Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 25, 2016 | 讟状讜 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Kiddushin 14

What are the sources for the ways in which a yevama is acquired and freed from her first husband’s brother? 聽How is a Jewish slave acquired and freed? 聽Are there differences between a Jewish slave who is sold into slavery by the court (if he stole and can’t pay it back) or if he was poor and sold himself into slavery?

Study Guide Kiddushin 14


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讻讗砖讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讙讜诪专讬诐 讘讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讘讬讗讛 讙讜诪专转 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讘诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讙讜诪专转 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讙讜诪专讬诐 讘讛

鈥淗er brother-in-law will engage in sexual intercourse with her and take her to him as a wife, and perform levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that intercourse renders her his wife. The Gemara asks: But one can say that with regard to all matters she is like a wife, and therefore she can also be acquired with money or a document like any other woman. The Gemara answers: It could not enter your mind to say this, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that money and a document can complete the acquisition of a yevama and cause her to be married, in the manner that intercourse completes her acquisition. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that only intercourse completes her acquisition, but money or a document do not complete her acquisition.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讜讬讘诪讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诪讬讘诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讬讘诐 诪讗讬 讜讬讘诪讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: But one can say: What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥? It teaches that he can perform levirate marriage without her consent, as unlike an ordinary marriage, a levirate marriage does not require the woman鈥檚 agreement. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say: And perform levirate marriage, and one would understand that the matter depends entirely on him. What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥? Learn two conclusions from this: First, that a levirate marriage can be performed against her will, and second, that the only way to acquire a yevama is through sexual intercourse.

讘讞诇讬爪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讬转 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讻讬讜谉 砖讞诇抓 讘讛 谞注诇 讛讜转专讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that the yevama acquires herself through 岣litza. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to levirate marriage, after the yavam has performed 岣litza: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel: The house of him who had his shoe removed鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10). This indicates: Once his shoe is removed by her, she is permitted to all of Israel.

讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 转专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: This term 鈥淚srael,鈥 does it come to teach this halakha? It is required for that which is taught by Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: The verse says 鈥渋n Israel鈥 to teach that 岣litza may be performed only in a Jewish court, but not in a gentile court. The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渋n Israel鈥 is written twice in that chapter: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), and: 鈥淭o establish a name for his brother in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). A different halakha is derived from each of these instances.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讘讗转讛 讬讘诪讛 诇讞诇讜抓 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 注谞讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讜讗诪专讜 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讜谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: But still, we also require the additional term 鈥渋n Israel鈥 for that which is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda said: Once we were sitting before Rabbi Tarfon and a yevama came to perform 岣litza. And Rabbi Tarfon said to us after the 岣litza: All of you should answer and say: The one whose shoe was removed, the one whose shoe was removed. This indicates that the phrase: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), teaches that the matter must be announced and publicized throughout the nation. The Gemara answers: That halakha is not derived from the phrase 鈥渋n Israel.鈥 Rather, it is derived from: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called,鈥 which indicates that it must be announced that this is his name.

讜讘诪讬转转 讛讬讘诐 诪谞诇谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讛讬讗 讘讞谞拽 诪讬转转 讛讘注诇 诪转讬专转讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

搂 The mishna further teaches that a yevama is released from levirate marriage and may remarry through the death of the yavam. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is an a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a married woman, who is forbidden to other men by a prohibition punished with strangulation, and yet the death of her husband renders her permitted, is it not all the more so that with regard to a yevama, who is forbidden to other men while the yavam is alive by only a mere prohibition, that the death of the yavam should render her permitted?

诪讛 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讻谉 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 转讗诪专 讘讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this a fortiori inference: What is unique about a married woman is that she can leave through a bill of divorce as well. Will you say the same with regard to this yevama, who does not leave through a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: This is an insufficient refutation of the a fortiori inference, as this yevama also leaves through 岣litza, which serves the same function as a bill of divorce.

讗诇讗 诪讛 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讻谉 讗讜住专讛 诪转讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讜住专讛 诪转讬专讛 讬讘诐 讗讜住专讛 讬讘诐 砖专讬 诇讛

Rather, one can challenge this a fortiori inference in the following manner. What is unique about a married woman is that the one who renders her forbidden to everyone else, i.e., her husband, also renders her permitted when he dies. This is not so with regard to a yevama, as she is rendered forbidden upon the death of her husband. Rav Ashi said: With regard to this yevama as well, he who renders her forbidden is also the one who renders her permitted: The yavam renders her forbidden, because if he was not alive she would automatically be permitted to other men. Likewise, the yavam renders her permitted through 岣litza.

讜转讛讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讝讜 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 住驻专 讻专讬转转 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛

The Gemara asks: And let a married woman leave a marriage through 岣litza, as derived by an a fortiori inference: If a yevama, who cannot leave through a bill of divorce, can leave through 岣litza, is it not logical that this married woman, who can leave through a bill of divorce, can likewise leave through 岣litza? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a married woman: 鈥淎 scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3), which indicates that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him. While the husband is alive only a bill of divorce can dissolve a marriage.

讜转讛讗 讬讘诪讛 讬讜爪讗转 讘讙讟 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讝讜 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讚讬谉 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻讛 讜讻讻讛 注讬讻讜讘讗

The Gemara further asks: And let a yevama leave through a bill of divorce, as derived by an a fortiori inference: If a married woman, who cannot leave through 岣litza, can leave through a bill of divorce, is it not logical that this yevama, who can leave through 岣litza, can also leave through a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9), with regard to the 岣litza of a yevama, and 鈥渟o鈥 precludes another option.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讬讻讜讘讗 诇讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讙讜专诇 讜讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And is it true that anywhere that there is a term that precludes another option one cannot learn an a fortiori inference? But there is the case of the designation of the goats on Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淭he goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:9), and: 鈥淭his shall be an everlasting statute to you鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), which indicates that everything stated with regard to the mitzvot of Yom Kippur is critical to the performance of the service of the day.

讜转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

And it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders it a sin-offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not render it a sin-offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not effect the consecration of the animals with a specific designation, e.g., with regard to a woman who has given birth and must bring two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and nevertheless a verbal designation of the animals with the required status does effect the consecration of them, so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does effect the consecration of the animals, is it not logically right that a verbal designation of the animals with the required status should effect the consecration of them?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讟注诪讗 讚诪注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛

To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to the goat: 鈥淗e shall offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9), to indicate that the lottery renders it a sin-offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not render it a sin-offering. And the reason that a verbal designation is ineffective is that the verse excluded this possibility, from which it may be inferred that if it were not so, one would learn an a fortiori inference, even though it is written with regard to it 鈥渟tatute.鈥 The same logic should apply in the case of 岣litza, i.e., the term 鈥渟o鈥 should not prevent one from learning an a fortiori inference, and therefore it might be argued that a yevama can be released through a bill of divorce.

讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讘诪讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖诪讛

Rather, the Gemara explains that here too, there is a limitation derived from a verse. The verse states with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd write for her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3). 鈥淔or her鈥 is a limitation, which teaches: A bill of divorce is effective for a regular woman but not for a yevama. The Gemara asks: But one can say that the phrase 鈥渇or her鈥 indicates that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake.

转专讬 诇讛 讻转讬讘讬 讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讛 讜诇讞讘讬专转讛

The Gemara answers: 鈥淔or her鈥 is written twice (Deuteronomy 24:1, 3), and therefore both halakhot can be derived. The Gemara asks: And still, one instance of: 鈥淔or her鈥 is required to teach that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, and the other 鈥渇or her鈥 is needed to teach: For her and not both for her and for another, i.e., her rival wife. One bill of divorce cannot be used for two women.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注诇 谞注诇 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different explanation as to why a bill of divorce is ineffective for a yevama. With regard to a yevama the verse states: 鈥淭he house of him who had his shoe removed鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), which teaches: If she is released by the 岣litza of the shoe, yes, she is released from the yavam, but if she was released by means of something else, no, she is not released.

讜讛讗讬 谞注诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞注诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞注诇讜 谞注诇 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But this term 鈥渟hoe,鈥 does it come to teach this? It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse said: 鈥淎nd remove his shoe鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). I have derived only that his shoe may be used. From where do I derive that the shoe of any person may also be used for 岣litza?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞注诇 谞注诇 专讬讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞注诇讜 谞注诇讜 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 驻专讟 诇讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诇讱 讘讜 驻专讟 诇拽讟谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 专讙诇讜 驻专讟

The verse states 鈥渟hoe,鈥 and states again in the next verse 鈥渟hoe,鈥 which includes any other shoe. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is shoe,鈥 which is apparently referring to the shoe of that particular man? This teaches that it must be his shoe that is fit for him, excluding a shoe so large that he cannot walk in it, and excluding a shoe so small that it does not cover most of his foot, and excluding

诇诪住讜诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注拽讘 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 谞注诇 诪讗讬 讛谞注诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

sandals [mesulayim] that have no heels, which do not qualify as shoes. The Gemara answers: If so, that the term is stated only for that purpose, let the verse write 鈥渟hoe.鈥 What is the meaning of 鈥渢he shoe鈥? Learn the two previously stated conclusions from it.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜拽讜谞讛 注爪诪讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 砖拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讛谞专爪注 谞拽谞讛 讘专爪讬注讛 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉

MISHNA: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document, and he can acquire himself, i.e., he is emancipated, through years, i.e., when he completes his six years of labor, or through the advent of the Jubilee Year, or through the deduction of money. The slave can redeem himself during the six years by paying for his remaining years of slavery. A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. A slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl, and he acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year or through the death of the master.

讙诪壮 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻诇 拽谞讬谞讜 讘讻住祝

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be acquired through money. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which teaches that he can be acquired through money. The Gemara asks: We found that a Hebrew slave who is sold to a gentile is acquired with money, which is the case discussed in that verse, but this proves nothing with regard to a Jew sold to a Jew. One could argue that since all of the acquisitions of a gentile are performed only with money, he can likewise purchase a Hebrew slave with money.

谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注转 驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛

But from where do we derive that a Hebrew slave can be sold to a Jew with money? The Gemara explains that with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall let her be redeemed鈥 (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that if she acquires money and wishes to be emancipated before her time is complete, she deducts a sum from her redemption. The maidservant can deduct the value of time served from her purchase price and pay the remaining amount, and she then is emancipated. This teaches that a Hebrew maidservant is acquired through money, a halakha that applies to a male slave as well.

讗砖讻讞谉 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽讚砖讛 讘讻住祝 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讻住祝 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讗讞讬讱 讛注讘专讬 讗讜 讛注讘专讬讛 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诪拽讬砖 注讘专讬 诇注讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: Although we found this halakha with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, one cannot extrapolate from there to this case, as it is possible that it applies only to a female. The reason for this is that since she is ordinarily betrothed through money, she can also be acquired as a maidservant through money. From where do we derive that a Hebrew slave can likewise be acquired through money? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman is sold to you, and he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). This verse juxtaposes a Hebrew man to a Hebrew woman, indicating that the modes through which they are acquired are the same.

讗砖讻讞谉 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞诪讻专 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讜 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara further asks: We found a source in this verse for a slave who is sold by the court. This verse is referring to a thief who is unable to repay the value of his theft and is sold as a slave so that he can repay his debt. One can therefore argue that this case is unique, since he is sold against his will. From where do we derive that one who sells himself can be sold through money?

讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara answers: One derives this through a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker.鈥 This term appears both with regard to one who sells himself: 鈥淎s a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:40), and with regard to one who is sold by the court: 鈥淔or double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:18). The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who derives this verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker.鈥 But according to the one who does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 what can be said? From where does he derive that one who sells himself may be purchased with money?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转砖讬讙 诪讜住祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉

The Gemara answers: The verse states at the start of the passage dealing with one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). The conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 serves to add to the first matter, i.e., the passage discussing one who sells himself to a Jew, as it joins the two issues. And therefore let the above case of one who sells himself to a Jew be derived from the case below of one who is sold to a gentile: Just as one who is sold to a gentile can be acquired with money, so too, one who sells himself to a Jew can be acquired with money.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 谞诪讻专 诇砖砖 讜讬转专 注诇 砖砖 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讗诇讗 诇砖砖

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker鈥? It is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sells himself as a slave is sold for six years, and if he wishes he can be sold for more than six years, whereas one who is sold by the court is sold only for six years, but no more.

讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞专爪注 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The baraita adds that there are additional differences between these two slaves: One who sells himself may not be pierced with an awl, whereas one who is sold by the court may be pierced with an awl. One who sells himself is not granted a severance gift by his master when he is emancipated, whereas one who is sold by the court is granted a severance gift. With regard to one who sells himself, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant as a wife to produce slave children, whereas with regard to one sold by the court, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讗诇讗 诇砖砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 谞专爪注 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专

Rabbi Elazar says that there is no difference between these two types of slaves. Rather, both this slave and that slave may be sold for only six years; both this and that one may be pierced with an awl, both this and that one are granted a severance gift, and in both this case and that case his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this, that the first tanna does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and Rabbi Elazar derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker鈥? If one holds that the two cases are juxtaposed, one will equate the halakhot of both slaves. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, in contrast to the opinion of the first tanna, who holds that the halakhot of each type of slave are discrete.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 谞诪讻专 诇砖砖 讜讬转专 注诇 砖砖 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讝讛 讜诇讗 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜

Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye: That is not so; rather, everyone derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and here, in the dispute in the baraita, they disagree about this following verse. What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself is sold for six years and more than six years? He maintains that with regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: 鈥淚f your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). That teaches that only this type of slave serves for six years and no more, but the same does not apply to one who sells himself. If he so stipulates, he may serve for more than six years.

讜讗讬讚讱 讜注讘讚讱 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖

The Gemara explains: And the other, Rabbi Elazar, learns a different halakha from this verse. 鈥淎nd he shall serve you鈥 means that he works for you and not for an heir other than a son. If a master has no sons, his slave is not transferred as an inheritance to a daughter or to a brother like his other property. If he does have sons, they inherit a Hebrew slave.

讜讗讬讚讱 讜注讘讚讱 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讛专爪讗转 讗讚讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And the other, the first tanna, from where does he derive that a slave is not transferred as an inheritance? The Gemara answers that the phrase, 鈥淎nd he shall serve you,鈥 is written another time, and he derives this halakha from there. The Gemara asks: And the other, Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with that other verse? The Gemara answers: In his opinion that verse comes to appease the master. The verse emphasizes that the servitude is of limited duration to encourage the master to free the slave without hesitation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 诪讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注 讗讝谞讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 讗讝谞讜 砖诇 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself is not pierced with an awl? The Gemara answers: He derives this from the fact that with regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl鈥 (Exodus 21:6), which teaches: His ear, of this slave, and not the ear of a slave who sells himself.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 14

讬讘诪讛 讬讘讗 注诇讬讛 讜诇拽讞讛 诇讜 诇讗砖讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 讻讗砖讛 诇讗 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讜 讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讙讜诪专讬诐 讘讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛讘讬讗讛 讙讜诪专转 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讬讘诪讛 讘讬讗讛 讙讜诪专转 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讻住祝 讜砖讟专 讙讜诪专讬诐 讘讛

鈥淗er brother-in-law will engage in sexual intercourse with her and take her to him as a wife, and perform levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that intercourse renders her his wife. The Gemara asks: But one can say that with regard to all matters she is like a wife, and therefore she can also be acquired with money or a document like any other woman. The Gemara answers: It could not enter your mind to say this, as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that money and a document can complete the acquisition of a yevama and cause her to be married, in the manner that intercourse completes her acquisition. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:5), which indicates that only intercourse completes her acquisition, but money or a document do not complete her acquisition.

讜讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讜讬讘诪讛 讚讘注诇 讻专讞讛 诪讬讘诐 讗诐 讻谉 诇讬诪讗 拽专讗 讜讬讘诐 诪讗讬 讜讬讘诪讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: But one can say: What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥? It teaches that he can perform levirate marriage without her consent, as unlike an ordinary marriage, a levirate marriage does not require the woman鈥檚 agreement. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse say: And perform levirate marriage, and one would understand that the matter depends entirely on him. What is the meaning of: 鈥淎nd perform levirate marriage with her鈥? Learn two conclusions from this: First, that a levirate marriage can be performed against her will, and second, that the only way to acquire a yevama is through sexual intercourse.

讘讞诇讬爪讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讬转 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讻讬讜谉 砖讞诇抓 讘讛 谞注诇 讛讜转专讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches that the yevama acquires herself through 岣litza. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to levirate marriage, after the yavam has performed 岣litza: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel: The house of him who had his shoe removed鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10). This indicates: Once his shoe is removed by her, she is permitted to all of Israel.

讛讗讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬砖专讗诇 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 谞讻专讬诐 转专讬 讘讬砖专讗诇 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: This term 鈥淚srael,鈥 does it come to teach this halakha? It is required for that which is taught by Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda: The verse says 鈥渋n Israel鈥 to teach that 岣litza may be performed only in a Jewish court, but not in a gentile court. The Gemara answers that the phrase 鈥渋n Israel鈥 is written twice in that chapter: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), and: 鈥淭o establish a name for his brother in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:7). A different halakha is derived from each of these instances.

讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻注诐 讗讞转 讛讬讬谞讜 讬讜砖讘讬诐 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜讘讗转讛 讬讘诪讛 诇讞诇讜抓 讜讗诪专 诇谞讜 注谞讜 讻讜诇讻诐 讜讗诪专讜 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讞诇讜抓 讛谞注诇 讛讛讜讗 诪讜谞拽专讗 砖诪讜 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: But still, we also require the additional term 鈥渋n Israel鈥 for that which is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda said: Once we were sitting before Rabbi Tarfon and a yevama came to perform 岣litza. And Rabbi Tarfon said to us after the 岣litza: All of you should answer and say: The one whose shoe was removed, the one whose shoe was removed. This indicates that the phrase: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called in Israel鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), teaches that the matter must be announced and publicized throughout the nation. The Gemara answers: That halakha is not derived from the phrase 鈥渋n Israel.鈥 Rather, it is derived from: 鈥淎nd his name shall be called,鈥 which indicates that it must be announced that this is his name.

讜讘诪讬转转 讛讬讘诐 诪谞诇谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讛讬讗 讘讞谞拽 诪讬转转 讛讘注诇 诪转讬专转讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

搂 The mishna further teaches that a yevama is released from levirate marriage and may remarry through the death of the yavam. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that it is an a fortiori inference: If, with regard to a married woman, who is forbidden to other men by a prohibition punished with strangulation, and yet the death of her husband renders her permitted, is it not all the more so that with regard to a yevama, who is forbidden to other men while the yavam is alive by only a mere prohibition, that the death of the yavam should render her permitted?

诪讛 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讻谉 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 转讗诪专 讘讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讛讗 谞诪讬 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this a fortiori inference: What is unique about a married woman is that she can leave through a bill of divorce as well. Will you say the same with regard to this yevama, who does not leave through a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: This is an insufficient refutation of the a fortiori inference, as this yevama also leaves through 岣litza, which serves the same function as a bill of divorce.

讗诇讗 诪讛 诇讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讻谉 讗讜住专讛 诪转讬专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 讗讜住专讛 诪转讬专讛 讬讘诐 讗讜住专讛 讬讘诐 砖专讬 诇讛

Rather, one can challenge this a fortiori inference in the following manner. What is unique about a married woman is that the one who renders her forbidden to everyone else, i.e., her husband, also renders her permitted when he dies. This is not so with regard to a yevama, as she is rendered forbidden upon the death of her husband. Rav Ashi said: With regard to this yevama as well, he who renders her forbidden is also the one who renders her permitted: The yavam renders her forbidden, because if he was not alive she would automatically be permitted to other men. Likewise, the yavam renders her permitted through 岣litza.

讜转讛讗 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讬讘诪讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讝讜 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 住驻专 讻专讬转转 住驻专 讻讜专转讛 讜讗讬谉 讚讘专 讗讞专 讻讜专转讛

The Gemara asks: And let a married woman leave a marriage through 岣litza, as derived by an a fortiori inference: If a yevama, who cannot leave through a bill of divorce, can leave through 岣litza, is it not logical that this married woman, who can leave through a bill of divorce, can likewise leave through 岣litza? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to a married woman: 鈥淎 scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3), which indicates that a scroll, i.e., a written document, severs her from her husband and nothing else severs her from him. While the husband is alive only a bill of divorce can dissolve a marriage.

讜转讛讗 讬讘诪讛 讬讜爪讗转 讘讙讟 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讗砖转 讗讬砖 砖讗讬谉 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讝讜 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讞诇讬爪讛 讗讬谉 讚讬谉 砖讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讻讛 讜讻讻讛 注讬讻讜讘讗

The Gemara further asks: And let a yevama leave through a bill of divorce, as derived by an a fortiori inference: If a married woman, who cannot leave through 岣litza, can leave through a bill of divorce, is it not logical that this yevama, who can leave through 岣litza, can also leave through a bill of divorce? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淪o shall it be done to the man鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9), with regard to the 岣litza of a yevama, and 鈥渟o鈥 precludes another option.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讬讻讜讘讗 诇讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讙讜专诇 讜讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And is it true that anywhere that there is a term that precludes another option one cannot learn an a fortiori inference? But there is the case of the designation of the goats on Yom Kippur, as it is written: 鈥淭he goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 16:9), and: 鈥淭his shall be an everlasting statute to you鈥 (Leviticus 16:34), which indicates that everything stated with regard to the mitzvot of Yom Kippur is critical to the performance of the service of the day.

讜转谞讬讗 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转

And it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: 鈥淎aron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, and he shall offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9). The verse indicates that the lottery renders it a sin-offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not render it a sin-offering.

砖讬讻讜诇 讜讛诇讗 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 拽讬讚砖 讛砖诐 诪拽讜诐 砖拽讬讚砖 讛讙讜专诇 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讚砖 讛砖诐

The baraita continues: A verse is necessary to teach this halakha, as one might have thought that the opposite conclusion is correct: Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference, as follows: Just as in a case in which the use of a lottery does not effect the consecration of the animals with a specific designation, e.g., with regard to a woman who has given birth and must bring two birds, one as a sin-offering and one as a burnt-offering, and nevertheless a verbal designation of the animals with the required status does effect the consecration of them, so too, in a case in which the use of a lottery does effect the consecration of the animals, is it not logically right that a verbal designation of the animals with the required status should effect the consecration of them?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜注砖讛讜 讞讟讗转 讛讙讜专诇 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗讬谉 讛砖诐 注讜砖讛 讞讟讗转 讜讟注诪讗 讚诪注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讚专砖讬谞谉 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讞讜拽讛

To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to the goat: 鈥淗e shall offer it for a sin-offering鈥 (Leviticus 16:9), to indicate that the lottery renders it a sin-offering, but a verbal designation of the goat with the status of a sin-offering does not render it a sin-offering. And the reason that a verbal designation is ineffective is that the verse excluded this possibility, from which it may be inferred that if it were not so, one would learn an a fortiori inference, even though it is written with regard to it 鈥渟tatute.鈥 The same logic should apply in the case of 岣litza, i.e., the term 鈥渟o鈥 should not prevent one from learning an a fortiori inference, and therefore it might be argued that a yevama can be released through a bill of divorce.

讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讛 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讘诪讛 讜讗讬诪讗 诇讛 诇砖诪讛

Rather, the Gemara explains that here too, there is a limitation derived from a verse. The verse states with regard to a bill of divorce: 鈥淎nd write for her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:3). 鈥淔or her鈥 is a limitation, which teaches: A bill of divorce is effective for a regular woman but not for a yevama. The Gemara asks: But one can say that the phrase 鈥渇or her鈥 indicates that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake.

转专讬 诇讛 讻转讬讘讬 讜讗讻转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讞讚 诇讛 诇砖诪讛 讜讗讬讚讱 诇讛 讜诇讗 诇讛 讜诇讞讘讬专转讛

The Gemara answers: 鈥淔or her鈥 is written twice (Deuteronomy 24:1, 3), and therefore both halakhot can be derived. The Gemara asks: And still, one instance of: 鈥淔or her鈥 is required to teach that the bill of divorce must be written for her sake, and the other 鈥渇or her鈥 is needed to teach: For her and not both for her and for another, i.e., her rival wife. One bill of divorce cannot be used for two women.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞注诇 谞注诇 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different explanation as to why a bill of divorce is ineffective for a yevama. With regard to a yevama the verse states: 鈥淭he house of him who had his shoe removed鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:10), which teaches: If she is released by the 岣litza of the shoe, yes, she is released from the yavam, but if she was released by means of something else, no, she is not released.

讜讛讗讬 谞注诇 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞注诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞注诇讜 谞注诇 砖诇 讻诇 讗讚诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But this term 鈥渟hoe,鈥 does it come to teach this? It is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse said: 鈥淎nd remove his shoe鈥 (Deuteronomy 25:9). I have derived only that his shoe may be used. From where do I derive that the shoe of any person may also be used for 岣litza?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞注诇 谞注诇 专讬讘讛 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞注诇讜 谞注诇讜 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 驻专讟 诇讙讚讜诇 砖讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诇讱 讘讜 驻专讟 诇拽讟谉 砖讗讬谉 讞讜驻讛 讗转 专讜讘 专讙诇讜 驻专讟

The verse states 鈥渟hoe,鈥 and states again in the next verse 鈥渟hoe,鈥 which includes any other shoe. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渉is shoe,鈥 which is apparently referring to the shoe of that particular man? This teaches that it must be his shoe that is fit for him, excluding a shoe so large that he cannot walk in it, and excluding a shoe so small that it does not cover most of his foot, and excluding

诇诪住讜诇讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 注拽讘 讗诐 讻谉 谞讬讻转讜讘 拽专讗 谞注诇 诪讗讬 讛谞注诇 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

sandals [mesulayim] that have no heels, which do not qualify as shoes. The Gemara answers: If so, that the term is stated only for that purpose, let the verse write 鈥渟hoe.鈥 What is the meaning of 鈥渢he shoe鈥? Learn the two previously stated conclusions from it.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜拽讜谞讛 注爪诪讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 砖拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讛谞专爪注 谞拽谞讛 讘专爪讬注讛 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉

MISHNA: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document, and he can acquire himself, i.e., he is emancipated, through years, i.e., when he completes his six years of labor, or through the advent of the Jubilee Year, or through the deduction of money. The slave can redeem himself during the six years by paying for his remaining years of slavery. A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. A slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl, and he acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year or through the death of the master.

讙诪壮 注讘讚 注讘专讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讗砖讻讞谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻诇 拽谞讬谞讜 讘讻住祝

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be acquired through money. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which teaches that he can be acquired through money. The Gemara asks: We found that a Hebrew slave who is sold to a gentile is acquired with money, which is the case discussed in that verse, but this proves nothing with regard to a Jew sold to a Jew. One could argue that since all of the acquisitions of a gentile are performed only with money, he can likewise purchase a Hebrew slave with money.

谞诪讻专 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注转 驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛

But from where do we derive that a Hebrew slave can be sold to a Jew with money? The Gemara explains that with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, the verse states: 鈥淭hen he shall let her be redeemed鈥 (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that if she acquires money and wishes to be emancipated before her time is complete, she deducts a sum from her redemption. The maidservant can deduct the value of time served from her purchase price and pay the remaining amount, and she then is emancipated. This teaches that a Hebrew maidservant is acquired through money, a halakha that applies to a male slave as well.

讗砖讻讞谉 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讬拽讚砖讛 讘讻住祝 诪讬拽谞讬讗 讘讻住祝 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讬诪讻专 诇讱 讗讞讬讱 讛注讘专讬 讗讜 讛注讘专讬讛 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诪拽讬砖 注讘专讬 诇注讘专讬讛

The Gemara asks: Although we found this halakha with regard to a Hebrew maidservant, one cannot extrapolate from there to this case, as it is possible that it applies only to a female. The reason for this is that since she is ordinarily betrothed through money, she can also be acquired as a maidservant through money. From where do we derive that a Hebrew slave can likewise be acquired through money? The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淚f your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman is sold to you, and he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). This verse juxtaposes a Hebrew man to a Hebrew woman, indicating that the modes through which they are acquired are the same.

讗砖讻讞谉 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞诪讻专 讘注诇 讻讜专讞讜 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 诪谞诇谉

The Gemara further asks: We found a source in this verse for a slave who is sold by the court. This verse is referring to a thief who is unable to repay the value of his theft and is sold as a slave so that he can repay his debt. One can therefore argue that this case is unique, since he is sold against his will. From where do we derive that one who sells himself can be sold through money?

讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara answers: One derives this through a verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker.鈥 This term appears both with regard to one who sells himself: 鈥淎s a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you鈥 (Leviticus 25:40), and with regard to one who is sold by the court: 鈥淔or double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:18). The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who derives this verbal analogy between the terms 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker.鈥 But according to the one who does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 what can be said? From where does he derive that one who sells himself may be purchased with money?

讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讻讬 转砖讬讙 诪讜住祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉

The Gemara answers: The verse states at the start of the passage dealing with one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich鈥 (Leviticus 25:47). The conjunction 鈥渁nd鈥 serves to add to the first matter, i.e., the passage discussing one who sells himself to a Jew, as it joins the two issues. And therefore let the above case of one who sells himself to a Jew be derived from the case below of one who is sold to a gentile: Just as one who is sold to a gentile can be acquired with money, so too, one who sells himself to a Jew can be acquired with money.

讜诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 谞诪讻专 诇砖砖 讜讬转专 注诇 砖砖 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讗诇讗 诇砖砖

The Gemara comments: And who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker鈥? It is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita: One who sells himself as a slave is sold for six years, and if he wishes he can be sold for more than six years, whereas one who is sold by the court is sold only for six years, but no more.

讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 谞专爪注 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讛诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转

The baraita adds that there are additional differences between these two slaves: One who sells himself may not be pierced with an awl, whereas one who is sold by the court may be pierced with an awl. One who sells himself is not granted a severance gift by his master when he is emancipated, whereas one who is sold by the court is granted a severance gift. With regard to one who sells himself, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant as a wife to produce slave children, whereas with regard to one sold by the court, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讝讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 谞诪讻专 讗诇讗 诇砖砖 讝讛 讜讝讛 谞专爪注 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讜讝讛 讜讝讛 专讘讜 诪讜住专 诇讜 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专

Rabbi Elazar says that there is no difference between these two types of slaves. Rather, both this slave and that slave may be sold for only six years; both this and that one may be pierced with an awl, both this and that one are granted a severance gift, and in both this case and that case his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. What, is it not the case that they disagree with regard to this, that the first tanna does not derive the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and Rabbi Elazar derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker鈥? If one holds that the two cases are juxtaposed, one will equate the halakhot of both slaves. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, in contrast to the opinion of the first tanna, who holds that the halakhot of each type of slave are discrete.

讗诪专 专讘 讟讘讬讜诪讬 诪砖诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬诇讬祝 砖讻讬专 砖讻讬专 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗讬 拽专讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 谞诪讻专 诇砖砖 讜讬转专 注诇 砖砖 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讝讛 讜诇讗 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜

Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye: That is not so; rather, everyone derives the verbal analogy between 鈥渉ired worker鈥 and 鈥渉ired worker,鈥 and here, in the dispute in the baraita, they disagree about this following verse. What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself is sold for six years and more than six years? He maintains that with regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: 鈥淚f your brother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, is sold to you, and he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). That teaches that only this type of slave serves for six years and no more, but the same does not apply to one who sells himself. If he so stipulates, he may serve for more than six years.

讜讗讬讚讱 讜注讘讚讱 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖

The Gemara explains: And the other, Rabbi Elazar, learns a different halakha from this verse. 鈥淎nd he shall serve you鈥 means that he works for you and not for an heir other than a son. If a master has no sons, his slave is not transferred as an inheritance to a daughter or to a brother like his other property. If he does have sons, they inherit a Hebrew slave.

讜讗讬讚讱 讜注讘讚讱 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诇讛专爪讗转 讗讚讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And the other, the first tanna, from where does he derive that a slave is not transferred as an inheritance? The Gemara answers that the phrase, 鈥淎nd he shall serve you,鈥 is written another time, and he derives this halakha from there. The Gemara asks: And the other, Rabbi Elazar, what does he do with that other verse? The Gemara answers: In his opinion that verse comes to appease the master. The verse emphasizes that the servitude is of limited duration to encourage the master to free the slave without hesitation.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 诪讚诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 诪讻专讜讛讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注 讗讝谞讜 砖诇讜 讜诇讗 讗讝谞讜 砖诇 诪讜讻专 注爪诪讜

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one who sells himself is not pierced with an awl? The Gemara answers: He derives this from the fact that with regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl鈥 (Exodus 21:6), which teaches: His ear, of this slave, and not the ear of a slave who sells himself.

Scroll To Top