בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד יִבָּטֵל וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לֹא תוֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי It is also not possible for him to marry a free woman, as he is still a half-slave. If you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn’t it 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 betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, that a half-slave must be set free.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן הַמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ רַבִּי אוֹמֵר קָנָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא קָנָה GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to a master who emancipates only half of his slave, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, i.e., the transaction is complete and half of the slave is emancipated, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself.
אָמַר רַבָּה מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּשְׁטָר דְּרַבִּי סָבַר וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ Rabba said: Their dispute pertains only to a case where the master emancipated him with a bill of manumission, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: In the context of a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave, the Torah writes that neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, though the man is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the woman had been emancipated, she would be a regular married woman, and they would incur the death penalty for their act of intercourse. In describing the woman in that case, the Torah writes: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: “And not at all redeemed,” and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: “Nor was freedom given her.”
מַקִּישׁ שְׁטָר לְכֶסֶף מָה כֶּסֶף בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ אַף שְׁטָר נָמֵי בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ The verse juxtaposes the freeing of a slave via a bill of manumission to the freeing of a slave via payment of money, to teach that just as with money the slave can free either all of him or half of him, for if he were to pay half of his value to the master he would be half-redeemed, so too, by receiving a bill of manumission either all of him or half of him can be emancipated.
וְרַבָּנַן גָּמְרִי לָהּ לָהּ מֵאִשָּׁה מָה אִשָּׁה חֶצְיָהּ לֹא אַף עֶבֶד נָמֵי חֶצְיוֹ לֹא אֲבָל בְּכֶסֶף דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קָנָה פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה And the Rabbis derive their opinion, that a slave cannot acquire half of his freedom via a bill of manumission, from a verbal analogy of the word “her [lah]” written here: “Nor was freedom given to her [lah]” (Leviticus 19:20), and the word “her [lah]” written with regard to a man who divorces a woman: “And he writes her [lah] a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as in the case of a woman, one is not able to divorce half of her with a bill of divorce, so too, in the case of a slave, one is not able to emancipate half of him with a bill of manumission. However, with regard to a slave who frees himself by giving money, everyone agrees that the slave acquires half of himself, and a female slave would also be partially redeemed but not fully redeemed.
לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמָר סָבַר הֶקֵּישָׁא עֲדִיף וּמָר סָבַר גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה עֲדִיפָא The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and consequently he derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha stated in the same verse concerning redemption via money. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a verbal analogy is preferable and therefore derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha of the divorce of a woman, where the verse employs an analogous term.
לָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה עֲדִיפָא וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ מָה לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּכֶסֶף תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁיּוֹצֵא בְּכֶסֶף The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that generally a verbal analogy is preferable, but it is different here because the verbal analogy can be refuted by stating the following: What is unique about a woman is that she cannot leave a marriage via money at all, shall you say that one should compare her case to that of a slave, who does leave his servitude via money? Since there are differences between divorce and emancipation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha from a juxtaposition.
וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּכֶסֶף דְּרַבִּי סָבַר וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא קָנָה And Rav Yosef said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis pertains only to a case where the slave was freed via money, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The halakha that a slave can be half-freed can be derived from the phrase: “And not at all redeemed [vehofde lo nifdata]” (Leviticus 19:20), indicating that she has been partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. And the Rabbis hold: The Torah spoke in the language of people, and the repetition of the verb in the verse is not to be used as a source for deriving a halakha. However, when the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission, everyone agrees that the slave has not acquired himself and remains a full slave.
מֵיתִיבִי הַמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ בִּשְׁטָר רַבִּי אוֹמֵר קָנָה וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים לֹא קָנָה תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף תְּיוּבְתָּא The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef’s statement based on what was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave with a bill of manumission, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation.
(נִימָא) בִּשְׁטָר הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי אֲבָל בְּכֶסֶף לָא פְּלִיגִי לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּתַרְתֵּי The Gemara suggests: In this baraita, they disagree in a case where the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. However, they do not explicitly disagree in a case where the slave is half-redeemed with money. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef with regard to two aspects: First, as above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he is half-freed via a bill of manumission; second, according to his statement, the dispute pertains to redeeming with money, yet the baraita gives no indication that the Rabbis would hold that the slave can be half-redeemed with money?
אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף פְּלִיגִי בִּשְׁטָר וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּכֶסֶף וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּשְׁטָר לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי The Gemara rejects this: Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, and the same is true, that they would disagree, with regard to redeeming with money. And this, that they explicitly disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a slave can be half-freed even by receiving a bill of manumission.
וְלִיפְלְגֻי בְּכֶסֶף וּלְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ The Gemara asks: And let them disagree with regard to redeeming with money, and to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that they hold he cannot be half-freed even through redeeming with money. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency, and therefore the dispute is presented as it is.
תָּא שְׁמַע וְהׇפְדֵּה יָכוֹל לַכֹּל תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אִי לֹא נִפְדָּתָה יָכוֹל לַכֹּל תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהׇפְדֵּה הָא כֵּיצַד פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to this discussion based on a baraita: The verse in Leviticus employs the double expression “vehofde lo nifdata,” literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The baraita analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only “and redeemed,” one might have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states “not redeemed.” If it had stated only “not redeemed,” one might have thought that it means an entirely unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, the verse states “and redeemed.” How can these texts be reconciled? The verse is discussing a case where she is partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. This was accomplished via money or an equivalent value of money.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף בִּשְׁטָר מִנַּיִן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת מָה לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁטָר אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁטָר The baraita continues. And I have derived only that she can be partially redeemed via money. From where do I derive that she can also be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20), and later on, in the case of divorce, it states: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as later on freedom is granted via a bill of divorce, so too here, a maidservant is freed via a bill of manumission.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֶצְיוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בִּשְׁטָר חֶצְיוֹ בִּשְׁטָר מִנַּיִן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ מַקִּישׁ שְׁטָר לְכֶסֶף מָה כֶּסֶף בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ אַף שְׁטָר נָמֵי בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ I have derived only that half of a slave can be redeemed via money, as detailed above, or that all of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission. From where do I derive that half of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: “And not at all redeemed nor was freedom given her,” and thereby juxtaposes a bill of manumission to money. Just as a slave can be either fully redeemed or half-redeemed via money, so too, he can be either fully emancipated or half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. This marks the end of the baraita.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בָּתַר דְּאִיתּוֹתַב הָא מַנִּי רַבִּי הִיא אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה רֵישָׁא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי The Gemara analyzes the baraita in light of the earlier opinions. Granted, according to Rav Yosef after he was conclusively refuted, who now holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree both with regard to money and a bill of manumission, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for half of the slave is freed, whether via money or a bill of manumission. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a bill of manumission, but everyone agrees that the slave can redeem half of himself with money, do all agree with the statement of the first clause, but the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?
אָמַר לָךְ רַבָּה אִין רֵישָׁא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר רַבִּי הִיא Rabba could have said to you: Yes, all agree with the statement of the first clause, and the last clause is in accordance with only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said: This baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.
אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּכֶסֶף וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֶלָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף לֵימָא רַבִּי הִיא וְלָא רַבָּנַן אָמַר רָבִינָא The Gemara asks: But with regard to the mishna that teaches: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman, granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, he establishes the mishna as referring to a case where the slave was half-redeemed with money, and everyone agrees that this is effective. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, the Rabbis hold that a slave cannot be half-free, regardless of whether he is freed via money or a bill of manumission. Ravina said:
