Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

I.e., the servant has no say in the matter whether to be sold or not.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 232) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 42) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

If, however, he can repay the principal, but cannot repay the 100% penalty (keffel) imposed on a thief, he is not sold as a servant, as stated in Hilchot Geneivah 3:12.

Ibid.: 11.
The commentaries explain the rationale for this mitzvah: It is hoped that by dwelling in his master’s home and seeing his positive example, the servant will rehabilitate his character, learning traits that will prevent him from stealing in the future.

Otherwise, a person is not allowed to sell himself as a servant, as implied by Leviticus 25:55: “The children of Israel are servants to me,” interpreted by Kiddushin 22b to mean: “They are servants to Me, and not servants to servants.”

The wording used by the Rambam literally means “when he must eat [the proceeds of the sale].”

Hilchot Geneivah 3:12.

In his commentary on Exodus 21:5, the Ramban explores the possibility that a Jewish woman may sell herself as a servant.

This is a Rabbinic decree, in contrast to the previous laws, which are Scriptural in origin.
See also Chapter 9, Halachah 6 and notes, and Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 22:16.

With regard to a Hebrew servant, who receives his freedom in the Jubilee year.

In contrast to a convert, who is considered as a new child, without any relatives.

I.e., this excludes a gentile.

A gentile who has made a commitment to accept the seven universal laws given to Noah and his descendants (Hilchot Melachim 8:10).

That we are commanded to uproot from the earth.

We are not obligated to give him money or take any other preventive action to restrict him from selling himself.

Although the Rambam uses the term mitzvah – here, and in Chapter 2, Halachah 7, where he discusses this obligation in greater detail – he does not include this act as a mitzvah in his reckoning of the 613 mitzvot.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 258) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 345) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Note the contrast to a Canaanite slave, as stated in Chapter 9, Halachah 8.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 259) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 346) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The fact that a person is forced to work without knowing when it will end is psychologically hard to bear. The fact that a person knows that ultimately his toil will end encourages him and gives him the strength to bear its rigors. When, by contrast, he does not know when his tasks will finish, he is prone to despair.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam and maintains that giving a servant work that does not have a limit is not within the scope of this prohibition. Instead, the prohibition involves distressing the servant unnecessarily – for example, if the master tells him: “Hoe until I return,” and then the master dallies before returning. The Kessef Mishneh supports the Rambam’s view.

A task that does not involve any difficulty (Sefer HaMitzvot, loc. cit.).

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 260) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 348) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Sefer HaMitzvot states that this commandment applies only to a gentile who lives in our land. Otherwise, if we have no authority over him, we cannot compel the gentile to obey our laws.
The Rambam’s wording appears to imply that the mitzvah is incumbent on the Jewish communal authority. Nevertheless, the obligation would also appear to be incumbent on every individual.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 257) uses slightly different wording: that a person should not make the servant carry his utensils in the bathhouse.

See Hilchot Mechirah 2:2 for a description of other tasks performed by servants.

Sefer HaMitzvot (loc. cit.) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 344) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

The fact that he previously served in this profession shows that he does not consider it degrading.

He feels that the money he is earning is adequate compensation for having to perform such debasing work.

Bava Metzia 73b relates that Rav Se’oram would take hold of people who did not conduct themselves properly and harness them to draw Ravva’s wagon.

See Hilchot Gezelah 5:16, which explains that this is permissible because “the law of the land is law.” And any law universally applied by a ruling authority is binding.
The Ra’avad differs with the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that although Bava Metzia, loc. cit. gives permission for the person who pays the tax on behalf of his colleague to use that colleague to perform work that is worth more than the amount he paid on his behalf, he cannot be considered in the category of a servant in any way.
In his Kessef Mishneh, Rav Yosef Karo justifies the Rambam’s ruling, and in his Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 267:16) he quotes the Rambam’s words verbatim. See also Hilchot Malveh V’Loveh 5:17, which explain that there is no question of interest involved when using a colleague in this manner.

This addition is made on the basis of the gloss of the Kessef Mishneh.

There are advantages to either setting; therefore, the servant cannot be treated differently from the master.

I.e., until this point, he was living with you.

Kiddushin 20a.

Tosafot (Kiddushin, ibid.) explains that the master must give the servant preferential treatment. If he has only one pillow, it must be given to the servant; he cannot take it for himself.

For Leviticus 25:40 explicitly states: “He will work with you until the Jubilee year,” implying that the mitzvah applies only when there is an opportunity to fulfill this charge.

Hilchot Shemitah V’Yovel 10:3.

The Jubilee year is observed only when the entire Jewish people are living in Eretz Yisrael. Hence, its observance ceased with the exile of the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half the tribe of Menasheh, approximately 100 years before the exile of the remainder of the Ten tribes.

The bracketed additions are added because there is a question whether this phrase should be included in the text of the Mishneh Torah or not. Authoritative Yemenite manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah state: “A Hebrew servant who is sold by the court can be acquired [through the transfer of] money or [articles] worth money, and one who sells himself can be acquired [through the transfer of] money or [articles] worth money or [the transfer of] a deed of sale.”
The Ramban and the Kessef Mishneh, however, favor the emendation of the text to include the bracketed additions. Their rationale is that Kiddushin 14b cites a gezerah shavah that establishes an equation between a servant who sells himself and one who is sold by the court. Since we know that the purchase of a servant who sells himself can be completed by the transfer of a deed of sale, we apply that concept to a servant sold by the court.

With regard to a servant sold by the court, the money must be paid to the court, which in turn gives it to the person from whom the person being sold as a servant stole (Hilchot Geneivah 3:11).

Even after the transfer of the deed of sale, the purchaser must pay for the servant. Once the deed of sale is transferred, even if the money has not yet been paid, the transaction is completed.

For neither a longer or shorter period.

As the Rambam continues to explain, although Exodus 21:2 states: “In the seventh year, he will go free, without payment,” the intent is the seventh year after his servitude began and not the seventh year of the Sabbatical cycle. See the Mechilta on the verse cited.

The Lechem Mishneh notes that Kiddushin 15a interpret this verse as referring to a Hebrew servant who has had his ear pierced with an awl, as a sign of his willingness to continue his servitude beyond the six years for which he was originally sold. Even such a servant is released in the Jubilee year. In this halachah, the Rambam ignores that interpretation, focusing on the simple meaning of the verses, which state that if a Jew becomes impoverished, he may be sold as a servant, but he will be given his freedom in the Jubilee.
This highlights a general principle in the Mishneh Torah. Often, the Rambam will follow the simple meaning of a passage despite the fact that there are Rabbinic sources that interpret it differently.

I.e., he must compensate for the time when he did not work.
Kiddushin 16b, 17a notes that this concept is stated with regard to a servant sold by the court. Based on an association between the two circumstances, our Sages deduce that the same law applies when the servant sells himself.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that this ruling follows the Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 17a). The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol rules according to the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 1:2), which states that a servant who flees must complete his servitude even if the Jubilee falls in the interim.

Tosafot, Kiddushin 17a, explains that this refers to three full years, so that he does not begin the fourth year. It is possible to explain that this is also the Rambam’s intent, as reflected in the following note.

With the inclusion of the proof-text, the Rambam alludes to why it is necessary for the servant to work three years. To explain: When discussing this issue in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Kiddushin 1:2). the Rambam cites as a proof-text, Deuteronomy 15:18: “He has served you twice as much as a hired worker, six years.” Putting the two proof-texts together, one may conclude as follows: Preferably, the Hebrew servant should work for six years, double the term of a hired worker. At the very least, he should serve for three years, as a hired worker does. Support for this is also derived from a non-literal interpretation of Isaiah 16:14, which can be rendered: “Three years, like the years of a hired worker.” (See also Tosafot, loc. cit.)

The Kessef Mishneh derives this as a logical conclusion from the law regarding a servant who flees mentioned in the previous halachah. If the Jubilee year’s effect is great enough to release such a servant from his obligation, certainly it is effective with regard to a servant who is sick.

I.e., if he sold himself for 50 dinarim for four years and obtains 25 dinarim, he may pay them to his master and thus be required to work for only two years.

The Kessef Mishneh interprets this to mean that they are not obligated to redeem him, for there is no danger of his being assimilated among the gentiles. They may, however, redeem him if they desire. The Meiri explains that the relatives cannot compel the master to release the servant if they offer payment. Needless to say, if the master is willing to release him in exchange for payment, he has that option.

Against his master’s desires.

I.e., when we are peaking about the redemption of a servant, neither he nor any of his relatives is required to pay the entire amount for which he was sold. Instead, he or they are required to pay only a prorated amount that takes into consideration the years that he worked.

For as stated in Halachah 6, he is granted his freedom in the Jubilee year.

Whether sold to a Jew or to a gentile.
Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 234) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 44) consider the redemption of a Hebrew maid-servant to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. Significantly, the mitzvah is incumbent on the master, i.e., it is his responsibility to allow her to be redeemed, and not on her father. He is not obligated to redeem her.

Halachah 7.

And not 150. Although he is now worth 200, since he redeemed half of his servitude previously, that redemption is binding although he has not paid his original or ultimate worth.

The rationale is that the servant’s physical person is owned by the master, and that lien cannot be released except through the composition of a legal document granting him his release (Kessef Mishneh, based on Kiddushin 16a). [Although the concept stated by the Kessef Mishneh is understandable, the wording he uses must be clarified, for in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Ma’aser Sheni 4:4), the Rambam writes that the physical person of a Hebrew servant is not owned by his master.]

If the servant was sold by the court.

I.e., the son takes the place of the master, and the servant has the same responsibility to the son as he did to the father. Kiddushin 17b derives this from Exodus 21:2: “he shall work for six years” - i.e., regardless of whether or not the master is alive.

I.e., if the deceased did not have any sons, but had a daughter or daughters, the daughter(s) inherit his estate.

If the deceased is not survived by sons, daughters or a father, his brother(s) inherit his estate.

Relatives who are further removed. This is derived from Deuteronomy 15:12, which states “He shall serve you for six years.” Kiddushin, loc. cit., interprets that to mean: “he shall serve you and not an heir.”

This applies even to the son of a convert conceived and born after the convert adopted Judaism (Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., when he completes his years of servitude.

This includes a servant sold by the court, one who sells himself, and one who sells himself to a gentile, as the Rambam continues to explain.

According to Jewish law, marriage is a two-phased process including erusin, consecration, when the man sanctifies a woman as his wife, and nisuin, when the marriage is consummated and the couple begin their lives together. A woman who is merely arusah, consecrated, is excluded because the proof-text speaks of the wife being “together with him.” When a couple are me’urasin, they are not living together.

When a man’s brother dies childless, the man is a obligated to marry his widow. This rite is called yibbum, and the man obligated to marry the widow is called a yavam. Until the marriage takes place, the widow is described as a shomeret yavam, “awaiting her yavam.” Although the servant is obligated to marry her, since they are not “together,” the master is not obligated to provide for the woman’s sustenance.

The Hebrew term issurei Lavin also has the implication that the prohibition is not punishable by execution, karet, or death by the hand of heaven. In the latter instances, the marriage is not binding at all, and the woman is not considered the man’s wife (Hilchot Ishut 1:5). In the instance at hand, by contrast, the marriage is binding. Examples of such forbidden relationships are the marriage of a priest and a divorcee, and the marriage of a widow to a High Priest.

Marriages between relatives that are not forbidden by Scriptural Law, but that are prohibited by Rabbinic decree. See Hilchot Ishut 1:6, which mentions 20 such relationships.

The Kessef Mishneh asks: Since shniyot are not forbidden by Scriptural Law, how can they be included in the ruling mandated by this proof-text. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the Scriptural ruling refers to a woman who is fit to live with her husband. Since Rabbinic Law forbids such a woman from living with her husband, she is not fit to live with him.

And since an association is made between a servant who sells himself and one sold by the court, we apply the concept stated with regard to one to the other.

To derive benefit from her work, from her property, from ownerless objects she finds and to inherit her; see Hilchot Ishut, Chapter 12.

He is not, however, obligated to do so (Mechilta).

Chapter 2, Halachah 12.

Against his will.

The children she bears are also considered Canaanite slaves and become the property of the master, as Exodus 21:4 states: “The woman and her children will be her master’s.”

See Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:11.

Who is alive at present. If he had a wife, but she died, he may not be given a Canaanite maid-servant (Or Sameach).

The bracketed additions are made on the basis of the commentary of Kin’at Eliyahu, who explains that, as the Rambam states in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 12:11, the prohibition against relations with a Canaanite maid-servant is only Rabbinic in origin. Thus according to Scriptural Law (which includes the Oral Tradition), a Hebrew servant may marry a Canaanite maid-servant. The prohibition is that – according to Scriptural Law – a master may not compel a servant who does not have a wife to marry a Canaanite maid-servant. Accorcling to Rabbinic Law, any Jew – except a Jewish servant who has a wife and children – is forbidden to many a Canaanite maid-servant.
[Note, however Moreh Nevuchim, Vol. III, Chapter 49, which to imply appears that the Rambam considers the prohibition against relations with a Canaanite maid-servant Scriptural in origin.]

Although this law is part of the Oral Tradition and thus must be fulfilled whether or not we understand its motive, there is an easily understood logical basis for this law. When a servant has a Jewish wife and children, he will not feel such a powerful attraction to his Canaanite wife and children. Hence, he will not desire to remain in servitude. If, however, he does not have a Jewish wife, he will be very attached to his Canaanite wife and children and may desire to remain in servitude.

Who as a free man may not marry a convert or a Canaanite slave who was released and granted her freedom.

And the servant must fulfill all the obligations a husband has vis-a-vis his wife.

I.e., during his servitude she is together with him.

The license to treat Canaanite slaves in this manner is stated in Hilchot Issurei Bi’ah 14:19.

The servant’s relationship with the maid-servant must parallel the relationship between a man and his wife.

See the following halachot, which discuss this issue. As Exodus 21:5-6 states, if a Hebrew servant desires to remain with his Canaanite wife, he may perpetuate his servitude until the Jubilee year. But no longer.

And a person may strike a colleague to prevent him from violating a Torah prohibition (Bava Kama 28a).

Kiddushin 14b derives this from the exegesis of Exodus 21:6, which speaks about a servant sold by the court and states: “His master shall pierce his ear.” The Talmud interprets this as an exclusion: “‘His ear’ and not the ear of a servant who sells himself.”

The matter is left to his choice.

See the following halachah.

Although ordinarily a Hebrew servant serves the son as stated in Chapter 2 Halachah 12.

From the Rambam’s wording, we can conclude that once a servant’s ear is pierced, he cannot redeem himself with money, nor may he be freed with a deed of release (Mishneh LiMelech).

As the Rambam mentions in Halachah 9, the body of the ear is pierced. As the Rambam states (Hilchot Bi’at HaMikdash 3:7). such a blemish would disqualify a priest from serving in the Temple.

The Mishneh LiMelech questions why the Rambam cites this verse, which does not appear to speak about a servant whose ear was pierced, and not Leviticus 25:10: “Each person should return to his family,” which refer to such a servant.

Since Exodus 21:6 uses the term Elohim, one can infer that it refers to judges who possess semichah, the ordination granted teacher to student, in a chain extending back to Moses our teacher.
The Mechilta states that since it was the court that sold him, the court should be consulted before his servitude is prolonged.

“I love my master, my wife and my children; I shall not go free” (Ibid.:5).

If they are detached, the piercing is unacceptable.

And not in the soft flesh around it. This is reflected by the law mentioned in the previous halachah, that piercing a priest’s ear makes him unfit for service. For if the hole was made only in the soft flesh, it would not disqualify a priest from service.

Kiddushin 22b states that the awl need not touch the door itself.

In Exodus 21:6.

For otherwise it is not considered a doorpost.

It is not appropriate for this to be performed by an agent (Mechilta).

For that would indicate that the person is not paying attention to either of them, because of a lack of concern.

The Hebrew haamar yaamar where the root amar, “say,” is repeated, indicates that the servant must make his statements twice.

According to the Rambam, the servant’s statement must be made and repeated on the last day of his servitude. An accounting must be made of how much each moment of time is worth, and he should make his statements just before the last p’rutah’s worth of time.

At which time they would no longer be of substance.

The term “household” implies a wife and children.

Since the servant is sick, it is obviously not “good for him” together with his master.

There is an opinion in Kiddushin 22a that states that “with you” implies that they are both equal – in this instance, that they share a state of health. Although this opinion is not accepted by all authorities, and the Talmud does not reach a final decision with regard to the matter, the Rambam rules leniently, forbidding the servitude to be prolonged (Kessef Mishneh).

See Halachah 6.

See Halachah 3.

I.e., to a fellow Jew. See Chapter 1, Halachah 3.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 3. The Mishneh LiMelech states that the Rambam’s wording implies that a person may not sell himself for less than six years. The Ritbah rules that one may.

Although Kiddushin 15a derives this concept through Biblical exegesis, the commentaries have explained the motivating rationale. When a person is sold for stealing, it is hoped that living in the purchaser’s home will influence him to improve his character and begin a new phase of life. In order to help him do this, his master gives him a severance gift so that he will have the financial means at his disposal to begin anew without feeling the need to steal to gain resources.

And this obviously cannot apply with regard to a Hebrew maid-servant. The Sifre derives the same concept using the words “If the servant will say,” commenting “the servant,” and not “the maid-servant.”

Seemingly, “this” refers to piercing the servant’s ear, the subject of the clause that immediately precedes these words.

As mentioned in the preceding verses (Deuteronomy 15:14-15).

Sefer HaMitzvot (Negative Commandment 233) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 481) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment 196) and Sefer HaChinuch (Mitzvah 482) consider this to be one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah. I.e., even if the master did not fulfill the commandment at the outset and sent his servant away empty-handed, he can – and is required to – remedy that error by giving him a severance gift afterwards.

I.e., either animals or produce.

Even though money can lead to an increase if invested successfully, that increase will not come on its own accord.

If during the period of his servitude, his master’s household has been blessed abundantly, the severance gift given to the servant should be increased.

See Chapter 2, Halachah 4.

Since the servant fled, he is not being sent away by the master.

The Mishneh LiMelech interprets this to mean that even after the severance gift becomes the servant’s property, it cannot be expropriated from his possession.

I.e., while serving as a maid-servant.

Ketubot 46b-47a states that an ownerless object a girl finds is granted to her father because of eivah, “lest strife arise” - i.e., our Sages feared that if her father were not given these objects, he would be upset and would withhold his daughter’s sustenance. Some maintain that the same rationale applies with regard to her severance gift. Others maintain that the father is granted her severance gift as he is granted all other income she generates.

Or reaches the girl’s possession, for she does not possess an independent financial capacity (Kessef Mishneh).

Through Biblical exegesis, Ketubot 43a derives the concept that the rights that the Torah granted a father to his daughter’s earnings and other moneys paid on her behalf are his alone and are not transferred to his sons. See also Hilchot Ishut 19:10.