Yevamot 95

Chapter 95

א ומותר בה מיד

1 he is permitted to marry her forthwith.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus it has boon shown that while the first Tanna requires the slave's acceptance of the obligation of Judaism, R. Simeon maintains that acceptance is not required, the ablution for the purpose of the emancipation is alone sufficient, even though its performance had been forced upon the slave. ');">1 Raba said: What is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason?2 — Because it is written, Every man's slave that is bought for money;3

ב אמר רבא מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון בן אלעזר דכתיב (שמות יב, מד) כל עבד איש מקנת כסף עבד איש ולא עבד אשה אלא עבד איש אתה מל בעל כרחו ואי אתה מל בן איש בעל כרחו

2 [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman?4 But [this is the implication]: The slave5 of a man may be forcibly circumcised but no son of a man6

ג ורבנן אמר עולא כשם שאי אתה מל בן איש בעל כרחו כך אי אתה מל עבד איש בעל כרחו ואלא הכתיב כל עבד איש ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדשמואל

3 may be forcibly circumcised. And the Rabbis?7 — 'Ulla replied: As you, admittedly, may not by force circumcise the son of a man8 so you may not forcibly circumcise the slave of a man. But, surely, there is the Scriptural text, Every man's slave!9

ד דאמר שמואל המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות ואין צריך גט שחרור שנאמר כל עבד איש מקנת כסף עבד איש ולא עבד אשה אלא עבד שיש לו רשות לרבו עליו קרוי עבד ושאין רשות לרבו עליו אין קרוי עבד

4 — That text is required for a deduction made by Samuel. For Samuel stated: If a man declared his slave to be ownerless that slave acquires thereby his freedom and requires no deed of emancipation; for it is stated in Scripture. Every man's slave that is bought for money,3 [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman?10 But [the meaning is that] a slave who is under his master's control is a proper11

ה מתקיף לה רב פפא אימור דשמעת להו לרבנן ביפת תואר דלא שייכא במצות אבל עבד דשייך במצות הכי נמי דאפי' רבנן מודו

5 slave but he who is not under his master's control is not a proper11 slave.12 R. Papa demurred: It might be suggested that the Rabbis were heard13

ו דתניא אחד גר ואחד לוקח עבד מן העובד כוכבים צריך לקבל הא לוקח מישראל אין צריך לקבל

6 in respect of a woman of goodly form14 only,15 because she16

ז מני אי רבי שמעון בן אלעזר האמר לוקח מן העובד כוכבים נמי אין צריך לקבל אלא לאו רבנן וש"מ דלוקח מן העובד כוכבים צריך לקבל אבל לוקח מישראל אין צריך לקבל

7 is under no obligation to observe the commandments; but that in respect of a slave,17 who is under the obligation of observing commandments, even the Rabbis agree!18 For it was indeed taught. 'Both a proselyte and a slave bought from an idolater must make19

ח ואלא קשיא אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר כי תניא ההיא לענין טבילה תניא

8 a declaration of acceptance'.20 Thus it follows21 that a slave bought from an Israelite need not make a declaration of acceptance.20

ט תנו רבנן (דברים כא, יב) וגלחה את ראשה ועשתה את צפרניה רבי אליעזר אומר תקוץ רבי עקיבא אומר תגדיל

9 Now, whose view is this? If that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, he, surely, had stated that even a slave bought from an idolater need make no declaration of acceptance!22 Consequently it must be the view of the Rabbis; and so it may be inferred that only a slave bought from an idolater is required to make a declaration of acceptance20 but a slave bought from an Israelite is not required to make a declaration of acceptance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having previously served an Israelite he has oven without any declaration on his part become subject to the laws of Judaism. (Cf. supra p. 315, n. 16). This confirms R. Papa's contention that the Rabbis' view had reference only to the woman spoken of in Deut. XXI, 11ff, but not to the slave of an Israelite. ');">23

י אמר רבי אליעזר נאמרה עשיה בראש ונאמרה עשיה בצפרנים מה להלן העברה אף כאן העברה רבי עקיבא אומר נאמר עשיה בראש ונאמר עשיה בצפרנים מה להלן ניוול אף כאן ניוול

10 But then the contradiction from the statement 'The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emancipated slave'24 remains! — That25 was taught only with reference to the ablution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both require ablution on their admission as a proselyte and as a slave of an Israelite respectively. In respect of acceptance of the laws of Judaism, however, they come under different categories. While the former's initiation is not complete without his formal acceptance of the laws of Judaism, that of the latter (v. supra p. 323. n. 16) requires no acceptance at all on his part, the ablution alone being sufficient. ');">26

יא וראיה לדברי רבי אליעזר (שמואל ב יט, כה) ומפיבושת בן שאול ירד לקראת המלך לא עשה רגליו ולא עשה שפמו מאי עשיה העברה

11 Our Rabbis taught: And she shall shave her head, and do27 her nails,28 R. Eliezer said, 'She shall cut them'.29

יב ת"ר (דברים כא, יג) ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה

12 R. Akiba said, 'She shall let them grow'. R. Eliezer said:30 An act31 was mentioned in respect of the head, and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails;32 as the former signifies removal, so does the latter also signify removal. R. Akiba said:30 An act31 was mentioned in respect of the head and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails;32 as disfigurement is the purpose of the former so is disfigurement the purpose of the latter. The following, however, supports the view of R. Eliezer: And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor had he done33 'his beard;34 by 'doing'35 removal was meant. Our Rabbis taught: And bewail her father aid her mother;36

Previous Chapter Next Chapter