Kiddushin, Daf Yod Daled, Part 6

Introduction

Yesterday we heard of a dispute about whether one can derive laws from comparing one use of the word sakhir with the other some do and some don t. Today s sugya discusses who does not derive laws from the repetition of the word.

ומאן תנא דלא יליף שכיר שכיר האי תנא הוא דתניא המוכר עצמו נמכר לשש ויתר על שש, מכרוהו ב"ד אינו נמכר אלא לשש

המוכר עצמו אינו נרצע, מכרוהו ב"ד נרצע

מוכר עצמו אין מעניקים לו, מכרוהו ב"ד מעניקים לו

המוכר עצמו אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית, מכרוהו ב"ד רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית

רבי אלעזר אומר זה וזה אינו נמכר אלא לשש זה וזה נרצע וזה וזה מעניקים לו וזה וזה רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית

And which Tanna does learn from the repeated use of sakhir? The following Tanna, For it was taught: He who sells himself may be sold for six years or more than six years; if sold by the court, he is sold for six years only.

He who sells himself may not have the hole bored in his ear; if sold by the court, he may have the hole bored in his ear.

He who sells himself, they do not grant him a gift; if sold by the court, they do grant him a gift

He who sells himself, his master cannot give him a Canaanite slave-woman [as a wife]; if sold by the court, his master can give him a Canaanite slave-woman.

R. Elazar said: Neither may be sold for more than six years; both may have their ears bored; to both a gift is made; and to both the master may give a Canaanite slave-woman.

The baraita here contains a dispute about the laws governing a Hebrew slave. There are two possibilities as to how a Jew could be sold into slavery he could sell himself into slavery to recover a debt or the court. The rabbis read Leviticus 25:40 as referring to a Jew who sells himself and Deuteronomy 15:18 as a case where the court sells him. Deuteronomy limits the term of servitude to six years, it provides an opportunity to extend the servitude by having a hole bored in his ear and it mandates the owner provide him with a gift upon release. Exodus 21, parallel to Deuteronomy, also allows the master to give him a Canaanite slave-woman as a wife. Leviticus does not contain any of these provisions. To the tanna kamma (the first opinion) this means that the rules governing these two situations are different. To R. Elazar the same rules govern both.

מאי לאו בהא קמיפלגי דתנא קמא לא יליף שכיר שכיר ור"א יליף שכיר שכיר

The suggestion as to the basis for their dispute is that the tanna kamma does not use the work sakhir to connect the two passages such that the laws in one apply to the other, while R. Elazar does.

אמר רב טביומי משמיה דאביי דכולי עלמא יליף שכיר שכיר והכא בהאי קרא קמיפלגי מאי טעמא דתנא קמא דאמר מוכר עצמו נמכר לשש ויתר על שש מיעט רחמנא גבי מכרוהו בית דין (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים זה ולא מוכר עצמו

R. Tavyomi said in the name of Abaye: All agree the that we do learn from the repetition of the word sakhir, but here they differ on the following verse: What is the reason of the tanna kamma, who held that he who sells himself may be sold for six years or more than six years? [Because] Scripture excluded [this rule] in connection with one sold by the court: And he shall serve you for six years (Deuteronomy 15:12): he, but not one who sells himself.

Abaye claims that both parties are willing to derive halakhah by comparing the word sakhir. This will mean that for other matters, ones not discussed in this baraita, all rabbis will use this midrashic technique. However, for these particular matters the tanna kamma reads the verse in Deuteronomy as excluding one who sold himself into slavery. He, the one who is sold by the court, receives all of these benefits, but not the one who sold himself into slavery. In other words, the reason for the dispute is not that the rabbis refuse in principle to apply the laws Deuteronomy to the situation referred to in Leviticus. Rather, the dispute is over how to read the verse in Deuteronomy.

ואידך ועבדך לך ולא ליורש ואידך ועבדך אחרינא כתיב ואידך ההוא להרצאת אדון הוא דאתא

And the other? And he shall serve you [he shall serve] you, but not an heir.

And the other? Another serve you is written.

And the other? That comes [to teach] that the master should be willing [to send the slave out].

This is the typical midrashic chain found at ends of midrashic disputes how does each tanna derive the halakhah and still make one use of each word. R. Elazar reads the word as excluding an heir from an inheriting a Hebrew slave. The tanna kamma derives that from a second appearance of the word serve you. But R. Elazar uses that second appearance of the word for a different purpose.

The discussion of this baraita will continue next week.