הַהוּא לְקוֹבְעוֹ חוֹבָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.

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.

תָּא שְׁמַע מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ ״יִגְאָלֶנּוּ״ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים? לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַגְּאוּלּוֹת שֶׁנִּגְאָלוֹת כַּסֵּדֶר הַזֶּה. מַאי לָאו בָּתֵּי עָרֵי חוֹמָה וְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי הַנִּמְכָּר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל? לָא, בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים וּשְׂדֵה אֲחוּזָּה. בָּתֵּי חֲצֵרִים בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ ״עַל שְׂדֵה הָאָרֶץ יֵחָשֵׁב״! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לְקָרוֹב קָרוֹב קוֹדֵם.

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.

״וְהַנִּרְצָע נִקְנֶה בִּרְצִיעָה״. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ״ 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).

״וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַּיּוֹבֵל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן״. דִּכְתִיב: ״וַעֲבָדוֹ״ – וְלֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת. ״לְעֹלָם״ – לְעוֹלָמוֹ שֶׁל יוֹבֵל.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַרְצֵעַ״. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַרְצֵעַ. מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַסּוֹל וְהַסִּירָא וְהַמַּחַט וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ וְהַמַּכְתֵּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּקָּח בְּיָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מַה מַּרְצֵעַ מְיוּחָד – שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כָּל – שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת. דָּבָר אַחֵר ״הַמַּרְצֵעַ״ – לְהָבִיא הַמַּרְצֵעַ הַגָּדוֹל.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, יוּדָן בְּרִיבִּי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ: כְּשֶׁהֵן רוֹצְעִים אֵין רוֹצְעִים אֶלָּא בְּמֵילְתָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם. וְאִם תֹּאמַר בְּמֵילְתָא הֵם רוֹצְעִים – הֵיאָךְ עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן יֵעָשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם? הָא אֵין נִרְצָע אֶלָּא בְּגוֹבַהּ שֶׁל אֹזֶן. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי?

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. With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagree?

דְּרַבִּי דָּרֵישׁ כְּלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי. ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – כְּלָל; ״מַרְצֵעַ״ – פְּרָט; ״בְאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת״ – חָזַר וְכָלַל. כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל אִי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת, אַף כָּל – שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת.

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.

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי דָּרֵישׁ רִיבּוּיֵי וּמִיעוּטֵי; ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – רִיבָּה; ״מַרְצֵעַ״ – מִיעֵט; ״בְאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת״ – חָזַר וְרִיבָּה. רִיבָּה וּמִיעֵט וְרִיבָּה – רִיבָּה הַכֹּל.

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.

מַאי רַבֵּי? רַבֵּי כָּל מִילֵּי. מַאי מִיעֵט? מִיעֵט סַם.

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.

אָמַר מָר: ״הַמַּרְצֵעַ״ – לְהָבִיא מַרְצֵעַ הַגָּדוֹל. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? כְּדַאֲמַר רָבָא ״הַיָּרֵךְ״ – הַמְיוּמֶּנֶת שֶׁבַּיָּרֵךְ. הָכָא נַמִי – ״הַמַּרְצֵעַ״ – מְיוּחָד שֶׁבַּמַּרְצְעִין.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, יוּדָן בְּרִיבִּי הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ: כְּשֶׁהֵן רוֹצְעִין אֵין רוֹצְעִין אֶלָּא בְּמֵילְתָא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם. וְיֵעָשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב שֵׁילָא: אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְשָׁב אֶל מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ״ – לְמוּחְזַק שֶׁבְּמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ.

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.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן מַהוּ שֶׁיִּמְסוֹר לוֹ רַבּוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית? חִידּוּשׁ הוּא, לָא שְׁנָא כֹּהֲנִים וְלָא שְׁנָא יִשְׂרָאֵל,

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?

אוֹ דִּילְמָא שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים, הוֹאִיל וְרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת? רַב אֲמַר: מוּתָּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: אָסוּר.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב עָנָן: כִּי הָוֵיתוּ בֵּי מָר שְׁמוּאֵל בְּאִיסְקוּמַדְרִי אִיטַּלְלִיתוּ?! מַאי טַעֲמָא לָא תֵּימְרוּ לֵיהּ מֵהָא: וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין עֶבֶד עִבְרִי כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנַּעֲשֶׂה בַּעַל מוּם.

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.

וְאִם תֹּאמַר: אֵין רַבּוֹ מוֹסֵר לוֹ שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית – תֵּיפּוֹק לִי דְּבָעֵינָא ״אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי״ וְלֵיכָּא. תּוּ לָא מִידֵי.

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.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: כֹּהֵן מַהוּ בִּיפַת תּוֹאַר? חִידּוּשׁ הוּא, לָא שְׁנָא כֹּהֵן וְלָא שְׁנָא יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ דִּילְמָא: שָׁאנֵי כֹּהֲנִים הוֹאִיל וְרִיבָּה בָּהֶן מִצְוֹת יְתֵרוֹת? רַב אֲמַר: מוּתָּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: אָסוּר.

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.

בְּבִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּשָׁרֵי, דְּלֹא דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד יֵצֶר הָרָע.

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.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה. רַב אֲמַר: מוּתָּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: אָסוּר. רַב אֲמַר: מוּתָּר, הוֹאִיל וְאִישְׁתָּרְיָא – אִישְׁתְּרֵי. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: אָסוּר, דְּהָא הָוְיָא לָהּ גִּיּוֹרֶת, וְגִיּוֹרֶת לְכֹהֵן לָא חַזְיָא.

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.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: בְּבִיאָה שְׁנִיָּה כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דַּאֲסִירָא, דְּהָוְיָא לָהּ גִּיּוֹרֶת. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּבִיאָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. רַב אֲמַר: מוּתָּר, דְּהָא לֹא דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד יֵצֶר הָרָע. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אֲמַר: אָסוּר, כָּל הֵיכָא דְּקָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וַהֲבֵאתָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ״ – קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה״; כָּל הֵיכָא דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וַהֲבֵאתָהּ אֶל תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ״ – לָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה״.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְרָאִיתָ בַּשִּׁבְיָה״ – בִּשְׁעַת שִׁבְיָה; ״אֵשֶׁת״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ; ״יְפַת תּוֹאַר״ – לֹא דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא כְּנֶגֶד יֵצֶר הָרָע, מוּטָב שֶׁיֹּאכְלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּשַׂר

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