Kiddushin

And the other?1 — That comes for the purpose of a gezerah shawah.2 For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: How do we know that the boring must be through the right ear? 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.,:3 just as there the right is meant, so here too, the right is meant. And the other?4 — If so,5 Scripture should have written ‘ear’; why ‘his ear’?6 And the other?7 — That is needed: ‘his ear’, but not her ear.8 And the other? — He deduces that from, but if the bondsman shall plainly say:9 the bondsman, but not the bondmaid. And the other? — He needs that [to teach]: he must say it while yet a slave.10 And the other? — That is derived from ‘the bondsman’ [instead of] bondsman.11 — 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;12 ‘him’, but not one who sells himself. And the other?13 — He needs that: ‘him’, but not his heirs.14 (‘His heirs’: why not? The All-Merciful designated him a hired servant [sakir]: just as the wages of a hired servant belong to his heirs,15 So here too, his wages16 belong to his heirs? — But [say thus:]) ‘him’, but not his creditor.17 [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 to whom he is indebted.18 Therefore ‘him’ comes to exclude that [from the case of a slave]. And the other? — Elsewhere we do in fact disagree with R.Nathan.19 What is the reason of the first Tanna who maintained, To him who sells himself, his master cannot give a Canaanite bondsmaid? Scripture expressed a limitation in connection with one sold by Beth din: If his master give him a wife,20 [implying], him, but not one who sells himself. And the other? — ‘Him’ [intimates] even against his will. And the other?21 — That is deduced from, for to the double of the hire of a hired servant [hath he served thee].22 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. Yet can you really imagine that a Hebrew slave works by day and night: is it not written, because he is well with thee,23 [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.24 And the other?25 — 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. For it was taught: And if thy brother sell himself unto thee . . . he shall serve thee unto the years of jubilee. And then . . . he shall returns unto his family, etc.:26 R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Of whom does Scripture speak? If of him who sells himself — then it was already stated.27 If of him whose ear was bored — that too was already stated.28 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?29 — 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,30 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]. The Master said: ‘If of him whose ear was bored — that too was already stated.’ What is this?31 — 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.32 To what does Scripture refer? If to one who sells himself — it was already stated;33 if to one sold by Beth din — that [too] was already stated.34 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?35 — 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? Say: boring. Now, [both cases,] one sold by Beth din, and one who was bored,36 must be written. For had we been informed [this] of him whom Beth din sold, [I might say] that is because his term had not expired;37 but as for him whose ear was bored, seeing that his term had already expired, I might have said: let him be punished!38 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]. Thus both are necessary. Now, both ‘and ye shall return’ and ‘[and he shall serve him] for ever’39 must be written .40 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?41 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 phase42 was for six years, so should his last be for six years [only]; hence ‘for ever’ teaches us, for the eternity of jubilee.43 Then [the question again arises,] which Tanna does not accept the deduction of ‘sakir’, ‘sakir’? — It is Rabbi. For it was taught: since is stated in vv. 14ff., in connection with a leper of means: hence it is for the purpose of exegesis (Rashi). excludes a bondsmaid. 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. creditor) is indebted. By analogy, the master ought to deliver the gift direct to the slave's creditor. even when it occurs further on in the chapter or book, as here; thus it is the equivalent of ‘stated elsewhere.’ curious: but it arises out of the Jewish insistence on the fundamental freedom of man. are contradictory.