ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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
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
(b) According to Rav Yosef Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Hefker,
the Eved goes free. According to ...
2. ... Kodosh for his value - because then he should have said 'li'Demei'.
1. ... Rabah Amar Rav, if someone declares his Eved Hefker - he certainly
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
(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.
(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
2. ... who holds that in both cases, the Eved goes free, like Rabah.
(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?
(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.
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.