(Exodus 21:4) "If his master gives him a wife": ("If" here connotes) optionality. But perhaps it is mandatory? (This is not so, for) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out" connotes what is optional and not what is mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
2
"אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", אִשָּׁה מְיֻחֶדֶת לוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי כְשִׁפְחַת הֶבְקֵר.*הֶבְקֵר=הפקר. שפחה כנענית שנותנים לעבד כנעני לבת זוג אינה קשורה אישית אליו ואפשר להעבירה לעבד אחר.
R. Akiva says: "If his master gives him a wife" — a woman that is exclusively his, and not an abandoned maid-servant.
(Ibid.) "a wife": Scripture here speaks of a Canaanite woman. But perhaps it speaks of a Hebrew woman. (This cannot be, for) "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" indicates that it is a Canaanite woman that is being spoken of.
(Ibid.) "and she bears him sons or daughters": This tells me only of sons or daughters. Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite? From "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" — in any event. R. Nathan says: It is written "and she bears him": to include the master who lived with his bondswoman, that her children are slaves.
"the woman and her children": What is the intent of this? That her children are (slaves) as she is. This tells me only of a bondswoman, that her children are as she is. Whence do I derive the same for a gentile woman (that her children are regarded as hers and not as the father's)? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows inductively, viz.: Just as the children of a Canaanite bondswoman, who is not betrothed to any man, are considered hers, so, the child of any woman who is not betrothed to any man (i.e., a woman with whom betrothal is not binding) is considered hers. And who is that: The child of a gentile woman.
"and he shall go out alone": We are hereby apprised that a (Canaanite) bondswoman does not require a get (a divorce) from a Jew. Whence do we derive the same (i.e., that she does not require a get) for a Hebrew maid-servant who cohabited with a (Canaanite) bondsman? From (Leviticus 25:49) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant." A man-servant is being likened to a maid-servant, and a maid-servant to a man-servant. Just as a maid-servant does not require a get from a (Hebrew) man-servant, so a Hebrew maid-servant does not require a get from a man-servant.
Variantly: What is the intent of "and he shall go out alone"? Because it is written (of a Hebrew man-servant) "six years shall he serve," I might think that it is only with such a servant that the above provision obtains (i.e., that his master may give him a Canaanite maid-servant). Whence do I derive the same for one whose ear has been bored? (see below) From "and he shall go out alone" — to include one whose ear has been bored.
R. Yitzchak said: This (verse) is not needed (for this learning, for it may be derived a fortiori, viz.:) If this provision obtains with one who served for (only) six years, how much more so does it obtain with one who serves for a longer time (i.e., until the Jubilee)!
"Six years shall he serve": to include one who was sick (and incapacitated for six years — in which instance he must make up the time lost.) This tells us of one who was sick. Whence do we derive (the same for) one who ran away (and was recaptured)? From "Six years shall he serve" — Scripture speaks of one who is able to serve.
(Ibid. 5) "And if say, will say, the man-servant": We are hereby apprised that he is not bored until he says it twice, (once in the beginning of the six years, and once at the end.)
"I love my master, etc.": This tells me only of one who has a wife and children and his master has children (that his ear is bored). Whence do we derive that if his master does not have a wife and children (that his ear is not bored)? From (Devarim 15:16) "and it shall be, if he say to you, etc." From here it is derived that he is not bored unless both he and his master have wife and children.
"I love my master, etc.": He loves his master and his master "loves" him, his possessions prospering through him, wherefore it is written (Devarim, Ibid.) "because it is good for him with you" — that his good be comparable to yours.
"and he shall bring him near to the door or to the door-post": The door is being compared to the door-post, viz.: Just as a door-post stands in its place, so, the door must be standing in its place. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If the door, which is not kasher for the mitzvah (of mezuzah), is kasher for boring, then the door-post, which is kasher for the mitzvah of mezuzah, how much more so should it be kasher for boring! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:17) "Then you shall take the awl and place it in his ear and in the door" — You place it in the door, but not in the door-post. But perhaps the awl is to pierce both his ear and the door-post; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 21:6) "then his master shall bore his ear with an awl" — his ear is pierced and not the door. It is the first reading, then, which is to be accepted — The door is being compared to the door-post, viz.: Just as a door-post stands in its place, so, the door must be standing in its place.
"then his master shall bore his ear": Why is this stated? For we find everywhere that a man's messenger is equivalent to the man himself; but here, only he, (the master, can do the boring) and not his messenger.
"his ear": His right ear is intended. You say, the right ear, but perhaps it is the left! — It follows (that the right ear is meant.) It is written here "his ear," and elsewhere (Leviticus 14:25, in respect to a poor leper,) "his ear." Just as there, the right ear is specified, so, here, the right (is intended).
"his ear": (It is pierced) in the lobe. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: Also, in the cartilage. For R. Meir was wont to say: A Cohein (man-servant) is not bored, (for a pierced lobe would be considered a blemish, which would disqualify him from the priestly service.) And they say: A Cohein is bored.
And why was the ear singled out for boring from all the other organs? R. Yochanan was wont to interpret it symbolically, viz.: The ear which heard (on Mount Sinai): "Thou shalt not steal" — and he went and stole (for which reason beth-din sold him) — let it be bored!
"With an awl": with any instrument. The Torah writes "then his master shall bore his ear with an awl" — and the halachah is, with any instrument. Rebbi says: with a metal instrument only.
"and he shall serve him forever": until the Jubilee year (Yovel). For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If money, whose "power" is formidable, and which acquires everything, acquires only for six years, then boring, which acquires only bondsmen, how much more so should it acquire (a bondsman) for only six years! It is, therefore, written "and he shall serve him forever" — until the Yovel. But perhaps the meaning is that he acquires him forever — literally! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Leviticus 25:10) "And (in the Yovel) you shall return a man (including a bored bondsman) to his holding."
Rebbi says: Come and see that "forever" is fifty years, it being written "and he shall serve him forever" — until the Yovel. How so? With the arrival of the Yovel, he goes free. With the death of the master he goes free.
"and he shall serve him": him, and not his son. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one (i.e., a Hebrew bondsman) who serves for six years, limited service, serves both him and his son, then a bored bondsman, whose service is extended (to the Yovel), how much more so should he serve both him and his son! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and he shall serve him" — "him" and not his son. From here they adduced: A Hebrew bondsman serves the son and not the daughter. A bored bondsman and a maid-servant serve neither the son nor the daughter.
(שמות כא,ד) ["אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה, וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת, הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ, וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ."] "אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", רְשׁוּת. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא חוֹבָה? וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כא,ג) "אִם בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא", רְשׁוּת וְלֹא חוֹבָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
(Exodus 21:4) "If his master gives him a wife": ("If" here connotes) optionality. But perhaps it is mandatory? (This is not so, for) "If alone (i.e., without a wife) he came, alone shall he go out" connotes what is optional and not what is mandatory. These are the words of R. Yishmael.
"אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", אִשָּׁה מְיֻחֶדֶת לוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי כְשִׁפְחַת הֶבְקֵר.*הֶבְקֵר=הפקר. שפחה כנענית שנותנים לעבד כנעני לבת זוג אינה קשורה אישית אליו ואפשר להעבירה לעבד אחר.
R. Akiva says: "If his master gives him a wife" — a woman that is exclusively his, and not an abandoned maid-servant.
"אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה", בִּכְנַעֲנִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּכְנַעֲנִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּעִבְרִית? וּכְשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: "הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ", הָא בִּכְנַעֲנִית הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
(Ibid.) "a wife": Scripture here speaks of a Canaanite woman. But perhaps it speaks of a Hebrew woman. (This cannot be, for) "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" indicates that it is a Canaanite woman that is being spoken of.
"וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָנִים", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בָּנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת, טוּמְטוּם וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: "הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ", מִכָּל מָקוֹם. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: אֵין תַּלְמוּד (לוֹמַר) "וְיָלְדָה לוֹ", אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא אֶת הָרַב שֶׁבָּא עַל שִׁפְּחָתוֹ, שֶׁיְּלָדֶיהָ עֲבָדִים.
(Ibid.) "and she bears him sons or daughters": This tells me only of sons or daughters. Whence do I derive (the same for) a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) and a hermaphrodite? From "the woman and her children shall belong to her master" — in any event. R. Nathan says: It is written "and she bears him": to include the master who lived with his bondswoman, that her children are slaves.
"הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ", מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר? מַגִּיד שֶׁיְּלָדֶיהָ כָּמוֹהָ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שִׁפְחָה שֶׁיְּלָדֶיהָ כָּמוֹהָ, נָכְרִית מְנַיִן? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מָה אִם שִפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית, שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִדּוּשִׁין מִכָּל אָדָם, וְלָדֶיהָ כָּמוֹהָ, אַף כָּל שֶׁאֵין לָהּ קִדּוּשִׁין מִכָּל אָדָם, וְלָדֶיהָ כָּמוֹהָ, וְאֵי זֶה זֶה? זֶה וֶלֶד שִׁפְחָה נָכְרִית.
"the woman and her children": What is the intent of this? That her children are (slaves) as she is. This tells me only of a bondswoman, that her children are as she is. Whence do I derive the same for a gentile woman (that her children are regarded as hers and not as the father's)? R. Yishmael was wont to say: It follows inductively, viz.: Just as the children of a Canaanite bondswoman, who is not betrothed to any man, are considered hers, so, the child of any woman who is not betrothed to any man (i.e., a woman with whom betrothal is not binding) is considered hers. And who is that: The child of a gentile woman.
"וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ." מַגִּיד, שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵּט. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אָמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִן בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִן הָעֶבֶד, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (ויקרא כה,מה) "מֵהֶם תִּקְנוּ עֶבֶד וְאָמָה." הִקִּישׁ עֶבֶד לְאָמָה וְאָמָה לְעֶבֶד: מָה אָמָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִבֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל גֵּט, אַף בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה מִן הָעֶבֶד גֵּט.
"and he shall go out alone": We are hereby apprised that a (Canaanite) bondswoman does not require a get (a divorce) from a Jew. Whence do we derive the same (i.e., that she does not require a get) for a Hebrew maid-servant who cohabited with a (Canaanite) bondsman? From (Leviticus 25:49) "From them (the Canaanites) shall you buy a man-servant and a maid-servant." A man-servant is being likened to a maid-servant, and a maid-servant to a man-servant. Just as a maid-servant does not require a get from a (Hebrew) man-servant, so a Hebrew maid-servant does not require a get from a man-servant.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ" לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כא,ב) "שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ שֶׁנּוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִנְהָג הָאָמוּר בַּפָּרָשָׁה; נִרְצָע מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ", לְהָבִיא אֶת הַנִּרְצָע.
Variantly: What is the intent of "and he shall go out alone"? Because it is written (of a Hebrew man-servant) "six years shall he serve," I might think that it is only with such a servant that the above provision obtains (i.e., that his master may give him a Canaanite maid-servant). Whence do I derive the same for one whose ear has been bored? (see below) From "and he shall go out alone" — to include one whose ear has been bored.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ. מָה, אִם הָעוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ שֶׁמִּעֵט הַכָּתוּב יְצִיאָתוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא נוֹהֵג בּוֹ מִנְהָג הָאָמוּר בַּפָּרָשָׁה, נִרְצָע, שֶׁרִבָּה הַכָּתוּב יְצִיאָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּנְהֹג בּוֹ מִנְהָג הָאָמוּר בַּפָּרָשָׁה?
R. Yitzchak said: This (verse) is not needed (for this learning, for it may be derived a fortiori, viz.:) If this provision obtains with one who served for (only) six years, how much more so does it obtain with one who serves for a longer time (i.e., until the Jubilee)!
(שמות כא,ב) "שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", לְהָבִיא אֶת הַחוֹלֶה. מַשְׁמָע, מֵבִיא אֶת הַחוֹלֶה וּמֵבִיא אֶת הַבּוֹרֵחַ! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד", אָמַרְתָּ, בַּמֵּי הָעִנְיָן מְדַבֵּר? בָּרָאוּי לַעֲבֹד.
"Six years shall he serve": to include one who was sick (and incapacitated for six years — in which instance he must make up the time lost.) This tells us of one who was sick. Whence do we derive (the same for) one who ran away (and was recaptured)? From "Six years shall he serve" — Scripture speaks of one who is able to serve.
(שמות כא,ה) ["וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד: אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי, אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי, לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי!"] "וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד". מַגִּיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִרְצָע עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר שְׁנֵי פְעָמִים.
(Ibid. 5) "And if say, will say, the man-servant": We are hereby apprised that he is not bored until he says it twice, (once in the beginning of the six years, and once at the end.)
"אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי". אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים, וּלְרַבּוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים; אֵין לְרַבּוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים, מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,טז) "וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמַר אֵלֶיךָ: לֹא אֵצֵא מֵעִמָּךְ! כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת בֵּיתֶךָ, כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ." מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן יֵשׁ לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים, וּלְרַבּוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים.
"I love my master, etc.": This tells me only of one who has a wife and children and his master has children (that his ear is bored). Whence do we derive that if his master does not have a wife and children (that his ear is not bored)? From (Devarim 15:16) "and it shall be, if he say to you, etc." From here it is derived that he is not bored unless both he and his master have wife and children.
"וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד: אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי, אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי, לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי!" אוֹהֵב אֶת רַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ, שֶׁנִּתְבָּרְכוּ נְכָסִים עַל יָדוֹ. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: (דברים טו,טז) "וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמַר אֵלֶיךָ: לֹא אֵצֵא מֵעִמָּךְ! כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת בֵּיתֶךָ, כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ."
"I love my master, etc.": He loves his master and his master "loves" him, his possessions prospering through him, wherefore it is written (Devarim, Ibid.) "because it is good for him with you" — that his good be comparable to yours.
(דברים טו,טז) "כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ." שֶׁתְּהֵא טוֹבָתוֹ שָׁוָה לָךְ. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: לֹא יְשַׁנֶּה רַבּוֹ עָלָיו מַאֲכָלוֹ וּמַשְׁקֵהוּ וְהֶסֵּבוֹ מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר "כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ."
Variantly: "because it is good for him with you": From here it is derived that his master should not vary his food, drink, and bedding from his own.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: (דברים טו,טז) "כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ." אִם הָיָה חִגֵּר אוֹ סוֹמֵא, אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע.
Variantly: "because it is good for him with you" — If one of them were lame or blind, he is not bored.
(שמות כא,ו) ["וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים, וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה, וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ, וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם."] "וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֲדֹנָיו אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים", אֵצֶל הַדַּיָּנִין, שֶׁיִּמָּלֵךְ בְּמוֹכְרָיו.
"Then his master shall bring him near to elohim": These are the judges, that he might consult those who sold him.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בַּנִּמְכָּר בְּבֵית דִּין עַל גְּנֵבָתוֹ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֲבָל כָּן, אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע אֶלָּא בֵּינוֹ וּבֵין עַצְמוֹ.
Rebbi says: We are speaking of one who was sold in beth-din for his theft, but if he sold himself, he is not bored.
"וְהִגִּישׁוֹ אֶל הַדֶּלֶת אוֹ אֶל הַמְּזוּזָה", מַקִּישׁ דֶּלֶת לַמְּזוּזָה: מַה מְּזוּזָה מֵעֹמֶד, אַף דֶּלֶת מֵעֹמֶד. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְכָךְ בָּא, אוֹ יִרְצְעֶנּוּ בַמְּזוּזָה? וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: מָה, אִם הַדֶּלֶת, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָשֵׁר לְמִצְוָה, כָּשֵׁר לִרְצִיעָה, מְזוּזָה, שֶׁהִיא כְשֵׁרָה לְמִצְוָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּכְשַׁר לִרְצִיעָה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,יז) "וְנָתַתָּה בְאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת", בַּדֶּלֶת אַתְּ נוֹתֵן, וְאֵין אַתְּ נוֹתֵן בַּמְּזוּזָה. אוֹ יַעֲבֹר בְּאָזְנוֹ וּבַדֶּלֶת? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ", בְּאָזְנוֹ אַתְּ מְעַבֵּר, וְאֵי אַתְּ מְעַבֵּר בַּדֶּלֶת. הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: הִקִּישׁ דֶּלֶת לַמְּזוּזָה, מַה מְּזוּזָה מֵעֹמֶד, אַף דֶּלֶת מֵעֹמֶד.
"and he shall bring him near to the door or to the door-post": The door is being compared to the door-post, viz.: Just as a door-post stands in its place, so, the door must be standing in its place. And this would follow a fortiori, viz.: If the door, which is not kasher for the mitzvah (of mezuzah), is kasher for boring, then the door-post, which is kasher for the mitzvah of mezuzah, how much more so should it be kasher for boring! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:17) "Then you shall take the awl and place it in his ear and in the door" — You place it in the door, but not in the door-post. But perhaps the awl is to pierce both his ear and the door-post; it is, therefore, written (Exodus 21:6) "then his master shall bore his ear with an awl" — his ear is pierced and not the door. It is the first reading, then, which is to be accepted — The door is being compared to the door-post, viz.: Just as a door-post stands in its place, so, the door must be standing in its place.
"וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ", לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּכָל מָקוֹם, שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁלָּאָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אֲבָל כָּן, הוּא וְלֹא שְׁלוּחוֹ.
"then his master shall bore his ear": Why is this stated? For we find everywhere that a man's messenger is equivalent to the man himself; but here, only he, (the master, can do the boring) and not his messenger.
"אָזְנוֹ", בְּשֶׁלַּיָּמִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּשֶׁלַּיָּמִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלַּשְּׂמֹאל? הֲרֵי אַתְּ דָּן: נֶאֱמַר כָּן "אָזְנוֹ", וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן "אָזְנוֹ", מַה לְּהַלָּן בַּיָּמִין, אַף כָּן בַּיָּמִין.
"his ear": His right ear is intended. You say, the right ear, but perhaps it is the left! — It follows (that the right ear is meant.) It is written here "his ear," and elsewhere (Leviticus 14:25, in respect to a poor leper,) "his ear." Just as there, the right ear is specified, so, here, the right (is intended).
"אָזְנוֹ", מִן הַמִּילָת.*הַמִּילָת: החלק הרך בתחתית האוזן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף מִן הַסְּחוֹס.*סְחוֹס: רקמה חצי קשיחה שנותנת את צורתה לאוזן. שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵין כֹּהֵן נִרְצָע. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים: נִרְצָע. אֵין כֹּהֵן נִמְכָּר. וְהֵן אוֹמְרִים: נִמְכָּר.
"his ear": (It is pierced) in the lobe. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: Also, in the cartilage. For R. Meir was wont to say: A Cohein (man-servant) is not bored, (for a pierced lobe would be considered a blemish, which would disqualify him from the priestly service.) And they say: A Cohein is bored.
וּמָה רָאַת אֹזֶן שֶׁתֵּרָצַע מִכָּל אֵבָרִים? רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּי אוֹמְרָהּ מִן הַחֹמֶר: אֹזֶן שֶׁשָּׁמְעָה "לֹא תִגְנֹב", וְהָלַךְ וְגָנַב, הִיא תֵּרָצַע מִכָּל אֵבָרָיו.
And why was the ear singled out for boring from all the other organs? R. Yochanan was wont to interpret it symbolically, viz.: The ear which heard (on Mount Sinai): "Thou shalt not steal" — and he went and stole (for which reason beth-din sold him) — let it be bored!
"בַּמַּרְצֵעַ", בְּכָל דָּבָר. הַתּוֹרָה אָמְרָה: "וְרָצַע אֲדֹנָיו אֶת אָזְנוֹ בַּמַּרְצֵעַ", וַהֲלָכָה אָמְרָה 'בְּכָל דָּבָר'! רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: אוֹמֵר אֲנִי, בְּמִין מַתֶּכֶת בִּלְבַד.
"With an awl": with any instrument. The Torah writes "then his master shall bore his ear with an awl" — and the halachah is, with any instrument. Rebbi says: with a metal instrument only.
"וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם." עַד הַיּוֹבֵל. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הַכֶּסֶף, שֶׁיָּפֶה כֹחוֹ וְקוֹנֶה הַכֹּל, אֵינוֹ קוֹנֶה אֶלָּא שֵׁשׁ, רְצִיעָה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹנָה אֶלָּא עֲבָדִים, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי קוֹנָה אֶלָּא שֵׁשׁ? הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם"? עַד הַיּוֹבֵל. אוֹ "וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם" כִּשְׁמוּעוֹ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (ויקרא כה,י) "וְשַׁבְתֶּם אִישׁ אֶל אֲחֻזָּתוֹ".
"and he shall serve him forever": until the Jubilee year (Yovel). For it would follow otherwise, viz.: If money, whose "power" is formidable, and which acquires everything, acquires only for six years, then boring, which acquires only bondsmen, how much more so should it acquire (a bondsman) for only six years! It is, therefore, written "and he shall serve him forever" — until the Yovel. But perhaps the meaning is that he acquires him forever — literally! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Leviticus 25:10) "And (in the Yovel) you shall return a man (including a bored bondsman) to his holding."
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: בֹּא וּרְאֵה שֶׁאֵין 'הָעוֹלָם' אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה: "וַעֲבָדוֹ לְעֹלָם." "עַד שְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל". (ויקרא כה,מ) הָא כֵיצַד? הִגִּיעַ הַיּוֹבֵל, יָצָא; מֵת הָאָדוֹן, יָצָא.
Rebbi says: Come and see that "forever" is fifty years, it being written "and he shall serve him forever" — until the Yovel. How so? With the arrival of the Yovel, he goes free. With the death of the master he goes free.
"וַעֲבָדוֹ", אוֹתוֹ הוּא עוֹבֵד, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הָעוֹבֵד שֵׁשׁ, שֶׁמִּעֵט הַכָּתוּב יְצִיאָתוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹבְדוֹ וְעוֹבֵד הַבֵּן, נִרְצָע, שֶׁרִבָּה הַכָּתוּב יְצִיאָתוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵי עוֹבְדוֹ וְעוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וַעֲבָדוֹ", אוֹתוֹ הוּא עוֹבֵד, וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן. מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: עֶבֶד עִבְרִי עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבֵּן וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד אֶת הַבַּת; נִרְצָע וְהָעִבְרִיָּה, לֹא אֶת הַבֵּן וְלֹא אֶת הַבַּת.
"and he shall serve him": him, and not his son. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If one (i.e., a Hebrew bondsman) who serves for six years, limited service, serves both him and his son, then a bored bondsman, whose service is extended (to the Yovel), how much more so should he serve both him and his son! It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and he shall serve him" — "him" and not his son. From here they adduced: A Hebrew bondsman serves the son and not the daughter. A bored bondsman and a maid-servant serve neither the son nor the daughter.