Kiddushin

That is to make it an obligation, and even on R. Joshua's view.1 Come and hear: Why is ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeem him,’ ‘he shall redeent him,’ stated three times? To include all cases of redemption, that they must be redeemed in this order. Surely that refers to houses in walled cities, and Hebrew slaves sold to Israelites? — No: to houses in villages and fields of possession. ‘Houses in villages’! but there it is explicitly stated: ‘they shall be reckoned with the fields of the country’? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is to teach, the nearer the kinsman, the greater his precedence. HE WHOSE EAR IS BORED IS ACQUIRED BY BORING. For it is written, then his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, etc.2 AND ACQUIRES HIMSELF BY JUBILEE OR BY HIS MASTER'S DEATH. For it is written: ‘and he shall serve’2 him — but not his son or daughter; for ever’ — until the eternity of jubilee. 3 Our Rabbis taught: ‘[With] an awl’: I only know [that he can be bored with] an awl. Whence do I know to extend [the law to] a prick,4 thorn, needle, borer, or stylus? From the verse, then thou shalt take,5 which includes everything that may be taken by hand: this is the opinion of R. Jose son of R. Judah. Rabbi said: Just as an awl is specified, as being of metal, so must everything [used for this purpose] be of metal. Alternatively, [thou shalt take] the awl6 is to teach7 [that] the great awl [is meant].8 R. Eleazar said: Judan Berabbi9 used to expound: When it [his ear] was bored, only the lobe was bored. But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave, [who is] a priest, cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished;10 and should you say that the lobe is bored, how is he thereby blemished?11 Hence he was bored through the upper part of his ear. Wherein do they differ? — Rabbi interprets [by the method of] general propositions and particularizations.12 [Thus:] ‘Then thou shalt take’ — this is a generalization;13 ‘an awl’ — this is a specification: ‘through his ear unto the door’ is again a generalization. Now [in a sequence of] generalization, specification and generalization, you can include14 only what is similar to the specification: just as the specification is explicit as of metal, so must everything [used for this purpose] be of metal. R. Jose interprets [by the method of] amplification and limitation.15 [Thus:] Then thou shalt take — this is an amplification;16 an awl — this is a limitation; . . . through his ear unto the door is again an amplification. [A sequence of] amplification, limitation and amplification extends [the law to] everything. What is included? All things. And what is excluded? Chemicals.17 The Master said: "’The awl" is to teach that the great awl [is meant].’ How is this implied? — As Raba said: [Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of] the thigh18 implies the right thigh;19 so here too, ‘the awl’ implies the most distinguished of awls. ‘R. Eleazar said: Judan Berabbi used to expound: When it [his ear] was bored, only the lobe was bored. But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave [who is] a priest, cannot be bored, because he is thereby blemished.’ Then let him be blemished! — Rabbah son of R. Shila said: Scripture saith, and he shall return unto his own family:20 i.e., to the established rights of his family.21 The Scholars propounded: A Hebrew slave [who is] a priest — can his master give him a heathen bondwoman?22 Is it an anomaly,23 and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites; or perhaps, priests are different, since the Writ imposes additional precepts upon them?24 — Rab said: It is permitted; Samuel ruled: It is forbidden. R. Nahman said to R. ‘Anan: When you were at Mar Samuel's academy you wasted your time in chess.25 Why did you not refute him with this: ‘But the Sages maintained: A Hebrew slave, a priest. cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished.’ Now if you say that his master cannot give him a heathen bondmaid,it26 follows because we require [that he should say]. I love my master, my wife. and my children,27 which is absent. Nothing more is possible.28 The scholars propounded: May a priest take a ‘a woman of goodly form’?29 Is it an anomaly.30 and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites: or perhaps. priests are different, since the Writ imposes additional precepts upon them? — Rab said: He is permitted; while Samuel maintained, He is forbidden. With respect to the first intercourse there is universal agreement that it is permitted, since the Torah only provided31 for man's evil passions;32 their dispute refers to the second intercourse. Rab ruled: It is permitted; and Samuel ruled,it is forbidden. Rab ruled: It is permitted: since it was [once] allowed, it remains so. But Samuel said, it is forbidden; because she is a proselyte, and so ineligible to [marry] a priest. Others state, with respect to the second intercourse it is generally agreed that it is forbidden, since she is a proselyte. Their dispute refers to the first intercourse: Rab maintained, It is permitted, since the Torah only provided for man's evil passions. Whilst Samuel ruled: that it is forbidden: where one can read, then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,33 we also read, and seest among the captives. [etc.];34 but where we cannot read: ‘Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house,’ we do not read: ‘and seest among the captives [etc.].’ Our Rabbis taught: ‘And thou seest among the captives’ — when taking her captive;35 a woman — even married; ‘of beautiful countenance’ — the Torah only provided for human passions: it is better for Israel to eat flesh of (Rabbi par excellence) and his contemporaries, but also to some of his predecessors, and occasionally to the first Amoraim (Jast. s.v.); v. Nazir (Sonc. ed.) p. 64. n. 1. specification and then again by a generalization. In that case we say that the generalization includes only what is similar to the specification, as explained in the text. such things as are similar to itself; hence these two alone are sufficient to arrive at the result deduced by Rabbi. Consequently, if a further amplification is added, it includes even dissimilar things, while the limitation can only exclude one or two things which are entirely unlike, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) p. 12, n. 3. Studien, p. 113. R. Han. translates: dog-racing. Krauss, T.A. III, 113 regards it as the dice (Wurfel) in various games of chance. Israelites.