2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

The rabbis often use loopholes to get around laws they don’t like. Today, a slave uses a loophole.

In a case where his master was a doctor and the slave said to him to paint his eye with a medicament, and the master blinded it in the process, or he asked him to drill his aching tooth, and the master knocked it out, the slave laughs at the master and is emancipated.

Love this! It’s tricky for sure but it’s also super clever and a win for this slave that clearly wants to be emancipated. I’ll take that as a gem!

Another good one liner on the daf!

One can act in a person’s interest in his absence, but one can act against a person’s interest only in his presence.

Now, on our daf this is asking if a slave can be set free if they are not present. This ruling implies that if the slave wants freedom – then yes! But I love this rule with an across the board application. If you’re going to do something nice for someone, go ahead and do it (as long as you now it’s something they would appreciate), they don’t need to be present. But, if you’re going to do something harmful, they need to be there.

I think about how you should not say something behind someone’s back that you would not say to their face. If only we wouldn’t act against others’ interests when they’re not around, the world would be a much better place to live in.

Our daf today talks about why it is that a slave who freely chooses to remain a slave past the 6 year limit has to be pierces by his master in a way where he “take the awl and place it through his ear and into the door” (Deuteronomy 15:17).

Rabban Yoḥanan ben Zakkai would expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath [ḥomer], i.e., as an allegory: Why is the ear different from all the other limbs in the body, as the ear alone is pierced? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This ear heard My voice on Mount Sinai when I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves” (Leviticus 25:55), which indicates: And they should not be slaves to slaves. And yet this man went and willingly acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let this ear be pierced.

I love this. God does not want you to serve anyone but God. God acquired us, we belong to no-one else. So, if someone were to elect to remain the servant of anyone else, then it’s as if you are ignoring God’s words at Sinai.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi takes it even further.

And Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would likewise expound this verse as a type of decorative wreath: Why are the door and a doorpost different from all other objects in the house, that the piercing is performed with them? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The door and the doorpost were witnesses in Egypt when I passed over the lintel and when I passed over the two doorposts of houses in which there were Jews (Exodus, chapter 12), and I said: “For to Me the children of Israel are slaves,” and they should not be slaves to slaves. And I delivered them at that time from slavery to freedom, and yet this man went and acquired a master for himself. Therefore, let him be pierced before them, as they are witnesses that he violated God’s will.

The Passover story comes back to life with this one! Why pierce them at the doorpost? Because we spread the blood of the pascal sacrifice on the doorposts of Egypt during the final plague. Even the doorpost knows we are not meant to be slaves to anyone but God. (Gives new meaning to the phrase dumb as a doornail.)

When we think of someone being forced to have sex, we usually think of men as perpetrators, not victims. And yet, we learned early in our tractate that male slaves can be forced to have sex with Canaanite maidservants by their masters. We also learned that, if a slave wants to work past the sabbatical year and serve until the Jubilee year, you pierce his ear. Today’s daf asks a tricky question: What about priests? Priests can fall into debt and sell themselves into servitude. Can you pierce a priest’s ear? (There are laws against priests having any physical marring.) Can a priest be forced to have sex with a Canaanite servant? (They can only marry Jewish virgins.)

Piercings: 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.

So, it seems like there is no piercing.

Sex: 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? 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.

Oy. Vey.

The daf then goes on to ask if priests are “allowed” to have sex with (read: rape) a “beautiful captive.” Again, she is not Jewish. There are rules about what happens if a captor rapes a captive and one of those requirements is that, he has to be able to marry her – and a priest can’t. That conversation goes on to tomorrows daf.

Can I just say how shocked I am that a tractate called kiddushin is so focused on rape? While all of these situations are theoretical discussions and we cannot assume they were common, they definitely make my skin crawl. What gives me comfort is knowing that the Talmud contains myriad rules against rape, including raping a man, raping a woman, raping a stranger, raping your spouse – none of it being allowed or condoned. The Talmud is saying – when these terrible things happen, because they do, then what? Do we permit the woman who was raped by a priest to marry into the priesthood if that is somehow what is best for her? Do we punish a master for forcing a priest to have sex with a Canaanite slave?

Like the piercing of the ear’s cartilage, it’s all permanently scarring.

Two gems. This first one is making me feel better about all this slave talk.

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. 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.

I love this. It reminds me of another rule Judaism, that when we give tzedakah, feed or clothe the poor, we do it with the same quality we use ourselves. It shows respect and that, no matter our status, we are the image of the Divine.

The second gem is quite different and a great lesson.

As Rav Huna says: Once a person commits a transgression and repeats it, it is permitted to him.

This doesn’t mean that a repeated sin is not a sin anymore. It talking about how, once a person becomes accustomed to sin, he will continue to do so as if the act was permitted. The first time we violate a rule our heart races and we can’t believe what we’ve done. But the 4th time we don’t even think the rule matters or applies to us anymore.

mitzvah goreret mitzvah. Aveira goreret aveira. One good deed leads to another. Just as one sin leads to another.
a

A beautiful gem and a good warning to watch the lines and stay on the right side of them.

We have learned that a woman is given something worth at least a perutah in order to become engaged. The Talmud has been discussing a situation where a woman has been sold into slavery and her debt is more than one perutah and how her master can betroth her. The daf has said that, if they do get engaged, she is then treated like a fiancé/wife, not a slave. Our gem ensures that she gets everything a woman betrothed outside of this (can I say completely horrid) situation.

One who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me on the condition that you do not have against me any claims of food, clothing, and conjugal rights, she is betrothed and his condition is void; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to monetary matters, e.g., food and clothing, his condition stands.

What does this mean? Well, it seems that a man cannot make a condition to a marriage that goes against the Torah requirements of him providing her with food, sex, and material goods. However, in this case, since she owes him money (or, more likely, her father) SHE can refuse the money aspect of the arrangement if she so chooses – he can’t. But no matter what arrangement they make, at the end of the day he is still responsible to provide her with food and shelter and, if she wants it, sex.

A gem? I am not sure. I really wish the rabbis would stop comparing marriage to slavery . . . and stop allowing people to marry slaves. Not that I want to stop a love story – but the power dynamic only makes me feel as though any consent is not real consent.

It is easy for us looking back on Torah and Talmud to be very uncomfortable when it talks about slavery. Yes – the slavery was more of an indentured servitude. Yes – slaves were released every 7th year and even those who wanted to stay were released in the 50th (both with gifts). Yes – there were protections for slaves. Yes – they could purchase their freedom. Yes – if they ran away they were not to be returned. But still . . .

Today’s gem is from Rabbi Eliezer who issued rulings around 80-110 CE. The rabbis were debating if someone goes into slavery to pay off a debt for something he stole – what to do if he hasn’t worked off his debt at the end of one of these periods? Can they be sold a second time?

The Sages taught: If the property he stole was worth one thousand and as a slave he is worth only five hundred, he is sold and sold again. If the property he stole was worth five hundred and he is worth one thousand, he is not sold at all. Rabbi Eliezer says: If the property he stole was exactly equal to his value if he were sold, he is sold; and if not, he is not sold. Rava said: In this case Rabbi Eliezer triumphed over the Rabbis.

This is pretty wild! Rabbi Eliezer practically legislates this entire law out of existence! The slave can only be sold if they are worth exactly what they stole. If the slave is not worth exactly what he stole, then he is not sold at all. Now, in what world can we say someone’s worth is exactly any number? Seems to me that Eliezer was also uncomfortable with any kind of slavery and was legislating to get rid of it. I love this because there have already been a few instances in the Talmud where we see that, just because something is mentioned as technically legal – it doesn’t make it right. The rabbis are good at legislating in such a way that any law that seems immoral is rendered ineffective. (Now, if only they would have done that for agunot – women whose husbands won’t give them a divorce.)

Another short gem of a line on our daf (it actually appears twice).

There is something called winners remorse. It’s when you get what you ask for, but then regret not asking for more. Like interviewing for a job and asking for a salary and them saying yes immediately – you think to yourself, “Hmmmm, I should have asked for more.” Our daf warns us not to always swing for the fences in these moments – because if you ask for too much, you might not get the job at all.

One answer is, as people say, that if you grasped too much, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a bit, you grasped something.

Love this. Don’t have winners remorse. Just remember you won.

Today’s gem is a short one! Just an expression:

Rav Yosef said: I see here a yod that has been made into a large city.

Yud is the smallest Hebrew letter. It looks like an apostrophe in block and a tiny half line in cursive. ‘ So, for a yud to be made into a whole city means that Rav Yosef thinks the Tanna who he is talking about has made a big deal out of nothing. In other words, the tanna could have abbreviated his teaching. He made it longer for no reason. And, in general, this is a no-no. Our rabbis are not supposed to say things that don’t teach anything new.

What if we all functioned by that rule?

Work, by Rihanna. Work From Home, by Fifth Harmony. Work It, by Missy Elliott. Let’s Work, by Prince. What do all these songs have in common? “Work” is code for sex. Well, this euphemism goes way back – back to our daf!

. . . a hired worker works only during the day, whereas a Hebrew slave works both during the day and at night. The Gemara clarifies: And can it enter your mind that a Hebrew slave actually works both during the day and at night? But isn’t it already stated: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which teaches that he must be with you in food and with you in drink? All of the slave’s needs must be fulfilled, and his living conditions must be equal to those of the master himself. If so, he cannot be forced to work under unreasonable conditions. And Rabbi Yitzḥak says in explanation of this halakha: From here it is derived that his master may provide him with a Canaanite maidservant against his will to produce children for the master. This is the service he performs at night.

So disturbing. But, in good news, the rabbinic commentary says this is likely just a thought experiment and this rule that says you can force a Hebrew slave to have sex against his will with a Canaanite slave to produce slave-babies was never put into practice. We also learn on this daf that everyone is freed in the 7th year and even those who opt to stay in servitude are freed in the Jubilee year (49th year). Often the rabbis go off on thought tangents that are never put into practice. Today’s just happens to be the predecessor for song pretty popular songs.