Kiddushin

a sandal consisting of a mere sole, which has no heel! — If so,1 Scripture should have written ‘shoe’; why ‘the shoe’? That both may be inferred therefrom.2 MISHNAH. A HEBREW SLAVE IS ACQUIRED BY MONEY AND BY DEED; AND ACQUIRES HIMSELF BY YEARS,3 BY JUBILEE,4 AND BY DEDUCTION FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE.5 A HEBREW MAIDSERVANT IS MORE [PRIVILEGED] IN THAT SHE ACQUIRES HERSELF BY ‘SIGNS’.6 HE WHOSE EAR IS BORED7 IS ACQUIRED BY BORING, AND ACQUIRES HIMSELF BY JUBILEE OR HIS MASTER'S DEATH. GEMARA. A HEBREW SLAVE IS ACQUIRED BY MONEY. How do we know this? — Scripture states, [he shall give back the price of his redemption] out of the money that he was bought for:8 this teaches that he was acquired by money. We have [thus] learnt9 it in the case of a Hebrew slave sold to a heathen, since his sole method of acquisition is by money:’10 how do we know it of one sold to an Israelite?11 — Scripture states: Then shall he let her be redeemed:12 this teaches that she deducts [part] of her redemption money and goes out [free].13 We have thus learned it in the case of a Hebrew bondmaid: since she is betrothed with money,14 she is acquired with money; how do we know it of a Hebrew Slave? — The Writ saith, If thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years:15 thus a Hebrew manservant is assimilated to a Hebrew maidservant. We have now learnt it of one sold by Beth din,16 since he was sold against his will;17 how do we know it of one who sells himself? — We learn [identity of law from] the repeated use of ‘sakir’.18 Now, that is well according to him who accepts the deduction of the repeated use of ‘sakir’;19 but according to him who does not , what can be said? — Scripture states, and if a stranger or sojourner with thee be waxen rich,20 thus continuing21 the preceding section,22 so that [the subject] above may be deduced from [that] below.23 And which Tanna does not admit the deduction from the repeated use of sakir? — The following Tanna. For it was taught: He who sells himself may be sold for six years or more than six years; if sold by Beth din, he may be sold for six years only. He who sells himself may not be bored;24 if sold by Beth din, he may be bored. He who sells himself, has no gift made to him;25 if sold by Beth din, a gift is made to him.26 To him who sells himself, his master cannot give a Canaanite bondmaid;27 if sold by Beth din, his master can give him a Canaanite bondmaid. R. Eleazar28 said: Neither may be sold for more than six years; both may be bored; to both a gift is made; and to both the master may give a Canaanite bondmaid. Surely they differ on this point: the first Tanna does not admit the deduction of the repeated use of sakir, while R. Eleazar does?29 Said R. Tabyomi in Abaye's name: All admit the deduction of the repeated use of sakir, but here they differ on the following: What is the reason of the first Tanna, who maintained, He who sells himself may be sold for six years or more than six years? [Because] Scripture expressed a limitation In connection with one sold by Beth din: and he shall serve thee six years:30 ‘he,’ but not one who sells himself. And the other?31 — ‘And he shall serve thee’ [intimates] ‘thee’, but not thine heir.32 And the other?33 — Another ‘served thee’ is written.34 And the other?35 — That comes [to teach] that the master must be willing [to make a gift].36 What is the reason of the first Tanna who maintained that one who sells himself is not bored? Because Scripture expressed a limitation in connection with one sold by Beth din: and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl,37 [implying] his ear, but not the ear of him who sold himself.38 purchaser, not a Gentile, who can acquire them only by giving the money. naturally effected by money, in the case of some property the delivery of money does not consummate the transaction, and both sides may retract. On the other hand, meshikah (q.v. Glos.) in the case of movables completes the transaction even before the delivery of the purchase price, which ranks as an ordinary loan. Hence the question here: how do we know that the delivery of money consummates the purchase of a Hebrew slave? shall he let (or cause) her to be redeemed’, not, then shall she be redeemed, it shews that the master must help her redemption by accepting less than he paid for her, on a pro rata basis, as explained on p. 59, n. 6; hence she must have been bought with money — otherwise, from what is a deduction to be made? Of course, as pointed out on p. 59, n. 12, it is understood that money was paid. But the point is this: This exegesis shews that immediately on repaying the money she becomes free and no other formality is necessary. But if the purchase itself required some form of acquisition apart from the payment of the purchase price, e.g., deed, she would require the same on buying herself back (Maharam). and the delivery of money suffices. . . . sell himself unto thee . . . as an hired servant (sakir) he shall be with thee. One sold by Beth din, Deut. XV, 12-18: If thy brother . . . be sold unto thee . . . it shall not seem hard unto thee, when thou lettest him go free from thee; for to the double of the hire of a hired servant (sakir, E.V. ‘hireling’) hath he served thee six years. The use of ‘sakir’ in both cases teaches that the same method of purchase holds good in both cases. portion, and a law stated in one applies to the other too. Thus this ‘and’ links vv. 39-46, dealing with a Hebrew slave who sells himself to a Jew, with vv.47-55, treating of one who sells himself to a non-Jew. Just as the purchase of the latter is consummated by money, so is that of the former too. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus. There were several Tannaim of the first name, and the halachah may agree with them; but if Tosaf.’s reading is correct, the halachah is definitely not so, for it is a principle that the halachah never agrees with R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus when he is in dispute with others (v. B.M. 59b, (Sonc. ed.) pp. 352f, for reason). so-called waw conversive; v. Davidson, Heb. Grammar, ** 23, 3. through his ear unto the door.