Midrash su Deuteronomio 15:12

1) (Vayikra 25:39) ("And if your brother grows poor with you, and he is sold to you, do not work with him the work of a servant.") Whence is it derived that one is not permitted to sell himself and place (the proceeds) in his money-bag to buy animals, vessels, or a house unless he became impoverished? From "And if your brother grows poor and he is sold" — He may not sell himself unless he becomes poor. And whence is it derived that when he is sold, he shall be sold only to you (and not to a gentile)? From "and he is sold to you." And whence is it derived that if beth-din sell him they sell him only to you? From (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you." "your brother": You shall treat him as a brother. I might think that he should conduct himself as a brother; it is, therefore, written "a servant." I might think that you shall also conduct yourself to him as a servant; it is, therefore, written "your brother." How so? You conduct yourself to him with brotherhood (i.e., you call him "brother"); he conducts himself to you with servitude (he calls you "master").

(Ibid.) "If you buy (lit.,) a servant Hebrew": Is Scripture speaking of a servant who is a Hebrew, or the servant of a Hebrew? And how am I to understand (Leviticus 25:46) "And you shall hold them as an inheritance for your sons after you, etc."? As referring to (a gentile servant) bought from a gentile; but if he were bought from a Jew, (I would say that) he serves six years and goes free on the seventh. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you (by beth-din for his theft) your brother, the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman, etc." Let it not be written "Hebrew man" or "Hebrew woman," for it is already written "your brother." Why is it written? It is deliberately superfluous to signal a gezeirah shavah (i.e., "identity"), viz.: It is written here (in Exodus) "Hebrew," and there (in Devarim) "Hebrew." Just as there, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master); here, too, "Hebrew" refers to the servant (and not to the master). And though there is no proof for this (i.e., that "servant Hebrew" is to be understood as "a servant who is a Hebrew" (and not as "the servant of a Hebrew"), there is support for it, viz. (Exodus 5:3) "The G d of the Hebrews revealed Himself to us" — (the G d) of "Avram the Hebrew" (Genesis 14:13).

(Exodus 21:3) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out." What is the intent of this? It is written (9) "If his master gives him a woman" (a Canaanite bondswoman). ("If" here is) optional (and not mandatory). You say "optional," but perhaps it is mandatory. It is, therefore, written "If alone he come, alone shall he go out" — It is optional and not mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "If alone (i.e., intact) he came, alone shall he go out" — If he came with his organ prominences (intact), he goes out with them intact (i.e., the master must indemnify him for any organ prominence loss that he caused him). R. Yishmael says: Our verse is not needed for this. For it is written (Ibid. 7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maidservant, she shall not go out as the (Canaanite) bondsmen go out" — by (loss of) organ prominences, as the Canaanite bondsmen do go out. You say (it means) this; but perhaps (it means that) she should not go out with (six) years (of service) or with Jubilee years, as the (Hebrew) bondsmen do go out. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If your Hebrew brother or sister is sold to you, etc." — whereby we are apprised that she does go out with (six) years (of service). Whence do we derive (the same for) the Jubilee? From (Leviticus 25:42) "For they (i.e., all Hebrews are My servants." In any event, (it has been shown that) it is not the second conclusion (i.e., that she does not go out with years of service and with Jubilee), which is correct, but the first (i.e., that she does not go out with loss of organ prominences). This tells me only of a Hebrew maidservant. Whence do we derive (the same for) a Hebrew bondsman? It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman." The first is likened to one second. Just as the Hebrew woman does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, so, the Hebrew man (But why is a verse needed for this?) Can it not be deduced a fortiori? viz.: If a Hebrew maidservant, who goes out with (the appearance of pubertal) signs, does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences, then a Hebrew bondsman, who does not go out with signs, how much more so should he not go out with (loss of) organ prominences! __ No, this (that she does not go out) may be true of a Hebrew maidservant, who was not sold for thieving — wherefore she does not go out with (loss of) organ prominences — as opposed to a Hebrew bondsman, who was sold for thieving — wherefore he does go out with (loss of) organ prominences. It must, therefore, be written "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — to liken the first to the second, viz.: Just as she does not go out with organ prominences, so, he.