ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 12
GITIN 12 - This Daf has been dedicated to the memory of Moshe Simcha ben
David Z"L Rubner by his parents, David and Zahava Rubner of Petach Tikva.
(a) The Rabbanan in our Mishnah do not consider freeing a slave a liability,
since the owner could have stopped feeding him anyway, had he so wished. We
try to prove from here that a master can force his slave to work without
feeding him - meaning that the slave would have to go knocking on doors
begging for alms.
(b) In fact, there is no proof from here that he may - because the Tana
could be speaking when the master said to the slave 'Use the proceeds of
your work to sustain yourself'.
(c) He cannot say the same to his wife - because it speaks when she is
unable to make ends meet.
(d) The case of Sh'tar Shichrur cannot be speaking in he same circumstances,
because, if it were, and the master would be obligated to supplement the
slave's work (as he does in the case of his wife) - what would be the point
of keeping a slave who costs the master more than he produces?
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa exempts a master from feeding a slave who had to
run to a city of refuge - and the master receives what he produces.
(b) In this case too, we refute the apparent proof that a master can force
his slave to work without feeding him, by establishing the Beraisa when the
master said to the slave 'Use the proceeds of your work to sustain
yourself'. Nevertheless, the master receives what the slave produces - in a
case where the slave produces more than his needs.
(c) This is not obvious at all - because we might have thought that seeing
as when he does not produce extra, he does not need to give his master
anything, when there is, he is not obligated to give it to him either.
(d) The Tana chose to teach us this Halachah specifically in connection with
a slave who has to run to a city of refuge - to teach us that, in spite of
the Pasuk "ve'Chai Bahen" (from which we learn the obligation of helping the
fugitive in the city of refuge), the master nevertheless receives the extra
sustenance that the slave produces, and we do not put it away for the
benefit of the slave (as a safety measure for a day when he does not manage
to make ends meet).
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says in the Seifa that, should a woman be
obligated to run to a city of refuge - it is her husband who provides for
(b) We can extrapolate from there - that the Tana is speaking when her
husband did not instruct her to use the proceeds of her work to sustain
herself, and presumably, the Reisha (in the case of the slave) speaks in
such a case too, clashing with the way we just explained it.
(a) So we establish the Beraisa when the master and the husband instructed
the wife and the slave respectively to use the proceeds of the work to
sustain themselves, and the Seifa speaks when she is unable to makes ends
meet (though the Reisha does not - see Tosfos DH 'Mesapekes ... '), teaching
us that her husband is obligated to supplement her income.
(b) Despite the fact that the Seifa (de'Seifa) goes on to describe what the
Din will be if he instructs her to use the products of her hands for her
sustenance, we cannot infer that the Reisha speaks when he does not -
because the Seifa switches to a case where the woman is able to fend for
herself (teaching us the intrinsic Chidush that a husband is permitted to
avoid sustaining his wife, in which case it is not open to inferences).
(c) This is not so obvious. We might have thought - that, based on the Pasuk
in Tehilim "Kol Kevudah bas Melech Penimah", Chazal obligated a husband to
sustain his wife, whether he likes it or not.
(a) In another Beraisa - Raban Shimon ben Gamliel authorizes a slave during
years of famine to issue his master with an ultimatum - either to sustain
him or to set him free.
(b) The Chachamim disagree. In their opinion - it is the master who can
dictate his terms, not the slave.
(c) We propose - to connect their Machlokes to the She'eilah (currently
under discussion), whether a master is permitted to instruct his slave to
use what he produces to sustain himself (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or not.
(a) We refute this proposition however, partially on the basis of the
ultimatum's wording. The problem we have ...
1. ... with the wording of the ultimatum is - that it should then have read
'Either sustain me or give me the produce of my hands to sustain myself'
(rather than 'Either sustain me or set me free').
(b) We therefore establish Raban Shimon ben Gamliel when, on the one hand,
the master instructed the slave to sustain himself with the produce of his
hands, and on the other, when, due to prevailing circumstances, he is unable
to make ends meet. Hence the ultimatum!
2. ... with the case itself is - why then, did the Tana present the case
specifically when there is a drought?
(c) The basis of their Machlokes lies in the people's feelings - Raban
Shimon ben Gamliel allows the slave the ultimatum because people will not
have pity on a slave (therefore unless his master sustains him, the only way
he can survive is to be set free and then to go begging for alms); whereas
the Chachamim reckon that someone who takes pity on a free person will take
no less pity on a slave.
(d) The reason for this is - because slaves too, are obligated to perform
Mitzvos (the same as women).
(a) Rav says that a slave whose master declared all the work of his hands
Hekdesh - should borrow, and pay back with the work that he produces.
(b) We refute the proof from here that a master can make his slave work
without sustaining him - by establishing the case when his master is feeding
(c) In spite of the fact that effectively, the slave belongs to Hekdesh, he
is nevertheless permitted ...
1. ... to eat more than his basic needs, at the expense of Hekdesh -
because it is to Hekdesh's advantage if he eats well, becomes healthier and
2. ... to use what he produces (which is Hekdesh) to pay for the luxury
foods that he is now eating - provided he pays with less than a
P'rutah's-worth at a time (which he pays as he produces it, because Hekdesh
does not take effect on less than a P'rutah's worth).
(a) To resolve Rav's current ruling with his ruling 'ha'Makdish Yedei Avdo,
Oso Eved Oseh ve'Ochel' - we establish the current ruling when the master
sustains him, and the second ruling when he does not. Both maintain that a
master cannot instruct his slave to work without sustaining him.
(b) When Rav adds 'de'I Lo Avda. Ma'an Palach Lei' - he means that if he
cannot work for himself, who will provide for him?
(c) We cannot establish Rav's first statement when the master does not
sustain his slave, but he has the right to make him work without feeding
him - because then why should we care whether someone will work for him or
not, the Hekdesh should take effect and he should not be allowed to eat what
his hands produce.
(d) We have now proved, that, according to Rav - a master cannot make his
slave work for him without sustaining him.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says that someone who cuts off the arm of his friend's
slave - is obligated to pay the master, Sheves (work loss) and Refu'ah, and
the slave is fed from Tzedakah.
(b) This proves - that according to Rebbi Yochanan, a master can make his
slave work for him without feeding him.
(c) We cannot refute this proof by establishing the case when the master is
sustaining his slave - because if that is so, why would he be fed from
(d) From the Lashon used by Rebbi Yochanan 've'Oso ha'Eved *Nizon* min
ha'Tzedakah' - we rule out the suggestion that he is fed *extras* from
Tzedakah, because then, Rebbi Yochanan should have said *'Misparnes* min
ha'Tzedakah' (implying luxuries).
(a) Rebbi Yochanan says 'Nosen Shivto u'Refu'aso le'Rabo' - mentioning
Shivto (which is obvious) because of Refu'aso.
(b) The Refu'ah goes to the master (and not to pay for the slave's healing
costs) - because we are speaking when the initial assessment of the time
period required was for five days, and, by using stronger medications, he
was healed in three.
(c) The recipient of ...
1. ... the Nezek is - the master.
(d) The master receives the Tza'ar - because whatever is due to the slave,
goes to his master.
2. ... Tza'ar is - also the master.
(a) When Rebbi Elazar pointed out to Rebbi Meir that it is an advantage for
a slave to go free, and not a liability - he retorted that it is a
liability, because if he was the slave of a Kohen, he would no longer be
permitted to eat Terumah.
(b) The Beraisa concludes with the words 'Aval Ishah Chov Hu Lah' - which is
what the Rabbanan (Rebbi Elazar) concede to Rebbi Meir.
(c) The two reasons for this are - 1. because she loses the right to eat
Terumah; 2. because she loses the right to Mezonos.
(a) When Rebbi Meir retorted to the Rabbanan's Kashya 'Mah Im Yirtzeh she'Lo
Lazuno ... ', with 'u'Mah Ilu Eved Kohen she'Barach ve'Eishes Kohen
she'Mardah, al Ba'alah, ha'Lo Ochlin bi'Terumah' - he meant 'You answered me
with regard to Mezonos, but what will you answer me with regard to Terumah?
(b) In anticipation of the Kashya that the master could always throw him a
Get Shichrur, invalidating him from Terumah anyway, Rebbi Meir said - that
as soon as the slave realizes his master's intentions, he could run away and
continue to eat Terumah.
(c) Rebbi Meir's argument seems very sound. The Rabbanan (in our Mishnah)
counter it - by saying 'Mipnei she'Hu ke'Kinyano', which Rava explains,
means that it is not to the slaves detriment, since he belongs to his
master, who his permission to sell him anyway.
(a) Rebbi Meir has a good explanation for the slave of a Kohen. The Shichrur
of the slave of a Yisrael is a liability, explains Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav
Yitzchak - because he becomes forbidden to live with a Shifchah Kena'anis.
(b) He does not consider the fact that, on the other hand, he will be free
to marry a bas Yisrael - because a slave prefers to live with a Shifchah
(c) When we say that, according to Rebbi Meir ...
1. ... 'Zila Lei' - we mean that she is 'cheap' in his eyes (he has no
respect for her, to treat her with dignity).
2. ... 'Shechicha Lei' - that she is always availabe to him.
3. ... 'P'ritza Lei' - that she has no scruples about behaving immodestly