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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 4, 2023 | 讬状讞 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讙

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

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Kiddushin 22

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her father, Armin Abramson, Hershel Tzvi Shlomo Chaim ben Dina Sara and Pesach, on his 6th yahrzeit. 鈥淗e was always amazed by the topics the rabbis discussed and the details they considered.鈥澛

Today’s daf is sponsored by Erica and Barry Kolatch in celebration of the Bar Mitzvah of their grandson, Alon Hillel Kolatch, son of Eliezer and Shoshana Covel Kolatch. “Mazal Tov also to Alon’s other grandparents, Leah Covel, and James Covel.”

Today’s learning is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom family for a refuah shleima of Avi, Avraham Shraga Feivush ben Hilda, “the husband of our dear friend and co-learner, Goldie Gilad. With tefillot and wishes for a full and speedy recovery for Avi, b’toch she’ar cholei Yisrael.”

Can a master give a Jewish slave who is a kohen a Caananite slave for bearing children? Is it permissible for a kohen to go through the process with an eshet yefat toar as prescribed by the Torah? In what way is it permissible to pierce the slave’s ear and allow him to remain enslaved until the Jubilee year? The Gemara brings braitot with drashot on the verses of a slave whose ear gets pierced and limits the possibilities in which this can happen. Anyone who buys a Jewish slave is buying a master himself because he needs to be treated as one would treat oneself. The master also needs to provide food for his wife and children. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakhai explains that specifically the ear is pierced as a sign that the slave who wanted to remain a slave heard the words of the Torah at Mount Sinai that the sons of Yisrael are slaves to God and not slaves to slaves and transgressed this and sold himself into slavery. Rabbi Shimon b’Rebbi explains that the reason the ear is pierced near the door is to remember that God passed over the doorposts in Egypt showing that we would leave slavery behind and become slaves to God only and this slave is going against that.聽 According to the Mishna, a Canaanite slave was bought with money, a document and chazaka. However, there are other ways as well and the Gemara explains what they are.

转诪讜转讜转 砖讞讜讟讜转 讜讗诇 讬讗讻诇讜 讘砖专 转诪讜转讜转 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讞砖拽转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讛 讜讘讞讘专转讛


of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited. The expression: 鈥淎nd you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one鈥檚 desire. The term 鈥渇or her鈥 indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner.


讜诇拽讞转 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讬砖 诇讱 讘讛 诇讱 诇讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬拽讞 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 诇讜 讜讗讞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讞转 诇讜 讜讗讞转 诇讘谞讜 讜讛讘讗转讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讞爪谞讛 讘诪诇讞诪讛:


The phrase 鈥渁nd would take her鈥 teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. 鈥淭o you as a wife鈥 teaches that he may not take two women, one for him and one for his father, or one for him and one for his son. The verse: 鈥淭hen you shall bring her home into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:12), teaches that he should not pressure her to engage in sexual intercourse during the war, but he should first take her into his home.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讜讬砖谞讛 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗讛


The Sages taught: It is stated with regard to a pierced slave: 鈥淏ut if the slave shall say [amor yomar]: I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free鈥 (Exodus 21:5). The repeated verb teaches that he is not pierced unless he says this statement and repeats it. If he said at the beginning of his six years of service that he wants to be pierced, but he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will not go out free,鈥 i.e., he is not pierced unless he says it when he leaves.


讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 讛注讘讚 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 注讘讚


If he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚f the slave shall say [amor yomar],鈥 which indicates that he is not pierced unless he states it while he is still a slave. This concludes the baraita.


讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗讛讘转讬 讗转 讗讚谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讜讗转 讘谞讬 讜诇讬讻讗


The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: If he said it at the beginning of his six years and he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will not go out free.鈥 The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita learn this halakha specifically from the phrase 鈥淚 will not go out free鈥? Let him derive it from the fact that we require another condition. He has to be able to say: 鈥淚 love my master, my wife, and my children鈥 (Exodus 21:5) in order to become a pierced slave, and he cannot say this, as at the start of the six years he does not yet have children from the Canaanite maidservant his master provided for him.


讜转讜 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讛注讘讚 讗讟讜 住讜祝 砖砖 诇讗讜 注讘讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讘转讞讬诇转 驻专讜讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诪讗讬 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讘住讜祝 驻专讜讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛:


And furthermore, the baraita states that if he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated 鈥渢he slave.鈥 Is that to say that he is not a slave at the end of six years? Rava said: What is the meaning of: At the beginning of six? This is not referring to the actual beginning of his six years of service, but to the beginning of the last peruta, i.e., when he reaches the start of his final stage of work worth one peruta, when he is still a slave. And what is the meaning of the term: At the end of six? At the end of the last peruta.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讜诇专讘讜 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讛讘讱 讜讗转 讘讬转讱 诇专讘讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讜诇讜 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗讛讘转讬 讗转 讗讚谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讜讗转 讘谞讬


The Sages taught: If the slave has a wife and children and his master does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he loves you and your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). The word 鈥渉ouse鈥 is referring to a wife and children, and therefore if the master does not have a wife and children the verse cannot be fulfilled, and the slave is not pierced. Similarly, if his master has a wife and children and he does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 love my master, my wife, and my children鈥 (Exodus 21:5).


讛讜讗 讗讜讛讘 讗转 专讘讜 讜专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讛讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 专讘讜 讗讜讛讘讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讛讘 讗转 专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讛讘讱 讛讜讗 讞讜诇讛 讜专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 专讘讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 注诪讱


Furthermore, if he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that it is good for both of them to be with each other. If his master loves him but he does not love his master, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he loves you.鈥 If he is ill and his master is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you,鈥 which excludes a sick person. Similarly, if his master is ill and he is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated 鈥渨ith you,鈥 which equates the well-being of the pair.


讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 注诪讱 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜:


Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised a dilemma: If both of them are ill, what is the halakha? Do we require only that the slave be 鈥渨ith you,鈥 i.e., in the same condition as the master, and that is the case here, as they are both ill, and the slave can be pierced? Or perhaps we require 鈥渂ecause he fares well with you,鈥 i.e., it must be good for both of them, and that is not the case here, as they are both ill. If so, he cannot be pierced. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜


The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you,鈥 which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread, bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讬爪讗 诪注诪讱 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讜讗 谞诪讻专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讬 谞诪讻专讬诐 诪讻讗谉 砖专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讬讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘注诇 讗砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讜讗 谞诪讻专 讗砖转讜 诪讬 谞诪讻专讛 诪讻讗谉 砖专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讗砖转讜


The Sages taught with regard to a verse that deals with the emancipation of a slave: 鈥淭hen he shall go out from you, he and his children with him鈥 (Leviticus 25:41). Rabbi Shimon said: This verse is puzzling, as, if he is sold, are his sons and daughters sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his children, and when the slave is emancipated his sons are released as well. You say something similar with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f he is married then his wife shall go out with him鈥 (Exodus 21:3). Rabbi Shimon said: If he is sold, is his wife sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his wife.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘谞讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘谞讬 诪讬注讘讚 讜诪讬讻诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 讚讘转 诪讬讻诇 讜诪讬注讘讚 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转注讘讬讚 讜转讬讻讜诇


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to mention both cases, as if it had taught us only that the master is required to provide sustenance for the slave鈥檚 children, one might say that this is because they are not fit to work and eat. Since they are unable to support themselves, the master is required to support them. But with regard to his wife, who can eat and work, one might say that she should work and eat in payment for her work, and the master is not required to support her for free.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗砖转讜 讚诇讗讜 讚讬专讻讛 诇讛讚讜专讬 讗讘诇 讘谞讬讜 讚讚讬专讻讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讜专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if the baraita had taught us only about his wife, one might say that the master is required to support her since it is not her manner to circulate and collect charity, as she is too embarrassed to do this. But with regard to his children, since it is their manner to circulate and beg, i.e., this is not beneath their dignity, one might say no, he is not required to support them. Therefore it is necessary to issue both rulings.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉


The Sages taught:


讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讬讚拽讜专 讻谞讙讚 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 讚诇转 讗讬谉 讗讝谞讜 诇讗 讜讗讝谉 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注


Had the verse stated: His ear to the door, I would say: He should pierce, opposite his ear, into the door alone. In other words, with regard to the door, yes, it should be pierced, but his ear itself, no, it should not be pierced. The Gemara asks: But how could it even be suggested that his ear should not be pierced? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl鈥 (Exodus 21:6)?


讗诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讬专爪注谞讛 诇讗讝谉 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜讬谞讬讞谞讛 注诇 讛讚诇转 讜讬讚拽讜专 讻谞讙讚 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讝谞讜 讜讘讚诇转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讚讜拽专 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 讗爪诇 讚诇转


Rather, I would say that the master should pierce his ear outside, i.e., not at the door, and he should place it afterward on the door, and then he should pierce opposite his ear on the door. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take the awl and place it through his ear and into the door鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). How so? He bores through his ear until he reaches the door.


讚诇转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 注拽讜专讛 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 注拽讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诪注讜诪讚 讗祝 讚诇转 谞诪讬 诪注讜诪讚


The baraita adds: Since the verse states 鈥渄oor,鈥 I would derive that this applies to any door, regardless of whether it is detached from its doorpost or whether it is not detached. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen his master shall bring him to the court, and shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost鈥 (Exodus 21:6): Just as a doorpost is upright and attached, so too, a door must be upright and attached to the doorpost.


专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专 诪讛 谞砖转谞讛 讗讝谉 诪讻诇 讗讘专讬诐 砖讘讙讜祝 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讝谉 砖砖诪注讛 拽讜诇讬 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专转讬 讻讬 诇讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜拽谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜 讬专爪注


Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [岣mer], i.e., as an allegory: Why is the ear different from all the other limbs in the body, as the ear alone is pierced? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This ear heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I said: 鈥淔or to Me the children of Israel are slaves鈥 (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: And they should not be slaves to slaves. And yet this man went and willingly acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let this ear be pierced.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专 诪讛 谞砖转谞讛 讚诇转 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诪讻诇 讻诇讬诐 砖讘讘讬转 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讚诇转 讜诪讝讜讝讛 砖讛讬讜 注讚讬诐 讘诪爪专讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖驻住讞转讬 注诇 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜注诇 砖转讬 讛诪讝讜讝讜转 讜讗诪专转讬 讻讬 诇讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讜爪讗转讬诐 诪注讘讚讜转 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜拽谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜 讬专爪注 讘驻谞讬讛诐:


And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would likewise expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath: Why are the door and a doorpost different from all other objects in the house, that the piercing is performed with them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and when I passed over the two doorposts of houses in which there were Jews (Exodus, chapter 12), and I said: 鈥淔or to Me the children of Israel are slaves,鈥 and they should not be slaves to slaves. And I delivered them at that time from slavery to freedom, and yet this man went and acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let him be pierced before them, as they are witnesses that he violated God鈥檚 will.


诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讻住祝 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘砖讟专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻住祝 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讜讘砖讟专 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讻住祝 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐:


MISHNA: A Canaanite slave is acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the master taking possession of him. And he can acquire himself, i.e., his freedom, by means of money given by others, i.e., other people can give money to his master, and by means of a bill of manumission if he accepts it by himself. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The slave can be freed by means of money given by himself, and by means of a bill of manumission if it is accepted by others, provided that the money he gives belongs to others, not to him. This is because the slave cannot possess property, as anything owned by a slave is considered his master鈥檚.


讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 诇专砖转 讗讞讝讛 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讗祝 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that these are the modes by which a slave can be acquired? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children as an ancestral inheritance鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). The verse juxtaposes Canaanite slaves to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field can be acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the owner taking possession of it, so too, a Canaanite slave can be acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the master taking possession of him.


讗讬 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗祝 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 讞讜讝专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜


The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps one can interpret this juxtaposition differently: Just as an ancestral field returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year, so too a Canaanite slave returns to his prior owners in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f them you may take your slaves forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that the sale is permanent.


转谞讗 讗祝 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬


A Sage taught in a baraita that a Canaanite slave can also be acquired by means of symbolic exchange, i.e., a pro forma act of acquisition performed by the giving of an item, usually a kerchief, effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. The Gemara asks: And why doesn鈥檛 the tanna of our mishna mention acquisition through symbolic exchange? The Gemara answers: He teaches only the effectiveness of modes of acquisition which are not effective in transferring the ownership of movable property, as it is a novelty that these are effective, as one may have thought that a slave can be acquired only in the same manner as movable property is acquired. He does not teach the effectiveness of modes of acquisition which are effective in transferring the ownership of movable property, as it is not a novelty that a slave can be acquired in that manner.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讻讬爪讚 转拽驻讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 拽谞讗讜 拽专讗讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜


Shmuel says: A Canaanite slave can be acquired by means of pulling, as can movable property. How is pulling performed in the case of a slave? If the master took him by force and the slave came to him, he has thereby acquired him. But if the master called him and he came to him willingly, he has not acquired him.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 讘专讗 谞讬转谞讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘讬谉 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讚讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗讬转讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 诇讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬


The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, it is clear why he did not list pulling as a mode of acquisition, as he does not teach the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are effective in transferring the ownership of movable property; he teaches only the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are not effective in transferring the ownership of movable property. Pulling is effective with movable property. But according to the opinion of the tanna of the baraita, who taught the mode of symbolic exchange, let him teach pulling as well. The Gemara answers: When he teaches his baraita, which includes acquisition through symbolic exchange, he teaches the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are effective in transferring the ownership of both land and movable property. He does not teach the effectiveness of pulling, which is effective in transferring the ownership of movable property but is not effective in transferring the ownership of land.


讻讬爪讚 转拽驻讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 拽谞讗讜 拽专讗讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讜拽专讗讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讘诪住讬专讛 讗讞讝讛 讘讟诇驻讛 讘砖注专讛 讘讗讜讻祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘砖诇讬祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 砖讘驻讬讛 讜讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 拽谞讗讛


The Gemara returns to analyze Shmuel鈥檚 statement: How does one acquire a slave through pulling? If the master took him by force and he came to him, he has acquired him. If he called him and he came to him, he has not acquired him. The Gemara asks: And has he not acquired him if he called him? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: How is an animal acquired through passing? If he grabbed it by its hoof, or by its hair, or by the saddle on it, or by the load [shalif] on it, or by the bit [bifrumbiya] in its mouth, or by the bell on its neck, he has acquired it.


讻讬爪讚 讘诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讗讜 砖讛讻讬砖讛 讘诪拽诇 讜专爪转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讬讜谉 砖注拽专讛 讬讚 讜专讙诇 拽谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讛


How is an animal acquired by pulling? If he calls it and it comes, or he if hits it with a stick and it runs before him, once it lifts a foreleg and a hind leg from where it was standing, he acquires it. Rabbi Asi, and some say Rabbi A岣, says: It is not enough if the animal lifts its feet. Rather, one does not acquire it until it walks the distance of its full height in the presence of the one acquiring it. In any event, this indicates that calling is an effective use of the mode of pulling.


讗诪专讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讚注转讗 讚诪专讛 讗讝诇讛 注讘讚 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚 拽讟谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬


The Sages say in response that there is a difference between the acquisition of a slave and that of an animal. An animal walks by the will of its owner, as it is domesticated and follows the orders of its master. Consequently, if it comes when called it is as though it was pulled. By contrast, a slave walks by his own will. Consequently, even if a slave comes when called, this cannot be considered acquisition through pulling, as the master has performed no act of acquisition. Rav Ashi said: A slave who is a minor is considered like an animal. Since he has no will of his own, he can be acquired through calling, like an animal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讞讝拽讛 讛转讬专 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 讛讜诇讬讱 讻诇讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讛驻砖讬讟讜 讛专讞讬爪讜 住讻讜 讙专讚讜 讛诇讘讬砖讜 讛谞注讬诇讜 讛讙讘讬讛讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:5): How does one acquire a slave through possession? If the slave removes the master鈥檚 shoe, or carries his garments after him to the bathhouse, or undresses him, or bathes him, or anoints him, or scrubs the oil off him, or dresses him, or puts on his shoes, or lifts him, the master acquires him. Rabbi Shimon says: Acquisition through the mode of possession should not be considered greater than acquisition using the mode of lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. With regard to this last statement the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Shimon saying here? The first tanna also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讛讙讘讬讛讜 专讘讜 诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rav Ashi says that one can infer from the statement of the first tanna: If a slave lifts his master, the master acquires him, as he is performing labor for the master. But if his master lifts the slave, the master does not acquire him, as the slave has not performed labor for his master. With regard to this Rabbi Shimon says: Acquisition through possession should not be greater than acquisition through lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 转拽谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讜讝讛 诪爪讟注专 讛讻讗 讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: Now that you said that if a slave lifts his master, the master acquires him, consider the following ramification of this ruling: If that is so, let a Canaanite maidservant be acquired by means of sexual intercourse with the master, as it is possible to claim she lifts him during the act of intercourse. The Gemara answers: When we say that one acquires a slave through the labor the slave performs for him, that applies to a situation where this master benefits and that slave suffers. In this manner the master exercises his authority over the slave. Here, with regard to sexual intercourse, it is a case where this master benefits and this Canaanite maidservant likewise benefits. Since both sides derive benefit, it cannot be seen as an act of acquisition.


砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讬讬 [讘专 讗讚讗] 讚诪谉 讗讞讗 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗讜 讛谞讗讛 讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜注讜讚 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讻讛 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛


The Gemara asks: If he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with her, what can be said? In that case the woman does not benefit from the intercourse. Rav A岣i bar Adda of the place called A岣 said: Who will tell us, i.e., it is not obvious, that there is no benefit for both of them, i.e., there is benefit only for the man, when they engage in intercourse in an atypical manner? And furthermore, it is written: 鈥淟yings with a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22). The plural form indicates that there are two ways of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman: In this manner the verse compares typical sexual intercourse to intercourse in an atypical manner.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讚讜讗讛 讙专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讛 讞诇砖 注诇 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讘讚讬讛 砖诇讜祝 诇讬 诪住谞讗讬 讜讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 诇讘讬转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讛


搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda from India was a convert who had no heirs. When he became ill Mar Zutra entered to ask about his health. When he saw that his condition intensified, i.e., that he was about to die, Mar Zutra said to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 slave: Remove my shoes and take them to my house. He wanted to acquire the slave upon the death of his master, as when a convert without heirs dies, the first person to claim his property acquires it. The Gemara comments: There are those who say that this slave was an adult man,

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

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddusin: 18- 24 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how a Jewish slave and maidservant go free. We will also learn about the Jewish...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 22: There’s Only One Master of the Universe

More on "retziyah" - and the obligation of a master to the slave's family. Plus, a description of piercing the...
On Second Thought (2)

Defining Slavery in the Torah – On Second Thought

The Laws and their Significance   Kiddushin 14-24 On Second thought Kiddushin 14-24 On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya...

Kiddushin 22

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 22

转诪讜转讜转 砖讞讜讟讜转 讜讗诇 讬讗讻诇讜 讘砖专 转诪讜转讜转 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讞砖拽转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讛 谞讗讛 讘讛 讜诇讗 讘讛 讜讘讞讘专转讛


of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited. The expression: 鈥淎nd you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one鈥檚 desire. The term 鈥渇or her鈥 indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner.


讜诇拽讞转 诇讬拽讜讞讬谉 讬砖 诇讱 讘讛 诇讱 诇讗砖讛 砖诇讗 讬拽讞 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 讗讞转 诇讜 讜讗讞转 诇讗讘讬讜 讗讞转 诇讜 讜讗讞转 诇讘谞讜 讜讛讘讗转讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诇讗 讬诇讞爪谞讛 讘诪诇讞诪讛:


The phrase 鈥渁nd would take her鈥 teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. 鈥淭o you as a wife鈥 teaches that he may not take two women, one for him and one for his father, or one for him and one for his son. The verse: 鈥淭hen you shall bring her home into your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:12), teaches that he should not pressure her to engage in sexual intercourse during the war, but he should first take her into his home.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讜讬砖谞讛 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讘砖注转 讬爪讬讗讛


The Sages taught: It is stated with regard to a pierced slave: 鈥淏ut if the slave shall say [amor yomar]: I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free鈥 (Exodus 21:5). The repeated verb teaches that he is not pierced unless he says this statement and repeats it. If he said at the beginning of his six years of service that he wants to be pierced, but he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will not go out free,鈥 i.e., he is not pierced unless he says it when he leaves.


讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 讛注讘讚 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻砖讛讜讗 注讘讚


If he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚f the slave shall say [amor yomar],鈥 which indicates that he is not pierced unless he states it while he is still a slave. This concludes the baraita.


讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 诪诇讗 讗爪讗 讞驻砖讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讘注讬谞谉 讗讛讘转讬 讗转 讗讚谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讜讗转 讘谞讬 讜诇讬讻讗


The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: If he said it at the beginning of his six years and he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 will not go out free.鈥 The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita learn this halakha specifically from the phrase 鈥淚 will not go out free鈥? Let him derive it from the fact that we require another condition. He has to be able to say: 鈥淚 love my master, my wife, and my children鈥 (Exodus 21:5) in order to become a pierced slave, and he cannot say this, as at the start of the six years he does not yet have children from the Canaanite maidservant his master provided for him.


讜转讜 讗诪专 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讜诇讗 讗诪专 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讛注讘讚 讗讟讜 住讜祝 砖砖 诇讗讜 注讘讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讘转讞讬诇转 砖砖 讘转讞讬诇转 驻专讜讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛 讜诪讗讬 讘住讜祝 砖砖 讘住讜祝 驻专讜讟讛 讗讞专讜谞讛:


And furthermore, the baraita states that if he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated 鈥渢he slave.鈥 Is that to say that he is not a slave at the end of six years? Rava said: What is the meaning of: At the beginning of six? This is not referring to the actual beginning of his six years of service, but to the beginning of the last peruta, i.e., when he reaches the start of his final stage of work worth one peruta, when he is still a slave. And what is the meaning of the term: At the end of six? At the end of the last peruta.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讜诇专讘讜 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讛讘讱 讜讗转 讘讬转讱 诇专讘讜 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讜诇讜 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讜讘谞讬诐 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讗讛讘转讬 讗转 讗讚谞讬 讗转 讗砖转讬 讜讗转 讘谞讬


The Sages taught: If the slave has a wife and children and his master does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he loves you and your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16). The word 鈥渉ouse鈥 is referring to a wife and children, and therefore if the master does not have a wife and children the verse cannot be fulfilled, and the slave is not pierced. Similarly, if his master has a wife and children and he does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淚 love my master, my wife, and my children鈥 (Exodus 21:5).


讛讜讗 讗讜讛讘 讗转 专讘讜 讜专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讛讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 专讘讜 讗讜讛讘讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讛讘 讗转 专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讗讛讘讱 讛讜讗 讞讜诇讛 讜专讘讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 专讘讜 讞讜诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇讛 讗讬谞讜 谞专爪注 砖谞讗诪专 注诪讱


Furthermore, if he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that it is good for both of them to be with each other. If his master loves him but he does not love his master, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he loves you.鈥 If he is ill and his master is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you,鈥 which excludes a sick person. Similarly, if his master is ill and he is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated 鈥渨ith you,鈥 which equates the well-being of the pair.


讘注讬 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇讬谉 诪讗讬 注诪讱 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 讘注讬谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬讻讗 转讬拽讜:


Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised a dilemma: If both of them are ill, what is the halakha? Do we require only that the slave be 鈥渨ith you,鈥 i.e., in the same condition as the master, and that is the case here, as they are both ill, and the slave can be pierced? Or perhaps we require 鈥渂ecause he fares well with you,鈥 i.e., it must be good for both of them, and that is not the case here, as they are both ill. If so, he cannot be pierced. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬 讟讜讘 诇讜 注诪讱 注诪讱 讘诪讗讻诇 注诪讱 讘诪砖转讛 砖诇讗 转讛讗 讗转讛 讗讜讻诇 驻转 谞拽讬讛 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻转 拽讬讘专 讗转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讬砖谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讞讚砖 讗转讛 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 诪讜讻讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讬砖谉 注诇 讙讘讬 转讘谉 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专讜 讻诇 讛拽讜谞讛 注讘讚 注讘专讬 讻拽讜谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜


The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: 鈥淏ecause he fares well with you,鈥 which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread, bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave鈥檚 living conditions are equal to his own.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讬爪讗 诪注诪讱 讛讜讗 讜讘谞讬讜 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讜讗 谞诪讻专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讬 谞诪讻专讬诐 诪讻讗谉 砖专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讘谞讬讜 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讘注诇 讗砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讬爪讗讛 讗砖转讜 注诪讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 讛讜讗 谞诪讻专 讗砖转讜 诪讬 谞诪讻专讛 诪讻讗谉 砖专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转 讗砖转讜


The Sages taught with regard to a verse that deals with the emancipation of a slave: 鈥淭hen he shall go out from you, he and his children with him鈥 (Leviticus 25:41). Rabbi Shimon said: This verse is puzzling, as, if he is sold, are his sons and daughters sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his children, and when the slave is emancipated his sons are released as well. You say something similar with regard to the verse: 鈥淚f he is married then his wife shall go out with him鈥 (Exodus 21:3). Rabbi Shimon said: If he is sold, is his wife sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his wife.


讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讘谞讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讘谞讬 诪讬注讘讚 讜诪讬讻诇 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讗砖转讜 讚讘转 诪讬讻诇 讜诪讬注讘讚 讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转注讘讬讚 讜转讬讻讜诇


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to mention both cases, as if it had taught us only that the master is required to provide sustenance for the slave鈥檚 children, one might say that this is because they are not fit to work and eat. Since they are unable to support themselves, the master is required to support them. But with regard to his wife, who can eat and work, one might say that she should work and eat in payment for her work, and the master is not required to support her for free.


讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讗砖转讜 讚诇讗讜 讚讬专讻讛 诇讛讚讜专讬 讗讘诇 讘谞讬讜 讚讚讬专讻讬讬讛讜 诇讛讚讜专讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗


And conversely, if the baraita had taught us only about his wife, one might say that the master is required to support her since it is not her manner to circulate and collect charity, as she is too embarrassed to do this. But with regard to his children, since it is their manner to circulate and beg, i.e., this is not beneath their dignity, one might say no, he is not required to support them. Therefore it is necessary to issue both rulings.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉


The Sages taught:


讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讬讚拽讜专 讻谞讙讚 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 讚诇转 讗讬谉 讗讝谞讜 诇讗 讜讗讝谉 诇讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注


Had the verse stated: His ear to the door, I would say: He should pierce, opposite his ear, into the door alone. In other words, with regard to the door, yes, it should be pierced, but his ear itself, no, it should not be pierced. The Gemara asks: But how could it even be suggested that his ear should not be pierced? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl鈥 (Exodus 21:6)?


讗诇讗 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 讬专爪注谞讛 诇讗讝谉 诪讗讘专讗讬 讜讬谞讬讞谞讛 注诇 讛讚诇转 讜讬讚拽讜专 讻谞讙讚 讗讝谞讜 讘讚诇转 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讗讝谞讜 讜讘讚诇转 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讚讜拽专 讜讛讜诇讱 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 讗爪诇 讚诇转


Rather, I would say that the master should pierce his ear outside, i.e., not at the door, and he should place it afterward on the door, and then he should pierce opposite his ear on the door. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall take the awl and place it through his ear and into the door鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). How so? He bores through his ear until he reaches the door.


讚诇转 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 注拽讜专讛 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讛 注拽讜专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讝讜讝讛 诪讛 诪讝讜讝讛 诪注讜诪讚 讗祝 讚诇转 谞诪讬 诪注讜诪讚


The baraita adds: Since the verse states 鈥渄oor,鈥 I would derive that this applies to any door, regardless of whether it is detached from its doorpost or whether it is not detached. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淭hen his master shall bring him to the court, and shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost鈥 (Exodus 21:6): Just as a doorpost is upright and attached, so too, a door must be upright and attached to the doorpost.


专讘谉 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讝讻讗讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专 诪讛 谞砖转谞讛 讗讝谉 诪讻诇 讗讘专讬诐 砖讘讙讜祝 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讗讝谉 砖砖诪注讛 拽讜诇讬 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 讘砖注讛 砖讗诪专转讬 讻讬 诇讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜拽谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜 讬专爪注


Rabban Yo岣nan ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [岣mer], i.e., as an allegory: Why is the ear different from all the other limbs in the body, as the ear alone is pierced? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This ear heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I said: 鈥淔or to Me the children of Israel are slaves鈥 (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: And they should not be slaves to slaves. And yet this man went and willingly acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let this ear be pierced.


讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘专 专讘讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 讗转 讛诪拽专讗 讛讝讛 讻诪讬谉 讞讜诪专 诪讛 谞砖转谞讛 讚诇转 讜诪讝讜讝讛 诪讻诇 讻诇讬诐 砖讘讘讬转 讗诪专 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讚诇转 讜诪讝讜讝讛 砖讛讬讜 注讚讬诐 讘诪爪专讬诐 讘砖注讛 砖驻住讞转讬 注诇 讛诪砖拽讜祝 讜注诇 砖转讬 讛诪讝讜讝讜转 讜讗诪专转讬 讻讬 诇讬 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚讬诐 讜诇讗 注讘讚讬诐 诇注讘讚讬诐 讜讛讜爪讗转讬诐 诪注讘讚讜转 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讛诇讱 讝讛 讜拽谞讛 讗讚讜谉 诇注爪诪讜 讬专爪注 讘驻谞讬讛诐:


And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would likewise expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath: Why are the door and a doorpost different from all other objects in the house, that the piercing is performed with them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and when I passed over the two doorposts of houses in which there were Jews (Exodus, chapter 12), and I said: 鈥淔or to Me the children of Israel are slaves,鈥 and they should not be slaves to slaves. And I delivered them at that time from slavery to freedom, and yet this man went and acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let him be pierced before them, as they are witnesses that he violated God鈥檚 will.


诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讜拽讜谞讛 讗转 注爪诪讜 讘讻住祝 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘砖讟专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讻住祝 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 讜讘砖讟专 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专讬诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讛讻住祝 诪砖诇 讗讞专讬诐:


MISHNA: A Canaanite slave is acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the master taking possession of him. And he can acquire himself, i.e., his freedom, by means of money given by others, i.e., other people can give money to his master, and by means of a bill of manumission if he accepts it by himself. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The slave can be freed by means of money given by himself, and by means of a bill of manumission if it is accepted by others, provided that the money he gives belongs to others, not to him. This is because the slave cannot possess property, as anything owned by a slave is considered his master鈥檚.


讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 诇专砖转 讗讞讝讛 讛拽讬砖谉 讛讻转讜讘 诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讗祝 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that these are the modes by which a slave can be acquired? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to Canaanite slaves: 鈥淎nd you shall bequeath them to your children as an ancestral inheritance鈥 (Leviticus 25:46). The verse juxtaposes Canaanite slaves to an ancestral field: Just as an ancestral field can be acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the owner taking possession of it, so too, a Canaanite slave can be acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the master taking possession of him.


讗讬 诪讛 砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 讞讜讝专转 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 讗祝 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 讞讜讝专 诇讘注诇讬诐 讘讬讜讘诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇注诇诐 讘讛诐 转注讘讚讜


The Gemara asks: If so, perhaps one can interpret this juxtaposition differently: Just as an ancestral field returns to its owners in the Jubilee Year, so too a Canaanite slave returns to his prior owners in the Jubilee Year. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淥f them you may take your slaves forever鈥 (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that the sale is permanent.


转谞讗 讗祝 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉 讜转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗 拽转谞讬


A Sage taught in a baraita that a Canaanite slave can also be acquired by means of symbolic exchange, i.e., a pro forma act of acquisition performed by the giving of an item, usually a kerchief, effecting the transfer of ownership of an article. The Gemara asks: And why doesn鈥檛 the tanna of our mishna mention acquisition through symbolic exchange? The Gemara answers: He teaches only the effectiveness of modes of acquisition which are not effective in transferring the ownership of movable property, as it is a novelty that these are effective, as one may have thought that a slave can be acquired only in the same manner as movable property is acquired. He does not teach the effectiveness of modes of acquisition which are effective in transferring the ownership of movable property, as it is not a novelty that a slave can be acquired in that manner.


讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 注讘讚 讻谞注谞讬 谞拽谞讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讻讬爪讚 转拽驻讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 拽谞讗讜 拽专讗讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜


Shmuel says: A Canaanite slave can be acquired by means of pulling, as can movable property. How is pulling performed in the case of a slave? If the master took him by force and the slave came to him, he has thereby acquired him. But if the master called him and he came to him willingly, he has not acquired him.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇转谞讗 讚讬讚谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讚诇讬转讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇转谞讗 讘专讗 谞讬转谞讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 诪讬诇转讗 讚讗讬转讗 讘讬谉 讘诪拽专拽注讬 讘讬谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 诪砖讬讻讛 讚讘诪讟诇讟诇讬 讗讬转讗 讘诪拽专拽注讬 诇讬转讗 诇讗 拽转谞讬


The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the opinion of the tanna of our mishna, it is clear why he did not list pulling as a mode of acquisition, as he does not teach the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are effective in transferring the ownership of movable property; he teaches only the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are not effective in transferring the ownership of movable property. Pulling is effective with movable property. But according to the opinion of the tanna of the baraita, who taught the mode of symbolic exchange, let him teach pulling as well. The Gemara answers: When he teaches his baraita, which includes acquisition through symbolic exchange, he teaches the effectiveness of modes of acquisition that are effective in transferring the ownership of both land and movable property. He does not teach the effectiveness of pulling, which is effective in transferring the ownership of movable property but is not effective in transferring the ownership of land.


讻讬爪讚 转拽驻讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 拽谞讗讜 拽专讗讜 讜讘讗 讗爪诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讜拽专讗讜 诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讘诪住讬专讛 讗讞讝讛 讘讟诇驻讛 讘砖注专讛 讘讗讜讻祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘砖诇讬祝 砖注诇讬讛 讘驻专讜诪讘讬讗 砖讘驻讬讛 讜讘讝讜讙 砖讘爪讜讗专讛 拽谞讗讛


The Gemara returns to analyze Shmuel鈥檚 statement: How does one acquire a slave through pulling? If the master took him by force and he came to him, he has acquired him. If he called him and he came to him, he has not acquired him. The Gemara asks: And has he not acquired him if he called him? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: How is an animal acquired through passing? If he grabbed it by its hoof, or by its hair, or by the saddle on it, or by the load [shalif] on it, or by the bit [bifrumbiya] in its mouth, or by the bell on its neck, he has acquired it.


讻讬爪讚 讘诪砖讬讻讛 拽讜专讗 诇讛 讜讛讬讗 讘讗讛 讗讜 砖讛讻讬砖讛 讘诪拽诇 讜专爪转讛 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讬讜谉 砖注拽专讛 讬讚 讜专讙诇 拽谞讗讛 专讘讬 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 专讘讬 讗讞讗 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖转讛诇讱 诇驻谞讬讜 诪诇讗 拽讜诪转讛


How is an animal acquired by pulling? If he calls it and it comes, or he if hits it with a stick and it runs before him, once it lifts a foreleg and a hind leg from where it was standing, he acquires it. Rabbi Asi, and some say Rabbi A岣, says: It is not enough if the animal lifts its feet. Rather, one does not acquire it until it walks the distance of its full height in the presence of the one acquiring it. In any event, this indicates that calling is an effective use of the mode of pulling.


讗诪专讬 讘讛诪讛 讗讚注转讗 讚诪专讛 讗讝诇讛 注讘讚 讗讚注转讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗讝讬诇 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 注讘讚 拽讟谉 讻讘讛诪讛 讚诪讬


The Sages say in response that there is a difference between the acquisition of a slave and that of an animal. An animal walks by the will of its owner, as it is domesticated and follows the orders of its master. Consequently, if it comes when called it is as though it was pulled. By contrast, a slave walks by his own will. Consequently, even if a slave comes when called, this cannot be considered acquisition through pulling, as the master has performed no act of acquisition. Rav Ashi said: A slave who is a minor is considered like an animal. Since he has no will of his own, he can be acquired through calling, like an animal.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 讘讞讝拽讛 讛转讬专 诇讜 诪谞注诇讜 讗讜 讛讜诇讬讱 讻诇讬讜 讗讞专讬讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪专讞抓 讛驻砖讬讟讜 讛专讞讬爪讜 住讻讜 讙专讚讜 讛诇讘讬砖讜 讛谞注讬诇讜 讛讙讘讬讛讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专


The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:5): How does one acquire a slave through possession? If the slave removes the master鈥檚 shoe, or carries his garments after him to the bathhouse, or undresses him, or bathes him, or anoints him, or scrubs the oil off him, or dresses him, or puts on his shoes, or lifts him, the master acquires him. Rabbi Shimon says: Acquisition through the mode of possession should not be considered greater than acquisition using the mode of lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. With regard to this last statement the Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Shimon saying here? The first tanna also said that a slave can be acquired by lifting.


讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讛讙讘讬讛讜 专讘讜 诇讜 诇讗 拽谞讗讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 转讛讗 讞讝拽讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诪讛讙讘讛讛 砖讛讙讘讛讛 拽讜谞讛 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐


Rav Ashi says that one can infer from the statement of the first tanna: If a slave lifts his master, the master acquires him, as he is performing labor for the master. But if his master lifts the slave, the master does not acquire him, as the slave has not performed labor for his master. With regard to this Rabbi Shimon says: Acquisition through possession should not be greater than acquisition through lifting, as lifting acquires property in any situation. Consequently, one can acquire a slave even by lifting him.


讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 讛讙讘讬讛讜 讛讜讗 诇专讘讜 拽谞讗讜 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 转拽谞讛 讘讘讬讗讛 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讜讝讛 诪爪讟注专 讛讻讗 讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讜讝讛 谞讛谞讛 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: Now that you said that if a slave lifts his master, the master acquires him, consider the following ramification of this ruling: If that is so, let a Canaanite maidservant be acquired by means of sexual intercourse with the master, as it is possible to claim she lifts him during the act of intercourse. The Gemara answers: When we say that one acquires a slave through the labor the slave performs for him, that applies to a situation where this master benefits and that slave suffers. In this manner the master exercises his authority over the slave. Here, with regard to sexual intercourse, it is a case where this master benefits and this Canaanite maidservant likewise benefits. Since both sides derive benefit, it cannot be seen as an act of acquisition.


砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讬讬 [讘专 讗讚讗] 讚诪谉 讗讞讗 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗讜 讛谞讗讛 讗讬转 诇讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讜注讜讚 诪砖讻讘讬 讗砖讛 讻转讬讘 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 讻讚专讻讛 诇砖诇讗 讻讚专讻讛


The Gemara asks: If he engages in intercourse in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, with her, what can be said? In that case the woman does not benefit from the intercourse. Rav A岣i bar Adda of the place called A岣 said: Who will tell us, i.e., it is not obvious, that there is no benefit for both of them, i.e., there is benefit only for the man, when they engage in intercourse in an atypical manner? And furthermore, it is written: 鈥淟yings with a woman鈥 (Leviticus 18:22). The plural form indicates that there are two ways of engaging in sexual intercourse with a woman: In this manner the verse compares typical sexual intercourse to intercourse in an atypical manner.


专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讚讜讗讛 讙专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 讬讜专砖讬谉 讛讜讛 讞诇砖 注诇 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诇砖讬讜诇讬 讘讬讛 讞讝讬讬讛 讚转拽讬祝 诇讬讛 注诇诪讗 讟讜讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇注讘讚讬讛 砖诇讜祝 诇讬 诪住谞讗讬 讜讗诪讟讬谞讛讜 诇讘讬转讗 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讙讚讜诇 讛讜讛


搂 The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehuda from India was a convert who had no heirs. When he became ill Mar Zutra entered to ask about his health. When he saw that his condition intensified, i.e., that he was about to die, Mar Zutra said to Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 slave: Remove my shoes and take them to my house. He wanted to acquire the slave upon the death of his master, as when a convert without heirs dies, the first person to claim his property acquires it. The Gemara comments: There are those who say that this slave was an adult man,

Scroll To Top