ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 16
KIDUSHIN 16 - This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of
Moshe Yisrael Turkel, of London England, by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld.
(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk "Im Acheres Yikach Lo Ishah" that an Eved Ivri
can be aquired with a Sht'ar - because the Torah is comparing the Amah
Ivriyah to a second woman whom he subsequently marries.
(b) This goes well with the opinion of Rav Huna, but not with that of Rav
Chisda - in whose opinion it is the father (the seller) who writes the
Sh'tar, whereas in the case of Acheres (who is an Arusah), it is the man
(the equivalent of the buyer) who writes it, so that the Torah can hardly be
deriving the one from the other.
(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov therefore learns it from "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis
ha'Avadim (Cana'anim)" - from which we extrapolate 'Aval Nikneis Hi
(d) We know ...
1. ... that this Pasuk is not referring to Chazakah - because we already
preclude Avadim Ivrim from Chazakah from the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam*
li'V'neichem Achareichem", from which we extrapolate ("Osam" 'ba'Chazakah,
ve'Lo Acheirim ba'Chazakah').
2. ... to preclude Chazakah from the Pasuk in Behar, and include Sh'tar from
the Pasuk in Mishpatim (and not the other way round) - because 'Sh'tar' has
the advantage of acquiring a woman by Get.
(a) The fact that Chazakah acquires the property of a Ger (which a Sh'tar
does not) will not balance the advantage of Sh'tar by Get (that we just
cited) - because it has nothing to do with Ishus, whereas a Get does.
(b) Alternatively, we answer the previous Kashya by saying that this much we
can learn from "Acheres" - meaning that even though, according to Rav
Chisda, we cannot actually learn the Sh'tar of an Amah Ivriyah from that of
Acheres (as we explained), we can use the comparison as an indication to
learn Sh'tar from "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim" rather than Chazakah.
(c) Rav Huna (who learns Sh'tar from "Acheres") learns from the Pasuk "Lo
Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim" - that an Amah Ivriyah does not go out with the
loss of a limb (like an Eved Cana'ani does).
(d) Rav Chisda learn this from - the extra word "ke'Tzeis", seeing as it
would have sufficed to have written "Lo Seitzei ka'Avadim".
(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that an Eved Ivri goes free after six
years - he means six years from the day that he begins work, and not until
the Sh'mitah arrives.
(b) The source for the Halachah that he goes free ...
1. ... after six years is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod".
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah includes Kesef in the list of things that set
the Eved Ivri free. The Tana of the Beraisa adds Shaveh Kesef and Sh'tar. We
learn that Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef from the Pasuk there - "Yashiv
2. ... with the advent of the Yovel is - the Pasuk in Behar "Ad Sh'nas
ha'Yovel Ya'avod Imach".
3. ... with Gera'on Kesef is the Pasuk there - "mi'Kesef Miknaso".
(d) 'Sh'tar' cannot possibly mean that the Eved Ivri writes as credit-note
on his assessed value - because it would be inconceivable to expect anyone
to give away 'a jewel for a currently worthless piece of paper'.
(a) 'Sh'tar' means (not that he writes his master a credit note but) - that
his master writes him a Sh'tar Shichrur (like one writes an Eved Cana'ani).
(b) It will not suffice to declare in front of two or three people 'Go
free'!, says Rava - because the master actually acquires the body of the
Eved Ivri (to a certain degree, like one acquires the body of an Eved
(c) He further extrapolates from there - that a master cannot simply forego
all claims to his Eved Ivri's work (which he could do if his rights in him
were confined to a Kinyan Mamon).
(a) Resh Lakish learns that an Amah Ivriyah also goes free with Misas ha'Av
from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim - which take her out of her master's
domain but not out of the domain of her father (whose rights will extend for
another half year, until she becomes a Bogeres). In that case, Misas ha'Av,
which takes her out of her father's domain (since she does not continue to
serve his heirs), should certainly take her out of her master's domain.
(b) Resh Lakish will (initially) account for the fact that the Tana of our
Mishnah listed the one advantage of an Amah Ivriyah over an Ivri, that she
goes free with Simanim, but failed to add 'Misas ha'Av' - by virtue of the
fact that he also omits 'Misas' ha'Adon (and a Tana is entitled to leave out
two cases or more from a Mishnah or Beraisa).
(c) We counter this however, justifying the Tana omitting 'Misas ha'Av' even
if he does not hold like Resh Lakish (and it is the only case that he
omits) - because we find 'Misas ha'Av' by Eved Ivri too (in the case of a
Nirtza, who does not even serve his master's son).
(d) Resh Lakish then answers that the Tana only inserted cases which have
fixed limits, but not cases that do not. The reason that in spite of this,
he inserts Simanim, is - because, even though they can come at any time
*after* twelve, they cannot come beforehand (as we shall now see), in which
case, they still belong in the category of things that have fixed limits.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that Simanei Gadlus that are produced by
1. ... a nine-year old boy - are nothing more than a wart.
(b) If Simanim appear after the age of nine and remain until after the boy
turned twelve, the Tana Kama considers it a Shuma (a wart). Rebbi Yossi
b'Rebbi Yehudah - considers it a Siman.
2. ... a thirteen-year old boy - are valid Simanim that he a Gadol.
(c) Rav Sheishes queries Resh Lakish from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who
lists four cases where an Eved Ivri receives Ha'anakah - the provisions with
which his master provides him with when he leaves.
(d) He lists three by an Ivri and three by an Ivriyah. By ...
1. ... an Ivri - he omits Simanim.
2. ... an Ivriyah - Retzi'ah.
(a) The problem that Rav Sheishes has with Resh Lakish from this Beraisa
is - that he lists the three cases which cover both an Ivri and an Ivriyah
as Shanim, Yovel and Misas ha'Adon, in which case the problem arises why the
Tana fails to also insert Misas ha'Av by Amah Ivriyah.
We refute Misas ha'Av, despite the fact that Resh Lakish based it on a 'Kal
va'Chomer' from Simanim, because there is a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' -
namely, that one cannot learn that Misas ha'Av, an external change, should
set an Amah free, from Simanim, which is an intrinsic change that takes
place in the body of the girl.
(b) We conclude however, that Rebbi Shimon may well not include Misas Adon
(because it has no fixed time). In that case, the three cases that he does
mention are - Shanim, Yovel and Yovel shel Retzi'ah.
(c) We prove this answer from the Tana's statement 've'I Atah Yachol Lomar
Arba'ah be'Echad Meihem ... ' - because if the two cases of Yovel would be
counted as one, and the fourth case would be Misas ha'Adon, then all four
cases (including one of the cases of Yovel) would pertain to a woman no less
than to a man.
(d) Rav Amram asks from another Beraisa, which lists Shanim, Yovel, Misas
ha'Adon and the Simanim of an Amah Ivriyah as those who receive Ha'anakah.
This Beraisa finally proves Resh Lakish wrong - seeing as it specifically
mentions Misas ha'Adon, so on what grounds (according to Resh Lakish) does
he omit Misas ha'Av?
(a) According to the Tana of one Beraisa, the Ha'anakah of an Amah Ivriyah,
as well as whatever she finds, belongs to herself; according to the Tana of
another Beraisa, it goes to her father. Precisely because what she finds
and picks up is done at the expense of her master - her father is obligated
to pay the master for any work-loss involved.
(b) We ...
1. ... initially try to reinstate Resh Lakish on the basis of this Machlokes
Tana'im - by establishing the first Beraisa when she went free as a result
of her father's death (a proof for Resh Lakish), and the second Beraisa,
when she left her master's domain when she brought Simanim.
(c) The first Beraisa actually states 'Anak Eved Ivri le'Atzmo, ve'Anak Amah
ha'Ivriyah le'Atzmah'. The Chidush ...
2. ... reject this proof however, explaining the Machlokes by establishing
both Beraisos by Simanim. The reason that, according to the Tana of the
first Beraisa, Ha'anakah and what she finds go to her and not to her father
is - because the Beraisa speaks when he is no longer alive.
1. ... of the latter is - that (based on the Beraisa "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam
li'V'neichem Achareichem", "Osam li'V'neichem", 've'Lo B'noseichem
li'V'neichem'), her brothers do not receive them.
(d) Abaye, citing Rav Sheishes, answers the Kashya by establishing Tuta'i as
the author of the Beraisa. Tuta'i says - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Ba'al Chovo' (to
preclude from the Din of Rebbi Nasan, as we learned above on the previous
2. ... of the former, seeing as there does not seem to be anybody else to
whom it might go, is indeed non-existent, according to Rav Yosef, who said
'Yud Karas ka'Chazina Hacha' (i.e. the Tana has transformed a little 'Yud'
into a big city - making a mountain out of a molehill).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa we quoted above holds that Yotzei
be'Shanim, Yovel, Misas ha'Adon and an Amah with Simanim, receive Ha'anakah,
but not a Bore'ach or one who goes out with Gera'on Kesef. According to
Rebbi Meir - one who goes free with Gera'on Kesef receives Ha'anakah.
(b) The Pasuk " ... u'va'Shanah ha'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam" is
speaking about a Yotzei be'Sheish. The Tana Kama knows that ...
1. ... the other three also receive Ha'anakah - from the continuation of the
Pasuk "ve'*Chi Seshalchenu* Chofshi me'Imach" (which is superfluous).
(c) Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir agrees with the Tana Kama regarding the
above D'rashos, he argue in the case of Gera'on Kesef on the grounds - that
when all's said and done, it is only when the master accepts the money and
sends the Eved Ivri away that he goes free.
2. ... Borei'ach and Yotzei be'Gera'on Kesef do not - from "mi''Imach",
implying that when the Adon sends them out they receive Ha'anakah, but not
when they go free under their own steam (as these two cases do).
(a) We know that ...
1. ... a Borei'ach is obligated to complete his six-year period from the
Pasuk - "Ki Sikneh Eved Ivri, Sheish Shanim Ya'avod
(b) Rav Sheishes reconciles this with the Machlokes Tana'im whether a
Borei'ach receives Ha'anakah or not, implying that he is not obligated to
complete the outstanding debt - by establishing it when the Yovel arrived
after he ran away, before he had a chance to make up for the missing time.
2. ... if he was sick, this is not necessary - from the continuation of the
Pasuk "u'va'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam".
(c) We might otherwise have thought that, even though he initially ran away
before completing his term - since, in the end, the Yovel arrived, this is
included in "ve'Yazta mi'Imach".