ההוא לקובעו חובה ואפי' לרבי יהושע The Gemara answers: That verse serves to establish that redeeming him is an obligation. And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that there is no requirement to redeem land, this case is different, as it is proper to redeem him to prevent him from being assimilated by gentiles.
ת"ש מה ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מח) יגאלנו יגאלנו יגאלנו ג' פעמים לרבות כל הגאולות שנגאלות כסדר הזה מאי לאו בתי ערי חומה ועבד עברי הנמכר לישראל לא בתי חצרים ושדה אחוזה בתי חצרים בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא כה, לא) על שדה הארץ יחשב אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לקרוב קרוב קודם: Come and hear a proof from a baraita: What is the meaning when the verse states: “May redeem him,” “may redeem him,” and “may redeem him” (Leviticus 25:48–49), three times? This serves to include all redemptions, and that they are redeemed in this order. What, is it not correct to say that this inclusion is referring both to houses of walled cities and a Hebrew slave sold to a Jew, that they can be redeemed by relatives? The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it includes houses in open areas and an ancestral field. The Gemara asks: Concerning houses in open areas and an ancestral field, it is written explicitly: “Shall be reckoned with the field of the country” (Leviticus 25:31). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This teaches that the closer of a relative one is to the seller, the earlier one is in the order of redeeming the house or the field. This is the context of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak’s statement.
והנרצע נקנה ברציעה: דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע וגו': § The Gemara returns to the mishna, which teaches: And a Hebrew slave who is pierced after serving six years is acquired as a slave for a longer period through piercing his ear with an awl. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6).
וקונה את עצמו ביובל ובמיתת האדון: דכתיב ועבדו ולא את הבן ולא את הבת לעולם לעולמו של יובל The mishna further teaches that a pierced slave acquires himself through the advent of the Jubilee Year and through the master’s death. The Gemara explains that this is as it is written: “And he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6). This term indicates that he serves only the master, but not the son and not the daughter. The term “forever” is referring to the forever represented by the Jubilee Year. The word “forever” does not mean for eternity, but refers to the end of the cycle of the Jubilee Year.
תנו רבנן מרצע אין לי אלא מרצע מנין לרבות הסול והסירא והמחט והמקדח והמכתב ת"ל (דברים טו, יז) ולקחת לרבות כל דבר שנקח ביד דברי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה The Sages taught: From the term “an awl” I have derived only that a master can pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave with an awl. From where do I derive that a sharp thorn [sol], a thorn [sira], a needle, an auger, and a stylus used to engrave in wax may be used? The verse states: “And you shall take the awl” (Deuteronomy 15:17). This term “and you shall take” serves to include any implement that can be taken in the master’s hand. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.
רבי אומר מה מרצע מיוחד של מתכת אף כל של מתכת ד"א המרצע להביא המרצע הגדול Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Not all of these utensils may be used for piercing. Just as an awl is unique in that it is made of metal, so too any tool made of metal can be used; one may not pierce a slave’s ear with non-metal implements. Alternatively, the verse states: “And you shall take the awl,” to include the large awl for piercing.
אמר רבי אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעים אין רוצעים אלא במילתא וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום וא"ת במילתא הם רוצעים היאך עבד עברי כהן יעשה בעל מום הא אין נרצע אלא בגובה של אזן במאי קמיפלגי Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach as follows: When they pierce, they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: The piercing is not performed on the earlobe, as the halakha is that a Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because the piercing renders him blemished and unfit to serve in the Temple. And if you say that they pierce a slave’s earlobe, how does a Hebrew slave who is a priest become blemished through piercing? A pierced earlobe is not considered a blemish. This indicates that he is pierced only on the upper part of the ear through the cartilage. The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?
דרבי דריש כללי ופרטי ולקחת כלל מרצע פרט באזנו ובדלת חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש של מתכת אף כל של מתכת The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of generalizations and details. Accordingly, he maintains that the term “and you shall take” is a generalization that indicates piercing may be performed with any implement. “An awl” is a detail, and when the verse states: “Through his ear and into the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17), it then generalized again. When the verse writes a generalization and a detail and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail: Just as the explicit detail mentions an awl, which is made of metal, so too, any utensil used for piercing must be made of metal.
ר' יוסי דריש ריבויי ומיעוטי ולקחת ריבה מרצע מיעט באזנו ובדלת חזר וריבה ריבה ומיעט וריבה ריבה הכל By contrast, Rabbi Yosei expounds the verses by means of the hermeneutical principle of reading the verse as consisting of amplifications and restrictions. Accordingly, he learns that the term “and you shall take” amplifies, i.e., it includes any item that can be taken in one’s hand. The term “an awl” restricts. When the verse states “through his ear and into the door,” it then amplifies again. When the verse amplifies, restricts, and amplifies, it has amplified the halakha to include everything except one item.
מאי רבי רבי כל מילי מאי מיעט מיעט סם What has it amplified, i.e., included beyond an awl? It has amplified the category to include everything that can pierce an ear. What has it restricted from inclusion in the category? It excludes only the method that is most dissimilar to the use of an awl, which is a corrosive substance. Producing a hole in the slave’s ear with a substance of this kind is not a valid form of piercing.
אמר מר המרצע להביא מרצע הגדול מאי משמע כדאמר רבא (בראשית לב, לג) הירך המיומנת שבירך ה"נ המרצע מיוחד שבמרצעין: The Master said above: “The awl,” this serves to include the large awl for piercing. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred that this expression is referring to a large awl? The Gemara answers that this is as Rava said with regard to the verse: “The sinew of the thigh vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh” (Genesis 32:33), that this is referring to the most important [meyummenet] part of the thigh. The definite article indicates something clear and obvious. Here too, the term “the awl” is referring to a special awl.
א"ר אלעזר יודן בריבי היה דורש כשהן רוצעין אין רוצעין אלא במילתא וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום ויעשה בעל מום אמר רבה בר רב שילא אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו למוחזק שבמשפחתו It was further stated in the above baraita that Rabbi Elazar said: Yudan the Distinguished would teach: When they pierce a slave they pierce only the earlobe. And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all, because piercing renders him blemished. The Gemara asks: And let him be pierced and be rendered blemished and disqualified for Temple service. Why is it prohibited to do this? Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave at the end of his servitude: “And he shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), i.e., to his status in his family. He must be able to return to the position he had as a member of his family. If he was rendered a blemished priest while a slave, once he is emancipated he can no longer return to his status as a priest who can perform the Temple service.
איבעיא להו עבד עברי כהן מהו שימסור לו רבו שפחה כנענית חידוש הוא לא שנא כהנים ול"ש ישראל A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a Hebrew slave who is a priest, what is the halakha concerning the permissibility for his master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant with whom to engage in sexual intercourse? The Gemara analyzes the two sides of the dilemma: Does one say that the halakha permitting a Hebrew slave to engage in intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant is a halakhic novelty, as a Jew is generally prohibited from engaging in intercourse with a gentile, and in light of this novelty, it is no different in the case of priests and no different in the case of an Israelite?
או דילמא שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן הכתוב מצות יתירות רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור Or perhaps the case of priests is different from Israelites, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them, which do not apply to all Jews. Therefore, it is prohibited for a priest to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, despite the fact she is permitted to a non-priest. The amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue. Rav said: It is permitted for the master to provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, and Shmuel said it is prohibited.
א"ל רב נחמן לרב ענן כי הויתו בי מר שמואל באיסקומדרי איטלליתו מ"ט לא תימרו לי' מהא וחכ"א אין עבד עברי כהן נרצע מפני שנעשה בעל מום Rav Naḥman said to Rav Anan: When you were studying in the house of Mar Shmuel did you play with tokens [iskumadri]? Didn’t you take your studies seriously? What is the reason that you do not say a proof to him from that which we learned: And the Rabbis say: A Hebrew slave who is a priest is not pierced at all because piercing renders him blemished.
וא"ת אין רבו מוסר לו שפחה כנענית תיפוק לי דבעינא (שמות כא, ה) אהבתי את אדוני את אשתי ואת בני וליכא תו לא מידי Rav Naḥman explains the proof: And if you say that if his master cannot provide him with a Canaanite maidservant, it is not even relevant to suggest that a slave of priestly lineage could be pierced, as the fact that he cannot be pierced could be derived from another point, as I require the slave to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5), and that declaration cannot be issued by a priest if his master may not provide him with a Canaanite maidservant. And nothing more can be answered to this proof. The reason given by the Rabbis proves that a Canaanite maidservant can be provided even to a priest.
איבעיא להו כהן מהו ביפת תואר חידוש הוא לא שנא כהן ולא שנא ישראל או דילמא שאני כהנים הואיל וריבה בהן מצות יתרות רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור Similarly, a dilemma was raised before them: What is the halakha with regard to the permissibility for a priest who goes to war to engage in intercourse with a beautiful woman captured in that war? Does one say that the case of a beautiful woman is a novelty in that the Torah permits a man to engage in intercourse with a gentile woman? Consequently, it is no different in the case of a priest and no different in the case of an Israelite, as both are permitted to engage in intercourse with this woman. Or perhaps the case of priests is different, since the Torah includes additional mitzvot for them? Rav said: It is permitted, and Shmuel said: It is prohibited.
בביאה ראשונה דכ"ע לא פליגי דשרי דלא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע The Gemara comments: With regard to the first act of sexual intercourse between the soldier priest and the gentile woman, everyone agrees that it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination, and the evil inclination of a priest is as strong as that of an Israelite. This passage serves to prevent intercourse performed in a prohibited manner, which is relevant to a priest as well.
כי פליגי בביאה שניה רב אמר מותר ושמואל אמר אסור רב אמר מותר הואיל ואישתריא אישתרי ושמואל אמר אסור דהא הויא לה גיורת וגיורת לכהן לא חזיא When they disagree it is with regard to the second act of sexual intercourse. Is a priest permitted to bring the captive into his house, convert her, and marry her? Rav said it is permitted, and Shmuel said it is prohibited. Their reasoning is as follows: Rav said it is permitted: Since she was permitted to him once, she remains permitted to him. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as ultimately she is a convert, and a convert is not fit to marry a priest.
א"ד בביאה שניה כ"ע לא פליגי דאסירא דהויא לה גיורת כי פליגי בביאה ראשונה רב אמר מותר דהא לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע ושמואל אמר אסור כל היכא דקרינא ביה (דברים כא, יב) והבאתה אל תוך ביתך קרינא ביה וראית בשביה כל היכא דלא קרינא ביה והבאתה אל תוך ביתך לא קרינא ביה וראית בשביה There are those who say a different version of this dispute. With regard to the second act of intercourse everyone agrees that it is prohibited, as she is a convert, and a priest may not marry a convert. When they disagree it is with regard to the first act of intercourse. Rav said it is permitted, as the Torah spoke only in response to the evil inclination. And Shmuel said it is prohibited, as any situation that one can read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), one can also read and fulfill with regard to the earlier command of: “And see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you have a desire for her, and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11). Conversely, any situation that one cannot read with regard to it: “Then you shall bring her home to your house,” i.e., if the soldier may not marry her, one does not read with regard to it: “And sees among the captives,” and one may not engage in sexual intercourse with her.
ת"ר וראית בשביה בשעת שביה אשת ואפילו אשת איש יפת תואר לא דברה תורה אלא כנגד יצר הרע מוטב שיאכלו ישראל בשר The Sages taught: With regard to a beautiful captive, the verse states: “And sees among the captives,” teaching that this halakha applies only if he notices her when she is a captive. The expression “a woman” teaches that she is permitted even if she is a married woman. The phrase “a beautiful woman” indicates that the Torah here spoke only in response to the evil inclination, as it is due to her beauty that he desired her. And why does the Torah permit this? It is preferable for Jews to eat the meat