ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 43
GITIN 43 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for Torah and those who study it.
(a) The Torah describes a slave ...
1. ... purchased by a Kohen with money as "Kinyan Kaspo".
(b) Having taught us that ...
2. ... born to his Shifchah Cena'anis as "Yelid Beiso".
1. ... a Kinyan Kaspo may eat Terumah, the Torah needs to add that a Yelid
Bayis may eat too - to teach us that even if (unlike a Kinyan Kaspo at the
time of his purchase), he is worthless, he may nevertheless eat Terumah.
(c) A Kinyan Kaspo becomes worthless - by becoming a leper (see also next
2. ... a Yelid Bayis may eat Terumah, the Torah nevertheless needs to add
that a Kinyan Kaspo may eat too - to teach us that even if he subsequently
became worthless, he may nevertheless eat Terumah, just like a Yelid Bayis.
(a) Rebbi Aba tries to resolve our She'eilah (whether it is possible to sell
an Eved just for his K'nas or not) from the above Beraisa - inasmuch as, if
he could, how would there ever be a case of a Yelid Bayis who is worthless?
(b) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a T'reifah - who is not
subject to K'nas (because he is considered like dead).
(c) We answer the Kashya that even a T'reifah is fit to do some work during
the year that he is able to survive, and there is still K'nas which will go
to the purchaser - by establishing that, in addition to having become a
T'reifah, he also became a leper, in which case he really is worthless, and
is not subject to K'nas (only Kofer).
(a) If a man says to a woman ...
1. ... 'Hiskadshi le'Chetzyi' - she is Mekudeshes.
(b) We cannot prove, that a bas Chorin whom a Chatzi Eved ve'Chatzi ben
Chorin is Mekadesh ...
2. ... 'Hiskadshi Chetzyech Li' - she is not Mekudeshes.
1. ... is Mekudeshes - from the former case, because there, it is possible
for him to betroth her completely (and what he meant to say was that he
intends to betroth another woman as well, should he fancy doing so.
(c) We try to resolve this She'eilah from the Beraisa (cited above) that if
a goring ox killed a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin, the owner of the ox
must pay half to the master and half to the Chatzi ben Chorin's heirs - and
if the Kidushin of a Chatzi Eved va'Chatzi ben Chorin was it valid, how does
he have heirs?
2. ... is not Mekudeshes from the latter case - because there he left half
the Kinyan in limbo, whereas in our case he betrothed her to as much of him
as was possible.
(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the Beraisa by a T'reifah - and it is not
the heirs who inherit the Kofer but himself, before he actually dies
(because a T'reifah can survive for twelve months).
(a) Rava disproves Rav Ada bar Ahavah on two scores. Firstly he asks, the
Tana specifically writes 'le'Yorshav' (and not 'le'Atzmo'). Secondly - we
are talking about Kofer, which is not paid before the gored Eved actually
dies (since the Torah writes "ve'Heimis Ish O Ishah").
(b) So Rava explains the Beraisa ('ve'Chatzi Kofer le'Yorshav') to mean -
that his Yorshim ought to receive the Kofer, but they cannot, simply because
there cannot be any heirs.
(c) In fact - the owner of the ox keeps the Kofer (since there is no
(a) Rava extrapolates that 'Chetzyah Ishah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin Einah
Mekudeshes' - from the known Halachah 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah, Einah
(b) Rav Chisda asked Rabah bar Rav Huna when initially, he arrived at the
same conclusion - how he could possibly make such a comparison, seeing as
'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' leaves half the woman in limbo, whereas 'Chetzyah
Ishah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin' does not.
(c) Rabah bar Rav Huna learned from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Michshalah ha'Zos
Tachas Yadecha" - that (sometimes) one only arrives at the correct
conclusion after having stumbled at the first attempt.
(d) Rabah bar Rav Huna's final word on the matter is - that even though
'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' is not Mekudeshes, 'Chetzyah Ishah ve'Chetzyah
bas Chorin' is.
(a) Rav Sheishes disagrees with Rabah bar bar Chanah. In his opinion, just
as 'ha'Mekadesh Chatzi Ishah' is not Mekudeshes, 'Chetzyah Ishah ve'Chetzyah
bas Chorin' is not Mekudeshes either. The problem with this is from a
Shifchah Charufah - who is 'Chetzyah Ishah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin'. Why does
she bring an Asham if she is not Mekudeshes?
(b) We counter this Kashya however, with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael - who
maintains that a Shifchah Charufah is a full-fledged Shifchah who is
betrothed to an Eved Ivri, and there, for sure, nobody would suggest that
she is Halachically betrothed.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael must interpret the word '*ha'Me'ureses* le'Eved Ivri' to
mean - that she is allotted to an Eved Ivri (and not betrothed).
(d) A Shifchah Cena'anis ha'Me'ureses le'Eved Ivri, according to Rebbi
Yishmael, and a Chetzyah Shifchah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin, according to Rav
Sheishes, are obligated to bring an Asham (despite the fact that the
Kidushin is not effective) - because that is what the Torah has decreed (a
(a) Rav Chisda speaks about a Chetzyah Shifchah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin who
became betrothed to Reuvsen, was set free and became betrothed to his
brother Shimon. If both brothers die, he says, Levi may perform Yibum with
her. We might have thought otherwise - because she is 'Eishes Sh'nei Meisim'
(like the case in Yevamos where one brother died after performing Ma'amar
with his deceased brother's widow), and we learn from the Pasuk "u'Meis
Achad Meihem", that one may only perform Yibum with a woman who has the
Zikah of one husband on her, but not of two.
(b) The reason that Levi is permitted to perform Yibum with her is - because
if the Kidushin of the first brother was valid, then that of the second
brother was not, and vice-versa.
(c) We do not know to which of the two brothers she was in fact, betrothed -
because of the Machlokes Amora'im that we just cited, whether Kidushin is
effective on a Chatzi Shifchah ve'Chatzi bas Chorin or not, which remains a
(a) In the case of a Chetzyah Shifchah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin is betrothed
to Reuven and, after she is set free, she becomes betrothed to Shimon, Rav
Yosef Amar Rav Nachman 'Pak'i Kidushei Rishon' - meaning that, even those
who hold that the Kidushin of the first Mekadesh was initially valid, the
Shichrur removes it, allowing Shimon's Kidushin to take effect.
(b) Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman says - on the contrary, Reuven's Kidushin
takes full effect (even though until then, the Kidushin was only effective
to obligate an Asham (for the Eved Ivri) and Malkos (for the Chatzi
(c) Rebbi Zeira attempts to prove his opinion from the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo
Chufashah" - implying that if she would have been set free, they would be
Chayav Misah (proving that the Shichrur causes the Kidushin to become fully
(d) We counter this proof from Rebbi Yishmael, who learns that the Pasuk is
speaking about a full-fledged Shifchah, on whom one would certainly not be
Chayav Misah, even if she was subsequently set free.
(a) We finally make the inference from the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo
Chufashah" - 'Ha Chufshah ve'Chazrah ve'Niskadshah, Chayav Misah'.
(b) Rav Huna (or Chana) bar Ketina Amar Rebbi Yitzchak related - that the
Chachamim forced the master of a certain Chatzi Shifchah ve'Chatzi bas
Chorin to set her free.
(c) We suggest that this follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah,
who says - that the Pasuk in Bereishis "Va'yevarech Osam Elokim Va'yomer ...
P'ru u'Revu" is a Mitzvah pertaining to men and women alike (so they forced
the master to set her free, to enable the Chatzi Shifchah ... to fulfill the
Mitzvah of "P'ru u'Revu").
(d) According to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, the Chachamim forced the master
to set the Shifchah free - because people were abusing her (in which case it
will go even like the Rabbanan), as we learned earlier in the Perek.
(a) If someone sells his Eved to a Nochri, the Eved goes free. This speaks,
either when the Eved runs away from the Nochri, or even if he did not, in
which case, the Tana is informing us - that when the master fulfills his
obligation and redeems him, he is obligated to set him free.
(b) The source for the obligation to redeem the Eved - is a penalty
mi'de'Rabbanan for releasing him from the Mitzvos.
(c) Chazal issued a similar decree - against someone who sends his Eved out
of Eretz Yisrael.
(d) According to the Tana Kama of a Beraisa, if someone sells his Eved to a
Nochri, the Eved goes free, but he requires a Get Shichrur. Raban Shimon
ben Gamliel restricts this to where he did not write 'Ono', which is as good
as a Get Shichrur. Rav Sheishes explains this to means - a Sh'tar in which
he states that should the Eved run away from the Nochri, he will have
nothing more to do with him.
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa says that if a master borrowed money from a
Nochri against his Eved, then, as soon as the Nochri performs 'Nimuso' with
the Eved, he goes free. Rav Huna bar Yehudah interpret Nimuso to mean
'Nashki' - which means a badge of Avdus.
(b) The Tana of yet another Beraisa states that Arisim, Chakiros, Arisei
Batei Avos and Nochrim who took the field as a security for their debt, are
Patur from Ma'asros, even if they arranged 'Nimuso'.
1. Arisim are - resident gardeners (share-croppers), who pay the owner with
an annual percentage of the produce (a half, a third or a quarter).
(c) This Beraisa is coming to teach us - that in spite of the strong
attachment of the various gardeners, the land remains in the possession of
the Nochri, and is Patur from Ma'asros.
2. Chakiros - pay the owner with a fixed amount of produce (irrespective of
how much the field produces).
3. Arisei Batei Avos are - resident gardeners who inherited the residency
from their fathers.
(d) This Tana holds that a Nochri has a Kinyan in Eretz Yisrael that removes
the obligation to take Ma'asros.
(a) The problem that the previous Beraisa poses on Rav Huna bar Yehudah's
interpretation of 'Nimuso' is - that a badge of Avdus has no connection with
(b) So Rav Sheishes finally explains 'Asah Lo Nimuso' to mean - that he
stipulated that if he does not pay within a specified time, the Eved or the
field will become his.
(a) We try to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the Beraisa of Eved
who holds that once the Nochri writes Z'man, *it is considered* as if the
Eved was his, and the Beraisa of the field, who holds that the field is
*not*, by establishing the former when the time had already arrived, and the
latter, when it had not. We reject this answer however, on the grounds
that - if the time to claim had already arrived, it is obvious that the
decree of Chazal will apply.
(b) So we make a distinction between the Guf and the Peiros, inasmuch as -
the Beraisa of Eved speaks when they agreed that, when the time arrived, the
Nochri would acquire the Eved, whereas the Beraisa of field speaks when the
agreement was that the Yisrael will only take the fruit.
(c) Alternatively, we establish both cases by the actual Guf, and the latter
Beraisa speaks when the Nochri borrowed on the understanding that the
Yisrael will take his field, but to date he has not yet done so. On the ...
1. ... one hand, the field is Patur from Ma'asros - because it still remains
under the jurisdiction of the Nochri.
2. ... other, under similar circumstances (where the Nochri did not yet
claim the Eved) we penalize the Yisrael - for not paying his debt before the
time elapsed (thereby leaving the Eved at the mercy of the Nochri).