Kiddushin, Daf Tet Vav, Part 1

 

Introduction

This week s daf continues to discuss the baraita about the difference between a Hebrew slave who sells himself into slavery (Leviticus 25) and the one who is sold into slavery (Deuteronomy 15 and Exodus 21).

 

מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו אינו נרצע מדמיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו ב"ד (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדניו את אזנו במרצע אזנו שלו ולא אזנו של מוכר עצמו

 

What is the reason of the tanna kamma who holds that one who sells himself is not bored? Because Scripture excluded [this rule] in connection with one sold by the court: And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl (Exodus 21:6), his ear, but not the ear of the one who sold himself.

 

The first tanna of the baraita says that only one sold by the court has his ear bored through with an awl should he wish to remain a slave. One who sells himself does not. The tanna kamma reads this out of the verse in Exodus.

 

ואידך ההיא לגזירה שוה הוא דאתא דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר מנין לרציעה שהיא באזן ימנית נאמר כאן אזן ונאמר להלן (ויקרא יד, יד) אזן מה להלן ימין אף כאן ימין

 

And the other? That comes for the purpose of a gezerah shavah. For it was taught: R. Eliezer said: How do we know that the boring must be done 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 (Leviticus 14:14): just as there it is the right [ear], so too here it is the right [ear].

 

R. Elazar uses this verse to draw a gezerah shavah from one appearance of the word ear to another–both cases refer to the right ear.

 

ואידך א"כ לימא קרא אזן מאי אזנו

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה אזנו ולא אזנה

 

And the other? If so, Scripture should have written ear, why his ear ?

And the other? That is needed to teach his ear, but not her ear.

 

The tanna kamma claims that the use of his ear and not just ear means that both derashot can be made.

R. Elazar counters that his ear does not exclude one who sells himself. It excludes a woman. A female slave does not have an option to get her ear bored and thereby extend her servitude.

 

ואידך נפקא לה (שמות כא, ה) מואם יאמר העבד העבד ולא אמה

ואידך מיבעי ליה עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד

 

And the other? He deduces that from, but if the slave should say : the male slave, but not the female slave.

And the other? He needs that [to teach]: he must say it while yet a slave.

 

The tanna kamma deduces that female slaves do not have their ears bored from the male form of slave.

R. Elazar counters that he uses this word to teach that the slave must make this declaration while still a slave.

 

ואידך מעבד העבד נפקא

ואידך עבד העבד לא דריש

 

And the other? That is derived from the slave [instead of] slave.

And the other? [The difference between] does not derive anything from the difference between the slave and slave.

 

The tanna kamma uses the extra heh in front of the word slave as the basis for the slave having to make the declaration while still a slave.

R. Elazar does not make anything out of the extra heh. And at a certain point, these conversations always have to end.