תמותות שחוטות ואל יאכלו בשר תמותות נבילות (דברים כא, יא) וחשקת אע"פ שאינה נאה בה ולא בה ובחברתה
of dying animals that were slaughtered, and let them not eat the meat of dying animals that were not slaughtered but which will become carcasses. In other words, it is preferable for this act to be performed in a somewhat permitted way rather than in a manner that is entirely prohibited. The expression: “And you have a desire for her and would take her to you as a wife” (Deuteronomy 21:11), teaches that this halakha applies even if she is not pretty, as this is a subjective judgment dependent on one’s desire. The term “for her” indicates that he may take her, but not her and another woman. A soldier is allowed to take only one captive in this manner.
ולקחת ליקוחין יש לך בה לך לאשה שלא יקח שתי נשים אחת לו ואחת לאביו אחת לו ואחת לבנו (דברים כא, יב) והבאתה מלמד שלא ילחצנה במלחמה:
The phrase “and would take her” teaches: You have the ability to take her, i.e., to marry her. “To you as a wife” teaches that he may not take two women, one for him and one for his father, or one for him and one for his son. The verse: “Then you shall bring her home into your house” (Deuteronomy 21:12), teaches that he should not pressure her to engage in sexual intercourse during the war, but he should first take her into his home.
ת"ר (שמות כא, ה) אם אמר יאמר עד שיאמר וישנה אמר בתחילת שש ולא אמר בסוף שש אינו נרצע שנאמר (שמות כא, ה) לא אצא חפשי עד שיאמר בשעת יציאה
§ The Sages taught: It is stated with regard to a pierced slave: “But if the slave shall say [amor yomar]: I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free” (Exodus 21:5). The repeated verb teaches that he is not pierced unless he says this statement and repeats it. If he said at the beginning of his six years of service that he wants to be pierced, but he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I will not go out free,” i.e., he is not pierced unless he says it when he leaves.
אמר בסוף שש ולא אמר בתחילת שש אינו נרצע שנאמר אם אמר יאמר העבד עד שיאמר כשהוא עבד
If he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated: “If the slave shall say [amor yomar],” which indicates that he is not pierced unless he states it while he is still a slave. This concludes the baraita.
אמר מר אמר בתחילת שש ולא אמר בסוף שש אינו נרצע שנאמר לא אצא חפשי מאי איריא מלא אצא חפשי תיפוק ליה דבעינן (שמות כא, ה) אהבתי את אדוני את אשתי ואת בני וליכא
The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: If he said it at the beginning of his six years and he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I will not go out free.” The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita learn this halakha specifically from the phrase “I will not go out free”? Let him derive it from the fact that we require another condition. He has to be able to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5) in order to become a pierced slave, and he cannot say this, as at the start of the six years he does not yet have children from the Canaanite maidservant his master provided for him.
ותו אמר בסוף שש ולא אמר בתחילת שש אינו נרצע שנאמר העבד אטו סוף שש לאו עבד הוא אמר רבא מאי בתחילת שש בתחילת פרוטה אחרונה ומאי בסוף שש בסוף פרוטה אחרונה:
And furthermore, the baraita states that if he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated “the slave.” Is that to say that he is not a slave at the end of six years? Rava said: What is the meaning of: At the beginning of six? This is not referring to the actual beginning of his six years of service, but to the beginning of the last peruta, i.e., when he reaches the start of his final stage of work worth one peruta, when he is still a slave. And what is the meaning of the term: At the end of six? At the end of the last peruta.
ת"ר לו אשה ובנים ולרבו אין אשה ובנים אינו נרצע שנאמר (דברים טו, טז) כי אהבך ואת ביתך לרבו אשה ובנים ולו אין אשה ובנים אינו נרצע שנאמר אהבתי את אדוני את אשתי ואת בני
The Sages taught: If the slave has a wife and children and his master does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he loves you and your house” (Deuteronomy 15:16). The word “house” is referring to a wife and children, and therefore if the master does not have a wife and children the verse cannot be fulfilled, and the slave is not pierced. Similarly, if his master has a wife and children and he does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5).
הוא אוהב את רבו ורבו אינו אוהבו אינו נרצע שנאמר (דברים טו, טז) כי טוב לו עמך רבו אוהבו והוא אינו אוהב את רבו אינו נרצע שנאמר כי אהבך הוא חולה ורבו אינו חולה אינו נרצע שנאמר כי טוב לו עמך רבו חולה והוא אינו חולה אינו נרצע שנאמר עמך
Furthermore, if he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that it is good for both of them to be with each other. If his master loves him but he does not love his master, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he loves you.” If he is ill and his master is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you,” which excludes a sick person. Similarly, if his master is ill and he is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated “with you,” which equates the well-being of the pair.
בעי רב ביבי בר אביי שניהם חולין מאי עמך בעינן והא איכא או דילמא כי טוב לו עמך בעינן והא ליכא תיקו:
Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised a dilemma: If both of them are ill, what is the halakha? Do we require only that the slave be “with you,” i.e., in the same condition as the master, and that is the case here, as they are both ill, and the slave can be pierced? Or perhaps we require “because he fares well with you,” i.e., it must be good for both of them, and that is not the case here, as they are both ill. If so, he cannot be pierced. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
ת"ר כי טוב לו עמך עמך במאכל עמך במשתה שלא תהא אתה אוכל פת נקיה והוא אוכל פת קיבר אתה שותה יין ישן והוא שותה יין חדש אתה ישן על גבי מוכין והוא ישן על גבי תבן מכאן אמרו כל הקונה עבד עברי כקונה אדון לעצמו
The Sages taught: The verse states concerning a Hebrew slave: “Because he fares well with you,” 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. This means that there shall not be a situation in which you eat fine bread and he eats inferior bread, 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.
ת"ר (ויקרא כה, מא) ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו א"ר שמעון אם הוא נמכר בניו ובנותיו מי נמכרים מכאן שרבו חייב במזונות בניו כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר אם בעל אשה הוא ויצאה אשתו עמו א"ר שמעון אם הוא נמכר אשתו מי נמכרה מכאן שרבו חייב במזונות אשתו
The Sages taught with regard to a verse that deals with the emancipation of a slave: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him” (Leviticus 25:41). Rabbi Shimon said: This verse is puzzling, as, if he is sold, are his sons and daughters sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his children, and when the slave is emancipated his sons are released as well. You say something similar with regard to the verse: “If he is married then his wife shall go out with him” (Exodus 21:3). Rabbi Shimon said: If he is sold, is his wife sold? Rather, from here it is derived that his master is obligated to provide sustenance for his wife.
וצריכא דאי אשמועינן בניו משום דלא בני מיעבד ומיכל נינהו אבל אשתו דבת מיכל ומיעבד היא אימא תעביד ותיכול
The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the baraita to mention both cases, as if it had taught us only that the master is required to provide sustenance for the slave’s children, one might say that this is because they are not fit to work and eat. Since they are unable to support themselves, the master is required to support them. But with regard to his wife, who can eat and work, one might say that she should work and eat in payment for her work, and the master is not required to support her for free.
ואי אשמעינן אשתו דלאו דירכה להדורי אבל בניו דדירכייהו להדורי אימא לא צריכא
And conversely, if the baraita had taught us only about his wife, one might say that the master is required to support her since it is not her manner to circulate and collect charity, as she is too embarrassed to do this. But with regard to his children, since it is their manner to circulate and beg, i.e., this is not beneath their dignity, one might say no, he is not required to support them. Therefore it is necessary to issue both rulings.
The Sages taught: