בעובד כוכבים שישנו תחת ידך או אינו אלא בעובד כוכבים שאינו תחת ידך אמרת וכי מה אפשר לעשות לו הא אין הכתוב מדבר אלא בעובד כוכבים שישנו תחת ידך :

This indicates that the verse is stated with regard to a gentile who is under your authority, i.e., one who is subject to Jewish rule. Or perhaps you will say that the verse is stated only with regard to a gentile who is not under your authority. This is not possible, as you say: But what can be done to him to compel him to obey the Torah’s commands? Consequently, the verse must be speaking of nothing other than a gentile who is under your authority.

ובשטר : מנלן אמר עולא אמר קרא (שמות כא, י) אם אחרת יקח לו הקישה הכתוב לאחרת מה אחרת מקניא בשטר אף אמה העבריה מקניא בשטר

§ The mishna teaches: A Hebrew slave can be acquired by his master through money or through a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that he can be acquired through a document? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “If he takes himself another wife” (Exodus 21:10). The verse thereby juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to another woman who is betrothed: Just as another woman can be acquired by her husband through a document (see 2a), so too, a Hebrew maidservant can be acquired through a document.

הניחא למ"ד שטר אמה העבריה אדון כותבו אלא למ"ד אב כותבו מאי איכא למימר דאיתמר שטר אמה העבריה מי כותבו רב הונא אמר אדון כותבו רב חסדא אמר אב כותבו הניחא לרב הונא אלא לרב חסדא מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the master writes the document of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a betrothal document is written by the husband. But according the one who says that the father writes it, in the manner of a document of sale, what can be said? According to that opinion, the document of a Hebrew maidservant is not similar to a betrothal document. As it was stated that amora’im disagreed about this matter: With regard to the document of a Hebrew maidservant, who writes it? Rav Huna says: The master writes it. Rav Ḥisda says: The father writes it. This works out well according to the opinion of Rav Huna, but according to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, what can be said?

אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (שמות כא, ז) לא תצא כצאת העבדים אבל נקנית היא כקנין עבדים ומאי ניהו שטר

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that this halakha is derived from a different source. The verse states with regard to a Hebrew maidservant: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7). One can infer: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves. And what is this mode of acquisition? It is a document.

ואימא אבל נקנית היא כקנין עבדים ומאי ניהו חזקה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם אותם בחזקה ולא אחר בחזקה

The Gemara asks: But one can say that the inference should be a different one: But she can be acquired in the manner of the acquisition of Canaanite male slaves, and what is this mode of acquisition? It is possession. The Gemara answers that one cannot interpret that verse in this manner, as the verse states with regard to Canaanite slaves: “And you shall bequeath them to your children after you” (Leviticus 25:46), which indicates that you can acquire only them, i.e., Canaanite slaves, through possession, like an inherited tract of land, but other slaves cannot be acquired through possession.

ואימא אותם בשטר ולא אחר בשטר הכתיב לא תצא כצאת העבדים ומה ראית

The Gemara asks: But if so, one can equally say that they, Canaanite slaves, can be acquired through a document, but others cannot be acquired through a document. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7), and this is explained to mean that she, like other slaves, can be acquired through a document. The Gemara asks: Since these two verses can be explained in either manner, what did you see that led you to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave with regard to a document, and what led you to differentiate her from a Canaanite slave with regard to acquisition through possession? Perhaps the opposite should be the case, i.e., she is similar to a Canaanite slave with regard to possession and differs from him concerning acquisition through a document?

מסתברא שטר ה"ל לרבויי שכן מוציאה בבת ישראל אדרבה חזקה ה"ל לרבויי שכן קונה בנכסי הגר באישות מיהת לא אשכחן אי בעית אימא להכי אהני אם אחרת

The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that a document should be included in the acquisition of a slave, as a document is powerful in that it can release a Jewish woman, in the form of a bill of divorce. The Gemara rejects this argument: On the contrary, possession should be included, as it can effect acquisition in the case of the property of a convert who died without leaving heirs, whereas no other mode can be used to acquire such property. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, with regard to marriage, in any event, one does not find acquisition by means of possession. If you wish, say another answer: It is to that end, i.e., to determine in which way to compare a Hebrew maidservant to a Canaanite slave, that the verse “if he takes another,” is effective, as it indicates that the acquisition of a Hebrew maidservant includes a mode of acquisition used in betrothal, i.e., a document.

ורב הונא האי לא תצא כצאת העבדים מאי דריש ביה ההוא מיבעי ליה שאינה יוצאה בראשי אברים כעבד ורב חסדא א"כ לכתוב קרא לא תצא כעבדים מאי כצאת העבדים ש"מ תרתי :

The Gemara asks: And Rav Huna, what does he learn from this verse: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7)? The Gemara answers: He requires that verse to teach that she is not released on account of an injury to the extremities like a Canaanite slave. If a master injures one of her limbs she is not emancipated, as explained in greater detail below. The Gemara asks: And Rav Ḥisda, from where does he derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: If so, that it is teaching only one halakha, let the verse write: She shall not go out as the men slaves. What is the reason for the additional term “as the men slaves do”? Conclude two conclusions from it: She is not freed due to injured limbs, and like a slave, she too can be acquired by means of a document.

וקונה את עצמו בשנים : דכתיב (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד ובשביעית וגו' :

§ The mishna teaches: And a Hebrew slave can acquire himself after six years of work. The Gemara cites the source for this halakha: As it is written: “Six years he shall labor; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing” (Exodus 21:2).

ביובל : דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מ) עד שנת היובל יעבד עמך :

§ The mishna further states that a Hebrew slave is emancipated in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “He shall labor with you until the Jubilee Year” (Leviticus 25:40).

בגרעון כסף : אמר חזקיה דאמר קרא (שמות כא, ח) והפדה מלמד שמגרע פדיונה ויוצאה תנא וקונה את עצמו בכסף ובשוה כסף ובשטר

§ The mishna teaches that a Hebrew slave can be freed through the deduction of money. Ḥizkiyya says that the reason is that the verse states: “Then he shall let her be redeemed” (Exodus 21:8), which teaches that if she acquires money and wishes to be emancipated before her time is complete, she deducts the value of the years that she has not yet worked from the cost of her redemption, and is emancipated. The same halakha applies to a slave. A tanna taught: And a slave can acquire himself with money, with an item worth money, and with a document.

בשלמא כסף דכתיב (ויקרא כה, נא) מכסף מקנתו שוה כסף נמי (ויקרא כה, נא) ישיב גאולתו אמר רחמנא לרבות שוה כסף ככסף אלא האי שטר ה"ד אילימא דכתב ליה שטרא אדמיה היינו כסף

The Gemara comments: Granted, he can be acquired through money, as it is written: “Out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51). Likewise, it is also clear that he can be acquired with an item worth money, as the Merciful One states: “He shall give back the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:51), which serves to include an item of monetary value, which is considered like money. In other words, any item of value can be used to redeem a slave. But with regard to this document mentioned here, what are the circumstances? If we say that the slave wrote a promissory note for his own money, that is the same as money. What is the difference between the two cases?

אלא שיחרור שטר למה לי לימא ליה באפי תרי זיל א"נ באפי בי דינא זיל אמר רבא זאת אומרת עבד עברי גופו קנוי והרב שמחל על גרעונו אין גרעונו מחול :

Rather, this is referring to a document of manumission written by the master when the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: Why do I need a document for this purpose? Let him say in the presence of two witnesses: Go free. Alternatively, let him say before a court: Go free. Rava says: That is to say that the body of a Hebrew slave is owned by his master, and this is not merely a monetary debt. And in the case of a master who relinquishes his deduction, i.e., the money that the slave must return for the years he has not yet served, his deduction is not relinquished. Although one can relinquish a monetary debt verbally, this is insufficient to release a slave whose body is owned by his master. A document is required to effect his freedom.

יתירה עליו אמה העבריה : אמר ר"ל אמה העבריה קונה את עצמה במיתת האב מרשות אדון מק"ו ומה סימנין שאין מוציאין מרשות אב מוציאין מרשות אדון מיתה שמוציאה מרשות אב אינו דין שמוציאה מרשות אדון

§ The mishna teaches that a Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. Reish Lakish says: A Hebrew maidservant acquires herself from the master’s authority through the death of her father. This is derived through an a fortiori inference: If signs indicating puberty, which do not release her from her father’s authority, as, although she develops signs of puberty she remains under her father’s authority with regard to certain matters, nevertheless release her from the master’s authority, is it not logical that death, which releases her entirely from her father’s authority, should release her from her master’s authority?

מיתיבי רב הושעיא יתירה עליו אמה העבריה שקונה את עצמה בסימנין ואם איתא ניתני נמי מיתת האב תנא ושייר

Rav Hoshaya raises an objection from the mishna: A Hebrew maidservant has one mode of emancipation more than a Hebrew slave, as she acquires herself through signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she also acquires herself through her father’s death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the mishna teach also that she is released through the death of the father. The Gemara answers: The absence of an explicit statement is not proof, as the mishna taught one difference between a male slave and a maidservant and omitted others.

מאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר מיתת האדון אי משום מיתת האדון לאו שיורא הוא דכיון דאיכא נמי באיש לא קתני

The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? The tanna would certainly not leave out only one halakha. The Gemara answers: The tanna omitted the death of the master. In the event of the master’s death, the Hebrew maidservant is emancipated and is not inherited by the master’s heirs. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If it is due to the death of the master, that is not an omission. The reason is that since there is also a similar halakha with regard to a man, i.e., a pierced slave, the mishna does not teach this case.

ואלא ניתני תנא דבר שיש לו קצבה קתני דבר שאין לו קצבה לא קתני

But if so, the question remains: Rather, let it teach that she is emancipated through the death of her father. The Gemara answers: The tanna in the mishna teaches a matter that has a set time, and he does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, e.g., the death of her father.

והא סימנין דאין להם קצבה וקתני אמר רב ספרא אין להם קצבה למעלה אבל יש להם קצבה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, as young women exhibit these signs of puberty at different ages, and yet it teaches this mode of emancipation anyway. Rav Safra says: Admittedly, these signs have no maximum set time, as once she reaches the age of twelve she is emancipated whenever she develops these signs, but they do have a set time