לִקְרוֹבִים to relatives, e.g., his father, despite the fact that sexual intercourse between them is prohibited.
וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא אִם מוֹכְרָהּ לִפְסוּלִין לֹא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לִקְרוֹבִים מָה לְמוֹכְרָהּ לִפְסוּלִין שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְיַיעֵד מְיַיעֵד יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לִקְרוֹבִים שֶׁאִם רָצָה לְיַיעֵד אֵינוֹ מְיַיעֵד אָמַר קְרָא לְאָמָה מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹכְרָהּ לִקְרוֹבִים The baraita asks: Why is it necessary to derive that halakha from the verse? But could this not be derived through logical inference: If he can sell her to people of flawed lineage, can he not sell her to relatives? The baraita answers: The verse is necessary, as what is unique about selling her to people of flawed lineage is that if that master wants to designate her, he can designate her. Although it is prohibited for these people to marry her, nevertheless the betrothal would take effect. Therefore, one cannot learn from this that he can also sell her to relatives. This is a situation where if this master wants to designate her, he cannot designate her, as betrothal is ineffective. Therefore, the verse states “as a maidservant,” which teaches that he can sell her to relatives.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר לִפְסוּלִין נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהֵיכָא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּקְרוֹבִים סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי אֵין מוֹכְרָהּ לִקְרוֹבִים The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Meir, who derived from the term “as a maidservant” that one can stipulate that she cannot be designated, how does he know that one can sell her as a maidservant to people of unflawed lineage or relatives? The Gemara answers: He derives that she can be sold to people of flawed lineage from the verse where Rabbi Eliezer derives it: “If she does not please her master” (Exodus 21:8). With regard to relatives, he holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives.
תָּנֵי חֲדָא מוֹכְרָהּ לְאָבִיו וְאֵין מוֹכְרָהּ לִבְנוֹ וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ אֵין מוֹכְרָהּ לֹא לְאָבִיו וְלֹא לִבְנוֹ בִּשְׁלָמָא אֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָהּ לֹא לְאָבִיו וְלֹא לִבְנוֹ כְּרַבָּנַן אֶלָּא מוֹכְרָהּ לְאָבִיו וְאֵין מוֹכְרָהּ לִבְנוֹ כְּמַאן It is taught in one baraita: One can sell his daughter to his father, but he cannot sell her to his son. And it is taught in another baraita: He cannot sell her to his father nor to his son. The Gemara clarifies this issue: Granted, the baraita that states that he cannot sell her to his father nor to his son is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that he cannot sell her to relatives whom she cannot marry. But in accordance with whose opinion is the baraita that states that he can sell her to his father but he cannot sell her to his son?
לָא כְּרַבָּנַן וְלָא כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבָּנַן מוֹדוּ רַבָּנַן הֵיכָא דְּאִיכָּא צַד יִעוּד It is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who forbid selling her to any relative, and it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who permits selling her to all relatives. The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Although they say he cannot sell her to relatives, the Rabbis concede that he is permitted to do so where there is a possibility of designation. In this case, although the father of the girl’s father cannot marry her, he can designate her as a wife for his other son, who is the girl’s uncle. Since this uncle can marry her, designation is a possibility, and therefore the sale is effective.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא בְּגוּפוֹ נִכְנַס בְּגוּפוֹ יֵצֵא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר יְחִידִי נִכְנַס יְחִידִי יֵצֵא מַאי בְּגוּפוֹ נִכְנַס בְּגוּפוֹ יֵצֵא אָמַר רָבָא לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּעֶבֶד אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי הָהוּא מִלֹּא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים נָפְקָא § The Sages taught concerning the following verse, which is referring to a Hebrew slave: “If he comes in begappo he shall leave begappo” (Exodus 21:3), which means that if he enters with his body [begufo] he shall leave with his body [begufo]. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If he enters alone he shall leave alone. The Gemara clarifies. What is the meaning of the ruling that if he enters with his body he shall leave with his body? Rava said: This means to say that he is not released through the loss of his extremities like a Canaanite slave (Exodus 21:26), meaning he does not leave his master because of damage done to his body. Abaye said to Rava: This halakha is derived from a different verse: “She shall not go out as the men slaves do” (Exodus 21:7).
אִי מֵהָתָם הֲוָה אָמֵינָא נִיתֵּיב לֵיהּ דְּמֵי עֵינֵיהּ וְנִיפּוֹק קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן Rava answers: If this halakha were derived only from there, I would say: The master should give him the value of the eye that he took out and let him be released. In other words, one could say that the verse which states that a Hebrew maidservant does not leave as Canaanite slaves leave, which would serve as the source for the halakha of a Hebrew slave as well, does not mean that she is not released at all due to the loss of her extremities. Rather, it means that unlike Canaanite slaves, she receives compensation for the injury as well as being released. Therefore, the verse: “If he comes in with his body he shall leave with his body,” teaches us that this is not so. Rather, although the master must reimburse him for the loss of his eye, he is not freed as a result of the injury.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר יְחִידִי נִכְנַס יְחִידִי יֵצֵא מַאי יְחִידִי יֵצֵא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק הָכִי קָאָמַר יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים רַבּוֹ מוֹסֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית אֵין לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים אֵין רַבּוֹ מוֹסֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית The Gemara discusses the second opinion in the baraita. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: If he enters alone, he shall leave alone. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: He shall leave alone? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov is saying: If the Hebrew slave has a wife and children when he is purchased, his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. But if he did not have a wife and children, i.e., he enters alone, his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן נִמְכַּר בְּמָנֶה וְהִשְׁבִּיחַ וְעָמַד עַל מָאתַיִם מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִכֶּסֶף מִקְנָתוֹ § The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who was sold for one hundred dinars and increased in value during his term, and his value stood at two hundred dinars, from where is it derived that if he wishes to redeem himself one assesses him, for the payment of the remainder of his service, based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars, his value when originally purchased? As it is stated: “Out of the money that he was bought for” (Leviticus 25:51).
נִמְכַּר בְּמָאתַיִם וְהִכְסִיף וְעָמַד עַל מָנֶה מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין מְחַשְּׁבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר כְּפִי שָׁנָיו If he was sold for two hundred dinars and decreased in value and stood at one hundred dinars, from where is it derived that when he is redeemed one assesses him based only on the calculation of one hundred dinars? The verse states: “According to his years he shall give back the price of his redemption” (Leviticus 25:52), meaning that he pays in accordance with the value of his remaining years of service.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עֶבֶד הַנִּמְכָּר לְנׇכְרִי הוֹאִיל וְנִגְאָל בִּקְרוֹבִים יָדוֹ עַל הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה I have derived this halakha only in the case of a slave sold to a gentile, since the Torah is lenient with regard to his redemption, as he may be redeemed even by relatives who pay his money and free him. Consequently, in this case the owner is at a disadvantage, and regardless of whether his value increased or decreased the slave always pays the lower amount.
נִמְכָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל מְנָלַן תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שָׂכִיר שָׂכִיר לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה In a case where the slave was sold to a Jew, from where do we derive that this halakha also applies to him? The verse states with regard to a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew: “As a hired worker and as a settler he shall be with you” (Leviticus 25:40), and it states with regard to one sold to a gentile: “As a hired worker year by year he shall be with him” (Leviticus 25:53), for a verbal analogy. This verbal analogy teaches that the same halakha applies to one sold to a gentile as to one sold to a Jew.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי הֲרֵינִי כְּבֶן עַזַּאי בְּשׁוּקֵי טְבֶרְיָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְאַבָּיֵי מִכְּדִי הָנֵי קְרָאֵי אִיכָּא לְמִידְרְשִׁינְהוּ לְקוּלָּא וְאִיכָּא לְמִידְרְשִׁינְהוּ לְחוּמְרָא מַאי חָזֵית (דְּדַרְשִׁינְהוּ) [לְמִידְרְשִׁינְהוּ] לְקוּלָּא נִידְרְשִׁינְהוּ לְחוּמְרָא 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.
לָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ מִדְּאַקֵּיל רַחֲמָנָא לְגַבֵּיהּ דְּתַנְיָא כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ עִמְּךָ בַּמַּאֲכָל וְעִמְּךָ בַּמִּשְׁתֶּה 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.
שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אַתָּה אוֹכֵל פַּת נְקִיָּה וְהוּא אוֹכֵל פַּת קִיבָּר אַתָּה שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן יָשָׁן וְהוּא שׁוֹתֶה יַיִן חָדָשׁ אַתָּה יָשֵׁן עַל גַּבֵּי מוֹכִים וְהוּא יָשֵׁן עַל גַּבֵּי הַתֶּבֶן מִכָּאן אָמְרוּ כׇּל הַקּוֹנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כְּקוֹנֶה אָדוֹן לְעַצְמוֹ 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.
וְאֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְעִנְיַן אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִיצְטַעַר לֵיהּ הָא לְעִנְיַן פִּדְיוֹן נַחְמִיר עֲלֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּתַנְיָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אוֹמֵר בֹּא וּרְאֵה כַּמָּה קָשֶׁה אֲבָקָהּ שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית That Sage asked Abaye: But one can say that this leniency in the case of a Hebrew slave applies only to the matter of eating and drinking, so as not to cause him suffering. But with regard to the matter of redemption, perhaps one should be stringent with him. The reason to be stringent is based on a statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year, i.e., how great are the punishments not just for working the land, but also for treating lightly the sanctity of Sabbatical-Year produce.
אָדָם נוֹשֵׂא וְנוֹתֵן בְּפֵירוֹת שְׁבִיעִית לְסוֹף מוֹכֵר אֶת מִטַּלְטְלָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בִּשְׁנַת הַיּוֹבֵל תָּשֻׁבוּ אִישׁ אֶל אֲחֻזָּתוֹ וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ וְכִי תִמְכְּרוּ מִמְכָּר לַעֲמִיתֶךָ אוֹ קָנֹה מִיַּד עֲמִיתֶךָ דָּבָר הַנִּקְנֶה מִיָּד לְיָד If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: “In this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land” (Leviticus 25:13), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “And if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand” (Leviticus 25:14), which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical halakhot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.
לֹא הִרְגִּישׁ לְסוֹף מוֹכֵר אֶת שְׂדוֹתָיו שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וּמָכַר מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ לֹא בָּאת לְיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁמּוֹכֵר אֶת בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כִּי יִמְכֹּר בֵּית מוֹשַׁב עִיר חוֹמָה If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: “If your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land” (Leviticus 25:25). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: “And if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city” (Leviticus 25:29).
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם דְּאָמַר לֹא הִרְגִּישׁ וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא דְּאָמַר לֹא בָּאת לְיָדוֹ כִּדְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָבַר אָדָם עֲבֵירָה וְשָׁנָה בָּהּ הוּתְּרָה לוֹ הוּתְּרָה לוֹ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אֶלָּא נַעֲשֵׂית לוֹ כְּהֶיתֵּר The Gemara asks: What is different there, in the first sentence, in which the tanna says: He does not sense, and what is different here, in the continuation, in which he says: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand? The Gemara answers that this is in accordance with a statement of Rav Huna. As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him. The Gemara is surprised at this: Can it enter your mind that it is permitted to him merely because he has sinned twice? Rather, say that it becomes to him as though it is permitted. Therefore, when he violates a prohi-bition a second time, the baraita takes for granted that he does not sense that he is performing a sin, and employs a different terminology.
לֹא בָּאת לְיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁמּוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּבִתּוֹ לָא כְּתִיבָא בְּהַאי עִנְיָנָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן נִיזַבֵּין אִינָשׁ בְּרַתֵּיה וְלָא נֵיזִיף בְּרִיבִּיתָא מַאי טַעְמָא בְּרַתֵּיה מְגָרְעָא וְנָפְקָא וְהָא מוֹסְפָא וְאָזְלָא The Gemara resumes its citation of the baraita: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, his poverty will increase until he sells his daughter, as it is stated: “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant” (Exodus 21:7). The Gemara comments: And even though “his daughter” is not written with regard to that matter in Leviticus 25 but in Exodus, nevertheless, it teaches us this principle: A person will sell his daughter rather than borrow with interest. What is the reason for this? His daughter can occasionally deduct money from her debt and use it to leave her master, but this interest continuously increases.
לֹא בָּאת לְיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּוֶה בְּרִבִּית שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וּמָטָה יָדוֹ עִמָּךְ וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ אַל תִּקַּח מֵאִתּוֹ וְגוֹ' לֹא בָּאת לְיָדוֹ עַד שֶׁמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְכִי יָמוּךְ אָחִיךָ וְנִמְכַּר לָךְ The baraita continues its exposition of the verses in Leviticus: If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to borrow with interest, as it is stated: “And if your brother grows poor and his means fails with you” (Leviticus 25:35), and juxtaposed to it is the verse: “Take no usury or interest from him” (Leviticus 25:36). If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: “And if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to you” (Leviticus 25:39).
לֹא לְךָ אֶלָּא לְגֵר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְגֵר וְלֹא לְגֵר צֶדֶק אֶלָּא לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב מִשְׁפַּחַת גֵּר זֶה נׇכְרִי כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר לְעֵקֶר The baraita further states: Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger [ger]” (Leviticus 25:47). And this sale to a ger is not referring to a sale to a righteous convert [ger tzedek], but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [ger toshav]” (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse, “or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” the Gemara expounds: “A stranger’s family”; this is a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it says: “To an offshoot of a stranger’s family,”