Kiddushin, Daf Yod Het, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section compares the laws for a male and female Hebrew slave.

 

תנו רבנן יש בעברי שאין בעבריה ויש בעבריה שאין בעברי

יש בעברי שהוא יוצא בשנים וביובל ובמיתת האדון מה שאין כן בעבריה

ויש בעבריה שהרי עבריה יוצאה בסימנין ואינה נמכרת ונשנית ומפדין אותה בעל כורחו מה שאין כן בעברי :

 

Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew male slave has features which a Hebrew female slave lacks, and a Hebrew bondwoman has features which a Hebrew bondman lacks.

A Hebrew bondman has the following features: He goes out [free] at [six] years, at the Jubilee, and at his master’s death, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew female slave.

And a Hebrew female slave has the following features: a Hebrew female slave goes out by signs , she cannot be sold and re-sold, and she is redeemed against her will, which is not so in the case of a Hebrew slave.

 

These are the basic differences between the laws governing a female and male slave. The Talmud will now deal with them below.

 

אמר מר יש בעברי שאין בעבריה ורמינהי יתירה עליו אמה העבריה שקונה עצמה בסימנין

אמר רב ששת כגון שיעדה

 

The Master said: A Hebrew slave has features which a Hebrew female slave lacks.

But against this they raised the following: A Hebrew female slave has more [ways of going free] than him, in that she acquires herself by signs !

R. Sheshet said: If he designated her [as his wife].

 

The baraita above implies that a male slave goes out upon his master s death but a female slave does not. But this clearly contradicts the mishnah which teaches that any way that he goes out, she does too. The only difference is that she also goes out with signs meaning she has hit puberty.

Rav Sheshet solves the contradiction by positing that the baraita refers to a case where the master designated, i.e. married off, the slave girl to his son. This seems to have been the point of the sale in the first place. However, as we shall see, this is not an easy solution.

 

יעדה פשיטא גיטא בעיא

מהו דתימא לא ליבטלה הילכתא מינה קמ"ל

 

He designated her? But that is obvious: she needs a divorce!

What might I have thought? The laws [applicable to her] are not annulled in her case. Hence he teaches us otherwise.

 

Obviously, if the son married her she does not go out as a slave she is a married woman who would require divorce!

The Talmud responds that this is not so obvious. We might have thought that the same laws remain therefore the baraita teaches us that they do not.

 

אי הכי אמאי יוצאה בסימנין

ה"ק אם לא יעדה יוצאה אף בסימנין :

 

If so, why does she go out free by signs ?

This is what it means: If he [her master] did not designate her, she goes out free by signs too.

 

The problem is that if the baraita refers to a case where she was designated, then how can she go out by signs? The Torah explicitly states that if she is designated she does not go out by signs!

The Talmud now has to emend the baraita to make it make sense. She only goes out by signs if he did not designate her. Clearly, this is not the original meaning of the baraita. Indeed, it does seem that the baraita and the mishnah do indeed disagree.