Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Aleph, Part 5

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to interpret the baraita about boring the hole in the ear of the slave who wishes to remain with his master.

 

אמר מר המרצע להביא מרצע הגדול מאי משמע כדאמר רבא (בראשית לב, לג) הירך המיומנת שבירך ה"נ המרצע מיוחד שבמרצעין:

 

The Master said: The awl comes to include a large awl.

How is this implied?

As Rava said: [Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is upon the hollow of] the thigh the most important part of the thigh; so too here the awl implies the most important of awls.

 

The baraita had read the awl as including even a large awl. But what is the midrashic technique used to derive that from the verse?

The Talmud compares this midrash with a midrash that Rava offers on the prohibition of eating part of the thigh. From the definitive article the Rava derives that the prohibition applies only to the most important part of the thigh. So too here we can derive that the article implies only the most important of awls the great awl.

 

א"ר אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעין אין רוצעין אלא במילתא

וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום

ויעשה בעל מום אמר רבה בר רב שילא אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו למוחזק שבמשפחתו

 

R. Elazar said: Yudan b. Rabbi used to expound: When they bore, they only bore the lobe.

But the Sages say: A Hebrew slave, [who is] a priest, cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished; and should you say that the lobe is bored, how could they let a Hebrew slave who is a priest be blemished?

Then let him be blemished!

Rabbah son of R. Shila said: The verse says, And he shall return to his own family (Leviticus 25:41): to the status of his family.

 

The sages had said that the priest slave cannot have the lobe of his ear bored because that would create a blemish. But what s so bad about having his ear blemished, the Talmud asks?

The answer is that when set free, he must return to the same familial status he had before, and a priest with certain types of blemishes is no longer considered to have that status.

 

איבעיא להו עבד עברי כהן מהו שימסור לו רבו שפחה כנענית חידוש הוא לא שנא כהנים ול"ש ישראל או דילמא שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן הכתוב מצות יתירות רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור

 

They asked a question: A Hebrew slave [who is] a priest can his master give him a non-Jewish female slave? This is an innovation, and so there is no difference between priests and Israelites; or perhaps, priests are different, since the verse imposed on them additional mitzvot? Rav said: It is permitted; Shmuel said: It is forbidden.

 

Generally male Israelites may not have relations or marry non-Jewish female slaves. But a master may give his Hebrew slave a female slave as his wife for the duration of his term of servitude. The Talmud explains why this is asked. On the one hand, this entire law is a hidush something innovative. After all, in general Jewish men cannot marry female slaves. So maybe it applies equally to everyone. Alternatively, the law is usually more strict with priests (they may not marry converts or divorcees). So maybe it is strict here as well.

Rav says that it is allowed, and Shmuel says it is forbidden.

 

א"ל רב נחמן לרב ענן כי הויתו בי מר שמואל באיסקומדרי איטלליתו מ"ט לא תימרו לי’ מהא וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום וא"ת אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית תיפוק לי דבעינא (שמות כא, ה) אהבתי את אדוני את אשתי ואת בני וליכא תו לא מידי

R. Nahman said to R. Anan: When you were at Mar Shmuel’s academy you wasted your time with tokens. Why did you not say back to him this: But the Sages say: A Hebrew slave, a priest cannot be bored, as he is thereby blemished. Now if you say that his master cannot give him a non-Jewish slave woman you could derive it from I love my master, my wife and my children (Exodus 21:5) which he cannot say. And nothing more can be said [against this].

 

R. Nahman ridicules R. Anan for not being able to prove that a master can give the priest slave a female slave as a wife. The rabbis say that all of the laws of the Hebrew slave, including where he has his ear bored, must apply to the priest. But if he could not take a non-Jewish slave as a wife, how could he say, I love my wife. This statement proves that all Hebrew slaves, even priests, may marry non-Jewish slaves.