Kiddushin 16
– בְּנׇכְרִי שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ תַּחַת יָדֶךָ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּנׇכְרִי שֶׁאֵינוֹ תַּחַת יָדֶךָ? אָמַרְתָּ, וְכִי מָה אֶפְשָׁר לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ? הָא אֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּנׇכְרִי שֶׁיֶּשְׁנוֹ תַּחַת יָדֶךָ.
This indicates that the verse is stated with regard to a gentile who is under your authority, i.e., one who is subject to Jewish rule. Or perhaps you will say that the verse is stated only with regard to a gentile who is not under your authority. This is not possible, as you say: But what can be done to him to compel him to obey the Torah’s commands? Consequently, the verse must be speaking of nothing other than a gentile who is under your authority.
וּבִשְׁטָר. מְנָלַן? אָמַר עוּלָּא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ״ – הִקִּישָׁהּ הַכָּתוּב לְאַחֶרֶת, מָה אַחֶרֶת מִקַּנְיָא בִּשְׁטָר – אַף אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה מִקַּנְיָא בִּשְׁטָר.
§ The mishna teaches: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he can be acquired through a document? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “If he takes himself another wife” (Exodus 21:10). The verse thereby juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to another woman who is betrothed: Just as another woman can be acquired by her husband through a document (see 2a), so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through a document.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: שְׁטַר אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה אָדוֹן כּוֹתְבוֹ, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אָב כּוֹתְבוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִיתְּמַר: שְׁטַר אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה, מִי כּוֹתְבוֹ? רַב הוּנָא אָמַר: אָדוֹן כּוֹתְבוֹ, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אָב כּוֹתְבוֹ. הָנִיחָא לְרַב הוּנָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב חִסְדָּא מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the master writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a betrothal document is written by the husband. But according the one who says that the father writes it, in the manner of a document of sale, what can be said? According to that opinion, the document of a Hebrew maidservant is not similar to a betrothal document. As it was stated that amora’im disagreed about this matter: With regard to the document of a Hebrew maidservant, who writes it? Rav Huna says: The master writes it. Rav Ḥisda says: The father writes it. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Huna, but according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, what can be said?
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים״ – אֲבָל נִקְנֵית הִיא כְּקִנְיַן עֲבָדִים. וּמַאי נִיהוּ – שְׁטָר.
Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that this halakha is derived from a different source. The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7). One can infer: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves. And what is this mode of acquisition? It is a document.
וְאֵימָא: אֲבָל נִקְנֵית הִיא כְּקִנְיַן עֲבָדִים, וּמַאי נִיהוּ – חֲזָקָה! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם״ – אוֹתָם בַּחֲזָקָה, וְלֹא אַחֵר בַּחֲזָקָה.
The Gemara asks: But one can say that the inference should be a different one: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves, and what is this mode of acquisition? It is possession. The Gemara answers that one cannot interpret that verse in this manner, as the verse states with regard to Canaanite slaves: “And you shall bequeath them to your children after you” (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that you can acquire only them, i.e., Canaanite slaves, through possession, like an inherited tract of land, but other slaves cannot be acquired through possession.
וְאֵימָא: אוֹתָם בִּשְׁטָר, וְלֹא אַחֵר בִּשְׁטָר! הָכְתִיב ״לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים״. וּמָה רָאִיתָ?
The Gemara asks: But if so, one can equally say that they, Canaanite slaves, can be acquired through a document, but others cannot be acquired through a document. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7), and this is explained to mean that she, like other slaves, can be acquired through a document. The Gemara asks: Since these two verses can be explained in either manner, what did you see that led you to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave with regard to a document, and what led you to differentiate her from a Canaanite slave with regard to acquisition through possession? Perhaps the opposite should be the case, i.e., she is similar to a Canaanite slave with regard to possession and differs from him concerning acquisition through a document?
מִסְתַּבְּרָא, שְׁטָר הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן מוֹצִיאה בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל. אַדְּרַבָּה, חֲזָקָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי, שֶׁכֵּן קוֹנָה בְּנִכְסֵי הַגֵּר! בְּאִישׁוּת מִיהַת לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן. אִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְהָכִי אַהֲנִי ״אִם אַחֶרֶת״.
The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that a document should be included in the acquisition of a slave, as a document is powerful in that it can release a Jewish woman, in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara rejects this argument: On the contrary, possession should be included, as it can effect acquisition in the case of the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs, whereas no other mode can be used to acquire such property. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, with regard to marriage, in any event, one does not find acquisition by means of possession. If you wish, say another answer: It is to that end, i.e., to determine in which way to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave, that the verse “if he takes another,” is effective, as it indicates that the acquisition of a Hebrew maidservant includes a mode of acquisition used in betrothal, i.e., a document.
וְרַב הוּנָא, הַאי ״לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים״ מַאי דָּרֵישׁ בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּעֶבֶד. וְרַב חִסְדָּא? אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא: ״לֹא תֵּצֵא כָּעֲבָדִים״, מַאי ״כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים״? – שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara asks: And Rav Huna, what does he learn from this verse: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that she is not released on account of an injury to the extremities like a Canaanite slave. If a master injures one of her limbs she is not emancipated, as explained in greater detail below. The Gemara asks: And Rav Ḥisda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: If so, that it is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: She shall not go out as the men slaves. What is the reason for the additional term “as the men slaves do”? Conclude two conclusions from it: She is not freed due to injured limbs, and like a slave, she too can be acquired by means of a document.
וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּשָׁנִים. דִּכְתִיב: ״שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת וְגוֹ׳״
§ The mishna teaches: And a Hebrew slave can acquire himself after six years of work. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: As it is written: “Six years he shall labor; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2).
בַּיּוֹבֵל. דִּכְתִיב: ״עַד שְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל יַעֲבֹד עִמָּךְ״.
§ The mishna further states that a Hebrew slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:40).
בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף. אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמְּגָרַעַ[ת] פִּדְיוֹנָהּ וְיוֹצְאָה. תָּנָא: וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר.
§ The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be freed through the deduction of money. Ḥizkiyya says that the reason is that the verse states: “Then he shall let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that if she acquires money and wishes to be emancipated before her time is complete, she deducts the value of the years that she has not yet worked from the cost of her redemption, and is emancipated. The same halakha applies to a slave. A tanna taught: And a slave can acquire himself with money, with an item worth money, and with a document.
בִּשְׁלָמָא כֶּסֶף, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִכֶּסֶף מִקְנָתוֹ״; שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף נָמֵי, ״יָשִׁיב גְּאֻלָּתוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, לְרַבּוֹת שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף כְּכֶסֶף; אֶלָּא הַאי שְׁטָר הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא אַדְּמֵיהּ, הַיְינוּ כֶּסֶף!
The Gemara comments: Granted, he can be acquired through money, as it is written: “Out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51). Likewise, it is also clear that he can be acquired with an item worth money, as the Merciful One states: “He shall give back the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:51), which serves to include an item of monetary value, which is considered like money. In other words, any item of value can be used to redeem a slave. But with regard to this document mentioned here, what are the circumstances? If we say that the slave wrote a promissory note for his own money, that is the same as money. What is the difference between the two cases?
אֶלָּא, שִׁיחְרוּר – שְׁטָר לְמָה לִי? לֵימָא לֵיהּ בְּאַפֵּי תְרֵי: ״זִיל״, אִי נָמֵי בְּאַפֵּי בֵּי דִינָא: ״זִיל״. אָמַר רָבָא: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת עֶבֶד עִבְרִי גּוּפוֹ קָנוּי, וְהָרַב שֶׁמָּחַל עַל גִּרְעוֹנוֹ – אֵין גִּרְעוֹנוֹ מָחוּל.
Rather, this is referring to a document of manumission written by the master when the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a document for this purpose? Let him say in the presence of two witnesses: Go free. Alternatively, let him say before a court: Go free. Rava says: That is to say that the body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and this is not merely a monetary debt. And in the case of a master who relinquishes his deduction, i.e., the money that the slave must return for the years he has not yet served, his deduction is not relinquished. Although one can relinquish a monetary debt verbally, this is insufficient to release a slave whose body is owned by his master. A document is required to effect his freedom.
יְתֵירָה עָלָיו, אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה. אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה קוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּמִיתַת הָאָב מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן, מִקַּל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה סִימָנִין שֶׁאֵין מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָב – מוֹצִיאִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן, מִיתָה שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָב – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמּוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן?
§ The mishna teaches that a Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the master’s authority through the death of her father. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If signs indicating puberty, which do not release her from her father’s authority, as, although she develops signs of puberty she remains under her father’s authority with regard to certain matters, nevertheless release her from the master’s authority, is it not logical that death, which releases her entirely from her father’s authority, should release her from her master’s authority?
מֵיתִיבִי רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: יְתֵירָה עָלָיו אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה שֶׁקּוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּסִימָנִין. וְאִם אִיתָא, נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי מִיתַת הָאָב! תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר.
Rav Hoshaya raises an objection from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she also acquires herself through her father’s death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the mishna teach also that she is released through the death of the father. The Gemara answers: The absence of an explicit statement is not proof, as the mishna taught one difference between a male slave and a maidservant and omitted others.
מַאי שַׁיַּיר דְּהַאי שַׁיַּיר? שַׁיַּיר מִיתַת הָאָדוֹן. אִי מִשּׁוּם מִיתַת הָאָדוֹן, לָאו שִׁיּוּרָא הוּא, דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא נָמֵי בְּאִישׁ – לָא קָתָנֵי.
The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would certainly not leave out only one halakha. The Gemara answers: The tanna omitted the death of the master. In the event of the master’s death, the Hebrew maidservant is emancipated and is not inherited by the master’s heirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is due to the death of the master, that is not an omission. The reason is that since there is also a similar halakha with regard to a man, i.e., a pierced slave, the mishna does not teach this case.
וְאֶלָּא נִיתְנֵי! תַּנָּא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה קָתָנֵי, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה – לָא קָתָנֵי.
But if so, the question remains: Rather, let it teach that she is emancipated through the death of her father. The Gemara answers: The tanna in the mishna teaches a matter that has a set time, and he does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, e.g., the death of her father.
וְהָא סִימָנִין, דְּאֵין לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְקָתָנֵי! אָמַר רַב סָפְרָא: אֵין לָהֶם קִצְבָה לְמַעְלָה, אֲבָל יֵשׁ לָהֶם קִצְבָה
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, as young women exhibit these signs of puberty at different ages, and yet it teaches this mode of emancipation anyway. Rav Safra says: Admittedly, these signs have no maximum set time, as once she reaches the age of twelve she is emancipated whenever she develops these signs, but they do have a set time
לְמַטָּה.
with regard to the minimum age at which these signs are taken into consideration. In other words, there is a lower limit, as any signs of puberty before a certain age are ignored.
דְּתַנְיָא: בֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת – שׁוּמָא, מִבֶּן תֵּשַׁע שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד עַד בֶּן שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד וְעוֹדָן בּוֹ – שׁוּמָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סִימָן. בֶּן שְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה וְיוֹם אֶחָד – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל סִימָן.
As it is taught in a baraita: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two pubic hairs that this is not considered a sign of adulthood, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From the age of nine years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, even if they are still on him and have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and grows two hairs, everyone agrees that this is a sign indicating puberty.
מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעָה מַעֲנִיקִים לָהֶם, שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאִישׁ, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאִשָּׁה. וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אַרְבָּעָה בְּאֶחָד, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין סִימָנִים בָּאִישׁ, וְאֵין רְצִיעָה בָּאִשָּׁה.
Rav Sheshet raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating slaves, and when they are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these, three apply to a man, i.e., a Hebrew slave, and three apply to a woman, a Hebrew maidservant. And you cannot say that there are four ways for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing the ear for a woman. Consequently, there are only three modes of emancipation for each.
וְאִם אִיתָא, נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי מִיתַת אָב! וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי תַּנָּא וְשַׁיַּיר, וְהָא אַרְבָּעָה קָתָנֵי! וְכִי תֵּימָא תַּנָּא דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה קָתָנֵי וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה לָא קָתָנֵי, וְהָא סִימָנִין, דְּאֵין לָהֶם קִצְבָה, וְקָתָנֵי!
The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And if it is so that a Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through her father’s death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let him teach also that a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated at the death of the father. And if you would say, here too he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and a Hebrew maidservant and omitted others, this cannot be the case, as he teaches: There are four ways of emancipating slaves. The mention of a number indicates that there is a set number of ways. And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, as there is the halakha of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי כִּדְרַב סָפְרָא, וְהָאִיכָּא מִיתַת אָדוֹן, דְּאֵין לָהּ(ם) קִצְבָה, וְקָתָנֵי! מִיתַת אָדוֹן נָמֵי לָא קָתָנֵי.
And if you would say that here, too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra, that signs have a minimum set time, there is still the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. The Gemara answers: The death of the master is not taught either, i.e., this mode of emancipation is not counted among the four modes mentioned in the baraita.
וְאֶלָּא, אַרְבָּעָה מַאי נִיהוּ? שָׁנִים, וְיוֹבֵל, וְיוֹבֵל שֶׁל רְצִיעָה, וְאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בְּסִימָנִים.
The Gemara asks: But if you do not count the death of the master, what are these four methods? The Gemara answers: A Hebrew slave or maidservant is emancipated after serving six years and in the Jubilee Year, even if it occurs within those six years. And the Jubilee Year also emancipates a slave, even after the act of piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl extended his term of slavery, and a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated with signs indicating puberty.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אַרְבָּעָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶם, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין סִימָנִים בָּאִישׁ וְאֵין רְצִיעָה בָּאִשָּׁה. וְאִם אִיתָא, בְּאִשָּׁה מִיהָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ אַרְבָּעָה, שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as it teaches in the last clause: You cannot say that there are four modes for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing for a woman. And if it is so that the death of the master is included, in the case of a woman, at least, you find four ways that she can be freed: Six years of service, the Jubilee Year, signs of puberty, and the death of the master. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.
מֵתִיב רַב עַמְרָם: וְאֵלּוּ מַעֲנִיקִים לָהֶם: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּשָׁנִים, וּבַיּוֹבֵל, וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן, וְאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בְּסִימָנִים. וְאִם אִיתָא, נִיתְנֵי נָמֵי מִיתַת אָב! וְכִי תֵּימָא תְּנָא וְשַׁיַּיר, וְהָא ״אֵלּוּ״ קָתָנֵי!
Rav Amram also raises an objection against the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: And these are the slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she is emancipated through her father’s death as well, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the baraita also teach that she is released through the death of the father. And if you would say, here too, he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and maidservant and omitted others, he teaches: These, which indicates that this halakha applies only to a slave freed in these ways and no others.
וְכִי תֵּימָא: דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה קָתָנֵי, דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה לָא קָתָנֵי, וְהָא סִימָנִין, דְּאֵין לָהֶם קִצְבָה וְקָתָנֵי. וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכָא נָמֵי כִּדְרַב סָפְרָא, הָאִיכָּא מִיתַת אָדוֹן! תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ! תְּיוּבְתָּא.
And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, but isn’t there the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it. And if you would say that here too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra that signs have a minimum set time, there is the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. Therefore, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara affirms: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.
וְהָא רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ קַל וָחוֹמֶר אָמַר! קַל וָחוֹמֶר פְּרִיכָא הוּא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְסִימָנִין – שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנָּה הַגּוּף, תֹּאמַר בְּמִיתַת אָב – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא נִשְׁתַּנָּה הַגּוּף.
The Gemara asks: But the ruling of Reish Lakish is based on an a fortiori inference, and nothing has been said to contradict his reasoning. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference is refutable, because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is unique about signs indicating puberty is that they indicate that her body has changed, and perhaps she is emancipated because she is now considered a different person. Will you say the same with regard to the death of the father, as her body has not changed?
תָּנֵי חֲדָא: עֶנֶק עֶבֶד עִבְרִי – לְעַצְמוֹ, וְעֶנֶק אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה – לְעַצְמָהּ. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: עֶנֶק אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה וּמְצִיאָתָהּ – לְאָבִיהָ, וְאֵין לְרַבָּה אֶלָּא שְׂכַר בַּטָּלָה בִּלְבָד.
It is taught in one baraita: The severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew slave when he is emancipated is given to the slave himself, and the severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew maidservant is given to the maidservant herself. And it is taught in another baraita: The severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant and any lost items she finds belong to her father, and her master has only the reimbursement for her lost time. He is paid the money he would have earned if she had been working instead of carrying home the items she found.
מַאי לָאו, הָא – דְּנָפְקָא בְּסִימָנִים, וְהָא – דְּנָפְקָא לַהּ בְּמִיתַת אָב!
The Gemara suggests: What, is it not correct to say that the difference between the two baraitot is that this baraita, which says that the severance gift is given to her father, is referring to when she leaves through signs indicating puberty, as she is a young woman and still under the authority of her father with regard to certain matters, and this baraita, which states that the severance gift is given to her, is referring to a case when she leaves through the death of the father. Since she does not have a father she keeps the severance gift herself. This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that she is emancipated through the death of her father, and it contradicts the conclusion that his ruling should be rejected.
לָא, אִידִי וְאִידִי דְּנָפְקָא לַהּ בְּסִימָנִין, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ לְאָב, הָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ לְאָב.
The Gemara rejects this claim: No, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to a maidservant who left through signs indicating puberty, and it is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where there is a father who can take the gift, and this baraita is referring to a case where there is no father, i.e., he died before she developed the signs of puberty. In that case she receives the severance gift herself.
בִּשְׁלָמָא עֶנֶק אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה לְעַצְמָהּ – לְמַעוֹטֵי אַחִין, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם״ – אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם, וְלֹא בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם לִבְנֵיכֶם. מִכָּאן שֶׁאֵין אָדָם מוֹרִישׁ זְכוּת בִּתּוֹ לִבְנוֹ.
The Gemara comments: Granted, one can understand the baraita that taught that the severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant is for herself, as this serves to exclude the maidservant’s brothers. These brothers do not receive the gifts after her father’s death, as it is taught in a baraita: “And you shall bequeath them to your children after you” (Leviticus 25:46). This verse indicates that they, Canaanite slaves, are bequeathed to your sons, but your daughters are not bequeathed to your sons. From here it is derived that a person may not bequeath his rights to profits generated by his daughter to his son.
אֶלָּא עֶנֶק עֶבֶד עִבְרִי לְעַצְמוֹ – פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא לְמַאן? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: יוֹד קֶרֶת קָא חָזֵינָא הָכָא.
But it is obvious that the severance gift of a Hebrew slave is for himself. Rather, to whom could it be given? Rav Yosef said: I see here a small letter yod that has been made into a large city. In other words, although it was not necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, he stated it out of habit despite the fact that this ruling does not teach anything novel.
אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: הָכִי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָא מַנִּי – תּוּטַאי הוּא. דְּתַנְיָא, תּוּטַאי אוֹמֵר: ״לוֹ״, וְלֹא לְבַעַל חוֹבוֹ.
Abaye said that Rav Sheshet said like this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage Tutai. As it is taught in a baraita that Tutai says: The verse: “You shall grant severance to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14), indicates that it is given to a Hebrew slave but not to his creditor. Even if the slave owes money, this gift is not given to the creditor.
גּוּפָא, אֵלּוּ מַעֲנִיקִים לָהֶם: הַיּוֹצֵא בְּשָׁנִים, וּבַיּוֹבֵל, וּבְמִיתַת אָדוֹן, וְאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בְּסִימָנִין. אֲבָל בּוֹרֵחַ וְיוֹצֵא בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בּוֹרֵחַ – אֵין מַעֲנִיקִין לוֹ, וְיוֹצֵא בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף – מַעֲנִיקִים לוֹ.
The Gemara discusses the matter itself. And these are the Hebrew slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through completing six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating the onset of puberty. But with regard to one who flees from his master or one who is released by deducting money, one does not grant a severance gift to him. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to one who flees, one does not grant a severance gift to him, but in the case of one who is released by deducting money, one does grant a severance gift to him.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעָה מַעֲנִיקִים לָהֶם, שְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאִישׁ וּשְׁלֹשָׁה בָּאִשָּׁה, וְאִי אַתָּה יָכוֹל לוֹמַר אַרְבָּעָה בְּאֶחָד מֵהֶן לְפִי שֶׁאֵין סִימָנִין בָּאִישׁ וּרְצִיעָה בָּאִשָּׁה.
Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating a Hebrew slave, and when Hebrew slaves are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these methods, three apply to a man and three apply to a woman. And you cannot say four modes apply for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no piercing for a woman. This concludes the baraita.
מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ מַעֲנִיקִים אֶלָּא לַיּוֹצֵא בְּשֵׁשׁ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת יוֹצֵא בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן וְאָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה בְּסִימָנִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ״ ״וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ״.
The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught: One might have thought that one grants a severance gift only to a Hebrew slave who is released after six years. From where is it derived to include that one grants a severance gift to one who left in the Jubilee Year, and one freed through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who leaves through signs indicating puberty? The verse states: “You shall not send him,” and: “And when you send him” (Deuteronomy 15:13). These phrases serve to expand the halakha of severance to include any Hebrew slave who is emancipated.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה בּוֹרֵחַ וְיוֹצֵא בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חׇפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ״ – מִי שֶׁשִּׁילּוּחוֹ מֵעִמָּךְ, יָצָא בּוֹרֵחַ וְיוֹצֵא בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף שֶׁאֵין שִׁילּוּחוֹ מֵעִמָּךְ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: בּוֹרֵחַ אֵין מַעֲנִיקִין לוֹ, דְּאֵין שִׁילּוּחוֹ מֵעִמָּךְ, אֲבָל יוֹצֵא בְּגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף, שֶׁשִּׁילּוּחוֹ מֵעִמָּךְ.
I might have thought that I should include a Hebrew slave who flees and one who is released through the deduction of money. Therefore, the verse states: “And when you send him free from you” (Deuteronomy 15:13), which is referring to one who was sent from you with your knowledge and consent. This excludes a Hebrew slave who flees from his master and one who is released through the deduction of money, who are not sent away from you with your permission. Rabbi Meir says: One does not grant a severance gift to a Hebrew slave who flees, as he is not sent away from you, because he left on his own. But with regard to a Hebrew slave who is released through the deduction of money, who is sent from you, he is granted a severance gift, as this deduction payment requires the agreement of the master.
בּוֹרֵחַ – הַשְׁלָמָה בָּעֵי! דְּתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְבוֹרֵחַ שֶׁחַיָּיב לְהַשְׁלִים – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד״.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t a Hebrew slave who flees required to complete the remaining years of his contract, at which point he should be entitled to receive a severance gift? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a Hebrew slave who flees his master that he is obligated to complete his term? The verse states: “Six years he shall labor” (Exodus 21:2), and no less. Therefore, if a Hebrew slave runs away in the middle of this period, he is required to complete his six years of service.
