(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 38

GITIN 38 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.



(a) The Pasuk "ve'Gam mi'B'nei ha'Toshavim ha'Garim Imachem Meihem Tiknu", which teaches us that a Jew can acquire a Nochri, is actually redundant. Resh Lakish therefore extrapolates from it - that a Nochri can neither acquire a Jew nor can he acquire another Nochri.

(b) In spite of having just stated that one Nochri cannot acquire another, the Beraisa nevertheless continues 'Yachol Lo Yiknu Zeh es Zeh', insinuating that he can - because the Tana is now speaking about acquiring him for the work of his hands, whereas at first, he was speaking about a Kinyan ha'Guf.

(c) We learn that he can acquire him for the work of his hands - from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from the fact that he can acquire a Jew for the work of his hands (as the Torah explicitly writes in Behar).

(d) The difference between whether a Nochri acquires a slave for the work of his hands or whether he acquires him completely is - a. whether he needs to write him a Get Shichrur when he sets him free or not, and b. whether, should he run away and convert,he is permitted to marry a bas Yisrael or not.

(a) The source for one Nochri acquiring another Nochri with money is - the fact that he can acquire a Jew with money, how much more so a Nochri!

(b) We ask for the source for one Nochri acquiring another Nochri with Chazakah. We know that he can - because we just explained that the captor acquires the slave of a Jew when the Jew is Meya'esh, which means that the owner is Meya'esh, and the Nochri then acquires him with Chazakah (since Yi'ush is not a Kinyan).

(c) The source that Rav Papa cites for this is - the well-known principle 'Amon u'Mo'av Nit'haru be'Sichon', which means that Amon and Mo'av which were forbidden to Yisrael to capture, became permitted through their capture at the hands of Sichon. In other words, when Sichon took over Amon and Mo'av (a form of Chazakah), it became their's.

(d) We learn from the Pasuk "va'Yishb Mimenu Shevi" (from the fact that the Navi refers to a Jewish girl 'a captive') - that they can even acquire *a Jew* with Chazakah, too.

(a) One acquires a slave with Chazakah - by making him do something that only a slave would do for his master, such as dressing him, putting on his shoes, bathing him or carrying him.

(b) Despite the fact that we learn that a Jew can acquire a slave with Chazakah from the Torah's comparison of slaves to Karka, we nevertheless need a special Pasuk to teach us that one Nochri can acquire another Nochri with Chazakah. We cannot learn it from Karka, because a Nochri cannot acquire Karka with Chazakah, only with money.

(a) Rav Sh'man bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules - that a slave who escaped from a Nochri jail goes free.

(b) If his master refuses to write him a Get Shichrur - then we force him to.

(c) This ruling appears to clash with Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah, who says 'sBein-Kach, u'Vein-Kach Yishta'bed'. We do not establish Rebbi Shman bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan like the Tana Kama, who says 'Im le'Shum ben Chorin, Lo Yishta'bed' - because Rebbi Yochanan himself stated that whenever Raban Shimon ben Gamliel appears in a Mishnah, the Halachah is like him.

(d) According to Abaye, who establishes our Mishnah before Yi'ush, it is obvious that Rav Shman bar Aba speaks after Yi'ush, and there is no problem. Rava however, who establishes our Mishnah after Yi'ush, reconciles Rav Shman bar Aba with our Mishnah, by making a distinction between our Mishnah, where the slave was redeemed, and Rav Shman bar Aba's case, where he escaped - and it stands to reason that a slave who escapes from captivity will not thrust himself on to marauding bands (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel's reason, as Chizkiyah explained earlier).

(a) When others redeemed Shmuel's captured Shifchah and returned her to him - he promptly set her free.

(b) Her redeemers held like Raban Shimon ben Gamliel.

(c) When they objected to Shmuel subsequently setting her free, on the grounds that, even if he held like the Rabbanan, he should not have set her free - they added that they had redeemed her as a slave, and not to set her free.

(d) Shmuel replied that although they thought that he had not despaired of retrieving her, the truth of the atter was that he had. He did not even deign to give her a Get Shichrur - because, he derived from the Pasuk (concerning the Korban Pesach) "ve'Chol *Eved Ish* Miknas Kesef ... " that only an Eved whose master has jurisdiction over him is called an Eved (and therefore requires a Get Shichrur to go free), but not one who's master (for example) has despaired of retrieving him (since Yi'ush is a form of Hefker).

(a) After a Nochri from Tarmud redeemed Rav Aba bar Zutra's captured Shifchah and married her, the Chachamim sent him a message - that the right thing to do would be to send her a Sh'tar Shichrur.

(b) We initially assume this to be pointless - on the grounds that, if the Tarmudian was willing to release her (for money), then no Get was necessary (like Abaye - see Tosfos DH 'Ela'), whereas if he was not, then what was the point of the Get (seeing as she was anyway living with a Nochri)?

(c) What motivated the Chachamim to send him such instructions, according to the first Lashon - was the fact that they held like the Chachamim of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, and they specifically redeemed her for her to set her free (since there was no Mitzvah to redeem an Eved).

(d) According to the second Lashon, the Tarmudian would not willingly have freed his 'wife', and they hoped that the Get Shichrur would do the trick, by making her cheap in his eyes. This does not clash with Chazal, who said that 'Nochrim prefer an animal of a Jew to their own wives' - because that would not apply here, where the woman's past history had become a public issue.

(a) Abaye want to force the master of a Shifchah in Pumbedisa to give her a Get Shichrur - because people were abusing her.

(b) The reason that he did not do so was - because someone who sets free his Eved transgresses an Asei.

(c) Ravina disagreed with Abaye (in spite of the Asei) - because when it is for the sake of a Mitzvah (such as in this case) the Asei does not apply.

(d) The case of Rav Chanina bar Ketina Amar Rebbi Yitzchak, who related the story of a Shifchah who was half-slave and half free, and they forced her master to set her free for the very same reason, is not a problem, says Abaye - because there, it was possible to alleviate the problem by setting her up with an Eved, whereas there, since the Shifchah was half-free, she could neither live with an Eved nor with a ben-Chorin.




(a) In spite of Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel, who forbids setting an Eved free due to the Asei, Rebbi Eliezer set free a slave in order to make up a Minyan - because it is a big Mitzvah to Daven with a Minyan (an object lesson on the importance of Tefilah be'Tzibur).

(b) The source of the Asei - is the Pasuk in Behar "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu".

(a) According to Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu" is Reshus, and the Pasuk is coming to teach us - that, unlike the children of the Cena'ani men, about whom the Torah writes in Shoftim "Lo Sechayeh Kol Neshamah", if a Cena'ani woman was married to someone from another tribe, one was permitted to take her children as slaves.

(b) According to Rebbi Akiva - "Le'olam Bahem Ta'avodu" is obligatory and not Reshus.

(c) We needed to explain that Rebbi Eliezer set his Eved free because it is a big Mitzvah, and not because he concurred with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael - because he specifically said in a Beraisa 'Chovah'.

(a) Setting free their Avadim is one of the three causes that Rabah cites for Ba'alei-Batim becoming poor. The other two are both connected to Shabbos - one because they would check their fields on Shabbos to see what needed repairing, and the other, because they would eat their Se'udas Shabbos during the time of the D'rashah.

(b) According to Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan, two families in Yerushalayim were wiped out for similar reasons; one of them, for their Shabbos-meal at the time of the D'rashah, the other one was destroyed, assuming that they ate it ...

1. ... on Friday night - because they would eat their main Shabbos meal on Friday night, when really the main Shabbos meal should be eaten in the day. Their motive, it should be noted, was in order not to miss the D'rashah in the day.
2. ... on Friday - because as a result, they had no appetite to eat the Shabbos meal on Friday night. In fact, they ate a good meal every day, because they were wealthy, but they should have avoided doing so on Friday.
(a) According to Rabah Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Kadosh, the Eved goes free. He did not mean to declare him ...
1. ... Hekdesh - because he is fit neither for the Mizbe'ach, nor for Bedek ha'Bayis (later we will say that he is, provided the master said 'li'Demei').
2. ... Kodosh for his value - because then he should have said 'li'Demei'.
(b) According to Rav Yosef Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Hefker, the Eved goes free. According to ...
1. ... Rabah Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Hefker - he certainly goes free.
2. ... Rav Yosef Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Hekdesh - he does not go free, because he probably meant 'li'Demei' (even though he did not say so).
(a) We ask whether in the previous cases, the Eved requires a Get Shichrur or not. Rebbi Chiya bar Avin quoted Rav ...
1. ... who said that they do require a Get Shichrur.
2. ... who holds that in both cases, the Eved goes free, like Rabah.
(b) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa said that an Eved whose master declared him Hekdesh and who now wishes to redeem himself - cannot do so, because this looks more like a redemption (which is not appropriate, because Hekdesh does not acquire his body) than a sale. Consequently, they can only sell him to a third party.

(c) According to Rebbi - he may redeem himself (though someone else must pay the money to Hekdesh).

(d) True, Rav just said that in such a case, the Eved goes free and does not become Hekdesh in the first place - but then, Rav is a Tana who has the authority to argue with Tana'im.

(a) The Beraisa establishes the Pasuk "Ach Kol Cherem ... me'Adam" - by Avadim and Shefachos. Only they can be given to Bedek ha'Bayis.

(b) Rav establishes the Beraisa - when he said 'li'Demei'.

(c) We could not establish the previous Beraisa in the same way for a number of reasons. Firstly, if there was no more than Kedushas Damim, then the Tana should not have written 'Ein ha'Gizbarin Rasha'in ... ', which implies that he is Kodosh Kedushas ha'Guf, but that they are not permitted to set him free in this way. The problem with ...

1. ... the Tana Kama's next statement 'Aval Mochrin Oso la'Acheirim, va'Achareim Motzi'in Oso le'Cheirus' would be - the same, because if the Eved is only Kadosh li'Demei, how will others (who could only acquire what Hekdesh sold them) subsequently set him free?
2. ... Rebbi, who says 'Omer Ani Af Hu Nosen Damav ... *Mipnei she'Hu ke'Mochro Lo'* would basically be - the same, because if he had said 'li'Demei', how could Rebbi permit him to go free on the grounds that 'it is as if the Gizbar of Hekdesh had sold him to himself, when all he sold him was his Damim.
(d) The reason that we do not establish the Beraisa when he said 'Harei Hu Kadosh li'Demei' - because then we would interpret it literally, that he goes to freedom to become a Jew.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,