Kiddushin 29

Chapter 29

א ואידך ההיא לגזירה שוה הוא דאתא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר מנין לרציעה שהיא באזן ימנית נאמר כאן אזן ונאמר להלן (ויקרא יד, יד) אזן מה להלן ימין אף כאן ימין
1 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar: What does 'his ear' teach, on his view?');"><sup>1</sup></span> - That comes for the purpose of a gezerah shawah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>2</sup></span> For it was taught: R'Eliezer said: How do we know that the boring must be through the right ear?
ב ואידך א"כ לימא קרא אזן מאי אזנו
2 Here is said: 'ear': and elsewhere is said, [and the priest shall take some of the blood. and put it upon the tip of the right] ear etc. ,:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XIV, 25, also in v. 28. This refers to a poor leper, and the whole section on the sprinkling etc., is superfluous, since is stated in vv. 14ff., in connection with a leper of means: hence it is for the purpose of exegesis (Rashi) .');"><sup>3</sup></span> just as there the right i meant, so here too, the right is meant.
ג ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה אזנו ולא אזנה ואידך נפקא לה (שמות כא, ה) מואם יאמר העבד העבד ולא אמה
3 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna: whence does he know this?');"><sup>4</sup></span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That its only purpose is the gezerah shawah.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Scripture should have written 'ear'; why 'his ear'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely to intimate the limitation stated above.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ואידך מיבעי ליה עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד
4 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar: why state, 'his'?');"><sup>7</sup></span> - That is needed: 'his ear', but not her ear.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Teaching that a Hebrew bondsmaid cannot be bored.');"><sup>8</sup></span> And the other? - He deduces that from, but if the bondsman shall plainly say:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 5f., q.v.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה ואידך מעבד העבד נפקא ואידך עבד העבד לא דריש
5 the bondsman, but not the bondmaid. And the other? - He needs that [to teach]: he must say it while yet a slave.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before the expiration of his six years.');"><sup>10</sup></span> And the other? - That is derived from 'the bondsman' [instead of] bondsman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The def. art. emphasizes that he must still be a slave when he refuses his freedom. Hence the substantive itself excludes a bondsmaid.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו מ"ט דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אין מעניקין לו מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו ב"ד (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק לו לו ולא למוכר עצמו
6 - And the other? - [The difference between] the bondsman and bondsman affords no basis for exegesis. What is the reason of the first Tanna who maintained, He who sells himself, no gift is made to him? - Scripture expressed a limitation in connection with one sold by Beth din: thou shalt furnish him liberally;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 14.');"><sup>12</sup></span> 'him', but not one who sells himself.
ז ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לו ולא ליורשיו יורשיו אמאי לא שכיר קרייה רחמנא מה שכיר פעולתו ליורשיו אף האי פעולתו ליורשיו אלא לו ולא לבעל חובו
7 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eleazar: how does he utilize 'him'?');"><sup>13</sup></span> - He needs that: 'him', but not his heirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the slave dies before his master makes him the gift.');"><sup>14</sup></span> <sup>15</sup> So here too, his wages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of which this gift is part.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
ח מדסבירא לן בעלמא כרבי נתן דתניא א"ר נתן מנין לנושה בחברו מנה וחברו בחברו מנין שמוציאין מזה ונותנין לזה ת"ל (במדבר ה, ז) ונתן לאשר אשם לו
8 belong to his heirs? - But [say thus:]"&gt; 'him', but not his creditor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the slave owes money, the gift is not to be given to his creditor. - The Wilna Gaon substitutes the following for the bracketed passage: And the other? (The first Tanna: whence does he exclude the heirs?) - 'Him' is written twice, (of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him) . And the other? - That is needed: 'him', but not his creditor.');"><sup>17</sup></span> [This is necessary,] because elsewhere we agree with R'Nathan, as it was taught: R'Nathan said: How do we know that if a man claims from another and then one claims [the same amount] from a third, that we collect from the last named and give it to the first [creditor]? From the verse, and he shall give it unto him t whom he is indebted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. V, 7: translating, and he (the last debtor) shall give it unto him (the first creditor) , to whom he (the second creditor) is indebted. By analogy, the master ought to deliver the gift direct to the slave's creditor.');"><sup>18</sup></span>
ט אתא לו לאפוקי ואידך בעלמא נמי לא סבירא לן כרבי נתן
9 Therefore 'him' comes to exclude that [from the case of a slave]. And the other? - Elsewhere we do in fact disagree with R'Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no particular verse is needed for a slave.');"><sup>19</sup></span> What is the reason of the first Tanna who maintained, To him who sells himself, his master cannot give a Canaanite bondsmaid?
י מ"ט דת"ק דאמר מוכר עצמו אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו ב"ד (שמות כא, ד) אם אדוניו יתן לו אשה לו ולא למוכר עצמו ואידך לו בעל כרחו
10 Scripture expressed a limitation in connection with one sold by Beth din: If his master give him a wife,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 4.');"><sup>20</sup></span> [implying], him, but not one who sells himself. And the other? - 'Him' [intimates] even against his will.
יא ואידך מכי משנה שכר שכיר נפקא דתניא (דברים טו, יח) כי משנה שכר שכיר עבדך שכיר אינו עובד אלא ביום עבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה
11 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna: how does he know this?');"><sup>21</sup></span> - That is deduced from, for to the double of the hire of a hired servant [hath he served thee].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XV, 18.');"><sup>22</sup></span> For it was taught: 'For to the double of the hire of a hired servant hath he served thee:' a hired servant works by day only, whereas a Hebrew slave works by day and night.
יב וכי תעלה על דעתך שעבד עברי עובד בין ביום ובין בלילה והלא כבר נאמר (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה וא"ר יצחק מכאן שרבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית
12 Yet can you really imagine that a Hebrew slave works by day and night: is it not written, because he is well with thee,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 16.');"><sup>23</sup></span> [teaching] that he must be [on a par] with thee in food and drink? and R'Isaac answered thus: From this follows that his master can give him a Canaanite bondmaid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This must be the night service referred to.');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יג ואידך אי מהתם הוה אמינא ה"מ מדעתיה אבל בע"כ אימא לא קמ"ל
13 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why deduce it from 'him'?');"><sup>25</sup></span> - If from there, I might have said: That is only with his consent, but not against his will; therefore we are told [otherwise]. Then which Tanna does not accept the deduction from the repetition of 'sakir'? - It is this Tanna.
יד אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר האי תנא הוא דתניא (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו וגו' אמר ר"א בן יעקב במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור
14 For it was taught: And if thy brother sell himself unto thee. he shall serve thee unto the years of jubilee. And then.
טו אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא במכרוהו ב"ד שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו ואי ס"ד יליף שכיר שכיר למה לי נילף שכיר שכיר
15 he shall returns unto his family, etc. :<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 39f: the word translated 'sell himself may also mean 'be sold.'');"><sup>26</sup></span> R'Eliezer B'Jacob said: Of whom does Scripture speak? If of him who sells himself - then it was already stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'He shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee', when he obviously returns to his family.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
טז אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לעולם יליף שכיר שכיר ואיצטריך ס"ד אמינא מוכר עצמו הוא דלא עבד איסורא אבל מכרוהו ב"ד דעבד איסורא אימא ניקנסיה קמ"ל
16 If of him whose ear was bored - that too was already stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Talmud asks below, where?');"><sup>28</sup></span> Hence Scripture refers [here] only to him whom Beth din sold two or three years before jubilee, [thus teaching] that jubilee liberates him. Now, should you think that he [R'Eliezer B'Jacob] accepts the deduction of the repeated use of 'sakir', why is it [the verse cited] necessary; let him make the aforementioned deduction?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which the same follows.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יז אמר מר אי בנרצע הרי כבר אמור מאי היא דתניא (ויקרא כה, י) ושבתם איש אל אחוזתו ואיש אל משפחתו וגו' במה הכתוב מדבר אי במוכר עצמו הרי כבר אמור
17 - Said R'Nahman B'Isaac: After all, he does make this deduction; nevertheless it [the verse quoted] is necessary. I might have thought, only he who sells himself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is thus prematurely liberated by jubilee.');"><sup>30</sup></span> because he committed no offence; but as for one sold by Beth din, who committed an offence, I might say: Let him be punished; therefore we are informed [that it is not so].
יח אי במכרוהו ב"ד הרי כבר אמור הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנרצע שתים ושלש שנים לפני היובל שהיובל מוציאו מאי משמע אמר רבא בר שילא אמר קרא איש איזהו דבר שנוהג באיש ואין נוהג באשה הוי אומר זו רציעה
18 The Master said: 'If of him whose ear was bored - that too was already stated.' What is this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., where was it stated?');"><sup>31</sup></span> - For it was taught: [It shall be a jubilee unto you;] and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXV, 10.');"><sup>32</sup></span>
יט ואיצטריך למיכתב מכרוהו בית דין ואיצטריך למיכתב נרצע דאי אשמעינן מכרוהו ב"ד משום דלא מטאי זמניה אבל נרצע דמטאי זמניה אימא ניקנסיה
19 To what does Scripture refer? If to one who sells himself - it was already stated;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As mentioned in the passage above. - It should be observed that the Talmud refers to a law as 'already stated,' even when it occurs further on in the chapter or book, as here; thus it is the equivalent of 'stated elsewhere.'');"><sup>33</sup></span> if to one sold by Beth din - that [too] was already stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then he shall return unto his family (Ibid. 41) , interpreted above as referring to this case.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
כ ואי אשמעינן נרצע משום דעבד ליה שש אבל מכרוהו ב"ד דלא עבד ליה שש אימא לא צריכא
20 Hence the Writ can only refer to one whose ear was bored two or three years before jubilee, [teaching] that jubilee liberates him. How is this implied?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse.');"><sup>35</sup></span> - Said Raba B'Shila: Scripture saith, [and ye shall return every] man: now, what thing is practised in the case of a man but not of a woman?
כא ואיצטריך למיכתב ושבתם ואיצטריך למיכתב לעולם דאי כתב רחמנא לעולם הוה אמינא לעולם ממש כתב רחמנא ושבתם
21 Say: boring. Now, [both cases,] one sold by Beth din, and one who was bored,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Each two or three years before jubilee.');"><sup>36</sup></span> must be written.
כב ואי כתב רחמנא ושבתם הוה אמינא ה"מ היכא דלא עבד שש אבל היכא דעבד שש לא יהא סופו חמור מתחלתו מה תחלתו שש אף סופו נמי שש קמשמע לן לעולם לעולמו של יובל
22 For had we been informed [this] of him whom Beth din sold, [I might say] that is because his term had not expired;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his time (for freedom) had not come,' and it was his good fortune that the jubilee supervened.');"><sup>37</sup></span> but as for him whose ear was bored, seeing that his term had already expired, I might have said: let him be punished!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For voluntarily choosing servitude when he might have been free. - This hypothetical reasoning may appear curious: but it arises out of the Jewish insistence on the fundamental freedom of man.');"><sup>38</sup></span> And if we were informed [this] of him whose ear was bored, [I might say] that is because he had already served six years; but as for him who has been sold by Beth din, who had not yet served six years, I might have argued: he is not [liberated].
כג אלא מאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר רבי היא דתניא
23 Thus both are necessary. Now, both 'and ye shall return' and '[and he shall serve him] for ever'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 6.');"><sup>39</sup></span> must be written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both refer to one whose ear was bored: the first, by inference; the second, explicitly (vv. 5, 6) . On the surface, they are contradictory.');"><sup>40</sup></span> For had the All-Merciful written 'for ever' [only], I would have thought, literally for ever; therefore the All-Merciful wrote 'and ye shall return'. And had the All-Merciful written 'and ye shall return' [only], I would have thought: when is that?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he must wait for jubilee.');"><sup>41</sup></span> If he had not served six years [after being bored]; but if he had already served six years, his last phase should not be more stringent than his first: just as his first phase<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when first sold.');"><sup>42</sup></span> was for six years, so should his last be for six years [only]; hence 'for ever' teaches us, for the eternity of jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., , he is a slave until then, no matter how long.');"><sup>43</sup></span> Then [the question again arises,] which Tanna does not accept the deduction of 'sakir', 'sakir'? - It is Rabbi. For it was taught:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter