah, followed by a limiting expression, and then again a general expression, we have learned as a halakha given to Moses at Sinai that this is to be expounded in a particular manner:

And there are two ways to expound this:

One way: “A generalization, a specification, and a generalization”—you discuss only something similar to the specification.

That is: it is not necessary to fulfill specifically the specification as it is; rather, the specification serves as an example, and every object similar to it is like it.

And the reason for this is: For if only “a generalization and a specification” had been stated in the Torah, we would have said that the specification is the explanation of the generalization, and therefore nothing is included in the generalization except the specification itself.

Therefore, when the verse adds another generalization, it adds only what is truly similar to the specification. A second way: “An amplification, a restriction, and an amplification.” The verse amplifies everything, except for one thing. And the verse entrusted the Sages to decide which thing is appropriate to exclude from the specification.

And the reason for this is: If only “an amplification and a restriction” had been stated in the Torah, we would not say that the specification is the explanation of the generalization; rather, the generalization includes everything. And the restriction that follows it comes to exclude from and reduce the generalization, and to say that it includes only this and every object similar to it.

Accordingly, when the verse adds another inclusion, it includes everything, and only one matter is to be limited; and the verse entrusted it to the Sages to decide which matter is appropriate to limit.

According to this, the dispute between Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi before us can be explained as follows: It is stated concerning piercing [Deuteronomy 15:17]: “And you shall take the awl, and you shall place it in his ear and in the door.”

When the word “and you shall take” is read by itself, it includes every thing, and not specifically an awl.

And afterward a limitation is stated: “with the awl.”

And afterward “and you shall place” is stated again, in which word every thing is included, and not specifically an awl.

The reasoning of Rabbi:

For Rabbi expounds

throughout the Torah

“generalizations and specifications.”

The teaching from generalizations and specifications, and not from inclusions and limitations.

Therefore, this is how he expounds here:

“And you shall take” —

a generalization. “The awl” —

a specification.

And when the verse returned and said “and you shall place”

“in his ear and in the door” —

the verse returned

to make a generalization

and made a generalization.

And wherever

“a generalization and a specification and a generalization” is stated,

you may not derive

[learn] from the final generalization

except

matters that are

of the nature of the specification —

Just as the specification explicitly states

that it is an awl

of metal!

So too all

the matters learned from the generalization must be

of metal.

But the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehuda is:

Rabbi Yosei

son of Rabbi Yehuda

expounds

throughout the Torah

inclusions and limitations.

And therefore:

“And you shall take” —

included

everything.

“The awl” —

limited

the verse, so that you include only matters that are similar to an awl. “And you shall place in his ear and in the door” —

“in his ear and in the door”

returned and included.

And

since the verse

included, limited, and included,

it has

included everything,

except for only one matter, which is to be limited from the limitation —

what did he include,

what did the verse include? —

he included every matter,

he included every thing, even a wooden utensil.

What did he limit? —

He limited a drug.

He may not place a sharp drug on the ear of the slave and cause a hole in it through that drug.

And it is appropriate to limit the drug, because it does not resemble an awl at all: the awl pierces only through the force of a person, whereas the drug pierces by itself.

Now the Gemara explains the continuation of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

“The awl” —

to include a large awl.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

What is the implication?

How did the tannai learn from the definite article to include a large awl?

And we answer:

J

ust as we found

that Rava said

concerning the prohibition of the sciatic nerve, regarding which it is stated [Genesis 32]

“the thigh”:

And it is implied from the addition of the definite article before the word “thigh” that it is

the most skilled of the thigh,

the important thigh, which is the right thigh —

here too,

so too in our matter, it is to be expounded:

“the awl”

means

the distinguished one among the awls,

which is a large awl. We learned in the continuation of the beraita:

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan son of Rabbi would expound:

When they pierce —

they pierce only with a metal instrument.

And the Sages say: A Hebrew slave who is a koen is not pierced, because he is thereby made blemished.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Why is a Hebrew slave who is a koen not pierced?

Let him be pierced

and become blemished!

For there is no prohibition in this; and, on the other hand, when the slave wishes to remain under his master, his piercing is a mitzva from the Torah!

Rabba son of Rav Shila said

a resolution:

The verse says

concerning a Hebrew slave who goes out at the Jubilee [Leviticus 25]:

“And he shall return to his family.”

And the verse intends to say that he returns

to the established status of his family —

to the priestly service established in his family. If he is a koen and they pierce him, he will not return at the Jubilee to the priestly service, and therefore he is not pierced.

The Gemara now presents a problem, which it resolves from the words of the aforementioned beraita:

It was asked of them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

A Hebrew slave

who is a

koen —

what

is his law concerning

whether his master may give him a Canaanite maidservant,

as he gives one to an Israelite Hebrew slave?

Does he have the authority to give her to him or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

On the one hand, a Canaanite maidservant is forbidden to every Israelite, and the fact that the master gives a Canaanite maidservant to a Hebrew slave is

a novelty,

for the Torah permitted the Hebrew slave something forbidden to every Israelite. And since the Torah permitted this prohibition,

it makes no difference whether priests or Israelites,

there is no difference between priests and Israelites concerning this matter.

Or perhaps

[perhaps]

priests are different,

the priests are different from the rest of Israel,

since the verse increased for them

more

additional commandments

than for the rest of Israel; therefore, a Canaanite maidservant was not permitted to a Hebrew slave who is a koen.

And the amoraim disagreed about this:

Rav said: It is permitted

for a Hebrew slave who is a koen to marry a Canaanite woman.

And Shmuel said: It is forbidden.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan,

Shmuel’s student:

When you were with Master Shmuel —

you were playing iskomandrei!

When you were sitting before Shmuel, in a game called “iskomandrei,” you were playing.

That is, you did not concentrate on your study to examine carefully what Shmuel said, that a slave who is a koen is forbidden to a Canaanite maidservant; rather, you were like people playing a game.

For if you had examined his words carefully,

why did you not say to him,

why did you not argue with him that

from this,

from the words of the beraita above, it is proven that his words are incorrect!

For thus we learned in the beraita [above]:

“And the Sages say: A Hebrew slave who is a koen is not pierced, because he is thereby made blemished.”

Now, concerning the piercing of the slave, it is stated [Exodus 21:5–6]: “But if the slave shall surely say, ‘I love my master, my wife [the maidservant], and my children [the maidservant’s children]; I shall not go free.’ And his master shall pierce his ear.”

From here, it follows that the master pierces the slave only if he has a Canaanite maidservant wife, and he loves her and does not wish to go out.

And if you will say

in accordance with Shmuel’s words, that

his master does not

the master of the koen slave

give him a Canaanite maidservant,

there is a difficulty: Why did the Sages say, “A Hebrew slave who is a koen is not pierced, because he is thereby made blemished”? There is no need for this reason!

It follows by itself,

for this law emerges from the fact

that it is required,

that the slave must say

“I love my master, my wife, and my children” —

and there is none!

According to Shmuel, the koen has no maidservant wife, and therefore it is obvious that he is not pierced!

Rather, it is necessarily necessary to say in accordance with Rav’s view: even a Hebrew slave who is a koen is permitted a maidservant; therefore, we might have thought that he is pierced, and so the Sages came and said that he is not pierced because he is thereby made blemished.

And we conclude:

there is nothing further,

there is no answer to give to this argument, and Shmuel’s words are rejected. The halakha is in accordance with Rav, that a Hebrew slave who is a koen is permitted a Canaanite maidservant.

And incidentally, since we were occupied with a prohibition that the Torah innovated to permit to a slave, and we were uncertain whether the prohibition was also permitted to a Hebrew slave who is a koen, the Gemara discusses a similar matter concerning the “beautiful captive.”

It is stated [Deuteronomy 21:10–14]: “When you go out to war against your enemy, and you see among the captives a woman of beautiful form, and you desire her, and you take her for yourself as a wife.” And the laws of taking her are explained there in the verse. And this matter is a novelty, as will be explained below, and specifically in war was it permitted to marry a gentile captive.

And concerning this,

it was asked of them:

the members of the academy were uncertain:

a kohen—

what

is his

in

the matter of

a beautiful captive?

Is it permitted for him to take her, or not?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

On the one hand, since the permission concerning a beautiful captive

is a novelty

even with an Israelite, for the Torah permitted him to have intercourse with a gentile woman, if so,

there is no difference between a kohen and an Israelite,

there is no difference between a kohen and an Israelite in this matter, and both are permitted in the matter.

The other side:

or perhaps [

perhaps ],

it is different,

the law of the

kohanim

differs from the law of the other Israelites,

since He increased in them

the Scripture

additional commandments

more than in the other Israelites.

And the amoraim disagreed concerning the matter:

Rav said: It is permitted

for a kohen to take a beautiful captive,

and Shmuel said: It is forbidden.

And two opinions were stated in explaining their disagreement:

The first opinion:

With the first intercourse, everyone agrees that it is permitted,

with the first intercourse, according to everyone she is permitted to a kohen. And the reason for the matter is:

for

it is not appropriate even for an Israelite to take a beautiful captive, and

the Torah did not speak

and permit him to take her

except in opposition to the evil inclination,

because if the Holy One, blessed is He, did not permit her to him, he would marry her in prohibition. Therefore she is also permitted to a kohen, for with a kohen as well there is concern regarding the evil inclination.

They disagree,

and all that they disagreed about is specifically

with

the second

intercourse, from that point onward, for the Torah permitted a second intercourse to an Israelite, but there is not in this such a great evil inclination, because after the first intercourse his spirit cools, and there is no concern lest he marry her in prohibition. Rav and Shmuel disagreed whether a kohen is also permitted a second intercourse:

Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is forbidden.

And the Gemara explains the reasons of Rav and Shmuel:

Rav said it is permitted—

since once it was permitted, it was permitted,

since the first intercourse was permitted, the remaining intercourses were also permitted.

And Shmuel said it is forbidden—

for she has become a convert,

for a beautiful captive is a convert,

and a convert

is permitted only to an Israelite, but

to a kohen she is not fit,

it is forbidden for a kohen to marry a convert, since a convert has the status of a “zona.” And a zona is forbidden to kohanim. And the Gemara brings a second opinion in explaining the disagreement of Rav and Shmuel:

There are those who say [

some say ] :

With the second intercourse everyone agrees that it is forbidden,

everyone agrees that the second intercourse with a beautiful captive is forbidden to kohanim, because

she has become a convert.

And a convert is not fit for a kohen [

she is not fit ].

They disagree,

and all that they disagreed about is specifically

with the first intercourse,

as follows:

Rav said: It is permitted,

and his reason is:

for the Torah indeed spoke only in opposition to the evil inclination,

and with kohanim as well there is concern regarding the evil inclination.

And Shmuel said: It is forbidden,

and his reason is: concerning a beautiful captive it is stated [Deuteronomy 21:11–12]: “And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her, and you take her for yourself as a wife [with the first intercourse], and you bring her into your house [to keep her in your house permanently]”.

And the permission of “And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her, and you take her for yourself as a wife” is conditional upon the permission of “and you bring her into your house”—

Wherever we can apply to him,

wherever the permission of

“and you bring her into your house” can be applied to him, it can be applied to him

there is also stated the permission of

“and you see among the captives.”

But,

wherever we cannot apply it to him,

wherever the permission of

“and you bring her into your house”

cannot be applied to him—

“and you see among the captives” cannot be applied to him.

Therefore, a kohen who is forbidden to bring the beautiful captive into his house and keep her for the purpose of marriage has no fulfillment of the verse “and you bring her into your house” with regard to him. Therefore “and you see among the captives” likewise does not apply to him, and it is forbidden for him to have intercourse with her even with the first intercourse.

And since the reasoning “the Torah spoke only in opposition to the evil inclination” was mentioned incidentally in our discussion, the Gemara brings the source of this reasoning, from a beraita:

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning a beautiful captive [Deuteronomy 21:11–12]: “And you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her, and you take her for yourself as a wife, and you bring her into your house.”

The beraita expounds all the words written in this verse: [

a ] The verse

“and you see among the captives”—

teaches that the permission concerning a beautiful captive was stated only if he cast his eyes upon her

at the time of her captivity.

But if he captured her in order to sell her, or in order that she serve him as a maidservant, and afterward he cast his eyes upon her, she is forbidden to him. [

b ] The verse

“woman”

includes—

even a married woman,

for she too is permitted at the time of the captivity under the law of “beautiful captive.” [ c ]

“Beautiful”—

it implies that, since his inclination is aroused by her because of her beauty, the verse permitted her. And from here

that the Torah spoke only in opposition to the evil inclination,

and the verse permitted her only with difficulty; and the reason for the permission is that if she were not permitted to him, he would have intercourse with her in prohibition.