Commentary for Kiddushin 42:25

The Torah explicitly states that a Hebrew slave may be redeemed by a relative. So why would we need a special midrash to teach this elsewhere?
The answer is that the verse “in all” comes to add that redeeming a Hebrew slave sold to a non-Jew is obligatory, even according to R. Joshua who holds that redeeming land is optional. We have now rejected the first answer to the question as to whether Hebrew slaves sold to Jews may be redeemed. We need another source to find an answer.

This section is nearly identical to that found in the end of yesterday’s section.
The repetition of “he shall redeem him” is read as teaching that all redemptions are the same, and by this the Talmud tries to extend it to the ability of relatives to redeem Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites.
The Talmud then rejects that and claims that the verse refers only to the redemption of houses in villages and ancestral fields. But then, again, the difficulty is raised that it is explicitly stated that these may be redeemed by relatives. So what then does the midrash “in all” come to include.
R. Nahman b. Yitzchak reads this midrash as teaching that the nearest relative comes first. So again, we arrive at the conclusion that according to the rabbis while Hebrew slaves sold to non-Jews, fields and houses in villages may be redeemed by relatives, Jews sold to other Jews may not. They will need to either redeem themselves or complete their six year term.

Once his ear is bored, the slave remains with his master until the Jubilee.

A Hebrew slave who had his ear bored goes free at his master’s death—he serves the master and not the master’s children. And while the Torah would seem to say that he serves as a slave forever, according to the rabbis he goes free at the Jubilee.

The first part of this baraita contains a few opinions as to what the awl used to bore the ear must be made out of—must it be from metal or can it be from other materials.
In the second part of the baraita, the rabbis argue over where on the ear a slave is bored. Evidently, a hole in the earlobe was considered a blemish while a hole in the upper part of the ear, on the cartilage was not. The reason to avoid “blemishing” the slave was that if he was a priest, he would not be able to return to serving as a priest with a permanent blemish. Thus the rabbis say that when boring, we must take into consideration his status after the Jubilee when he is no longer a priest.

The first part of this baraita contains a few opinions as to what the awl used to bore the ear must be made out of—must it be from metal or can it be from other materials.
In the second part of the baraita, the rabbis argue over where on the ear a slave is bored. Evidently, a hole in the earlobe was considered a blemish while a hole in the upper part of the ear, on the cartilage was not. The reason to avoid “blemishing” the slave was that if he was a priest, he would not be able to return to serving as a priest with a permanent blemish. Thus the rabbis say that when boring, we must take into consideration his status after the Jubilee when he is no longer a priest.

The first part of this baraita contains a few opinions as to what the awl used to bore the ear must be made out of—must it be from metal or can it be from other materials.
In the second part of the baraita, the rabbis argue over where on the ear a slave is bored. Evidently, a hole in the earlobe was considered a blemish while a hole in the upper part of the ear, on the cartilage was not. The reason to avoid “blemishing” the slave was that if he was a priest, he would not be able to return to serving as a priest with a permanent blemish. Thus the rabbis say that when boring, we must take into consideration his status after the Jubilee when he is no longer a priest.

The Talmud now discusses the midrashic techniques that led to the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yose b. R. Yehudah. Rabbi uses a midrashic technique that focuses on sequences of generalizations and specifications. This leads to the interpretation that the specification limits the generalization—the awl must be of metal.

The Talmud now discusses the midrashic techniques that led to the dispute between Rabbi and Rabbi Yose b. R. Yehudah. Rabbi uses a midrashic technique that focuses on sequences of generalizations and specifications. This leads to the interpretation that the specification limits the generalization—the awl must be of metal.

R. Yose uses a different midrashic technique. This technique leads to the inclusion of any physical instrument, but to the exclusion of using a chemical to bore a hole in the ear—ouch!

R. Yose uses a different midrashic technique. This technique leads to the inclusion of any physical instrument, but to the exclusion of using a chemical to bore a hole in the ear—ouch!

The baraita had read “the awl” as including even a large awl. But what is the midrashic technique used to derive that from the verse?
The Talmud compares this midrash with a midrash that Rava offers on the prohibition of eating part of the thigh. From the definitive article “the” Rava derives that the prohibition applies only to the most important part of the thigh. So too here we can derive that the article implies only the most important of awls—the great awl.

The sages had said that the priest slave cannot have the lobe of his ear bored because that would create a blemish. But what’s so bad about having his ear blemished, the Talmud asks?
The answer is that when set free, he must return to the same familial status he had before, and a priest with certain types of blemishes is no longer considered to have that status.

The sages had said that the priest slave cannot have the lobe of his ear bored because that would create a blemish. But what’s so bad about having his ear blemished, the Talmud asks?
The answer is that when set free, he must return to the same familial status he had before, and a priest with certain types of blemishes is no longer considered to have that status.

The sages had said that the priest slave cannot have the lobe of his ear bored because that would create a blemish. But what’s so bad about having his ear blemished, the Talmud asks?
The answer is that when set free, he must return to the same familial status he had before, and a priest with certain types of blemishes is no longer considered to have that status.

R. Nahman ridicules R. Anan for not being able to prove that a master can give the priest slave a female slave as a wife. The rabbis say that all of the laws of the Hebrew slave, including where he has his ear bored, must apply to the priest. But if he could not take a non-Jewish slave as a wife, how could he say, “I love my…wife.” This statement proves that all Hebrew slaves, even priests, may marry non-Jewish slaves.

R. Nahman ridicules R. Anan for not being able to prove that a master can give the priest slave a female slave as a wife. The rabbis say that all of the laws of the Hebrew slave, including where he has his ear bored, must apply to the priest. But if he could not take a non-Jewish slave as a wife, how could he say, “I love my…wife.” This statement proves that all Hebrew slaves, even priests, may marry non-Jewish slaves.

The whole law of the “beautiful woman taken captive” is an unusual law because it allows a Jew to have sex with a non-Jewish woman (one time). So maybe the same rule applies to priests. Alternatively, since priests have extra restrictions, maybe they are prohibited to do what other Israelites are allowed to do.
As we saw in yesterday’s section, Rav allows and Shmuel prohibits.

The Torah allows the soldier to have sex with the woman the first time before she converts because the Torah knows that men (soldiers in particular?) have an evil inclination and when they see this beautiful woman they will either sleep with her in a permitted way or do something far worse. Therefore, since priests also have this inclination, they too are allowed to have relations with the captive woman. But the second time, after she converts, is disputed. Rav says that since the first act was permitted, she stays permitted to him. Shmuel says that she is a convert and since priests cannot marry converts, a priest cannot marry this woman.

The Torah allows the soldier to have sex with the woman the first time before she converts because the Torah knows that men (soldiers in particular?) have an evil inclination and when they see this beautiful woman they will either sleep with her in a permitted way or do something far worse. Therefore, since priests also have this inclination, they too are allowed to have relations with the captive woman. But the second time, after she converts, is disputed. Rav says that since the first act was permitted, she stays permitted to him. Shmuel says that she is a convert and since priests cannot marry converts, a priest cannot marry this woman.

According to this version of the dispute, the two sages both agree that marrying her, the “second intercourse” is prohibited because priests may not marry converts. They disagree over whether the Torah’s concession to the evil inclination applies to even to the priest. Rav says that it does, since priests, like everyone else, have evil inclinations.
Shmuel holds that since he cannot “bring her into his house” as a wife, he also cannot have intercourse with her the first time.

This baraita goes through every word or phrase of the passage about the “beautiful captive woman” and explains what it teaches. I will go through these rules one at a time:
1) This rule applies only when in war. This is not something that can be done in peace time.
2) The rule applies even if she is already married to a non-Jewish man.
3) The reason that the Torah calls her beautiful is that it realizes the evil inclination of men. The Torah preferred to the lesser evil of basically forced marriage to what would basically be rape. This is a concession, not an ideal
4) While the Torah calls her beautiful, the law applies to any woman the man desires.
5) The soldier can only take one such wife, not two.
6) He must marry her (after the first intercourse).
7) He cannot take two women, one for him and one for a family member.
8) He cannot have sex with her there on the battlefield. He must bring her home.
Note that while there is still much that is disturbing in these laws (what about her consent?) the rabbis do seem to be modifying the Torah’s rulings such that the situation is slightly better for her.