(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 23


(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Acheirim'.
What can we infer from this?

(b) He cannot be speaking about others giving the money to his master without the Eved's knowledge, because of the principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav, ve'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', and he considers going free a disadvantage for the Eved.
Why is that?

(c) In that case, what can we infer and extrapolate from Rebbi Meir?

(d) What problem does this pose on the Seifa, where Rebbi Meir says 'bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Atzmo' (implying 'Aval Lo al-Yedei Acheirim')?

(a) We would like to answer the above Kashya by interpreting Rebbi Meir in the Seifa to mean interpret his words to mean '*Af* al-Yedei Atzmo'.
What would the Chidush then be?

(b) What prevents us from learning the Seifa like that?

(a) What does Abaye mean when (to answer the above Kashya) he declares money to be different? In what way is Kinyan Kesef different vis-a-vis an Eved?

(b) Considering that a Sh'tar acquires an Eved against his will just like Kesef does, why does Rebbi Meir permit the latter even without his knowledge, but not the former?

(c) Rava makes a more basic distinction between a Kinyan Kesef and the Kinyan Sh'tar that come to set an Eved free.
How does he establish the Mishnah?

(d) Why should there be a distinction between Kesef and Sh'tar in this way?

(a) The Chachamim say 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo'.
Why must this mean '*Af* al-Yedei Atzmo', despite the fact that 'al-Yedei Acheirim speaks when it is without his knowledge (as we just established)?

(b) If that is so, what is the Chidush of the Chachamim's ruling?

(c) What problem does this create with the Seifa ('bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acheirim'), which we assume, specifically means 'al-Yedei Acheirim'?

(d) What leads us to assume that this is indeed so? Why can we not explain that the Seifa too, means 'Af al-Yedei Acheirim'?

(a) We therefore conclude that there are three opinions and that the author of the Seifa must be Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar.
What does he say?

(b) What do the Rabbanan hold?

(c) How do we know that the three opinions cannot be 1. Rebbi Meir (as we explained); 2. the Rabbanan, who learn the Seifa of our Mishnah as we just explained, and 3. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds like them regarding Sh'tar, and like Rebbi Meir regarding Kesef? Note, that according to this 'Havah Amina', we establish the author of the Seifa as Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (not to preclude the Rabbanan, like whom he in fact holds, but) because his opinion regarding Sh'tar is known (whereas that of the Rabbanan is not).

(d) How does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns this "Lah" "Lah" from Get Ishah?

6) How will the Rabbanan (who agree on principle with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' of "Lah "Lah") - explain the comparison?

Answers to questions



(a) Rabah asks whether, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, an Eved can appoint a Sheli'ach to accept his Get Shichrur on his behalf.
The Tzad to say that he can is the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" from Get Ishah.
What is the Tzad to say that he cannot?

(b) Why does Rabah ask this She'eilah particularly according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, and not according to the Chachamim?

(c) What does Rabah conclude?

(a) How did Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua prove that the Kohanim are Sheluchim of Hashem and not of the owner of the Korban that they are bringing?

(b) In that case, how can Rabah rule that an Eved, who cannot accept his own Get Shichrur, may appoint a Sheli'ach to accept it for him?

(c) Why does the Tana of the Beraisa confine this leniency to the Get of a fellow Eved of another master but not of his own?

(a) Rebbi Meir forbids Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo, even with money given to him by others; the Chachamim permit it.
How do we initially explain the basis of their Machlokes?

(b) Seeing as whatever an Eved produces or finds belongs to his master, why might the Rabbanan say otherwise in this case?

(c) Rabah Amar Rav Sheishes however, concludes, that, in this case, even the Rabbanan will agree that 'Ein Kinyan le'Eved be'Lo Rabo, ve'Ein Kinyan le'Ishah be'Lo Ba'alah'.
Then in which case do they argue? What is the basis of the Machlokes?

(d) On what grounds ...

  1. ... does Rebbi Meir still declines to permit 'al-Yedei Atzmo'?
  2. ... do the Rabbanan disagree with him?
(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora) maintains that, in such a case, even the Rabbanan will apply the principle 'Mah she'Kana Eved Kana Rabo ... '. In which case do they then argue?

(b) On what grounds do the Rabbanan now hold 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo'?

(c) Our Sugya compares Ishah to Eved regarding this matter.
How do we know that a husband acquires his wife's property?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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