Perek Eilu Na'aros, the beginning of the Perek Eilu Na'aros, which is the third perek of Kesubos. We're going to discuss one small detail actually, not noge'a to the whole sugya, it's actually not such a simple sugya, but the Mishnah is saying here that אלו נערות שיש להן קנס, as we learned last week that there is a din of אונס ומפתה. Somebody is מאנס a na'arah, someone who is מאנס forces a na'arah to do an aveirah, she's a na'arah, na'arah means between the age of 12 and 12 and a half, and he is מאנס her or he's מפתה her, what what's the word we use in English מפתה her? Seduce. Seduce, that's the word. Seduce her. So then the Torah says ונתן אבי הנערה חמשים כסף, you have to give to the father 50 כסף, and ולו תהיה לאשה, and she has to be his wife, she has to marry him, he has to marry her. Obviously, if she's maskim, if she doesn't agree then she then he doesn't have to marry her. And besides the kenas by מאנס by מפתה there's two more things, which is בושת ופגם, you have to pay for the embarrassment, how much that is worth, and you have to pay the פגם, how much she would, what's it called, devaluate, how much she became worth less in value. By מאנס, if it's by force then there's an addition to that there's another payment, which is צער, because he caused her צער. Now as the Gemara explains later, we would think that since there are two things that you have to do, the מאנס or the מפתה has to do, he has to pay the kenas, he has to pay the fine, and he has to take her as a wife. Now we would think that these two things go together, and therefore if it happens to be a situation where he cannot take her as a wife, maybe he doesn't even have to pay the kenas, because it looks like it's a package deal, because the פסוק says pay the חמשים כסף and ולו תהיה לאשה, she should be his wife. That's where the Mishnah comes in, and the Mishnah says that's not true, that even if these are women that he cannot marry, still the kenas he has to pay. And that's what the Mishnah mentions, אלו נערות שיש להם, these are the women, the na'arot who are pasul to marry him, who though would get knas: הבא על הממזרת, if she was a mamzeret where he cannot marry her because you're not allowed to marry a mamzeret, ממזר לא יבא בקהל, he's not allowed to marry, or הנתינה, and הכותית, these different things. And then the Gemara even the Mishnah even mentions later even if the woman is forbidden to him not only with a lav where the Torah says you're not allowed, but even if it's karet. Even if it's like he says הבא על אחותו, was his sister, אחות אביו, his father's sister, אחות אמו. That's karet, not מיתת בית דין. Right, even though there is karet, still you have to pay knas. Later the Mishnah, the next Mishnah says that if she is forbidden to him מיתת בית דין, in such a way that the punishment is capital punishment, then he doesn't pay. Because a different reason, because of kam lei bidraba minei, which means that when a person does an aveirah which for that aveirah you get two things, you have to get killed and you have to pay money, so the din is you don't pay money. So over there, since he's going to get killed for what he did, so it's kam lei bidraba minei. But this karet, so the Mishnah says אבל כיוון דכרת אין בה מיתת בית דין. Since בית דין doesn't kill him, it's karet, and this Mishnah holds, this תנא holds that by karet we do not say kam lei bidraba minei. If someone does an aveirah where you get karet and money, so you get both. You have to pay also. Not like Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakanah as the Gemara says later. This is all just saying what the Mishnah is talking about. But what we're going to talk about is one small detail, a side detail actually, that is going to be the whole discussion.

Tosafot, a lot of inyanim here, but one of the things Tosafot asks: why doesn't the Mishnah mention other cases where these are women who are forbidden and nevertheless you have to pay knas, besides these examples that the Mishnah gives? And Tosafot answers. One of the cases that Tosafot asks, actually it's not in Tosafos, it's in Tosafos Yeshanim. Tosafos Yeshanim says, what about עבד הבא על הכותית הולד ממזר ויש לו קנס? It means an עבד, a גויישער עבד who did this, he says כותית, but really it means a בת ישראל, a Jewish woman, because Tosafos learns that כותי was really, they were גרים. That's all side, other inyanim, but the bottom line is he asks the shaila: why doesn't the Mishnah also mention if he, the man who did it, is an עבד and he was מאנס or מפתה a Jewish woman, so here also, he cannot marry her, why can't he marry her? Because he's an עבד, and an עבד is asur to marry a Jewish woman, so he can't marry her, but nevertheless he has to pay קנס. So why doesn't the Mishnah mention it? And Tosafos like answers תנא ושייר, you're right. The Gemara the Mishnah could have mentioned it, but there are a few things the Mishnah didn't say. A lot of times you find that the Mishnah says certain things and we say he really meant more, he doesn't say every single situation. He learned some, and some he left out. But the point that we see here is that Tosafos learns that an עבד is חייב קנס. That if an עבד is מענס or מפתה a Jewish woman, he has to pay קנס. He's an עבד, not a goy, an עבד. Obviously we're going to discuss what is an עבד. He's an עבד, so he has to pay the קנס. How he gets the money is a different shaila, but there is a din on him that he has to pay קנס. Now an עבד, we know bichlal, an עבד כנעני, we're talking about a גויישע עבד, עבד כנעני.

We know an עבד כנעני is חייב במצוות כאשה, is chayav to do mitzvot like a woman. And we learn it out from a pasuk: לה לה מאשה. By a woman it says וכתב לה ספר כריתות, by an עבד it says חופשה לא ניתן לה. Actually, it's in this week's parashah, Parashat Kedoshim. ניתן לה, so we compare the עבד to the אשה, and from there we know that an עבד is chayav to do the mitzvot like a woman, which means all מצוות לא תעשה, all negative mitzvot he has to keep, and all מצוות עשה שלא הזמן גרמא, all mitzvot that are not, positive mitzvot which are not connected to time. But the מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, he is patur. One second, that's exactly what we're getting to! We're getting to the סברא of עבד! So, we know that an עבד is chayav in the same mitzvot as a woman. Now, in this case, one might ask: How is it shayach to tell the עבד that he is חייב ב-קנס? If he's chayav in mitzvot like a woman, women are not shayach to this מצוה of קנס! So if he only has the mitzvot like a woman, so why do we say here that he's חייב קנס? הא? Why women are not shayach? A woman cannot cannot be מענס somebody. She cannot be מענס a woman. In this case, we're talking about a case of מענס or מפתה. Since this din does not apply to a woman, so lichorah it should not apply to an עבד either. סברא פשוטה is: When is an eved chayav only the mitzvot like a woman? Those mitzvot that a woman could have done, and the Torah says she's pturah. Like all מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, you could have said that she's chayav, the Torah says she's pturah, so an eved is also patur from those mitzvot. What about those mitzvot which an ishah is patur not because the Torah didn't give it to her, because במציאות it's not shayach? So there, he is chayav. It's על דרך like the Rambam says that a woman is asur in the issur of השחתת הזקן. Like this, there's a din in the pasuk, it says that you're not allowed to shave with a razor, cut your beard, so it says a woman is chayav, if she cuts someone's beard with a razor, she is chayav, she's asur. איי, we know that a woman herself, so she... No, I'm sorry, I said that wrong. The ishah is patur, the eved is chayav. I said, eved is chayav, a eved who cuts his beard with a תער is chayav. הגם the din is that a woman is not shayach to this aveirah, because that's his aveirah, and then she's, it means lifnei iver, she's causing him to do an aveirah. But a woman herself doesn't have this issur, and an eved, Rambam says clearly, has this issur. Now the she'eilah is: How could you have an issur which a woman doesn't have, if the whole chiyuv that he has is only the chiyuv of a woman? The answer is: Because he's only... The reason she is patur from this is not because be'etzem this din doesn't apply to her, it could have been חייב, במציאות it's not shayach! So therefore, by him, which it is shayach, so you do have the mitzvah. הא, pe'ot, she doesn't have. No, there's no חיוב פאות by the woman. But how about with an עבד is a she'eilah. No, לכאורה, ניחא, just like he has the chiyuv of the beard, he has the chiyuv of the פאות too. So there's no she'eilah.

The same thing we find that the Mishneh LaMelech, the Mishneh LaMelech says, that an עבד is chayav in the mitzvah of פרו ורבו, of פריה ורביה. We know there's a klal, האיש מצווה על פריה ורביה, משנה in Yevamot. Yeah, an עבד כנעני is chayav in the mitzvah of פריה ורביה. Even though the Mishnah says that האיש, האיש חייב בפריה ורביה, ואין האשה חייבת בפריה ורביה, a woman is not chayav in פריה ורביה, and he says an עבד is. There's a whole discussion whether an עבד is חייב בפריה ורביה. We just had a chakirah to say what it's noge'a to. It's noge'a to a sugya where the Gemara says חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין. If a person happens to be half עבד, half eved Kena'ani, and half free. Now how's that possible? Pashut. He was owned by two partners, and one partner freed him, and the other one didn't. So he's חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין. No, no, he's chayav. Huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's his... So yeah. Well, no, not... We just bring this case. He's a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, and the Mishnah says, the Mishnah, Gemara brings, what do we do with this guy? He can't marry anybody. He can't marry a shifchah, cuz half of him is בן חורין, he's a free man. He can't marry a בת ישראל, because he's half eved. Then the Mishnah, the Gemara continues, יהא בטל? So let him not marry at all? You can't. Why not? Because התורה אמרה, לא תהו בראה, לשבת יצרה. The world was not created to be empty, the world created to be settled. The she'eilah is, why doesn't the Gemara say, you can't, so the din is you force his master to free him and becomes a full-fledged yid, and then he's able to marry. But when the Gemara says, the Gemara says you can't יהא בטל because it says לשבת יצרה, there's a pasuk that says that you have to settle the world. Why doesn't the Gemara say, you can't let him יהא בטל because פרו ורבו? So the Tosafot, others answer that the reason the Gemara mentions Shabbat, not פרו ורבו, because an eved is patur from פרו ורבו. So the Mishnah mentioned such a chiyuv which applies side to the half of eved, side to the half of בן חורין. This פסוק שבת is another pasuk which tells you that you have to have children, and that applies to eved also. So it's mashma from here that an eved does not have the mitzvah of פרו ורבו. But the Mishneh LaMelech goes b'arichut and he says an eved does have the mitzvah of פרו ורבו. And the she'eilah he asks, why would an eved have the mitzvah of פרו ורבו if a woman, eved, yeah, yeah, a regular eved Kena'ani has the mitzvah of פרו ורבו, why does he have the mitzvah of פרו ורבו if he's only מחוייב במצות כאשה? And an ishah, the Mishnah says clearly, is patur from פרו ורבו. What is the reason why an ishah is patur from פרו ורבו? So the Gemara says, because it says פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ וכבשה. We should have, multiply, and you should fill the world and וכבשה, and conquer it. דרכו של איש לכבוש, ואין דרכה של אשה לכבוש. It's not, פשוט, במציאות impossible or it doesn't happen that a woman conquers. So since פרו ורבו is connected to conquering the world, so the Mishnah says it's only for men. So the Mishneh LaMelech says, that's why an eved is chayav. The reason a woman is patur, because the metzi'ut is not shayach. Since the פרו ורבו is connected to וכבשה, to kibush, and since the metzi'ut of kibush, the concept of kibush is not shayach to her, that's why she's patur. But not because it's a mitzvah that she's patur because שהזמן גרמא, and therefore an eved who is able to do the וכבשה is chayav. So from here we see that the mitzvot that we say an עבד is חייב כאשה, depends which. If it's כאשה because the Torah says that she's patur, he would also be patur. Lemashal, she's patur from tefillin, he's patur from tefillin. But those mitzvot that she's patur because the metziut is not shayach, he is chayav. And therefore the same thing would be here, that an עבד who does is נאנס or מפתה is חייב קנס. איי, a woman is does, no such thing as קנס for such a thing, it's not shayach to her.

But the emet is, it's not so pashut, because the Turei Even in beginning of Chagigah, the Turei Even says that an עבד is patur from פריה ורביה. He's not chayav set. And the reason he gives is because he's חייב במצות כאשה, he's chayav like a woman, and a woman is patur from פרו ורבו, so an עבד is patur. And obviously the Turei Even learns that as if a woman is patur, then he is patur, the עבד is patur, even though the reason she's patur is because the metziut is not shayach. So we have basically a machloket here in the Acharonim, which is based on a difference in rishonim, whether a mitzvah that a woman is patur, and the reason she's patur is because the מציאות's not shayach, whether the עבד is chayav in that or not. She's patur, no, wait. פרו is not... No, not for a woman. The Gemara, that's what the Mishnah says, it's not for a woman. But the רבי has a biur, the רבי says the reason why she doesn't have a mitzvah, because she'll do it without a mitzvah. It's the nature of a woman want to have children that she will keep it anyway. Anyway, but that's not נוגע להלכה. Not Torah, right, but the mitzvah to have children is not on the woman, it's on the man. So we have here two shittot and this is what we're going to discuss, what is the sevara behind these two sort shittot, whether an עבד, a mitzvah which a woman is patur, but not because the תורה פטר her, but because the מציאות is not shayach whether the עבד is chayav in those mitzvot or not. I was just how about the second opinion um the one that holds it is like a woman, how does he answer all those difficulties mentioned before about what what about this if the woman does that and the other does? We'll argue on all those. All those? It's that.

So lichora the sevara could be like this: We said before, where do we get this that a a עבד is chayav b'mitzvot k'ishah? We learned it out from the pasuk. We compared לו לו מאשה. So what's the problem? This one holds this, this one Yeah, but what's his reason? Always the hevdel He holds it, he wakes up in the morning and It's like the you have a problem with a different with a different way Sure. Yeah, but they have to have a reason for the Well, there has to be something like that. It has to be because he has a re'iyah from this, he has a re'iyah from that, or he has a sevara. You have to have something. You can't just, you know, decide that he thinks like this. Why does he think like that? That's what we always do. We always try to think, to try to explain what is the logic behind the machloket, behind the two sides. So lichora you can say since we learn out this whole din that the עבד is chayav b'mitzvot like an אשה, we learn it out from לו לו, from a special pasuk, the question is what is the pshat in this limud? What is the pshat in that we learned this out? What would be if not for the limud? If we wouldn't have this pasuk, what would we do? And here are two ways. On one way you could say, if not for the limud, he would be chayav in all the mitzvot. Comes the פסוק לו לו and is mafkiya, says, \"No, you're chayav only במצוות כאשה.\" Or you can say the opposite. If not for the פסוק לו לו, wouldn't be chayav in anything. The Torah, לו לו, says, \"No, that you're חייב במצוות כאשה.\" And this is something that we do many times when we have this she'elah. Just to give an example of a different sugya altogether where we see such a she'elah. There's a machloket between the Rambam and Tosafot and almost all of the Rishonim. You know, one of the famous things, there are three aveirot where we say יהרג ואל יעבור, that you have to get killed and not be over. The rest of the aveirot, the din is יעבור ואל יהרג. You should be over and you don't get killed. The Rambam learns that you're not allowed to get killed. The person, by all aveirot besides the three: גילוי עריות, עבודה זרה, שפיכות דמים, if it comes to מסירת נפש, you're not allowed to get killed. And Tosafot, the Kesef Mishneh that brings Tosafot and other Rishonim, they hold that you don't have to get killed. That's what it means. But if you do get killed for the mitzvah, a kind of lashon they say, it's tzadik, קדוש השם, or something. We say it's a big פרי. What's the sevara of the Not the sevara, what is the machloket, before we get to the sevara. What is the מחלוקת? The מחלוקת is how we טייטש יהרג ואל יעבור and יעבור ואל יהרג. You could say יעבור ואל יהרג means you should be over and to not get killed. That means you're not allowed to get killed. Or you can say יעבור ואל יהרג, be over and you don't have to get killed. What's that based on? How Whether we learn that אל means you don't you don't have to, or אל means don't, you're not allowed to, it depends on how would it be without the פסוק. How do we know that on these עבירות you don't have to get killed? Because the פסוק says, \"וחי בהם.\" It says by מצוה, וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם. You have to live. The question is: What would be if you wouldn't have that פסוק? There are two ways to learn. You could say, if not for the פסוק וחי בהם, we would say that on all the mitzvot you have to get killed. The Eibershter said to do something, and someone's stopping you to do it, you have to get killed. Or you could say farkert, if not for the פסוק, if not for the extra לימוד, we would think that even by the three you don't have to get killed. The bottom line is comes out like this: That if you say without the פסוק, the פסוק tells you that without the פסוק you think you have to get killed, so when we have a פסוק always we darsh the פסוק one step away. So if without the פסוק we would say you have to get killed, so comes the פסוק and tells you that you don't have to. But if without the פסוק we would also know that you don't have to get killed, what does the פסוק tell you? You shouldn't, you're not allowed to. This is not נוגע to our ענין, I'm just bringing that you have two sides to what the worry, to learn how it would be without the פסוק. Right, right, where you start from exactly. The same thing we can think by this עבד. When we say that we learn by עבד that a עבד has to has חייב במצוות כאשה, what is the פשט? That if not for the פסוק he would be חייב במצוות כאשה, he would be chayav all the mitzvot? Comes the פסוק and just takes off some and says, \"Some, you're patur.\" Or if without the פסוק he would be patur from all the mitzvot, comes the pasuk and tells you that certain mitzvot you're chayav? What is the difference? L'poal, the bottom line sounds to be the same. These you're patur, these you're chayav. The difference will be what we are talking about in the metziut. When the when the reason the woman is patur is not because the Torah tells you she's patur, the metziut is not שייך. If you say בעצם he would be chayav in all the mitzvot and the Torah took off some, these the Torah didn't take off, because the woman the Torah didn't take it away from the woman, because here the metziut is not שייך, but the Torah never took it away. So, what would be the din by the עבד? The עבד is chayav. If we're going to say בעצם he would be patur and the Torah added, so the Torah only added these that are chayav. This the Torah didn't add even though it's because of the metziut, but the Torah never added it. So, if the Torah never added it, so it's patur. So, this is what the way to learn the machloket whether an עבד is chayav in those things which an אשה is patur, but because of the metziut. This גופא is talui in something else. We can be תולה that this מחלוקת גופא, what is the גדר of an עבד בעצם, is he חייב בעצם or בעצם פטור and and חייב, is dependent on something else.

The Gemara says in Yevamot דף מ\"ז, that when a when an עבד becomes an עבד he becomes chayav in מצוות כאישה. When the אדון is משחרר him, when his master frees him, automatically he becomes a full-fledged Yid. He's called an עבד משוחרר and he's כגיר. What Doesn't One second, it's not our point here. And he's עבד is חייב כולו במצוות.