פֿאַרבונדענע פּסוקים אויף שמות 21:6

What is the reason of Rebbi Eliezer? “Before the Elders’ eyes⁸¹Deut. 25:9: “The sister-in-law shall approach him before the elder’s eyes”. R. Eliezer holds that one sees clearly only during daytime. This argument is not found in any of the parallel sources..” How do the rabbis uphold “before the Elders’ eyes”? That excludes a court of blind people. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the argument of Rebbi Eliezer seems to be inverted⁸²The same argument in the Babli, 104a.. There⁸³The purification of a leper requires that blood and oil be put on the right hand thumb and the right big toe of the healed person, Lev. 14:14,17. In Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9, R. Eliezer and R. Simeon disagree about the purification of a person missing his right hand thumb or right big toe; R. Eliezer insists that the right hand must be used in all cases., he says that the right hand is obligatory, but here, he says that the right hand is not obligatory. Rebbi Yose said, there it is written “the right hand”⁸⁴Lev. 14:14,17. In the Babli, 104a, this is the argument of the rabbis. In the Babli, R. Eliezer is defended by the argument that the leper has so many additional ceremonies that it is difficult to transfer any of his ceremonies to other cases., the right hand is obl;igatory, but here, where “the right hand” is not written, the right hand is notobligatory. Rebbi Yose from Sidon stated before Rebbi Jeremiah: “His ear”, “his ear”. Since “his ear” mentioned there refers to the right ear, so “his ear” mentioned here means the right ear⁸⁵This compares the ceremony of the leper with that of piercing the ear of the Hebrew slave who refuses to regain his freedom, Ex. 21:6, Deut. 15:17. In the latter verses it is not spelled out which ear has to be pierced. The argument that the ear must be the right one is quoted anonymously also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin Chapter 1, fol. 59d, Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim 2, Mekhilta dR. Simeon bar Ioḥai Mišpaṭim p.163, Sifry Deut. 122; in the name of R. Eliezer here and in the Babli 104a and Qiddušin 15a.. It also says “his foot”, “his foot”. He who infers from “his ear”, “his ear” infers from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not infer from “his ear”, “his ear” does not infer from “his foot”, “his foot”. But it was stated in the name of Rebbi Eliezer: “his foot”, “his foot”. That means, there are two statements about the words of Rebbi Eliezer⁸⁶In the Mishnah, R. Eliezer accepts the use of the left foot after the fact; in the baraita he declares use of the left foot as invalid.. He who argues from “his ear”, “his ear” argues from “his foot”, “his foot”; he who does not argue from “his ear”, “his ear” does not argue from “his foot”. And this Mishnah accepts neither “his ear”, “his ear” nor “his foot”, “his foot”⁸⁷That is, for R. Eliezer; but in the opinion of the Babli, the majority base their opinion on the comparison “foot, foot”..

It is written: “His master shall bring him to the judges, or he shall bring him to the door²⁸⁹Ex.. 21:6..” How is that? The one who was sold by the court, “his master shall bring him to the judges.” The one who sold himself, “or he shall bring him to the door.”²⁹⁰Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2; but in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163 (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) even the private act of piercing needs a public act in court. Rebbi Immi asked: It is obvious that the court writes the contract for him who was sold by the court. Who is writing the contract for him who sells himself?²⁹¹No answer is given since in a private transaction any one of the parties may write the contract. It is written: “It shall not be hard in your eyes to send him away free from you; for twice the hire of a hireling he served you for six years.” The hired hand works during the day; he does not work in the night. The Hebrew slave works both day and night. It is written: “He shall not treat him harshly before your eyes²⁹²Lev. 25:53.,” and you say so²⁹³It certainly is forbidden to ask more than a full day’s work from any slave, whether Hebrew or not.? Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: His master marries him to a Canaanite slave; it turns out that he serves him day and night²⁹⁴Since in the night he produces slave children for his master.. Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked before Rebbi Immi: Think of it, if he was buying a Cohen²⁹⁵Since a Cohen may not marry a divorcee, certainly a slave woman is forbidden to him.! He answered him: Would the case of an Israel not also be permission of something prohibited following Rebbi Simeon²⁹⁶The slave woman is not more strictly forbidden to the Cohen than she is to the Israel. According to R. Simeon, children of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother have no family relationship with their father; children of a Jewish father and Gentile mother have no family relationship with their father; the latter statement includes slave women who as yet are not fully Jewish (cf. Yebamot 4:15,7:6 Note 135). Therefore, if the slave woman is temporarily permitted to the Israel, she also is temporarily permitted to the Cohen slave. The woman is not married to the slave in legal terms since at the moment when the slave regains his freedom she automatically becomes forbidden to him and permitted to others without a bill of divorce.
In the Babli, 21b, only Rav holds that the Canaanite woman was permitted to the Cohen while Samuel disagrees.? Rebbi Abba bar Mamai here changed his mind.