The Awl, the Doorpost, and the Limits of a Slave Forever

"And his master shall bring him to the judges" (Exodus 21:6): the master brings him before three judges and states his words in their presence. "And he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost." One might think he pierces him at the doorpost, and it would follow logically: if a door, which has no commandment of the mezuzah, has the commandment of piercing, then a doorpost, which does have the commandment of the mezuzah, surely should have the commandment of piercing. Scripture therefore teaches (Deuteronomy 15:17), "and you shall put it through his ear and into the door": into the door, and not into the doorpost. One might think into a standing door or into an uprooted door; Scripture says "or to the doorpost": just as the doorpost is upright, so too the door must be upright. I know only of a door that has a doorpost; from where do I learn of a door that has no doorpost? Scripture says "and he shall bring him to the door or to the doorpost" the first time [mentioned], whatever it was, even a door that has no doorpost. "And his master shall pierce" (Exodus 21:6): this is an inclusion, and an inclusion after an inclusion comes only to limit. "His master" and not his son; "his master" and not his slave; "his master" and not his master's agent. "[His ear]": it is said here "his ear," and it is said elsewhere (Leviticus 14:14) "his ear." Just as "his ear" stated there means the right one, at the top of the ear, so too "his ear" stated here means the right one, at the top of the ear. Rabbi Elazar said: Rabbi Yudan used to say, he pierces him in the soft part of the ear, lest he be a priest and one would thereby disqualify him from the Temple service. But I say: a priest is not pierced at all. "An awl" (Exodus 21:6): I know only of an awl. From where do I include the needle, the borer, the scribe's stylus, and the thorn? Scripture says (Deuteronomy 15:17) "and you shall take" the words of Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] says: an awl just as the awl is distinct in being of metal, so I include only that which is of metals. "And he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:6): one might think even the son. Scripture says "and he shall serve him" and not his son; and elsewhere (Deuteronomy 15:17) it says "and he shall be to you" and not to a son. For it would have followed logically: if money, which does not acquire beyond six years, acquires for the son, then the piercing, which acquires beyond six years, surely should acquire for the son; Scripture says "and he shall be to you" and not to a son. And a fortiori for the piercing, that it should not acquire beyond six: if money, which acquires for the son, does not acquire beyond six, then the piercing, which does not acquire for the son, surely should not acquire beyond six Scripture says "and he shall serve him forever." One might think the piercing does not lapse at the Jubilee, and it would follow logically: if money, which acquires for the son, lapses at the Jubilee, then the piercing, which does not acquire for the son, surely should lapse at the Jubilee no, for if you said it of money, which does not acquire beyond six, will you say it of the piercing, which does acquire beyond six? Scripture says (Leviticus 25:10), "and you shall return every man to his holding, and every man to his family shall you return" this is the pierced slave, whom the Jubilee releases. Then what does "and he shall serve him forever" teach? All the days of the lifetime of the one who pierced him. Even if he was sold thirty or forty years before the Jubilee from where [do we learn he goes free]? Scripture teaches by a gezeira shava [verbal analogy] of "forever" and "forever," to apply what is said here to there and what is said there to here.