Kiddushin 21b (כא:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

that

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

Rather, the verse came

to establish it

as

an obligation,

so that the relatives are obligated to redeem him.

And even according to

the view of

Rabbi Yehoshua,

who holds concerning a hereditary field that redemption by relatives is optional, nevertheless, concerning a slave sold to a gentile, he too concedes that redemption by relatives is obligatory, so that the slave will not assimilate among the gentiles.

Ta shma,

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

For we learned in a beraita:

What is the meaning of the verse,

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 sufficed for the verse to state “he shall redeem him” only once?!

It must be that this verse came

to include

all

the other redemptions

that are subject to redemption,

so that

they shall be

redeemed according to this order.

And the amora who cited this beraita understood that the beraita intended to say that all the redemptions are performed by relatives.

And one must examine:

What

redemptions are being discussed?

Is it not

the redemption of

houses in walled cities, and

the redemption of

a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew,

with regard to which redemption by relatives was not stated, and therefore the verse had to include them as also being redeemed by relatives?!

It follows from here that, according to the Rabbis, a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew is redeemed by relatives. And we reject this:

No!

The verse does not include houses in walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew. Rather, it includes

houses in unwalled settlements and a hereditary field.

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

And immediately the Gemara objects:

Houses in unwalled settlements

and a hereditary field—

it is explicitly written concerning them,

that they are redeemed by relatives. If so, why is it necessary to include them through “he shall redeem him, he shall redeem him”?

For concerning a hereditary field it is stated [there, Leviticus 25:25], “Then his nearest redeemer shall come,” and concerning houses in unwalled settlements it is stated:

“It shall be reckoned as the field of the land”!

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak responded to this objection:

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 that they are redeemed by relatives. Rather, it refers

to

the principle

“the nearer relative takes precedence,”

teaching us that just as, in the case of a Hebrew slave redeemed by relatives, the nearest relative takes precedence over the other relatives—as explained above—so too, in the case of houses in unwalled settlements and a hereditary field, concerning which redemption by relatives is stated, the nearer relative takes precedence there as well.

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

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

And in the continuation of the Mishna we learned:

And one whose ear was pierced is acquired through piercing.

The Gemara cites the source for the statement of our Mishna:

As it is written [Exodus 21:6]:

“

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

through the Jubilee and through the death of the master.

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

As 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 or the daughter.

“Forever”—

that is,

“for the world of the Jubilee,”

and no longer.

And as the Gemara proved above [15a] from what is stated concerning the Jubilee, “And you shall return, each man to his inheritance.” This verse speaks of a slave whose ear was pierced.

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

The Sages taught:

It is stated [Exodus 21:6]: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an

awl.”

I have derived

from this verse

only

that the piercing is performed with an

awl.

From where

do we learn

to include

other instruments, such as

a sharpened wooden stick

and a thorn [which

are wooden instruments],

a needle, a drill, and a stylus, [which are metal instruments], so that piercing may also be performed with them?

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

The verse states [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 anything that is taken in the hand.

These are

the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi

disagrees and

says:

None of all these instruments is valid for piercing, since an awl is mentioned in the verse; therefore, only instruments resembling an awl may be deemed valid.

What

is like an

awl?

It is

distinctive

in that it is

of metal.

So too, every

instrument 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 barיבי,

the greatest of his generation,

would expound

as follows:

When they pierce

the one whose ear is to be pierced,

they do not pierce

him

except in the soft flesh,

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

For the large awl makes a hole the size of a carob seed, and one who has a hole of that size in the cartilage is considered blemished, and is disqualified from the Temple service of the kohanim.

And the Sages say:

On the contrary! It can be proven 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 does not have his ear pierced, because he becomes

through the piercing

blemished.”

And if you say

that

they pierce in the soft flesh—

how can a Hebrew slave who is a kohen become

through the piercing

blemished?

After all, one who has a hole in the soft flesh does not thereby become blemished!

Rather,

you must learn from here that

the

slave

is pierced only in the upper part of the ear—in the cartilage. Therefore, a slave who is a kohen does not have his ear pierced, since he thereby becomes blemished.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

At the beginning of the beraita we learned: From where is it derived to include the sharpened wooden stick and the thorn [which are wooden instruments], and the needle, the drill, and the stylus [which are metal instruments]? The verse states: “And you shall take.” These are the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi says: What is distinctive about an awl? It is made of metal. So too, every [instrument] must be made of metal.

And we inquire about this:

With regard to what do they disagree,

what is the basis of their dispute, and what are their respective rationales? Whenever a general expression appears in the Torah, followed by a limiting expression, and then another general expression, we have learned through a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that it must be expounded in a special manner:

There are two ways to expound it:

One way is: “A generalization, a specification, and a generalization”—you discuss only what resembles the specification.

That is, it is not necessary to fulfill the specification exactly as it is; rather, the specification serves as an example, and anything resembling it is considered like it.

The reason is that if the Torah had stated only “a generalization and a specification,” we would say that the specification explains the generalization; therefore, only the specification itself is included in the generalization.

Therefore, when the verse adds another generalization, it adds only what is truly similar to the specification. The second method is: “An amplification, a restriction, and an amplification.” The verse includes everything except for one matter. And the verse entrusted the Sages with determining which matter should be excluded from the specification.

The reason is that if the Torah had stated only “an amplification and a restriction,” we would not say that the specification explains the generalization. Rather, the generalization includes everything, and the restriction that follows comes to limit and reduce the generalization, indicating that it includes only this and anything resembling it.

Accordingly, when the verse adds another inclusion, it includes everything, and only one thing is to be excluded. The verse left it to the Sages to decide which thing should be excluded.

Accordingly, the dispute between Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi that appears before us can be explained as follows: With regard to piercing the slave’s ear, it is written [Deuteronomy 15:17]: “And you shall take the awl, and place it in his ear and in the door.”

When the word “and you shall take” is read on its own, it includes everything, and not specifically an awl.

Afterward, a restriction is stated: “with the awl.”

And afterward it again says, “and you shall place it in his ear and in the door”; the word “and you shall place” includes everything, and not specifically an awl.

The rationale of Rabbi:

For Rabbi expounds

throughout the Torah

“generalizations and specifications.”

He derives teachings from generalizations and specifications, and not from amplifications and limitations.

Therefore, this is how he expounds the verse here:

“And you shall take” —

a generalization. “The awl” —

a specification.

And when the verse repeats and says, “and you shall place”

“in his ear and in the door” —

the verse returned

to its

generalization.

And wherever

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

you may not derive [

learn] from the final generalization

anything but

matters that are

similar to the specification —

Just as the specification explicitly refers

to an awl

of metal,

so too all

the matters derived from the generalization must be

of metal.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, had a different rationale:

Rabbi Yosei

son of Rabbi Yehuda

expounds

throughout the Torah

amplifications and limitations.

Accordingly:

“And you shall take” —

it amplified

everything.

“The awl” —

the verse limited

the scope, so that only matters similar to an awl are included. “ and you shall place

in his ear and in the door” —

it returned and amplified.

And

since the verse

amplified, limited, and amplified,

it has

amplified everything,

except for one matter alone, which is to be excluded on the basis of the limitation —

what did it amplify,

what did the verse amplify? —

It amplified every matter,

it included everything, even a wooden implement.

What did it limit? —

It limited a substance.

One may not place a caustic substance on the slave’s ear and cause a perforation through that substance.

It is appropriate to exclude the substance, because it does not resemble an awl at all: an awl pierces only through the force applied by a person, whereas the substance pierces on its own.

The Gemara now explains the continuation of the beraita:

The Master said

in the beraita:

“The awl” —

to include a large awl.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the indication?

How did the tanna derive from the definite article that a large awl is included?

And we answer:

J

ust as we find

that Rava said

concerning the prohibition against the sciatic nerve, with regard to which it is written [Genesis 32]

“the thigh”:

The addition of the definite article before the word “thigh” indicates that it is

the strongest of the thighs,

the important thigh, namely, the right thigh —

here too,

so too in our case it is to be expounded:

“the awl”

means

the distinctive one among awls,

namely, a large awl. We learned in the continuation of the beraita:

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan barיבי would expound:

When they pierce —

they pierce only with a metal implement.

And the Sages say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because he would thereby become blemished.

And we raised a difficulty: Why is a Hebrew slave who is a priest not pierced?

Let him be pierced,

and become blemished!

After all, there is no prohibition in doing so; and, on the other hand, when the slave wishes to remain under his master, piercing him is a Torah mitzva!

Rabba bar Rav Sheila said

as a refutation:

The verse says

concerning a Hebrew slave who goes free in the Jubilee year [Leviticus 25]:

“And he shall return to his family.”

The intent of the verse is to say that he returns

to the established status of his family —

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

The Gemara now presents a problem that was resolved from the words of the aforementioned beraita:

They raised a dilemma before them,

the members of the academy were uncertain:

A Hebrew slave

who is

a priest —

what

is his status with regard to

his master giving him a Canaanite maidservant,

as he gives one to an Israelite Hebrew slave?

Does he have the authority to give him one, or not?

The sides of the dilemma are:

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

is a novelty:

the Torah permitted the Hebrew slave something prohibited to all other Israelites. Once the Torah permitted this prohibition,

there is no difference between priests and Israelites;

there is no distinction between priests and Israelites in this matter.

Or perhaps [

perhaps]

priests are different,

priests being different from the rest of Israel,

since the verse increased for them

the number of

additional mitzvot

beyond those incumbent upon the rest of Israel; therefore, a Canaanite maidservant was not permitted to a Hebrew slave who is a priest.

The amoraim disagreed about this:

Rav said: It is permitted

for a Hebrew slave who is a priest to marry a Canaanite maidservant.

And Shmuel said: It is prohibited.

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan,

a student of Shmuel:

When you were before Master Shmuel —

you were playing iskomandrei!

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

That is, you did not concentrate on your learning and carefully consider Shmuel’s statement that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is prohibited to a Canaanite maidservant; rather, you were as though playing a game.

For had you carefully considered his words,

why did you not say to him,

why did you not argue with him that

from this,

from the beraita above, it is proven that his statement is incorrect!

For this is what we learned in the beraita [above]:

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

With regard to piercing the slave’s ear, it is written [Exodus 21:5–6]: “But if the slave shall plainly say, ‘I love my master, my wife [the maidservant], and my children [the maidservant’s children]; I will not go free.’ Then his master shall bring him to the judges … and his master shall pierce his ear.”

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

And if you were to say,

in accordance with Shmuel’s statement that

his master does not

give the priestly slave

a Canaanite maidservant,

this is difficult: Why did the Sages say, “A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced, because he would thereby become blemished”? There is no need for this reason!

Let it follow

that this law follows from the fact

that it is necessary

for the slave to say

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

but this is impossible!

According to Shmuel, the priest has no maidservant as a wife, and if so, it is obvious that he is not pierced!

Rather, it must necessarily be said in accordance with Rav’s view: even a Hebrew slave who is a priest is permitted to have a maidservant. Therefore, we might have thought that he is pierced, and the Sages consequently stated that he is not pierced because he would thereby become blemished.

And we conclude:

There is no further response;

there is no answer to this argument, and Shmuel’s position is rejected. The halakha follows Rav: a Hebrew slave who is a priest is permitted to have a Canaanite maidservant.

Since we have been discussing a prohibition that the Torah innovated by permitting it to a slave, and have considered whether the prohibition was also permitted to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, the Gemara discusses a similar matter concerning the “beautiful captive woman.”

It is written [Deuteronomy 21:10–14]: “When you go forth to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands, and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire her, and you take her as a wife.” The laws governing taking her are explained there in the Torah. This matter is a novelty, as will be explained below, and it is specifically in wartime that it is permitted to marry a captive gentile woman.

And in this regard

they raised a dilemma:

the scholars of the academy were uncertain:

a kohen—

what

is his

status in

the matter of

a beautiful captive?

Is he permitted to take her, or not?

The sides of the dilemma are:

On the one hand, since the allowance of a beautiful captive

is a novelty

even with regard to an Israelite, as the Torah permitted him to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman, if so,

there is no difference between a kohen and an Israelite;

there is no distinction between a kohen and an Israelite in this regard, and both are permitted to do so.

Side B:

or perhaps

perhaps

it is different,

the law of

kohanim

differs from the law governing other Israelites,

since the Torah increased for them

the written Torah

additional mitzvot

beyond those incumbent upon other Israelites.

The amoraim disagreed about this matter:

Rav said: It is permitted

for a kohen to take a beautiful captive,

and Shmuel said: It is prohibited.

Two explanations were given for the basis of their dispute:

First explanation:

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

according to all opinions, she is permitted to a kohen at the first intercourse. The reason is as follows:

for

even an Israelite should not properly 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 be He, did not permit her to him, he would marry her in violation of the prohibition. Therefore, she is also permitted to a kohen, since there is likewise concern regarding the evil inclination in the case of a kohen.

They disagree,

and their disagreement applies specifically

with regard to

the second

intercourse and thereafter, since the Torah permitted a second intercourse to an Israelite, but this does not involve such a powerful evil inclination, because after the first intercourse his ardor cools, and there is no concern that he might marry her in violation of the prohibition. Rav and Shmuel disagreed over whether a kohen is also permitted to have the second intercourse:

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

The Gemara explains the reasoning of Rav and Shmuel:

Rav said it is permitted—

since once it was permitted, it was permitted,

since the first intercourse was permitted, the subsequent acts of intercourse were also permitted.

And Shmuel said it is prohibited—

for she has thereby become a convert,

since a beautiful captive is a convert,

and a convert

is permitted only to an Israelite, but

she is not fit for a kohen,

and it is prohibited for a kohen to marry a convert, since a convert has the status of a “zona.” And a zona is prohibited to kohanim. The Gemara presents a second explanation of the dispute between Rav and Shmuel:

Some say

there are those who say:

With regard to the second intercourse, everyone agrees that it is prohibited,

all agree that the second intercourse with a beautiful captive is prohibited to kohanim, because

she has thereby become a convert.

And a convert is not fit for a kohen

she is not suitable.

They disagree,

their disagreement applies specifically

with regard to the first intercourse,

as follows:

Rav said: It is permitted,

and his reason is:

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

and there is also concern regarding the evil inclination in the case of kohanim.

And Shmuel said: It is prohibited,

and his reason is that, with regard to 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 [at the first intercourse], and you bring her into your house [to keep her in your house permanently].”

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

Anywhere that we can apply to him

where the permission of

“and you bring her into your house” applies to him,

the permission of

“and you see among the captives” also applies to him.

But

anywhere that we cannot apply to him

where the permission of

“and you bring her into your house”

cannot be applied to him—

does not apply to him,

“and you see among the captives” does not apply to him.

And since the reasoning “the Torah spoke only in opposition to the evil inclination” was mentioned in our sugya, the Gemara cites 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 of a beautiful captive applies only if he set his eyes upon her

at the time of the captivity.

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

b] The verse

“a wife”

includes

even a married woman,

as she too is permitted at the time of the captivity by virtue of the law of “a beautiful captive.” [ c]

“Beautiful”

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

the Torah spoke only in opposition to the evil inclination,

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