(Exodus 21:1) "And these are the judgments": R. Yishmael says: "And these" — What follows is being added to what precedes, viz.: Just as what precedes was stated at Sinai, so, what follows.
R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "And these are the judgments"? From (Leviticus 1:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them," I would think, only once. Whence do I derive that it is to be repeated two, three, and four times until it is assimilated? From (Devarim 31:19) "and teach it to the children of Israel." I might think that it is to be taught but not repeated. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Place it in their mouths." I might think that it is to be repeated (even) if it is not understood. It is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments." Set them out before them as a set table, as it is written (Ibid. 4:35) "You have been shown to know, etc."
R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: I might think that if gentiles judged according to the laws of Israel their judgments stand; it is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments":
5
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: גֵּט הַמְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר, בַּגּוֹיִם, פָּסוּל,*גֵּט הַמְעֻשֶּׂה: גט שלחצו את הבעל לתת, בניגוד לרצונו הראשון. אֲבָל גּוֹיִם חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר לָךְ!
From here it was ruled: Divorce under coercion — by an Israelite (court) is valid; by a gentile (court), invalid. But if gentiles coerce him, saying: Do as the Israelites ruled, it is valid.
R. Shimon says: Why do (the mitzvoth of) adjudication take precedence over all the mitzvoth of the Torah? For when there is litigation between a man and his neighbor, there is strife between them. Once the ruling has been given, there is peace between them. And thus did Yithro say (Exodus 18:23) "If you do this thing (i.e., if you provide for adjudication) … then all this people will come to their place in peace."
(Exodus 21:2) "If you buy a Hebrew man-servant": Scripture here speaks of one sold by beth-din (to pay for what he has stolen), in which instance he serves both the father and the son. But perhaps it speaks of one who sells himself (because of poverty)? (This is not so, for (Leviticus 25:39) "And if your brother grows poor with you, and he is sold to you" speaks of one who sells himself. How, then, am I to understand "If you buy a Hebrew man-servant"? As referring to one who is sold by beth-din because of his theft, that he serves the master and his son.
(Ibid.) "If you buy (lit.,) a servant Hebrew": Is Scripture speaking of a servant who is a Hebrew, or the servant of a Hebrew? And how am I to understand (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance for your sons after you, etc."? As referring to (a gentile servant) bought from a gentile; but if he were bought from a Jew, (I would say that) he serves six years and goes free on the seventh. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you (by beth-din for his theft) your brother, the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman, etc." Let it not be written "Hebrew man" or "Hebrew woman," for it is already written "your brother."
Why is it written? It is deliberately superfluous to signal a gezeirah shavah (i.e., "identity"), viz.: It is written here (in Exodus) "Hebrew," and there (in Devarim) "Hebrew." Just as there, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master); here, too, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master). And though there is no proof for this (i.e., that "servant Hebrew" is to be understood as "a servant who is a Hebrew" (and not as "the servant of a Hebrew"), there is support for it, viz. (Exodus 5:3) "The G–d of the Hebrews revealed Himself to us" — (the G–d) of "Avram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13).
R. Eliezer says: This (inclusion) is not needed. If a Jew serves, how much more so a proselyte! — But perhaps (I would say) If a Jew serves six years, a proselyte should serve twelve years. Would you say this? "It suffices that the object of an a fortiori argument, (in this instance, a proselyte,) be like the subject" (a Jew), viz. Just as a Jew serves six (years), so, a proselyte. Because it is written (Exodus 22:2) "If he lacks it, he is to be sold for his theft," I might think (that he is sold) forever; it is, therefore, written "six years shall he serve," Scripture hereby apprising us that he serves for six years and goes free on the seventh.
"Six years shall he serve": I might think (that he performs) both demeaning and non-demeaning service. It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 25:39) "Do not have him work the service of a slave" — whence they ruled: He should not wash his feet or tie his sandals or carry his clothing to the bath-house or gird his loins for an ascent or carry him in a litter or in a chair or in a sedan-chair, as slaves do. Whence is this derived? From (Ibid. 46) "And in your brothers, the children of Israel, one may not lord it over another." But with his son and his disciple, it is permitted.
"Six years shall he serve": I might think, both demeaning or non-demeaning service; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 40) "as a hired laborer or a bound laborer." Just as you may not deflect a hired laborer from his trade, so, a Hebrew man-servant. From here they ruled that one may not set him at a trade which is public-oriented, such as that of a tailor, a bath-house attendant, a barber, a butcher, or a banker. R. Yossi says: If that were his trade, he may keep him at it, but his master may not alter it (for a different form of public service.)
Variantly: "as a hired laborer or a bound laborer": Just as a hired laborer works in the daytime, but not at night, so, a Hebrew man-servant. R. Yossi says: All according to his (original) trade.
"And on the seventh (he shall go out free"): the seventh year of his sale. You say "the seventh year of his sale," but perhaps the reference is to the seventh (calendar) year. It is, therefore, written "Six years shall he serve (and on the seventh he shall go our free") — the seventh year of the sale, and not the seventh (calendar) year.
"and on the seventh year he shall go out to freedom": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 15:13) "And when you send him away, etc." I might think that he must write him a writ of emancipation; it is, therefore, written "he shall go out to freedom." Or I might think that he (the servant) must indemnify him; it is, therefore, written "he shall go out to freedom, gratis."
(Exodus 21:3) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out." What is the intent of this? It is written (9) "If his master gives him a woman" (a Canaanite bondswoman). ("If" here is) optional (and not mandatory). You say "optional," but perhaps it is mandatory. It is, therefore, written "If alone he come, alone shall he go out" — It is optional and not mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
19
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא, בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא", אִם בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים נִכְנַס,*רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים: קצות האיברים של הגוף, כמו ראשי אצבעות, אוזניים, אף, שאם הושחתו על ידי בעליו של עבד כנעני, הוא יוצא לחפשי כמו בשן ועין. בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים יֵצֵא.
R. Akiva says: "If alone (i.e., intact) he came, alone shall he go out" — If he came with his organ prominences (intact), he goes out with them intact (i.e., the master must indemnify him for any organ prominence loss that he caused him). R. Yishmael says: Our verse is not needed for this.
For it is written (Ibid. 7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go out as the (Canaanite) bondsmen go out" — by (loss of) organ prominences, as the Canaanite bondsmen do go out. You say (it means) this; but perhaps (it means that) she should not go out with (six) years (of service) or with Jubilee years, as the (Hebrew) bondsmen do go out. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If your Hebrew brother or sister is sold to you, etc." — whereby we are apprised that she does go out with (six) years (of service). Whence do we derive (the same for) the Jubilee? From (Leviticus 25:42) "For they (i.e., all Hebrews are My servants." In any event, (it has been shown that) it is not the second conclusion (i.e., that she does not go out with years of service and with Jubilee), which is correct, but the first (i.e., that she does not go out with loss of organ prominences).
This tells me only of a Hebrew maidservant. Whence do we derive (the same for) a Hebrew bondsman? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman." The first is likened to one second. Just as the Hebrew woman does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, so, the Hebrew man (But why is a verse needed for this?)
Can it not be deduced a fortiori? viz.: If a Hebrew maidservant, who goes out with (the appearance of pubertal) signs, does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, then a Hebrew bondsman, who does not go out with signs, how much more so should he not go out with (loss of) organ prominences! — No, this (that she does not go out) may be true of a Hebrew maidservant, who was not sold for thieving — wherefore she does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences — as opposed to a Hebrew bondsman, who was sold for thieving — wherefore he does go out with (loss of) organ prominences. It must, therefore, be written "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — to liken the first to the second, viz.: Just as she does not go out with organ prominences, so, he.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "If he were the husband of a woman": Scripture speaks of a Jewish woman. You say "a Jewish woman," bur perhaps a gentile woman is intended? (This cannot be, for) (4) "If his master gives him a woman" speaks of a Canaanite woman. How, then, is "If he were the husband of a woman" to be understood? As referring to a Jewish woman.
(Ibid. 3) "then his wife shall go out with him": R. Yitzchak says: Who brought her in (to the mater) that Scripture takes her out? What, then, is the intent of "then his wife shall go out with him"? We are hereby apprised that he (the master) is liable for the food of his wife.
Whence do we derive (the same for) the food of his children? From (Leviticus 25:41) "And he shall go out from you (in the Jubilee year), he and his children with him." From "going out" you derive "coming in" (i.e., that he is liable for the feeding of his children.) I might think that he is (also) liable for the feeding of his betrothed and for that of a woman awaiting levirate marriage to him; it is, therefore, written "his wife" — to exclude the latter, who is not his wife; "with him" — to exclude his betrothed, who is not "with him."
(שמות כא,א) "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם." רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵלּוּ מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעֶלְיוֹנִים: מָה עֶלְיוֹנִים מִסִּינַי, אַף תַּחְתּוֹנִים מִסִּינַי.
(Exodus 21:1) "And these are the judgments": R. Yishmael says: "And these" — What follows is being added to what precedes, viz.: Just as what precedes was stated at Sinai, so, what follows.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (במקומות רבים) "דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא פַּעַם אַחַת! מְנַיִן שְׁנֵה וְשַׁלֵּשׁ וְרַבֵּעַ עַד שֶׁיִּלְמְדוּ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים לא,יט) "וְלַמְּדָהּ אֶת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל". יָכֹל לְמֵדִין וְלֹא שׁוֹנִין? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים לא,יט) "שִׂימָהּ בְּפִיהֶם". יָכֹל שׁוֹנִין וְלֹא יוֹדְעִין? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם." עָרְכֵם לִפְנֵיהֶם כְּשֻׁלְחָן עָרוּךְ, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים ד,לה) "אַתָּה הָרְאֵתָ לָדַעַת".
R. Akiva says: What is the intent of "And these are the judgments"? From (Leviticus 1:2) "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them," I would think, only once. Whence do I derive that it is to be repeated two, three, and four times until it is assimilated? From (Devarim 31:19) "and teach it to the children of Israel." I might think that it is to be taught but not repeated. It is, therefore, written (Ibid.) "Place it in their mouths." I might think that it is to be repeated (even) if it is not understood. It is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments." Set them out before them as a set table, as it is written (Ibid. 4:35) "You have been shown to know, etc."
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים", בְּמָרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (שמות טו,כה) "שָׁם שָׂם לוֹ חֹק וּמִשְׁפָּט".
R. Yehudah says: "And these are the judgments" (alluded to) in Marah, viz. (Exodus 15:25) "There (in Marah) He made for them statute and judgment."
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁדָּנוּ כְדִינֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהוּ דִינֵיהֶן קַיָּמִין! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים", אַתְּ דָּן אֶת שֶׁלָּהֵן, וְהֵן אֵינָן דָּנִין אֶת שֶׁלָּךְ.
R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: I might think that if gentiles judged according to the laws of Israel their judgments stand; it is, therefore, written "And these are the judgments":
מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: גֵּט הַמְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר, בַּגּוֹיִם, פָּסוּל,*גֵּט הַמְעֻשֶּׂה: גט שלחצו את הבעל לתת, בניגוד לרצונו הראשון. אֲבָל גּוֹיִם חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִין לוֹ: עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמֵר לָךְ!
From here it was ruled: Divorce under coercion — by an Israelite (court) is valid; by a gentile (court), invalid. But if gentiles coerce him, saying: Do as the Israelites ruled, it is valid.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: מָה רָאוּ דִּינִין לִקְדֹּם לְכָל מִצְווֹת שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה? שֶׁכְּשֶׁהַדִּין בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, תַּחֲרוּת בֵּינֵיהֶן; נִתְפַּסַּק לָהֶם דִּין, נֶעֱשָׂה שָׁלוֹם בֵּינֵיהֶן. וְכֵן יִתְרוֹ אוֹמֵר לְמֹשֶׁה: (שמות יח,כג) "אִם אֶת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה תַּעֲשֶׂה, וְצִוְּךָ אֱלֹהִים, וְיָכָלְתָּ עֲמֹד, וְגַם כָּל הָעָם הַזֶּה עַל מְקֹמוֹ יָבֹא בְשָׁלוֹם."
R. Shimon says: Why do (the mitzvoth of) adjudication take precedence over all the mitzvoth of the Torah? For when there is litigation between a man and his neighbor, there is strife between them. Once the ruling has been given, there is peace between them. And thus did Yithro say (Exodus 18:23) "If you do this thing (i.e., if you provide for adjudication) … then all this people will come to their place in peace."
(שמות כא,ב) ["כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם."] "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי". בַּנִּמְכָּר בְּבֵית דִּין עַל גְּנֵיבָתוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹבְדוֹ וְעוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בַּנִּמְכָּר בְּבֵית דִּין עַל גְּנֵיבָתוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹבְדוֹ וְעוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּמוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (ויקרא כה,לט) "וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ עִמָּךְ וְנִמְכַּר לָךְ", הֲרֵי מוֹכֵר עַצְמוֹ אָמוּר, וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי"? בַּנִּמְכָּר בְּבֵית דִּין עַל גְּנֵיבָתוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹבְדוֹ וְעוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן.
(Exodus 21:2) "If you buy a Hebrew man-servant": Scripture here speaks of one sold by beth-din (to pay for what he has stolen), in which instance he serves both the father and the son. But perhaps it speaks of one who sells himself (because of poverty)? (This is not so, for (Leviticus 25:39) "And if your brother grows poor with you, and he is sold to you" speaks of one who sells himself. How, then, am I to understand "If you buy a Hebrew man-servant"? As referring to one who is sold by beth-din because of his theft, that he serves the master and his son.
"כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי". בְּבֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּעַבְדּוֹ שֶׁלְּעִבְרִי? וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם: (ויקרא כה,מו) "וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחֻזָּה, לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ"? בַּנִּלְקָח מִן הַגּוֹי, אֲבָל בַּנִּלְקָח מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ וְיֵצֵא בַשְּׁבִיעִית! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טז,יב) "כִּי יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה, וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים, וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ." שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "הָעִבְרִי", שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּבַר נֶאֱמַר "אָחִיךָ"!
(Ibid.) "If you buy (lit.,) a servant Hebrew": Is Scripture speaking of a servant who is a Hebrew, or the servant of a Hebrew? And how am I to understand (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance for your sons after you, etc."? As referring to (a gentile servant) bought from a gentile; but if he were bought from a Jew, (I would say that) he serves six years and goes free on the seventh. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you (by beth-din for his theft) your brother, the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman, etc." Let it not be written "Hebrew man" or "Hebrew woman," for it is already written "your brother."
וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָעִבְרִי"? מֻפְנֶה לְהַקִּישׁ לָדוּן גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "עִבְרִי", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "עִבְרִי"; מָה "עִבְרִי" הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, בְּבֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אַף "עִבְרִי" הָאָמוּר כָּן, בְּבֶן יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רְאָיָה לַדָּבָר, זֵכֶר לַדָּבָר: (שמות ה,ג) "וַיֹּאמְרוּ: אֱלֹהֵי הָעִבְרִים נִקְרָא עָלֵינוּ". (בראשית יד,יג) "וַיָּבֹא הַפָּלִיט וַיַּגֵּד לְאַבְרָם הָעִבְרִי".
Why is it written? It is deliberately superfluous to signal a gezeirah shavah (i.e., "identity"), viz.: It is written here (in Exodus) "Hebrew," and there (in Devarim) "Hebrew." Just as there, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master); here, too, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master). And though there is no proof for this (i.e., that "servant Hebrew" is to be understood as "a servant who is a Hebrew" (and not as "the servant of a Hebrew"), there is support for it, viz. (Exodus 5:3) "The G–d of the Hebrews revealed Himself to us" — (the G–d) of "Avram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13).
"עֶבֶד". יָכֹל תִּקְרָאֶנּוּ 'עֶבֶד' לְשׁוּם בִּזָּיוֹן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי", עַל כָּרְחוֹ הַכָּתוּב קְרָאוֹ 'עֶבֶד'.
"כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְהָבִיא אֶת הַגֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר.
"If you buy a Hebrew man-servant": What is the intent of this? To include a proselyte. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ! אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵד, הַגֵּר לֹא יַעֲבֹד? אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ, אַף הַגֵּר יַעֲבֹד שְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה. אָמַרְתָּ, דַּיּוֹ לַבָּא מִן הַדִּין לִהְיוֹת כַּנִּדּוֹן: מָה יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ, אַף הַגֵּר יַעֲבֹד שֵׁשׁ. לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כב,ב) "אִם אֵין לוֹ וְנִמְכַּר בִּגְנֵבָתוֹ." שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, לְעוֹלָם! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ, וְיוֹצֵא בַשְּׁבִיעִית.
R. Eliezer says: This (inclusion) is not needed. If a Jew serves, how much more so a proselyte! — But perhaps (I would say) If a Jew serves six years, a proselyte should serve twelve years. Would you say this? "It suffices that the object of an a fortiori argument, (in this instance, a proselyte,) be like the subject" (a Jew), viz. Just as a Jew serves six (years), so, a proselyte. Because it is written (Exodus 22:2) "If he lacks it, he is to be sold for his theft," I might think (that he is sold) forever; it is, therefore, written "six years shall he serve," Scripture hereby apprising us that he serves for six years and goes free on the seventh.
"שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד". שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, כָּל עֲבוֹדָה בְּמַשְׁמָע! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,לט) "לֹא תַעֲבֹד בּוֹ עֲבֹדַת עָבֶד." מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: לֹא יִרְחֹץ לוֹ רַגְלָיו, וְלֹא יִנְעֹל לוֹ סַנְדַּלָּיו, וְלֹא יִטֹּל לְפָנָיו כֵּלִים לְבֵית הַמַּרְחֵץ, וְלֹא יִסְמֹךְ לוֹ בְמָתְנָיו כֵּיוָן שֶׁעוֹלֶה בַמַּעֲלֶה, וְלֹא יִטְּלֶנּוּ לֹא בְפוֹרֵיוֹן*פוֹרֵיוֹן. phoreîon: אפיריון, כיסא נישא. וְלֹא בְלֶקְטִיקָא,*לֶקְטִיקָא. lectica: אפיריון, כיסא נישא. כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁעֲבָדִים עוֹשִׂין. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (ויקרא כה,מו) "וּבְאַחֵיכֶם בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אִישׁ בְּאָחִיו לֹא תִרְדֶּה בוֹ בְּפָרֶךְ." אֲבָל בִּבְנוֹ וּבְתַלְמִידוֹ, רַשַּׁי.
"Six years shall he serve": I might think (that he performs) both demeaning and non-demeaning service. It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 25:39) "Do not have him work the service of a slave" — whence they ruled: He should not wash his feet or tie his sandals or carry his clothing to the bath-house or gird his loins for an ascent or carry him in a litter or in a chair or in a sedan-chair, as slaves do. Whence is this derived? From (Ibid. 46) "And in your brothers, the children of Israel, one may not lord it over another." But with his son and his disciple, it is permitted.
"שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בֵּין עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ בִּזָּיוֹן, בֵּין עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ בִּזָּיוֹן! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,מ) "כְּשָׂכִיר". מַה שָּׂכִיר, אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ מֵאֻמָּנוּתוֹ, אַף עֶבֶד עִבְרִי, אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לְשַׁנּוֹתוֹ מֵאֻמָּנוּתוֹ. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: לֹא יוֹשִׁיבֶנּוּ רַבּוֹ בְּאֻמָּנוּת שֶׁהִיא מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת לָרַבִּים, כְּגוֹן חַיָּט, בַּלָּן, סַפָּר, טַבָּח, נַחְתּוֹם.*בַּלָּן: מטפל בבית מרחץ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: אִם הָיַת אֻמָּנוּתוֹ מְיֻחֶדֶת לְכָךְ, יַעֲשֶׂה, אֲבָל רַבּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה עָלָיו.
"Six years shall he serve": I might think, both demeaning or non-demeaning service; it is, therefore, written (Ibid. 40) "as a hired laborer or a bound laborer." Just as you may not deflect a hired laborer from his trade, so, a Hebrew man-servant. From here they ruled that one may not set him at a trade which is public-oriented, such as that of a tailor, a bath-house attendant, a barber, a butcher, or a banker. R. Yossi says: If that were his trade, he may keep him at it, but his master may not alter it (for a different form of public service.)
(ויקרא כה,מ) "כְּשָׂכִיר כְּתוֹשָׁב". מַה שָּׂכִיר עוֹבֵד בַּיּוֹם וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד בַּלַּיְלָה, אַף עֶבֶד עִבְרִי עוֹבֵד בַּיּוֹם וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד בַּלַּיְלָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵה אוֹמֵר: הַכֹּל לְפִי אֻמָּנוּתוֹ.
Variantly: "as a hired laborer or a bound laborer": Just as a hired laborer works in the daytime, but not at night, so, a Hebrew man-servant. R. Yossi says: All according to his (original) trade.
"וּבַשְּׁבִעִת", שְׁבִיעִית לַמְּכִירָה. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר שְׁבִיעִית לַמְּכִירָה, אוֹ שְׁבִיעִית לַשָּׁנִים? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", שְׁבִיעִית לַמְּכִירָה וְלֹא שְׁבִיעִית לַשָּׁנִים.
"And on the seventh (he shall go out free"): the seventh year of his sale. You say "the seventh year of his sale," but perhaps the reference is to the seventh (calendar) year. It is, therefore, written "Six years shall he serve (and on the seventh he shall go our free") — the seventh year of the sale, and not the seventh (calendar) year.
"יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (דברים טו,יג) "וְכִי תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ, לֹא תְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ רֵיקָם." שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, שֶׁיִּכְתֹּב לוֹ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי". אוֹ יִתֵּן לוֹ מָעוֹת וְיֵצֵא! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם."
"and on the seventh year he shall go out to freedom": What is the intent of this? From (Devarim 15:13) "And when you send him away, etc." I might think that he must write him a writ of emancipation; it is, therefore, written "he shall go out to freedom." Or I might think that he (the servant) must indemnify him; it is, therefore, written "he shall go out to freedom, gratis."
(שמות כא,ג) ["אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא, בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא, אִם בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא, וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ."] "אִם בְּגַפּוֹ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,ד) "אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹבָה? הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: "אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא, בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא", רְשׁוּת וְלֹא חוֹבָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Exodus 21:3) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out." What is the intent of this? It is written (9) "If his master gives him a woman" (a Canaanite bondswoman). ("If" here is) optional (and not mandatory). You say "optional," but perhaps it is mandatory. It is, therefore, written "If alone he come, alone shall he go out" — It is optional and not mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא, בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא", אִם בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים נִכְנַס,*רָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים: קצות האיברים של הגוף, כמו ראשי אצבעות, אוזניים, אף, שאם הושחתו על ידי בעליו של עבד כנעני, הוא יוצא לחפשי כמו בשן ועין. בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים יֵצֵא.
R. Akiva says: "If alone (i.e., intact) he came, alone shall he go out" — If he came with his organ prominences (intact), he goes out with them intact (i.e., the master must indemnify him for any organ prominence loss that he caused him). R. Yishmael says: Our verse is not needed for this.
לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,ז) "וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה, לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים", לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר "לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים", לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים, אוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא בַשָּׁנִים וּבַיּוֹבֵל כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעֲבָדִים יוֹצְאִים? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,יב) "כִּי יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי, אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה, וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים, וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ." מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְשֵׁשׁ. בַּיּוֹבֵל מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,מב) "כִּי עֲבָדַי הֵם", מִכָּל מָקוֹם. הָא, אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: "לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים", לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים.
For it is written (Ibid. 7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go out as the (Canaanite) bondsmen go out" — by (loss of) organ prominences, as the Canaanite bondsmen do go out. You say (it means) this; but perhaps (it means that) she should not go out with (six) years (of service) or with Jubilee years, as the (Hebrew) bondsmen do go out. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If your Hebrew brother or sister is sold to you, etc." — whereby we are apprised that she does go out with (six) years (of service). Whence do we derive (the same for) the Jubilee? From (Leviticus 25:42) "For they (i.e., all Hebrews are My servants." In any event, (it has been shown that) it is not the second conclusion (i.e., that she does not go out with years of service and with Jubilee), which is correct, but the first (i.e., that she does not go out with loss of organ prominences).
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עִבְרִיָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, עִבְרִי מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים טו,יב) "הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה", הִקִּישׁ עִבְרִי לָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה עִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, אַף עִבְרִי לֹא יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים.
This tells me only of a Hebrew maidservant. Whence do we derive (the same for) a Hebrew bondsman? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman." The first is likened to one second. Just as the Hebrew woman does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, so, the Hebrew man (But why is a verse needed for this?)
וְעוֹד קַל וָחֹמֶר: מָה אִם עִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצָא בְסִימָנִין, אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, עִבְרִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְסִימָנִין, דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים! כג. לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בָּעִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְכֶּרֶת עַל הַגְּנֵבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, תֹּאמַר בָּעִבְרִי שֶׁהוּא נִמְכָּר עַל גְּנֵבָתוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים טו,יב) "הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה", הִקִּישׁ עִבְרִי לָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה עִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, אַף עִבְרִי אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים.
Can it not be deduced a fortiori? viz.: If a Hebrew maidservant, who goes out with (the appearance of pubertal) signs, does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, then a Hebrew bondsman, who does not go out with signs, how much more so should he not go out with (loss of) organ prominences! — No, this (that she does not go out) may be true of a Hebrew maidservant, who was not sold for thieving — wherefore she does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences — as opposed to a Hebrew bondsman, who was sold for thieving — wherefore he does go out with (loss of) organ prominences. It must, therefore, be written "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — to liken the first to the second, viz.: Just as she does not go out with organ prominences, so, he.
"אִם בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא". בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּכְנַעֲנִית? וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כא,ד) "אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", הֲרֵי כְנַעֲנִית אֲמוּרָה. הָא, מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִם בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא"? בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
(Exodus, Ibid.) "If he were the husband of a woman": Scripture speaks of a Jewish woman. You say "a Jewish woman," bur perhaps a gentile woman is intended? (This cannot be, for) (4) "If his master gives him a woman" speaks of a Canaanite woman. How, then, is "If he were the husband of a woman" to be understood? As referring to a Jewish woman.
"וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ." רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: וְכִי מִי הֵבִיאָהּ, שֶׁהַכָּתוּב מוֹצִיאָהּ? מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ"? מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ.
(Ibid. 3) "then his wife shall go out with him": R. Yitzchak says: Who brought her in (to the mater) that Scripture takes her out? What, then, is the intent of "then his wife shall go out with him"? We are hereby apprised that he (the master) is liable for the food of his wife.
וּבִמְזוֹנוֹת בָּנָיו מְנַיִן? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא כה,מא) "וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ, הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ". מִכְּלַל יְצִיאָה אַתְּ לָמֵד עַל כְּנִיסָה. אוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, יְהֵי חַיָּב בִּמְזוֹנוֹת אֲרוּסָה וְשׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִשְׁתּוֹ", לְהוֹצִיא שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, שֶׁאֵינָהּ אִשְׁתּוֹ. "עִמּוֹ", לְהוֹצִיא אֲרוּסָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ עִמּוֹ.
Whence do we derive (the same for) the food of his children? From (Leviticus 25:41) "And he shall go out from you (in the Jubilee year), he and his children with him." From "going out" you derive "coming in" (i.e., that he is liable for the feeding of his children.) I might think that he is (also) liable for the feeding of his betrothed and for that of a woman awaiting levirate marriage to him; it is, therefore, written "his wife" — to exclude the latter, who is not his wife; "with him" — to exclude his betrothed, who is not "with him."