(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 43

GITIN 43 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


(a) Whom does the Torah describe as ...
  1. ... "Kinyan Kaspo"?
  2. ... "Yelid Beiso"?
(b) Having taught us that ...
  1. ... a Kinyan Kaspo may eat Terumah, why does the Torah need to add that a Yelid Bayis may eat too?
  2. ... a Yelid Bayis may eat Terumah, why does the Torah need to add that a Kinyan Kaspo may eat too?
(c) How does a Kinyan Kaspo become worthless?
(a) How does Rebbi Aba try to resolve our She'eilah (whether it is possible to sell an Eved just for his K'nas or not) from the above Beraisa?

(b) We answer that the Beraisa is speaking about a T'reifah.
How does that answer the Kashya?

(c) How do 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?

(a) Is the woman Mekudeshes if a man says to her ...
  1. ... 'Hiskadshi le'Chetzyi'?
  2. ... 'Hiskadshi Chetzyech Li'?
(b) Why can we not prove from there that a bas Chorin, whom a Chatzi ve'Chatzi ben Chorin is Mekadesh ...
  1. ... is Mekudeshes, from the former case?
  2. ... is not Mekudeshes, from the latter case?
(c) How do 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?

(d) Rav Ada bar Ahavah establishes the Beraisa by a T'reifah.
How does that answer the Kashya?

(a) Rava disproves Rav Ada bar Ahavah on two scores. Firstly he asks, the Tana specifically writes 'le'Yorshav' (and not 'le'Atzmo').
What is his second Kashya?

(b) So how does Rava explain the Beraisa in a way that does resolve our She'eilah? How does he interpret 've'Chatzi Kofer le'Yorshav'?

(c) What in fact, happens to the Kofer?

(a) From where does Rava extrapolate that Chetzyah Ishah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin is not Mekudeshes?

(b) What did Rav Chisda ask Rabah bar Rav Huna when initially, he arrived at the same conclusion?

(c) What did Rabah bar Rav Huna learn from the Pasuk in Yeshayah "ve'ha'Michshalah ha'Zos Tachas Yadecha"?

(d) What is Rabah bar Rav Huna's final word on the matter?

(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.
What problem do we have with this from Shifchah Charufah?

(b) We counter this Kashya however, with the opinion of Rebbi Yishmael.
How does Rebbi Yishmael explain a Shifchah Charufah?

(c) So how does Rebbi Yishmael interpret the word '*ha'Me'ureses* le'Eved Ivri'?

(d) On what grounds then, is 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, obligated to bring an Asham (seeing as the Kidush in is not effective)?

Answers to questions



(a) Rav Chisda speaks about a Chetzyah Shifchah ve'Chetzyah bas Chorin who became betrothed to Reuven, was set free and became betrothed to his brother Shimon. If both brothers die, he says, Levi may perform Yibum with her. Why might we have thought otherwise?

(b) Then on what grounds is he nevertheless permitted to do so?

(c) How come that we do not know to which of the two brothers she was in fact, betrothed?

(a) If 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'.
What does he mean and why?

(b) What does Rebbi Zeira Amar Rav Nachman say?

(c) How does Rebbi Zeira attempt to prove his opinion from (an inference from) the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chufashah"?

(d) How do we counter this proof from Rebbi Yishmael (in similar fashion to the way that Rav Sheishes did on the previous Amud)?

(a) So how do we finally make the inference from the Pasuk "Lo Yumsu Ki Lo Chufashah"?

(b) What story did Rav Huna (or Chana) bar Ketina Amar Rebbi Yitzchak relate about a certain Chatzi Shifchah ve'Chatzi bas Chorin?

(c) We suggest that this follows the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah. What does Rebbi Yochanan ben Berokah say?

(d) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establish the case even according to the Rabbanan?

(a) If someone sells his Eved to a Nochri, the Eved goes free. This might be speaking when the Eved ran away from the Nochri.
How would it be speaking even if he did not?

(b) What is the source for the obligation to redeem him?

(c) In which other case did Chazal issue a similar decree?

(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.
What is 'Ono'?

(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 arranges 'Nimuso', he goes free. Rav Huna bar Yehudah interpret Nimuso to mean 'Nashki'. What is Nashki?

(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'.
What are ...

  1. ... Arisim?
  2. ... Chakiros?
  3. ... Arisei Batei Avos?
(c) What Chidush is this Beraisa coming to teach us?

(d) What is the basis of this ruling?

(a) What problem does the previous Beraisa pose on Rav Huna bar Yehudah's interpretation of 'Nimuso'?

(b) So how does Rav Sheishes finally explain 'Asah Lo Nimuso'? What does 'Z'man' mean?

(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 to claim had already arrived, and the latter, when it had not.
On what grounds do we reject this answer?

(b) So we make a distinction between the Guf and the Peiros.
What does this mean?

(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 what grounds ...

  1. ... is the field Patur from Ma'asros?
  2. ... under similar circumstances (where the Nochri did not yet claim the Eved) do we nevertheless penalize the Yisrael?
Answers to questions

Next daf


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