Kiddushin 22b — the Talmud in English

If

it had been

stated

in the Book of Deuteronomy [there]: “And you shall take the awl and place

his ear against the door,”

I would say

that the master

would pierce opposite his ear

of the slave, a hole

in the door, but would not bore the ear.

Before the Gemara continues by bringing the words of the beraita, it interrupts and expresses astonishment at these words stated by the beraita—

From the words of the beraita, “I would say: he would pierce opposite his ear,” it follows that there was room to entertain the thought that

the door, yes,

only in it would he make a hole, but in

his ear

of the slave

not

would he make a hole; therefore it was stated: “in his ear and in the door.”

And this matter is astonishing!

And

for I could have entertained the thought and said that the

ear would not be bored?!

But

is it

not written

explicitly in the Book of Exodus [there]:

“And his master shall bore his ear with an awl”?!

Rather,

this is how the words of the beraita should be explained:

If it had been stated: “And you shall take the awl and place his ear against the door,” I would say that he

would bore the ear—

from outside,

outside the door, wherever he wished, in order to fulfill what was stated in the Book of Exodus, without specification: “And his master shall bore his ear,” and it was not stated where he should bore it.

And

only after he bores his ear,

he would place it on the door,

and

then

would pierce opposite his ear

on its other side,

of the door,

in order that the verse stated in the Book of Deuteronomy would be fulfilled: “And you shall place his ear against the door.”

Therefore the verse in the Book of Deuteronomy had to negate this, by saying “in his ear and in the door,” as is explained in the continuation of the beraita.

And now the Gemara brings the continuation of the beraita:

The verse says

therefore it was stated]: “And you shall place

in his ear and in the door.”

That is, he must place the awl also in his ear, when it is pressed against the door.

How so?—

He places his ear against the door,

and pierces and continues

in his ear,

until he reaches the door.

The beraita now explains why the verse in the Book of Exodus says that the boring is performed at the door or at the doorpost, whereas in the Book of Deuteronomy only the door is mentioned.

For if only

“door”

[as the verse says in the Book of Deuteronomy] had been stated,

I would understand

from the verse that the reference is to any door,

whether

it is

removed

from the doorpost of the entrance and lying on the ground,

or whether it is not removed,

but is attached to the doorpost of the entrance. Therefore—

The verse says

in the Book of Exodus, “And his master shall bring him to the door or to the

doorpost”—the verse compares the door to the doorpost of the entrance, in order to teach you—

The verse compares the door to the doorpost in order to teach you:

Just as,

as the

doorpost

of the entrance is called by the name “doorpost” only when it is fixed in the entrance, when it is in a

standing position,

but if it is uprooted from the entrance and lies on the ground, it no longer has the name “doorpost,” but is considered merely like a piece of wood—

so too the door,

the door about which the verse spoke, to bore the ear of the one who is bored, is only a door attached to the doorpost of the entrance, when it stands there in a

standing position,

and not when it is removed from the doorpost of the entrance and lies on the ground. And the Gemara brings another beraita concerning the verse “And you shall place his ear against the door.”

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai would expound this verse

with a fine exposition,

like a “ornament”,

a bundle of pearls or a bundle of spices hanging around the neck as an ornament:

Why has the ear differed from all the limbs of the body?

Thus

said the Holy One, blessed is He: The ear that heard

the

voice on Mount Sinai, when I said, “For the Children of Israel are servants to Me”

[Leviticus 25], servants to Me alone,

and not

shall they be

servants to servants.

And

nevertheless

this one went and acquired a master for himself—

therefore

he shall be bored

in his ear.

In this exposition Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai explained why the boring is performed in the ear; now the beraita expounds why the boring is performed at the door fixed in the doorpost:

And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi would expound this verse

with a fine exposition,

like an ornament

a bundle of pearls or spices hanging around the neck as an ornament]:

Why have the door and the doorpost differed from all the vessels in the house?

Thus

said the Holy One, blessed is He: The door and the doorpost, which were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and the two doorposts, and I said: “For the Children of Israel are servants to Me,” and not servants to servants, and I brought them out from slavery to freedom, and this one went and acquired a master for himself—

he shall be bored in their presence.

Mishna:

The Mishna before us deals with the acquisitions of a Canaanite slave: a.

A Canaanite slave is acquired

with money,

and with a document,

and by possession

[and the acquisition by possession will be explained in the Gemara].

b.

And he acquires himself

by two acquisitions: with money and with a document; and the tannaim disagreed through whom these acquisitions are performed:

First opinion:

With money, through others.

If others gave the master money on the condition that the slave would go out to freedom, he thereby acquires himself. But the slave himself cannot give money to the master and thereby go out to freedom, because any money that comes into the slave’s possession belongs to the master. And even if they gave it to him on the condition that his master has no authority over it, the slave does not acquire the money.

And with a document, through himself.

If the slave himself received a document of release from the master, he thereby goes out to freedom.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: With money, through himself.

If the slave received money from others on the condition that his master has no authority over it, he acquires the money, and he can give it to the master and thereby go out to freedom.

And with a document, through others

[this will be explained in the Gemara].

And what the Sages said—that a slave acquires himself with money through himself—has a condition:

provided that the money belongs to others.

Other people gave him the money on the condition that the master has no authority over it, and then he acquires it and acquires himself with it.

But if the slave found a lost object, or if they gave him a gift without stipulation, they belong to the master, and the slave never acquired them; therefore he cannot go out to freedom through them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A Canaanite slave is acquired with money, with a document, and by possession.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

From where do we know this,

from where have we learned this?

And we answered:

For it is written

concerning a Canaanite slave [Leviticus 25]:

“And you shall take them as an inheritance for your sons after you, to inherit as a permanent possession.” The verse compares

the Canaanite slaves

to an inherited field:

What—

just as

an ancestral field is acquired with money, with a document, and through possession —

so too, a Canaanite slave is acquired with money, with a document, and through possession.

Perhaps you will say:

if

perhaps we can learn an additional matter from an ancestral field:

Just as

an

ancestral field returns to its owners at the Jubilee—

so too, a Canaanite slave returns to his owners at the Jubilee.

Therefore,

the verse says

later in that same verse:

“You shall work them forever.”

The verse taught that a Canaanite slave does not leave at the Jubilee.

The Gemara now brings additional acquisitions through which a Canaanite slave is acquired, besides money, a document, and possession, which were taught in our Mishna: A.

The tanna taught,

the tanna taught in a baraita: A Canaanite slave is acquired

also through barter.

And the Gemara explains why the tanna who taught our Mishna did not mention acquisition through barter:

But our tanna,

only

taught a matter that does not exist with movable property.

But

he did not teach a matter that exists with movable property.

The tanna who taught our Mishna taught only acquisitions that were stated with regard to a slave and not with regard to movable property, but acquisitions that apply also to movable property, he did not teach in our Mishna.

B.

Shmuel said: A Canaanite slave is acquired through pulling.

And

how

is the pulling performed? If the buyer

seized him,

he pulled the slave forcefully

and he came to him, he acquired him,

but if the master

called him [ [A0044]]called to the slave]

pozval raba ]

and he came to him, he did not acquire him,

because the slave walks of his own accord, and his walking is not through the master’s power.

And we raise an objection: If Shmuel’s words are correct, and pulling indeed acquires a Canaanite slave, then this is difficult: Why did the tannaim who taught our Mishna and the baraita not mention acquisition through pulling?

Granted,

indeed

with regard to our tanna

[who taught our Mishna], it is understandable why pulling was not taught in the Mishna, for

he did not teach a matter that exists with movable property.

The tanna did not teach in our Mishna an acquisition that applies to movable property. For barter, too, was not taught in our Mishna for this reason, as explained above. And since acquisition through pulling applies to movable property, the tanna therefore did not teach it in our Mishna.

But

but

with regard to the other tanna

[the tanna who taught the baraita], this is difficult: Since acquisition through barter was taught in the baraita, it is evident that he teaches even acquisitions that apply to movable property; and if so,

let him teach

also

pulling!

And since the tanna did not teach pulling, it follows that pulling does not acquire a Canaanite slave, and this is contrary to Shmuel’s statement! And we answer: In fact, pulling acquires a Canaanite slave, but nevertheless the tanna did not teach it in the baraita, because

when he teaches, he teaches a matter that exists both with land and with movable property.

And that is to say: Besides money, a document, and possession, we taught in the baraita only barter, because barter applies both to movable property and to land, and therefore it was taught along with money, a document, and possession, which apply to land.

But

pulling, which

only

exists with movable property and does not exist with land,

which applies to movable property and not to land—

he did not teach.

The Gemara discusses Shmuel’s words:

Shmuel said:

“How

is pulling performed with a slave? If

he seized him and he came to him—

he acquired him.

But if

he called him and he came to him—

he did not acquire him.”

And we wonder:

But

if

he called him—

does his walking by virtue of his calling

not

count as pulling?

But surely it can be demonstrated from a baraita that even walking caused by his calling counts as pulling! As follows:

A large animal is acquired through handing over. A small animal is acquired through pulling. [ [A0089]]Mishna below, 25b].

But it was taught

concerning this matter:

How

is a large animal acquired

through handing over?

If the buyer

took hold of its hoof,

its leg,

or of its hair [ [A0100]]such as the hair on the horse’s head], or

naprimer, za grivu na golove loshadi ], ili

of the saddle upon it,

or

of the load,

the burden

upon it,

or

of the bit

the bridle

that is in its mouth, and

likewise

of the bell [ [A0112]]on the bell]

za kolokol ]

that is on its neck—

he acquired it

even if the animal did not move from its place.

And this is on condition that the buyer’s taking hold was done at the seller’s command.

And

how

is a small animal acquired

through pulling?

The buyer

calls to it and it comes, or

the buyer

strikes it with a staff and it runs [ [A0131]]and it runs]

begit ]

before him —

once it uproots a foreleg

and a hind leg,

immediately

he acquires it.

This is the opinion of the first tanna.

Rabbi Asi,

and some say,

there are those who say this in the name of

Rabbi Aha, says:

An animal is not acquired once it has uprooted a foreleg and a hind leg

until it walks before him

the measure of

its full height,

and only then is it acquired by him.

In any event, it is explained in the baraita that one who acquires an animal through pulling need not pull it forcefully; rather, even if he called to it and it came by virtue of his calling, this is acquisition through pulling, and he acquired it.

And from here there is a difficulty with Shmuel’s words: Why did Shmuel say that one who calls to a Canaanite slave and he comes to him does not acquire him through pulling? Why is pulling with regard to a slave different from pulling with regard to an animal?

They said,

the members of the academy said a resolution:

There is a difference between an animal and a slave:

An animal,

which has no understanding, when the buyer calls to it and it comes,

it walks with the intention of its master,

it walks according to the intention of the one who called to it, and this is as though he pulled it with his hands.

But

a slave,

who has understanding, when the buyer calls to him and he comes, he does not come according to the buyer’s intention; rather, the matter depends on his own intention and choice, and

according to his own intention

he walks,

he walks according to his own intention. Therefore, his walking is not considered the pulling of the master who acquires him.

Rav Ashi said:

Since the slave is not acquired by the master when he calls to him only because the slave walks according to his own intention, if so, if the matter concerns a

small slave,

under thirteen years and one day, then

he is like an animal

since he has no understanding; therefore, if the buyer calls to him and the child comes because of his calling, he acquires him through pulling.

The Gemara now brings a baraita explaining how acquisition through possession is performed with a Canaanite slave:

The Sages taught:

How

is a slave acquired

through possession?

If

he removed for him

the slave for the buyer his

shoe, or carried his belongings [ [A0181]]his garments]

odezhdu ]

after him to the bathhouse,

or

undressed him, bathed him, anointed him, scratched him, dressed him, or put his shoes on him,

or

lifted him,

when the slave lifted the buyer —

All these are types of service that the slave performs for his master, and once he did so for the master, this is possession, and

he acquired

the master the slave.

Rabbi Shimon said: Possession cannot be greater than lifting, for lifting acquires in every place!

The Gemara now assumed that Rabbi Shimon gives a reason why a slave who lifts his master is acquired by him through this, because the slave’s lifting his master is no worse than the other labors. For acquisition through lifting acquires in every place, even in the seller’s courtyard.

This is unlike acquisitions through pulling and handing over, which do not acquire in the seller’s courtyard.

And immediately the Gemara wonders:

What is he saying?

What is the understanding of Rabbi Shimon’s words? Here the matter concerns a slave who lifts his master, whereas lifting that acquires everywhere is when the buyer lifts the object being acquired!

Rav Ashi said:

The words of the baraita must be interpreted differently:

The first tanna said that specifically if

he lifted him [ [A0205]]the slave]

rab ]

for his master—

he acquired him.

But if

his master lifted him for him—

he did not acquire him. And

And

said

concerning this

Rabbi Shimon:

According to the words of the first tanna, it follows that acquisition through possession is superior to acquisition through lifting, for acquisition through possession acquires a Canaanite slave, whereas acquisition through lifting does not acquire him.

But I maintain that

it

is not possible to say that

possession should be greater than lifting!

For

after all,

lifting acquires in every place,

and therefore its force is greater, and it certainly acquires even a Canaanite slave, contrary to the view of the first tanna.

And we raise an objection against the words of the beraita:

now that you say that

since we have said that if

he lifted him up for his master, he acquired him, from now on

the following difficulty arises: it should also have been the case that

a Canaanite maidservant should be acquired

by the master

through intercourse,

for she lifts him up! And why, in truth, is a maidservant not acquired through intercourse?

And we answer:

for when we say

all that we said—that a slave who lifted up his master acquired him—we said this only when

this one,

the master,

benefits, and this one,

the slave,

suffers,

and it is found that through this the slave serves the master, and therefore this lifting is considered an acquisition through chazaka.

But

here,

in the case of a maidservant who lifted up the master through intercourse,

this one benefits, and this one benefits—

he!

They both benefit, and the maidservant does not serve the master through this act more than she serves herself, and there is no acquisition through chazaka in this.

And we object: Indeed, through ordinary intercourse they both benefit.

But through intercourse

not in the ordinary manner,

only the master benefits, whereas the maidservant suffers.

And if so, the difficulty against the words of the beraita still remains: if indeed a slave who lifted up his master acquired him, why is a maidservant not acquired through intercourse not in the ordinary manner? After all, she does not benefit from it!

Rav Aḥai bar Adda from Aḥa

said: the objection can be rejected on the basis of two claims:

1.

Who can say to us that both of them do not have benefit from it?

Who can say to us that through intercourse not in the ordinary manner they do not both benefit? For it is possible that the woman also benefits from it!

2.

Furthermore,

even if it becomes clear that the woman does not benefit from it, as the objector claims, we can explain why the maidservant is not acquired through intercourse not in the ordinary manner.

For concerning intercourse,

“the intercourses of a woman” is written [Leviticus 20:13],

in the plural, and the intercourses of a woman include both intercourse in the ordinary manner and intercourse not in the ordinary manner.

And Scripture equated

the intercourse

in the ordinary manner with

intercourse

not in the ordinary manner,

so that their laws would be equal.

And since a maidservant is not acquired through intercourse in the ordinary manner, for she benefits from it, therefore she is also not acquired through intercourse not in the ordinary manner.

And in connection with having spoken of acquisition through chazaka in the case of a Canaanite slave, the Gemara brings an incident involving such chazaka. And a law for halakha is learned from it:

Rabbi Yehuda the Indian,

from the land of Cush,

was a convert who had no heirs

[he was].

He fell ill,

he became sick,

Mar Zutra came to inquire after him,

Mar Zutra came to ask about his welfare.

He saw that the world had become very oppressive for him.

Mar Zutra saw that Rabbi Yehuda the Indian was in his death throes and approaching death, and he wished to acquire his slave.

Therefore

he said to his slave,

to Rabbi Yehuda the Indian’s slave:

“Take off my sandals for me and bring them home” —

“Remove my shoes from my feet, take them, and bring them to my house.” And he said this because he thought that Rabbi Yehuda the Indian would die while the slave was carrying his shoes, and at that moment he would acquire him for himself through an acquisition of chazaka.

And why did Mar Zutra hurry so much, and not wait until Rabbi Yehuda the Indian died, at which point he would acquire the slave?

Two opinions were stated in explanation of the matter:

A.

There are those who say,

some say: that slave

was an adult,

he was grown, and if Mar Zutra had waited until the master died, the slave would have acquired himself immediately when the master died; therefore Mar Zutra hurried and performed the acquisition of the slave at the very moment of the death.

And at the very moment of the death—