1)

Which part of the Eved Ivri's ear is pierced?

1.

Kidushin, 1b: The top part of the ear - not the lobe. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 63.

2)

What are the implications of "be'Ozno u'va'Deles"?

1.

Kidushin, 22b: It implies that the Eved Ivri places his ear to the door (of the Beis-Din ? Targum Yonasan) and his master bores through his ear into the door (and not the door-post ? Rashi in Mishpatim, 21:6). 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 64.

3)

What are the implications of "Eved Olam"?

1.

Rashi and Rashbam: It means 'the Olam of Yovel', when the Eved Ivri goes free. 1

2.

Yerushaalmi Kidushin, 1:2: It implies that the Nirtza must work during the lifetime of his master and goes free if he dies. 2


1

Rashi: As the Pasuk states in Vayikra, 25:5.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 65.

4)

What are the implications of "ve'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Kein"?

1.

Rashi: It refers (not to the current Mitzvah regarding the Eved remaining until the Yovel, 1 but) to the Din of Ha'anakah, in Pasuk 14.

2.

Targum Yonasan: It implies that an Amah Ivriyah goes out with a Get Shichrur (a document of freedom). 2

3.

Kidushin, 17b: It compares an Amah Ivriyah to a Nirtza, in that, like a Nirtza, she does not serve the son or daughter of her master in the evvent that he dies. 3


1

Rashi: Since the Torah wrote in Mishpatim Sh'mos, 21:5 (about piercing the ear) "ve'Im Amor Yomar ha'Eved ... Veratza" ? a male Eved Ivri's ear can be pierced, but not that of an Amah. See also Oznayim la'Torah.

2

Nosei Klei Yonason: See note on answer #1. Targum Yonasan did not explain that it refers to Ha'anakah - like Rashi - since there is a large gap in between Ha'anakah and this Pasuk. See also Na'ar Yonasan and refer to Sh'mos 21:7:2:1**.

3

See Torah Temimah, note 67.

5)

What is the definition of a "Martze'a"?

1.

Kidushin 21b #1: It is a large awl.

2.

Kidushin 21b #2: It is a metal awl - and teaches us that only a metal implement may be used to pierce the ear of the Eved Ivri. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 62.

6)

According to R. Yossi in Kidushin 22a, who maintains that anything may be used to bore a hole,except for a potion (such as an acid), the Torah need only have written "ve'Lakachta" - omitting "ha'Martze'a", which would have automatically precluded a potion, which cannot be taken in the hand. So why does it add the word "ha'Martze'a"?

1.

Moshav Zekenim: "Ve'lakachta" would have included everything - since taking a potion also falls under the category of 'Lekichah'. 1 And 'ha'Martze'a', which works by man-power, excludes a potion, which works by its own power. 2


1

Like "Ve'lakach ha'Kohen Mayim bi'Cheli", in Bamidbar 5:17 (PF).

2

Refer also to 15:17:151:2.

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars