Mga Sanggunian sa Talmud para sa Exodo 21:6: Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin, Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot & Jerusalem Talmud Shevuot

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..

MISHNAH: A Hebrew slave¹⁵⁰The rules are based on Ex. 21:2–6, Lev. 25:39–43, Deut. 15:12–18. The Lev. source clearly refers to the person who sells himself as indentured servant because he cannot fend for himself. Ex. 22:2 provides for judicial sale of the thief who cannot pay the required double restitution.
Separate rules for the Hebrew slave acquired by a Gentile are given in Lev. 25:47–54. In that case, the slave regains his freedom automatically only in the Jubilee year but the family can force his redemption by repaying the portion of his buying price not amortized by the time passed (Lev. 25:50). is acquired by money or a document; he regains his autonomy by years¹⁵¹The maximum time of a contract of an indentured servant was 6 years; Ex. 21:2, Deut. 15:12., or the Jubilee¹⁵²Lev. 25:40. Since the Jubilee brings back everybody to his ancestral land, everybody is presumed to be able to feed himself. The dependence of the rules of the Hebrew slave on the Jubilee implies that Hebrew slavery disappeared with the Jubilee; it never existed during the Second Commonwealth and is not to be re-instituted in the times of the Messiah (Ševi‘it 10:3, Notes 83–88; Giṭṭin 4:3, Note 65). The discussion about the rules of Hebrew male slavery are a purely theoretical reconstruction of the past whose interest is not in statements but in the rules of inference., or reduction of the amount¹⁵³If the slave or his family buy his freedom, the master is required to accept payment proportional to the time not yet served.. The Hebrew slave girl¹⁵⁴While the rules for the Hebrew slave girl are not tied to the Jubilee, the verses Deut. 15:12,17 equate the rules for male and female slaves. Therefore, all the detailed rules developed in this Halakhah are purely theoretical interpretations of the biblical text; they never were operational within the rabbinic framework. in addition regains her autonomy by indicators of puberty¹⁵⁵While a father can forcibly marry off his daughter until she has reached adulthood (12 years six months and one day) he cannot sell her into slavery beyond adolescence (12 years and a day if she shows signs of puberty). He cannot sell her to work for longer than he had the right to sell.. The pierced slave is acquired by piercing¹⁵⁶The slave who does not want to regain his freedom after six years, whose earlobe is pierced (Ex. 21:6, Deut. 15:17).; he regains his autonomy in the Jubilee or by the master’s death¹⁵⁷Ex. 21:5, Deut. 15:16 make it clear that the relationship of the “pierced” slave to his master is a personal one, not transferable to his heirs..