When the Slave's Ear Is Not Pierced

Our Rabbis taught: If he [the Hebrew bondsman who wishes to stay past his term] has a wife and children but his master has no wife and children, he is not pierced, for it is said, "because he loves you and your household" (Deuteronomy 15:16). If his master has a wife and children but he has none, he is not pierced, for it is said, "I love my master, my wife, and my children" (Exodus 21:5). If he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, for it is said, "because it is good for him with you." If his master loves him but he does not love his master, he is not pierced, for it is said, "because he loves you and your household." If he is ill, he is not pierced, for it is said, "because it is good for him." If his master is ill but he is not, he is not pierced, for it is said, "with you." Rav Bibi inquired: if both of them are ill, what is the law? Do we require only "with you," and that condition is present? Or perhaps we require "it is good for him," and that condition is absent? Let it stand [unresolved]. A Hebrew bondsman who is a priest: Rav said, his master hands him a Canaanite bondwoman; but Shemuel said, it is forbidden. Rav Nachman said to Rav Anan: when you were in the academy of Master Shemuel, you trifled with him over light matters. Why did you not say to him from this teaching? "And the Sages say: a Hebrew bondsman who is a priest is not pierced, because he would thereby become blemished." And if you should say his master does not hand him a Canaanite bondwoman, you may derive it from the rule that we require "I love my master, my wife," and here that condition is absent. And there is nothing more [to add].