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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 1, 2016 | ื›ืดื‘ ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 21

Comparisons are made between the laws learned in the various sections in Vayikra chaprter 25 and 27 regarding selling and redemption of land, houses, Jewish slaves sold to non Jews and to Jews, and land promised to the beit hamikdash. ย Sources are brought to teach various laws regarding a slave who gets his ear pierced because he wants to stay with his master after working for 6 years.

Study Guide Kiddushin 21

ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita, which teaches that one can borrow money and redeem the house and partially redeem it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara states: It is taught in one baraita with regard to the houses of walled cities: One can borrow money and redeem it, and one can partially redeem it, and it is taught in another baraita: One cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor can one partially redeem. Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two baraitot. The Gemara answers as above: This is not difficult. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื—ื‘ืฉ ื–ืžืŸ)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the names of the Sages who raise the dilemmas cited below and those to whom the questions are addressed: แธคeresh, แธฅavash, zeman. They allude to the following interlocutors: แธคeresh alludes to Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, and Rav Ashi; แธฅavash alludes to Rav Aแธฅa Sava and Rav Ashi; and zeman alludes to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, and Ravina.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The comparison detailed earlier (20b) between one who sells a house and one who consecrates a field, can be refuted as follows: What is unique about one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities is that his power is diminished, in that he is not able to redeem it forever, since he cannot redeem it after a year has passed (see Leviticus 25:30). Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrates his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem forever?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืกื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื ื™ื”ื“ืจ ื“ื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื‘ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

Rav Aแธฅa Sava said to Rav Ashi: The comparison is valid, because it can be said that the argument returns, as one can learn in a different manner. Let this matter be derived by an analogy derived from the common factor of two sources: The halakha of one who sells an ancestral field can prove it, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field forever, and he cannot borrow money and redeem it, and he cannot partially redeem it. And if you say: What is unique about one who sells an ancestral field is that his power is diminished in that he is not able to redeem it immediately, the case of one who sells a house from among houses of walled cities can prove otherwise. Although one can redeem the house immediately, he cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor partially redeem it.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื’ืืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, as one could alternate the explanations for each side with their respective refutations. Ultimately, the aspect of this case, an ancestral field, is not like the aspect of that case, a house from among houses of walled cities. Their common denominator is that they can be redeemed, and one cannot borrow money and redeem them, and likewise, one cannot partially redeem them. I will also bring the case of one who consecrates his field and rule that it may be redeemed, but one cannot borrow money and redeem it, and one cannot partially redeem it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื”

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: This derivation, based on the common denominator, can be refuted as follows: What is unique to their common denominator is that their power is diminished in that they are unable to redeem the respective properties during the second year, as in neither case can they be redeemed in the second year. One who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem it beyond the first year, while one who sells an ancestral field cannot redeem it during the first two years. Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrated his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field in the second year?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ

Ravina said to him that the derivation is valid because it can be said that the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can prove otherwise, as his power enhanced in that he is able to redeem himself in the second year, and nevertheless he cannot borrow money and redeem himself, and he cannot partially redeem himself.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื ื’ืืœืช ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื’ืืœืช ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื

The Gemara discusses a similar matter. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, can it be redeemed by relatives or can it not be redeemed by relatives? Is the ability to redeem a house limited to the seller himself? The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one derive the verbal analogy of โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:29) and โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:26) from an ancestral field in this manner: Just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives, so too, this house also cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives?

ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื’ืื•ืœื” ื‘ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ

Or perhaps, when the word geโ€™ula is written in the case of an ancestral field, it is written with regard to partial redemption; but the word redemption is not written with regard to relatives. If so, the verbal analogy does not apply to the halakha of redemption by relatives. Rav Sheshet said to him: The house cannot be redeemed by relatives.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืชืชื ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื

Rav Huna bar แธคinnana raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Sheshet from a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). This verse serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that the term houses is referring to houses of walled cities, indicating that they can also be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to houses in open areas without walls.

ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื•ื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

The Gemara asks: With regard to houses in open areas without walls, it is explicitly written: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31), meaning that they are like ancestral fields. If so, there is no need for another verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara answers: That verse: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24), serves to establish that redemption by relatives is an obligation, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื’ืืœ ืืช ืžืžื›ืจ ืื—ื™ื• ืจืฉื•ืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื’ืืœ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื’ื•ืืœื™ื ืืœื ื–ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืงื— ืฉื”ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with one who sells ancestral land: โ€œAnd he shall redeem that which his brother has soldโ€ (Leviticus 25:25), this redemption is optional, i.e., if he wishes to do so he may redeem the land. Do you say that it is optional or is it nothing other than an obligation? The verse states concerning an ancestral field that was sold: โ€œAnd if a man has no one to redeem itโ€ (Leviticus 25:26). This verse is puzzling: But is there a man in Israel who does not have redeemers? Every Jew has a relative of some sort, even if he must trace his family tree back all the way to Jacob. Rather, this is referring to one who has a relative who does not want to purchase, i.e., redeem, the land, as he has permission to refrain from doing so, since this redemption is optional. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื’ืืœ ืืช ืžืžื›ืจ ืื—ื™ื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืจืฉื•ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืชืชื ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer says that when the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall redeem that which his brother has sold,โ€ this redemption is an obligation. Do you say that it is an obligation, or is it only optional? The verse states: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). Here the verse established it as obligatory. This is the interpretation of the verses according to Rabbi Eliezer.

ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ืžืื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงืฉื™ื

The Sages said to Rav Ashi, and some say Ravina said this to Rav Ashi: Granted, according to the one who says that the verse serves to include houses of walled cities, this is as it is written โ€œin all.โ€ โ€œIn allโ€ serves to include a case omitted by the phrase โ€œyou shall grant a redemption for the land.โ€ But according to the one who says that it serves to include houses in open areas without walls, what is meant by the term โ€œin allโ€? It was already taught that these houses are included in the category of ancestral fields, and therefore they are referred to by the expression โ€œredemption for the land.โ€ No answer was found to this question and the Gemara states that it is a difficulty.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื’ืื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื’ืืœื•ืช ื›ืกื“ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

Abaye raised an objection to this opinion that houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives. It is taught in a baraita: What does it mean when the verse states: โ€œMay redeem him,โ€ โ€œmay redeem him,โ€ and โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48โ€“49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order: In the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, if he does not redeem himself he can be redeemed by a brother; if he is not redeemed by a brother, then he can be redeemed by an uncle or some other relative. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave, that they too can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field.

ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื

The Gemara asks: But the cases of houses in open areas and the case of an ancestral field are written explicitly: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31). The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said, that the verse detailing the redemption by relatives stated with regard to an ancestral field teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the ancestral field. The obligation or merit to redeem the field applies first to one who is more closely related to the seller. So too, with regard to houses in open areas, this verse teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house.

ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื”ื ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืืœื” ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉืฉ ืืœืžื ืœื ืžื™ืคืจืง

The Gemara asks: Where was this opinion of Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak originally stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to this issue, as a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Can a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew be redeemed by his relatives or can he not be redeemed by his relatives? The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you should not raise the dilemma, as he says: One who is not redeemed by these relatives is redeemed by six years of service. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile cannot be redeemed by his relatives.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื ืœืื—ืจ

When you raise the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the halakha? Does one derive the verbal analogy comparing โ€œhired workerโ€ (Leviticus 25:40) and โ€œhired workerโ€ (Leviticus 25:53) from the case of a Jew sold to a gentile, and say that just as one can be redeemed by oneโ€™s relatives if sold to a gentile, so too, one can be redeemed if sold to a Jew? And at the same time one does not interpret homiletically the phrase โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48), stated with regard to one sold to a gentile, as a restricting term. Or perhaps the phrase โ€œmay redeem himโ€ is in fact a restricting term, which indicates that this halakha applies only to this slave, i.e., only one sold to a gentile can be redeemed by relatives, and it does not apply to another slave, one sold to a Jew.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืื•ืœื” ืชืชื ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™

Come and hear a baraita: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). The inclusive expression โ€œin allโ€ serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that this includes houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, one can say that this is referring to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืื• ื“ื“ื• ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื“ื“ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื•

The Gemara asks: It is explicitly written with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: โ€œEither his uncle or his uncleโ€™s son may redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:49). If so, it is unnecessary to derive the option of redemption by a relative from an inclusive expression in a different verse.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื•ื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

The Gemara answers: That verse serves to establish that redeeming him is an obligation. And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that there is no requirement to redeem land, this case is different, as it is proper to redeem him to prevent him from being assimilated by gentiles.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื’ืื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื’ืืœื•ืช ื›ืกื“ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œMay redeem him,โ€ โ€œmay redeem him,โ€ and โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48โ€“49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring both to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew, that they can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field. The Gemara asks: Concerning houses in open areas and an ancestral field, it is written explicitly: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31). Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: This teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house or the field. This is the context of Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅakโ€™s statement.

ื•ื”ื ืจืฆืข ื ืงื ื” ื‘ืจืฆื™ืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืจืฆืข ืื“ื ื™ื• ืืช ืื–ื ื• ื‘ืžืจืฆืข ื•ื’ื•ืณ

ยง The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: And a Hebrew slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: โ€œAnd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him foreverโ€ (Exodus 21:6).

ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ืื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืช ืœืขืœื ืœืขื•ืœืžื• ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื‘ืœ

The mishna further teaches that a pierced slave acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year and through the masterโ€™s death. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: โ€œAnd he shall serve him foreverโ€ (Exodus 21:6). This term indicates that he serves only the master, but not the son and not the daughter. The term โ€œforeverโ€ is referring to the forever represented by the Jubilee Year. The word โ€œforeverโ€ does not mean for eternity, but refers to the end of the cycle of the Jubilee Year.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืจืฆืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืžืจืฆืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืกื•ืœ ื•ื”ืกื™ืจื ื•ื”ืžื—ื˜ ื•ื”ืžืงื“ื— ื•ื”ืžื›ืชื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืงื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Sages taught: From the term โ€œan awlโ€ I have derived only that a master can pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave with an awl. From where do I derive that a sharp thorn [sol], a thorn [sira], a needle, an auger, and a stylus used to engrave in wax may be used? The verse states: โ€œAnd you shall take the awlโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:17). This term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ serves to include any implement that can be taken in the masterโ€™s hand. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ืžืจืฆืข ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all of these utensils may be used for piercing. Just as an awl is unique in that it is made of metal, so too any tool made of metal can be used; one may not pierce a slaveโ€™s ear with non-metal implements. Alternatively, the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall take the awl,โ€ to include the large awl for piercing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื›ืฉื”ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ื”ื™ืืš ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื”ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืืœื ื‘ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืื–ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce, they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on the earlobe, as the halakha is that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierce a slaveโ€™s earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A pierced earlobe is not considered a blemish. This indicates that he is pierced only on the upper part of the ear through the cartilage. The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?

ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ื›ืœืœ ืžืจืฆืข ืคืจื˜ ื‘ืื–ื ื• ื•ื‘ื“ืœืช ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of generalizations and details. Accordingly, he maintains that the term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ is a generalization that indicates piercing may be performed with any implement. โ€œAn awlโ€ is a detail, and when the verse states: โ€œThrough his ear and into the doorโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:17), it then generalized again. When the verse writes a generalization and a detail and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the explicit detail mentions an awl, which is made of metal, so too, any utensil used for piercing must be made of metal.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ืขื˜ ื‘ืื–ื ื• ื•ื‘ื“ืœืช ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืขื˜ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื”ื›ืœ

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of amplifications and restrictions. Accordingly, he learns that the term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ amplifies, i.e., it includes any item that can be taken in oneโ€™s hand. The term โ€œan awlโ€ restricts. When the verse states โ€œthrough his ear and into the door,โ€ it then amplifies again. When the verse amplifies, restricts, and amplifies, it has amplified the halakha to include everything except one item.

ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืกื

What has it amplified, i.e., included beyond an awl? It has amplified the category to include everything that can pierce an ear. What has it restricted from inclusion in the category? It excludes only the method that is most dissimilar to the use of an awl, which is a corrosive substance. Producing a hole in the slaveโ€™s ear with a substance of this kind is not a valid form of piercing.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืจืฆืข ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ืจืš ื”ืžื™ื•ืžื ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืฉื‘ืžืจืฆืขื™ืŸ

The Master said above: โ€œThe awl,โ€ this serves to include the large awl for piercing. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this expression is referring to a large awl? The Gemara answers that this is as Rava said with regard to the verse: โ€œThe sinew of the thigh vein which is upon the hollow of the thighโ€ (Genesis 32:33), that this is referring to the most important [meyummenet] part of the thigh. The definite article indicates something clear and obvious. Here too, the term โ€œthe awlโ€ is referring to a special awl.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื›ืฉื”ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื‘ ืืœ ืžืฉืคื—ืชื• ืœืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืฉื‘ืžืฉืคื—ืชื•

It was further stated in the above baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach: When they pierce a slave they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: โ€œAnd he shall return to his own familyโ€ (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฉื ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite?

ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ

Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืื™ืกืงื•ืžื“ืจื™ ืื™ื˜ืœืœื™ืชื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืชื™ืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื

Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Anan: When you were studying in the house of Mar Shmuel did you play with tokens [iskumadri]? Didnโ€™t you take your studies seriously? What is the reason that you do not say a proof to him from that which we learned: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because piercing renders him blemished.

ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืื”ื‘ืชื™ ืืช ืื“ื ื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

Rav Naแธฅman explains the proof: And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, it is not even relevant to suggest that a slave of priestly lineage could be pierced, as the fact that he cannot be pierced could be derived from another point, as I require the slave to say: โ€œI love my master, my wife, and my childrenโ€ (Exodus 21:5), and that declaration cannot be issued by a priest if his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. And nothing more can be answered to this proof. The reason given by the Rabbis proves that a Canaanite maidservant can be provided even to a priest.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฉื ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชืจื•ืช ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ

Similarly, a dilemma was raised before them: What is the halakha with regard to the permissibility for a priest who goes to war to engage in intercourse with a beautiful woman captured in that war? Does one say that the case of a beautiful woman is a novelty in that the Torah permits a man to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman? Consequently, it is no different in the case of a priest and no different in the case of an Israelite, as both are permitted to engage in intercourse with this woman. Or perhaps the case of priests is different, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them? Rav said: It is permitted, and Shmuel said: It is prohibited.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื“ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข

The Gemara comments: With regard to the first act of sexual intercourse between the soldier priest and the gentile woman, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination, and the evil inclination of a priest is as strong as that of an Israelite. This passage serves to prevent intercourse performed in a prohibited manner, which is relevant to a priest as well.

ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื” ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื

When they disagree it is with regard to the second act of sexual intercourse. Is a priest permitted to bring the captive into his house, convert her, and marry her? Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Their reasoning is as follows: Rav said it is permitted: Since she was permitted to him once, she remains permitted to him. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as ultimately she is a convert, and a convert is not fit to marry a priest.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉื ื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื™ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื” ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื“ื”ื ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชืš ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชืš ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื”

There are those who say a different version of this dispute. With regard to the second act of intercourse everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as she is a convert, and a priest may not marry a convert. When they disagree it is with regard to the first act of intercourse. Rav said it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as any situation that one can read with regard to it: โ€œThen you shall bring her home to your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:12), one can also read and fulfill with regard to the earlier command of: โ€œAnd see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you as a wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:11). Conversely, any situation that one cannot read with regard to it: โ€œThen you shall bring her home to your house,โ€ i.e., if the soldier may not marry her, one does not read with regard to it: โ€œAnd sees among the captives,โ€ and one may not engage in sexual intercourse with her.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื‘ื™ื” ืืฉืช ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉื™ืื›ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืฉืจ

The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: โ€œAnd sees among the captives,โ€ teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression โ€œa womanโ€ teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase โ€œa beautiful womanโ€ indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her. And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 21

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 21

ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

This second baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita, which teaches that one can borrow money and redeem the house and partially redeem it, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืชื ื™ ื—ื“ื ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ืชื ื™ื ืื™ื“ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

The Gemara states: It is taught in one baraita with regard to the houses of walled cities: One can borrow money and redeem it, and one can partially redeem it, and it is taught in another baraita: One cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor can one partially redeem. Apparently, there is a contradiction between these two baraitot. The Gemara answers as above: This is not difficult. This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

(ืกื™ืžืŸ ื—ืจืฉ ื—ื‘ืฉ ื–ืžืŸ)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic device for the names of the Sages who raise the dilemmas cited below and those to whom the questions are addressed: แธคeresh, แธฅavash, zeman. They allude to the following interlocutors: แธคeresh alludes to Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, and Rav Ashi; แธฅavash alludes to Rav Aแธฅa Sava and Rav Ashi; and zeman alludes to Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, and Ravina.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื

Rav Aแธฅa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: The comparison detailed earlier (20b) between one who sells a house and one who consecrates a field, can be refuted as follows: What is unique about one who sells a house among the houses of walled cities is that his power is diminished, in that he is not able to redeem it forever, since he cannot redeem it after a year has passed (see Leviticus 25:30). Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrates his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem forever?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ืื—ื ืกื‘ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื ื™ื”ื“ืจ ื“ื™ื ื ืชื™ืชื™ ื‘ืžื” ื”ืฆื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืœืขื•ืœื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืžื” ืœืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ืžื™ื“ ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื™ื•ื›ื™ื—

Rav Aแธฅa Sava said to Rav Ashi: The comparison is valid, because it can be said that the argument returns, as one can learn in a different manner. Let this matter be derived by an analogy derived from the common factor of two sources: The halakha of one who sells an ancestral field can prove it, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field forever, and he cannot borrow money and redeem it, and he cannot partially redeem it. And if you say: What is unique about one who sells an ancestral field is that his power is diminished in that he is not able to redeem it immediately, the case of one who sells a house from among houses of walled cities can prove otherwise. Although one can redeem the house immediately, he cannot borrow money and redeem it, nor partially redeem it.

ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื›ืจืื™ ื–ื” ื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื ื’ืืœื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืื ื™ ืื‘ื™ื ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื ื’ืืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ

And the derivation has reverted to its starting point, as one could alternate the explanations for each side with their respective refutations. Ultimately, the aspect of this case, an ancestral field, is not like the aspect of that case, a house from among houses of walled cities. Their common denominator is that they can be redeemed, and one cannot borrow money and redeem them, and likewise, one cannot partially redeem them. I will also bring the case of one who consecrates his field and rule that it may be redeemed, but one cannot borrow money and redeem it, and one cannot partially redeem it.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ื–ื•ื˜ืจื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืžืจื™ ืœืจื‘ื™ื ื ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืคืจืš ืžื” ืœื”ืฆื“ ื”ืฉื•ื” ืฉื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉื›ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืข ื›ื—ื ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื”

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: This derivation, based on the common denominator, can be refuted as follows: What is unique to their common denominator is that their power is diminished in that they are unable to redeem the respective properties during the second year, as in neither case can they be redeemed in the second year. One who sells a house in a walled city cannot redeem it beyond the first year, while one who sells an ancestral field cannot redeem it during the first two years. Shall you say the same with regard to one who consecrated his field, as his power is enhanced in that he is able to redeem the field in the second year?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื™ื•ื›ื™ื— ืฉื™ืคื” ื›ื—ื• ืœื™ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉื ื” ืฉื ื™ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ื” ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ื•ื’ื•ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ

Ravina said to him that the derivation is valid because it can be said that the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile can prove otherwise, as his power enhanced in that he is able to redeem himself in the second year, and nevertheless he cannot borrow money and redeem himself, and he cannot partially redeem himself.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ื—ื™ื ื ื ืžืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ืžื•ื›ืจ ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ื’ืืœืชื• ื’ืืœืชื• ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื’ืžืจ ืžื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืื™ื ื” ื ื’ืืœืช ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื’ืืœืช ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืืฃ ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื ื’ืืœ ืœื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื•ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื

The Gemara discusses a similar matter. Rav Huna bar แธคinnana raised a dilemma before Rav Sheshet: In the case of one who sells a house from among the houses of walled cities, can it be redeemed by relatives or can it not be redeemed by relatives? Is the ability to redeem a house limited to the seller himself? The Gemara presents the two sides of the dilemma: Does one derive the verbal analogy of โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:29) and โ€œgeโ€™ullatoโ€ (Leviticus 25:26) from an ancestral field in this manner: Just as an ancestral field cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives, so too, this house also cannot be partially redeemed and yet it can be redeemed by relatives?

ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื›ื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื ื’ืื•ืœื” ื‘ื—ืฆืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืœื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ

Or perhaps, when the word geโ€™ula is written in the case of an ancestral field, it is written with regard to partial redemption; but the word redemption is not written with regard to relatives. If so, the verbal analogy does not apply to the halakha of redemption by relatives. Rav Sheshet said to him: The house cannot be redeemed by relatives.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืชืชื ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื

Rav Huna bar แธคinnana raised an objection to the ruling of Rav Sheshet from a baraita that deals with the verse: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). This verse serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that the term houses is referring to houses of walled cities, indicating that they can also be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this suggestion: No, this is referring to houses in open areas without walls.

ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื•ื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ

The Gemara asks: With regard to houses in open areas without walls, it is explicitly written: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31), meaning that they are like ancestral fields. If so, there is no need for another verse to teach this halakha. The Gemara answers: That verse: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24), serves to establish that redemption by relatives is an obligation, and this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ื’ืืœ ืืช ืžืžื›ืจ ืื—ื™ื• ืจืฉื•ืช ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฉื•ืช ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืื™ืฉ ื›ื™ ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื’ืืœ ื•ื›ื™ ื™ืฉ ืื“ื ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื’ื•ืืœื™ื ืืœื ื–ื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ืจื•ืฆื” ืœื™ืงื— ืฉื”ืจืฉื•ืช ื‘ื™ื“ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

As it is taught in a baraita, with regard to a verse that deals with one who sells ancestral land: โ€œAnd he shall redeem that which his brother has soldโ€ (Leviticus 25:25), this redemption is optional, i.e., if he wishes to do so he may redeem the land. Do you say that it is optional or is it nothing other than an obligation? The verse states concerning an ancestral field that was sold: โ€œAnd if a man has no one to redeem itโ€ (Leviticus 25:26). This verse is puzzling: But is there a man in Israel who does not have redeemers? Every Jew has a relative of some sort, even if he must trace his family tree back all the way to Jacob. Rather, this is referring to one who has a relative who does not want to purchase, i.e., redeem, the land, as he has permission to refrain from doing so, since this redemption is optional. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื’ืืœ ืืช ืžืžื›ืจ ืื—ื™ื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื•ื‘ื” ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ืจืฉื•ืช ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืืœื” ืชืชื ื• ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื”

Rabbi Eliezer says that when the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall redeem that which his brother has sold,โ€ this redemption is an obligation. Do you say that it is an obligation, or is it only optional? The verse states: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). Here the verse established it as obligatory. This is the interpretation of the verses according to Rabbi Eliezer.

ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ืžืื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงืฉื™ื

The Sages said to Rav Ashi, and some say Ravina said this to Rav Ashi: Granted, according to the one who says that the verse serves to include houses of walled cities, this is as it is written โ€œin all.โ€ โ€œIn allโ€ serves to include a case omitted by the phrase โ€œyou shall grant a redemption for the land.โ€ But according to the one who says that it serves to include houses in open areas without walls, what is meant by the term โ€œin allโ€? It was already taught that these houses are included in the category of ancestral fields, and therefore they are referred to by the expression โ€œredemption for the land.โ€ No answer was found to this question and the Gemara states that it is a difficulty.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื’ืื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื’ืืœื•ืช ื›ืกื“ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”

Abaye raised an objection to this opinion that houses in walled cities cannot be redeemed by relatives. It is taught in a baraita: What does it mean when the verse states: โ€œMay redeem him,โ€ โ€œmay redeem him,โ€ and โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48โ€“49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order: In the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile, if he does not redeem himself he can be redeemed by a brother; if he is not redeemed by a brother, then he can be redeemed by an uncle or some other relative. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave, that they too can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field.

ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื

The Gemara asks: But the cases of houses in open areas and the case of an ancestral field are written explicitly: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31). The Gemara answers: This is as Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said, that the verse detailing the redemption by relatives stated with regard to an ancestral field teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the ancestral field. The obligation or merit to redeem the field applies first to one who is more closely related to the seller. So too, with regard to houses in open areas, this verse teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house.

ื”ื™ื›ื ืื™ืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื”ื ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืื• ืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ืœืงืจื•ื‘ื™ื ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืืœื” ื ื’ืืœ ื‘ืฉืฉ ืืœืžื ืœื ืžื™ืคืจืง

The Gemara asks: Where was this opinion of Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak originally stated? The Gemara answers that it was stated with regard to this issue, as a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Can a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew be redeemed by his relatives or can he not be redeemed by his relatives? The Gemara comments: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, you should not raise the dilemma, as he says: One who is not redeemed by these relatives is redeemed by six years of service. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile cannot be redeemed by his relatives.

ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื™ืœืคื™ื ืŸ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ืฉื›ื™ืจ ื•ืœื ื“ืจืฉื™ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืœื–ื” ื•ืœื ืœืื—ืจ

When you raise the dilemma, it is according to the opinion of the Rabbis. What is the halakha? Does one derive the verbal analogy comparing โ€œhired workerโ€ (Leviticus 25:40) and โ€œhired workerโ€ (Leviticus 25:53) from the case of a Jew sold to a gentile, and say that just as one can be redeemed by oneโ€™s relatives if sold to a gentile, so too, one can be redeemed if sold to a Jew? And at the same time one does not interpret homiletically the phrase โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48), stated with regard to one sold to a gentile, as a restricting term. Or perhaps the phrase โ€œmay redeem himโ€ is in fact a restricting term, which indicates that this halakha applies only to this slave, i.e., only one sold to a gentile can be redeemed by relatives, and it does not apply to another slave, one sold to a Jew.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื’ืื•ืœื” ืชืชื ื• ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื‘ืชื™ื ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™

Come and hear a baraita: โ€œAnd in all of your ancestral land you shall grant redemption for the landโ€ (Leviticus 25:24). The inclusive expression โ€œin allโ€ serves to include houses and a Hebrew slave. What, is it not correct to say that this includes houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, one can say that this is referring to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile.

ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื ื›ืจื™ ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื” ืื• ื“ื“ื• ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื“ื“ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื•

The Gemara asks: It is explicitly written with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile: โ€œEither his uncle or his uncleโ€™s son may redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:49). If so, it is unnecessary to derive the option of redemption by a relative from an inclusive expression in a different verse.

ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืงื•ื‘ืขื• ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข

The Gemara answers: That verse serves to establish that redeeming him is an obligation. And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that there is no requirement to redeem land, this case is different, as it is proper to redeem him to prevent him from being assimilated by gentiles.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ื™ื’ืืœื ื• ืฉืœืฉ ืคืขืžื™ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื’ืื•ืœื•ืช ืฉื ื’ืืœื•ืช ื›ืกื“ืจ ื”ื–ื” ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืชื™ ืขืจื™ ื—ื•ืžื” ื•ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื”ื ืžื›ืจ ืœื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื‘ืชื™ ื—ืฆืจื™ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ื”ื• ืขืœ ืฉื“ื” ื”ืืจืฅ ื™ื—ืฉื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืงืจื•ื‘ ืงืจื•ื‘ ืงื•ื“ื

Come and hear a proof from a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: โ€œMay redeem him,โ€ โ€œmay redeem him,โ€ and โ€œmay redeem himโ€ (Leviticus 25:48โ€“49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring both to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew, that they can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field. The Gemara asks: Concerning houses in open areas and an ancestral field, it is written explicitly: โ€œShall be reckoned with the field of the countryโ€ (Leviticus 25:31). Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: This teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house or the field. This is the context of Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅakโ€™s statement.

ื•ื”ื ืจืฆืข ื ืงื ื” ื‘ืจืฆื™ืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืจืฆืข ืื“ื ื™ื• ืืช ืื–ื ื• ื‘ืžืจืฆืข ื•ื’ื•ืณ

ยง The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: And a Hebrew slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: โ€œAnd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him foreverโ€ (Exodus 21:6).

ื•ืงื•ื ื” ืืช ืขืฆืžื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื•ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ื”ืื“ื•ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืŸ ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื‘ืช ืœืขืœื ืœืขื•ืœืžื• ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื‘ืœ

The mishna further teaches that a pierced slave acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year and through the masterโ€™s death. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: โ€œAnd he shall serve him foreverโ€ (Exodus 21:6). This term indicates that he serves only the master, but not the son and not the daughter. The term โ€œforeverโ€ is referring to the forever represented by the Jubilee Year. The word โ€œforeverโ€ does not mean for eternity, but refers to the end of the cycle of the Jubilee Year.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžืจืฆืข ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืžืจืฆืข ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืกื•ืœ ื•ื”ืกื™ืจื ื•ื”ืžื—ื˜ ื•ื”ืžืงื“ื— ื•ื”ืžื›ืชื‘ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ื›ืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื ืงื— ื‘ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

The Sages taught: From the term โ€œan awlโ€ I have derived only that a master can pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave with an awl. From where do I derive that a sharp thorn [sol], a thorn [sira], a needle, an auger, and a stylus used to engrave in wax may be used? The verse states: โ€œAnd you shall take the awlโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:17). This term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ serves to include any implement that can be taken in the masterโ€™s hand. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.

ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื” ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื”ืžืจืฆืข ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all of these utensils may be used for piercing. Just as an awl is unique in that it is made of metal, so too any tool made of metal can be used; one may not pierce a slaveโ€™s ear with non-metal implements. Alternatively, the verse states: โ€œAnd you shall take the awl,โ€ to include the large awl for piercing.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื›ืฉื”ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื”ื ืจื•ืฆืขื™ื ื”ื™ืืš ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื”ื ืื™ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืืœื ื‘ื’ื•ื‘ื” ืฉืœ ืื–ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™

Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce, they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on the earlobe, as the halakha is that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierce a slaveโ€™s earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A pierced earlobe is not considered a blemish. This indicates that he is pierced only on the upper part of the ear through the cartilage. The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?

ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื›ืœืœื™ ื•ืคืจื˜ื™ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ื›ืœืœ ืžืจืฆืข ืคืจื˜ ื‘ืื–ื ื• ื•ื‘ื“ืœืช ื—ื–ืจ ื•ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœืœ ื•ืคืจื˜ ื•ื›ืœืœ ืื™ ืืชื” ื“ืŸ ืืœื ื›ืขื™ืŸ ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžื” ื”ืคืจื˜ ืžืคื•ืจืฉ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช ืืฃ ื›ืœ ืฉืœ ืžืชื›ืช

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of generalizations and details. Accordingly, he maintains that the term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ is a generalization that indicates piercing may be performed with any implement. โ€œAn awlโ€ is a detail, and when the verse states: โ€œThrough his ear and into the doorโ€ (Deuteronomy 15:17), it then generalized again. When the verse writes a generalization and a detail and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the explicit detail mentions an awl, which is made of metal, so too, any utensil used for piercing must be made of metal.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืจื™ื‘ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืžื™ืขื•ื˜ื™ ื•ืœืงื—ืช ืจื™ื‘ื” ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ืขื˜ ื‘ืื–ื ื• ื•ื‘ื“ืœืช ื—ื–ืจ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื•ืžื™ืขื˜ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ืจื™ื‘ื” ื”ื›ืœ

By contrast, Rabbi Yosei expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of amplifications and restrictions. Accordingly, he learns that the term โ€œand you shall takeโ€ amplifies, i.e., it includes any item that can be taken in oneโ€™s hand. The term โ€œan awlโ€ restricts. When the verse states โ€œthrough his ear and into the door,โ€ it then amplifies again. When the verse amplifies, restricts, and amplifies, it has amplified the halakha to include everything except one item.

ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื›ืœ ืžื™ืœื™ ืžืื™ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืžื™ืขื˜ ืกื

What has it amplified, i.e., included beyond an awl? It has amplified the category to include everything that can pierce an ear. What has it restricted from inclusion in the category? It excludes only the method that is most dissimilar to the use of an awl, which is a corrosive substance. Producing a hole in the slaveโ€™s ear with a substance of this kind is not a valid form of piercing.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ืžืจืฆืข ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืžืื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื›ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื™ืจืš ื”ืžื™ื•ืžื ืช ืฉื‘ื™ืจืš ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ืžืจืฆืข ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืฉื‘ืžืจืฆืขื™ืŸ

The Master said above: โ€œThe awl,โ€ this serves to include the large awl for piercing. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this expression is referring to a large awl? The Gemara answers that this is as Rava said with regard to the verse: โ€œThe sinew of the thigh vein which is upon the hollow of the thighโ€ (Genesis 32:33), that this is referring to the most important [meyummenet] part of the thigh. The definite article indicates something clear and obvious. Here too, the term โ€œthe awlโ€ is referring to a special awl.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื™ื•ื“ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ื‘ื™ ื”ื™ื” ื“ื•ืจืฉ ื›ืฉื”ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืจื•ืฆืขื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžื™ืœืชื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ื•ื™ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื‘ ืืœ ืžืฉืคื—ืชื• ืœืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืฉื‘ืžืฉืคื—ืชื•

It was further stated in the above baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach: When they pierce a slave they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: โ€œAnd he shall return to his own familyโ€ (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืžืกื•ืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฉื ื ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite?

ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ

Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amoraโ€™im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืœืจื‘ ืขื ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื™ืชื• ื‘ื™ ืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืื™ืกืงื•ืžื“ืจื™ ืื™ื˜ืœืœื™ืชื• ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืชื™ืžืจื• ืœื™ื” ืžื”ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ ืขื‘ืจื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื ืจืฆืข ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื ืขืฉื” ื‘ืขืœ ืžื•ื

Rav Naแธฅman said to Rav Anan: When you were studying in the house of Mar Shmuel did you play with tokens [iskumadri]? Didnโ€™t you take your studies seriously? What is the reason that you do not say a proof to him from that which we learned: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because piercing renders him blemished.

ื•ืื ืชืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื• ืžื•ืกืจ ืœื• ืฉืคื—ื” ื›ื ืขื ื™ืช ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืœื™ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืื”ื‘ืชื™ ืืช ืื“ื ื™ ืืช ืืฉืชื™ ื•ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืชื• ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™

Rav Naแธฅman explains the proof: And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, it is not even relevant to suggest that a slave of priestly lineage could be pierced, as the fact that he cannot be pierced could be derived from another point, as I require the slave to say: โ€œI love my master, my wife, and my childrenโ€ (Exodus 21:5), and that declaration cannot be issued by a priest if his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. And nothing more can be answered to this proof. The reason given by the Rabbis proves that a Canaanite maidservant can be provided even to a priest.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื›ื”ืŸ ืžื”ื• ื‘ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ื—ื™ื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืœื ืฉื ื ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื• ื“ื™ืœืžื ืฉืื ื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืจื™ื‘ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ ืžืฆื•ืช ื™ืชืจื•ืช ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ

Similarly, a dilemma was raised before them: What is the halakha with regard to the permissibility for a priest who goes to war to engage in intercourse with a beautiful woman captured in that war? Does one say that the case of a beautiful woman is a novelty in that the Torah permits a man to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman? Consequently, it is no different in the case of a priest and no different in the case of an Israelite, as both are permitted to engage in intercourse with this woman. Or perhaps the case of priests is different, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them? Rav said: It is permitted, and Shmuel said: It is prohibited.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืฉืจื™ ื“ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข

The Gemara comments: With regard to the first act of sexual intercourse between the soldier priest and the gentile woman, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination, and the evil inclination of a priest is as strong as that of an Israelite. This passage serves to prevent intercourse performed in a prohibited manner, which is relevant to a priest as well.

ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉื ื™ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ื ืื™ืฉืชืจื™ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื“ื”ื ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื” ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื

When they disagree it is with regard to the second act of sexual intercourse. Is a priest permitted to bring the captive into his house, convert her, and marry her? Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Their reasoning is as follows: Rav said it is permitted: Since she was permitted to him once, she remains permitted to him. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as ultimately she is a convert, and a convert is not fit to marry a priest.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืฉื ื™ื” ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื“ืืกื™ืจื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืœื” ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืชืจ ื“ื”ื ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชืš ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืืชื” ืืœ ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชืš ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื”

There are those who say a different version of this dispute. With regard to the second act of intercourse everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as she is a convert, and a priest may not marry a convert. When they disagree it is with regard to the first act of intercourse. Rav said it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as any situation that one can read with regard to it: โ€œThen you shall bring her home to your houseโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:12), one can also read and fulfill with regard to the earlier command of: โ€œAnd see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you as a wifeโ€ (Deuteronomy 21:11). Conversely, any situation that one cannot read with regard to it: โ€œThen you shall bring her home to your house,โ€ i.e., if the soldier may not marry her, one does not read with regard to it: โ€œAnd sees among the captives,โ€ and one may not engage in sexual intercourse with her.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจืื™ืช ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื‘ื™ื” ืืฉืช ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืืฉืช ืื™ืฉ ื™ืคืช ืชื•ืืจ ืœื ื“ื‘ืจื” ืชื•ืจื” ืืœื ื›ื ื’ื“ ื™ืฆืจ ื”ืจืข ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืฉื™ืื›ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืฉืจ

The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: โ€œAnd sees among the captives,โ€ teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression โ€œa womanโ€ teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase โ€œa beautiful womanโ€ indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her. And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat

Scroll To Top