POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 42
GITIN 42 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London,
England, a living demonstration of love for and adoration of
(a) (Mishnah): Someone that was a half-slave...
2) THE LAW OF A HALF-SLAVE
(b) According to Rabah, the Mishnah can be as everyone - the
slave was half-freed through money.
(c) Question: According to Rav Yosef - must we say that the
Mishnah is only as Rebbi?
(d) Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah can be as everyone - the
slave belonged to partners, and 1 partner freed his half.
(e) (Rabah): Rebbi and Chachamim only argue when the master
frees half and retains the other half;
1. But if the master frees half and sells or gives the
other half as a gift, since the slave totally leaves
the master, all agree that this works.
(f) Question (Abaye): They argue even if this case!
1. (Beraisa #1): A master wrote a document giving all
his property to his 2 slaves; they acquire the
property, and free each other;
(g) Answer: No, both are as Chachamim; in Beraisa #1, he gave
each slave a document giving all his property; in Beraisa
#2, the document says that each slave receives half.
2. (Beraisa #2): A master wrote a document saying, 'All
my property is given to my 2 slaves', they do not
even acquire themselves.
i. Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is as Rebbi, Beraisa #2
is as Chachamim.
(h) Question: But the end of Beraisa #2 says, 'If he said
half-half, they do not acquire' - this implies, in the
beginning of the Beraisa the document says that he gives
all his property!
(i) Answer #1: No, the end of the Beraisa explains the
beginning - they do not even acquire themselves if he
1. Support: This must be correct - if in the beginning
of the Beraisa, he gave all his property, and they
do not acquire - there would be no need to teach the
case of half-half!
(j) Answer #2: In Beraisa #1, he gave a document to each
slave; in Beraisa #2, he gave one document to both of
2. Rejection: No the end of the Beraisa is needed, so
we will not say that the case is that he said
half-half, but had he said 'All', they would
i. Now that there is a second clause explicitly
saying half-half, we infer that in the first
clause, he said all, and still, they do not
(k) Question: If he only wrote 1 document, why does the
Beraisa say that he wrote half-half - even if it said
'All', they would not acquire!
(l) The Beraisa indeed means to say this!
1. If he only wrote 1 document, they do not acquire
themselves; if he gave each a document, they acquire
(m) Answer #3: (Each document says 'All'.) In Beraisa #1, he
gave the documents simultaneously; in Beraisa #2, he gave
them 1 after the other.
2. If he wrote half-half, even if each got his own
document, they do not acquire themselves.
1. If he gave 1 after the other, we understand why the
latter does not acquire.
(n) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): In Beraisa #2, they do not acquire
because the document calls them slaves (indicating that
he does not intend to free them).
2. Objection: The first should acquire himself and the
3. This answer is rejected; we must learn like Answer
#1 or Answer #2.
(o) Objection (Rafram): Perhaps it means, that used to be my
1. (Mishnah): Reuven wrote a document giving all his
property to his slave - he goes free; if Reuven
retained any land for himself, he does not go free;
2. R. Shimon says, he always goes free unless Reuven
writes, 'All my property is given to my slave except
for 1 part in 10,000'.
i. Had he not retained something for himself, the
slave would go free, even though the document
calls him a slave.
ii. We must say, it means, that used to be my
slave; we may say the same in our case!
(a) A half-slave was gored by an ox. If this was on a day
when he works for his master, the master receives damage
payments; if on his own day, he keeps them.
(b) Question: If so, on his master's day, he should be
permitted to marry a slave; on his own day, he should be
permitted to marry a Bas Yisrael!
(c) Answer: The division of the slave between the master and
himself is only financial, it does not affect
(d) (Beraisa): Reuven's ox (a Mu'ad, an established gorer)
killed a half-slave; Reuven pays half of the fine (for a
slave killed by a Mu'ad) to the master, and half the
Kofer (for a free man killed by a Mu'ad) to the
(e) Question: Why don't we say, if he was gored on the
master's day, the master gets the full fine; on the
slave's day, the slave gets the full Kofer!
3) A SLAVE WAITING TO BE FREED
(f) Answer: The division of days only applies to the
earnings; here is different, for the principle (the
slave) was consumed (died)!
(g) Question: Above, we said that the damage is paid to the
one whose day it was - what case of damage does not (at
least partially) consume the principle?
(h) Answer: He was gored on the hand; it dried up, by will
later return as initially.
1. This answer fits Abaye, who says that a man that
causes such a wound pays both the decrease in value
(if the victim would be sold as a slave) and
compensation for inability to work until he
2. Question: According to Rava, who says that a man
would only pay the latter compensation - the owner
of a goring animal only pays the former
compensation, this answer does not work!
3. Answer #1: The case is, a man wounded the
4. Answer #2: The teaching that the payment goes to the
one whose day it was, this was a teaching of
Amora'im - Rava argues on it.
(a) Question: Shimon must give a Get of freedom to his slave
Tavi, he may not force him to work. If an animal gores
Tavi, does Shimon receive the fine (that would be paid
for a regular slave)?
1. "Thirty Shekalim will be paid to the master" -
Shimon is not his master, so he doesn't get it;
(b) Answer (Beraisa): Reuven's ox killed a half-slave; Reuven
pays half of the fine to the master, and half the Kofer
to the half-slave's heirs.
2. Or - do we say he is as a master, since he must give
1. Suggestion: This Beraisa is as the latter Mishnah,
that the master must free his half-slave.
(c) Rejection: No, it is as the original Mishnah, that he
need not free him.
(d) Answer (Beraisa): If a master knocked out the tooth of
his slave and blinded his eye, the slave goes free on
account of the tooth, and the master must pay him for his
1. If you would say that the master of a slave (whom he
must free) receives the fine if another man's ox
gores the slave - it is illogical to say that the
master would have to pay the slave if he himself hit
(e) Rejection: The Beraisa is as the opinion that the slave
goes free (on account of the tooth) and does not need a
Get of freedom.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael, R. Eliezer, R. Akiva): If a
master destroys any of the external limbs of his
slave, the slave goes free, and needs a Get of
(f) Question: A Kohen's slave is waiting to be freed - may
the slave eat Terumah?
2. R. Meir and R. Tarfon say, he goes free and does not
need a Get;
3. The arbitrators say, if a tooth or eye was knocked
out, since the Torah said he goes free, a Get is not
needed; if any other limb was destroyed, he needs a
Get, since he goes free because of a fine
4. Question: This is not a fine mid'Rabanan - Chachamim
5. Answer: Rather, because it is a fine expounded by
1. "The acquisition of his money may eat (Terumah)" -
this slave is not the Kohen's acquisition!
(g) Answer: Rav Mesharshiya taught, the children of a Kohen's
wife and her slave got mixed up - they may eat Terumah,
and they receive 1 share of Terumah at the granaries;
2. Or - since the Kohen must give him a Get, he is as
1. When they grow up, they free each other.
(h) Rejection: That is no proof - there, they eat, because if
we would find out which is the slave, he is properly the
acquisition of his master;
1. In our question, the master has no right to make his