Kiddushin 16bקידושין ט״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Kiddushin 16b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
16bט״ז ב

למטה

with regard to the minimum age at which these signs are taken into consideration. In other words, there is a lower limit, as any signs of puberty before a certain age are ignored.

דתניא בן תשע שנים שהביא שתי שערות שומא מבן ט' שנים ויום אחד עד בן י"ב שנה ויום אחד ועודן בו שומא ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר סימן בן י"ג שנה ויום אחד דברי הכל סימן

As it is taught in a baraita: Everyone agrees with regard to a nine-year-old boy who developed two pubic hairs that this is not considered a sign of adulthood, as they are treated as hairs that grow on a mole. From the age of nine years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day, even if they are still on him and have not fallen out, this is still considered a mole. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: It is a sign indicating puberty. If he is thirteen years and one day old and grows two hairs, everyone agrees that this is a sign indicating puberty.

מתיב רב ששת ר' שמעון אומר ד' מעניקים להם ג' באיש וג' באשה ואי אתה יכול לומר ד' באחד לפי שאין סימנים באיש ואין רציעה באשה

Rav Sheshet raises an objection: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating slaves, and when they are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these, three apply to a man, i.e., a Hebrew slave, and three apply to a woman, a Hebrew maidservant. And you cannot say that there are four ways for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing the ear for a woman. Consequently, there are only three modes of emancipation for each.

ואם איתא ניתני נמי מיתת אב וכ"ת ה"נ תני ושייר והא ארבעה קתני וכי תימא תנא דבר שיש לו קצבה קתני ודבר שאין לו קצבה לא קתני והא סימנין דאין להם קצבה וקתני

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: And if it is so that a Hebrew maidservant acquires herself through her father’s death, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let him teach also that a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated at the death of the father. And if you would say, here too he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and a Hebrew maidservant and omitted others, this cannot be the case, as he teaches: There are four ways of emancipating slaves. The mention of a number indicates that there is a set number of ways. And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, as there is the halakha of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it.

וכי תימא ה"נ כדרב ספרא והאיכא מיתת אדון דאין להם קצבה וקתני מיתת אדון נמי לא קתני

And if you would say that here, too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra, that signs have a minimum set time, there is still the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. The Gemara answers: The death of the master is not taught either, i.e., this mode of emancipation is not counted among the four modes mentioned in the baraita.

ואלא ארבעה מאי ניהו שנים ויובל ויובל של רציעה ואמה העבריה בסימנים

The Gemara asks: But if you do not count the death of the master, what are these four methods? The Gemara answers: A Hebrew slave or maidservant is emancipated after serving six years and in the Jubilee Year, even if it occurs within those six years. And the Jubilee Year also emancipates a slave, even after the act of piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl extended his term of slavery, and a Hebrew maidservant is emancipated with signs indicating puberty.

ה"נ מסתברא דקתני סיפא אי אתה יכול לומר ארבעה באחד מהם לפי שאין סימנים באיש ואין רציעה באשה ואם איתא באשה מיהא משכחת לה ארבעה שמע מינה

The Gemara adds: So too, it is reasonable that this is the correct interpretation of the baraita, as it teaches in the last clause: You cannot say that there are four modes for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no emancipation through piercing for a woman. And if it is so that the death of the master is included, in the case of a woman, at least, you find four ways that she can be freed: Six years of service, the Jubilee Year, signs of puberty, and the death of the master. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the baraita that it is so.

מתיב רב עמרם ואלו מעניקים להם היוצא בשנים וביובל ובמיתת האדון ואמה העבריה בסימנים ואם איתא ניתני נמי מיתת אב וכי תימא תנא ושייר והא אלו קתני

Rav Amram also raises an objection against the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita: And these are the slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating puberty. And if it is so that she is emancipated through her father’s death as well, as claimed by Reish Lakish, let the baraita also teach that she is released through the death of the father. And if you would say, here too, he taught some differences between a Hebrew slave and maidservant and omitted others, he teaches: These, which indicates that this halakha applies only to a slave freed in these ways and no others.

וכי תימא דבר שיש לו קצבה קתני דבר שאין לו קצבה לא קתני והא סימנין דאין להם קצבה וקתני וכי תימא ה"נ כדרב ספרא האיכא מיתת אדון תיובתא דריש לקיש תיובתא

And if you would say that the tanna teaches a matter that has a set time and does not teach a matter that does not have a set time, but isn’t there the case of signs indicating puberty, which do not have a set time, and nevertheless he teaches it. And if you would say that here too, this is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Safra that signs have a minimum set time, there is the death of the master, which does not have a set time, and yet he taught it. Therefore, this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish. The Gemara affirms: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

והא ריש לקיש ק"ו אמר קל וחומר פריכא היא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לסימנין שנשתנה הגוף תאמר במיתת אב שכן לא נשתנה הגוף

The Gemara asks: But the ruling of Reish Lakish is based on an a fortiori inference, and nothing has been said to contradict his reasoning. The Gemara answers: The a fortiori inference is refutable, because it can be refuted in the following manner: What is unique about signs indicating puberty is that they indicate that her body has changed, and perhaps she is emancipated because she is now considered a different person. Will you say the same with regard to the death of the father, as her body has not changed?

תני חדא ענק עבד עברי לעצמו וענק אמה העבריה לעצמה ותניא אידך ענק אמה העבריה ומציאתה לאביה ואין לרבה אלא שכר בטלה בלבד

It is taught in one baraita: The severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew slave when he is emancipated is given to the slave himself, and the severance gift bestowed upon a Hebrew maidservant is given to the maidservant herself. And it is taught in another baraita: The severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant and any lost items she finds belong to her father, and her master has only the reimbursement for her lost time. He is paid the money he would have earned if she had been working instead of carrying home the items she found.

מאי לאו הא דנפקא בסימנים והא דנפקא לה במיתת אב

The Gemara suggests: What, is it not correct to say that the difference between the two baraitot is that this baraita, which says that the severance gift is given to her father, is referring to when she leaves through signs indicating puberty, as she is a young woman and still under the authority of her father with regard to certain matters, and this baraita, which states that the severance gift is given to her, is referring to a case when she leaves through the death of the father. Since she does not have a father she keeps the severance gift herself. This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Reish Lakish, that she is emancipated through the death of her father, and it contradicts the conclusion that his ruling should be rejected.

לא אידי ואידי דנפקא לה בסימנין ולא קשיא הא דאיתיה לאב הא דליתיה לאב

The Gemara rejects this claim: No, both this baraita and that baraita are referring to a maidservant who left through signs indicating puberty, and it is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where there is a father who can take the gift, and this baraita is referring to a case where there is no father, i.e., he died before she developed the signs of puberty. In that case she receives the severance gift herself.

בשלמא ענק אמה העבריה לעצמה למעוטי אחין דתניא (ויקרא כה, מו) והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם אותם לבניכם ולא בנותיכם לבניכם מכאן שאין אדם מוריש זכות בתו לבנו

The Gemara comments: Granted, one can understand the baraita that taught that the severance gift of a Hebrew maidservant is for herself, as this serves to exclude the maidservant’s brothers. These brothers do not receive the gifts after her father’s death, as it is taught in a baraita: “And you shall bequeath them to your children after you” (Leviticus 25:46). This verse indicates that they, Canaanite slaves, are bequeathed to your sons, but your daughters are not bequeathed to your sons. From here it is derived that a person may not bequeath his rights to profits generated by his daughter to his son.

אלא ענק ע"ע לעצמו פשיטא אלא למאן אמר רב יוסף יו"ד קרת קא חזינא הכא

But it is obvious that the severance gift of a Hebrew slave is for himself. Rather, to whom could it be given? Rav Yosef said: I see here a small letter yod that has been made into a large city. In other words, although it was not necessary for the tanna to teach this halakha, he stated it out of habit despite the fact that this ruling does not teach anything novel.

אביי אמר הכי אמר רב ששת הא מני תוטאי הוא דתניא תוטאי אומר לו ולא לבעל חובו

Abaye said that Rav Sheshet said like this: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Sage Tutai. As it is taught in a baraita that Tutai says: The verse: “You shall grant severance to him” (Deuteronomy 15:14), indicates that it is given to a Hebrew slave but not to his creditor. Even if the slave owes money, this gift is not given to the creditor.

גופא אלו מעניקים להם היוצא בשנים וביובל ובמיתת אדון ואמה העבריה בסימנין אבל בורח ויוצא בגרעון כסף אין מעניקים לו ר"מ אומר בורח אין מעניקין לו ויוצא בגרעון כסף מעניקים לו

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. And these are the Hebrew slaves to whom one grants a severance gift: One who leaves through completing six years of service, and one who leaves in the Jubilee Year, and one who leaves through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who is released by signs indicating the onset of puberty. But with regard to one who flees from his master or one who is released by deducting money, one does not grant a severance gift to him. Rabbi Meir says: With regard to one who flees, one does not grant a severance gift to him, but in the case of one who is released by deducting money, one does grant a severance gift to him.

ר"ש אומר ארבעה מעניקים להם שלשה באיש וג' באשה ואי אתה יכול לומר ארבעה באחד מהן לפי שאין סימנין באיש ורציעה באשה

Rabbi Shimon says: There are four different ways of emancipating a Hebrew slave, and when Hebrew slaves are emancipated one grants them a severance gift. Of these methods, three apply to a man and three apply to a woman. And you cannot say four modes apply for either one of them, because there is no emancipation through signs indicating puberty for a man, and there is no piercing for a woman. This concludes the baraita.

מנה"מ דת"ר יכול לא יהו מעניקים אלא ליוצא בשש מנין לרבות יוצא ביובל ובמיתת האדון ואמה העבריה בסימנין ת"ל (דברים טו, יב) תשלחנו וכי תשלחנו

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara explains that this is as the Sages taught: One might have thought that one grants a severance gift only to a Hebrew slave who is released after six years. From where is it derived to include that one grants a severance gift to one who left in the Jubilee Year, and one freed through the death of the master, and a Hebrew maidservant who leaves through signs indicating puberty? The verse states: “You shall not send him,” and: “And when you send him” (Deuteronomy 15:13). These phrases serve to expand the halakha of severance to include any Hebrew slave who is emancipated.

יכול שאני מרבה בורח ויוצא בגרעון כסף ת"ל וכי תשלחנו חפשי מעמך מי ששילוחו מעמך יצא בורח ויוצא בגרעון כסף שאין שילוחו מעמך רמ"א בורח אין מעניקין לו דאין שילוחו מעמך אבל יוצא בגרעון כסף ששילוחו מעמך

I might have thought that I should include a Hebrew slave who flees and one who is released through the deduction of money. Therefore, the verse states: “And when you send him free from you” (Deuteronomy 15:13), which is referring to one who was sent from you with your knowledge and consent. This excludes a Hebrew slave who flees from his master and one who is released through the deduction of money, who are not sent away from you with your permission. Rabbi Meir says: One does not grant a severance gift to a Hebrew slave who flees, as he is not sent away from you, because he left on his own. But with regard to a Hebrew slave who is released through the deduction of money, who is sent from you, he is granted a severance gift, as this deduction payment requires the agreement of the master.

בורח השלמה בעי דתניא מנין לבורח שחייב להשלים ת"ל (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד

The Gemara asks: Isn’t a Hebrew slave who flees required to complete the remaining years of his contract, at which point he should be entitled to receive a severance gift? As it is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a Hebrew slave who flees his master that he is obligated to complete his term? The verse states: “Six years he shall labor” (Exodus 21:2), and no less. Therefore, if a Hebrew slave runs away in the middle of this period, he is required to complete his six years of service.