The Limits on a Father Selling His Daughter as a Maidservant

"And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant" (Exodus 21:7): Scripture speaks of a minor girl. Or perhaps even of an adult? You say: since he is empowered to annul her vows and empowered to sell her, just as the annulment of her vows applies to a minor and not an adult, so her sale applies to a minor and not an adult. But say it applies from the source it derives, as there [regarding vows] when she is a maiden, so here when she is a maiden? You say: since the signs of maturity release her, all the more so before she was even sold. "And if a man sells": the man sells his daughter, and the woman does not sell her daughter. For it would have followed by logic: if the son, whom his father is not empowered to sell, yet the father sells his daughter, then a daughter, whom her father is empowered to sell, should the law not let her sell her own daughter? Scripture therefore teaches "and if a man sells his daughter": the man sells his daughter, and the woman does not sell her daughter. "And if a man sells his daughter": the man sells his daughter, and he does not sell his son. For it would have followed: if the daughter, who is not sold for theft, her father may sell her, then the son, who is sold for his theft, should the law not let his father sell him? Scripture therefore teaches: the man sells his daughter, and he does not sell his son. The man sells himself, and the woman does not sell herself. For it would have followed: if the son, whom his father may not sell, sells himself, then a daughter, whom her father may sell, by logic she should sell herself. No: if you say so of the son, who is sold for his theft, therefore he sells himself, will you say so of the daughter, who is not sold for her theft, therefore she does not sell herself. And let her be sold for her theft, for logic suggests it. No: if you say so of the son, who is pierced, therefore he is sold for his theft, will you say so of the daughter, who is not pierced. And let her be pierced, for logic suggests it. You say: if she is removed from the graver category of sale, all the more from the lighter category of piercing. "And if a man sells": thus we have learned that he is empowered to sell her. And whence that he is empowered in her betrothal? You say: if he removes her into maidservant status, all the more into betrothal. And whence that she is acquired by money? Rabbi Yishmael used to say by inference: if a Canaanite bondwoman, who is not acquired by intercourse, is acquired by money, then a daughter of Israel, who is acquired by intercourse, by logic she is acquired by money. And whence also by document? Scripture teaches, "and she departs and becomes" (Deuteronomy 24:2); it likens her becoming to her departing: as her departing is by document, so her becoming is by document. Rabbi Akiva says: it says, "if he takes another" (Exodus 21:10); it likens the latter to the former: as the former is by money, so the latter is by money. "As a maidservant": he sells her to one maidservant status, and he does not sell her to two maidservant statuses. Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: we find that he betroths her by one betrothal after another, and betroths after maidservant status, but not maidservant status after betrothal, and needless to say not maidservant status after maidservant status. "She shall not go out as the menservants go out" (Exodus 21:7): she does not go out by the loss of limb-tips as the Canaanite slaves go out. Do you say so, or rather that she does not go out by years and Jubilee as the Hebrew servants go out? Scripture teaches "when your brother is sold to you," and so forth, telling that she goes out after six years. I have only the Hebrew bondwoman who does not go out by limb-tips; whence the Hebrew bondsman? And further, by inference: if the bondwoman, who goes out by the signs of maturity, and so forth. No: if you say so of the Hebrew bondwoman, who is not sold for theft, therefore, and so forth.