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

Daf Yomi

August 28, 2023 | י״א באלול תשפ״ג

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities. 

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 15

This week’s learning is sponsored by Joshua Schor in honor of Lori Schuldiner Schor on their double Chai 36th anniversary last week. “Lori is my eternal teacher in “Darchei Noam” all ways pleasant and good. Her generosity and dedication to learning are models for me and our growing family. Lots of love.”

Who is the tana who doesn’t hold by the gezeira shava of sakhir sakhir? The Gemara brings three different tannaitic sources to find a tana that matches this opinion, but each one is rejected as alternative explanations are suggested. In the context of these sources, the sages are grappling with which laws mentioned in the verses about Jewish slaves apply to which category of Jewish slave.

ואידך ההיא לגזירה שוה הוא דאתא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר מנין לרציעה שהיא באזן ימנית נאמר כאן אזן ונאמר להלן אזן מה להלן ימין אף כאן ימין


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would say: That term, “his ear,” comes for a verbal analogy. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the piercing of a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl is performed on the right ear? It is stated: Ear, here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, and it is stated there, with regard to the ritual purification of a leper: “The right ear of he who is to be purified” (Leviticus 14:14). Just as there, with regard to a leper, it specifies the right ear explicitly, so too here, the piercing of a slave must be performed on the right ear.


ואידך אם כן לימא קרא אזן מאי אזנו


The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive that this piercing can be performed only on the right ear? The Gemara answers: He would argue that if it is so that the word “ear” is stated only for the sake of the verbal analogy, let the verse say merely: Ear, and one would learn the halakha through a verbal analogy from the case of the leper’s ear. What is the reason that it states “his ear”? This serves to teach that one who sells himself may not be pierced.


ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה אזנו ולא אזנה ואידך נפקא לה מואם יאמר העבד העבד ולא אמה


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would answer: That formulation is necessary to teach that the mitzva of piercing applies to “his ear” but not her ear. He learns from the pronoun that piercing may be performed only on a male slave, not a maidservant. The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “But if the slave shall say” (Exodus 21:5). This indicates that piercing applies to the slave but not to a maidservant.


ואידך מיבעי ליה עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, who does not derive this ruling in the same manner as the first tanna, requires this verse for a different halakha: A slave may declare that he wishes to be pierced provided that he says this when he is still a slave. After he has been emancipated, he can no longer say that he wishes to remain with his master.


ואידך מעבד העבד נפקא ואידך עבד העבד לא דריש


The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, learn this halakha? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the terms: Slave, and “the slave.” If the verse had stated only: Slave, one would have learned that a slave may say this only while still a slave. Since it is actually written “the slave,” this teaches the other halakha as well, that a slave may be pierced but a maidservant may not. The Gemara comments: And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, does not learn a halakha from this slight difference between: Slave, and “the slave.”


מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אין מעניקין לו מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו בית דין העניק תעניק לו לו ולא למוכר עצמו


The Gemara clarifies additional details with regard to this dispute: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one does not grant a severance gift to one who sells himself? With regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: “You shall give a severance gift to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14). “To him” means to one who is sold by the court, but not to one who sells himself.


ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לו ולא ליורשיו יורשיו אמאי לא שכיר קרייה רחמנא מה שכיר פעולתו ליורשיו אף האי פעולתו ליורשיו אלא לו ולא לבעל חובו


The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach the following: “To him” means that one grants a severance gift only to the slave himself but not to his heirs. The Gemara asks: Why not give this gift to his heirs? After all, the Merciful One calls a Hebrew slave “a hired worker.” Just as payment for the labor of a hired worker is given to his heirs when he dies, so too this severance gift for his labor should be given to his heirs when he dies. Rather, this verse teaches “to him,” but not to the slave’s creditor. One to whom the slave owes money may not collect the slave’s severance gift as repayment of the debt.


מדסבירא לן בעלמא כרבי נתן דתניא אמר רבי נתן מנין לנושה בחברו מנה וחברו בחברו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה תלמוד לומר ונתן לאשר אשם לו


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to emphasize that a creditor has no rights to the severance gift? That is necessary due to the fact that we generally hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who lends one hundred dinars to another, and the other lends a similar sum to yet another, a third person, from where is it derived that the court appropriates the money from this one, the third person, and gives it to that one, the first creditor, without going through the second person, who owes money to the first and is owed that same amount by the third? The verse states: “And he shall give it to him whom he has wronged” (Numbers 5:7), which indicates that the loan should be repaid to the creditor to whom the money is ultimately owed.


אתא לו לאפוקי ואידך בעלמא נמי לא סבירא לן כרבי נתן


Therefore, the term “to him” comes to exclude this possibility, as the severance gift is given to the slave and not to his creditor. And how does the other Sage, the first tanna, respond to this claim? He maintains that we generally do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. Consequently, this exposition is unnecessary.


מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו בית דין אם אדניו יתן לו אשה לו ולא למוכר עצמו ואידך לו בעל כרחו


The Gemara continues to ask: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that if one sells himself his master does not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant? The Gemara answers: With regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: “If his master give to him a wife” (Exodus 21:4). This serves to emphasize “to him” but not to one who sells himself. And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, explains: “To him” means even against his will.


ואידך מכי משנה שכר שכיר נפקא דתניא כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שכיר אינו עובד אלא ביום עבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה


And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive that the slave must remain with this maidservant against his will? He derives it from the verse: “For double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you” (Deuteronomy 15:18). As it is taught in a baraita that this verse: “For double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you,” indicates that a hired worker works only during the day, whereas a Hebrew slave works both during the day and at night.


וכי תעלה על דעתך שעבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה והלא כבר נאמר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה ואמר רבי יצחק מכאן שרבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית


The Gemara clarifies: And can it enter your mind that a Hebrew slave actually works both during the day and at night? But isn’t it already stated: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that he must be with you in food and with you in drink? All of the slave’s needs must be fulfilled, and his living conditions must be equal to those of the master himself. If so, he cannot be forced to work under unreasonable conditions. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says in explanation of this halakha: From here it is derived that his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant against his will to produce children for the master. This is the service he performs at night.


ואידך אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי מדעתיה אבל בעל כרחו אימא לא קא משמע לן


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would say that this is no proof, because if it is derived from there alone I would say: This matter applies only with his consent; but as for his master forcing him to live with a maidservant against his will, I would say no, he cannot do this. Therefore, the term “to him” teaches us that the master can even provide him with a Canaanite maidservant against his will.


אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר האי תנא הוא דתניא ושב אל משפחתו וגו׳ אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור


§ According to the above explanation, both Rabbi Elazar and the first tanna accept the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.” Rather, who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker”? It is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita as follows with regard to the verse: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year, then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family and to the possession of his fathers he shall return” (Leviticus 25:40–41). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: What is the verse speaking of when it states: “And shall return to his own family”? If it is speaking of one who sold himself and the Jubilee Year arrived during his six years of slavery, this is already stated: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year, then he shall go out from you” (Leviticus 25:40).


אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא במכרוהו בית דין שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו ואי סלקא דעתך יליף שכיר שכיר למה לי נילף שכיר שכיר


If it is speaking of a pierced slave, it is already stated, as will be explained. It must be that the verse is speaking of nothing other than a man sold by the court two or three years before the Jubilee Year, and it teaches that the Jubilee Year releases him from slavery. The Gemara analyzes this opinion: And if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” why do I need this verse? Let him derive that a man sold by the court is released in the Jubilee Year by the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” from the case of one who sold himself.


אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מוכר עצמו הוא דלא עבד איסורא אבל מכרוהו בית דין דעבד איסורא אימא ניקנסיה קא משמע לן


Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this claim can be refuted: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker” as well, and even so it was necessary for him to learn that halakha from a verse. The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that one who sells himself, who did not commit a transgression, is emancipated at the onset of the Jubilee Year even if six years have not passed, but with regard to one sold by the court, who did commit a transgression, as he was sold because he was unable to repay the value of his theft, one might say that we should penalize him and therefore he should not be emancipated in the Jubilee Year. Consequently, the verse teaches us that even this slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year.


אמר מר אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור מאי היא דתניא ושבתם איש אל אחזתו ואיש אל משפחתו וגו׳ במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור


The Master said earlier, in the baraita: If it is speaking about a pierced slave, it is already stated. The Gemara asks: What is the verse that teaches that a pierced slave is released in the Jubilee Year? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And you shall return, each man to his land, and you shall return, each man to his family” (Leviticus 25:10). What is the verse speaking of? If it is speaking of one who sells himself, it is already stated: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:40).


אי במכרוהו בית דין הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנרצע שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו מאי משמע אמר רבא בר שילא אמר קרא איש איזהו דבר שנוהג באיש ואין נוהג באשה הוי אומר זו רציעה


If it is speaking of one who was sold by the court, it is already stated: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41). It must be that the verse is speaking of nothing other than a slave who is pierced two or three years before the Jubilee Year, and that the Jubilee Year releases him. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the verse is specifically referring to a pierced slave? Rava bar Sheila said that the verse states “man.” What matter applies to a man and does not apply to a woman? You must say that this is piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl.


ואיצטריך למיכתב מכרוהו בית דין ואיצטריך למיכתב נרצע דאי אשמעינן מכרוהו בית דין משום דלא מטאי זמניה אבל נרצע דמטאי זמניה אימא ניקנסיה


The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the Torah to write that one sold by the court leaves in the Jubilee Year, and it was also necessary to write the same with regard to a pierced slave, as neither case can be derived from the other. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the Torah had informed us only about one who was sold by the court, one might say that the Jubilee Year releases him because his time had not come to be freed. But with regard to a pierced slave, whose time had come but he did not wish to be freed, one might say that we should penalize him and he should remain a permanent slave.


ואי אשמעינן נרצע משום דעבד ליה שש אבל מכרוהו בית דין דלא עבד ליה שש אימא לא צריכא


And conversely, if the Torah had informed us only about a pierced slave, one might say that the Jubilee Year releases him because he has served the master for six years, as required, but with regard to one who was sold by the court, who has not yet served his master for six years, one might say that he should not be freed in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to state this halakha with regard to both cases.


ואיצטריך למיכתב ושבתם ואיצטריך למיכתב לעולם דאי כתב רחמנא לעולם הוה אמינא לעולם ממש כתב רחמנא ושבתם


And likewise, it was necessary for the Torah to write with regard to the release of a pierced slave in the Jubilee Year: “And you shall return, each man to his land” (Leviticus 25:10), and it was necessary to write as well: “And he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6), which is interpreted by the Sages as referring to until the Jubilee Year. As, if the Merciful One had written only “forever,” I would say that this actually means forever, i.e., for his entire life. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And you shall return.”


ואי כתב רחמנא ושבתם הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא עבד שש אבל היכא דעבד שש לא יהא סופו חמור מתחלתו מה תחלתו שש אף סופו נמי שש קמשמע לן לעולם לעולמו של יובל


And if the Merciful One had written only “and you shall return,” I would say that this statement applies only where he did not serve six years after being pierced; but in a case where he did serve six years after he was pierced, one might argue as follows: His final stage, after he is pierced, should not be stricter than his initial stage, when he was first sold: Just as after his initial stage he serves only six years, so too in his final stage he serves only six years and no longer. Therefore, the verse teaches us “forever,” which means forever until the Jubilee Year, even if the Jubilee Year arrives many years later. In any case, with regard to the issue at hand there is no proof that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.”


אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר רבי היא דתניא


Rather, who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker”? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita:


ואם לא יגאל באלה רבי אומר באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש


A Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can be redeemed by his relatives, as it is stated: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these, then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:54). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He can be redeemed only through these, i.e., the assistance of his relatives, and he is not redeemed after six years of labor.


שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש זה שנגאל באלה אינו דין שנגאל בשש תלמוד לומר באלה באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elaborates: As I might have argued that one sold to a gentile should be released after six years. Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who cannot be redeemed by these relatives, i.e., a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew, as he cannot be redeemed by his relatives, nevertheless is redeemed after six years of labor, is it not logical that this Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, who can be redeemed by these relatives, can likewise be redeemed after six years of work? Therefore, the verse states “by any of these,” to emphasize that one sold to a gentile can be redeemed only through these relatives, and he cannot be redeemed after six years.


ואי סלקא דעתך יליף שכיר שכיר אמאי קאמר ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נילף שכיר שכיר


The Gemara explains the proof: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” why does he say: If one who cannot be redeemed by these, with regard to one who is sold to a Jew? Let him derive that halakha from the case of one sold to a gentile, through the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.” The term “hired worker” is used in reference to one sold to a gentile as well: “As a hired worker year by year he shall be with him” (Leviticus 25:53), and accordingly one can say that even one sold to a Jew can be redeemed by his relatives. The fact that he does not accept this claim indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rejects the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.”


אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ושאני הכא דאמר קרא יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר


Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This proof can be refuted, as one can say that actually Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” and it is different here, with regard to one sold to a gentile, as the verse states: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:49). This emphasis of “him” teaches that redemption is an option only for this slave and not for another type of slave.


ומאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא דתניא לא יגאל באלה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר באלה לשחרור בשאר כל אדם לשעבוד רבי עקיבא אומר באלה לשעבוד בשאר כל אדם לשחרור


With regard to the dispute itself the Gemara inquires: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to this? It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these” (Leviticus 25:54), that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The expression “by any of these” indicates that redemption by one’s relatives is to freedom, i.e., one becomes an entirely free man. But if a slave is redeemed by anyone else who pays the gentile master, it is to slavery. The redeemed slave becomes indentured to his redeemer until he repays the cost of his redemption through his work. Rabbi Akiva says the opposite: By these relatives he is redeemed to slavery, whereas if he is redeemed by anyone else, it is to freedom.


מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי הגלילי אמר קרא אם לא יגאל באלה אלא באחר ויצא בשנת היובל ורבי עקיבא אומר אם לא יגאל אלא באלה ויצא בשנת היובל ורבי יוסי הגלילי מידי אלא באלה כתיב


The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The verse states concerning a redeemed slave who is emancipated: “If he is not redeemed by any of these” relatives; but if he is redeemed by another, “then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year,” not earlier, as he becomes enslaved to him. And Rabbi Akiva says: “If he is not redeemed” in any other manner but only “by any of these,” “then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year,” i.e., if he is redeemed by relatives, he is emancipated only at the close of Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. By contrast, if he is redeemed by others he is emancipated immediately. And how does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili respond to this claim? He would ask: Is it written: Only by any of these?


אלא בהאי קרא קמיפלגי או דדו או בן דדו יגאלנו זה גאולת קרובים או השיגה ידו זה גאולת עצמו ונגאל זו גאולת אחרים


Rather, as this suggested interpretation of the verse by Rabbi Akiva is clearly problematic, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation of the dispute and instead says that they disagree with regard to the precise meaning of this verse: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him, or any that is near of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he becomes rich, and he is redeemed” (Leviticus 25:49). “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him”; this is the redemption performed by relatives. “Or if he becomes rich”; this is redemption by himself. “And he is redeemed”; this is redemption by other people.


רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר מקרא נדרש לפניו שדי גאולת קרובים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת קרובים לשחרור ורבי עקיבא סבר מקרא נדרש לאחריו שדי גאולת אחרים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת אחרים לשחרור


Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: A verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it. Therefore, one should cast, i.e., compare, the case of redemption performed by relatives to the case of redemption performed by himself: Just as redemption performed by himself leads to complete freedom, so too, redemption performed by relatives leads to freedom. And Rabbi Akiva maintains that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately after it. Therefore one should cast the case of redemption performed by others to the case of redemption performed by himself: Just as redemption performed by himself is to freedom, so too, redemption performed by others is to freedom, whereas if he is redeemed by his relatives, he becomes enslaved to them.


אי הכי באלה למה לי אי לאו באלה הוה אמינא מקרא נדרש בין לפניו בין לאחריו והכל לשחרור


The Gemara asks: If so, that this is their dispute, why do I need the phrase “by any of these,” according to both Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it were not for the phrase “by any of these,” I would say that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it as well as to the verse immediately after it, and therefore in every manner in which he is redeemed it is to freedom. The phrase “by any of these” limits this freedom either to relatives or other people, according to the respective opinions of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva.


אי הכי הדר קושיא לדוכתיה אלא בסברא קמיפלגי


The Gemara asks: If so, that the different opinions are based on the phrase “by any of these,” then the difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that the verse does not say: If he is not redeemed in any other manner but only by any of these, has returned to its place, i.e., it is still valid, as this phrase indicates that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s interpretation of the verse is correct. Rather, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to reason. Their dispute is a matter of logic and does not concern textual interpretation.


רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר מסתברא גאולת אחרים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור הוו מימנעי ולא פרקי ליה ורבי עקיבא סבר מסתברא גאולת קרובים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור כל יומא ויומא אזל ומזבין נפשיה


The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: It stands to reason that redemption performed by others is to slavery, as, if you say it is to freedom, they will refrain and will not redeem him. If the slave is required to serve them, and they incur no financial loss, they will redeem him. And Rabbi Akiva maintains: It stands to reason that redemption performed by relatives is to slavery, as, if you say it is to freedom, each and every day he will go and sell himself over and again, relying on his relatives to free him.


אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא אבל חכמים אומרים הכל לשחרור


Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, who hold that a slave is not invariably freed whenever he is redeemed from his gentile master. But the Rabbis say that in every case, when he is emancipated it is to freedom.


מאן חכמים רבי היא דמפיק ליה להאי באלה לדרשה אחרינא ומקרא נדרש בין לפניו ובין לאחריו


The Gemara inquires: Who are these Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who derives another exposition from this term “by any of these,” as stated above. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it as well as to the verse immediately after it. Consequently, the Hebrew slave of a gentile is emancipated regardless of whether he is redeemed by relatives or other people.


ורבי האי ויצא בשנת היבל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצא בשנת היובל


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with the verse: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these means, then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:54)? The Gemara answers: He requires this verse for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year.” If the slave is not redeemed prior to this point in time he leaves his gentile master only in the Jubilee Year.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities. 

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

On Second Thought (2)

Defining Slavery in the Torah – On Second Thought

The Laws and their Significance   Kiddushin 14-24 On Second thought Kiddushin 14-24 On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya...
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 10- 17 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the reasons behind each opinion for how much money needs to be given in order...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 15: Cross-generational Talmudic Debate

More on the gezerah shavah between "sachir" and "sachir," with regard to how this indentured fellow goes free - aside...

Kiddushin 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 15

ואידך ההיא לגזירה שוה הוא דאתא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר מנין לרציעה שהיא באזן ימנית נאמר כאן אזן ונאמר להלן אזן מה להלן ימין אף כאן ימין


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would say: That term, “his ear,” comes for a verbal analogy. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: From where is it derived that the piercing of a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl is performed on the right ear? It is stated: Ear, here, with regard to a Hebrew slave, and it is stated there, with regard to the ritual purification of a leper: “The right ear of he who is to be purified” (Leviticus 14:14). Just as there, with regard to a leper, it specifies the right ear explicitly, so too here, the piercing of a slave must be performed on the right ear.


ואידך אם כן לימא קרא אזן מאי אזנו


The Gemara asks: And how does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive that this piercing can be performed only on the right ear? The Gemara answers: He would argue that if it is so that the word “ear” is stated only for the sake of the verbal analogy, let the verse say merely: Ear, and one would learn the halakha through a verbal analogy from the case of the leper’s ear. What is the reason that it states “his ear”? This serves to teach that one who sells himself may not be pierced.


ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה אזנו ולא אזנה ואידך נפקא לה מואם יאמר העבד העבד ולא אמה


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would answer: That formulation is necessary to teach that the mitzva of piercing applies to “his ear” but not her ear. He learns from the pronoun that piercing may be performed only on a male slave, not a maidservant. The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse: “But if the slave shall say” (Exodus 21:5). This indicates that piercing applies to the slave but not to a maidservant.


ואידך מיבעי ליה עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, who does not derive this ruling in the same manner as the first tanna, requires this verse for a different halakha: A slave may declare that he wishes to be pierced provided that he says this when he is still a slave. After he has been emancipated, he can no longer say that he wishes to remain with his master.


ואידך מעבד העבד נפקא ואידך עבד העבד לא דריש


The Gemara asks: And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, learn this halakha? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the terms: Slave, and “the slave.” If the verse had stated only: Slave, one would have learned that a slave may say this only while still a slave. Since it is actually written “the slave,” this teaches the other halakha as well, that a slave may be pierced but a maidservant may not. The Gemara comments: And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, does not learn a halakha from this slight difference between: Slave, and “the slave.”


מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אין מעניקין לו מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו בית דין העניק תעניק לו לו ולא למוכר עצמו


The Gemara clarifies additional details with regard to this dispute: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that one does not grant a severance gift to one who sells himself? With regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: “You shall give a severance gift to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14). “To him” means to one who is sold by the court, but not to one who sells himself.


ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לו ולא ליורשיו יורשיו אמאי לא שכיר קרייה רחמנא מה שכיר פעולתו ליורשיו אף האי פעולתו ליורשיו אלא לו ולא לבעל חובו


The Gemara asks: And what does the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach the following: “To him” means that one grants a severance gift only to the slave himself but not to his heirs. The Gemara asks: Why not give this gift to his heirs? After all, the Merciful One calls a Hebrew slave “a hired worker.” Just as payment for the labor of a hired worker is given to his heirs when he dies, so too this severance gift for his labor should be given to his heirs when he dies. Rather, this verse teaches “to him,” but not to the slave’s creditor. One to whom the slave owes money may not collect the slave’s severance gift as repayment of the debt.


מדסבירא לן בעלמא כרבי נתן דתניא אמר רבי נתן מנין לנושה בחברו מנה וחברו בחברו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה תלמוד לומר ונתן לאשר אשם לו


The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to emphasize that a creditor has no rights to the severance gift? That is necessary due to the fact that we generally hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: From where is it derived that in the case of one who lends one hundred dinars to another, and the other lends a similar sum to yet another, a third person, from where is it derived that the court appropriates the money from this one, the third person, and gives it to that one, the first creditor, without going through the second person, who owes money to the first and is owed that same amount by the third? The verse states: “And he shall give it to him whom he has wronged” (Numbers 5:7), which indicates that the loan should be repaid to the creditor to whom the money is ultimately owed.


אתא לו לאפוקי ואידך בעלמא נמי לא סבירא לן כרבי נתן


Therefore, the term “to him” comes to exclude this possibility, as the severance gift is given to the slave and not to his creditor. And how does the other Sage, the first tanna, respond to this claim? He maintains that we generally do not hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan. Consequently, this exposition is unnecessary.


מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו בית דין אם אדניו יתן לו אשה לו ולא למוכר עצמו ואידך לו בעל כרחו


The Gemara continues to ask: What is the reasoning of the first tanna, who says that if one sells himself his master does not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant? The Gemara answers: With regard to one sold by the court, the Merciful One excludes a certain case by the verse: “If his master give to him a wife” (Exodus 21:4). This serves to emphasize “to him” but not to one who sells himself. And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, explains: “To him” means even against his will.


ואידך מכי משנה שכר שכיר נפקא דתניא כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שכיר אינו עובד אלא ביום עבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה


And from where does the other Sage, the first tanna, derive that the slave must remain with this maidservant against his will? He derives it from the verse: “For double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you” (Deuteronomy 15:18). As it is taught in a baraita that this verse: “For double of the hire of a hired worker he has served you,” indicates that a hired worker works only during the day, whereas a Hebrew slave works both during the day and at night.


וכי תעלה על דעתך שעבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה והלא כבר נאמר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה ואמר רבי יצחק מכאן שרבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית


The Gemara clarifies: And can it enter your mind that a Hebrew slave actually works both during the day and at night? But isn’t it already stated: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that he must be with you in food and with you in drink? All of the slave’s needs must be fulfilled, and his living conditions must be equal to those of the master himself. If so, he cannot be forced to work under unreasonable conditions. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says in explanation of this halakha: From here it is derived that his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant against his will to produce children for the master. This is the service he performs at night.


ואידך אי מהתם הוה אמינא הני מילי מדעתיה אבל בעל כרחו אימא לא קא משמע לן


And the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, would say that this is no proof, because if it is derived from there alone I would say: This matter applies only with his consent; but as for his master forcing him to live with a maidservant against his will, I would say no, he cannot do this. Therefore, the term “to him” teaches us that the master can even provide him with a Canaanite maidservant against his will.


אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר האי תנא הוא דתניא ושב אל משפחתו וגו׳ אמר רבי אליעזר בן יעקב במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור


§ According to the above explanation, both Rabbi Elazar and the first tanna accept the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.” Rather, who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker”? It is this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita as follows with regard to the verse: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year, then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family and to the possession of his fathers he shall return” (Leviticus 25:40–41). Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: What is the verse speaking of when it states: “And shall return to his own family”? If it is speaking of one who sold himself and the Jubilee Year arrived during his six years of slavery, this is already stated: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year, then he shall go out from you” (Leviticus 25:40).


אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא במכרוהו בית דין שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו ואי סלקא דעתך יליף שכיר שכיר למה לי נילף שכיר שכיר


If it is speaking of a pierced slave, it is already stated, as will be explained. It must be that the verse is speaking of nothing other than a man sold by the court two or three years before the Jubilee Year, and it teaches that the Jubilee Year releases him from slavery. The Gemara analyzes this opinion: And if it would enter your mind that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” why do I need this verse? Let him derive that a man sold by the court is released in the Jubilee Year by the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” from the case of one who sold himself.


אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ואיצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא מוכר עצמו הוא דלא עבד איסורא אבל מכרוהו בית דין דעבד איסורא אימא ניקנסיה קא משמע לן


Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this claim can be refuted: Actually, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker” as well, and even so it was necessary for him to learn that halakha from a verse. The reason is that it might enter your mind to say that one who sells himself, who did not commit a transgression, is emancipated at the onset of the Jubilee Year even if six years have not passed, but with regard to one sold by the court, who did commit a transgression, as he was sold because he was unable to repay the value of his theft, one might say that we should penalize him and therefore he should not be emancipated in the Jubilee Year. Consequently, the verse teaches us that even this slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year.


אמר מר אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור מאי היא דתניא ושבתם איש אל אחזתו ואיש אל משפחתו וגו׳ במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור


The Master said earlier, in the baraita: If it is speaking about a pierced slave, it is already stated. The Gemara asks: What is the verse that teaches that a pierced slave is released in the Jubilee Year? As it is taught in a baraita that the verse states: “And you shall return, each man to his land, and you shall return, each man to his family” (Leviticus 25:10). What is the verse speaking of? If it is speaking of one who sells himself, it is already stated: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:40).


אי במכרוהו בית דין הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנרצע שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו מאי משמע אמר רבא בר שילא אמר קרא איש איזהו דבר שנוהג באיש ואין נוהג באשה הוי אומר זו רציעה


If it is speaking of one who was sold by the court, it is already stated: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41). It must be that the verse is speaking of nothing other than a slave who is pierced two or three years before the Jubilee Year, and that the Jubilee Year releases him. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that the verse is specifically referring to a pierced slave? Rava bar Sheila said that the verse states “man.” What matter applies to a man and does not apply to a woman? You must say that this is piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl.


ואיצטריך למיכתב מכרוהו בית דין ואיצטריך למיכתב נרצע דאי אשמעינן מכרוהו בית דין משום דלא מטאי זמניה אבל נרצע דמטאי זמניה אימא ניקנסיה


The Gemara comments: And it was necessary for the Torah to write that one sold by the court leaves in the Jubilee Year, and it was also necessary to write the same with regard to a pierced slave, as neither case can be derived from the other. The Gemara elaborates: As, if the Torah had informed us only about one who was sold by the court, one might say that the Jubilee Year releases him because his time had not come to be freed. But with regard to a pierced slave, whose time had come but he did not wish to be freed, one might say that we should penalize him and he should remain a permanent slave.


ואי אשמעינן נרצע משום דעבד ליה שש אבל מכרוהו בית דין דלא עבד ליה שש אימא לא צריכא


And conversely, if the Torah had informed us only about a pierced slave, one might say that the Jubilee Year releases him because he has served the master for six years, as required, but with regard to one who was sold by the court, who has not yet served his master for six years, one might say that he should not be freed in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, it was necessary for the Torah to state this halakha with regard to both cases.


ואיצטריך למיכתב ושבתם ואיצטריך למיכתב לעולם דאי כתב רחמנא לעולם הוה אמינא לעולם ממש כתב רחמנא ושבתם


And likewise, it was necessary for the Torah to write with regard to the release of a pierced slave in the Jubilee Year: “And you shall return, each man to his land” (Leviticus 25:10), and it was necessary to write as well: “And he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6), which is interpreted by the Sages as referring to until the Jubilee Year. As, if the Merciful One had written only “forever,” I would say that this actually means forever, i.e., for his entire life. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “And you shall return.”


ואי כתב רחמנא ושבתם הוה אמינא הני מילי היכא דלא עבד שש אבל היכא דעבד שש לא יהא סופו חמור מתחלתו מה תחלתו שש אף סופו נמי שש קמשמע לן לעולם לעולמו של יובל


And if the Merciful One had written only “and you shall return,” I would say that this statement applies only where he did not serve six years after being pierced; but in a case where he did serve six years after he was pierced, one might argue as follows: His final stage, after he is pierced, should not be stricter than his initial stage, when he was first sold: Just as after his initial stage he serves only six years, so too in his final stage he serves only six years and no longer. Therefore, the verse teaches us “forever,” which means forever until the Jubilee Year, even if the Jubilee Year arrives many years later. In any case, with regard to the issue at hand there is no proof that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.”


אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר רבי היא דתניא


Rather, who is the tanna who does not derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker”? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita:


ואם לא יגאל באלה רבי אומר באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש


A Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can be redeemed by his relatives, as it is stated: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these, then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:54). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He can be redeemed only through these, i.e., the assistance of his relatives, and he is not redeemed after six years of labor.


שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נגאל בשש זה שנגאל באלה אינו דין שנגאל בשש תלמוד לומר באלה באלה הוא נגאל ואין נגאל בשש


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elaborates: As I might have argued that one sold to a gentile should be released after six years. Could this not be derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who cannot be redeemed by these relatives, i.e., a Hebrew slave who was sold to a Jew, as he cannot be redeemed by his relatives, nevertheless is redeemed after six years of labor, is it not logical that this Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, who can be redeemed by these relatives, can likewise be redeemed after six years of work? Therefore, the verse states “by any of these,” to emphasize that one sold to a gentile can be redeemed only through these relatives, and he cannot be redeemed after six years.


ואי סלקא דעתך יליף שכיר שכיר אמאי קאמר ומה מי שאינו נגאל באלה נילף שכיר שכיר


The Gemara explains the proof: And if it enters your mind that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” why does he say: If one who cannot be redeemed by these, with regard to one who is sold to a Jew? Let him derive that halakha from the case of one sold to a gentile, through the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.” The term “hired worker” is used in reference to one sold to a gentile as well: “As a hired worker year by year he shall be with him” (Leviticus 25:53), and accordingly one can say that even one sold to a Jew can be redeemed by his relatives. The fact that he does not accept this claim indicates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi rejects the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker.”


אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ושאני הכא דאמר קרא יגאלנו לזה ולא לאחר


Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This proof can be refuted, as one can say that actually Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi does derive the verbal analogy between “hired worker” and “hired worker,” and it is different here, with regard to one sold to a gentile, as the verse states: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:49). This emphasis of “him” teaches that redemption is an option only for this slave and not for another type of slave.


ומאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא דתניא לא יגאל באלה רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר באלה לשחרור בשאר כל אדם לשעבוד רבי עקיבא אומר באלה לשעבוד בשאר כל אדם לשחרור


With regard to the dispute itself the Gemara inquires: And who is the tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi with regard to this? It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva. As it is taught in a baraita concerning the verse: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these” (Leviticus 25:54), that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The expression “by any of these” indicates that redemption by one’s relatives is to freedom, i.e., one becomes an entirely free man. But if a slave is redeemed by anyone else who pays the gentile master, it is to slavery. The redeemed slave becomes indentured to his redeemer until he repays the cost of his redemption through his work. Rabbi Akiva says the opposite: By these relatives he is redeemed to slavery, whereas if he is redeemed by anyone else, it is to freedom.


מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי הגלילי אמר קרא אם לא יגאל באלה אלא באחר ויצא בשנת היובל ורבי עקיבא אומר אם לא יגאל אלא באלה ויצא בשנת היובל ורבי יוסי הגלילי מידי אלא באלה כתיב


The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili? The verse states concerning a redeemed slave who is emancipated: “If he is not redeemed by any of these” relatives; but if he is redeemed by another, “then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year,” not earlier, as he becomes enslaved to him. And Rabbi Akiva says: “If he is not redeemed” in any other manner but only “by any of these,” “then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year,” i.e., if he is redeemed by relatives, he is emancipated only at the close of Yom Kippur of the Jubilee Year. By contrast, if he is redeemed by others he is emancipated immediately. And how does Rabbi Yosei HaGelili respond to this claim? He would ask: Is it written: Only by any of these?


אלא בהאי קרא קמיפלגי או דדו או בן דדו יגאלנו זה גאולת קרובים או השיגה ידו זה גאולת עצמו ונגאל זו גאולת אחרים


Rather, as this suggested interpretation of the verse by Rabbi Akiva is clearly problematic, the Gemara retracts the previous explanation of the dispute and instead says that they disagree with regard to the precise meaning of this verse: “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him, or any that is near of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he becomes rich, and he is redeemed” (Leviticus 25:49). “Either his uncle or his uncle’s son may redeem him”; this is the redemption performed by relatives. “Or if he becomes rich”; this is redemption by himself. “And he is redeemed”; this is redemption by other people.


רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר מקרא נדרש לפניו שדי גאולת קרובים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת קרובים לשחרור ורבי עקיבא סבר מקרא נדרש לאחריו שדי גאולת אחרים אגאולת עצמו מה גאולת עצמו לשחרור אף גאולת אחרים לשחרור


Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: A verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it. Therefore, one should cast, i.e., compare, the case of redemption performed by relatives to the case of redemption performed by himself: Just as redemption performed by himself leads to complete freedom, so too, redemption performed by relatives leads to freedom. And Rabbi Akiva maintains that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately after it. Therefore one should cast the case of redemption performed by others to the case of redemption performed by himself: Just as redemption performed by himself is to freedom, so too, redemption performed by others is to freedom, whereas if he is redeemed by his relatives, he becomes enslaved to them.


אי הכי באלה למה לי אי לאו באלה הוה אמינא מקרא נדרש בין לפניו בין לאחריו והכל לשחרור


The Gemara asks: If so, that this is their dispute, why do I need the phrase “by any of these,” according to both Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva? The Gemara answers: If it were not for the phrase “by any of these,” I would say that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it as well as to the verse immediately after it, and therefore in every manner in which he is redeemed it is to freedom. The phrase “by any of these” limits this freedom either to relatives or other people, according to the respective opinions of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva.


אי הכי הדר קושיא לדוכתיה אלא בסברא קמיפלגי


The Gemara asks: If so, that the different opinions are based on the phrase “by any of these,” then the difficulty with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that the verse does not say: If he is not redeemed in any other manner but only by any of these, has returned to its place, i.e., it is still valid, as this phrase indicates that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s interpretation of the verse is correct. Rather, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva disagree with regard to reason. Their dispute is a matter of logic and does not concern textual interpretation.


רבי יוסי הגלילי סבר מסתברא גאולת אחרים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור הוו מימנעי ולא פרקי ליה ורבי עקיבא סבר מסתברא גאולת קרובים לשיעבוד דאי אמרת לשחרור כל יומא ויומא אזל ומזבין נפשיה


The Gemara elaborates. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains: It stands to reason that redemption performed by others is to slavery, as, if you say it is to freedom, they will refrain and will not redeem him. If the slave is required to serve them, and they incur no financial loss, they will redeem him. And Rabbi Akiva maintains: It stands to reason that redemption performed by relatives is to slavery, as, if you say it is to freedom, each and every day he will go and sell himself over and again, relying on his relatives to free him.


אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן זו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא אבל חכמים אומרים הכל לשחרור


Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, who hold that a slave is not invariably freed whenever he is redeemed from his gentile master. But the Rabbis say that in every case, when he is emancipated it is to freedom.


מאן חכמים רבי היא דמפיק ליה להאי באלה לדרשה אחרינא ומקרא נדרש בין לפניו ובין לאחריו


The Gemara inquires: Who are these Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who derives another exposition from this term “by any of these,” as stated above. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that a verse is interpreted homiletically based on its juxtaposition to the verse immediately preceding it as well as to the verse immediately after it. Consequently, the Hebrew slave of a gentile is emancipated regardless of whether he is redeemed by relatives or other people.


ורבי האי ויצא בשנת היבל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ויצא בשנת היובל


The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what does he do with the verse: “And if he is not redeemed by any of these means, then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:54)? The Gemara answers: He requires this verse for that which is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Then he shall go out in the Jubilee Year.” If the slave is not redeemed prior to this point in time he leaves his gentile master only in the Jubilee Year.


Scroll To Top