(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 40

GITIN 40 - Sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri Turkel. May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha, health and fulfillment, and may they see all of their children and grandchildren follow them in the ways of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!



(a) Rebbi Zeira ... Amar Rebbi said that an Eved who married a bas Chorin in front of his master - goes free.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan was not happy with this Chidush, due to a ruling that he quoted regarding someone who wrote a Sh'tar Eirusin betrothing his Shifchah to himself. Rebbi Meir ruled there 'Mekudeshes; the Chachamim say - 'Einah Mekudeshes'.

(c) Based on a statement of Rabah bar Rav Shiloh regarding an Eved who laid Tefilin in front of his Master, we reconcile Rebbi with the Chachamim of Rebbi Meir - by establishing the former when it was the master who betrothed the bas Chorin to the Eved.

(a) It is rather strange that marrying his Eved to a bas Chorin is a sign that he has set him free, whereas his own betrothal to his Shifchah is not. Consequently - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes when he expressly said 'Tze'i Bo ve'Hiskadshi Bo'.

(b) The reason that she is not Mekudeshes according to the Chachamim, is - because on the one hand hand, his words indicate that he wants the Sh'tar to serve as a Get Shichrur, whilst on the other hand, the Lashon written on the Sh'tar ('Harei At Mekudeshes Li ...') implies that it is a Sh'tar Kidushin, and not a Sh'tar Shichrur; whereas Rebbi maintains that the Lashon on the Sh'tar includes her freedom, without which she would not be fit for Kidushin.

(c) It would have been different had the master just said 'Hiskadshi Bo' - because we would have taken for granted that the master would not do an Isur, and that he must have therefore set her free beforehand, in which case, even the Rabbanan would agree that she is betrothed.

(a) It is not a sign of freedom if a master ...
1. ... borrows from his slave or if he appoints him an agent over his property.
2. ... saw him laying Tefilin or being called up to the Torah and did not protest.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Shiloh reconciles Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who says 'Eved she'Hini'ach Tefilin bi'Fnei Rabo, Yeitzei le'Cheirus' with the Beraisa - by establishing the former when it is the master who puts the Tefilinon on the Eved's arm and on his head.
(a) When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying that if a dying man said 'P'lonis Shifchasi Al Yishta'bdu Bah le'Achar Mosi' - Beis-Din force the heirs to set her free and to write a Get Shichrur.

(b) When Rebbi Yochanan said this, Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi raised the objection 'Rebbi, I Atah Modim she'Banehah Avadim'?

(c) According to them, the dying man merely meant to say - that they should not ease her work load.

(d) When Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah came from Eretz Yisrael, he had a different version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement. He quoted Rebbi Yochanan as saying, that, if a dying man said 'P'lonis Shifchasi Koras Ru'ach As'sah Li, Ye'aseh Lah Koras Ru'ach' - then, based on the principle 'Mitzvah Lekayeim Divrei ha'Meis', Beis-Din will force the heirs to set her free, if that is what gives her satisfaction,.

(a) We have already cited Ameimar who says that 'ha'Mafkir Avdo, Oso Eved Ein Lo Takanah' - because the master no longer possesses a Kinyan Mamon in him, and it is not possible to set free the Kinyan Isur alone.

(b) Ameimar then explains Rebbi Yochanan and Rav, whom we cited above, both say 'ha'Mafkir or ha'Makdish Avdo, Yeitzei le'Cheirus ve'Tzarich Get Shichrur' - to mean 'Tzarich ve'Ein Lo' (he needs a Get Shichtur, but it is not possible to give him one).

(c) The alternative version of Ameimar's Halachah is - 'ha'Mafkir Avdo u'Meis, Ein Lo Takanah' (because 'Isura li'B'rei Lo Moris', but had the master not died, he would have been permitted to write a Get Shichrur).

(d) Rav Ashi asks on Ameimar from Rav Dimi, whom we just saw requires a Get Shichrur in the case of 'P'lonis Shifchasi Al Yishta'bdu Bah le'Achar Mosi'. We reject the answer that Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi anyway repudiate Rebbi Yochanan's statement - on the grounds that that is only because he did not use a Lashon Shichrur, but if he had, then the heirs would have been permitted to write a Get Shichrur.

(a) Ameimar answer the Kashya from Rav Dimi - by refuting his version of Rebbi Yochanan's statement and accepting that of Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah ('Mi she'Amar be'Sha'as Misaso P'lonis Shifchasi Koras Ru'ach As'sah Li ... ').

(b) What happened to the town of slaves that was sold to Nochrim was - that all the owners died.

(c) When the Avadim came to ask Ravina what to do - he instructed them to approach the original owners and ask them for a Sh'tar Shichrur.

(d) When the Rabbanan who ...

1. ... his instructions from Ameimar - he replied that he followed the opinion of Rav Dimi.
2. ... his reply on the grounds that Rav Dimi was proved wrong - he replied that that was only because they did failed to use a Lashon Shichrur, as we explained above, but if they did, even theheirs can still write a Get Shichrur (and that is the Halachah).
(a) In the story of the two partners who jointly owned an Eved Cena'ani, the second partner was afraid when the first partner set free his portion in the Eved - that Beis-Din would force him to set the other half free as well (in keeping with the Mishnah Acharonah later in the Perek).

(b) When, in the knowledge that Ketanim are not subject to coercion, Knowing that the child was fond of money, the Rabbanan penalized him in the following way. After appointing an Apotropus who assessed his market value, they gave the Eved some money to offer him in exchange for a Get Shichrur, enabling him to go free.

(c) The purpose of the Apotropus was - in order to assess the value of the Eved, of which he had to pay for half to the Katan.

(d) The Sh'tar was valid despite the fact that he was only a Katan - on the basis of the Halachah 'ha'Pe'utos Mikchan Mecher ... bi'Metaltelin' (if a child is smart enough to fix business deals, then those deals are valid as long as they are confined to Metaltelin).




(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that if someone declares ...
1. ... 'I set P'loni sAvdi free' or 'P'loni Avdi has been set free' - he acquires his freedom.
2. ... 'I will set P'loni Avdi free', according to Rebbi - he acquires his freedom.
(b) Rebbi only makes sense according to Rebbi Yochanan's interpretation of the Beraisa - that the above was written in a document which the master handed to the Eved.

(c) The Chachamim disagree with Rebbi and say 'Lo Kanah' - because any Lashon in the future is a promise at most, but not a transaction.

(d) In all of these cases an appropriate Kinyan would be more effective than a Sh'tar - with the exception of a Shechiv-Mera, whose words are considered as being documented and handed over.

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa says that if someone declares ...
1. ... 'I have given Sadeh P'lonis to so-and-so' or 'Sadeh P'lonis is given to so-and-so' - he acquires the field.
2. ... 'I will give Sadeh P'lonis to so-and-so', according to Rebbi Meir - he acquires the field.
(b) The Chachamim argue, as they did in the previous case, and Rebbi Yochanan establishes that Beraisa too, by a Sh'tar. It is not possible to explain Rebbi Yochanan (in both statements) to mean that the transaction was made verbally but that the previous owner becomes obligated to write a Sh'tar - because of the very last case according to Rebbi Meir. How could the field possibly change possession on the basis of mere words?

(c) It would however, be possible to do so in the case of the Eved according to Rebbi - because it is feasible to say that the Eved acquires himself through the master's statement (like we find in the case of 'ha'Mafkir Avdo).

(a) The Tana of another Beraisa says that if someone declares that he ...
1. ... set P'loni Avdi free, but 'P'loni Avdo denies it? - we assume that he was Makneh him to himself through a third person.
2. ... set him free with a Sh'tar, and he denies it - the Eved is believed (and he remains a slave).
(b) The basic difference between the two cases is - that whereas in the former case, the recipient is likely not to have known about the gift, we therefore believe the master (because of the principle 'Hoda'as Ba'al Din ke'Me'ah Eidim Dami'), whereas in the Seifa, where it is impossible for him not to have known, then we believe him based on the same principle (and the original status quo remains intact).

(c) The same Tana says that if someone declares that he ...

1. ... gave Sadeh P'lonis to so-and-so, but so-and-so denies it - we assume that he was Makneh the field through a third person.
2. ... wrote it in a Sh'tar and gave it to him, the 'beneficiary' is believed (and the field remains in the possession of the original owner).
(d) It seems obvious that in the latter case the original owner continues to eat the Peiros of the field, as Rav Chisda says. When Rabah says that the fruit is placed in the hands of a trustee (which presumably means that it is sold and the money placed with him) until Mashi'ach comes - he is speaking when the original beneficiary is no longer alive, and it is the heirs who claim that their father did not receive the field. There, it is possible that the father did in fact, receive it, only the heirs are unaware of it.
(a) An Apotiki is a piece of land (for example) which the debtor specified as payment of his debt should he fail to pay from another source.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah states that strictly speaking, if the master made an Eved an Apotiki and then set him free, the Eved has no obligations. According to Rav, the Tana is referring to the first master setting him free, and he goes free due to a statement by Rava, who said - that Hekdesh, Chametz and Shichrur remove the Shi'bud.

(c) The case of ...

1. ... Hekdesh is - when someone declared an ox that he had designated as an Apotiki and then declared it Hekdesh.
2. ... Chametz is - when a Nochri lent a Jew money against his Chametz, which he retained in his possession. After Pesach, the Chametz is forbidden (because the Isur of Chametz overrides the Shi'bud).
3. ... Shichrur is - when he designated his Eved an Apotiki and then set him free.
(d) Rava is talking specifically about Kedushas ha'Guf. In the equivalent case by Kedushas Damim - the owner would be obligated to pay a small amount of money to Hekdesh to redeem the ox.
Next daf


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