Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

Our Rabbis taught: Regarding the most holy offerings that one slaughtered on top of the altar, Rabbi Yose says: it is as if they were slaughtered in the north [the proper place for such slaughter]. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehudah says: from the middle of the altar northward counts as the north, and from the middle of the altar southward counts as the south. Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Rabbi Yose held that the whole altar stands in the north. And what does "as if" mean? You might have thought that we require the slaughter to be on the side of the altar and here there is none; therefore he teaches us [that it is valid even on top]. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Asi: But then, according to Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehudah too, half should count as north and half as south. And if you say it is indeed so, did you not yourself say in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehudah concedes that if one slaughtered the offering on the ground opposite the altar they are invalid? He said to him: thus said Rabbi Yochanan, both derived their ruling from a single verse, "And you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings" (Exodus 20:24). Rabbi Yose holds: either the whole altar is for the burnt offering or the whole is for the peace offerings. Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah holds: divide it, half for the burnt offering and half for the peace offerings. For if it should enter your mind that the whole is valid for a burnt offering, then now that it is valid for a burnt offering, need it be said it is valid for peace offerings? And the other holds: it was necessary, for it might enter your mind to say this applies only to a burnt offering, for which the place is cramped, but for peace offerings, for which the place is not cramped, say it is not valid; therefore he teaches us [that it is]. Rav said: if the altar was damaged, all the holy offerings slaughtered there are invalid; there is a verse for this in our hands and we have forgotten it. When Rav Kahana went up [to the Land of Israel], he found Rabbi Shimon the son of Rabbi sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yose: from where do we know that if the altar was damaged, all the holy offerings slaughtered there are invalid? Because it is said, "And you shall sacrifice upon it [your burnt offerings]" - and do you really sacrifice upon it? Rather, only when it is whole and not when it is deficient. He said: this is the very verse that escaped Rav. And Rabbi Yochanan says: both this and that [the animals already designated] were invalidated there. In what do they disagree? One master holds that living beings can be permanently rejected, and the other master holds that living beings cannot be permanently rejected.

"And you shall sacrifice upon it your burnt offerings and [your peace offerings]" (Exodus 20:24). I would know only of the burnt offering and the peace offering; from where do I learn the rest of all the holy offerings? Scripture teaches, saying, "for like the sin offering, so is the guilt offering" (Leviticus 7:7) - for the verse need not say "most holy" except to declare fit all the holy offerings. I would know only of the sin offering, burnt offering, and peace offering; from where do I learn the rest of all the communal offerings? Scripture teaches, saying, "your flock and your herd." This implies that one brings the holy offerings [and the non-sacred]. "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned" - say: with what does the matter deal?

"In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned" (Exodus 20:24) - that I reveal Myself to you only in the chosen house [the Temple]. From here they said: the Explicit Name is forbidden to be uttered in the outlying provinces. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: if you come to My house, I will come to your house; the place My heart goes, there my feet lead me; the place my heart loves, my feet lead me. From here they said: ten people who enter a synagogue, the Divine Presence is with them, as it is said, "God stands in the divine assembly" (Psalms 82:1). And from where do we learn even three? As it is said in the same verse, "in the midst of the judges He renders judgment." And from where even two? As it is said, "Then those who feared the LORD spoke, each man to his fellow" (Malachi 3:16). And from where even one? As it is said, "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned [I will come to you and bless you]." Rabbi Yoshiyah says: behold, it says, "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you." Could it really mean in every place? Rather, this verse is transposed: "In every place where I will come to you and bless you, there I will cause My name to be mentioned." And where is that? In the chosen house.

"And if you make an altar of stones" (Exodus 20:25). Rav Chisda said in the name of Rav: the altar of Shiloh was of stones. This was also taught: Rabbi says, what does Scripture teach by saying "stones"? "Stones," "stones," three times (Deuteronomy 27:5-6) - one for Shiloh, one for Nov and Gibeon, and one for the eternal house [the Temple in Jerusalem]. Rav Achadboi bar Ami objected: the fire that came down in the days of Moses did not depart from upon the bronze altar until Solomon came, and the fire that came down in the days of Solomon did not depart until Menasheh came and removed it. And if it is so [that the altar of Shiloh was of stone], then from the start that fire would have had to depart [when they left the bronze altar]. He stated it like this Tanna, Rabbi Yose, who says: the bronze altar was hollow and filled with stones. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: what does "did not depart" mean? It did not cease entirely. And where was it? The Rabbis say: it would send out its sparks. Rav Pappa said: it lodged as a guest, sometimes here, sometimes there.

Rabbi Yishmael says: every "if" in the Torah is optional, except for three. "And if you bring a meal offering of first fruits" (Leviticus 2:14) is obligatory - or is it merely optional? Scripture teaches, "you shall bring the meal offering of your first fruits," obligatory and not optional. Similarly, "If you lend money to My people" (Exodus 22:24) is obligatory - or merely optional? Scripture teaches, "you shall surely lend to him" (Deuteronomy 15:8), obligatory and not optional. "And if you make an altar of stones" is obligatory - or merely optional? Scripture teaches, "you shall build of whole stones" (Deuteronomy 27:6), obligatory and not optional. "An altar of earth you shall make for Me" is optional and not obligatory. And what does Scripture teach by saying "and if you make an altar of stones"? Only that if one wished to make it of stones he may, of bricks he may. And these matters are a case of inference from minor to major: just as with the altar, which is weighty, if one wished to change he may change, all the more so for the rest of the vessels. "You shall not build them of hewn stone" (Exodus 20:25) - "hewn" means only stones that have been cut, over which iron has been waved. I might hear that the whole altar is invalid; Scripture teaches, "you shall not build them of hewn stone" - they are invalid, but the rest of the altar is fit. "You shall not build them of hewn stone" - of it you do not build hewn stone, but you do build with hewn stone in the Sanctuary and in the Holy of Holies. For by logic: just as the altar, which is lighter, is forbidden to be built of hewn stone, the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, which are weightier, by logic should also be forbidden; therefore Scripture teaches, "you shall not build them of hewn stone" - of it you do not build hewn stone, but you do build hewn stone in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And how do I uphold "and the hammers and the axe, any iron tool, was not heard in the house" (I Kings 6:7)? In the house it was not heard, but outside it was heard. "For you have waved your sword over it and profaned it" (Exodus 20:25). From here Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: the altar was created to lengthen a person's years, and iron shortens a person's days; it is not right that what shortens should be waved over what lengthens. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai says: behold, it says, "you shall build of whole stones" - stones that cast peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven. And these matters are a case of inference from minor to major: if the stones of the altar, which neither see nor hear nor speak, because they cast peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, "do not wave iron over them," then one who casts peace between a man and his wife, between one man and another, between city and city, between nation and nation, between family and family, between government and government - how much more so shall no calamity come upon him. "And you shall not go up by steps" (Exodus 20:26). From here they said: make a ramp for the altar. I would know only of going up; from where do I learn going down? Scripture teaches, "that your nakedness not be uncovered upon it" - thus it is not the going up or going down that caused it, but the covering that mattered. Rabbi Yishmael says: it is not necessary; behold, it says, "and make for them linen breeches" (Exodus 28:42). And what does Scripture teach by saying "that your nakedness not be uncovered upon it"? That they should not take a wide stride upon it, but toe beside heel and heel beside toe. "That your nakedness not be uncovered upon it" - upon it you do not take an extra-wide stride, but you may take a wide stride in the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. For by logic: just as the altar, which is lighter, you forbid taking a wide stride upon, the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, which are weightier, by logic should be forbidden; therefore Scripture teaches, "that your nakedness not be uncovered upon it" - upon it you do not stride wide, but you do stride wide in the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. And these matters are a case of inference from minor to major: just as the stones, which have no awareness of bad or good, the Omnipresent said, "do not treat them with contempt," your fellow, who is in the likeness of the One who spoke and the world came to be, by logic you should not treat with contempt. "That your nakedness not be uncovered upon it" - followed by "and these are the ordinances." We find from this that the Sanhedrin arranges its seat beside the altar; although there is no proof for the matter, there is a remembrance for it: "and Yoav fled to the Tent of the LORD and grasped the horns of the altar" (I Kings 2:28).

"And these are the ordinances" (Exodus 21:1). This is what Scripture says, "and the strength of a king loves justice" (Psalms 99:4) - all the strength and might and praise are the Holy One's, blessed be He. David said, "Yours, O LORD, is the greatness" (I Chronicles 29:11). You find that one who is a man of force passes over justice, but the Holy One, blessed be He, is a man of force and loves justice. "You have established equity" (Psalms 99:4). Rabbi Alexandri said: two donkey drivers were walking on the road, and they hated each other. The donkey of one of them lay down. His fellow saw it and passed by. After he passed he said: it is written in the Torah, "when you see the donkey of one who hates you [lying under its burden, you shall surely help]" (Exodus 23:5). Immediately he turned back and loaded it with him. He began to speak in his heart, saying: so-and-so was my friend all along and I did not know it. They entered an inn and ate and drank. What caused them to make peace between themselves? That they understood the matter in the Torah. Thus, "You have established equity." "And these are the ordinances" - this is what is written, "a king by justice establishes the land" (Proverbs 29:4). This is the Holy One, blessed be He; when He came to give the Torah to Israel He opened with justice, as it is written, "there He set for them a statute and an ordinance" (Exodus 15:25). And here Moses taught Israel the ordinances that he had learned. Rabbi Abbahu said: every place where "these" is stated, it disqualifies what came before; "these are the generations of the heavens" disqualified chaos and void and darkness. And here, "and these are the ordinances," with the connecting "and," it adds to what came before, namely "there He set for them a statute and an ordinance" (Exodus 15:25). This is what Scripture says, "He declares His words to Jacob, His statutes and His ordinances to Israel." The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: I have given them the Torah; give them the ordinances. (It is written in remez 273.)

"So I bought her for myself for fifteen pieces of silver" (Hosea 3:2) - that is fifteen. "And a chomer of barley" - that makes thirty. "And a letech of barley" (Hosea 3:2) - that makes sixty, corresponding to the sixty commandments that Moses wrote in the Torah. And Rabbi Yochanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai: three portions Moses wrote for us in the Torah, each one of which contains sixty commandments. And these are they: the portion of the Passover offerings, the portion of damages, and the portion of the holy ones [Leviticus 19]. Rabbi Levi in the name of Rabbi Sheila of Kfar Tamarta: seventy commandments each. And Rabbi Levi said: they do not disagree. The one who made the portion of Passover offerings seventy included with it the portion of phylacteries; the one who made the portion of damages seventy included with it the portion of the Sabbatical years; and the one who made the portion of the holy ones seventy included with it the portion of orlah [the fruit of a tree's first years].

Rabbi Akiva says: from where do we learn that a person is obligated to teach his student until he learns it? As it is said, "and teach it to the children of Israel, put it in their mouths" (Deuteronomy 31:19). And from where that he is obligated to show him the reasoning? As it is said, "and these are the ordinances that you shall set before them" (Exodus 21:1). The Rabbis taught: what was the order of teaching? Moses learned from the mouth of the Almighty. Aaron entered, and Moses taught him his lesson. Aaron withdrew and sat to the left of Moses. His sons entered, and Moses taught them their lesson. His sons withdrew, Elazar to the right of Moses and Itamar to the left of Aaron. Rabbi Yehudah says: Aaron always returns to the right of Moses. The elders entered, and Moses taught them their lesson; the elders withdrew. All Israel entered, and Moses taught them their lesson. It turned out that Aaron had heard it four times, his sons three, the elders two, and the people one. Moses withdrew, and Aaron taught them their lesson. Aaron withdrew, and his sons taught them their lesson. His sons withdrew, and the elders taught them their lesson. It turned out that all had it four times. From here Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said: a person is obligated to teach his students four times. And by inference from minor to major: if these, who learned from the mouth of Moses and Moses from the mouth of the Almighty, needed this, the rest of all the people, all the more so. And let them all learn from Moses [directly]? In order to apportion honor to Aaron, and honor to his sons, and honor to the elders. And let Aaron enter and learn from Moses, and his sons enter and learn from Aaron, and the elders enter and learn from his sons, and then let them all go and teach all Israel? Since Moses had learned from the mouth of the Almighty, the matter was thereby strengthened.

Bar Kappara expounded: From where do we know the matter that the Sages said, "Be deliberate in judgment"? For it is written, "You shall not go up by steps" (Exodus 20:23), and immediately following it comes, "And these are the ordinances" (Exodus 21:1) [the laws of judgment follow the warning against climbing in haste]. Rabbi Eleazar said: From where do we learn that a judge must not step over the heads of the holy people [tread on those seated before him in the court]? As it is said, "You shall not go up by steps," and immediately following it comes, "And these are the ordinances." "Which you shall set [tasim]" (Exodus 21:1) - it should rather have said "which you shall teach." Rabbi Jeremiah said: These are the tools of the judges [the verb hints that justice is an equipped craft]. When Rav Huna would go out to judge, he would say, "Bring me the tools of my trade," and so on. "And I commanded your judges" (Deuteronomy 1:16) - against the rod and the strap [the instruments of discipline] let him be ready.

Abaye found Rav Yosef engaged in compelling [the writing of] bills of divorce. He said to him: We are laymen [not formally ordained judges of the original tradition], and it has been taught: Rabbi Tarfon used to say: Wherever you find heathen tribunals, even though their law is like the law of Israel, you are not permitted to resort to them, as it is said, "And these are the ordinances which you shall set before them" (Exodus 21:1) - before them [Israel], and not before heathens.

Another interpretation: "before them" (Exodus 21:1) - and not before laymen. He said to him: We act as their agents [as agents of the ordained judges of the Land of Israel], just as is the case with admissions and loans. If so, [why not also] robberies and injuries? When we act as their agents, it is in a matter that is common; in a matter that is not common we do not act as their agents.

"And these are the ordinances" (Exodus 21:1). Rabbi Ishmael says: These [the civil laws] add to the earlier ones [the Ten Commandments]; just as the earlier ones were from Sinai, so too the later ones were from Sinai. Rabbi Akiva says: "And these are the ordinances" - why is it said? Because it says elsewhere, "Speak to the children of Israel and say to them" (Leviticus 1:2) - teach it twice and three and four times until they learn it, as it is said, "and teach it to the children of Israel" (Deuteronomy 31:19). One might think they should learn but not repeat it; the verse teaches, "put it in their mouths" (same). Or that they should repeat it but not understand it; the verse teaches, "And these are the ordinances" - arrange them before them like a set table, as it is said, "You have been shown, that you might know" (Deuteronomy 4:35). Rabbi Judah says: "And these are the ordinances" - they were spoken at Marah, as it is said, "There He made for them a statute and an ordinance" (Exodus 15:25). Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah says: But consider the nations who judge according to the law of Israel - I might hear that their rulings should stand; the verse teaches, "And these are the ordinances" - you judge their cases, but they do not judge yours. From here they said: a coerced bill of divorce is valid when [the coercion is] by Israel, but invalid when by heathens. Yet among the heathens they may beat him and say to him, "Do what Israel tells you." Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says: What did the laws of justice see fit to precede all the commandments in the Torah? Because when there is a dispute between a person and his fellow, there is strife between them; once the case is decided for them, peace is made between them. And so Jethro said to Moses, "and also all this people will come to their place in peace" (Exodus 18:23).

"When you acquire a Hebrew servant" (Exodus 21:2). Scripture speaks of one sold by the court for his theft [a thief who cannot repay], that he serves the master and serves the son [if the master dies during the term]. Or perhaps it speaks only of one who sells himself? When it says, "And if your brother becomes poor and is sold to you" (Leviticus 25:39), one who sells himself is already addressed there. So what does "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" teach? It speaks of one sold for his theft, that he serves the master and serves the son. "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" - Scripture speaks of a son of Israel. Or perhaps only of the [Canaanite] servant belonging to a Hebrew? And how would I uphold "You shall make them an inheritance for your children after you" (Leviticus 25:46)? Of one taken from a heathen. But of one taken from an Israelite I might hear that he serves six years and goes free in the seventh; the verse teaches, "If your brother, a Hebrew, is sold to you" (Deuteronomy 15:12). Since the verse need not say "the Hebrew" - for it already said "your brother" - what does "the Hebrew" teach? It is set free to be compared by a gezeira shava [a verbal analogy]: "Hebrew" is said here and "Hebrew" is said there [in Deuteronomy]; just as the "Hebrew" said there speaks of a son of Israel, so the "Hebrew" said here speaks of a son of Israel. And though there is no proof of the matter, there is a remembrance of the matter, as it is said, "the God of the Hebrews has met with us" (Exodus 5:3), and it says, "and the fugitive came and told Abram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13). Rabbi says: One might think you should call him "servant" as a term of disgrace; the verse teaches, "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" - against his will [reluctantly] the Torah called him a servant. "When you acquire a Hebrew servant" - why is it said? To include the convert, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Ishmael says: It is not needed - if an Israelite serves, shall the convert not serve? Were I to argue: if the Israelite serves six and the convert serves twelve, you would say it is enough for what is derived to be like its source; just as the Israelite serves six, so the convert serves six. Because it says, "and if he has nothing, he shall be sold for his theft" (Exodus 22:2), I might hear forever; the verse teaches, "six years he shall serve" - this tells that he serves six and goes free in the seventh.

"Six years he shall serve" (Exodus 21:2). I might hear that any kind of labor is included; the verse teaches, "You shall not make him serve the service of a slave" (Leviticus 25:39). From here they said: he may not wash his master's feet, nor put on his sandals, nor carry his vessels to the bathhouse, nor support him by the waist when he climbs steps, nor carry him in a litter or chair or sedan as slaves do. The verse teaches, "and over your brothers, the children of Israel" (Leviticus 25:46) and so on. But concerning his son or his student he is permitted [to do these for the servant]. "Six years he shall serve" - I might hear both degrading and non-degrading labor; the verse teaches, "as a hired worker" (Leviticus 25:40). Just as you may not change a hired worker from his trade, so too a Hebrew servant you may not change from his trade. From here they said: his master may not teach him a trade that serves the public, such as a bathhouse attendant, barber, tailor, butcher, or baker. Rabbi Yose says: If his trade was already specialized in this, he may do it; but his master may not impose a change upon him. "As a hired worker, as a resident" and so on - just as a hired worker labors by day [and not by night], so too, and so on. Rabbi Yose says: It all depends on his trade. "And in the seventh" - the seventh from the sale, or only the seventh of the [sabbatical] years? The verse teaches, "six years he shall serve" - the seventh from the sale, not the seventh of the years. "He shall go out free" - why is it said? Because it says, "And when you set him free from you" (Deuteronomy 15:13), I might hear that he writes him a bill of release or gives him money and goes out; the verse teaches, "he shall go out free, for nothing" (Exodus 21:2).

From where do we know that one who runs away [during his term] must complete [the missing time]? The verse teaches, "Six years he shall serve." One might think even if he fell ill [he must make up the time]; the verse teaches, "and in the seventh he shall go out" [he leaves regardless]. [Does this mean] he fell ill even all six years? But it was taught: If he was ill three and worked three, he need not complete; if he was ill all six, he must complete. Rav Sheshet said: This refers to one who does needlework [light labor he could still perform]. If he was ill four [years], he is like one who was ill all six, and must complete.

It was taught: The "year" stated regarding sacrifices, the "year" stated regarding houses in walled cities, the "two years" of an ancestral field, the "six years" of the Hebrew servant and of a son and of a daughter [for valuation purposes] - all are reckoned from time to time [full calendar years, not from the new year]. Each is derived from its own verse, as set out [with the relevant proof-texts cited]. A Hebrew servant serves the son [of his deceased master], as it is written, "six years he shall serve." But he does not serve the brother, as it is said, "and he shall serve you six years" (Deuteronomy 15:12) - you, and not the brother. And why include the son and exclude the brother? I include the son, since he stands in his father's place regarding [the law of] designation [of a maidservant in marriage] and the ancestral field. On the contrary, I would include the brother, since he stands in his brother's place regarding levirate marriage. But there is levirate marriage only where there is no son, and so on. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the brother, as it is written, "so too you shall do to your maidservant" (Deuteronomy 15:17) - Scripture compares her to the one whose ear is pierced; just as the pierced servant serves neither son nor brother, as it is written, "and his master shall pierce his ear, and he shall serve him forever" (Exodus 21:6) - him, and not the son or the brother. Rabbi Shimon says: "and he shall go out from you, he and his children" (Leviticus 25:41) - if he is sold, are his children sold? From here we learn that his master is obligated to feed his children. Likewise you say: "and his wife shall go out with him" - if he is sold, is his wife sold? From here we learn that his master is obligated to feed his wife. "If he comes in by himself [b'gappo]" (Exodus 21:3) - why is it said? Because it says, "If his master gives him a wife" (Exodus 21:4), this is permission, not obligation - the words of Rabbi Ishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: "If he comes in by himself" - if he entered whole [in his limbs], he goes out whole. As Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: he entered alone, he goes out alone. Rava said: "by himself he goes out" means he does not go out by the loss of a limb-tip as a [Canaanite] slave does. Abaye said to him: that is derived from "she shall not go out as the slaves go out" (Exodus 21:7). If from there, I would have said we give him the value of his eye and he goes out; the verse therefore teaches us [otherwise]. And "he goes out alone" means: if he has no wife and children, his master does not assign him a Canaanite maidservant.

(Exodus 21:4) "If his master gives him a wife." Is this permission, or is it perhaps an obligation? Scripture teaches, saying, "If he comes in by himself, etc." (Exodus 21:3) - permission and not obligation; these are the words of Rabbi Ishmael. "If his master gives him a wife" - one who is designated for him, so that she should not be like an ownerless maidservant. "If his master gives him a wife" - Scripture speaks of a Canaanite maidservant. Or is it perhaps of a Hebrew woman? When it says, "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" (Exodus 21:4), behold, Scripture speaks of a Canaanite maidservant. "And she bears him sons." I have here only sons and daughters; from where do I include one of indeterminate sex and one of double sex? Scripture teaches, saying, "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" - in any case. Rabbi Nathan says: There is no need for Scripture to say "and she bears him," except to include the master who comes upon his maidservant, that her children are slaves.

"The woman and her children" - what does Scripture teach by this? It tells that her children are like her. I have here only a maidservant, whose children are like her; from where do I include a gentile woman? Rabbi Ishmael used to say: It is a matter of logic. Just as a Canaanite maidservant, who cannot be betrothed by any man, has children who are like her, so too any woman who cannot be betrothed by any man has children who are like her. And which is this? The child of a maidservant and of a gentile woman. "And he shall go out by himself." It tells that she does not need a bill of divorce from him. I have here only a maidservant, who does not need a bill of divorce from an Israelite. From where do I learn a daughter of Israel, who does not need a bill of divorce from the slave? Scripture teaches, saying, "of them you may acquire a slave and a maidservant" (Leviticus 25:44) - it compares the slave to the maidservant and the maidservant to the slave: just as the maidservant does not need a bill from an Israelite, so too the daughter of Israel does not need a bill from the slave.

Another interpretation: "And he shall go out by himself" - why is it stated? Because it says, "Six years he shall serve" (Exodus 21:2), I have here only one who serves six years, regarding whom one follows the practice stated in the passage. From where do we learn the pierced servant? Scripture teaches, saying, "and he shall go out by himself," to include the pierced servant. Rabbi Isaac says: This is not needed. For if the one who serves six years, whose departure Scripture restricted, is nevertheless treated by the practice stated in the passage, then the pierced servant, whose departure Scripture did not restrict, surely is treated by the practice stated in the passage. "If his master gives him a wife" - one who sells himself: his master does not hand him a Canaanite maidservant. Rabbi Eliezer says: his master does hand him a Canaanite maidservant. What is the reason of the first teacher? The Merciful One restricted, regarding one whom the court sold, "If his master gives him a wife" - to him, and not to one who sells himself. And the other holds: that phrase is needed for one sold against his will. And the other learns it from "for he has been worth double the wages of a hired man to you" (Deuteronomy 15:18). As it is taught: "for he has been worth double the wages of a hired man, your servant" - a hired man works only by day, but a Hebrew servant works both by day and by night. Could it enter your mind that a Hebrew servant works by day and by night? But it already says, "for it is good for him with you" (Deuteronomy 15:16) - with you in food, with you in drink. And Rabbi Isaac said: from here we learn that his master hands him a Canaanite maidservant. And the other holds: if from there, I would have said this applies with his consent, but against his will I might say not; therefore Scripture informs us. One who has a brother of any kind binds his brother's wife to levirate marriage, except for one born of a maidservant or of a gentile woman. What is the reason? As it is written, "the woman and her children shall belong to her master," and concerning a gentile woman it is written, "for he will turn away your son from following Me" (Deuteronomy 7:4) - your son who comes from a gentile man is called your son, but your son who comes from a gentile woman is not called your son but her son. But this is written concerning the seven nations. "For he will turn away" - to include all who turn away. And both verses are needed: for had Scripture taught only the maidservant, it is because she has no lineage, but the gentile woman I might say not; and had it taught only the gentile woman, it is because she has no share in the commandments, but the maidservant I might say not; therefore both are needed.

Rabbi Tarfon says: Those of forbidden birth can be purified. How? One of forbidden birth who married a maidservant - the child is a slave, as it is written, "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" (Exodus 21:4). If the master freed him, he turns out to be a free man. That a maidservant cannot be betrothed - from where do we learn it? For the verse says, "Stay here with the donkey" (Genesis 22:5) [a people likened to a donkey, who cannot contract betrothal]. That her child is like her - from where do we learn it? For the verse says, "the woman and her children," etc. That a gentile woman cannot be betrothed - from where do we learn it? The verse says, "You shall not intermarry with them" (Deuteronomy 7:3). That her child is like her - from where do we learn it? For the verse says, "for he will turn away," etc. (Deuteronomy 7:4).

One who says to his maidservant, "Behold, you are a free woman, but your child is a slave" - her child is like her; these are the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. For it is said, "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" (Exodus 21:4): at the time the woman belongs to her master, her child belongs to her master; if the woman does not belong to her master, her child does not belong to her master. And the Sages say: his words stand. The maidservant and the gentile woman - her child is like her.

(Exodus 21:5) "But if the servant plainly says." It tells that he is not pierced until he says twice, "I love my master." I have here only the case where he has a wife and children and his master has a wife and children. When his master does not have a wife and children, from where do I learn it? Scripture teaches, saying, "And it shall be, if he says to you," etc. (Deuteronomy 15:16). From here they said: he is never pierced unless he has a wife and children and his master has a wife and children. That he loves his master, and his master loves him, that his master's property was blessed through him - from where do we learn this is required? It says, "And it shall be, if he says to you, etc., for it is good for him with you" (Deuteronomy 15:16) - that his welfare should be equal to yours. From here they said: his master must not differ in his treatment of him - he feeds him and gives him drink and anoints him from his own; Scripture teaches, saying, "for it is good for him with you" (Deuteronomy 15:16).

Another interpretation: "For it is good for him with you" (Deuteronomy 15:16) - if he was lame or blind, he is not pierced.

"And to your maidservant you shall do likewise" (Deuteronomy 15:17). Scripture compared her to the pierced servant: just as the pierced servant does not serve the son nor the daughter, and so on. But this is needed for what is taught: "And to your maidservant you shall do likewise" - to grant her a severance gift. Or is it perhaps only for piercing? When it says, "But if the servant plainly says" (Exodus 21:5) - the servant, and not the Hebrew maidservant. How then do I uphold "And to your maidservant you shall do likewise"? To grant her a severance gift. If so, let the verse write "And to your maidservant likewise"; what is "you shall do"? Learn from it two things. "But if he plainly says" - until he says and repeats. If he said at the beginning of the six years but did not say at the end of the six years, he is not pierced, as it is said, "I will not go out free" - until he says at the time of going out. If he said at the end of the six years but did not say at the beginning of the six years, he is not pierced, as it is said, "But if the servant plainly says" - while he is a servant. The Master said: at the beginning of the six years. It might enter your mind that this means literally the beginning of the six years; but derive it otherwise, for we require "I love my wife," and he does not yet have a wife and children. And further, is he not a servant during the six years? The last day is called the end of the six years, and all that day he is a servant. Rava said: at the beginning of the last perutah's worth, at the end of the last perutah's worth. And this is what it means: if he said at the beginning of the six years, before the start of the last perutah's worth, when he already has a wife and children, but did not say at the end of the six years, after the last perutah's worth had begun, he is not pierced, even if he said and repeated, as it is written, "I will not go out" - close to going out, and as long as a full perutah's worth remains upon him he is not close to going out. If he said and repeated at the end of the last perutah's worth, he is not pierced, as it is said, "But if the servant plainly says" - until he says it while he is a servant.

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].

"And his master shall bring him to the judges [Elohim]" (Exodus 21:6): to the court, that he may take counsel with those who sold him. Rabbi says: Scripture speaks of one sold by the court for his theft; but in this case [one who sold himself] he is pierced only by himself, between him and his own self. "And shall bring him to the door": he compared the door to the doorpost [mezuzah], teaching that as the doorpost is set upright, so the door must be upright. Do you say it came for this, or rather that he may pierce him at the doorpost? And logic would suggest so: if the door, which is not fit for the commandment [of the mezuzah scroll], is fit for piercing, then the doorpost, which is fit for the commandment, surely should be fit for piercing? Scripture therefore teaches, "and you shall put it into his ear and into the door" (Deuteronomy 15:17): into the door you put it, and you do not put it into the doorpost. "And his master shall pierce": why is this said? Because we find everywhere that a man's agent is like himself; but here, he and not his agent. "His ear": Scripture speaks of the right ear. Or is it only the left? You derive it by analogy: "ear" is said here and "ear" is said there regarding the leper (Leviticus 14:14); as there it is the right, so here it is the right. "His ear": from the soft lobe, the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: even from the cartilage. For Rabbi Meir used to say, a priest is not pierced, but they say he is pierced; a priest is not sold, but they say he is sold. And why did the ear, of all his limbs, deserve to be pierced? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai says: the limb that heard "You shall not steal" and went and stole, let it be pierced from among all his limbs. "With an awl": the Torah said with an awl, but the law said with anything.

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?

Our Rabbis taught: one who sells himself is sold for six years and more than six. [One whom the court sold is sold only for six.] Rabbi Eliezer says: both this one and that one are sold only for six. What is the reasoning of the first teacher? The Merciful One restricted, regarding one whom the court sold, "and he shall serve you": you, and not your heir. And the other? Another "and he shall serve you" is written. And the other? That verse comes to teach about the piercing performed by the master. One who sells himself is not pierced; Rabbi Eliezer says he is pierced. What is the reasoning of the first teacher? The Merciful One restricted, regarding one whom the court sold, "and his master shall pierce his ear": his own ear, and not the ear of one who sells himself. And the other? That comes for the verbal analogy: "ear" is said here, and so forth. And the other? If so, let the verse say "ear"; what is "his ear"? Learn from it two things. And the other? That phrase he needs for "his ear" and not her ear [the woman's]. And the other? He derives it from "if the servant shall say," and not the Hebrew bondwoman. And the other? Only when he is still a servant [does the declaration apply]. And the other derives it from "the servant, the servant." And the other does not expound "the servant, the servant." The pierced servant is acquired by piercing, as it is written "and his master shall pierce his ear." And he acquires himself at the Jubilee, as it is written "and he shall serve him forever," meaning the world [olam] of the Jubilee. And by the death of the master, as it is written "and he shall serve him," him and not the son. Our Rabbis taught: "an awl": I have only an awl; how do we know to include the thorn, the splinter, the needle, the drill, and the stylus? Scripture teaches "and you shall take," anything taken in the hand, the words of Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi says: as the awl is distinctly of metal, so all must be of metal. Rabbi expounds by general-and-particular: "and you shall take" is a generalization, "awl" is a particular, "in his ear and in the door" generalizes again; with a generalization, a particular, and a generalization you judge only according to the particular, and as the particular is explicitly metal, so all must be metal. Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Yehudah expounds by amplification-and-restriction: "and you shall take" amplifies, "awl" restricts, "in his ear and in the door" amplifies again; with amplify, restrict, amplify, it amplifies everything. What does it amplify? Every kind of thing. And what does it restrict? It restricts a drug [a chemical means].

Another interpretation: "the awl" [with the definite article], to include the great awl. What is the implication? As Rava said regarding "the thigh," it means the most prominent part of the thigh; here too "the awl" means the most distinguished among awls. Rabbi Eliezer son of Yudan the eminent used to expound: one pierces only at the soft lobe. And the Sages say: a priest who is a Hebrew bondsman is not pierced, because he would thereby become blemished. And should you object, let him become blemished, Scripture says, "and he shall return to his family" (Leviticus 25:41), to the established standing within his family.

Five things Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai used to expound like a homiletic gem. Why were Israel exiled to Babylonia more than to all other lands? Because the house of Abraham came from there. They told a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To a woman who acted unfaithfully toward her husband; where does he send her? To her father's house. Regarding the first tablets, "and the tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God" (Exodus 32:16). They told a parable: to what may the matter be compared? To a king of flesh and blood who betrothed a woman; he went and brought the scribe, the ink, the pen, the marriage contract, and the witnesses. When she acted unfaithfully, she must supply all of it herself; it is enough for her that the king gave her his writing and the token of his hand. It says, "when a leader sins" (Leviticus 4:22). Happy is the generation whose leader brings a sin offering for his inadvertent transgression. And it says, "and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl." Why did the ear deserve to be pierced more than all the other limbs? Because it heard at Mount Sinai, "for to Me the children of Israel are servants, they are My servants" (Leviticus 25:55), yet he cast off the yoke of Heaven and took upon himself the yoke of flesh and blood. Therefore Scripture said, let the ear come and be pierced, for it did not keep what it heard. As people say: he who did not wish to be a servant to His sons, let him come and be a servant to his daughters. And it says, "an altar of stones... you shall not lift iron over them" (Deuteronomy 27:5). Why was iron deemed unfit more than all other metals? Because from iron one makes a sword, a sign of punishment, while the altar is a sign of atonement; one removes the sign of punishment from before the sign of atonement. And this is a matter of inference from minor to major: if of stones, which neither see nor hear nor speak, because they bring atonement between Israel and their Father in Heaven Scripture said "you shall not lift iron over them," then disciples of Torah, who are atonement for the world, how much more must no destructive thing touch them. It says, "whole stones you shall build" (Deuteronomy 27:6): stones that bring peace between Israel and their Father in Heaven, the Holy One, blessed be He, said let them be whole forever; how much more should Israel be whole before the Omnipresent. "And he shall serve him forever" (this is written in remez 470).

"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.

The Hebrew maidservant is acquired by document. Whence do we know this? The verse says, "if he takes another" (Exodus 21:10); Scripture likened her to the "other" [wife]: as the other is acquired by document, so the Hebrew maidservant is acquired by document. And Rav Chisda said: "she shall not go out as the menservants go out" (Exodus 21:7), but she is acquired as servants are acquired, and what is that? A document. But not by possession [chazakah], for the verse says, "and you shall take them as a possession" (Leviticus 25:46), them by possession and not another by possession. And what did you see [to prefer document over possession]? It stands to reason that document was the more fitting to amplify, since it removes [a wife] in marriage among the daughters of Israel. And Rav Huna: "she shall not go out as the menservants go out" means she does not go out by limb-tips like a slave. And Rav Chisda: if so, let the verse write "she shall not go out as slaves"; what is "as the going-out of"? Learn from it two things. Our Rabbis taught: one who sells his daughter and stipulated with the buyer on the condition that he not designate her [as a wife], the conditions stand, the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages say: if he wishes to designate her, he may designate her, because he stipulated against what is written in the Torah, and whoever stipulates against what is written in the Torah, his stipulation is void. And Rabbi Meir, even though he holds that one's stipulation is void in the case of one who says to a woman, "you are betrothed to me on condition that you have no claim of food, clothing, and conjugal rights upon me," here it is different, for the verse says "as a maidservant," meaning that sometimes he sells her only as a maidservant alone. And the Rabbis need that phrase for what was taught: "as a maidservant" teaches that he may sell her to unfit men. Rabbi Eliezer says: if it is to teach that he may sell her to unfit men, it already says "if she is displeasing in the eyes of her master" (Exodus 21:8), that she is displeasing in marriage to him; rather, what does "as a maidservant" teach? That he may sell her to relatives. One [baraita] taught: he may sell her to his father, but he may not sell her to his son. And another taught: he may sell her neither to his father nor to his son. Granted that "neither to his father nor to his son" accords with the Rabbis; but "to his father and not to his son," according to whom? It is neither the Rabbis nor Rabbi Eliezer. In truth it is the Rabbis; the Rabbis concede where there is an aspect of designation possible.

Rav Huna said: From where do we learn that the labor of a daughter belongs to her father? As it is said, "When a man sells his daughter as a maidservant" (Exodus 21:7) [the verse equates the two]: just as the labor of a maidservant belongs to her master, so too the labor of a daughter belongs to her father. Why do I need this verse? Let it be derived from "in her youth, in her father's house" (Numbers 30:17). That verse is written concerning the annulment of vows. And should you say, let us derive the one from the other [by analogy], we answer: monetary law is not derived from matters of prohibition. Then let us derive it from a fine. We answer: monetary law is not derived from the law of fines. And her shame and her blemish [the compensation owed if she is disgraced] belong to her father, for if he wished he could give her in marriage to a repulsive man or to one stricken with boils.

The father has authority over his daughter regarding her betrothal, whether by money, by document, or by cohabitation; and he has rights to what she finds, to her labor, and to the annulment of her vows; and he receives her bill of divorce. From where do we learn betrothal by money? Scripture says, "she shall go free without payment, no money" (Exodus 21:11): there is no money for this master, but there is money for another master. And who is that? Her father. But say it is money for the woman herself. It is reasonable that when the Merciful One excluded payment in this case, it excluded a departure comparable to it. But the release from betrothal is not comparable to the case of the Hebrew maidservant: there she leaves the master's authority completely, whereas here she still lacks being brought under the marriage canopy. From the annulment of vows we learn that she leaves his authority, as we have taught: a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband annul her vows. Betrothal by document and by cohabitation, from where? Scripture says "and she departs and becomes another man's" (Deuteronomy 24:2-3): the modes of becoming a wife are compared to one another. He has rights to what she finds, on account of [preventing] enmity. To her labor, what is the reason? As it is written, "when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant": just as the labor of a maidservant belongs to her master, so too the labor of a daughter belongs to her father. But say this applies only to a minor, whom he can sell, while for a young woman, whom he cannot sell, her labor belongs to herself. A minor needs no verse: now that he may even sell her, need her labor be stated? Rather, the verse was needed for the young woman. The annulment of her vows, as it is written "in her youth, in her father's house." And he receives her bill of divorce, as it is written "and she departs and becomes" (Deuteronomy 24:2): the departure is compared to the becoming.

"If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master" (Exodus 21:8): "displeasing" means only that she did not find favor before him. "Who has not designated her" refers to the master. "Then he shall let her be redeemed" refers to the father. He may not designate her for two men at once; he may not sell her on condition to designate her, the words of Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Akiva says: he may sell her, and if he wishes to designate her, he designates her. "To a foreign people" is a warning to the court not to sell her to a gentile. "In his dealing treacherously with her": once he has betrayed her and treated her with contempt and did not deal with her according to the law of free daughters, he too is not permitted to keep her, the words of Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtulmus. And "treachery" means only deceit, as it is said, "Judah has dealt treacherously" (Malachi 2:11), and it says, "for they have dealt very treacherously with Me." Rabbi Yishmael says: Scripture speaks of the master, who acquired her in order to designate her and did not designate her; he too is not permitted to keep her. Rabbi Akiva says: "in his dealing treacherously with her" means once he has spread his garment over her [taken her as a wife].

"Then he shall let her be redeemed": this teaches that she goes free by deducting from her redemption price. "Whom he has not designated, he shall let her be redeemed": he may not sell her to relatives. Rabbi Eliezer says: he may sell her to relatives. And they agree that he may not sell a widow to a high priest, or a divorcee or one released from levirate marriage to an ordinary priest [since he could not designate her to them]. Rabbi Yannai said: designation applies only to an adult, for designation requires consent, and the son is like the father: just as the father is an adult, so too his son must be an adult. And if you ask, what consent? Her consent, for Avimi taught: "whom he has not designated" teaches that he must designate her [with her knowledge]. Our rabbis taught: how is the commandment of designation performed? He says to her before two witnesses, "Behold you are designated to me, behold you are betrothed to me, behold you are espoused to me," even at the end of six years, even close to sunset, and he conducts himself with her in the manner of marriage and not in the manner of servitude. Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda says: if there is enough time left in the day to do work worth a perutah for him, she is betrothed, and if not, she is not betrothed, as it is written "he shall let her be redeemed," that there be enough time in the day for redemption. And Rabbi Yose bar Rabbi Yehuda holds that the first money of her purchase was not given for the sake of betrothal, and when he designates her, he designates her by means of the servitude he has over her, and her betrothal is not through the father, yet it is a decree of Scripture that it be a valid betrothal. It was taught: a man may sell his daughter for marriage and again, for servitude and again, for marriage after servitude, but not for servitude after marriage. And Rabbi Shimon says: just as a man may not sell his daughter into servitude after marriage, so too he may not sell his daughter into servitude after servitude. This stands in the dispute of these Tannaim, as it was taught: "in his dealing treacherously with her" once he has spread his cloak over her, he may no longer sell her, the words of Rabbi Eliezer; Rabbi Akiva says: once he has betrayed her he may no longer sell her. Rabbi Eliezer holds the vowel-reading is authoritative; Rabbi Akiva holds the written tradition is authoritative; and Rabbi Shimon holds both the vowel-reading and the written tradition are authoritative.

(Exodus 21:9-11) "And if he designates her for his son": for his son he may designate her, but not for his brother. For one might have reasoned: if the son, who does not stand in the father's place for levirate marriage, may designate her, then the brother, who does come in his place for levirate marriage, surely by reason should be able to designate her. No: if you say so of the son, who enters in the father's place for inheritance, will you say so of the brother, who does not enter in his place for inheritance? Therefore he may not designate her. Scripture teaches, saying "for his son he shall designate her": for his son there is designation, but there is no designation for his brother.

"He shall do for her according to the law of daughters" (Exodus 21:9): and what have we now learned about the law of daughters? Rather, this verse comes to teach and is found to be taught itself: just as for this one [the betrothed maidservant], her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he may not diminish, so too for a daughter of Israel, her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he may not diminish, the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: Scripture speaks of the Hebrew maidservant. You say so, or is it rather about a daughter of Israel? When it says "if he takes another wife" (Exodus 21:10), behold the daughter of Israel is already mentioned; what then does "according to the law of daughters" teach? Scripture speaks of the Hebrew maidservant.

"If he takes another wife" (Exodus 21:10): from here they said, a man is obligated to marry off his young son. And elsewhere what does it say? "And you shall make them known to your children and your children's children" (Deuteronomy 4:9). When are you privileged to see your children's children? When you marry off your children while they are young. "Her food" (she'erah): these are her provisions of food, as it is said "who eat the flesh (she'er) of my people" (Micah 3:3), and it is written "He rained flesh (she'er) upon them like dust." "Her clothing," according to its plain meaning. "Her conjugal right" (onatah): this is the way of the world [marital relations], as it is said "and he lay with her and afflicted (vaye'aneha) her" (Genesis 34:2), the words of Rabbi Yoshiyah. Rabbi Yonatan says: "her food, her clothing" means clothing suited to her flesh: if she was young he shall not give her clothing fit for an old woman, and if she was old he shall not give her clothing fit for a young woman. "And her conjugal right" means he shall not give her clothing of the summer in the rainy season, nor of the rainy season in the summer, but he gives her each in its proper season. From where do we learn her provisions of food? You say it follows by an argument from minor to major: if things that do not sustain life he may not withhold from her, then things that do sustain life, by reason he may not withhold from her. From where do we learn the way of the world? You say it follows from minor to major: if things upon which she was not married at the outset he may not withhold from her, then things upon which she was married at the outset, by reason he may not withhold from her. Rabbi says: "her food" (she'erah), this is the way of the world, as it is said "any man to any of his near kin (she'er besaro)" and it is written "she is the kin (she'er) of your father, she is the kin of your mother" (Leviticus 18:12-13). "Her clothing," according to its plain meaning. "Her conjugal right," these are her provisions of food, as it is said "and He afflicted you (vaye'ankha) and let you hunger" (Deuteronomy 8:3). Rav Yosef taught: "her food" (she'erah), this is closeness of flesh, that he shall not conduct himself with her in the manner of the Persians, who perform their marital relations in their garments. As Rav Huna said: anyone who says "I want it only this way, I in my garment and she in hers," let him divorce her and give the marriage settlement. "He shall not diminish": Rabbi Yoshiyah says, why is this stated? Because it says "if he takes another wife," I might understand Scripture speaks of a daughter of Israel; Scripture says "he shall not diminish" from whom does one diminish? From one to whom they have already given. Rabbi Yonatan says: Scripture speaks of a daughter of Israel. Or is it only about the Hebrew maidservant? When it says "according to the law of daughters he shall do for her," behold the Hebrew maidservant is mentioned; what then does "if he takes another wife" teach? Scripture speaks of a daughter of Israel.

"And if he does not do these three" (Exodus 21:11): the three are designation for yourself, or for your son, or redemption. Or is it perhaps her food, her clothing, and her conjugal right? You say: nothing has been stated here except concerning the Hebrew maidservant, and what does "and if he does not do these three" teach? Designation for yourself, or for your son, or redemption. "Then she shall go free without payment": I might understand free even from the bill of divorce, and how then do I uphold "and he writes for her a bill of divorcement" (Deuteronomy 24:1)? As applying to all other women except the Hebrew maidservant. Or does it apply even to the Hebrew maidservant? Scripture says "and if he does not do these three," she goes free without payment of money, but not free from the bill of divorce. "And she shall go free without payment": when she reaches maturity. "There is no money": during her youth. For one might have reasoned: since she goes out during her youth, she should not go out in her days of maturity. For had only one term been stated I would have said it means the days of maturity, and the reasoning supports it. Since she leaves her father's authority and leaves her master's authority, just as she leaves her father's authority when her status has changed from what it was, when has her status changed from what it was? When she became a young woman and then matured. Therefore both terms were stated, so as not to leave room for a litigant to dispute. "And she shall go free without payment," when she reaches maturity; "there is no money," during her youth. Abba Chanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: "and she shall go free without payment," at maturity; "there is no money," at the appearance of physical signs of puberty. This tells that she goes free by deduction of money. Rabbi Natan says: since the Torah said give money and do not give money, give money before the signs appear, and do not give money once the signs have appeared.