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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 27, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Kiddushin 16

Sources are brought for the derivation of the methods that聽Jewish slaves are acquired and freed. 聽Reish Lakish adds another type to the list in our mishna and the gemara tries to rectify his opinion with that of the mishna and other tannatic sources.

Study Guide Kiddushin 16


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

讘谞讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讻专讬 砖讗讬谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 诪讛 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘谞讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱

This indicates that the verse is stated with regard to a gentile who is under your authority, i.e., one who is subject to Jewish rule. Or perhaps you will say that the verse is stated only with regard to a gentile who is not under your authority. This is not possible, as you say: But what can be done to him to compel him to obey the Torah鈥檚 commands? Consequently, the verse must be speaking of nothing other than a gentile who is under your authority.

讜讘砖讟专 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讗讞专转 讬拽讞 诇讜 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗讞专转 诪讛 讗讞专转 诪拽谞讬讗 讘砖讟专 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪拽谞讬讗 讘砖讟专

搂 The mishna teaches: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he can be acquired through a document? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淚f he takes himself another wife鈥 (Exodus 21:10). The verse thereby juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to another woman who is betrothed: Just as another woman can be acquired by her husband through a document (see 2a), so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through a document.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讚讜谉 讻讜转讘讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘 讻讜转讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讟专 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪讬 讻讜转讘讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讚讜谉 讻讜转讘讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘 讻讜转讘讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the master writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a betrothal document is written by the husband. But according the one who says that the father writes it, in the manner of a document of sale, what can be said? According to that opinion, the document of a Hebrew maidservant is not similar to a betrothal document. As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about this matter: With regard to the document of a Hebrew maidservant, who writes it? Rav Huna says: The master writes it. Rav 岣sda says: The father writes it. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Huna, but according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, what can be said?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讗讘诇 谞拽谞讬转 讛讬讗 讻拽谞讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讟专

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that this halakha is derived from a different source. The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7). One can infer: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves. And what is this mode of acquisition? It is a document.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讘诇 谞拽谞讬转 讛讬讗 讻拽谞讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讗讜转诐 讘讞讝拽讛 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讘讞讝拽讛

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the inference should be a different one: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves, and what is this mode of acquisition? It is possession. The Gemara answers that one cannot interpret that verse in this manner, as the verse states with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that you can acquire only them, i.e., Canaanite slaves, through possession, like an inherited tract of land, but other slaves cannot be acquired through possession.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘砖讟专 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讘砖讟专 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讛 专讗讬转

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can equally say that they, Canaanite slaves, can be acquired through a document, but others cannot be acquired through a document. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7), and this is explained to mean that she, like other slaves, can be acquired through a document. The Gemara asks: Since these two verses can be explained in either manner, what did you see that led you to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave with regard to a document, and what led you to differentiate her from a Canaanite slave with regard to acquisition through possession? Perhaps the opposite should be the case, i.e., she is similar to a Canaanite slave with regard to possession and differs from him concerning acquisition through a document?

诪住转讘专讗 砖讟专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚专讘讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 拽讜谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讘讗讬砖讜转 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 讗诐 讗讞专转

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that a document should be included in the acquisition of a slave, as a document is powerful in that it can release a Jewish woman, in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara rejects this argument: On the contrary, possession should be included, as it can effect acquisition in the case of the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs, whereas no other mode can be used to acquire such property. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, with regard to marriage, in any event, one does not find acquisition by means of possession. If you wish, say another answer: It is to that end, i.e., to determine in which way to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave, that the verse 鈥渋f he takes another,鈥 is effective, as it indicates that the acquisition of a Hebrew maidservant includes a mode of acquisition used in betrothal, i.e., a document.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讻注讘讚 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讻注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rav Huna, what does he learn from this verse: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that she is not released on account of an injury to the extremities like a Canaanite slave. If a master injures one of her limbs she is not emancipated, as explained in greater detail below. The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣sda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: If so, that it is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: She shall not go out as the men slaves. What is the reason for the additional term 鈥渁s the men slaves do鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: She is not freed due to injured limbs, and like a slave, she too can be acquired by means of a document.

讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讜讘砖讘注转 讜讙讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: And a Hebrew slave can acquire himself after six years of work. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: As it is written: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing鈥 (Exodus 21:2).

讘讬讜讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 砖谞转 讛讬讘诇 讬注讘讚 注诪讱

搂 The mishna further states that a Hebrew slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: 鈥淗e shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year鈥 (Leviticus 25:40).

讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注 驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 转谞讗 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专

搂 The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be freed through the deduction of money. 岣zkiyya says that the reason is that 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 the value of the years that she has not yet worked from the cost of her redemption, and is emancipated. The same halakha applies to a slave. A tanna taught: And a slave can acquire himself with money, with an item worth money, and with a document.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻住祝 讚讻转讬讘 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讬砖讬讘 讙讗诇转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讻讻住祝 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讻住祝

The Gemara comments: Granted, he can be acquired through money, as it is written: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51). Likewise, it is also clear that he can be acquired with an item worth money, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which serves to include an item of monetary value, which is considered like money. In other words, any item of value can be used to redeem a slave. But with regard to this document mentioned here, what are the circumstances? If we say that the slave wrote a promissory note for his own money, that is the same as money. What is the difference between the two cases?

讗诇讗 砖讬讞专讜专 砖讟专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 讝讬诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讝讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬 讜讛专讘 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讙专注讜谞讜 讗讬谉 讙专注讜谞讜 诪讞讜诇

Rather, this is referring to a document of manumission written by the master when the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a document for this purpose? Let him say in the presence of two witnesses: Go free. Alternatively, let him say before a court: Go free. Rava says: That is to say that the body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and this is not merely a monetary debt. And in the case of a master who relinquishes his deduction, i.e., the money that the slave must return for the years he has not yet served, his deduction is not relinquished. Although one can relinquish a monetary debt verbally, this is insufficient to release a slave whose body is owned by his master. A document is required to effect his freedom.

讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉 诪讬转讛 砖诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that a Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the master鈥檚 authority through the death of her father. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If signs indicating puberty, which do not release her from her father鈥檚 authority, as, although she develops signs of puberty she remains under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to certain matters, nevertheless release her from the master鈥檚 authority, is it not logical that death, which releases her entirely from her father鈥檚 authority, should release her from her master鈥檚 authority?

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 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 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专

Rav Hoshaya raises an objection from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she also acquires herself through her father鈥檚 death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the mishna teach also that she is released through the death of the father. The Gemara answers: The absence of an explicit statement is not proof, as the mishna taught one difference between a male slave and a maidservant and omitted others.

诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讬砖 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would certainly not leave out only one halakha. The Gemara answers: The tanna omitted the death of the master. In the event of the master鈥檚 death, the Hebrew maidservant is emancipated and is not inherited by the master鈥檚 heirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is due to the death of the master, that is not an omission. The reason is that since there is also a similar halakha with regard to a man, i.e., a pierced slave, the mishna does not teach this case.

讜讗诇讗 谞讬转谞讬 转谞讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

But if so, the question remains: Rather, let it teach that she is emancipated through the death of her father. The Gemara answers: The tanna in the mishna teaches a matter that has a set time, and he does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, e.g., the death of her father.

讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, as young women exhibit these signs of puberty at different ages, and yet it teaches this mode of emancipation anyway. Rav Safra says: Admittedly, these signs have no maximum set time, as once she reaches the age of twelve she is emancipated whenever she develops these signs, but they do have a set time

诇诪讟讛

with regard to the minimum age at which these signs are taken into consideration. In other words, there is a lower limit, as any signs of puberty before a certain age are ignored.

讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 讘谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讜讚谉 讘讜 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住讬诪谉

As it is taught in a baraita: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two pubic hairs that this is not considered a sign of adulthood, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From the age of nine years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, even if they are still on him and have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and grows two hairs, everyone agrees that this is a sign indicating puberty.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讘讗讬砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬诐 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛

Rav Sheshet raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating slaves, and when they are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these, three apply to a man, i.e., a Hebrew slave, and three apply to a woman, a Hebrew maidservant. And you cannot say that there are four ways for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing the ear for a woman. Consequently, there are only three modes of emancipation for each.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗专讘注讛 拽转谞讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And if it is so that a Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through her father鈥檚 death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let him teach also that a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated at the death of the father. And if you would say, here too he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and a Hebrew maidservant and omitted others, this cannot be the case, as he teaches: There are four ways of emancipating slaves. The mention of a number indicates that there is a set number of ways. And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, as there is the halakha of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if you would say that here, too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra, that signs have a minimum set time, there is still the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. The Gemara answers: The death of the master is not taught either, i.e., this mode of emancipation is not counted among the four modes mentioned in the baraita.

讜讗诇讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜讘诇 讜讬讜讘诇 砖诇 专爪讬注讛 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But if you do not count the death of the master, what are these four methods? The Gemara answers: A Hebrew slave or maidservant is emancipated after serving six years and in the Jubilee Year, even if it occurs within those six years. And the Jubilee Year also emancipates a slave, even after the act of piercing a Hebrew slave鈥檚 ear with an awl extended his term of slavery, and a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated with signs indicating puberty.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬诐 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讘讗砖讛 诪讬讛讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗专讘注讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as it teaches in the last clause: You cannot say that there are four modes for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing for a woman. And if it is so that the death of the master is included, in the case of a woman, at least, you find four ways that she can be freed: Six years of service, the Jubilee Year, signs of puberty, and the death of the master. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 讜讗诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗诇讜 拽转谞讬

Rav Amram also raises an objection against the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: And these are the slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she is emancipated through her father鈥檚 death as well, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the baraita also teach that she is released through the death of the father. And if you would say, here too, he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and maidservant and omitted others, he teaches: These, which indicates that this halakha applies only to a slave freed in these ways and no others.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 住驻专讗 讛讗讬讻讗 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讬讜讘转讗

And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, but isn鈥檛 there the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it. And if you would say that here too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra that signs have a minimum set time, there is the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. Therefore, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara affirms: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇住讬诪谞讬谉 砖谞砖转谞讛 讛讙讜祝 转讗诪专 讘诪讬转转 讗讘 砖讻谉 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 讛讙讜祝

The Gemara asks: But the ruling of Reish Lakish is based on an a fortiori inference, and nothing has been said to contradict his reasoning. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference is refutable, because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is unique about signs indicating puberty is that they indicate that her body has changed, and perhaps she is emancipated because she is now considered a different person. Will you say the same with regard to the death of the father, as her body has not changed?

转谞讬 讞讚讗 注谞拽 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诇注爪诪讜 讜注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诇注爪诪讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讜诪爪讬讗转讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诇专讘讛 讗诇讗 砖讻专 讘讟诇讛 讘诇讘讚

It is taught in one baraita: The severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew slave when he is emancipated is given to the slave himself, and the severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew maidservant is given to the maidservant herself. And it is taught in another baraita: The severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant and any lost items she finds belong to her father, and her master has only the reimbursement for her lost time. He is paid the money he would have earned if she had been working instead of carrying home the items she found.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚谞驻拽讗 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讛讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讘诪讬转转 讗讘

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not correct to say that the difference between the two baraitot is that this baraita, which says that the severance gift is given to her father, is referring to when she leaves through signs indicating puberty, as she is a young woman and still under the authority of her father with regard to certain matters, and this baraita, which states that the severance gift is given to her, is referring to a case when she leaves through the death of the father. Since she does not have a father she keeps the severance gift herself. This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that she is emancipated through the death of her father, and it contradicts the conclusion that his ruling should be rejected.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讘

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to a maidservant who left through signs indicating puberty, and it is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where there is a father who can take the gift, and this baraita is referring to a case where there is no father, i.e., he died before she developed the signs of puberty. In that case she receives the severance gift herself.

讘砖诇诪讗 注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诇注爪诪讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讗讜转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜专讬砖 讝讻讜转 讘转讜 诇讘谞讜

The Gemara comments: Granted, one can understand the baraita that taught that the severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant is for herself, as this serves to exclude the maidservant鈥檚 brothers. These brothers do not receive the gifts after her father鈥檚 death, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). This verse indicates that they, Canaanite slaves, are bequeathed to your sons, but your daughters are not bequeathed to your sons. From here it is derived that a person may not bequeath his rights to profits generated by his daughter to his son.

讗诇讗 注谞拽 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诇注爪诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讜讚 拽专转 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗

But it is obvious that the severance gift of a Hebrew slave is for himself. Rather, to whom could it be given? Rav Yosef said: I see here a small letter yod that has been made into a large city. In other words, although it was not necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, he stated it out of habit despite the fact that this ruling does not teach anything novel.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 转讜讟讗讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜讟讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘讜

Abaye said that Rav Sheshet said like this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage Tutai. As it is taught in a baraita that Tutai says: The verse: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), indicates that it is given to a Hebrew slave but not to his creditor. Even if the slave owes money, this gift is not given to the creditor.

讙讜驻讗 讗诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讞 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. And these are the Hebrew slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through completing six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating the onset of puberty. But with regard to one who flees from his master or one who is released by deducting money, one does not grant a severance gift to him. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to one who flees, one does not grant a severance gift to him, but in the case of one who is released by deducting money, one does grant a severance gift to him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讘讗讬砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讗讬砖 讜专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛

Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating a Hebrew slave, and when Hebrew slaves are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these methods, three apply to a man and three apply to a woman. And you cannot say four modes apply for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no piercing for a woman. This concludes the baraita.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讬讜爪讗 讘砖砖 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖诇讞谞讜 讜讻讬 转砖诇讞谞讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught: One might have thought that one grants a severance gift only to a Hebrew slave who is released after six years. From where is it derived to include that one grants a severance gift to one who left in the Jubilee Year, and one freed through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who leaves through signs indicating puberty? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not send him,鈥 and: 鈥淎nd when you send him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13). These phrases serve to expand the halakha of severance to include any Hebrew slave who is emancipated.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转砖诇讞谞讜 讞驻砖讬 诪注诪讱 诪讬 砖砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 讬爪讗 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 砖讗讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讞 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 诇讜 讚讗讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 砖砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱

I might have thought that I should include a Hebrew slave who flees and one who is released through the deduction of money. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when you send him free from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13), which is referring to one who was sent from you with your knowledge and consent. This excludes a Hebrew slave who flees from his master and one who is released through the deduction of money, who are not sent away from you with your permission. Rabbi Meir says: One does not grant a severance gift to a Hebrew slave who flees, as he is not sent away from you, because he left on his own. But with regard to a Hebrew slave who is released through the deduction of money, who is sent from you, he is granted a severance gift, as this deduction payment requires the agreement of the master.

讘讜专讞 讛砖诇诪讛 讘注讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讜专讞 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 a Hebrew slave who flees required to complete the remaining years of his contract, at which point he should be entitled to receive a severance gift? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a Hebrew slave who flees his master that he is obligated to complete his term? The verse states: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor鈥 (Exodus 21:2), and no less. Therefore, if a Hebrew slave runs away in the middle of this period, he is required to complete his six years of service.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 16

讘谞讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讻专讬 砖讗讬谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱 讗诪专转 讜讻讬 诪讛 讗驻砖专 诇注砖讜转 诇讜 讛讗 讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘谞讻专讬 砖讬砖谞讜 转讞转 讬讚讱

This indicates that the verse is stated with regard to a gentile who is under your authority, i.e., one who is subject to Jewish rule. Or perhaps you will say that the verse is stated only with regard to a gentile who is not under your authority. This is not possible, as you say: But what can be done to him to compel him to obey the Torah鈥檚 commands? Consequently, the verse must be speaking of nothing other than a gentile who is under your authority.

讜讘砖讟专 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讗讞专转 讬拽讞 诇讜 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇讗讞专转 诪讛 讗讞专转 诪拽谞讬讗 讘砖讟专 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪拽谞讬讗 讘砖讟专

搂 The mishna teaches: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he can be acquired through a document? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淚f he takes himself another wife鈥 (Exodus 21:10). The verse thereby juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to another woman who is betrothed: Just as another woman can be acquired by her husband through a document (see 2a), so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through a document.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讟专 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讚讜谉 讻讜转讘讜 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讘 讻讜转讘讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讟专 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诪讬 讻讜转讘讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讗讚讜谉 讻讜转讘讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘 讻讜转讘讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the master writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a betrothal document is written by the husband. But according the one who says that the father writes it, in the manner of a document of sale, what can be said? According to that opinion, the document of a Hebrew maidservant is not similar to a betrothal document. As it was stated that amora鈥檌m disagreed about this matter: With regard to the document of a Hebrew maidservant, who writes it? Rav Huna says: The master writes it. Rav 岣sda says: The father writes it. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Huna, but according to the opinion of Rav 岣sda, what can be said?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讗讘诇 谞拽谞讬转 讛讬讗 讻拽谞讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖讟专

Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said that this halakha is derived from a different source. The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7). One can infer: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves. And what is this mode of acquisition? It is a document.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讘诇 谞拽谞讬转 讛讬讗 讻拽谞讬谉 注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讗讜转诐 讘讞讝拽讛 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讘讞讝拽讛

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the inference should be a different one: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves, and what is this mode of acquisition? It is possession. The Gemara answers that one cannot interpret that verse in this manner, as the verse states with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that you can acquire only them, i.e., Canaanite slaves, through possession, like an inherited tract of land, but other slaves cannot be acquired through possession.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗讜转诐 讘砖讟专 讜诇讗 讗讞专 讘砖讟专 讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 讜诪讛 专讗讬转

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can equally say that they, Canaanite slaves, can be acquired through a document, but others cannot be acquired through a document. The Gemara answers: Isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7), and this is explained to mean that she, like other slaves, can be acquired through a document. The Gemara asks: Since these two verses can be explained in either manner, what did you see that led you to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave with regard to a document, and what led you to differentiate her from a Canaanite slave with regard to acquisition through possession? Perhaps the opposite should be the case, i.e., she is similar to a Canaanite slave with regard to possession and differs from him concerning acquisition through a document?

诪住转讘专讗 砖讟专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讚专讘讛 讞讝拽讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 拽讜谞讛 讘谞讻住讬 讛讙专 讘讗讬砖讜转 诪讬讛转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诇讛讻讬 讗讛谞讬 讗诐 讗讞专转

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that a document should be included in the acquisition of a slave, as a document is powerful in that it can release a Jewish woman, in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara rejects this argument: On the contrary, possession should be included, as it can effect acquisition in the case of the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs, whereas no other mode can be used to acquire such property. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, with regard to marriage, in any event, one does not find acquisition by means of possession. If you wish, say another answer: It is to that end, i.e., to determine in which way to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave, that the verse 鈥渋f he takes another,鈥 is effective, as it indicates that the acquisition of a Hebrew maidservant includes a mode of acquisition used in betrothal, i.e., a document.

讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转爪讗 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讚专讬砖 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 砖讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘专讗砖讬 讗讘专讬诐 讻注讘讚 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗 转爪讗 讻注讘讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讻爪讗转 讛注讘讚讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara asks: And Rav Huna, what does he learn from this verse: 鈥淪he shall not go out as the men slaves do鈥 (Exodus 21:7)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that she is not released on account of an injury to the extremities like a Canaanite slave. If a master injures one of her limbs she is not emancipated, as explained in greater detail below. The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣sda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: If so, that it is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: She shall not go out as the men slaves. What is the reason for the additional term 鈥渁s the men slaves do鈥? Conclude two conclusions from it: She is not freed due to injured limbs, and like a slave, she too can be acquired by means of a document.

讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘砖谞讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讜讘砖讘注转 讜讙讜壮

搂 The mishna teaches: And a Hebrew slave can acquire himself after six years of work. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: As it is written: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing鈥 (Exodus 21:2).

讘讬讜讘诇 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 砖谞转 讛讬讘诇 讬注讘讚 注诪讱

搂 The mishna further states that a Hebrew slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: 鈥淗e shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year鈥 (Leviticus 25:40).

讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛驻讚讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪讙专注 驻讚讬讜谞讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 转谞讗 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专

搂 The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be freed through the deduction of money. 岣zkiyya says that the reason is that 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 the value of the years that she has not yet worked from the cost of her redemption, and is emancipated. The same halakha applies to a slave. A tanna taught: And a slave can acquire himself with money, with an item worth money, and with a document.

讘砖诇诪讗 讻住祝 讚讻转讬讘 诪讻住祝 诪拽谞转讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 谞诪讬 讬砖讬讘 讙讗诇转讜 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇专讘讜转 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讻讻住祝 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 砖讟专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讻住祝

The Gemara comments: Granted, he can be acquired through money, as it is written: 鈥淥ut of the money that he was bought for鈥 (Leviticus 25:51). Likewise, it is also clear that he can be acquired with an item worth money, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淗e shall give back the price of his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:51), which serves to include an item of monetary value, which is considered like money. In other words, any item of value can be used to redeem a slave. But with regard to this document mentioned here, what are the circumstances? If we say that the slave wrote a promissory note for his own money, that is the same as money. What is the difference between the two cases?

讗诇讗 砖讬讞专讜专 砖讟专 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讘讗驻讬 转专讬 讝讬诇 讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讗驻讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讝讬诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讙讜驻讜 拽谞讜讬 讜讛专讘 砖诪讞诇 注诇 讙专注讜谞讜 讗讬谉 讙专注讜谞讜 诪讞讜诇

Rather, this is referring to a document of manumission written by the master when the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a document for this purpose? Let him say in the presence of two witnesses: Go free. Alternatively, let him say before a court: Go free. Rava says: That is to say that the body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and this is not merely a monetary debt. And in the case of a master who relinquishes his deduction, i.e., the money that the slave must return for the years he has not yet served, his deduction is not relinquished. Although one can relinquish a monetary debt verbally, this is insufficient to release a slave whose body is owned by his master. A document is required to effect his freedom.

讬转讬专讛 注诇讬讜 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讛 讘诪讬转转 讛讗讘 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 住讬诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉 诪讬转讛 砖诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讚讜谉

搂 The mishna teaches that a Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the master鈥檚 authority through the death of her father. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If signs indicating puberty, which do not release her from her father鈥檚 authority, as, although she develops signs of puberty she remains under her father鈥檚 authority with regard to certain matters, nevertheless release her from the master鈥檚 authority, is it not logical that death, which releases her entirely from her father鈥檚 authority, should release her from her master鈥檚 authority?

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘 讛讜砖注讬讗 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 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讛讗讘 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专

Rav Hoshaya raises an objection from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she also acquires herself through her father鈥檚 death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the mishna teach also that she is released through the death of the father. The Gemara answers: The absence of an explicit statement is not proof, as the mishna taught one difference between a male slave and a maidservant and omitted others.

诪讗讬 砖讬讬专 讚讛讗讬 砖讬讬专 砖讬讬专 诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 诇讗讜 砖讬讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讗讬砖 诇讗 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would certainly not leave out only one halakha. The Gemara answers: The tanna omitted the death of the master. In the event of the master鈥檚 death, the Hebrew maidservant is emancipated and is not inherited by the master鈥檚 heirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is due to the death of the master, that is not an omission. The reason is that since there is also a similar halakha with regard to a man, i.e., a pierced slave, the mishna does not teach this case.

讜讗诇讗 谞讬转谞讬 转谞讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬

But if so, the question remains: Rather, let it teach that she is emancipated through the death of her father. The Gemara answers: The tanna in the mishna teaches a matter that has a set time, and he does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, e.g., the death of her father.

讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讗诪专 专讘 住驻专讗 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讬砖 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, as young women exhibit these signs of puberty at different ages, and yet it teaches this mode of emancipation anyway. Rav Safra says: Admittedly, these signs have no maximum set time, as once she reaches the age of twelve she is emancipated whenever she develops these signs, but they do have a set time

诇诪讟讛

with regard to the minimum age at which these signs are taken into consideration. In other words, there is a lower limit, as any signs of puberty before a certain age are ignored.

讚转谞讬讗 讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 砖讛讘讬讗 砖转讬 砖注专讜转 砖讜诪讗 诪讘谉 转砖注 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 注讚 讘谉 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜注讜讚谉 讘讜 砖讜诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 住讬诪谉 讘谉 砖诇砖 注砖专讛 砖谞讛 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 住讬诪谉

As it is taught in a baraita: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two pubic hairs that this is not considered a sign of adulthood, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From the age of nine years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, even if they are still on him and have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and grows two hairs, everyone agrees that this is a sign indicating puberty.

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讘讗讬砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬诐 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛

Rav Sheshet raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating slaves, and when they are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these, three apply to a man, i.e., a Hebrew slave, and three apply to a woman, a Hebrew maidservant. And you cannot say that there are four ways for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing the ear for a woman. Consequently, there are only three modes of emancipation for each.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗专讘注讛 拽转谞讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讜讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And if it is so that a Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through her father鈥檚 death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let him teach also that a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated at the death of the father. And if you would say, here too he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and a Hebrew maidservant and omitted others, this cannot be the case, as he teaches: There are four ways of emancipating slaves. The mention of a number indicates that there is a set number of ways. And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, as there is the halakha of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 住驻专讗 讜讛讗讬讻讗 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 谞诪讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬

And if you would say that here, too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra, that signs have a minimum set time, there is still the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. The Gemara answers: The death of the master is not taught either, i.e., this mode of emancipation is not counted among the four modes mentioned in the baraita.

讜讗诇讗 讗专讘注讛 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜讘诇 讜讬讜讘诇 砖诇 专爪讬注讛 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But if you do not count the death of the master, what are these four methods? The Gemara answers: A Hebrew slave or maidservant is emancipated after serving six years and in the Jubilee Year, even if it occurs within those six years. And the Jubilee Year also emancipates a slave, even after the act of piercing a Hebrew slave鈥檚 ear with an awl extended his term of slavery, and a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated with signs indicating puberty.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诪讛诐 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬诐 讘讗讬砖 讜讗讬谉 专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讘讗砖讛 诪讬讛讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗专讘注讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as it teaches in the last clause: You cannot say that there are four modes for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing for a woman. And if it is so that the death of the master is included, in the case of a woman, at least, you find four ways that she can be freed: Six years of service, the Jubilee Year, signs of puberty, and the death of the master. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.

诪转讬讘 专讘 注诪专诐 讜讗诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 谞讬转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讬转转 讗讘 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转谞讗 讜砖讬讬专 讜讛讗 讗诇讜 拽转谞讬

Rav Amram also raises an objection against the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: And these are the slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she is emancipated through her father鈥檚 death as well, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the baraita also teach that she is released through the death of the father. And if you would say, here too, he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and maidservant and omitted others, he teaches: These, which indicates that this halakha applies only to a slave freed in these ways and no others.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚讘专 砖讬砖 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 拽转谞讬 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 拽爪讘讛 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讜讛讗 住讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗讬谉 诇讛诐 拽爪讘讛 讜拽转谞讬 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讚专讘 住驻专讗 讛讗讬讻讗 诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 转讬讜讘转讗

And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, but isn鈥檛 there the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it. And if you would say that here too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra that signs have a minimum set time, there is the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. Therefore, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara affirms: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

讜讛讗 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 驻专讬讻讗 讛讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇住讬诪谞讬谉 砖谞砖转谞讛 讛讙讜祝 转讗诪专 讘诪讬转转 讗讘 砖讻谉 诇讗 谞砖转谞讛 讛讙讜祝

The Gemara asks: But the ruling of Reish Lakish is based on an a fortiori inference, and nothing has been said to contradict his reasoning. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference is refutable, because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is unique about signs indicating puberty is that they indicate that her body has changed, and perhaps she is emancipated because she is now considered a different person. Will you say the same with regard to the death of the father, as her body has not changed?

转谞讬 讞讚讗 注谞拽 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诇注爪诪讜 讜注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诇注爪诪讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讜诪爪讬讗转讛 诇讗讘讬讛 讜讗讬谉 诇专讘讛 讗诇讗 砖讻专 讘讟诇讛 讘诇讘讚

It is taught in one baraita: The severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew slave when he is emancipated is given to the slave himself, and the severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew maidservant is given to the maidservant herself. And it is taught in another baraita: The severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant and any lost items she finds belong to her father, and her master has only the reimbursement for her lost time. He is paid the money he would have earned if she had been working instead of carrying home the items she found.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讚谞驻拽讗 讘住讬诪谞讬诐 讜讛讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讘诪讬转转 讗讘

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not correct to say that the difference between the two baraitot is that this baraita, which says that the severance gift is given to her father, is referring to when she leaves through signs indicating puberty, as she is a young woman and still under the authority of her father with regard to certain matters, and this baraita, which states that the severance gift is given to her, is referring to a case when she leaves through the death of the father. Since she does not have a father she keeps the severance gift herself. This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that she is emancipated through the death of her father, and it contradicts the conclusion that his ruling should be rejected.

诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇讗讘 讛讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇讗讘

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to a maidservant who left through signs indicating puberty, and it is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where there is a father who can take the gift, and this baraita is referring to a case where there is no father, i.e., he died before she developed the signs of puberty. In that case she receives the severance gift herself.

讘砖诇诪讗 注谞拽 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 诇注爪诪讛 诇诪注讜讟讬 讗讞讬谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 讗讜转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讜诇讗 讘谞讜转讬讻诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 诪讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜专讬砖 讝讻讜转 讘转讜 诇讘谞讜

The Gemara comments: Granted, one can understand the baraita that taught that the severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant is for herself, as this serves to exclude the maidservant鈥檚 brothers. These brothers do not receive the gifts after her father鈥檚 death, as it is taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children after you鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). This verse indicates that they, Canaanite slaves, are bequeathed to your sons, but your daughters are not bequeathed to your sons. From here it is derived that a person may not bequeath his rights to profits generated by his daughter to his son.

讗诇讗 注谞拽 注讘讚 注讘专讬 诇注爪诪讜 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讬讜讚 拽专转 拽讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讛讻讗

But it is obvious that the severance gift of a Hebrew slave is for himself. Rather, to whom could it be given? Rav Yosef said: I see here a small letter yod that has been made into a large city. In other words, although it was not necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, he stated it out of habit despite the fact that this ruling does not teach anything novel.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗 诪谞讬 转讜讟讗讬 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 转讜讟讗讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 讜诇讗 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘讜

Abaye said that Rav Sheshet said like this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage Tutai. As it is taught in a baraita that Tutai says: The verse: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance to him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), indicates that it is given to a Hebrew slave but not to his creditor. Even if the slave owes money, this gift is not given to the creditor.

讙讜驻讗 讗诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 讛讬讜爪讗 讘砖谞讬诐 讜讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讞 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 诇讜 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. And these are the Hebrew slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through completing six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating the onset of puberty. But with regard to one who flees from his master or one who is released by deducting money, one does not grant a severance gift to him. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to one who flees, one does not grant a severance gift to him, but in the case of one who is released by deducting money, one does grant a severance gift to him.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讛诐 砖诇砖讛 讘讗讬砖 讜砖诇砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讗专讘注讛 讘讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 住讬诪谞讬谉 讘讗讬砖 讜专爪讬注讛 讘讗砖讛

Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating a Hebrew slave, and when Hebrew slaves are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these methods, three apply to a man and three apply to a woman. And you cannot say four modes apply for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no piercing for a woman. This concludes the baraita.

诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讬讜爪讗 讘砖砖 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讬讜爪讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讜讘诪讬转转 讛讗讚讜谉 讜讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讘住讬诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转砖诇讞谞讜 讜讻讬 转砖诇讞谞讜

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught: One might have thought that one grants a severance gift only to a Hebrew slave who is released after six years. From where is it derived to include that one grants a severance gift to one who left in the Jubilee Year, and one freed through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who leaves through signs indicating puberty? The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not send him,鈥 and: 鈥淎nd when you send him鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13). These phrases serve to expand the halakha of severance to include any Hebrew slave who is emancipated.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讻讬 转砖诇讞谞讜 讞驻砖讬 诪注诪讱 诪讬 砖砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 讬爪讗 讘讜专讞 讜讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 砖讗讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘讜专讞 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 诇讜 讚讗讬谉 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 讗讘诇 讬讜爪讗 讘讙专注讜谉 讻住祝 砖砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱

I might have thought that I should include a Hebrew slave who flees and one who is released through the deduction of money. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd when you send him free from you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13), which is referring to one who was sent from you with your knowledge and consent. This excludes a Hebrew slave who flees from his master and one who is released through the deduction of money, who are not sent away from you with your permission. Rabbi Meir says: One does not grant a severance gift to a Hebrew slave who flees, as he is not sent away from you, because he left on his own. But with regard to a Hebrew slave who is released through the deduction of money, who is sent from you, he is granted a severance gift, as this deduction payment requires the agreement of the master.

讘讜专讞 讛砖诇诪讛 讘注讬 讚转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讘讜专讞 砖讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 a Hebrew slave who flees required to complete the remaining years of his contract, at which point he should be entitled to receive a severance gift? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a Hebrew slave who flees his master that he is obligated to complete his term? The verse states: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor鈥 (Exodus 21:2), and no less. Therefore, if a Hebrew slave runs away in the middle of this period, he is required to complete his six years of service.

Scroll To Top