Liberation in the Mishnah
(ב) עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נִקְנֶה בְכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַּשָּׁנִים וּבַיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף. יְתֵרָה עָלָיו אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁקּוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּסִימָנִין. הַנִּרְצָע נִקְנֶה בִרְצִיעָה, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן:
(ג) עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֶּסֶף מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים:
(2) A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document, and he can acquire himself, i.e., he is emancipated, through years, i.e., when he completes his six years of labor, or through the advent of the Jubilee Year, or through the deduction of money. The slave can redeem himself during the six years by paying for his remaining years of slavery. A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than him, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. A slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl, and he acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year or through the death of the master.
(3) A Canaanite slave is acquired by means of money, by means of a document, or by means of the master taking possession of him. And he can acquire himself, i.e., his freedom, by means of money given by others, i.e., other people can give money to his master, and by means of a bill of manumission if he accepts it by himself. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The slave can be freed by means of money given by himself, and by means of a bill of manumission if it is accepted by others, provided that the money he gives belongs to others, not to him.
(ז) אָב וּבְנוֹ שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ, יֵלְכוּ. לֹא שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם יִפָּסֵל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, יִצְטָרֵף הַשֵּׁנִי עִם אַחֵר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אָב וּבְנוֹ וְכָל הַקְּרוֹבִין, כְּשֵׁרִין לְעֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְטוֹבִיָּה הָרוֹפֵא, שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הוּא וּבְנוֹ וְעַבְדּוֹ מְשֻׁחְרָר, וְקִבְּלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּפָסְלוּ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. וּכְשֶׁבָּאוּ לִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, קִבְּלוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת עַבְדּוֹ, וּפָסְלוּ אֶת בְּנוֹ:
(7) If a father and his son saw the new moon, they should both go to the court in Jerusalem. It is not that they can join together to give testimony, for close relatives are disqualified from testifying together, but they both go so that if one of them is disqualified, the second may join together with another witness to testify about the new moon. Rabbi Shimon says: A father and his son and all their relatives are fit to combine together as witnesses for testimony to determine the start of the month. Rabbi Yosei said: There was an incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. The priests accepted him and his son as witnesses and disqualified his slave, for they ruled stringently that the month may be sanctified only on the basis of the testimony of those of Jewish lineage. And when they came before the court, they accepted him and his slave as witnesses and disqualified his son, due to the familial relationship.
~ What is obvious about the slave of Toviah, the doctor?
A bit of the Talmud's view
האי שפחה ה"ד אי דאתיא ב' שערות מאי בעיא גביה אלא לאו דלא אתיא ב' שערות הכא במאי עסקינן במעשר בזמן הזה דרבנן ואמה העבריה בזמן הזה מי איכא והתניא אין עבד עברי נוהג אלא בזמן שהיובל נוהג אלא בעציץ שאינו נקוב דרבנן
The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this maidservant? If she developed two pubic hairs, indicating that she reached majority, what is she doing with the owner of the produce? A Hebrew maidservant is emancipated when she reaches puberty. Rather, is the reference here not to a case where she did not yet develop two pubic hairs? Apparently, a minor can also acquire property on behalf of others. The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? It is with tithes today, which is in effect by rabbinic law, and the Sages ruled leniently in matters of rabbinic law. The Gemara asks: And is there a Hebrew maidservant today? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The provision of a Hebrew slave is in practice only during a period when the Jubilee Year is in practice. Therefore, there have been no Hebrew slaves or maidservants since observance of the Jubilee Year ceased, before the destruction of the First Temple. Rather, it must be that the mishna is referring to a case where the produce grew in an unperforated pot, which one is obligated to tithe by rabbinic law.
~ When was the last Jubilee Year? What does that mean for all the rules regarding Eved Ivri?
אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף מאי חזית דקנסינן ללוקח נקנסיה למוכר א"ל לאו עכברא גנב אלא חורא גנב א"ל אי לאו עכברא חורא מנא ליה מסתברא היכא דאיכא איסורא התם קנסינן: ההוא עבדא דערק מחוצה לארץ לארץ אזל מריה אבתריה אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה נכתוב לך שטרא אדמיה וכתוב ליה גיטא דחירותא ואי לא מפקנא ליה מינך מדרבי אחי ברבי יאשיה דתניא (שמות כג, לג) לא ישבו בארצך פן יחטיאו אותך לי וגו' יכול בעובד כוכבים שקיבל עליו שלא לעבוד עבודת כוכבים הכתוב מדבר ת"ל (דברים כג, טז) לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו אשר ינצל אליך מעם אדוניו מאי תקנתו עמך ישב בקרבך וגו' וקשיא ליה לר' יאשיה האי מעם אדוניו מעם אביו מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבי יאשיה במוכר עבדו לחוצה לארץ הכתוב מדבר וקשיא ליה לרבי אחי ברבי יאשיה האי אשר ינצל אליך אשר ינצל מעמך מיבעי ליה אלא אמר רבי אחי בר' יאשיה בעבד שברח מחו"ל לארץ הכתוב מדבר תניא אידך לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו רבי אומר בלוקח עבד ע"מ לשחררו הכתוב מדבר היכי דמי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דכתב ליה הכי לכשאקחך הרי עצמך קנוי לך מעכשיו רב חסדא ערק ליה עבדא לבי כותאי שלח להו הדרוה ניהלי שלחו ליה לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו (שלח להו (דברים כב, ג) וכן תעשה לחמורו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך שלחו ליה והכתיב לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו) שלח להו ההוא בעבד שברח מחו"ל לארץ וכדרבי אחי ברבי יאשיה ומאי שנא דשלח להו כדר' אחי בר' יאשיה משום דמשמע להו קראי
With regard to the halakha that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael it is the purchaser who loses his money, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to cause you to say that we apply the penalty to the purchaser, in that he is required to emancipate the slave and loses his money; we should apply the penalty to the seller, and he should be required to return the money. Rav Yosef answered Abaye with a parable and said to him: It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals. In other words, a mouse cannot steal anything unless he has a hole for hiding the stolen items. Here too, the slave would not have been sold without the help of the purchaser. The Gemara questions this logic: But if not for the mouse, from where would the hole have the stolen item; since they both contribute to the prohibited act, each of them is deserving of being penalized. Rav Yosef responded to him: It stands to reason that anywhere that the forbidden item, i.e., the slave, is, in this case, with the purchaser, there we should penalize. § The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who fled from his master from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. His master followed him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to the master: We will write a promissory note for his value for you, and you should write a bill of manumission for him. And if you do not do this, I will remove him from you entirely, since he does not have to return to outside of Eretz Yisrael, based on the statement of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the residents of the Land of Canaan: “They shall not dwell in your land lest they make you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods; for they will be a snare to you” (Exodus 23:33). One might have thought that the verse is also speaking of a gentile who accepted upon himself not to engage in idol worship, and is teaching that such a gentile may not dwell in Eretz Yisrael as well; therefore the verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave who escaped to you from his master” (Deuteronomy 23:16). The baraita understands that the verse is speaking in metaphoric terms about a gentile who has come to Eretz Yisrael, escaping his idolatrous past. The baraita continues: What is this gentile’s remedy? “He shall dwell with you in your midst” (Deuteronomy 23:17). This teaches that as long as he accepts upon himself not to engage in idol worship, he may remain in Eretz Yisrael. And the explanation of the verse in the baraita is difficult for Rabbi Yoshiya: This expression employed in the verse: “From his master,” is imprecise if it is speaking about a gentile who abandons idol worship, as it should have stated: From his father, as a father is a more apt metaphor for the religion in which one was raised. Rather, Rabbi Yoshiya explains differently and says: The verse is speaking of one who sells his slave to a Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the continuation of the verse: “He shall dwell with you,” means that he does not go to his new master outside of Eretz Yisrael, but is emancipated and remains in Eretz Yisrael. And the explanation of Rabbi Yoshiya is difficult for Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya: If it is referring to a slave who is sold to one outside of Eretz Yisrael, then this expression: “Who escaped to you,” is not accurate, as he is leaving from Eretz Yisrael, not escaping to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Yoshiya’s explanation, it should have stated: Who escaped from you. Rather, Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, said: The verse is speaking of a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, which indicates that in such a case he may dwell there and is not returned to his master. Based on this statement of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Ami told the master that the slave will in any case be emancipated. It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave” (Deuteronomy 23:16); Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver him to this master, because he is not his slave and he may not treat him as such. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: For example, when he wrote to the slave like this: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. The new master does not take possession of the slave, as he is emancipated immediately upon being purchased. The Gemara relates that Rav Ḥisda’s slave escaped to Bei Kutai, a place where Samaritans lived. He sent a request to the residents of that place: Return him to me. They sent a response to him: The verse states: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave,” so we will not return this slave to you. He sent a response to them: The verse also states with regard to lost items: “And you shall restore it to him…and so you shall do for his donkey and so you shall do for his garment and so you shall do for anything your brother has lost” (Deuteronomy 22:2–3). They sent a response to him again: But isn’t it written: “You shall not deliver to his master a slave”? Rav Ḥisda sent a response to them: That verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and my slave escaped from one location outside of Eretz Yisrael to another location outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And what is different about this case that led him to send a response to them specifically in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and not in accordance with any other interpretation of the verse? The Gemara answers: Because that is how the Samaritans would understand the verse. Samaritans did not generally accept the explanations of the Sages, and this explanation accords with the straightforward reading of the verse, while the other explanations do not.
~ Why does fleeing to the Land of Israel forces the owner of the slave to give him up?
~ Who is being penalized, if a Jew outside of the land sells a slave to a Jew inside the land?
אמר אביי הריני כבן עזאי בשוקי טבריא א"ל ההוא מרבנן לאביי מכדי הני קראי איכא למידרשינהו לקולא ואיכא למידרשינהו לחומרא מאי חזית דדרשינהו לקולא נידרשינהו לחומרא לא סלקא דעתך מדאקיל רחמנא לגביה דתניא (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל ועמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכים והוא ישן על גבי התבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו
When he was in a good mood, Abaye once said: Behold I am like the intellectually sharp ben Azzai, who would regularly expound on the Torah in the markets of Tiberias. I too am ready to answer any question put to me. One of the Sages said to Abaye: After all, with regard to those verses: “Out of the money that he was bought for” and “according to his years,” one could expound them leniently, and assess the cost of redemption at the lower amount. And one could, in equal measure, expound them stringently, i.e., one could say that if a slave was worth more when he was purchased, he pays according to “the money that he was bought for,” and if he increased in value he must pay “according to his years,” i.e., by his present worth. What did you see to cause you to decide to expound them leniently? Let us expound them stringently. Abaye answered: It cannot enter your mind to expound the verses stringently, as indicated from the fact that the Merciful One is lenient with regard to a slave and is concerned about his well-being. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that the slave should be with you, i.e., treated as your equal, in food, meaning that his food must be of the same quality as yours, and with you in drink. The baraita continues: This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread [kibbar], bread from coarse flour mixed with bran, which is low quality. There shall not be a situation in which you drink aged wine and he drinks inferior new wine. There shall not be a situation in which you sleep comfortably on bedding made from soft sheets and he sleeps on straw. From here the Sages stated: Anyone who acquires a Hebrew slave is considered like one who acquires a master for himself, because he must be careful that the slave’s living conditions are equal to his own.
The outlier case of Rabban Gamliel and Tavi
אמר רבי שמעון מעשה בטבי עבדו של רבן גמליאל שהיה ישן תחת המטה ואמר להן רבן גמליאל לזקנים ראיתם טבי עבדי שהוא תלמיד חכם ויודע שעבדים פטורין מן הסוכה לפיכך ישן הוא תחת המטה ולפי דרכינו למדנו שהישן תחת המטה לא יצא ידי חובתו:
§ Rabbi Shimon said, contrary to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda: There was an incident involving Tavi, the Canaanite slave of Rabban Gamliel, who was sleeping beneath the bed, and Rabbi Gamliel lightheartedly said to the Elders: Did you see my slave Tavi, who is a Torah scholar and knows that slaves are exempt from the mitzva of sukka? Since it is a positive, time-bound mitzva, Canaanite slaves, whose status with regard to this halakhic category is like that of women, are exempt from the obligation to fulfill the mitzva of sukka. Therefore, he sleeps under the bed. Rabbi Shimon continued: And by the way, as Rabban Gamliel was not issuing a halakhic ruling, we learned that one who sleeps beneath the bed did not fulfill his obligation.
וּכְשֶׁמֵּת טָבִי עַבְדּוֹ קִבֵּל עָלָיו תַּנְחוּמִין. אָמְרוּ לוֹ תַּלְמִידָיו: לִמַּדְתָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ שֶׁאֵין מְקַבְּלִין תַּנְחוּמִין עַל הָעֲבָדִים? אָמַר לָהֶם: אֵין טָבִי עַבְדִּי כִּשְׁאָר כָּל הָעֲבָדִים, כָּשֵׁר הָיָה.
Another exceptional incident is related: And when his slave, Tavi, died, Rabban Gamliel accepted condolences for his death as one would for a close family member. His students said to him: Have you not taught us, our teacher, that one does not accept condolences for the death of slaves? Rabban Gamliel said to his students: My slave, Tavi, is not like all the rest of the slaves, he was virtuous and it is appropriate to accord him the same respect accorded to a family member.
מכילתא דרבי ישמעאל בא - מסכתא דפסחא פרשה יז
"למען תהיה תורת ה' בפיך"—לא אמרתי אלא במי שהוא חייב בתלמוד תורה. מכאן אמרו הכל חייבין בתפילין חוץ מנשים ועבדים.
מיכל בת כושי היתה מנחת תפילין, אשתו של יונה היתה עולה לרגלים, טבי עבדו של רבן גמליאל היה מניח תפילין:
Mekhilta of R. Yishmael, Bo, Massekhta de-Pisha Parashah 17
Therefore, the verse says: “So that God’s teaching will be in your mouth”—[to teach that Tefillin only applies] to one who is obligated in Torah study. This is the basis for saying that all are obligated in Tefillin except for women and slaves.
Michal bat Kushi used to put on Tefillin, Yonah’s wife used to make the festival pilgrimage, Tavi, Rabban Gamliel’s slave used to put on Tefillin.
אֵין צוֹלִין אֶת הַפֶּסַח וְכוּ׳. מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?! חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְאִם אַסְכָּלָא מְנוּקֶּבֶת — מוּתָּר. וְאָמַר רַבִּי צָדוֹק, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְטָבִי עַבְדּוֹ: צֵא וּצְלֵה לָנוּ אֶת הַפֶּסַח עַל הָאַסְכָּלָא מְנוּקֶּבֶת.
It was taught in the mishna that one may not roast the Paschal lamb on a grill. Subsequently, the mishna quotes an incident in which Rabban Gamliel instructed his servant to roast the Paschal lamb for him on a grill. The Gemara expresses surprise: Was an incident cited to contradict what was previously stated? The Gemara responds: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: And if it is a perforated grill, so that the fire reaches each part of the meat and the animal will not be roasted from the heat of the grill itself, it is permitted. And with regard to this Rabbi Tzadok said that there was an incident with Rabban Gamliel, who said to his slave Tavi: Go and roast the Paschal lamb for us on the perforated grill.
אוי להם לרשעים לא דיין שמחייבין עצמן אלא שמחייבין לבניהם ולבני בניהם עד סוף כל הדורות הרבה בנים היו לו לכנען שראויין ליסמך כטבי עבדו של רבן גמליאל אלא שחובת אביהם גרמה להן
On the other hand: Woe to the wicked, as not only do they render themselves liable, but they also render their children and children’s children liable until the end of all generations. For example, Canaan had many children who deserved to be ordained as rabbis and instructors of the public due to their great stature in Torah study, like Tavi, the servant of Rabban Gamliel, who was famous for his wisdom; but their father’s liability caused them to remain as slaves.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: תִּשְׁעָה וְעֶבֶד — מִצְטָרְפִין. מֵיתִיבִי: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר שֶׁנִּכְנַס לְבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְלֹא מָצָא עֲשָׂרָה, וְשִׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ וְהִשְׁלִימוֹ לַעֲשָׂרָה. שִׁחְרֵר — אִין, לֹא שִׁחְרֵר — לָא. תְּרֵי אִיצְטְרִיכוּ, שַׁחְרֵר חַד וְנָפֵיק בְּחַד. וְהֵיכִי עָבֵיד הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הַמְשַׁחְרֵר עַבְדּוֹ עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְעֹלָם בָּהֶם תַּעֲבֹדוּ״? לִדְבַר מִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי: מִצְוָה הַבָּאָה בַּעֲבֵרָה הִיא! — מִצְוָה דְרַבִּים שָׁאנֵי.
On the subject of completing a zimmun, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Nine Jews and a slave join together to form a zimmun of ten. The Gemara raises an objection: There was an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who entered a synagogue and did not find a quorum of ten, and he liberated his slave and he completed the quorum of ten. From this we may infer that if he freed his slave, yes, he may join the quorum of ten, but if he did not free him, no, he may not join the quorum of ten. The Gemara responds: In that case, two were required to complete the quorum; Rabbi Eliezer freed one and fulfilled his obligation with another one, who completed the quorum of ten without being freed. With regard to this incident, the Gemara asks: How did he do that? Didn’t Rav Yehuda say: Anyone who frees his Canaanite slave violates a positive mitzva, as it is stated with regard to Canaanite slaves: “You will keep them as an inheritance for your children after you, to hold as a possession; they will serve as bondsmen for you forever” (Leviticus 25:46)? How, then, could Rabbi Eliezer have freed his slave? The Gemara answers: The case of a mitzva is different. The Gemara asks: It is a mitzva that comes through a transgression, and a mitzva fulfilled in that manner is inherently flawed. The Gemara responds: A mitzva that benefits the many is different, and one may free his slave for that purpose.
גופא אמר רב הונא אמר רב מודה בקנס ואח"כ באו עדים פטור: איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא מעשה בר"ג שסימא את עין טבי עבדו והיה שמח שמחה גדולה מצאו לר' יהושע אמר לו אי אתה יודע שטבי עבדי יצא לחירות אמר לו למה א"ל שסמיתי את עינו אמר לו אין בדבריך כלום שכבר אין לו עדים
Since Rav Huna’s halakha was mentioned, the Gemara discusses in detail the matter itself. Rav Huna says that Rav says: One who admits he is liable to pay a fine is exempt from payment, even if afterward witnesses come and testify to his liability. Rav Ḥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who blinded the eye of his Canaanite slave Tavi, and he experienced great joy as a result. Rabban Gamliel had long wanted to emancipate Tavi, but it is generally prohibited to emancipate a Canaanite slave. The injury provided a fortuitous opportunity for Rabban Gamliel to emancipate his slave, as blinding the eye of one’s slave results in his emancipation (see Exodus 21:27). Rabban Gamliel encountered Rabbi Yehoshua and said to him: Do you know that my slave Tavi was emancipated? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Why? What circumstances enabled you to emancipate him? Rabban Gamliel said to him: I was able to do so, as I blinded his eye. Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabban Gamliel: Your statement is nothing, and is not grounds for his emancipation, as he has no witnesses who can testify that you did this to him. The principle is that one does not pay a fine based on his own admission. One pays a fine only based on the testimony of witnesses. The requirement to emancipate one’s slave after injuring his eye is a type of fine.
וַיְדַבֵּר ה' אֶל משֶׁה, וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ (ויקרא כה, א יד), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי יח, כא): מָוֶת וְחַיִּים בְּיַד לָשׁוֹן, תַּרְגוּם עֲקִילַס, מִיצְטְרָא מָכִירִין, מָוֶת מִכָּאן וְחַיִּים מִכָּאן. בַּר סִירָא אָמַר הָיְתָה לְפָנָיו גַּחֶלֶת וְנָפַח בָּהּ וּבָעֲרָהּ, רָקַק בָּהּ וְכָבַת. אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי הָיָה כִּכָּר טָבוּל, אֲכָלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא עִשְּׂרוֹ, מָוֶת בְּיַד לָשׁוֹן. עִשְּׂרוֹ וַאֲכָלוֹ, חַיִּים בְּיַד לָשׁוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא הָיְתָה לְפָנָיו כַּלְכָּלָה שֶׁל תְּאֵנִים, אֲכָלָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא עִשְּׂרָהּ, מָוֶת בְּיַד לָשׁוֹן. עִשְּׂרָהּ וַאֲכָלָהּ, חַיִּים בְּיַד לָשׁוֹן. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְטָבִי עַבְדֵיהּ פּוּק זְבֵין לִי צֵדוּ טָבָא מִן שׁוּקָא, נָפַק זָבַן לֵיהּ לִשָּׁן, אָמַר לֵיהּ פּוּק זְבֵין לִי צֵדוּ בִּישָׁא מִן שׁוּקָא, נָפַק זָבַן לֵיהּ לִשָּׁן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַהוּ דֵּין דְּכַד אֲנָא אָמַר לָךְ צֵדוּ טָבָא אַתְּ זָבַן לִי לִשָּׁן, וְכַד אֲנָא אֲמַר לָךְ צֵדוּ בִּישָׁא אַתְּ זָבַן לִי לִשָּׁן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִינָּהּ טָבְתָּא וּמִינָהּ בִּישְׁתָּא, כַּד הֲוָה טַב לֵית טָבָה מִנֵּיהּ, וְכַד בִּישׁ לֵית בִּישׁ מִנֵּיהּ. רַבִּי עָשָׂה סְעוּדָה לְתַלְמִידָיו, הֵבִיא לִפְנֵיהֶם לְשׁוֹנוֹת רַכִּים וּלְשׁוֹנוֹת קָשִׁים, הִתְחִילוּ בּוֹרְרִין בָּרַכִּים וּמַנִּיחִין הַקָּשִׁים, אָמַר לָהֶם דְּעוּ מָה אַתֶּם עוֹשִׂין כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאַתֶּם בּוֹרְרִין אֶת הָרַכִּין וּמַנִּיחִין אֶת הַקָּשִׁים כָּךְ יִהְיֶה לְשׁוֹנְכֶם רַךְ אֵלּוּ לָאֵלּוּ, לְפִיכָךְ משֶׁה מַזְהִיר אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר.
"And Ad-nai said to Moshe... 'When you sell goods to your people [you shall not wrong one another]' (Leviticus 25:1-14)." Another verse: "Life and death and in the hand of the tongue", the translation of Onkelos 'mystromakerion' [an eating utensil, a side is a spoon the other a knife] death from this side and life from this side. Bar Sira said: 'there is a fiery coal in front of him, if he blows on it it catches fire, if he spits he puts it out.' Rabbi Yannai said: if he had a piece of bread in front of him and ate it without tithing, this is 'death by the hand of the tongue'; if he tithed it before eating, this is 'life by the hand of the tongue.' Said Rabbi Chiya bar Abba: If he had a basket of figs. If he ate them before he separated off tithes, then it is death by the hand of the tongue. If he separated off tithes and then ate, it is life by the hand of the tongue. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said to Tavi his servant, "go purchase for me the best food from the market." He went and bought for him a tongue. He said to him "go purchase for me the worse food from the market." He went out and bought him a tongue. He said to him, "What is this? When I say to you to the best food, you buy me a tongue, and when I say to you the worst food, you [also] buy me tongue!" [Tavi] said to him, this is the best and this is the worst! When it is good, there is none better than it, and when it is bad, there is no worse than it." Rabbi made a feast for his students, and brought before them tender tongues and tough tongues. They began to choose for themselves the tender tongues and left alone the tough tongues. He said to them, "Know what you are doing! Just as you are choosing the tender [tongues] and leaving alone the tough ones, so shall your own tongues be with one another. Thefore Moshe warned Israel, 'and when you sell goods... [you shall not wrong one another]'
(ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו רשות דברי רבי ישמעאל ר' עקיבא אומר חובה
The verse states: “Of them may you take your bondmen forever” (Leviticus 25:46), i.e., keeping one’s Canaanite slave forever, is optional, this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. One is not enjoined against emancipating a Canaanite slave, but one is permitted to keep his Canaanite slaves forever. Rabbi Akiva says: It is mandatory, and it is prohibited for one to free his Canaanite slave.
לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, כָּאן — כְּמִשְׁנָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין — עוֹבֵד אֶת רַבּוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ יוֹם אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי בֵּית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים:
The Gemara answers that this is not difficult: Here, the baraita that rules that the half slave may partake neither of his own nor of his master’s lamb, is in accordance with the original version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s opinion that the master retains his rights to the half slave. There, the mishna that allows the half slave to partake of his own lamb, is in accordance with the ultimate version of the mishna, which cites Beit Hillel’s revised opinion, according to which the status of the half slave is altered such that he is considered like a free man as pertains to his inclusion in a group for the Paschal lamb. As we learned in a mishna: One who is half slave and half free man serves his master one day and himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say:
תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּקַּנְתֶּם. לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, לִישָּׂא בַּת חוֹרִין אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל — שֶׁעֲדַיִין חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד. יִבְטַל, וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ (אֶלָּא) לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״. אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו.
You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is not able to marry a maidservant, since half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is also not able to marry a free woman, since half of him is still a slave, and a Jewish woman may not marry a Canaanite slave. And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but is it not true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the improvement of the world we force his master to make him a free man, and the slave writes a bill accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. This was the original version of the mishna.
וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִילֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי.
The ultimate version of the mishna records the retraction of Beit Hillel: And Beit Hillel retracted its position and ruled like Beit Shammai.
שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם אַנְשֵׁי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם: אַל תַּרְבֶּה בִּגְנוּת, מִשּׁוּם מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה. בִּתְּךָ בָּגְרָה — שַׁחְרֵר עַבְדְּךָ וְתֵן לָהּ. וֶהֱוֵי זָהִיר בְּאִשְׁתְּךָ מֵחֲתָנָהּ הָרִאשׁוֹן. מַאי טַעְמָא? רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם עֶרְוָה, רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מִשּׁוּם מָמוֹן. הָא וְהָא אִיתַנְהוּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful act in public, because of the incident that occurred involving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If your daughter has grown up, it is better to free your Canaanite slave and give him to her than to leave her to find a husband on her own. And be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law, as she is especially fond of him. What is the reason for this warning? Rav Ḥisda said: Due to the possibility of licentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due to the fact that she might give him all your money and leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since either of these could happen, it is best to be prudent.