Three Places Where the Oral Law Uproots the Verse

Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: in three places the [oral] law uproots the [written] Scripture. The Torah said "with dust" [for covering the blood] (Leviticus 17:13), but the law says with anything. The Torah said "with a razor" [for the Nazirite] (Numbers 6:5), but the law says with anything. The Torah said "a document" [of divorce] (Deuteronomy 24:1), but the law says with anything. Rabbi says: I say it is only with a kind of metal. "And he shall serve him forever": until the Jubilee. For it would have followed by logic: if money, whose power is great and acquires everything, acquires only six years, then piercing, which acquires only servants, surely should acquire only six years? Why then does Scripture say "and he shall serve him forever"? Until the Jubilee. Or is "forever" to be taken literally? Scripture teaches, "you shall return every man to his holding" (Leviticus 25:10). Rabbi says: come and see that "forever" here is only fifty years, for it is said "and he shall serve him forever, until the Jubilee." How so? If the Jubilee arrives, he goes free; if the master dies, he goes free. "And he shall serve him": him he serves, and he does not serve the son. For it would have followed by logic: if the one who serves six years, whose departure Scripture restricted, serves both him and his son, then the pierced servant, whose departure Scripture broadened, surely should serve both him and his son? Scripture therefore teaches "and he shall serve him": him he serves, and he does not serve the son. The pierced man and the Hebrew bondwoman serve neither the son nor the daughter. If she performed chalitzah [the levirate release] with the left foot, her chalitzah is invalid; but Rabbi Eliezer declares it valid. What is the reasoning of the Sages? They derive "foot" and "foot" from the leper, as there it is the right, so here the right. And Rabbi Eliezer does not so derive? But it was taught, Rabbi Eliezer says: how do we know the piercing is in the right ear? "Ear" is said here and "ear" is said there; as there it is the right, so here the right. Rabbi Yochanan said: the position is reversed [in transmission]. Rava said: in truth, do not reverse it; "ear" and "ear" are free [for analogy], but "foot" and "foot" are not free. And if it is not free, what refutation is there? Because there is room to refute: what of the leper, who also requires cedar wood, hyssop, and crimson thread?