קידושין כב

קידושין כב

תְּמוּתוֹת שְׁחוּטוֹת, וְאַל יֹאכְלוּ בְּשַׂר תְּמוּתוֹת נְבֵילוֹת. ״וְחָשַׁקְתָּ״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ נָאָה. ״בָּהּ״ – וְלֹא בָּהּ וּבַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ.

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.

״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – לִיקּוּחִין יֵשׁ לְךָ בָּהּ. ״לְךָ לְאִשָּׁה״ – שֶׁלֹּא יִקַּח שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, אַחַת לוֹ וְאַחַת לְאָבִיו, אַחַת לוֹ וְאַחַת לִבְנוֹ. ״וַהֲבֵאתָהּ״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁלֹּא יִלְחָצֶנָּה בַּמִּלְחָמָה.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר וְיִשְׁנֶה. אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאָה.

§ 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.

אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד.

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.

אָמַר מָר: אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״. מַאי אִירְיָא, מִ״לֹּא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּבָעֵינַן: ״אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי״ וְלֵיכָּא!

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.

וְתוּ, אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הָעֶבֶד״. אַטּוּ סוֹף שֵׁשׁ לָאו עֶבֶד הוּא? אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ – בִּתְחִילַּת פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. וּמַאי בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – בְּסוֹף פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים, וּלְרַבּוֹ אֵין אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת בֵּיתֶךָ״. לְרַבּוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים וְלוֹ אֵין אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי״.

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).

הוּא אוֹהֵב אֶת רַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״. רַבּוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹהֵב אֶת רַבּוֹ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ״. הוּא חוֹלֶה וְרַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֶה – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״. רַבּוֹ חוֹלֶה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ חוֹלֶה – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עִמָּךְ״.

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.

בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלִין, מַאי? ״עִמָּךְ״ בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״ בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא לֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״ – עִמְּךָ בַּמַּאֲכָל, עִמְּךָ בַּמִּשְׁתֶּה. שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אַתָּה אוֹכֵל פַּת נְקִיָּה וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פַּת קִיבָּר, אַתָּה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן יָשָׁן וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן חָדָשׁ, אַתָּה יָשֵׁן עַל גַּבֵּי מוֹכִין וְהוּא יָשֵׁן עַל גַּבֵּי תֶּבֶן. מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ: כׇּל הַקּוֹנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי – כְּקוֹנֶה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הוּא נִמְכָּר – בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו מִי נִמְכָּרִים? מִכָּאן שֶׁרַבּוֹ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת בָּנָיו. כַּיּוֹצֵא בַּדָּבָר אַתָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אִם בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ״, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם הוּא נִמְכָּר – אִשְׁתּוֹ מִי נִמְכְּרָה? מִכָּאן שֶׁרַבּוֹ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ.

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.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמוֹעִינַן בָּנָיו, מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא בְּנֵי מֶיעְבַּד וּמֵיכַל נִינְהוּ. אֲבָל אִשְׁתּוֹ, דְּבַת מֵיכַל וּמֶיעְבַּד הִיא, אֵימָא תַּעֲבֵיד וְתֵיכוֹל.

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.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן אִשְׁתּוֹ, דְּלָאו דִּירְכַּהּ לְהַדּוֹרֵי, אֲבָל בָּנָיו, דְּדִירְכַּיְיהוּ לְהַדּוֹרֵי, אֵימָא לָא, צְרִיכָא.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן:

The Sages taught:

אִילּוּ נֶאֱמַר ״אׇזְנוֹ בַּדֶּלֶת״, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: יִדְקוֹר כְּנֶגֶד אׇזְנוֹ בַּדֶּלֶת. דֶּלֶת – אִין, אׇזְנוֹ – לָא. וְאֹזֶן לָא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אׇזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ״!

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)?

אֶלָּא: הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר יִרְצָעֶנָּה לָאֹזֶן מֵאַבָּרַאי וְיַנִּיחֶנָּה עַל הַדֶּלֶת, וְיִדְקוֹר כְּנֶגֶד אׇזְנוֹ בַּדֶּלֶת, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּאׇזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת״ – הָא כֵּיצַד? דּוֹקֵר וְהוֹלֵךְ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ אֵצֶל דֶּלֶת.

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.

״דֶּלֶת״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי: בֵּין עֲקוּרָה בֵּין שֶׁאֵינָהּ עֲקוּרָה, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מְזוּזָה״ – מָה מְזוּזָה מְעוּמָּד – אַף דֶּלֶת נָמֵי מְעוּמָּד.

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.

רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה כְּמִין חוֹמֶר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה אֹזֶן מִכׇּל אֵבָרִים שֶׁבַּגּוּף? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אֹזֶן שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה קוֹלִי עַל הַר סִינַי בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי: ״כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים״ – וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים, וְהָלַךְ זֶה וְקָנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ – יֵרָצַע.

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.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ אֶת הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה כְּמִין חוֹמֶר: מָה נִשְׁתַּנָּה דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה מִכׇּל כֵּלִים שֶׁבַּבַּיִת? אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: דֶּלֶת וּמְזוּזָה שֶׁהָיוּ עֵדִים בְּמִצְרַיִם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפָּסַחְתִּי עַל הַמַּשְׁקוֹף וְעַל שְׁתֵּי הַמְּזוּזוֹת, וְאָמַרְתִּי: ״כִּי לִי בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲבָדִים״ – וְלֹא עֲבָדִים לַעֲבָדִים, וְהוֹצֵאתִים מֵעַבְדוּת לְחֵירוּת, וְהָלַךְ זֶה וְקָנָה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ – יֵרָצַע בִּפְנֵיהֶם.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֶּסֶף מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים.

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.

גְּמָ׳ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה״ – הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב לִשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה. מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר, וּבַחֲזָקָה – אַף עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף בִּשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה.

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.

אִי מָה שְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה חוֹזֶרֶת לַבְּעָלִים בַּיּוֹבֵל – אַף עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי חוֹזֵר לַבְּעָלִים בַּיּוֹבֵל? – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״.

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.

תָּנָא: אַף בַּחֲלִיפִין. וְתַנָּא דִּידַן? מִילְּתָא דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין – קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַהּ בִּמְטַלְטְלִין – לָא קָתָנֵי.

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.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בִּמְשִׁיכָה. כֵּיצַד? תְּקָפוֹ וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. קְרָאוֹ וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ.

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.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְתַנָּא דִּידַן, מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַהּ בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי – לָא קָתָנֵי, דְּלֵיתַהּ בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי – קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא לְתַנָּא בָּרָא, נִיתְנֵי מְשִׁיכָה! כִּי קָתָנֵי, מִילְּתָא דְּאִיתַהּ בֵּין בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי בֵּין בְּמִטַּלְטְלִי, מְשִׁיכָה דִּבְמִטַּלְטְלִי אִיתָא, בִּמְקַרְקְעִי לֵיתַהּ – לָא קָתָנֵי.

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.

כֵּיצַד? תְּקָפוֹ וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ – קְנָאוֹ, קְרָאוֹ וּבָא אֶצְלוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ. וּקְרָאוֹ לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד בִּמְסִירָה? אֲחָזָהּ בְּטַלְפָּהּ, בִּשְׂעָרָהּ, בָּאוּכָּף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, בִּשְׁלִיף שֶׁעָלֶיהָ, בִּפְרוּמְבְּיָא שֶׁבְּפִיהָ וּבְזוֹג שֶׁבְּצַוָּארָהּ – קְנָאָהּ.

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.

כֵּיצַד בִּמְשִׁיכָה? קוֹרֵא לָהּ וְהִיא בָּאָה, אוֹ שֶׁהִכִּישָׁהּ בְּמַקֵּל וְרָצְתָה לְפָנָיו, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָקְרָה יָד וָרֶגֶל – קְנָאָהּ. רַבִּי אַסִּי וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי אַחָא אוֹמֵר: עַד שֶׁתְּהַלֵּךְ לְפָנָיו מְלֹא קוֹמָתָהּ.

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.

אָמְרִי: בְּהֵמָה אַדַּעְתָּא דְמָרַהּ אָזְלָה, עֶבֶד אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָזֵיל. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: עֶבֶד קָטָן כִּבְהֵמָה דָּמֵי.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד בַּחֲזָקָה? הִתִּיר לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ, אוֹ הוֹלִיךְ כֵּלָיו אַחֲרָיו לְבֵית הַמֶּרְחָץ, הִפְשִׁיטוֹ, הִרְחִיצוֹ, סָכוֹ, גֵּרְדוֹ, הִלְבִּישׁוֹ הִנְעִילוֹ, הִגְבִּיהוֹ – קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה, שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. מַאי קָאָמַר?

§ 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.

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הִגְבִּיהוֹ הוּא לְרַבּוֹ – קְנָאוֹ, הִגְבִּיהוֹ רַבּוֹ לוֹ – לֹא קְנָאוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: לֹא תְּהֵא חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מֵהַגְבָּהָה, שֶׁהַגְבָּהָה קוֹנָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.

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.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ: הִגְבִּיהוֹ הוּא לְרַבּוֹ – קְנָאוֹ, אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית תִּקָּנֶה בְּבִיאָה? כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן: זֶה נֶהֱנֶה וְזֶה מִצְטַעֵר, הָכָא: זֶה נֶהֱנֶה וְזֶה נֶהֱנֶה הוּא.

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.

שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב אַחַיי [בַּר אַדָּא] דְּמִן אַחָא: מַאן לֵימָא לַן דְּלָאו הֲנָאָה אִית לְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ? וְעוֹד: ״מִשְׁכְּבֵי אִשָּׁה״ כְּתִיב, הִקִּישה הַכָּתוּב כְּדַרְכָּהּ לְשֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִנְדּוּאָה גֵּר שֶׁאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁין הֲוָה. חֲלַשׁ, עָל מָר זוּטְרָא לְשַׁיּוֹלֵי בֵּיהּ, חַזְיֵיהּ דְּתָקֵיף לֵיהּ עָלְמָא טוּבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְעַבְדֵיהּ: שְׁלוֹף לִי מְסָנַאי וְאַמְטִינְהוּ לְבֵיתָא. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי גָּדוֹל הֲוָה.

§ 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,