Kiddushin

— According to one Master, to exclude money; according to the other, to exclude mules. Our Rabbis taught : ‘As the Lord thy God hath blessed thee’: I might think, if the house was blessed on his account ‘a gift is made to him; but if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him; therefore Scripture states, thou shalt surely furnish him [etc.], teaching, in all cases.1 If so, what is intimated by ‘as [the Lord thy God] hath blessed thee’? Give him according to thy blessing.2 R. Eleazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what is intimated by ‘thou shalt surely furnish him’? The Torah employed human idiom.3 Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew male slave serves [his master's] son, but does not serve [his] daughter;4 a Hebrew female slave serves neither son nor daughter; one who was bored, or is sold to a heathen, serves neither son nor daughter. The Master said: ‘A Hebrew male slave serves [his master's] son, but not [his] daughter.’ How do we know this? — For our Rabbis taught: [If thy brother . . . be sold unto thee,] he shall serve thee six years5 — thee, but not thine heir’.6 You say: ‘thee, but not thine heir’: yet perhaps it is not so, but ‘thee, but not thy son’? When it is said, six years he shall serve,7 the son is included;8 then how am I to interpret,9 he shall serve thee six years? Thee, but not thine heir. Why do you choose10 to include the son and exclude the brother? I include the son, because he arises in his father's place to designate her,11 and in respect of an ancestral field.12 On the contrary, I should include the brother, since he takes his brother's place for yibum?13 Is there yibum excepting in the absence of a son? but if there is a son, there is no yibum. Now it is only because there is this refutation; but otherwise, the brother would be preferable? Yet it [the reverse] may be inferred from the fact that here [in the case of a son] there are two [points in his favour], whereas there, only one? — [The preference for a son in respect of] an ancestral field is likewise inferred from this same refutation: is there yibum excepting in the absence of a son? 14 ‘A Hebrew female slave serves neither son nor daughter.’ Whence do we know this? — Said R. Papa, Because Scripture writes, [And . . . if he say unto thee, I will not go out from thee . . . then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear . . . ] and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise:15 thus Scripture assimilated her to one who is bored. Just as the latter serves neither son nor daughter, so the former too serves neither son nor daughter. Now this [verse,] ‘and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise’ — does it come to teach this? But it is required for what was taught: And also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise — i.e., furnish [her with] a gift. You say, furnish a gift; yet perhaps it is not so, but in respect to boring? When it is stated: But if the manservant shall plainly say,16 boring is already dealt with:17 how then do I interpret18 and also unto thy bondwoman thou shalt do likewise? In respect of a gift! If so,19 Scripture should write, ‘and also to thy bondwoman likewise;20 why state, ‘thou shalt do’? [Hence] both may be inferred. ‘One who was bored, or is sold to a heathen, serves neither son nor daughter.’ One who was bored, for it is written, and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl: and he shall serve him for ever,21 — but neither son nor daughter. Whence do we know it of one who is sold to a heathen? — Said Hezekiah, because Scripture writes, And he shall reckon with his purchaser22 — but not with his purchaser's heirs. Raba said: By Biblical law, a heathen is his father's heir, for it is said: ‘and he shall reckon with his purchaser’, [implying,] but not with his purchaser's heirs, whence it follows that he has heirs. [But the succession of] a proselyte [to the estate of] a heathen is not in accordance with Biblical law but by the law of the Soferim.23 For we learnt: If a proselyte and a heathen succeed their father, a heathen: the proselyte may say to the heathen, ‘You take the idols, I [will take] money’; ‘you take the wine of libation24 and I will take fruit.’ But once they25 have come into the proselyte's possession, this [exchange] is forbidden.26 Now, should you think that [the proselyte succeeds] by Biblical law, even if they have not yet come into his possession, when he takes [the money or the produce], he takes something in exchange for an idol!27 Hence it [his succession] is [only] by Rabbinical law, the Rabbis having enacted a preventive measure, lest he return to his evil ways.28 It has been taught likewise: When was this said? If they inherited [the property]. But if they went into partnership,29 it is forbidden.30 A heathen [succeeds] a proselyte, or a proselyte [succeeds] a proselyte, neither by Biblical law nor by the law of the Soferim. For we learnt:31 If a man borrows money from a proselyte whose children were converted together with him, he must not return it to his children,32 and if he does, the spirit of the Sages is not pleased with him. But it was taught:33 The spirit of the Sages is pleased with him? — There is no difficulty. The former refers to where his [sc. the child's] conception and birth were not In sanctity: 34 him for good. If he does not redeem it, the Temple treasurer sells it, and it belongs to the purchaser until jubilee, when it becomes the property of the priests. But if the sanctifier's son redeems it, it is as though he himself does so, and it remains his for good. though sometimes it would appear to apply to later Talmudists too; e.g., in R.H. 19a. The Rabbis derive the word from safar, to count: hence the body who counted the letters of the Torah or grouped subjects by number; e.g., four chief causes of damage, thirty-nine principal modes of labour forbidden on the Sabbath (infra 30a; Sanh. 106b). Weiss, Dor, I, 50, maintains that they were so called on account of their skilled calligraphy; and also, because they taught from a scroll (sefer). This body has been identified with the Men of the Great Synagogue (Z. Frankel, Darke ha-Mishnah, p. 8; N. Krochmal, More Nebuke ha-Zeman, ch. X, 186). Weiss op. cit. p. 58 maintains that they were separate bodies, though their objects were alike. The Soferim were the theoretical scholars who interpreted the law; the Men of the Great Synagogue were the practical legislators. or not. babe,’ who has no kinsmanship whatsoever with any of his pre-conversion relations. against the desire of the Rabbis, who held that there is absolutely no relationship between them.