That was the title of my dvar Torah back in my RIETS days, in Rabbi Lookstein’s homiletics class. The dvar Torah was structured as a deep dive into today’s daf, Kiddushin 22.
Well, if we really wanted to discuss “awl or nothing”, it would be on yesterday’s daf, and this brayta:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַרְצֵעַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַרְצֵעַ, מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַסּוֹל וְהַסִּירָא וְהַמַּחַט וְהַמַּקְדֵּחַ וְהַמַּכְתֵּב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלָקַחְתָּ״ – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁנִּקַּח בַּיָּד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Sages taught: From the term “an awl” I have derived only that a master can pierce the ear of a Hebrew slave with an awl. From where do I derive that a sharp thorn [sol], a thorn [sira], a needle, an auger, and a stylus used to engrave in wax may be used? The verse states: “And you shall take the awl” (Deuteronomy 15:17). This term “and you shall take” serves to include any implement that can be taken in the master’s hand. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda.
But the dvar Torah was really on this section, which severely restricted who can be an eved nirtza:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר וְיִשְׁנֶה. אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר בִּשְׁעַת יְצִיאָה.
§ The Sages taught: It is stated with regard to a pierced slave: “But if the slave shall say [amor yomar]: I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free” (Exodus 21:5). The repeated verb teaches that he is not pierced unless he says this statement and repeats it. If he said at the beginning of his six years of service that he wants to be pierced, but he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I will not go out free,” i.e., he is not pierced unless he says it when he leaves.
אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד״ – עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר כְּשֶׁהוּא עֶבֶד.
If he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated: “If the slave shall say [amor yomar],” which indicates that he is not pierced unless he states it while he is still a slave. This concludes the baraita.
אָמַר מָר: אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״. מַאי אִירְיָא, מִ״לֹּא אֵצֵא חׇפְשִׁי״? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּבָעֵינַן: ״אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי״ וְלֵיכָּא!
The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said above: If he said it at the beginning of his six years and he did not say it at the end of six years, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I will not go out free.” The Gemara asks: Why does the tanna of the baraita learn this halakha specifically from the phrase “I will not go out free”? Let him derive it from the fact that we require another condition. He has to be able to say: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5) in order to become a pierced slave, and he cannot say this, as at the start of the six years he does not yet have children from the Canaanite maidservant his master provided for him.
וְתוּ, אָמַר בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ וְלֹא אָמַר בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הָעֶבֶד״. אַטּוּ סוֹף שֵׁשׁ לָאו עֶבֶד הוּא? אָמַר רָבָא: מַאי בִּתְחִילַּת שֵׁשׁ – בִּתְחִילַּת פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. וּמַאי בְּסוֹף שֵׁשׁ – בְּסוֹף פְּרוּטָה אַחֲרוֹנָה.
And furthermore, the baraita states that if he said this statement at the end of six years but did not say it at the beginning of his six years, he is likewise not pierced, as it is stated “the slave.” Is that to say that he is not a slave at the end of six years? Rava said: What is the meaning of: At the beginning of six? This is not referring to the actual beginning of his six years of service, but to the beginning of the last peruta, i.e., when he reaches the start of his final stage of work worth one peruta, when he is still a slave. And what is the meaning of the term: At the end of six? At the end of the last peruta.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים, וּלְרַבּוֹ אֵין אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת בֵּיתֶךָ״. לְרַבּוֹ אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים וְלוֹ אֵין אִשָּׁה וּבָנִים – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי״.
The Sages taught: If the slave has a wife and children and his master does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he loves you and your house” (Deuteronomy 15:16). The word “house” is referring to a wife and children, and therefore if the master does not have a wife and children the verse cannot be fulfilled, and the slave is not pierced. Similarly, if his master has a wife and children and he does not have a wife and children, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “I love my master, my wife, and my children” (Exodus 21:5).
הוּא אוֹהֵב אֶת רַבּוֹ וְרַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״. רַבּוֹ אוֹהֲבוֹ וְהוּא אֵינוֹ אוֹהֵב אֶת רַבּוֹ – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ״. הוּא חוֹלֶה וְרַבּוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹלֶה – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ״. רַבּוֹ חוֹלֶה וְהוּא אֵינוֹ חוֹלֶה – אֵינוֹ נִרְצָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עִמָּךְ״
Furthermore, if he loves his master but his master does not love him, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you” (Deuteronomy 15:16), which indicates that it is good for both of them to be with each other. If his master loves him but he does not love his master, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he loves you.” If he is ill and his master is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated: “Because he fares well with you,” which excludes a sick person. Similarly, if his master is ill and he is not ill, he is not pierced, as it is stated “with you,” which equates the well-being of the pair.
בָּעֵי רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלִין, מַאי? ״עִמָּךְ״ בָּעֵינַן – וְהָא אִיכָּא, אוֹ דִילְמָא ״כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ בָּעֵינַן״ – וְהָא לֵיכָּא? תֵּיקוּ.
Rav Beivai bar Abaye raised a dilemma: If both of them are ill, what is the halakha? Do we require only that the slave be “with you,” i.e., in the same condition as the master, and that is the case here, as they are both ill, and the slave can be pierced? Or perhaps we require “because he fares well with you,” i.e., it must be good for both of them, and that is not the case here, as they are both ill. If so, he cannot be pierced. No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara says that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
I made the claim that ever nirtza lo haya velo atid lihyot, a case of eved nirtza never happened and will never happen. That is, I compared it to ben sorer umoreh, the rebellious son, where Chazal impose similar, even more impossible restrictions — it needs to be within a specific time period, the mother and father have to have identical voices, etc.
See the gemara beginning in Sanhedrin 68b, but for instance on 71a:
אלא בשוה לאביו קאמר תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה מאי טעמא דאמר קרא איננו שומע בקלנו מדקול בעינן שוין מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין
Rather, Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the boy’s mother must be identical to his father in several aspects. The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices [kolenu]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And since we require that they be identical in voice, we also require that they be identical in appearance and height.
My argument was that, via the clever use of derashot, Chazal imposed all sorts of restrictions on what would count as ben sorer umoreh such that it is impossible to have come about. And, they are doing the same thing here in Kiddushin for the eved nirtza.
Why? As the gemara explains by citing various braytot, this state of servitude to a human being rather than to Hashem is not considered ideal.