Talmud su Esodo 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.

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated³⁰³Babli Soṭah 16b; Sifry Deut. #122.: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation.The Torah said, “in a scroll”³⁰⁴This is a wrong quote, referring to Num. 6:23, the text of the incantations required in the rite of the wife suspected of infidelity. But that text has to be written on a scroll; cf. Soṭah 2:4, Notes 143-144. Here, it should say סֵפֶר "book", referring to the divorce document mentioned in Deut. 24:1 which can be written on anything not connected to the ground; Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3. The quote is correct in the sources quoted in the preceding Note., but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust”³⁰⁵Lev. 17:13. The blood of slaughtered wild animals or birds has to be covered “in dust”., but practice said in anything on which plants grow³⁰⁶Mishnah Ḥulin 6:6.. The Torah said, “with an awl”, but practice said, even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation³⁰⁷R. Ismael’s own hermeneutical rules.: Rebbi Ismael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair³⁰⁸Lev. 14:9, speaking of the ritual purification of the healed sufferer from skin disease. All the quotes are from this verse.,” inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail³⁰⁹By the seventh hermeneutical rule one has to try to find an intensional definition of the properties common to the examples given as detail; these then are the properties referred to by the inclusions.. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only [hair growing] in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd³¹⁰Shaving completely every exposed hair; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4. (Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2 disagrees with the baraita here and the Mishnah and holds that the insistence on the shaving of all hair in both inclusions requires that any single one of the properties mentioned in the analysis of the detail, hair growing in bunches or visible, has to be shaved but nothing else. The Tanna of Sifra holds that practice follows interpretation closely.). “With an awl”, since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal³¹¹In Babylonian sources, Babli 21b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Sifry Deut # 122, this is an argument of Rebbi, in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, of R. Yose ben Jehudah: Any metal implement which can be used for piercing is called “awl”. The most detailed analysis of the verse is in the Babli, 21b, (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) where the inclusion-exclusion methodology of R. Ismael is shown to lead to the admissibility of any metal piercing instrument and the addition-subtraction methodology of R. Aqiba to the inclusion of all mechanical and the exclusion of chemical means.. Rebbi Yose said, this is a large drill³¹²In Sifry Deut # 122, Midrash Haggadol Deut. on Deut. 15:17: This is the large awl. The Yerushalmi text seems to be the original.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.³¹³Ex. 21:6; cf. Deut. 15:17.” I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post”. Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright³¹⁴Babli 22b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.: a shame to him and to his family³¹⁵They violated their obligation to support their relative when he could not fend for himself..

“His ear³¹⁸Ex. 21:6..” Since “his ear” mentioned there³¹⁹This may refer either to the induction ceremony of the priests (Lev. 8:23,24) or the purification of the sufferer from skin disease (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28). In both cases, it is spelled out that blood was given on the right ear’s cartilage. means the right ear, also here the right ear³²⁰Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Neziqin 2; Sifry Deut. #122.. “If the slave says saying³²¹Ex. 21:5. The interpretation of the emphatic infinitive construction as additional condition is characteristic of R. Aqiba’s interpretation; it is rejected by R. Ismael who considers it a regular feature of biblical syntax.”, two sayings, one at the end of the sixth year and one at the start of the seventh year³²²The slave has to give notice of his intention to remain in his servile state while he still is indentured and has to repeat it at the moment he should become free again. Babli 22a, Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Mišpaṭim 2; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 162; Sifry Deut. #121.. One at the end of the sixth year, while he still is in his servitude and one at the start of the seventh year, “I will not go free.³²³This is the statement required at the time of his planned release.” “I love my master, my wife, and my children.³²⁴Ex. 21:5.” This teaches that he cannot be pierced unless he have a wife and children, unless he love his master and his master love him; unless the property be blessed because of him³²⁵Mekhilta dR.Ismael,Mišpaṭim2; Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 162; Sifry Deut. #121; Midrash Tannaïm preserved in Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17. The last source is the only one which explicitly refers the mention of “the wife” to the Canaanite slave given to him by his master (cf. Rashi to Ex. 21:5), not to the Jewish wife and her children who also have to be sustained by his master (Ex. 21:3). as it is said: “For he feels well with you³²⁴Ex. 21:5..”