Commentary for Kiddushin 31:6
ואימא אותם בשטר ולא אחר בשטר הכתיב לא תצא כצאת העבדים ומה ראית
Hazakah!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Glos. and V. infra 22b.');"><sup>7</sup></span> - Scripture saith, And ye shall make them [the heathen slaves] an inheritance for your children after you:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 46. o,kjb,vu');"><sup>8</sup></span> only they [are acquired] by hazakah, but not another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. Hebrew slaves. The Heb. we-hithnahaltem, is really applicable to land, and intimates that heathen slaves are transmitted and acquired like land, viz. , by hazakah.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud continues to push back—why not say that Leviticus 25 implies that only non-Jewish slaves are acquired by document, not Jewish female slaves?
But then we’d still need to account for the verse that distinguishes how female Jewish slaves go free and how non-Jewish slaves go free. This verse implied that they can all be acquired in the same way. So we have one verse that draws a distinction between them and one that compares them (in terms of acquisition).
So why say that the distinction is made in acquisition through hazakah and that they are both acquired by a document? Why not the opposite?
The answer is that a document has greater power since it is used for divorce.
But still, we could argue, that hazakah has greater power because it can be used to acquire the property of a convert who dies without heirs.
Still, we do not find a case where hazakah (possession) acquires in a case of marriage. And since acquisition of a female slave is somewhat similar to marriage, we can conclude that it does not work in this case. We could also prove that the comparison is only made with regard to rules connected to marriage because the very next verse in Exodus to marriage.
[I realize, this is complicated. Kol Hakavod if you made it through!]
But then we’d still need to account for the verse that distinguishes how female Jewish slaves go free and how non-Jewish slaves go free. This verse implied that they can all be acquired in the same way. So we have one verse that draws a distinction between them and one that compares them (in terms of acquisition).
So why say that the distinction is made in acquisition through hazakah and that they are both acquired by a document? Why not the opposite?
The answer is that a document has greater power since it is used for divorce.
But still, we could argue, that hazakah has greater power because it can be used to acquire the property of a convert who dies without heirs.
Still, we do not find a case where hazakah (possession) acquires in a case of marriage. And since acquisition of a female slave is somewhat similar to marriage, we can conclude that it does not work in this case. We could also prove that the comparison is only made with regard to rules connected to marriage because the very next verse in Exodus to marriage.
[I realize, this is complicated. Kol Hakavod if you made it through!]
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy