Kiddushin, Daf Yod Zayin, Part 4
Introduction
The Talmud continues to explicate the verses about setting a slave free. To facilitate understanding, I am copying the verses here (Deuteronomy 15:12-14):
If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free.
When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed:
Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the LORD your God has blessed you.
ת"ר (דברים טו, יד) אשר ברכך ה’ אלהיך יכול נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו ת"ל (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק מכל מקום
אם כן מה ת"ל אשר ברכך הכל לפי ברכה תן לו
ר’ אלעזר בן עזריה אומר דברים ככתבן נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו א"כ מה ת"ל הענק תעניק דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם :
Our Rabbis taught : As the Lord your God has blessed you : I might have thought, if the house was blessed on his account a gift is made to him; but if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him; therefore Scripture states, you shall grant him, in all cases. If so, what does Scripture mean by has blessed you ? Give him according to your blessing.
R. Elazar b. Azariah said: The matter is as it is written: if the house was blessed on his account, a gift is made to him; if the house was not blessed on his account, no gift is made to him. If so, what does it mean by you shall grant him ? The Torah speaks in human language.
According to the first opinion, even if the master s house has not prospered while the slave was serving, the master must still grant him a gift. If the house was blessed, the master should (but not must) give him more. If the house was not blessed, there is still a minimal amount.
R. Elazar b. Azariah says the master must give him only if the house was blessed. R. Elazar ben Azariah does not read anything into the word you shall grant him. This is simply the only way the Torah could express the idea that if the house was blessed on his behalf, the master should grant him a gift.
תנו רבנן עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת
אמה עבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת
הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת
Our Rabbis taught: A Hebrew male slave serves [his master’s] son, but does not serve [his] daughter; a Hebrew female slave serves neither son nor daughter; one who was bored, or sold to a non-Jew, serves neither the son nor the daughter.
This baraita discusses whether a Hebrew slave continue to serve after their master s death. The source for these halakhot will be explained below.
אמר מר עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת
מנהני מילי דתנו רבנן (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש
אתה אומר לך ולא ליורש או אינו אלא לך ולא לבן כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד הרי לבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש
The Master said: A Hebrew male slave serves [his master’s] son, but not [his] daughter. How do we know this? For our Rabbis taught: He shall serve you six years (Deuteronomy 15:12), you and not your heir.
You say: You and not your heir : yet perhaps it should be read, you and not your son ? When it is said, Six years he shall serve (Exodus 21:2) the son is included; then how can I fulfill, He shall serve your six years? You and not your heir.
The baraita reads Deuteronomy 15:12 as teaching that the slave works for the one who bought him, but not his heir. In this context, the heir referred to must be someone besides the son, such as a brother or daughter. Exodus 21:2, where the word you is not found, is read as teaching that he does work for the son should the master die.
מה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח מרבה אני את הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה
Why do you choose to include the son and exclude the brother? I include the son, because he stands in his father’s place for designation, and in respect of an ancestral field.
Why should the slave be bequeathed to the son but not to the brother or any other heir? The first answer is that there is a tie between the father and so that does not exist for other heirs. A father can designate a female Hebrew slave to marry his son. And if a son redeems a consecrated ancestral field owned by his father, then the field returns to his possession at the Jubilee.
אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו ליבום
כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום
On the contrary, I should include the brother, since he stands in his brother’s place for yibum?
Is there yibum except in a place where there is no son? But if there is a son, there is no yibum.
The Talmud argues that the brother also has a special relationship with the father should a man die without children, his brother performs yibum with his wife.
This argument is refuted yibum happens only if there is no son (or offspring). But if there is a son, then there is no yibum. Thus we see that son s relationship is primary.
אלא טעמא דאיכא הא פירכא הא לאו הכי אח עדיף ותיפוק לי דהכא תרתי והכא חדא
Now it is only because there is this refutation; but if this refutation did not exist, the brother would be preferable? But you could also derive this from the fact that here [in the case of a son] there are two [points in his favor], whereas there [in the case of the brother], there is only one?
We don t even need to point out that if there is a son, there is no yibum. Even without this counterargument, the son is preferable because he has two points in his favor while the brother has only one.
שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא הוא דקא נפקא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן :
An ancestral field is likewise inferred from this same refutation: is there yibum except in the absence of a son?
The author of the baraita also learns the halakhah that the son takes his father s place in redeeming the ancestral field from the argument against yibum is there yibum when there is a son? Thus we can see that we need that argument to refute the counterargument that a brother, or another heir, can inherit the slave. Only a son inherits the slave.