Previous Daf

GITIN 43

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) The Torah describes a slave ...
1. ... purchased by a Kohen with money as "Kinyan Kaspo".
2. ... born to his Shifchah Kena'anis as "Yelid Beiso".
(b) Having taught us that ...
1. ... a Kinyan Kaspo may eat Terumah, the Torah needs to add that a Yelid Bayis may eat Terumah too to teach us that even if (unlike a Kinyan Kaspo at the time of his purchase), he is worthless, he may nevertheless eat Terumah.
2. ... a Yelid Bayis may eat Terumah, the Torah nevertheless needs to add that a Kinyan Kaspo may eat too to teach us that even if he subsequently became worthless, he may nevertheless eat Terumah, just like a Yelid Bayis.
(c) A Kinyan Kaspo becomes worthless by becoming a leper (see also next question).

click for question
2)
(a) Rebbi Aba tries to resolve our She'eilah (whether it is possible to sell an Eved just for his Kenas or not) from the above Beraisa inasmuch as, if he could, how would there ever be a case of a Yelid Bayis who is worthless?
(b) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a Tereifah who is not subject to Kenas (because he is considered like dead in this regard).
(c) We answer the Kashya that even a Tereifah is fit to do some work during the year that he is able to survive, in which case there is still Kenas which will go to the purchaser by establishing that, in addition to having become a Tereifah, he also became a leper, in which case he really is worthless, and is not subject to Kenas (only Kofer).

click for question
3)
(a) The woman to whom a man says ...
1. ... 'Hiskadshi l'Chetzyi' is Mekudeshes.
2. ... 'Hiskadshi Chetzyech Li' is not Mekudeshes.
(b) We cannot prove from there that a bas Chorin whom a Chatzi Eved v'Chatzi ben Chorin betroths is Mekadesh ...
1. ... is Mekudeshes from the former case, because there, it is possible for him to betroth her completely (and what he meant to say was that he intends to betroth another woman as well, should he fancy doing so.
2. ... is not Mekudeshes from the latter case because there he left half the Kinyan in limbo, whereas in our case he betrothed her to as much of him as was possible.
(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah (regarding a Chatzi Eved v'Chatzi ben Chorin who betroths a bas Chorin) from the Beraisa (cited above) that if a goring ox killed a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin, the owner of the ox must pay half to the master and half to the Chatzi ben Chorin's heirs and if the Kidushin of a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin is not valid, how does he have heirs?
(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the Beraisa by a Tereifah and it is not the heirs who inherit the Kofer but himself, before he actually dies (because a Tereifah can survive for twelve months).

click for question
4)
(a) Rava disproves Rav Ada bar Ahavah on two scores. Firstly he asks, the Tana specifically writes 'le'Yorshav' (and not 'le'Atzmo'). Secondly we are talking about Kofer, which is not paid before the gored Eved actually dies (since the Torah writes "v'Heimis Ish O Ishah").
(b) So Rava explains the Beraisa ('ve'Chatzi Kofer l'Yorshav') to mean that his Yorshim ought to receive the Kofer, but they cannot, simply because there cannot be any heirs.
(c) In fact the owner of the ox keeps the Kofer (since there is no claimant).

click for question
5)
(a) Rava extrapolates that 'Chetzyah Ishah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin Einah Mekudeshes' from the known Halachah 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah, Einah Mekudeshes'.
(b) Rav Chisda asked Rabah bar Rav Huna when initially, he arrived at the same conclusion how he could possibly make such a comparison, seeing as 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' leaves half the woman in limbo, whereas 'Chetzyah Ishah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin' does not (a distinction that we drew a short wile back).
(c) Rabah bar Rav Huna learned from the Pasuk "v'ha'Michshalah ha'Zos Tachas Yadecha" that (sometimes) one only arrives at the correct conclusion after having stumbled at the first attempt.
(d) Rabah bar Rav Huna's final word on the matter is that even though 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' is not Mekudeshes, 'Chetzyah Ishah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin' is.

click for question
6)
(a) Rav Sheshes disagrees with Rabah bar bar Chanah. In his opinion, just as 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' is not Mekudeshes, 'Chetzyah Ishah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin' is not Mekudeshes either. The problem with this is why a Shifchah Charufah who is 'Chetzyah Ishah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin' needs to bring an Asham if she is not Mekudeshes?
(b) We counter this Kashya however, with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael who maintains that a Shifchah Charufah is a full-fledged Shifchah who is betrothed to an Eved Ivri, and there, for sure, nobody would suggest that she is Halachically betrothed.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael must interprets the phrase 'ha'Me'ureses l'Eved Ivri' to mean that she is allotted to an Eved Ivri (and not betrothed).
(d) A Shifchah Kena'anis ha'Me'ureses l'Eved Ivri, according to Rebbi Yishmael, and a Chetzyah Shifchah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin, according to Rav Sheshes, are obligated to bring an Asham (despite the fact that the Kidushin is not effective) because that is what the Torah has decreed (a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv).

click for question
7)
(a) Rav Chisda speaks about a Chetzyah Shifchah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin who became betrothed to Reuven, was set free and became betrothed to his brother Shimon. If both brothers die, he says, Levi may perform Yibum with her. We might have thought otherwise because she is 'Eshes Shnei Meisim' ...
(b) ... like the case in Yevamos where one brother died after performing Ma'amar with his deceased brother's widow), and we learn from the Pasuk "u'Mes Achad Meihem", that one may only perform Yibum with a woman who has the Zikah of one husband on her, but not of two.
(c) And the reason that Levi is nevertheless permitted to perform Yibum with her is because if the Kidushin of one of the brothers is valid, then that of the second brother is not.
(d) We do not know to which of the two brothers she was in fact, betrothed because of the Machlokes Amora'im that we just cited, whether Kidushin is effective on a Chatzi Shifchah v'Chatzi bas Chorin or not, which remains a Safek.

click for question
8)
(a) In the case of a Chetzyah Shifchah v'Chetzyah bas Chorin is betrothed to Reuven and, after she is set free, she becomes betrothed to Shimon, Rav Yosef Amar Rav Nachman rules 'Pak'i Kidushei Rishon' meaning that, even those who hold that the Kidushin of the first Mekadesh was initially valid, the Shichrur removes it, allowing Shimon's Kidushin to take effect.
(b) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman says on the contrary, Reuven's Kidushin takes full effect (even though until then, the Kidushin was only effective to obligate an Asham (for the Eved Ivri) and Malkus (for the Chatzi Shifchah).
(c) Rebbi Zeira attempts to prove his opinion from the Pasuk in Ki Setzei "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chufashah" implying that if she would have been set free, they would be Chayav Misah (proving that the Shichrur causes the Kidushin to become fully effective).
(d) We counter this proof from Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that the Pasuk is speaking about a full-fledged Shifchah, on whom one would certainly not be Chayav Misah, even if she was subsequently set free.

click for question
9)
(a) We finally make the inference from the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chufashah" 'Ha Chufshah v'Chazrah v'Niskadshah, Chayav Misah'.
(b) Rav Huna (or Chana) bar Ketina Amar Rebbi Yitzchak related that the Chachamim forced the master of a certain Chatzi Shifchah v'Chatzi bas Chorin to set her free.
(c) We suggest that this follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah, who says that the Pasuk in Bereishis "Va'yevarech Osam Elokim Va'yomer ... Peru u'Rvu" is a Mitzvah pertaining to men and women alike (so they forced the master to set her free, to enable the Chatzi Shifchah ... to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Peru u'Rvu").
(d) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Chachamim forced the master to set the Shifchah free because people were abusing her (in which case it will go even like the Rabanan), as we learned earlier in the Perek.

click for question
10)
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if someone sells his Eved to a Nochri, the Eved goes free. This speaks, either when the Eved runs away from the Nochri, or even if he did not, in which case, the Tana is informing us that when the master fulfills his obligation and redeems him, he is obligated to set him free.
(b) The source for the obligation to redeem the Eved is a penalty mid'Rabanan for releasing him from the Mitzvos.
(c) Chazal issued a similar decree against someone who sends his Eved out of Eretz Yisrael.
(d) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if someone sells his Eved to a Nochri, the Eved goes free, but he requires a Get Shichrur. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel restricts this to where he did not write 'Ono', which is as good as a Get Shichrur. Rav Sheshes explains this to means a Shtar in which he states that should the Eved run away from the Nochri, he will have nothing more to do with him.

click for question
11)
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa says that if a master borrows money from a Nochri against his Eved, then, as soon as the Nochri performs 'Nimuso' with the Eved, he goes free. Rav Huna bar Yehudah interpret Nimuso to mean 'Nashki' which means a badge of Avdus.
(b) The Tana of yet another Beraisa states that Arisim, Chakiros, Arisei Batei Avos and Nochrim who take the field as a security for their debt, are Patur from Ma'asros, even if they arranged 'Nimuso'.
1. Arisim are resident gardeners (share-croppers), who pay the owner with an annual percentage of the produce (a half, a third or a quarter).
2. Chakiros pay the owner with a fixed amount of produce (irrespective of how much the field produces).
3. Arisei Batei Avos are resident gardeners who inherited the residency from their fathers.
(c) This Beraisa is coming to teach us that in spite of the strong attachment of the various gardeners, the land remains in the possession of the Nochri, and is Patur from Ma'asros.
(d) This ruling is based on the principle that a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael that removes the obligation to take Ma'asros.

click for question
12)
(a) Rav Sheshes queries Rav Huna bar Yehudah's interpretation of 'Nimuso' from the previous Beraisa in that what has a badge of Avdus to do with fields?
(b) He therefore explains 'Asah Lo Nimuso' to mean that the creditor stipulated that if the borrower does not pay within a specified time, the Eved or the field will become his.

click for question
13)
(a) We try to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa concerning the Eved which holds that once the Nochri writes Zeman, it is considered as if the Eved was his, and the Beraisa concerning the field, which holds that the field is not his, by establishing the former when the time to claim had already arrived, and the latter, when it had not. We reject this answer however, on the grounds that if the time to claim had already arrived, it is obvious that the decree of Chazal will apply.
(b) So we draw a distinction between the Guf and the Peiros, inasmuch as the Beraisa of Eved speaks when they agreed that, when the time arrived, the Nochri would acquire the Eved, whereas the Beraisa of field speaks when the agreement was that the Yisrael will only take the fruit (but not the field).
(c) Alternatively, we establish both cases by the actual Guf, and the latter Beraisa speaks when the Nochri borrowed on the understanding that the Yisrael will take his field, but to date he has not yet done so. On the ...
1. ... one hand, the field is Patur from Ma'asros because it still remains under the jurisdiction of the Nochri.
2. ... other, under similar circumstances (where the Nochri did not yet claim the Eved) we penalize the Yisrael for not paying his debt before the time elapsed (thereby leaving the Eved at the mercy of the Nochri).

Next Daf