KIDUSHIN 16-17 - sponsored by Asher and Etti Schoor of Lawrence, NY. May they be blessed with a year filled with the joy of the Torah and see their children continue to grow in Avodas Hashem.

17b----------------------------------------17b

1) THE SOURCE THAT AN "AMAH IVRIYAH" RECEIVES "HA'ANAKAH"
QUESTION: The Gemara derives from the verse, "v'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Ken" (Devarim 15:16), that an Amah Ivriyah receives gifts of Ha'anakah upon her departure from her master's home.
Why is a verse needed to teach that an Amah Ivriyah receives gifts of Ha'anakah? The Torah compares an Amah Ivriyah to an Eved Ivri sold by Beis Din, as the Gemara mentions earlier with regard to acquiring an Eved Ivri with Kesef (14b), and with regard to acquiring an Eved Ivri with Shtar (16a). The same Hekesh should teach that an Amah Ivriyah receives gifts of Ha'anakah just as an Eved Ivri does. (RASHBA, end of 16b; MAHARIT)
ANSWERS:
(a) The RASHBA explains that if not for the verse of "v'Af la'Amascha," one would have thought that an Amah Ivriyah does not receive gifts of Ha'anakah because the verse says that such gifts are to be given "Ki Teshalchenu" -- "when you send him away" (Devarim 15:13). One might have inferred from the verse that only when the master sends him away -- a male Eved -- does the obligation of Ha'anakah apply, but not when the master sends her away. (The Rashba concludes that this answer needs further clarification. The Rashba may be bothered with a question: why does the Torah need to state a Mi'ut ("Teshalchenu") which necessitates a Ribuy ("v'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Ken")? It should omit the Mi'ut and have no need for the Ribuy.)
Similarly, perhaps the Beraisa which derives the law that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah from "v'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh" rules like the Tana Kama earlier (14b) who derives from "Ta'anik Lo" (Devarim 15:14) that only an Eved sold by Beis Din receives Ha'anakah, and not an Eved who sold himself, despite the Gezeirah Shavah of "Sachir Sachir." The same word, "Lo" ("to him") would have excluded an Amah Ivriyah from the Hekesh that compares her to an Eved sold by Beis Din had the verse not said "Ta'aseh."
(b) The RITVA and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that one might have excluded an Amah Ivriyah from the Halachah of Ha'anakah because of the very verse, "Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Ken," which teaches that an Amah goes free with the death of the master like an Eved Nirtza. From the words "Ta'aseh Ken" one might have inferred that the only law that applies to both an Amah and an Eved Nirtza is that they go free with the death of the master. The other laws which are written with regard to an Eved Nirtza (such as Ha'anakah) do not apply to an Amah Ivriyah.
This explanation needs further clarification. According to the Ritva and Pnei Yehoshua, what was the Gemara's initial assumption when it said that the verse, "Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Ken," teaches only that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah and not that she goes free with the death of the master? Why is a verse necessary to teach that she receives Ha'anakah? (See MAHARIT.)
(c) The SHITAH LO NODA L'MI and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that the verse teaches that Ha'anakah is given to an Eved because he served his master "double that of a hired worker" (Devarim 15:18). The Gemara (15a) interprets this verse to mean that the Eved works for the master at night in addition to during the day, since the master gives to the Eved a Shifchah Kena'anis to live with at night. Since an Amah Ivriyah does not have this form of service at night, perhaps she is not entitled to receive Ha'anakah.
The Pnei Yehoshua asks that if this assumption is true, why does the Tana Kama (on 14b) -- who maintains that an Eved who sold himself is not given a Shifchah Kena'anis -- need a verse to teach that this Eved does not receive Ha'anakah? Once the Torah teaches that he does not serve a "double" service, it is obvious that he does not receive Ha'anakah.
The Pnei Yehoshua answers that since the Gemara derives from the verse of "Ta'aseh" that an Amah Ivriyah does receive Ha'anakah, one might have learned from Amah Ivriyah that Ha'anakah is not linked to the master's right to give his Eved a Shifchah Kena'anis. Therefore, a verse is needed to teach that an Eved who sold himself does not receive Ha'anakah.
(This may be the intention of TOSFOS to 17a, DH Amah, who writes that had the verse not said "Ta'aseh" there would have been no source in the Torah that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah. According to Tosfos, there is no Mi'ut which excludes an Amah from the verse of Ha'anakah; rather, she is not included in the verse in the first place and no Mi'ut is necessary.)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF