Kiddushin 22

תמותות שחוטות ואל יאכלו בשר תמותות נבילות וחשקת אף על פי שאינה נאה בה ולא בה ובחברתה

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: “And you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one’s desire. The term “for her” indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner.

ולקחת ליקוחין יש לך בה לך לאשה שלא יקח שתי נשים אחת לו ואחת לאביו אחת לו ואחת לבנו והבאתה מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה:

The phrase “and would take her” teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. “To you as a wife” 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: “Then you shall bring her home into your house” (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.

תנו רבנן אם אמר יאמר עד שיאמר וישנה אמר בתחילת שש ולא אמר בסוף שש אינו נרצע שנאמר לא אצא חפשי עד שיאמר בשעת יציאה

§ The Sages taught: It is stated with regard to a pierced slave: “But if the slave shall say [amor yomar]: I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free” (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: “I will not go out free,” i.e., he is not pierced unless he says it when he leaves.

אמר בסוף שש ולא אמר בתחילת שש אינו נרצע שנאמר אם אמר יאמר העבד עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד

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: “If the slave shall say [amor yomar],” which indicates that he is not pierced unless he states it while he is still a slave. This concludes the baraita.

אמר מר אמר בתחילת שש ולא אמר בסוף שש אינו נרצע שנאמר לא אצא חפשי מאי איריא מלא אצא חפשי תיפוק ליה דבעינן אהבתי את אדני את אשתי ואת בני וליכא

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: “I will not go out free.” The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita learn this halakha specifically from the phrase “I will not go out free”? Let him derive it from the fact that we require another condition. He has to be able to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (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.

ותו אמר בסוף שש ולא אמר בתחילת שש אינו נרצע שנאמר העבד אטו סוף שש לאו עבד הוא אמר רבא מאי בתחילת שש בתחילת פרוטה אחרונה ומאי בסוף שש בסוף פרוטה אחרונה:

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 “the slave.” 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.

תנו רבנן לו אשה ובנים ולרבו אין אשה ובנים אינו נרצע שנאמר כי אהבך ואת ביתך לרבו אשה ובנים ולו אין אשה ובנים אינו נרצע שנאמר אהבתי את אדני את אשתי ואת בני

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: “Because he loves you and your house” (Deuteronomy 15:16). The word “house” 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: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5).

הוא אוהב את רבו ורבו אינו אוהבו אינו נרצע שנאמר כי טוב לו עמך רבו אוהבו והוא אינו אוהב את רבו אינו נרצע שנאמר כי אהבך הוא חולה ורבו אינו חולה אינו נרצע שנאמר כי טוב לו עמך רבו חולה והוא אינו חולה אינו נרצע שנאמר עמך

Furthermore, if he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you” (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: “Because he loves you.” If he is ill and his master is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you,” which excludes a sick person. Similarly, if his master is ill and he is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated “with you,” which equates the well-being of the pair.

בעי רב ביבי בר אביי שניהם חולין מאי עמך בעינן והא איכא או דילמא כי טוב לו עמך בעינן והא ליכא תיקו:

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 “with you,” 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 “because he fares well with you,” 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.

תנו רבנן כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי תבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו

The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you,” 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’s living conditions are equal to his own.

תנו רבנן ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו אמר רבי שמעון אם הוא נמכר בניו ובנותיו מי נמכרים מכאן שרבו חייב במזונות בניו כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר אם בעל אשה הוא ויצאה אשתו עמו אמר רבי שמעון אם הוא נמכר אשתו מי נמכרה מכאן שרבו חייב במזונות אשתו

The Sages taught with regard to a verse that deals with the emancipation of a slave: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him” (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: “If he is married then his wife shall go out with him” (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.

וצריכא דאי אשמועינן בניו משום דלא בני מיעבד ומיכל נינהו אבל אשתו דבת מיכל ומיעבד היא אימא תעביד ותיכול

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’s 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.

ואי אשמעינן אשתו דלאו דירכה להדורי אבל בניו דדירכייהו להדורי אימא לא צריכא

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.

תנו רבנן

The Sages taught:

אילו נאמר אזנו בדלת הייתי אומר ידקור כנגד אזנו בדלת דלת אין אזנו לא ואזן לא והכתיב ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע

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’t it written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl” (Exodus 21:6)?

אלא הייתי אומר ירצענה לאזן מאבראי ויניחנה על הדלת וידקור כנגד אזנו בדלת תלמוד לומר באזנו ובדלת הא כיצד דוקר והולך עד שמגיע אצל דלת

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: “And you shall take the awl and place it through his ear and into the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17). How so? He bores through his ear until he reaches the door.

דלת שומע אני בין עקורה בין שאינה עקורה תלמוד לומר מזוזה מה מזוזה מעומד אף דלת נמי מעומד

The baraita adds: Since the verse states “door,” 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: “Then his master shall bring him to the court, and shall bring him to the door, or to the doorpost” (Exodus 21:6): Just as a doorpost is upright and attached, so too, a door must be upright and attached to the doorpost.

רבן יוחנן בן זכאי היה דורש את המקרא הזה כמין חומר מה נשתנה אזן מכל אברים שבגוף אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא אזן ששמעה קולי על הר סיני בשעה שאמרתי כי לי בני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו ירצע

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [ḥomer], 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: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves” (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.

ורבי שמעון בר רבי היה דורש את המקרא הזה כמין חומר מה נשתנה דלת ומזוזה מכל כלים שבבית אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא דלת ומזוזה שהיו עדים במצרים בשעה שפסחתי על המשקוף ועל שתי המזוזות ואמרתי כי לי בני ישראל עבדים ולא עבדים לעבדים והוצאתים מעבדות לחירות והלך זה וקנה אדון לעצמו ירצע בפניהם:

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: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves,” 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’s will.

מתני׳ עבד כנעני נקנה בכסף ובשטר ובחזקה וקונה את עצמו בכסף על ידי אחרים ובשטר על ידי עצמו דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים בכסף על ידי עצמו ובשטר על ידי אחרים ובלבד שיהא הכסף משל אחרים:

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’s.

גמ׳ מנלן דכתיב והתנחלתם אתם לבניכם אחריכם לרשת אחזה הקישן הכתוב לשדה אחוזה מה שדה אחוזה נקנה בכסף בשטר ובחזקה אף עבד כנעני נקנה בכסף בשטר ובחזקה

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: “And you shall bequeath them to your children as an ancestral inheritance” (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.

אי מה שדה אחוזה חוזרת לבעלים ביובל אף עבד כנעני חוזר לבעלים ביובל תלמוד לומר לעלם בהם תעבדו

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: “Of them you may take your slaves forever” (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that the sale is permanent.

תנא אף בחליפין ותנא דידן מילתא דליתא במטלטלין קתני מילתא דאיתא במטלטלין לא קתני

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’t 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.

אמר שמואל עבד כנעני נקנה במשיכה כיצד תקפו ובא אצלו קנאו קראו ובא אצלו לא קנאו

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.

בשלמא לתנא דידן מילתא דאיתא במטלטלי לא קתני דליתא במטלטלי קתני אלא לתנא ברא ניתני משיכה כי קתני מילתא דאיתא בין במקרקעי בין במטלטלי משיכה דבמטלטלי איתא במקרקעי ליתא לא קתני

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.

כיצד תקפו ובא אצלו קנאו קראו ובא אצלו לא קנאו וקראו לא והתניא כיצד במסירה אחזה בטלפה בשערה באוכף שעליה בשליף שעליה בפרומביא שבפיה ובזוג שבצוארה קנאה

The Gemara returns to analyze Shmuel’s 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’t 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.

כיצד במשיכה קורא לה והיא באה או שהכישה במקל ורצתה לפניו כיון שעקרה יד ורגל קנאה רבי אסי ואמרי לה רבי אחא אומר עד שתהלך לפניו מלא קומתה

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 Aḥa, 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.

אמרי בהמה אדעתא דמרה אזלה עבד אדעתיה דנפשיה קאזיל אמר רב אשי עבד קטן כבהמה דמי

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.

תנו רבנן כיצד בחזקה התיר לו מנעלו או הוליך כליו אחריו לבית המרחץ הפשיטו הרחיצו סכו גרדו הלבישו הנעילו הגביהו קנאו אמר רבי שמעון לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום מאי קאמר

§ The Sages taught (Tosefta 1:5): How does one acquire a slave through possession? If the slave removes the master’s 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.

אמר רב אשי הגביהו הוא לרבו קנאו הגביהו רבו לו לא קנאו אמר רבי שמעון לא תהא חזקה גדולה מהגבהה שהגבהה קונה בכל מקום

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.

השתא דאמרת הגביהו הוא לרבו קנאו אלא מעתה שפחה כנענית תקנה בביאה כי קאמרינן זה נהנה וזה מצטער הכא זה נהנה וזה נהנה הוא

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.

שלא כדרכה מאי איכא למימר אמר רב אחיי [בר אדא] דמן אחא מאן לימא לן דלאו הנאה אית להו לתרוייהו ועוד משכבי אשה כתיב הקישה הכתוב כדרכה לשלא כדרכה

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 Aḥai bar Adda of the place called Aḥa 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: “Lyings with a woman” (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.

רבי יהודה הנדואה גר שאין לו יורשין הוה חלש על מר זוטרא לשיולי ביה חזייה דתקיף ליה עלמא טובא אמר ליה לעבדיה שלוף לי מסנאי ואמטינהו לביתא איכא דאמרי גדול הוה

§ 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’s 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,