(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

Kidushin 16

KIDUSHIN 16 - This Daf has been dedicated in honor of the Bar Mitzvah of Moshe Yisrael Turkel, of London England, by Mr. and Mrs. D. Kornfeld.



(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk "Im Acheres Yikach Lo Ishah" that an Eved Ivri can be aquired with a Sht'ar - because the Torah is comparing the Amah Ivriyah to a second woman whom he subsequently marries.

(b) This goes well with the opinion of Rav Huna, but not with that of Rav Chisda - in whose opinion it is the father (the seller) who writes the Sh'tar, whereas in the case of Acheres (who is an Arusah), it is the man (the equivalent of the buyer) who writes it, so that the Torah can hardly be deriving the one from the other.

(c) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov therefore learns it from "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim (Cana'anim)" - from which we extrapolate 'Aval Nikneis Hi ke'Kinyan Avadim'.

(d) We know ...

1. ... that this Pasuk is not referring to Chazakah - because we already preclude Avadim Ivrim from Chazakah from the Pasuk "ve'Hisnachaltem *Osam* li'V'neichem Achareichem", from which we extrapolate ("Osam" 'ba'Chazakah, ve'Lo Acheirim ba'Chazakah').
2. ... to preclude Chazakah from the Pasuk in Behar, and include Sh'tar from the Pasuk in Mishpatim (and not the other way round) - because 'Sh'tar' has the advantage of acquiring a woman by Get.
(a) The fact that Chazakah acquires the property of a Ger (which a Sh'tar does not) will not balance the advantage of Sh'tar by Get (that we just cited) - because it has nothing to do with Ishus, whereas a Get does.

(b) Alternatively, we answer the previous Kashya by saying that this much we can learn from "Acheres" - meaning that even though, according to Rav Chisda, we cannot actually learn the Sh'tar of an Amah Ivriyah from that of Acheres (as we explained), we can use the comparison as an indication to learn Sh'tar from "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim" rather than Chazakah.

(c) Rav Huna (who learns Sh'tar from "Acheres") learns from the Pasuk "Lo Seitzei ke'Tzeis ha'Avadim" - that an Amah Ivriyah does not go out with the loss of a limb (like an Eved Cana'ani does).

(d) Rav Chisda learn this from - the extra word "ke'Tzeis", seeing as it would have sufficed to have written "Lo Seitzei ka'Avadim".

(a) When the Tana of our Mishnah says that an Eved Ivri goes free after six years - he means six years from the day that he begins work, and not until the Sh'mitah arrives.

(b) The source for the Halachah that he goes free ...

1. ... after six years is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod".
2. ... with the advent of the Yovel is - the Pasuk in Behar "Ad Sh'nas ha'Yovel Ya'avod Imach".
3. ... with Gera'on Kesef is the Pasuk there - "mi'Kesef Miknaso".
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah includes Kesef in the list of things that set the Eved Ivri free. The Tana of the Beraisa adds Shaveh Kesef and Sh'tar. We learn that Shaveh Kesef is like Kesef from the Pasuk there - "Yashiv Ge'ulaso".

(d) 'Sh'tar' cannot possibly mean that the Eved Ivri writes as credit-note on his assessed value - because it would be inconceivable to expect anyone to give away 'a jewel for a currently worthless piece of paper'.

(a) 'Sh'tar' means (not that he writes his master a credit note but) - that his master writes him a Sh'tar Shichrur (like one writes an Eved Cana'ani).

(b) It will not suffice to declare in front of two or three people 'Go free'!, says Rava - because the master actually acquires the body of the Eved Ivri (to a certain degree, like one acquires the body of an Eved Cana'ani).

(c) He further extrapolates from there - that a master cannot simply forego all claims to his Eved Ivri's work (which he could do if his rights in him were confined to a Kinyan Mamon).

(a) Resh Lakish learns that an Amah Ivriyah also goes free with Misas ha'Av from a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim - which take her out of her master's domain but not out of the domain of her father (whose rights will extend for another half year, until she becomes a Bogeres). In that case, Misas ha'Av, which takes her out of her father's domain (since she does not continue to serve his heirs), should certainly take her out of her master's domain.

(b) Resh Lakish will (initially) account for the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah listed the one advantage of an Amah Ivriyah over an Ivri, that she goes free with Simanim, but failed to add 'Misas ha'Av' - by virtue of the fact that he also omits 'Misas' ha'Adon (and a Tana is entitled to leave out two cases or more from a Mishnah or Beraisa).

(c) We counter this however, justifying the Tana omitting 'Misas ha'Av' even if he does not hold like Resh Lakish (and it is the only case that he omits) - because we find 'Misas ha'Av' by Eved Ivri too (in the case of a Nirtza, who does not even serve his master's son).

(d) Resh Lakish then answers that the Tana only inserted cases which have fixed limits, but not cases that do not. The reason that in spite of this, he inserts Simanim, is - because, even though they can come at any time *after* twelve, they cannot come beforehand (as we shall now see), in which case, they still belong in the category of things that have fixed limits.




(a) The Tana of the Beraisa says that Simanei Gadlus that are produced by ...
1. ... a nine-year old boy - are nothing more than a wart.
2. ... a thirteen-year old boy - are valid Simanim that he a Gadol.
(b) If Simanim appear after the age of nine and remain until after the boy turned twelve, the Tana Kama considers it a Shuma (a wart). Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah - considers it a Siman.

(c) Rav Sheishes queries Resh Lakish from Rebbi Shimon in a Beraisa, who lists four cases where an Eved Ivri receives Ha'anakah - the provisions with which his master provides him with when he leaves. (d) He lists three by an Ivri and three by an Ivriyah. By ...

1. ... an Ivri - he omits Simanim.
2. ... an Ivriyah - Retzi'ah.
(a) The problem that Rav Sheishes has with Resh Lakish from this Beraisa is - that he lists the three cases which cover both an Ivri and an Ivriyah as Shanim, Yovel and Misas ha'Adon, in which case the problem arises why the Tana fails to also insert Misas ha'Av by Amah Ivriyah.

(b) We conclude however, that Rebbi Shimon may well not include Misas Adon (because it has no fixed time). In that case, the three cases that he does mention are - Shanim, Yovel and Yovel shel Retzi'ah.

(c) We prove this answer from the Tana's statement 've'I Atah Yachol Lomar Arba'ah be'Echad Meihem ... ' - because if the two cases of Yovel would be counted as one, and the fourth case would be Misas ha'Adon, then all four cases (including one of the cases of Yovel) would pertain to a woman no less than to a man.

(d) Rav Amram asks from another Beraisa, which lists Shanim, Yovel, Misas ha'Adon and the Simanim of an Amah Ivriyah as those who receive Ha'anakah. This Beraisa finally proves Resh Lakish wrong - seeing as it specifically mentions Misas ha'Adon, so on what grounds (according to Resh Lakish) does he omit Misas ha'Av?

8) We refute Misas ha'Av, despite the fact that Resh Lakish based it on a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Simanim, because there is a Pircha on the 'Kal va'Chomer' - namely, that one cannot learn that Misas ha'Av, an external change, should set an Amah free, from Simanim, which is an intrinsic change that takes place in the body of the girl.


(a) According to the Tana of one Beraisa, the Ha'anakah of an Amah Ivriyah, as well as whatever she finds, belongs to herself; according to the Tana of another Beraisa, it goes to her father. Precisely because what she finds and picks up is done at the expense of her master - her father is obligated to pay the master for any work-loss involved.

(b) We ...

1. ... initially try to reinstate Resh Lakish on the basis of this Machlokes Tana'im - by establishing the first Beraisa when she went free as a result of her father's death (a proof for Resh Lakish), and the second Beraisa, when she left her master's domain when she brought Simanim.
2. ... reject this proof however, explaining the Machlokes by establishing both Beraisos by Simanim. The reason that, according to the Tana of the first Beraisa, Ha'anakah and what she finds go to her and not to her father is - because the Beraisa speaks when he is no longer alive.
(c) The first Beraisa actually states 'Anak Eved Ivri le'Atzmo, ve'Anak Amah ha'Ivriyah le'Atzmah'. The Chidush ...
1. ... of the latter is - that (based on the Beraisa "ve'Hisnachaltem Osam li'V'neichem Achareichem", "Osam li'V'neichem", 've'Lo B'noseichem li'V'neichem'), her brothers do not receive them.
2. ... of the former, seeing as there does not seem to be anybody else to whom it might go, is indeed non-existent, according to Rav Yosef, who said 'Yud Karas ka'Chazina Hacha' (i.e. the Tana has transformed a little 'Yud' into a big city - making a mountain out of a molehill).
(d) Abaye, citing Rav Sheishes, answers the Kashya by establishing Tuta'i as the author of the Beraisa. Tuta'i says - "Lo", 've'Lo le'Ba'al Chovo' (to preclude from the Din of Rebbi Nasan, as we learned above on the previous Daf).
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa we quoted above holds that Yotzei be'Shanim, Yovel, Misas ha'Adon and an Amah with Simanim, receive Ha'anakah, but not a Bore'ach or one who goes out with Gera'on Kesef. According to Rebbi Meir - one who goes free with Gera'on Kesef receives Ha'anakah.

(b) The Pasuk " ... u'va'Shanah ha'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam" is speaking about a Yotzei be'Sheish. The Tana Kama knows that ...

1. ... the other three also receive Ha'anakah - from the continuation of the Pasuk "ve'*Chi Seshalchenu* Chofshi me'Imach" (which is superfluous).
2. ... Borei'ach and Yotzei be'Gera'on Kesef do not - from "mi''Imach", implying that when the Adon sends them out they receive Ha'anakah, but not when they go free under their own steam (as these two cases do).
(c) Despite the fact that Rebbi Meir agrees with the Tana Kama regarding the above D'rashos, he argue in the case of Gera'on Kesef on the grounds - that when all's said and done, it is only when the master accepts the money and sends the Eved Ivri away that he goes free.
(a) We know that ...
1. ... a Borei'ach is obligated to complete his six-year period from the Pasuk - "Ki Sikneh Eved Ivri, Sheish Shanim Ya'avod
2. ... if he was sick, this is not necessary - from the continuation of the Pasuk "u'va'Shevi'is Yeitzei la'Chofshi Chinam".
(b) Rav Sheishes reconciles this with the Machlokes Tana'im whether a Borei'ach receives Ha'anakah or not, implying that he is not obligated to complete the outstanding debt - by establishing it when the Yovel arrived after he ran away, before he had a chance to make up for the missing time.

(c) We might otherwise have thought that, even though he initially ran away before completing his term - since, in the end, the Yovel arrived, this is included in "ve'Yazta mi'Imach".

Next daf


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