(Exodus 21:7) "And if a man sells his daughter": Scripture speaks of a minor (under twelve). You say that it speaks of a minor, but perhaps it speaks of an adult! — Would you say that? (The rationale for his selling is) Since he is permitted to annul her vows, he is permitted to sell her. Just as he may annul the vows of a minor but not of an adult, so, he can sell a minor but not an adult. But (reason from) the "place" you are coming from (i.e., from vows). Just as there, (he may annul her vows) when she is a na'arah, (a maiden), (from twelve years and a day until twelve and a half years, viz. [Numbers 30:17]) here, too, (he should be able to sell her) when she is a na'arah! — Would you say that? if (pubertal) signs remove her from servitude, how much more so (may he not sell her [a na'arah]) when she has not yet been sold!
"And if a man sells his daughter": A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a man, who is not permitted to sell his son, is permitted to sell his daughter, should a woman not be permitted to sell her daughter? It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter." A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter.
"And if a man sells his daughter": A man may sell his daughter, but not his son. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a father may sell his daughter, who (as an adult) is not sold (by beth-din) for stealing, how much more so may he sell his son, who (as an adult) is sold by beth-din for stealing! It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter." A man may sell his daughter, but not his son.
"And if a man sells his daughter": He sells her, but she does not sell herself. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, sells himself, then a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her, how much more so should she (be permitted to) sell herself! — No, this may be true of a son, who is sold for his theft, as opposed to a daughter, who is not sold for her theft.
Let her, then, be sold for her theft, and it would, indeed, follow that she should be, viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, is sold for his theft, then a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her, how much more so should be sold for her theft! — No, this may be true of a son, whose ear is bored, wherefore he is sold for his theft, as opposed to a daughter, whose ear is not bored, wherefore she is not sold for her theft.
Let her, then, be bored, as it would, indeed, follow that she should be, viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, is bored, how much more so a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her! It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter" — He sells her, but she does not sell herself. If Scripture has excluded her from being sold (a second time), the more formidable (restriction upon her father), how much more so is she excluded from boring, the less formidable (restriction).
"And if a man sells": We are hereby apprised that he may sell her (as a maid-servant). And whence is it derived that he is permitted to betroth her? — If he can remove her from (the possibility of) betrothal to (the status of) maid-servant, how much more so can he betroth her (to another ab initio)! And whence is it derived that she (a Jewess) is acquired (as a wife) by money? R. Yishmael says: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a Canaanite maid-servant, who is not acquired (as a maid-servant) by cohabitation (with the master), is acquired by money, then a Jewess, who is acquired (as a wife) by cohabitation, how much more so is she acquired by money! And whence do we derive (the same for acquisition of a wife by) a writ? It is written (Devarim 24:2) "Then she may go (by a writ of divorce, from her husband's house) and become another man's wife." "Becoming" is being likened to "going" — Just as going is "going" is with a writ, so, "becoming." R. Akiva says: It is written (Exodus 21:10) "If another (wife) he take for himself (in addition to the maid-servant)" — Just as the first, (the maid-servant, is taken) with money, so, the second, (the wife, is taken) with money....
(Exodus 21:7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maid-servant" — He sells her once as a maid-servant, and not twice. R. Yossi Haglili says: We find, then, that he (a father) can betroth her betrothal after betrothal (i.e., if she were divorced after the first betrothal, he may betroth her to another), and betrothal after (having sold her as a) maid-servant, but not maid-servant after maid-servant, and, it goes without saying, not maid-servant after betrothal.
(Ibid.) "she shall not go out as the bondsmen go out": i.e., she shall not go out as the Canaanites go out. You say (that the intent is) she shall not go out by (the mutilation of) organ prominences, as the Canaanites do. But perhaps the meaning is, she does not go out after (six) years or with the (advent of the) Yovel, as the Hebrews do! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you your brother, the Hebrew man or the Hebrew women, etc.", whence we are apprised that she does go out after (six) years or with the (advent of the) Yovel. This ("she shall not go out as the bondsmen go out") tells me only of the Hebrew maid-servant, that she does not go out by (the mutilation of) organ prominences.
Whence do I derive (the same for) the (Hebrew) man-servant? From "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — the first is being likened to the second. Just as she does not go out — with (mutilation of) organ prominences, so, he.
No, this may be true of a Hebrew maid-servant, who is not sold for her theft, wherefore she does not go out with mutilation of organ prominences, (as opposed to a man-servant, who is sold for his theft.) (Exodus 21:8) "If she be evil in the eyes of her master": "evil" here connotes her not finding favor in his eyes."
"who did not designate her (to be his wife), then he shall redeem her": From here they ruled that the mitzvah of marrying her takes precedence to that of his redeeming her.
Variantly: "who did not designate her": If her master does not take her to wife, her father should redeem her. "who did not designate her": He should not designate two (as wives) at the same time. He (the father) should not sell her on condition that she be taken as a wife. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Akiva says: He may sell her (on this condition). If he (the master) wishes to take her as a wife, he does so (and if not, the sale is annulled).
"After he (the father) has been faithless ("bagdah") to her" (by selling her,) by degrading her and not treating her as a Jewish daughter, he, too, is not permitted to retain her (i.e., to sell her a second time). These are the words of R. Yonathan b. Avtalmos. "bagdah" here connotes deceit" as in (Malachi 2:11) "bagdah Yehudah" and (Jeremiah 5:11) "for the house of Israel bagod bagdu against Me."
R. Yishmael says: Scripture is speaking of the master, who took her to marry her and did not do so. He, too, may not retain her (to sell her to another as a maid-servant).
(Exodus, Ibid. 9) "And if to his son he designate her (as a wife)": He designates her to his son, but not to his brother. For it would follow (that he does designate her to his brother), viz.: If he designates his son, who does not take his place through yibum (levirate marriage), how much more so, his brother, who does take his place through yibum! — No, this may be true of his son, who takes his place vis-à-vis (reversion to his father of) a (field of) holding (on the Yovel), (as opposed to his brother, who does not.) It is, therefore, written "And if to his son he designate her" — to his son and not to his brother.
"according to the ordinance of the daughters shall he provide for her": Now what do we learn from "the ordinance of the daughters? — It (apparently) comes to "teach" (about a maid-servant), but it ends up "learning" (about daughters in general), viz.: Just as this one (the maid-servant), (10) "her food, her clothing, and her (conjugal) time he shall not diminish," so, a Jewish daughter (in general), her food, her clothing, and her time he shall not diminish. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
R. Yonathan says: It ("according to the ordinance, etc.") speaks of a Hebrew (maid-servant, i.e., that he is to do with his maid-servant according to the ordinance of the Jewish daughters.) You say this, but perhaps the intent of the verse is to shed light upon a Jewish daughter (in general, as per R. Yoshiyah)! — (This is not so, for [10]) "If another wife he take for himself, etc." already speaks about a Jewish daughter (in general). What, then, is the intent of "according to the ordinance of the daughters"? Scripture speaks of a Hebrew maid-servant (as per R. Yonathan).
"If another he take for him": From here they ruled: A man is obligated to marry off his "small" son (i.e., one who is still "under his wing.") And elsewhere it is written (Devarim 4:9) "and you shall make them known to your sons and to your sons' sons." When do you merit seeing your sons' sons? When you marry off your sons when they are small.
"she'eirah": This is her food, as in (Michah 3:3) "and who eat the she'er of My people", and (Psalms 78:27) "He rained she'er (manna) upon them as dust." (Exodus, Ibid.) "kesuthah": as stated (i.e., "her clothing"), "and onathah": her (conjugal) time, as in (Genesis 34:2) "And he lay with her and ye'anehah." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
R. Yonathan says: "she'erah" is her clothing, i.e., clothing that is adapted to her flesh ("she'er"). If she were young, he should not give her (the clothing) of an elderly woman. If she were elderly, he should not give her (the clothing) of a young woman. "and her onah" (time): He should not give her summer (clothing) in the winter or winter (clothing) in the summer, but each (garment) in its time. Whence is "her food" derived? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which are not life sustaining, how much more so things which are life sustaining! Whence is "her (conjugal) time derived? It follows a fortiori, viz. If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which she was not married for in the beginning, how much more so things which she was married for in the beginning!
Rebbi says: "she'erah" is her conjugal time, as in (Leviticus 18:6) "A man, to all the she'er (flesh) of his kin shall not draw near" (for cohabitation), and (in the same connection) (Ibid. 12, 13) "She is the she'er of your father", "She is the she'er of your mother." "kesuthah": as per its plain meaning (i.e., "her clothing.) "onathah" — "her food", as in (Devarim 8:3) "vayeanchah" and He caused you to hunger."
(Exodus, Ibid. 10) "he shall not diminish": R. Yoshiyah says: What is the intent of this? From (Ibid.) "If another (wife) he take for himself," I might think that this ("he shall not, etc.") refers to the Jewess (that he is taking); it is, therefore, written "he shall not diminish." With whom does "diminution" obtain? With one who has already been given something (i.e., the Hebrew maid-servant).)
R. Yonathan says: Scripture (in "he shall not withhold") speaks of a Jewess (in general). You say it speaks of a Jewess, but perhaps it speaks of the Hebrew maid-servant. — (No, for [9]) "according to the ordinance of the daughters shall he provide for her" already speaks of the Hebrew maid-servant. How, then, am I to understand "If another he take for himself"? As applying to a Jewess (in general).
(Ibid. 11) "And if these three he does not do to her, then she shall go out free, without money": ("these three":) Marry her yourself, marry her to your son, or redeem her. You say this, but perhaps it refers to (withholding) her food, clothing, or (conjugal) time. Would you say that? The verse speaks of a Hebrew maid-servant (who has not been betrothed [and with whom "food, clothing or time" do not obtain.])
"And if these three … then she shall go out free": I might think, "free" of a get (a divorce, if he marries her). How, then, would I understand (Devarim 24:1) "then he shall write her a bill of divorce"? As obtaining with other women, other than a Hebrew maid-servant. It is, therefore, written "And if these three … then she shall go out free" — free of money (payment), but not free of a get.
"then she shall go out free": when she is a bogereth (i.e., after twelve and a half years); "without money": when she is a na'arah (from twelve and a day until twelve and half.) Now it follows that if she goes out in the days of na'aruth, she does not go out in the days of bagruth. (Why, then, write both?) If only one were written, I would say that it referred to the days of bagruth. And this would follow, viz.: Since (at a certain stage) she leaves her father's jurisdiction and (at a certain stage) she leaves her master's jurisdiction, then just as she leaves her father's jurisdiction when she changes from what she was, so, she leaves her master's jurisdiction when she changes from what she was — i.e., when she had been a na'arah and becomes a bogereth. Therefore, so that there be no room to contest (her leaving the master's jurisdiction when she is a na'arah), both are written: "then she shall go out free" — (uncontestedly,) when she is a bogereth; "without money" — when she is a na'arah. R. Yonathan says: "Then she shall go out free": when she is a na'arah; "without money": when she is a bogereth.
R. Eliezer says: "Then she shall go out free" — when she is a bogereth; "without money" — with signs (of puberty). We are hereby taught that (in the absence of signs) she goes out by deducting from the value (of the years served to the value of those to be served.)
R. Nathan says: Since (on the one hand) the Torah says "Give money," and, (on the other hand,) "do not give money," then just as the first obtains before the advent of signs, so, the latter obtains after the advent of signs.
(שמות כא,ז) ["וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ לְאָמָה, לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים."] "וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ", בִּקְטַנָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בִּקְטַנָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּגְדוֹלָה? אָמַרְתָּ, הוֹאִיל וְרַשַּׁי בְּהֶפֶר נְדָרֶיהָ, רַשַּׁי בִּמְכִירָתָהּ, מַה הֲפָרַת נְדָרֶיהָ, קְטַנָּה וְלֹא גְּדוֹלָה, אַף מְכִירָתָהּ, קְטַנָּה וְלֹא גְּדוֹלָה. מִמְּקוֹם שֶׁבָּאתָ, מַה לְּהַלָּן כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, אַף כָּן כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה. אָמַרְתָּ, הוֹאִיל וּמוֹצִיאִין אוֹתָהּ סִימָנִין מֵרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי בְּקִדּוּשֶׁיהָ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, קַל וָחֹמֶר עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִמְכְּרָה.
(Exodus 21:7) "And if a man sells his daughter": Scripture speaks of a minor (under twelve). You say that it speaks of a minor, but perhaps it speaks of an adult! — Would you say that? (The rationale for his selling is) Since he is permitted to annul her vows, he is permitted to sell her. Just as he may annul the vows of a minor but not of an adult, so, he can sell a minor but not an adult. But (reason from) the "place" you are coming from (i.e., from vows). Just as there, (he may annul her vows) when she is a na'arah, (a maiden), (from twelve years and a day until twelve and a half years, viz. [Numbers 30:17]) here, too, (he should be able to sell her) when she is a na'arah! — Would you say that? if (pubertal) signs remove her from servitude, how much more so (may he not sell her [a na'arah]) when she has not yet been sold!
"וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ", הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת אֶת בִּתָּהּ. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין אָבִיו רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, הַבַּת, שֶׁאָבִיהָ רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרָהּ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁתִּמְכֹּר אֶת בִּתָּהּ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ", אִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵין אִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת אֶת בִּתָּהּ.
"And if a man sells his daughter": A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a man, who is not permitted to sell his son, is permitted to sell his daughter, should a woman not be permitted to sell her daughter? It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter." A man may sell his daughter, but a woman may not sell her daughter.
"וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ", הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר אֶת בְּנוֹ. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הַבַּת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְכֶּרֶת עַל גְּנֵבָהּ, אָבִיהָ רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרָהּ, הַבֵּן, שֶׁהוּא נִמְכָּר עַל גְּנֵבוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיְּהֵי אָבִיו רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרוֹ? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ", הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת בִּתּוֹ, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכֵר אֶת בְּנוֹ.
"And if a man sells his daughter": A man may sell his daughter, but not his son. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a father may sell his daughter, who (as an adult) is not sold (by beth-din) for stealing, how much more so may he sell his son, who (as an adult) is sold by beth-din for stealing! It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter." A man may sell his daughter, but not his son.
"וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ". הָאִישׁ מוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ, וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה מוֹכֶרֶת אֶת עַצְמָהּ. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: מָה, אִם הַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין אָבִיו רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא מוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בַּבַּת, שֶׁאָבִיהָ רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרָהּ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּמְכֹּר אֶת עַצְמָהּ! לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַבֵּן, שֶׁהוּא נִמְכָּר בִּגְנֵבוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא מוֹכֵר אֶת עַצְמוֹ, תֹּאמַר בַּבַּת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְכֶּרֶת בִּגְנֵבָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּמְכֹּר אֶת עַצְמָהּ.
"And if a man sells his daughter": He sells her, but she does not sell herself. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, sells himself, then a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her, how much more so should she (be permitted to) sell herself! — No, this may be true of a son, who is sold for his theft, as opposed to a daughter, who is not sold for her theft.
וּתְהֵי נִמְכֶּרֶת עַל גְּנֵבָהּ! וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: וּמָה, אִם הַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין אָבִיו רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא נִמְכָּר עַל גְּנֵיבוֹ, הַבַּת, שֶׁאָבִיהָ רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרָהּ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּמָּכֵר עַל גְּנֵבָהּ! לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַבֵּן, שֶׁהוּא נִרְצָע, לְפִיכָךְ הוּא נִמְכָּר עַל גְּנֵבוֹ, תֹּאמַר בַּבַּת, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִרְצַעַת, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא תִּמָּכֵר עַל גְּנֵבָהּ.
Let her, then, be sold for her theft, and it would, indeed, follow that she should be, viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, is sold for his theft, then a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her, how much more so should be sold for her theft! — No, this may be true of a son, whose ear is bored, wherefore he is sold for his theft, as opposed to a daughter, whose ear is not bored, wherefore she is not sold for her theft.
וְתֵרָצַע! וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: וּמָה, אִם הַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵין אָבִיו רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרוֹ, הֲרֵי הוּא נִרְצָע, הַבַּת, שֶׁאָבִיהָ רַשַּׁי לְמָכְרָהּ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתֵּרָצַע! אָמַרְתָּ, אִם מוֹצִיאָהּ הַכָּתוּב מִידֵי מֶכֶר הֶחָמוּר, קַל וָחֹמֶר מִידֵי רְצִיעָה קַלָּה.
Let her, then, be bored, as it would, indeed, follow that she should be, viz.: If a son, whose father is not permitted to sell him, is bored, how much more so a daughter, whose father is permitted to sell her! It is, therefore, written "And if a man sells his daughter" — He sells her, but she does not sell herself. If Scripture has excluded her from being sold (a second time), the more formidable (restriction upon her father), how much more so is she excluded from boring, the less formidable (restriction).
"וְכִי יִמְכֹּר אִישׁ". הָא לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי בִּמְכִירָתָהּ. וּמְנַיִן שֶׁהוּא רַשַּׁי בְּקִדּוּשֶׁיהָ? אָמַרְתָּ, אִם מוֹצִיאָהּ הוּא מִידֵי קְדֻשָּׁה לִידֵי אַמְהוּת, קַל וָחֹמֶר מִידֵי קְדֻשָּׁה לִידֵי קְדֻשָּׁה. וּמְנַיִן שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בַּכֶּסֶף? הָיָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אָמַרְתָּ קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה, אִם שִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִקְנֵית בִּבְעִילָה, הֲרֵי הִיא נִקְנֵית בַּכֶּסֶף, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁהִיא נִקְנֵית בִּבְעִילָה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁתִּקָּנֶה בַכֶּסֶף. וּמְנַיִן אַף בִּשְׁטָר? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים כד,ב) "וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה", מַקִּישׁ הֲוָיָתָהּ לַהֲלִיכָתָהּ: מַה הֲלִיכָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר, אַף הֲוָיָתָהּ בִּשְׁטָר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: (שמות כא,י) "אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ", הִקִּישׁ הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה לָעֶלְיוֹנָה: מָה עֶלְיוֹנָה בַכֶּסֶף, אַף הַתַּחְתּוֹנָה בַכֶּסֶף.
"And if a man sells": We are hereby apprised that he may sell her (as a maid-servant). And whence is it derived that he is permitted to betroth her? — If he can remove her from (the possibility of) betrothal to (the status of) maid-servant, how much more so can he betroth her (to another ab initio)! And whence is it derived that she (a Jewess) is acquired (as a wife) by money? R. Yishmael says: It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a Canaanite maid-servant, who is not acquired (as a maid-servant) by cohabitation (with the master), is acquired by money, then a Jewess, who is acquired (as a wife) by cohabitation, how much more so is she acquired by money! And whence do we derive (the same for acquisition of a wife by) a writ? It is written (Devarim 24:2) "Then she may go (by a writ of divorce, from her husband's house) and become another man's wife." "Becoming" is being likened to "going" — Just as going is "going" is with a writ, so, "becoming." R. Akiva says: It is written (Exodus 21:10) "If another (wife) he take for himself (in addition to the maid-servant)" — Just as the first, (the maid-servant, is taken) with money, so, the second, (the wife, is taken) with money....
"לְאָמָה". לְאָמָה אַחַת הוּא מוֹכְרָהּ, וְאֵינוֹ מוֹכְרָהּ לִשְׁתֵּי אֲמָהוֹת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: נִמְצֵינוּ לְמֵדִין, שֶׁהוּא מְקַדְּשָׁהּ קִדּוּשׁ אַחַר קִדּוּשׁ, וְקִדּוּשׁ אַחַר אַמְהוּת, אֲבָל לֹא אַמְהוּת אַחַר קִדּוּשׁ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אַמְהוּת אַחַר אַמְהוּת.
(Exodus 21:7) "And if a man sells his daughter as a maid-servant" — He sells her once as a maid-servant, and not twice. R. Yossi Haglili says: We find, then, that he (a father) can betroth her betrothal after betrothal (i.e., if she were divorced after the first betrothal, he may betroth her to another), and betrothal after (having sold her as a) maid-servant, but not maid-servant after maid-servant, and, it goes without saying, not maid-servant after betrothal.
"לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים." לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר, לֹא תֵצֵא בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים, אוֹ לֹא תֵצֵא בַשָּׁנִים וּבַיּוֹבֵל, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָעִבְרִים יוֹצְאִים? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (דברים טו,יב) "כִּי יִמָּכֵר לְךָ אָחִיךָ הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה, וַעֲבָדְךָ שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים, וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת תְּשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ חָפְשִׁי מֵעִמָּךְ." מַגִּיד שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא בְשֵׁשׁ. וּבַיּוֹבֵל מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (ויקרא כה,מב) "כִּי עֲבָדַי הֵם", מִכָּל מָקוֹם. הָא, אֵין עָלֶיךָ לוֹמַר כְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא כְלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן: "לֹא תֵצֵא כְּצֵאת הָעֲבָדִים", לֹא תֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכְּנַעֲנִים יוֹצְאִים.
(Ibid.) "she shall not go out as the bondsmen go out": i.e., she shall not go out as the Canaanites go out. You say (that the intent is) she shall not go out by (the mutilation of) organ prominences, as the Canaanites do. But perhaps the meaning is, she does not go out after (six) years or with the (advent of the) Yovel, as the Hebrews do! It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:12) "If there be sold to you your brother, the Hebrew man or the Hebrew women, etc.", whence we are apprised that she does go out after (six) years or with the (advent of the) Yovel. This ("she shall not go out as the bondsmen go out") tells me only of the Hebrew maid-servant, that she does not go out by (the mutilation of) organ prominences.
אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עִבְרִיָּה שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, עִבְרִי מְנַיִן? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר (דברים טו,יב) "הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה", הִקִּישׁ עִבְרִי לָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה עִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, אַף עִבְרִי לֹא יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים.
Whence do I derive (the same for) the (Hebrew) man-servant? From "the Hebrew man or the Hebrew woman" — the first is being likened to the second. Just as she does not go out — with (mutilation of) organ prominences, so, he.
וְעוֹד קַל וָחֹמֶר: מָה, אִם עִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצָא בְסִימָנִין, אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, עִבְרִי, שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְסִימָנִין, דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים!
And, furthermore, if she, who goes out with (pubertal) signs, does not go out with mutilation of organ prominences, how much more so, he.
לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בָּעִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִמְכֶּרֶת עַל הַגְּנֵבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, תֹּאמַר בָּעִבְרִי שֶׁהוּא נִמְכָּר עַל גְּנֵבָתוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים! תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "הָעִבְרִי אוֹ הָעִבְרִיָּה", הִקִּישׁ עִבְרִי לָעִבְרִיָּה: מָה עִבְרִיָּה אֵינָהּ יוֹצָא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים, אַף עִבְרִי לֹא יֵצֵא בְרָאשֵׁי אֵבָרִים.
No, this may be true of a Hebrew maid-servant, who is not sold for her theft, wherefore she does not go out with mutilation of organ prominences, (as opposed to a man-servant, who is sold for his theft.) (Exodus 21:8) "If she be evil in the eyes of her master": "evil" here connotes her not finding favor in his eyes."
(שמות כא,ח) ["אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ יְעָדָהּ וְהֶפְדָּהּ, לְעַם נָכְרִי לֹא יִמְשֹׁל לְמָכְרָהּ בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ."] "אִם רָעָה בְּעֵינֵי אֲדֹנֶיהָ". אֵין רָעָה אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְלָה חֶסֶד לְפָנָיו. "אֲשֶׁר לוֹ יְעָדָהּ, וְהֶפְדָּהּ". מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: מִצְוַת יִעוּד*מִצְוַת יִעוּד: לחתן את האמה העבריה לבנו. קוֹדֶמֶת לְמִצְוַת פְּדִיָּה.
"who did not designate her (to be his wife), then he shall redeem her": From here they ruled that the mitzvah of marrying her takes precedence to that of his redeeming her.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: "אֲשֶׁר לוֹ יְעָדָהּ, וְהֶפְדָּהּ", אִם לֹא יְעָדָהּ אָדוֹן זֶה, יִפְדֶּה אָב. לֹא יְיַעֵד לִשְׁנַיִם כְּאַחַת. לֹא יִמְכֹּר עַל מְנָת לְיַעֵד. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: מוֹכֵר, אִם רָצָה לְיַעֵד, יְיַעֵד.
Variantly: "who did not designate her": If her master does not take her to wife, her father should redeem her. "who did not designate her": He should not designate two (as wives) at the same time. He (the father) should not sell her on condition that she be taken as a wife. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Akiva says: He may sell her (on this condition). If he (the master) wishes to take her as a wife, he does so (and if not, the sale is annulled).
"לְעַם נָכְרִי", הֲרֵי זוֹ אַזְהָרָה לְבֵית דִּין, שֶׁלֹּא יִמְכְּרֶנָּה לְגוֹי.
"To a strange nation he should not sell her": This is an exhortation to the father not to sell her to a gentile.
"בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ." מֵאַחַר שֶׁבָּגַד בָּהּ, נָהַג בָּהּ מִנְהַג בִּזָּיוֹן, וְלֹא נָהַג בָּהּ (שמות כא,ט) "כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת", אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁי לְקַיְּמָהּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן בֶּן אַבְטָלְמוֹס. וְאֵין בְּגִידָה אֶלָּא שִׁקּוּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (מלאכי ב,יא) "בָּגְדָה יְהוּדָה, וְתוֹעֵבָה נֶעֶשְׂתָה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם". וְאוֹמֵר: (ירמיה ה,יא-יב) "כִּי בָגוֹד בָּגְדוּ בִּי בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבֵית יְהוּדָה, נְאֻם יי. כִּחֲשׁוּ בַּיי, וַיֹּאמְרוּ: לוֹא הוּא".
"After he (the father) has been faithless ("bagdah") to her" (by selling her,) by degrading her and not treating her as a Jewish daughter, he, too, is not permitted to retain her (i.e., to sell her a second time). These are the words of R. Yonathan b. Avtalmos. "bagdah" here connotes deceit" as in (Malachi 2:11) "bagdah Yehudah" and (Jeremiah 5:11) "for the house of Israel bagod bagdu against Me."
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: בָּאָדוֹן הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אֲשֶׁר לְקָחָהּ עַל מְנָת לְיַעֵד, וְלֹא יִעֵד. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁי לְקַיְּמָהּ.
R. Yishmael says: Scripture is speaking of the master, who took her to marry her and did not do so. He, too, may not retain her (to sell her to another as a maid-servant).
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר: "בְּבִגְדוֹ בָהּ", מֵאַחַר שֶׁפָּרַשׂ בִּגְדּוֹ עָלֶיהָ.
R. Akiva says: "bevigdo bah": after "he has spread his garment ('beged') over her" (to take her as a wife and did not do so).
(שמות כא,ט) ["וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת יַעֲשֶׂה לָּהּ."] "וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה". לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה, וְלֹא לְאָחִיו. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: וּמָה, אִם הַבֵּן, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכְנָס תַּחְתָּיו לַיִּבּוּם, הֲרֵי הוּא יְיַעֵד, אָחִיו, שֶׁהוּא בָא תַּחְתָּיו לַיִּבּוּם, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיְּיַעֵד! לֹא! אִם אָמַרְתָּ בַבֵּן, שֶׁהוּא נִכְנָס תַּחְתָּיו לָאֲחֻזָּה, תֹּאמַר בְּאָחִיו, שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִכְנָס תַּחְתָּיו לָאֲחֻזָּה, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא יְיַעֵד. תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְאִם לִבְנוֹ יִיעָדֶנָּה", לִבְנוֹ יְיַעֵד וְלֹא לְאָחִיו.
(Exodus, Ibid. 9) "And if to his son he designate her (as a wife)": He designates her to his son, but not to his brother. For it would follow (that he does designate her to his brother), viz.: If he designates his son, who does not take his place through yibum (levirate marriage), how much more so, his brother, who does take his place through yibum! — No, this may be true of his son, who takes his place vis-à-vis (reversion to his father of) a (field of) holding (on the Yovel), (as opposed to his brother, who does not.) It is, therefore, written "And if to his son he designate her" — to his son and not to his brother.
"כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת". וְכִי מַה לָּמַדְנוּ עַל מִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת? אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זֶה בָּא לְלַמֵּד וְנִמְצָא לָמֵד: מַה זּוֹ, (שמות כא,י) "שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע", אַף בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, "שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע". דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.
"according to the ordinance of the daughters shall he provide for her": Now what do we learn from "the ordinance of the daughters? — It (apparently) comes to "teach" (about a maid-servant), but it ends up "learning" (about daughters in general), viz.: Just as this one (the maid-servant), (10) "her food, her clothing, and her (conjugal) time he shall not diminish," so, a Jewish daughter (in general), her food, her clothing, and her time he shall not diminish. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: בְּעִבְרִיָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּעִבְרִיָּה, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ", הֲרֵי בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל אָמוּר, וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת"? בְּעִבְרִיָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
R. Yonathan says: It ("according to the ordinance, etc.") speaks of a Hebrew (maid-servant, i.e., that he is to do with his maid-servant according to the ordinance of the Jewish daughters.) You say this, but perhaps the intent of the verse is to shed light upon a Jewish daughter (in general, as per R. Yoshiyah)! — (This is not so, for [10]) "If another wife he take for himself, etc." already speaks about a Jewish daughter (in general). What, then, is the intent of "according to the ordinance of the daughters"? Scripture speaks of a Hebrew maid-servant (as per R. Yonathan).
(שמות כא,י) ["אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ, שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע."] "אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ". מִכָּן אָמָרוּ: חַיָּב אָדָם לְהַשִּׂיא אֶת בְּנוֹ. וּבְמָקוֹם אַחֵר מַהוּ אוֹמֵר? (דברים ד,ט) "וְהוֹדַעְתָּם לְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֵי בָנֶיךָ." אֵימָתַי אַתְּ זַכַּי לִרְאוֹת בְּנֵי בָנֶיךָ? כְּשֶׁתַּשִּׂיא אֶת בָּנֶיךָ קְטַנִּים.
"If another he take for him": From here they ruled: A man is obligated to marry off his "small" son (i.e., one who is still "under his wing.") And elsewhere it is written (Devarim 4:9) "and you shall make them known to your sons and to your sons' sons." When do you merit seeing your sons' sons? When you marry off your sons when they are small.
"שְׁאֵרָהּ", אֵלּוּ מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (מיכה ג,ג) "וַאֲשֶׁר אָכְלוּ שְׁאֵר עַמִּי". וְאוֹמֵר: (תהלים עח,כז) "וַיַּמְטֵר עֲלֵיהֶם כֶּעָפָר שְׁאֵר". "כְּסוּתָהּ", כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. "וְעֹנָתָהּ", זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (בראשית לד,ג) "וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ וַיְעַנֶּהָ." דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.
"she'eirah": This is her food, as in (Michah 3:3) "and who eat the she'er of My people", and (Psalms 78:27) "He rained she'er (manna) upon them as dust." (Exodus, Ibid.) "kesuthah": as stated (i.e., "her clothing"), "and onathah": her (conjugal) time, as in (Genesis 34:2) "And he lay with her and ye'anehah." These are the words of R. Yoshiyah.
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: "שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ", כְּסוּת שֶׁהוּא נוֹפֵל לִשְׁאֵרָהּ: אִם הָיְתָה יַלְדָּה, לֹא יִתֵּן לָהּ שֶׁלִּזְקֵנָה; זְקֵנָה, לֹא יִתֵּן לָהּ שֶׁלְּיַלְדָּה. "וְעֹנָתָהּ". שֶׁלֹּא יִתֵּן לָהּ שֶׁלִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים, וְלֹא שֶׁלִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לָהּ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בְּעוֹנָתָהּ. מְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה, אִם דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן קִיּוּם נֶפֶשׁ, אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לִמְנֹעַ הֵימֶנָּה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן קִיּוּם נֶפֶשׁ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי רַשַּׁי לִמְנֹעַ הֵימֶנָּה. דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ מְנַיִן? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר: וּמָה, אִם דְּבָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִשֵּׂאת עֲלֵיהֶם מִתְּחִלָּה, אֵין אַתְּ רַשַּׁי לִמְנֹעַ הֵימֶנָּה, דְּבָרִים שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת עֲלֵיהֶן מִתְּחִלָּה, דִּין הוּא שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵי רַשַּׁי לִמְנֹעַ הֵימֶנָּה.
R. Yonathan says: "she'erah" is her clothing, i.e., clothing that is adapted to her flesh ("she'er"). If she were young, he should not give her (the clothing) of an elderly woman. If she were elderly, he should not give her (the clothing) of a young woman. "and her onah" (time): He should not give her summer (clothing) in the winter or winter (clothing) in the summer, but each (garment) in its time. Whence is "her food" derived? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which are not life sustaining, how much more so things which are life sustaining! Whence is "her (conjugal) time derived? It follows a fortiori, viz. If he is not permitted to withhold from her things which she was not married for in the beginning, how much more so things which she was married for in the beginning!
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: "שְׁאֵרָהּ", זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (ויקרא יח,ו) "אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל כָּל שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ". וְאוֹמֵר: (ויקרא יח,יג-יד) "שְׁאֵר אָבִיךָ... שְׁאֵר אִמְּךָ". "כְּסוּתָהּ", כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. "וְעֹנָתָהּ", אֵלּוּ מְזוֹנוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: (דברים ח,ג) "וַיְעַנְּךָ וַיַּרְעִבֶךָ".
Rebbi says: "she'erah" is her conjugal time, as in (Leviticus 18:6) "A man, to all the she'er (flesh) of his kin shall not draw near" (for cohabitation), and (in the same connection) (Ibid. 12, 13) "She is the she'er of your father", "She is the she'er of your mother." "kesuthah": as per its plain meaning (i.e., "her clothing.) "onathah" — "her food", as in (Devarim 8:3) "vayeanchah" and He caused you to hunger."
"לֹא יִגְרָע." רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר "אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּעִבְרִיָּה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "לֹא יִגְרָע." מִמִּי גוֹרְעִים? מִמִּי שֶׁכְּבַר נָתְנוּ לוֹ.
(Exodus, Ibid. 10) "he shall not diminish": R. Yoshiyah says: What is the intent of this? From (Ibid.) "If another (wife) he take for himself," I might think that this ("he shall not, etc.") refers to the Jewess (that he is taking); it is, therefore, written "he shall not diminish." With whom does "diminution" obtain? With one who has already been given something (i.e., the Hebrew maid-servant).)
רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן אוֹמֵר: בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אוֹ אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְעִבְרִיָּה?*עִבְרִיָּה: אמה עבריה. כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר (שמות כא,ט) "כְּמִשְׁפַּט הַבָּנוֹת יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ", הֲרֵי עִבְרִיָּה אֲמוּרָה; הָא מַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "אִם אַחֶרֶת יִקַּח לוֹ"? בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
R. Yonathan says: Scripture (in "he shall not withhold") speaks of a Jewess (in general). You say it speaks of a Jewess, but perhaps it speaks of the Hebrew maid-servant. — (No, for [9]) "according to the ordinance of the daughters shall he provide for her" already speaks of the Hebrew maid-servant. How, then, am I to understand "If another he take for himself"? As applying to a Jewess (in general).
(שמות כא,יא) ["וְאִם שְׁלָשׁ אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ, וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף."] "וְאִם שְׁלָשׁ אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ", יַעֵד לָךְ אוֹ לִבְנָךְ, אוֹ פְּדֵה! אַתָּה אוֹמֵר 'יַעֵד לָךְ אוֹ לִבְנָךְ, אוֹ פְּדֵה', אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא (שמות כא,י) "שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע"? אָמַרְתָּ, אֵין דָּבָר אָמוּר אֶלָּא בְּעִבְרִיָּה; וּמַה תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר "וְאִם שְׁלָשׁ אֵלֶּה"? יַעֵד לָךְ אוֹ לִבְנָךְ, אוֹ פְּדֵה!
(Ibid. 11) "And if these three he does not do to her, then she shall go out free, without money": ("these three":) Marry her yourself, marry her to your son, or redeem her. You say this, but perhaps it refers to (withholding) her food, clothing, or (conjugal) time. Would you say that? The verse speaks of a Hebrew maid-servant (who has not been betrothed [and with whom "food, clothing or time" do not obtain.])
"וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם", שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי, חִנָּם מִן הַגֵּט. וּמָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּם (דברים כד,א) "וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת", בִּשְׁאָר הַנָּשִׁים חוּץ מֵעִבְרִיָּה, אוֹ בְּעִבְרִיָּה? תִּלְמֹד לוֹמַר: (שמות כא,יא) "וְאִם שְׁלָשׁ אֵלֶּה לֹא יַעֲשֶׂה לָהּ, וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם אֵין כָּסֶף." חִנָּם מֵהַכֶּסֶף וְלֹא חִנָּם מִן הַגֵּט.
"And if these three … then she shall go out free": I might think, "free" of a get (a divorce, if he marries her). How, then, would I understand (Devarim 24:1) "then he shall write her a bill of divorce"? As obtaining with other women, other than a Hebrew maid-servant. It is, therefore, written "And if these three … then she shall go out free" — free of money (payment), but not free of a get.
"וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם", בִּבְגַר. "אֵין כָּסֶף", בִּנְעוּרִים. שֶׁהָיָה בַדִּין: הוֹאִיל וְתֵצֵא בִּימֵי הַנְּעוּרִים, לֹא תֵצֵא בִּימֵי בַגְרוּת! שֶׁאִלּוּ לֹא נֶאֱמַר אֶלָּא אַחַת, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר, הֵן יְמֵי בַגְרוּת. וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן: הוֹאִיל וְיוֹצָא מֵרְשׁוּת אָב, וְיוֹצָא מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן, מַה 'וְיוֹצָא מֵרְשׁוּת אָב', שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנַּת מִמָּה שֶׁהִָיַת, אַף יוֹצָא מֵרְשׁוּת אָדוֹן, שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּנַּת מִמָּה שֶׁהִָיַת. וְאֵימָתַי נִשְׁתַּנַּת מִמָּה שֶׁהִָיַת? בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהִָיַת נַעֲרָה וּבָגְרָה. לְכָךְ נֶאֶמְרוּ שְׁתֵּיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא לִתֵּן מָקוֹם לְבַעַל דִּין לַחְלֹק. "וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם", בִּבְגַר. "אֵין כָּסֶף", בִּנְעוּרִים.
"then she shall go out free": when she is a bogereth (i.e., after twelve and a half years); "without money": when she is a na'arah (from twelve and a day until twelve and half.) Now it follows that if she goes out in the days of na'aruth, she does not go out in the days of bagruth. (Why, then, write both?) If only one were written, I would say that it referred to the days of bagruth. And this would follow, viz.: Since (at a certain stage) she leaves her father's jurisdiction and (at a certain stage) she leaves her master's jurisdiction, then just as she leaves her father's jurisdiction when she changes from what she was, so, she leaves her master's jurisdiction when she changes from what she was — i.e., when she had been a na'arah and becomes a bogereth. Therefore, so that there be no room to contest (her leaving the master's jurisdiction when she is a na'arah), both are written: "then she shall go out free" — (uncontestedly,) when she is a bogereth; "without money" — when she is a na'arah. R. Yonathan says: "Then she shall go out free": when she is a na'arah; "without money": when she is a bogereth.
אַבָּא חֲנִין אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: "וְיָצְאָה חִנָּם", בִּבְגַר, "אֵין כָּסֶף", בִּנְעוּרִים. מַגִּיד שֶׁהִיא יוֹצָא בְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף.
R. Eliezer says: "Then she shall go out free" — when she is a bogereth; "without money" — with signs (of puberty). We are hereby taught that (in the absence of signs) she goes out by deducting from the value (of the years served to the value of those to be served.)
רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרָה תוֹרָה 'תֵּן כֶּסֶף!' וּ'בַל תִּתֵּן כֶּסֶף!' מַה 'תֵּן כֶּסֶף', עַד שֶׁלֹּא בָאוּ בָהּ סִימָנִין, אַף 'בַּל תִּתֵּן כֶּסֶף', מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ בָהּ סִימָנִין.
R. Nathan says: Since (on the one hand) the Torah says "Give money," and, (on the other hand,) "do not give money," then just as the first obtains before the advent of signs, so, the latter obtains after the advent of signs.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵה הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: "אֵין כָּסֶף." (שמות כא,יב) וּ"מַכֵּה אִישׁ וָמֵת, מוֹת יוּמָת."