תלמוד על שמות 21:6

Some baraita implies that the agent of a person acts in his stead, and some baraita implies that the agent of a person does not act in his stead²³Everybody agrees that there exist situations in which an agent acts with the full authority of a principal and others where only the person himself can act. The question is, what is the normal case and what is the exception?. “If he definitively will substitute²⁴This seems to be a quote from Lev. 27:10, but there the masoretic text is הָמֵר יָמִיר. If the word יְמִירֶנּוּ is not a slip of the scribe’s pen, the reference might be to יַחֲליפֶנּוּ (“he himself may exchange it”) in the same verse. There is no explicit baraita in rabbinic literature which would invalidate substitution by agent; the double expression is always interpreted as an addition in R. Aqiba’s system. In Sifra Beḥuqqotay Pereq 9(6), the double expression is interpreted to include a woman for her own sacrifice and an heir for an inherited one. Since the agent is not mentioned, he is excluded. In the Babli, Temurah 2a, the statement of Sifra is characterized as R. Meïr’s., if he himself will dissolve²⁵Num. 30:14. This does not refer to an infinitive construction but to the use of the word יְפֵרֶנּוּ instead of the simple יָפֵר. In R. Aqiba’s system, suffixes always carry a special meaning. The argument is explicit in the Babli, Nazir 12b, where the Tanna R. Joshia quotes Num. 30:14 to prove that a husband cannot delegate his power over his wife’s vows to an attorney. R. Jonathan holds that an agent always can act for his principal..” We may hold that a person’s agent cannot act in his stead because Scripture excluded him. “He shall lean his hand,²⁶Lev. 1:4;3:2,8,13;4:24,29,33, a necessary action to validate a sacrifice. The repetition of his hand in all these verses is taken in the Babli, Menaḥot93b, as proof that any agency is impossible for animal sacrifices.” not the hand of his son nor the hand of his slave nor the hand of his agent²⁷This formulation is in Sifra Wayyiqra Pereq 4(2).. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but [in this case] Scripture excluded him. “His master shall pierce his ear with an awl²⁸Ex. 21:6, speaking of the Hebrew slave; cf. Chapter 1:2.;” “his master” but not the latter’s son, “his master” but not the latter’s agent²⁹Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin 2 (ed. Horovitz-Rabin p. 253), dR.Simeon ben Ioḥai Mišpaṭim 6:6.. We may hold that a person’s agent can act in his stead but Scripture excluded him. Some Tannaïm state: “He shall pierce”, to include the agent. This follows Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? “His master”, anybody acting on his master’s authority³⁰This opinion is not found in any parallel source..

Is it free²⁶This refers back to the argument (Notes 9–12) that the uncircumcised is barred from eating heave. It is claimed that the conditions for application of rule 2, גזרה שוה, are not fulfilled.? Has it not been used for a derivation? As it was stated²⁷Babli 70a, Qiddushin 4a, Zebaḥim 62a; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(17).: “Sojourner”, that is the one who is permanently acquired, “hireling” the one temporarily acquired²⁸Lev. 22:10: “A Cohen’s sojourner or hireling shall not eat from sanctified food.” Who are sojourner and hireling? They cannot be Gentiles; these were excluded in the first part of v. 10. They cannot be slaves; these are included (when circumcised) in v. 11. They must be Hebrew “slaves”, i. e., indentured servants. The verse states that the money paid in acquiring a Hebrew slave is paid not to acquire his person but his working and earning power. Therefore, they are not able to partake of sanctified food. The Hebrew slave who is permanently acquired is the one who refuses to leave when his six years of indenture are passed; Ex. 21:5–6, Deut. 15:16–17.
According to tradition, the institution of Hebrew slaves disappeared with the first commonwealth and could never be re-introduced. The argument here is purely one of biblical interpretation, not of actual law.. It should only say “sojourner”; why does the verse mention “hireling”? Should the one who is permanently acquired be forbidden to eat and the one temporarily acquired be permitted? But I would have said that “sojourner” means the one temporarily acquired; the mention of the “hireling” teaches that “sojourner” means the one permanently acquired. Rebbi Mathias²⁹He is mentioned only here. said, since it is written “no uncircumcised person may eat from it,³⁰Ex. 12:48.” it is as if free from one side³¹While the verse in Lev. is used for clarification about the Hebrew slave, Ex. 12:46 cannot speak about him since no circumcised Jew is excluded from the Passover sacrifices. Therefore, the verse is not used for other deductions and the application of rule 2 might be justified.
The Yerushalmi does not clarify the difference between a straight גזרה שוה in which neither part is used for other implications (cf. Note 12), and a conditional one in which only one of the conditions is fulfilled, which may be rejected on logical grounds. This is made explicit in the Babli, 70b..

Rebbi Jehudah ben Rebbi Abun²⁹⁷In the Babli, 21b, and Sifry Deut. #122, he seems to be identified as R. Jehudah (bar Ilai); explicitly so in Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2. The opinion ascribed here to R. Meïr there is that of the anonymous Sages. preached: The earlobe was pierced, lest a Cohen become disqualified. Rebbi Meïr says, he was pierced at his cartilage. Therefore, Rebbi Meïr says that a Cohen cannot be pierced lest he become blemished and be disqualified for service²⁹⁸Mishnah Bekhorot 6:1 notes that both sacrificial animal and priest are disqualified for Divine service if the cartilage of their ears be punctured in the size of a vetch seed.. Could not the cartilage be pierced less than the size of a vetch seed? Maybe it would result in the size of a vetch seed. Let it be the size of a vetch! The Torah said, “he shall return to his inheritance²⁹⁹Lev. 25:27. This is the wrong quote since it refers to real estate returned to its original owner in the Jubilee. The verse referring to the Hebrew slave released in the Jubilee is v. 41, “he shall return to his family, to his forefathers’ inheritance he shall return.” The inheritance of a priest is the Divine service (Num. 18:20).,” as he was. He cannot be pierced unless he had a wife and children³⁰⁰A Jewish wife and children, whom he is unable to support by himself. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin2, dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.. “By an awl”³⁰¹Ex. 21:6.. Not only an awl, from where even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass? The verse says, “he pierces”³⁰²This interpretation seems to be the reason for the masoretic accents which introduce a dividing accent: “he shall pierce his ear, with an awl”, taking “as an awl” as an afterthought. The Babli, 21b, refers to Deut 15:17: “You shall take the awl,” anything that can be used to serve as an awl.. This follows Rebbi Aqiba.