Yevamot 48a — the Talmud in English

And he is permitted to her immediately.

And it is demonstrated that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot at the time that he immerses for his emancipation.

Whereas according to the Sages, he is obligated to accept the mitzvot; therefore, he cannot immerse the beautiful captive in such a manner, so as to be permitted to her immediately.

Rava said: What is the reason of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar?

Because

it is written

[Exodus 12]

“Every slave of a man, purchased for money,

and you shall circumcise him”!

And it is difficult: Is the intention of the verse, when it says “a slave of a man,” to say that only the

slave

of a

man

are you obligated to circumcise,

but not

the

slave

of a

woman?

Rather,

necessarily, this is the intention of the verse to say:

Only the

slave

who is

“a man,”

even though he is an adult and possesses understanding [and is not a minor],

you circumcise

him in order to make him a Canaanite slave—even

against his will!

But you do not circumcise “the son of a man,”

of a convert who comes to convert and brings his adult sons with him,

against his will.

For “man” was stated only with regard to a slave, and not with regard to sons, whom one cannot circumcise against their will.

And it follows that according to Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, the expression “a slave of a man” teaches that one may make a person a Canaanite slave, who is obligated in mitzvot, even against his will.

And

now the Gemara asks: What is the reason of

the Sages?

How do they expound the expression “a slave of a man”?

Ulla said:

The verse says “a slave of a man,” and not “a son of a man,” in order to say the opposite:

Just as you do not circumcise the son of a man

[a non-Jew]

against

his will,

for “man” was not stated with regard to the circumcision of sons, and one does not convert a non-Jew who possesses understanding against his will—

so you do not circumcise a slave of a man against his will.

And we refute this:

But is it not written, “Every slave of a man

and you shall circumcise him”! And it implies [that this is done] against his will!

That

verse

is needed for that which Shmuel [said].

For Shmuel said: One who renounces ownership of his slave—

he goes out to freedom, and does not need a deed of emancipation,

but once his monetary ownership of the slave was removed when he renounced ownership of him, the designation “slave” was also removed from him, and he no longer needs a writ of emancipation—

and the proof is from the verse,

as it is stated: “Every slave of a man, purchased for money.”

And did the verse come by saying “a slave of a man” to say:

A man’s slave, but not a woman’s slave!?

Rather,

it comes to say:

A slave over whom his master has authority is called “a slave.”

And

a slave

over whom his master has no authority,

such as one whose ownership he has renounced—

is not

he

called a slave!

Rav Pappa raised an objection

to Rav Sheshet, who holds that according to the Sages the slave is obligated to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot of his own accord, and otherwise his immersion for emancipation is not effective to make him a complete Jew.

You can say that you heard this from the Sages

that acceptance of mitzvot is required—

with regard to the beautiful captive, who has no connection

previously

with mitzvot.

But with regard to a slave, who has a connection with mitzvot,

who stayed several days in his master’s house and observed the mitzvot that a slave observes,

is it also the case that even the Sages agree

that he no longer needs to accept mitzvot at the time that they immerse him for his emancipation?!

And the proof is from this,

as it was taught in a beraita: One is a convert, and one is

the

one who purchases a slave from a non-Jew—

he must accept

the yoke of mitzvot at the time of immersion.

And one must infer:

If he purchases

a slave

from a Jew—

he does not need to accept.

This beraita—

whose

is it? According to whose opinion was it taught?

If

according to

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar

it is—

he said:

Even the

one who purchases

a slave

from a non-Jew also does not need to accept

mitzvot upon himself, but immerses him against his will for the sake of servitude.

Rather, it is the Sages

who hold this opinion.

And learn from it that one who purchases from a non-Jew—

must accept.

But one who purchases

a slave

from a Jew—

does not need to accept,

since he already observed mitzvot in his presence as a slave.

But it is difficult

for Rav Pappa from the beraita that we learned in it:

“One is a convert, and one is an emancipated slave,”

and it implies that a convert and an emancipated slave were equated with regard to acceptance of mitzvot!

And we answer:

When that was taught—

it was taught with regard to immersion

and not with regard to acceptance of mitzvot.

For a convert and a slave were equated with regard to immersion, when they come to become complete Jews, but with regard to acceptance of mitzvot they are different, because a slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot at the time that he is emancipated, since he already observed some mitzvot while he was a slave [even though he had not accepted this upon himself at the time that he was immersed as a Canaanite slave]!

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage of the beautiful captive [Deuteronomy 21]:

“And she shall shave her head, and she shall make her nails”—

Rabbi Eliezer says: She shall cut

her nails, even though there is no degradation in this, because this is the decree of the verse.

Rabbi Akiva says: She shall let grow

her nails, for the intention of the verse is to degrade her and make her repulsive, so that he will not desire her as a wife.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to explain his reason:

“Making” was stated with regard to the head,

that is, the shaving stated with regard to the head of the beautiful captive is “making” that constitutes improvement.

And “making” was stated

[“and she shall make her nails”]

with regard to the nails.

Just as there,

with regard to the head, the “making” stated concerning it is

removal

of the hair of the head, that is, shaving,

so here,

with regard to the nails, the “making” stated concerning them is

removal

of the nails from the body.

Rabbi Akiva says

to explain his reason:

“Making” was stated with regard to the head, and “making” was stated with regard to the nails.

Just as there,

the improvement of the mitzva with regard to the head, through shaving the hair, is an issue of

degradation,

so here,

the Torah desired an issue of

degradation,

and therefore here she shall let her nails grow.

And proof for the words of Rabbi Eliezer,

that the “making” stated with regard to the nails means cutting them and not letting them grow:

As it is stated [II Samuel 19]:

“And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had not made his feet, and he had not made his mustache.”

What

is the

“making”

of his feet and of his mustache?—

Removal.

For he had not cut the nails of his feet and had not shaved his mustache.

The Sages taught:

[Deuteronomy 21]

“And she shall weep for her father and for her mother

a month of days.”