Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור is going to be in מסכת גיטין דף ל״ח, but we will start on דף ל״ז עמוד ב׳, four lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And here the גמרא is in the middle of discussing the פשט in the משנה. The משנה said that if an עבד כנעני was captured by גוים and was redeemed by a איד, so there's a מחלוקת between the חכמים and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. The חכמים hold that if he was redeemed in order to be an עבד, then he continues being an עבד. If he was redeemed in order to be a בן חורין, a free person, then he does not continue working as an עבד. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that in both cases, he continues being an עבד. And פשט in this משנה, the גמרא brought a מחלוקת between אביי and רבא. אביי learns that the משנה is talking in a case לפני יאוש, that the first owner was not מייאש himself, did not give up hope of finding his עבד, and therefore, he still remains the real owner of the עבד. And the פשט in the משנה is as follows: that if the person redeemed him in order to remain an עבד, then he goes back to his original owner, and continues being an עבד for him, because his owner was not מייאש yet, so he still belongs to him. But if he was redeemed in order to become a בן חורין, so then, even though he still belongs to the original owner, nevertheless, the חכמים say he goes out free, because if not, people would hold themselves back and would not redeem slaves. So in order to prevent this, so the חכמים said that even though it was before יאוש, nevertheless, he does not go back as an עבד. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, he is not afraid of that, because he holds that there is a מצוה of פדיון שבויים to redeem an עבד כנעני, so he's not afraid that people will not redeem him, so therefore, he says that even if it was redeemed in order to be a בן חורין, he still goes back to his original owner, because after all, it was before יאוש, he still belongs to him. This is the way אביי explained the משנה. But

רבא explained the משנה that the משנה is talking in a case of לאחר יאוש, that the original owner was מייאש himself, and therefore the עבד does not belong to him anymore. And this is the פשט in the משנה: that if he was redeemed in order to be an עבד, then he remains an עבד, but to the second owner, to the person who redeemed him, not to the original owner, because he was מייאש already. So since the second owner redeemed him in order to be an עבד, so it's like the second owner bought an עבד כנעני for himself, so he stays as an עבד to him. But if he was redeemed in order to be a בן חורין, then he doesn't work for anybody. He does not work for the first owner, because after all, he was מייאש, so he doesn't belong to him. He does not work for the second owner, because the second owner redeemed him to be a בן חורין, so he has no right to keep him as an עבד. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that even if he was redeemed as a בן חורין, he still stays as an עבד, and he gives the reason: because if not, whenever an עבד decides that he doesn't like his master, he's going to let himself be captured by גוים, and then, when he will be redeemed, he will be free. So in order to prevent that, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds that in all cases, he remains an עבד, and goes back to his first master. And now the

גמרא is going to ask a קשיא on the פשט of רבא in the משנה. And the גמרא says, ולרבא, and according to רבא, דאמר, that he said לאחר יאוש, that the משנה is in the case of after יאוש, ולרבו שני, and when the משנה says that if he was redeemed to be an עבד, he stays as an עבד to his second master, the שאלה is, לרבו שני, ממאן קני ליה? משבויי? His second master, from whom was he קונה him? From the robbers! שבויי גופייהו מי קנו ליה? The שבויי themselves, the robber themselves, are they קונה this עבד? Since they took the עבד away from the original owner, are they קונה the עבד in order to be able to say that the one that bought it from them, he is קונה the עבד? And the גמרא answers, אין, yes, קני ליה למעשה ידיו, that those גוים that captured this עבד, are קונה the עבד, at least for his work, that whatever profit his work brings in, goes to them. And now, the איד that redeemed the עבד from those גוים, he is קונה the עבד, too. And as רש״י explains, By paying the money when he redeemed the עבד, he gets the מעשה ידיו of the עבד, just like those גוים owned the מעשה ידיו, the labor of the עבד, so now the ייד who bought it from them, so by him paying the money, he takes over the ownership over the מעשה ידיו, and concerning the גוף of the עבד, so רש״י says, when he makes the עבד go through the process of מילה and טבילה, that he has to circumcise himself, and he has to go to the מקוה, through that, he is קונה the עבד לגופו. And then רש״י continues, that even if the original owner already had this עבד go through the process of מילה וטבילה, still, the גוים who captured the עבד, are קונה the עבד למעשה ידיו. And then this ייד who redeemed this עבד from the גוים, takes over the ownership of מעשה ידיו. So therefore, this עבד now belongs to the second ייד who redeemed him. And the גמרא says, אמר ריש לקיש, because ריש לקיש said, מניין לעובד כוכבים שקנה את עובד כוכבים למעשה ידיו, how do we know that one גוי is able to be קונה another גוי for his מעשה ידיו, that whatever profit his labor will bring in will go to the other גוי that was קונה him, שנאמר, because it says a פסוק in ויקרא כ״ה, וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו, that from the peoples who live amongst you, from them you should buy an עבד and a שפחה. And as רש״י explains, this is an extra פסוק, because there is a פסוק before that says, מהם תקנו עבד ואמה, that from them, from the גוים, you are allowed to buy a slave or a maid. So why does the תורה have to say another פסוק, וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו, that from those גוים that live amongst you, from them you are allowed to buy a slave? So that is to teach us that אתם קונים מהם, that you are allowed to buy from them, a ייד is allowed to buy an עבד a גוי, ולא הם קונים מכם, but the גוים, they are not allowed to buy a ייד as an עבד, ולא הם קונים זה מזה, and also that they themselves cannot buy one from another, that a גוי cannot be קונה another גוי. And he continued saying, יכול, you might think, לא יקנו זה את זה, that they cannot buy one from each other, that a גוי cannot buy a גוי. And the גמרא stops him right there, יכול לא יקנו זה את זה, how could you ask that we might think that a גוי cannot buy another גוי? הא אמרת, you just said a minute ago, ולא הם קונים זה מזה, that they טאקע cannot be קונה one from another. So how can you now look for a ראיה that you could be קונה one from another, when you just gave a statement before that a גוי cannot be קונה another גוי? And the גמרא says הכא קאמר, this is what he meant, that when he said before that one cannot buy from another, ולא הם קונים זה מזה לגופו, that a גוי cannot be קונה another גוי for his גוף, that a גוי cannot be קונה the גוף of a גוי, that the person, the גוי himself, should belong to the other גוי. And then he continued, יכול לא יקנו זה את זה למעשה ידיו, so you might think that a גוי cannot be קונה another גוי even for מעשה ידיו, even just for the benefit that his labor brings? So he says, אמרי קל וחומר, I'll tell you a קל וחומר: if עכו״ם ישראל קונה, if a גוי is able to be קונה a ייד for his מעשה ידיו, as רש״י brings the פסוק in ויקרא כ״ה, where it says that if a ייד will not have enough money and he will sell himself to a גוי, the מכירה, the sale is valid, so we see that a גוי is able to be קונה a ייד for his מעשה ידיו, א עובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים לא כל שכן, so certainly that a גוי is able to be קונה another גוי למעשה ידיו. So this is an answer to the question we had before, that the second ייד who redeemed this עבד, we said before, was קונה him from those גוים who captured the עבד, and our שאלה was, were those גוים themselves able to be קונה this עבד? And this we see here now, that a גוי is able to be קונה another גוי למעשה ידיו. And then the גמרא asks, ואימא, maybe let's say, הני מילי בכסף, that is only if the גוי buys the other גוי with money, אבל בחזקה, but if he wants to be קונה the other גוי through חזקה, לא, he cannot. And the reason we think so is, as רש״י explains, because how do we know that a גוי could be קונה another גוי? Because we learn it out from the דין that a גוי could be קונה a ייד. Concerning a גוי being קונה a ייד, the תורה says בפירוש, מכסף מקנתו, that if he buys him with money, he is קונה the ייד. So if we learn out that a גוי could be קונה a גוי from the דין that a גוי could be קונה So it should be similar. So just like the case where a גוי is קונה a איד is only through כסף, so we think maybe also when a גוי is קונה another גוי is also only if he is קונה him through כסף, but not if he made a קנין of חזקה. Concerning this קנין of חזקה that the גמרא here refers to, there's a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. רש״י learns that this חזקה is the same חזקה as we find that a איד is קונה an עבד כנעני. Because the דין is that a איד could be קונה an עבד כנעני, a גויישע עבד, through חזקה. And that is a חזקה that he makes him do a job that is fit for an עבד. For instance, he makes him dress him, he makes him put him on his shoes, he makes the עבד wash him around. That is a חזקה that a ישראל is קונה an עבד כנעני. So when the גמרא here asks that maybe when a גוי would make חזקה to another גוי he would not be קונה him, the גמרא refers to this same type of חזקה. That if a חזקה that the גוי would make the other גוי dress him or wash him or tie his shoes, etc., so then maybe he is not קונה him. And the גמרא's קשיא here is that in this case, when the גוים captured the עבד, they did not pay money for the עבד. So in which way were they קונה the עבד? That after they captured him, they made him do jobs that are fit for an עבד. And that is the גמרא's שאלה, that maybe when the גוי makes a חזקה on another גוי he is not קונה the other גוי. And therefore in the case of our משנה, where the שבאי, those גוים that captured this עבד did not pay money for him, so the only way they're able to be קונה him is through the קנין of חזקה. And then in turn, when the איד redeemed him from the גוים, so he is קונה the same thing as they were קונה. But if we're going to say that the only way a גוי could be קונה a גוי is through כסף, so in this case where they did not pay כסף, they should not be קונה this עבד. And then in turn, when the איד redeemed him from those robbers, he also should not be קונה, because they לכתחילה were not the owners, so he cannot be an owner because he bought him from somebody who was not an owner. But תוספות learns that when the גמרא here refers to חזקה, it does not mean this type of חזקה, but it means a חזקה of כיבוש, the חזקה that is done through conquering. There is a קנין called כיבוש, that when they conquer something, that itself is sufficient to be קונה. And that's what happened here in this case of the שבאי, that how were they קונה this עבד? That they conquered him, they captured him, and that itself is a קנין. And the גמרא's שאלה is that maybe when is a גוי קונה another גוי only if he buys him for money, but if he just conquers him, the קנין חזקה of כיבוש is not sufficient. And therefore in this case, if the גוים themselves were not קונה this עבד, so the איד who redeemed the עבד from the גוים also cannot be קונה. And the גמרא answers that we have a proof that a גוי could be קונה another גוי through חזקה, because אמר רב פפא, רב פפא said, עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון, that עמון ומואב became טהור, became pure through סיחון. Because like this, השם said that the אידן were not allowed to conquer any land from עמון or from מואב. As the פסוק says in דברים, אל תצר את מואב, and concerning עמון it says אל תצורם. And nevertheless we find that the Jews conquered certain lands that belonged to מואב and to עמון. Concerning מואב we see that they conquered the city called חשבון, and חשבון originally belonged to מואב. Concerning עמון we see, we find in תנ״ך, in שופטים, that when יפתח was going to have a war with עמון, עמון sent a message to יפתח saying that the reason we want to fight is because the Jews when they came out of מצרים took away part of our land. And the truth was that the אידן did take part of the land of מואב and part of the land of עמון. And the reason they were allowed to do that because they didn't take the land directly from עמון and מואב. First, סיחון had conquered some of the land from עמון and some of the land from מואב, so then it belonged to סיחון, it was extended to the territory of סיחון. So now when the Jews conquered סיחון, they were also allowed to conquer that land that originally belonged to עמון and to מואב. So from here we see that a גוי could be קונה from another גוי with חזקה. Because if there would be no קנין of חזקה, then how were the אידן allowed to conquer those parts that belonged originally to עמון and מואב? And even though סיחון had conquered it in between, but how was סיחון קונה those lands? Through חזקה. And if חזקה by a גוי is not קונה, that means that סיחון was not קונה those lands. So they still belonged to עמון and מואב. So how were the אידן allowed to conquer those lands? And since we see that עמון ומואב טהרו בסיחון סיחון, that because סיחון conquered them and they belonged to him, the יידן were in turn allowed to conquer it, that shows that סיחון was קונה those lands that he conquered from עמון ומואב. So that shows that a גוי is קונה from another גוי בחזקה. And even though this is only a proof concerning being קונה land with חזקה, but we know that whatever we find concerning land also applies concerning עבדים. Because עבדים הוקשו לקרקעות, עבדים are compared to קרקעות. So if we see that a גוי is able to be קונה a קרקע with חזקה, so that also proves that a גוי is able to be קונה an עבד through חזקה. And therefore in our גמרא, too, those שבאים that captured this עבד were קונה him through חזקה, so then the ייד that redeemed him from those גוים was also קונה them. But then the גמרא asks: אשכחן עובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים, we only now have a proof that a גוי could be קונה another גוי through חזקה, as we see in the case of עמון ומואב that they were קונה the lands from another גוי בחזקה. עובד כוכבים ישראל מנלן? How do we know that a גוי could also be קונה a ייד through חזקה? And in this case it happens to be a ייד, because this עבד that these גוים captured was an עבד כנעני that belonged to a ייד. And the דין is that an עבד כנעני belongs to a ייד is חייב במצות כאישה. He's obligated to do certain מצות, those מצות that women are obligated to do, so he's considered partially a ייד. So we have to have a ראיה that a גוי could also be קונה a ייד with חזקה. Because, and the גמרא says we have a ראיה for that, דכתיב, because there's a פסוק in במדבר that says, וישב ממנו שבי, that there was a certain war that the יידן had, and the גוים captured a captive, the תורה says, from the יידן. So that shows that when the גוים captured the ייד, we consider him a captive. So that shows that the גוים were קונה that ייד. So here we see that גוים are also able to be קונה a ייד with חזקה. Then the גמרא continues: אמר רב שמעון בר אבא, רב שמעון בר אבא said, אמר רבי יוחנן, in the name of רבי יוחנן: עבד שברח מבית האסורים, a עבד that ran away from jail, יצא לחירות, he automatically goes out free. ולא עוד, and more than that, אלא שכופין את רבו, but we force his master, וכותב לו גט שחרור, and he must write for him a גט שחרור. A גט שחרור is the document that frees the slave. So if he was in jail and he ran out, he doesn't work anymore, and we force his master to give him this גט שחרור and free him. And when a עבד becomes free, he becomes a complete Jew. The גמרא asks a שאלה: תנן, we learn in our משנה: רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד. This is the case where an עבד was captured by גוים. So רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says that in whichever way he was redeemed, he stays an עבד. ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבה בר בר חנה said in the name of רבי יוחנן: כל מקום ששנה רבן שמעון בן גמליאל במשנתנו, that wherever רבן שמעון בן גמליאל's opinion is mentioned in the משנה, הלכה כמותו, the הלכה is like him, חוץ מערב, וצידן, וראיה אחרונה, except in three cases in ש"ס. One is a case in בבא בתרא דף קע"ג עמוד א'. The other one is a case in the גמרא גיטין later on on דף ע"ה עמוד א'. And the other one is in סנהדרין דף ל"א עמוד א'. But every other place in ש"ס the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So we must say that our משנה, too, the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל. So it seems like a contradiction, because here רבי יוחנן says that if an עבד ran away from the בית האסורים, he goes out free, while in our משנה, which is a similar case, that he was captured by גוים, which is like being in jail, and he was redeemed, the הלכה is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that he stays an עבד. So it seems like a סתירה, a contradiction within the words of רבי יוחנן himself, because רבי יוחנן was the one that said that if an עבד runs away from the jail, he is free, and the same רבי יוחנן said that the הלכה in the whole ש"ס is like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, which means that in our משנה the הלכה is like him, too, that he does stay an עבד. And the גמרא explains: בשלמא לאביי, מילא according to אביי, who explained before that the משנה is talking in a case of before יאוש, so we could answer this contradiction: מוקי לה להא לפני יאוש ולהא לאחר יאוש. He will say that the משנה is talking before יאוש, and that's why he stays as an עבד, and the words of רבי יוחנן is a case of לאחר יאוש. That when רבי יוחנן said that an עבד that ran away from jail is automatically free, that is in the case that the owner was מתייאש himself and therefore is free. אלא לרבא דאמר לאחר יאוש, but according to רבא who says that our משנה is also talking in a case of אחר יאוש, and nevertheless רב שמעון בן גמליאל says that he remains an עבד. So קשיא דרבי יוחנן אדרבי יוחנן, so there's a קשיא, a סתירה, in the words of רבי יוחנן against the words of רבי יוחנן. In our משנה he פסקנ'ס that he remains an עבד, and there he says that if an עבד runs away from jail he is free. And the גמרא answers, אמר לך רבא, רבא will answer you. טעמא מאי, what was the reason in the case of the משנה? Why רב שמעון בן גמליאל said that he remains an עבד, even though it was after יאוש, so he shouldn't go back to his original owner? The only reason רב שמעון בן גמליאל said he does go is משום דחזקיה, because of the דין of חזקיה, that we're afraid that עבדים will let themselves be captured in order to be freed. So in that case, בורח שאני, if an עבד ran away from jail, he is different. In his case, we do not make that גזירה. Because השתא למיקטליה מסר נפשיה, at sea this person was ready to give up his life in order to run away from his captors, because he knew that if he would be caught by them they definitely would kill him, and he so much didn't want to be in their hands that he was ready to risk his life in order to free himself from them. אפולי אפיל נפשיה לגיסא? So are we afraid that he himself is going to throw himself into the hands of the captors? So therefore, in a case where we do not have this סברא of חזקיה that we're afraid that he's going to let himself be caught, over there the דין stays as it was originally, that since it's לאחר יאוש, he is not an עבד anymore. Then the גמרא continues with a story: אמתא דמר שמואל, the maid, the גויישע maid, which is a שפחה כנענית, which has the same דין as an עבד כנעני, she belonged to שמואל. אשתבאי, she was captured. פרקוה, people redeemed her, לשום אמתא, in order to remain a maid, a slave. ושדרוה ליה, and they sent her back to שמואל. ושלחו ליה, and they sent along the message that אנן כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבירא לן, we hold like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that whichever way she was redeemed, she remains a slave, and therefore take her. And they continued, את, you, אי נמי כרבנן סבירא לך, even if you hold like the רבנן, not like רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, אנן לשום אמתא פרקינן לה, still you could keep her because when we redeemed her we had in mind that she should remain a slave, and even the רבנן agreed that if you redeemed the slave in order to remain a slave, he does remain a slave. But really the

גמרא says שמואל did not have a right to take her, because ואינהו סבור, because they thought, לפני יאוש הוה, that this was a case before יאוש, that שמואל hadn't given up hope yet. ולא היא, it wasn't true, because לאחר יאוש הוה, it was already after שמואל gave up hope, and therefore שמואל had no right to take her back. ושמואל, and therefore שמואל, לא מיבעיא דאישתעבודי לא מישתעבד בה, not only did he have her work as a slave, אלא גיטא דחירותא נמי לא אצרכה, he also didn't even require that she should get a שטר שיחרור. Because שמואל לטעמיה, שמואל goes according to his own opinion, דאמר שמואל, because שמואל said, המפקיר עבדו, if someone gives up ownership of his עבד, יצא לחירות, automatically the עבד becomes free, ואינו צריך גט שיחרור, he doesn't even need a גט שיחרור, as normally when you own an עבד, if you want to free him you give him a שטר שיחרור, but in this case where you give up your ownership of the עבד, you don't even have to give him a גט שיחרור. שנאמר, because the פסוק says, וכל עבד איש מקנת כסף, that an עבד of a man that was bought with money, so when the פסוק says עבד איש, the עבד of a man, what does the פסוק mean with that? עבד איש ולא עבד אשה? An עבד of a man and not an עבד of a woman? As if a woman cannot own an עבד, it is not true, a woman could also own an עבד. So what does the תורה mean with the words עבד איש? אלא, it means עבד שיש לו רשות רבו עליו, an עבד that has a man over him, has the ownership of his master over him, קרוי עבד, he is called an עבד. But שאין לו רשות רבו עליו, but if an עבד does not have the ownership of his master over him, אין קרוי עבד, he is not called an עבד. And therefore שמואל says, if a person is מפקיר his עבד, so his עבד does not have the ownership of his master over him, he is not called an עבד, and he does not need a גט שיחרור. And just as the דין is when you're מפקיר your עבד, the same thing is if you are מתייאש from your עבד, if you give up hope from your עבד, because יאוש is equivalent to הפקר. And therefore, in this case where שמואל was already מתייאש מיואש from that שפחה, he did not require her to get a גט שחרור. The גמרא continues, אמתיה דרב אבא בר זוטרא אשתבאי, the

female slave of רב אבא בר זוטרא was captured, פרקה ההוא תרמודאה לשום איתתא, so a certain גוי from תרמוד redeemed her to be his wife. שדרו ליה לדידיה, so they sent a message to רב אבא בר זוטרא, that אי יאי עובדיך, if you would like to do a good thing, שדר לה גיטא דחירותא, send her a שטר שחרור. And the גמרא says, היכי דמי, what was the case there? What did they think they would accomplish if he would send her a שטר שחרור? אי דמצו פרקו לה, if they were able to redeem her from that תרמוד, if that גוי, that תרמוד, was willing to sell her if they would pay the money for her, למה לי גיטא דחירותא, why did they want she should get a שטר שחרור? Let them just pay the money and redeem her and give her back to רב אבא בר זוטרא. אי דלא מצו פרקו לה, if they could not redeem her, in other words, that גוי was not willing to sell her back, so כי שדר לה גיטא דחירותא מאי הוה, so what would they have gained if she, he would have sent her a שטר שחרור? The גוי wouldn't give her up anyway. And the גמרא answers, לעולם really דמצו פרקו לה, they were able to redeem her. Ah, you ask, if so, let them redeem her, why did they want him to send her a שטר שחרור? But the גמרא says, דכיון דמשדר לה גיטא דחירותא, if he would send her a שטר שחרור, חבורי מחברי אהדדי, the people would get together, ופרקו לה, they would redeem her. Like this, it was harder for them to collect the money to redeem her since she was a שפחה כנענית. But if he would send her a שטר שחרור, she would become a regular בת חורין, a regular Jewish woman, it would be easier to get the people together and redeem her. איבעית אימא, the גמרא says, if you want, I could give you a different explanation: לעולם דלא מצו פרקו לה, that really they were not able to redeem her. So if so, you ask, so what would they gain if he would send a שטר שחרור, the גוי was not willing to give her up anyway. But דכיון דמשדר לה גיטא דחירותא, as soon as he would send her a שטר שחרור, מיזלא באפיה, she would become disgusting in the eyes of the גוי, ומפרק לה, then he would change his mind and would allow them to redeem her. Because when he would send her the שטר שחרור, the גוי would find out that she used to be a שפחה of a Jew, so that would make her disgusting in the eyes of the גוי, and then he would allow the יידן to redeem her. But the גמרא asks, והאמר מר, don't we know that חביבא להו בהמתן של ישראל יותר מנשותיהן, that even the animals of the יידן are more beloved to the גוים than their own wives? So how could you say here that when the גוי would find out that she used to belong to a ייד, she would be disgusting to him, when we say here that they like even the animals of the יידן more than their own wives? Certainly, they would like the שפחה of a ייד. And the גמרא answers, הני מילי בצנעא, that is only quietly. Truthfully, a גוי would like the בהמה of a ייד more than his own wife and, certainly, the שפחה of a ייד. אבל בפרהסיא, but in public, officially, זילא בהו מילתא, it is disgusting for a גוי to be with a Jewish שפחה. Then the גמרא continues, ההיא אמתא, there was this female slave, דהואי בפומבדיתא, that she was in the city of פומבדיתא, דהוו קא מעבדו בה אינשי דאיסורא, that men would do עבירות with her. She was the source of immorality for certain men. אמר אביי, so אביי said, אי לאו דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, if not for what רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, כל המשחרר עבדו עובר בעשה, that anybody who frees his גויישע slave is עובר on an עשה, transgresses a positive commandment, if not for that, הוה כפינא ליה למרה, I would force her master, וכתב לה גיטא דחירותא, that he should write for her a שטר שחרור. Since because she was a שפחה and was not married to a man, so the people did עבירות with her, so אביי said that if not for the עבירה of freeing a slave, I would force her master to free her. רבינא אמר, but רבינא said, כי הא מודה רב יהודה, in a case like this, רב יהודה would be מודה that you are allowed to free her, משום מילתא דאיסורא, because of a reason of איסור. When did רב יהודה say that you're עובר an עשה if you free your slave? Only if no איסור is involved. But in this case, the reason you wanted her to be free is so people shouldn't do any עבירות with her, in a case like this, רב יהודה would admit that you are allowed to free your slave. Now the גמרא asks, ואביי, and אביי himself, משום איסורא לא, does he not hold to, if she was free, she couldn't marry A regular בן חורין, a regular Jew, because of her half that she was a שפחה. So therefore, they forced her master to free her, and now she was able to marry a regular Jew, a regular בת חורין. ואמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, and then רב נחמן בר יצחק said that the reason they freed her was not just for her to be able to marry, because the truth is a woman is not obligated for the מצוה of פרו ורבו. She's not obligated in the מצוה of having children. So therefore, this reason that she should be able to marry was not sufficient that we should force her master to free her. But what was the reason? Because מנהג הפקר נהגו בה. Since she was not able to marry anybody, so people would do עבירות with her. So because of that, they were able to force her master to free her. So the גמרא שאלה is, why did אביי think in his case that there, too, people were doing עבירות with her, it wasn't sufficient that you should be allowed to force her master to free her? And the גמרא answers, הכא השתא? What kind of comparison is it? התם, there, in the story of רב חנינא בר קטינא, לא לעבד חזיא ולא לבן חורין חזיא. Since she was a half a שפחה, half a בת חורין, she couldn't marry not an עבד, not a בן חורין. So therefore, people were doing עבירות with her, and there was no choice but to free her. הכא, but in my case, here, אפשר דמייחד לה לעבדא, her master could be מייחד her, could give her his עבד as a husband, ומינטר לה, and he will watch her. So here there is another way of making sure that people will not do עבירות with her by marrying her off to an עבד, and therefore אביי felt that in his case he had no right to force her master to free her. And the גמרא continues, גופא. Now we're going to discuss the גוף of that דין that we mentioned before: אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, כל המשחרר עבדו, whoever frees his עבד, עובר בעשה, is עובר on an עשה. Which עשה? שנאמר, it says in the תורה in ויקרא, לעולם בהם תעבודו, "Forever you should have them work." So if you free your slave, then you stop them from being your עבד, so you're עובר on this עשה. And the גמרא continues, מיתיבי, I'll ask you a קשיא, מעשה ברבי אליעזר, there's a story with רבי אליעזר, שנכנס לבית הכנסת, he entered the שול to דאווען, ולא מצא עשרה, and he couldn't find a מנין, there were no ten there, ושחרר עבדו, so he freed his slave, והשלימו לעשרה, and with him he had a מנין. So we see that you are allowed to free your slave. And the גמרא answers, מצוה שאני. For the sake of a מצוה is different, and since the reason he freed his slave was in order to have a מנין, so that is different, that you are allowed to do. And the גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, the פסוק says, לעולם בהם תעבודו, "Forever you should work with them." רשות, that is only optional. דברי רבי ישמעאל, רבי ישמעאל holds that way, that it is not a מצוה, a חיוב, that you must have them work forever, but the תורה is telling you that you're allowed to work with them, because we would think since the תורה says previously that any person that belongs to one of the seven nations, לא תחיה כל נשמה, you're not allowed to let any one of them live, so we would think that if a גוי from another nation, not one of the seven, had a child with a woman who is one of the seven אומות, so we would think that their child should be אסור to live, so therefore the פסוק tells us no, that you could have an עבד that his mother is one of the שבע אומות if his father is not. But רבי עקיבא אומר, רבי עקיבא says חובה, that this פסוק is a חובה, an obligation, that you must have your עבדים work forever. But the גמרא asks a שאלה based on that, ודילמא רבי אליעזר סבר לה כמאן דאמר רשות? So maybe רבי אליעזר holds like the מאן דאמר that says that it is only optional? We asked the קשיא before from the story of רבי אלעזר that he freed his slave in order to be משלים the מנין, and we answered that the reason he was allowed to do that because מצוה is different. Why couldn't we answer very simple, that he holds there is no עבירה in freeing the slave? Maybe he holds like רבי ישמעאל that the פסוק לעולם בהם תעבודו is only a רשות and you're allowed to free your slave? And the גמרא says, לא סלקא דעתך. We don't even have a הוה אמינא that that should be the פשט, because תניא בהדיא, we learned בפירוש in a ברייתא, רבי אליעזר אומר that רבי אליעזר says חובה, that it is an obligation, that when the פסוק says לעולם בהם תעבודו, it is a must that you are not allowed to free your slave. The גמרא continues,

אמר רבא, רבא said, בהני תלת מילי, because of these three things, because of these three offenses, נחתי בעלי בתים מנכסיהן. So people lose their possessions, people become poor. One thing is דמפקי עבדיהו לחירותא, they free their slaves. The second thing ודסיירי נכסייהו בשבתא, and they inspect their fields on שבת to see what they have to fix after שבת, which they shouldn't really be doing. ודקבעי סעודתייהו בשבתא and also for having their main meal on שבת בעידן בי מדרשא, שבת afternoon at a time when in the ישיבה the שיעור is being given and they sit home and partake in their meal. דאמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן, because רבי חייא בר אבא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, שתי משפחות היו בירושלים, there were two families in ירושלים. אחת קבעה סעודתה בשבת, one used to have their main meal on שבת, ואחת קבעה סעודתה בערב שבת, and one used to have their main meal on Friday night, ושתיהן נעקרו, and both of them became extinct, because both of them were doing wrong. The one that had their main meal on שבת, it was wrong because it was in the time of the שיעור. The one that had their main meal on Friday night was also wrong because the main meal is supposed to be eaten on שבת afternoon. They really did it because they didn't want to have their main meal on שבת afternoon, not to take away the time from the שיעור. But nevertheless, it was wrong because the main meal has to be שבת afternoon, not Friday night. There's another פשט in this גמרא, as רש״י brings, that when the גמרא says that the second family had their main meal ערב שבת, it does not mean Friday night as we said before, but it means simply on ערב שבת on Friday. But רש״י says it is hard to say that this is the פשט in the גמרא, because the גמרא here does not bring things which are actually אסור, just things which are not proper to do. And to eat a main meal ערב שבת afternoon is really אסור, because the דין is that you have to go into שבת while you're hungry in order to eat the שבת meal with appetite. So if you eat a main meal on שבת afternoon, you won't be hungry Friday night, so therefore it is an איסור. So therefore רש״י says, the גמרא here probably does not mean ערב שבת Friday, but it means Friday night. And then the גמרא continues, אמר רבה אמר רב, רבה said in the name of רב, המקדיש עבדו, if someone makes his עבד הקדש, he says let my עבד be הקדש, יצא לחירות, he automatically goes out free. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? גופיה לא קדיש לדמי לא קאמר. בכלל, when somebody is מקדיש something, there are three possibilities. One possibility is when you are מקדיש קדושת הגוף. When you are מקדיש an object which in it in itself can be used on the מזבח as a קרבן. So that object becomes holy and it is קדושת הגוף, that the גוף itself, the object itself, is used for הקדש, is used for a קרבן on the מזבח. But then let's say somebody is מקדיש an object that cannot be used on the מזבח. For instance, if he is מקדיש a non-kosher animal, a בהמה טמאה, or if he is מקדיש קרקע, if he is מקדיש land, or any other object that cannot be used on the מזבח, so there the דין is it becomes קדושת דמים. That means that the object itself belongs to הקדש, it is הקדש, but what will הקדש do with it? הקדש will sell it and the money הקדש gets for that object will be used for בדק הבית, for fixing of the בית המקדש. Then there is a third possibility. When a person would say, דמי חפץ זה עלי, that I take it upon myself to give to הקדש the worth of that object. So this הקדש has no effect whatsoever on the object, because he never said that the object itself should belong to הקדש. All he said was that he takes upon himself to give to הקדש the worth of that object. So in a case like that, the בית דין would have to evaluate how much that object is worth and this person is מחוייב to give to הקדש the worth of that object. Now in a case where he is מקדיש his עבד, let's see what this could mean. So the גמרא says, גופיה לא קדיש, to say that he meant קדושת הגוף, that is impossible, because that is שייך only by something that could be used on the מזבח. By an עבד that is impossible, so it can't mean קדושת הגוף. Let it mean that he accepted it upon himself that he will give to הקדש the worth of the עבד? We can't say that either because לדמי לא קאמר, he did not say that he accepts upon himself the דמים, the worth of that עבד. So therefore, if he didn't say it, he probably didn't mean it. So therefore, what did he mean? דלהוי עם קדוש קאמר. So what he meant was that this עבד should become part of עם קדוש, of the holy nation, should become part of the Jewish nation. And therefore רב says that if you're מקדיש your עבד, what you mean is that you're freeing him and you make him become a בן חורין, a regular free person and automatically he becomes a regular Jew. The only question we could ask, maybe he meant the other possibility? Maybe he meant that he is מקדיש the עבד קדושת דמים, that the עבד should belong to הקדש and הקדש should sell the עבד, and the money should go to בדק הבית. So רש״י here, and a little bit later, in more detail explains that in this case we cannot say that. When do we say that if a person is מקדיש an object that cannot be used for קדושת הגוף, that that means that it should become קדושת דמים? Only where there is no other choice. If it can definitely not mean קדושת הגוף, in no way, so therefore we say when he was מקדיש him, probably it meant קדושת דמים. But in a case where there is some way that we could say he meant קדושת הגוף, so there we do not say he meant קדושת דמים. And this is what רב holds. Since in the case of an עבד, there is some way to say he meant קדושת הגוף, not a קדושת הגוף of a קרבן, but a קדושת הגוף of becoming part of the עם קדוש, which is also a קדושת הגוף, that his גוף becomes holy, he becomes part of the Jewish nation. So since we can interpret his words somehow that he meant קדושת הגוף, so therefore we cannot say that he meant קדושת דמים. And that is what רב is saying: קדושת הגוף of a קרבן it cannot mean. To say he meant דמיו עלי, that I take upon myself to pay the amount of money that the עבד is worth, he also did not say, because he said that the עבד itself should be קדוש. To say that he meant that the עבד should become קדושת דמים, we cannot say here either, because in somehow there is a connection here to קדושת הגוף. So therefore what we do say he meant, that the עבד should be קדוש in that type of קדושת הגוף, and that means that the עבד should become a בן חורין, should become part of עם קדוש. ורב יוסף אמר רב, רב יוסף said in the name of רב,

המפקיר עבדו, if someone makes his עבד הפקר, he gives up his ownership of the עבד, יצא לחירות, so the עבד goes out free. And רב יוסף did not give over in the name of רב concerning if he's מקדיש the עבד, but only concerning if he's מפקיר the עבד. And the גמרא explains: מאן דאמר מקדיש, the one that said in the name of רב that if you are מקדיש your עבד, he goes out free, כל שכן מפקיר, certainly if you are מפקיר your עבד. Because in the case where you are מפקיר your עבד, there is more סברא to say that he meant to free him than if you are מקדיש your עבד. Because when you are מקדיש your עבד, he actually didn't say he should go out free, we just interpreted that that's what he meant. But in the case where he's מפקיר his עבד, so he definitely is saying he's giving up his ownership. So there there is more סברא to say that he goes out free. So the one that said that רב said this דין by מקדיש his עבד, certainly he holds that in the case where he is מפקיר his עבד, he also goes out free. מאן דאמר מפקיר, the one that said that רב said this דין in the case of being מפקיר a עבד, אבל מקדיש לא. But that doesn't mean that he holds when you're מקדיש the עבד he also goes out free. Because דילמא maybe לדמי קאמר, maybe he holds that when he was מקדיש him, what he really meant was that he takes upon himself to give to הקדש the worth of that עבד. The גמרא continues,

איבעיא להו, in the ישיבה they ask a question, they ask an איבעיא, צריך גט שחרור או לא צריך? In these two cases that רב said, that if you are מפקיר your עבד or if you are מקדיש your עבד he goes out free, does he still need a גט שחרור or not? And the גמרא says תא שמע, come and hear, I will bring you an answer, דאמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב, רב חייא בר אבין said in the name of רב, אחד זה ואחד זה יצא לחירות, that in the case of מקדיש and in the case of מפקיר he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור, but he does need a גט שחרור. And as we can see, רב argues on שמואל, because in עמוד א we learned that שמואל says if you're מפקיר your עבד, he goes out free and does not need a גט שחרור. But here we see that רב holds that if you're מפקיר your עבד, he goes out free, and he does need a גט שחרור. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבה, רבה said, ומותבינן אשמעתין, and we could ask a קושיא on our own דין. רבה was the one that gave over in the name of רב before, that if you are מקדיש your עבד, he goes out free. So

רבה says, but I have a קושיא on that דין from a ברייתא. Because we learn in a ברייתא, המקדיש נכסיו, if someone is מקדיש his property, והיו בהן עבדים, and amongst those things that he was מקדיש, there were עבדים, אין הגזברין רשאין להוציאן לחירות, the treasurers of הקדש have no right to free the עבדים, אבל מוכרין אותן לאחרים, but they are allowed to sell them to others, ואחרים מוציאין אותן לחירות, and the others, if they want, they are able to free these עבדים. רבי אומר, but רבי says, אומר אני, I say, הוא נותן דמי עצמו, the עבד himself can pay his own money, ויצא, and he can go out. Because as the גמרא explains later in דף לט עמוד ב, רבי holds that an עבד כנעני could go out free by buying his freedom, by paying to his master the amount of money that he is worth, and that's how he goes out free. So in this case רבי says he is also able to give his own money and go out free. But in this case it's not because he is able to be freed through the גזברין, through the treasurers of הקדש, because as we said before, that the treasurers treasurers of הקדש have no right to free them, but it is as רבא says, מפני שהוא כמוכרו לו, because it is as if the treasurer of הקדש is selling the עבד to himself. Just like we said before that the treasurers of הקדש have a right to sell them to others, so they also have a right to sell them to themselves. So therefore, if the עבד has his own money, he's able to buy himself off from the treasurers of הקדש. But one might ask, how does an עבד have his own money? Don't we have a כלל,

כל מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו, that whatever an עבד כנעני owns belongs to his master? So how can we say if he pays his own money, he's able to buy his freedom? But the פשט is that even though most cases we say that, but there is a possibility for an עבד to own his own money. And that is in the case where someone gives him money על מנת שאין לרבו רשות בו, that someone gives him money on condition that his master should have no control, no ownership over that money. So that money actually belongs to the עבד himself. So in this case, רבא says that if the עבד happens to have such money, he's able to pay for himself and buy himself off from the treasurers of הקדש. But one thing we do see from this ברייתא that if someone is מקדיש an עבד, the עבד belongs to הקדש. And this seems to contradict what רבא said in the name of רב before, that if someone is מקדיש his עבד, he goes out free. And the גמרא answers, מתניתין קרמית עליה דרב? Are you asking me a קושיא from a ברייתא on רב? רב תנא הוא ופליג. רב is a תנא himself, and he's able to argue on a משנה or on a ברייתא. But the truth is that a תירוץ like this the גמרא only gives whenever we have no other תירוץ. But if the גמרא has another תירוץ, the גמרא usually does not like to give this תירוץ that רב argues on a משנה or on a ברייתא. Then the

גמרא continues, תא שמע, come hear. I'll ask you another קושיא on this דין of רב. There's a ברייתא that quotes the פסוק in ויקרא in בחוקותי, כ"ז, it says, אך כל חרם וגו' מאדם. The actual פסוק is: אך כל חרם אשר יחרם איש לה' מכל אשר לו מאדם ובהמה ומשדה אחוזתו, that if a person will be מחרים, which is another form of הקדש, and the פסוק says if he will מחרים from whatever he owns, whether it is an אדם or a בהמה or whatever it is, whether it is a person that he owns or an animal that he owns, so the תורה continues that that actually becomes holy, it becomes חרם. Now, when the פסוק says that if a person is מחרים from an אדם, a person that he owns, what does that mean? The ברייתא says, אלו עבדיו ושפחותיו הכנענים. This refers to the עבדים and the שפחות, the male or female slaves that a person might own, so he is able to be מקדיש them. So we see from this פסוק that a person is able to be מקדיש his עבד. So the קושיא is on רב: how could רב say that if you're מקדיש your עבד, he automatically goes out free, when here we see that you're allowed to be מקדיש your עבד? And אי, let's answer that רב is a תנא and he argues. But that we could only answer if we have a קושיא from a ברייתא. But here, this is a דרשה on the פסוק. So it is if the פסוק tells us that a person is able to be מקדיש his עבד, so what will רב do with this פסוק? And the גמרא answers, הכא במאי עסקינן, that this is talking in a case דאמר, where he said, לדמי, that he takes upon himself the worth of the עבד. Because the reason we gave before why רב said that if he's מקדיש his עבד we do not assume he meant that he takes upon himself to give to הקדש the worth of the עבד, because if that's what he would have meant, he would have said that. So this פסוק is telling us that if he did say it, if he said clearly that I take upon myself to give to הקדש the דמים, the worth of the עבד, then he is חייב to give that money to הקדש. Then the גמרא continues, אי הכי, if so, אידך נמי דאמר לדמי. Why couldn't we answer the same תירוץ on the ברייתא before? Why did we have to answer before on the קושיא we asked previously that רב argues on that ברייתא? Why couldn't we answer that in that ברייתא where it says that if you're מקדיש your נכסים, and amongst them you have עבדים, so then it is הקדש, maybe that ברייתא means where he said בפירוש that I take upon myself to give to הקדש the worth of my עבדים? So the גמרא says, אי הכי, if so, if the ברייתא would mean that, אין הגזברין רשאין להוציאן לחירות, the ברייתא says that the גבאים, the treasurers of הקדש, have no right to free the slaves, גזברין מאי עבידתייהו? What are the גזברין, the treasurers, doing here? In other words, what kind of connection do they have to the treasurers of הקדש? Since he wasn't מקדיש the עבדים, he just accepted upon himself like a נדר to give to הקדש the worth of the עבדים, so why would we even think that the גזברין, the treasurers of הקדש, have a right to sell these to free these עבדים? These עבדים do not belong to הקדש at all! ותו, more than that, the ברייתא continues and says, אבל מוכרין אותן לאחרים, but the גזברין have a right to sell them to others, ואחרים מוציאין אותן לחירות, and others could free them if they want, אחרים מאי עבידתייהו? What do others do here? How can the גזברים of הקדש sell them to others if they do not belong to הקדש to begin with, because he never was מקדיש the עבדים? He just took upon himself a נדר to give to הקדש the worth of the עבדים. ועוד more than that, רבי אומר, the ברייתא continues that רבי says, אומר אני אף הוא נותן דמי עצמו ויוצא, that the עבד himself is allowed to give his own money and go out free, מפני שהוא כמוכר לו, because it's like the גזבר of הקדש is selling the עבד to himself. ואי לדמי, if this is a ברייתא where the case is that that person took upon himself to give to הקדש the דמים, the worth of the עבדים, מאי מפני שהוא כמוכר לו? What does the ברייתא mean that if the עבד gives his money to the treasurer of הקדש, it's as if the הקדש sold the עבד to himself? What kind of right does the הקדש have to sell the עבד to himself? These עבדים do not belong to הקדש at all. And therefore we must say that the ברייתא is not talking in a case that he took upon himself the דמים. אלא מאי, the ברייתא is only in a case where he actually said he is מקדיש his עבד. And the ברייתא learns that if you're מקדיש your עבד, the עבד becomes קדושת דמים. And this is different than what רב said, that if you're מקדיש your עבד, it cannot be קדושת דמים, and what that means is that he becomes free, becomes a part of עם קדוש. So we have a סתירה between the ברייתא and רב, and the only answer the גמרא could give is that רב תנא הוא ופליג, that רב argues on that ברייתא. Going back a little bit in the גמרא, where the גמרא gave three reasons why certain rich people would become poor.

One reason was that they would free their גויישע עבדים. The other reason was that they used to look on שבת what work has to be done in their fields after שבת. And the third reason was that they used to set up their main meal on שבת afternoon when the חכם would learn the תורה in the בית המדרש. So the מהרש"א gives the reason why these three things are a cause for a person to become poor. Concerning the first thing, he says, because when you free your עבד, you drop some of your property against the תורה, so then the punishment for that is that you lose your property completely. So since he freed his עבד and was עובר on an עשה, so השם punishes him that he would lose his property completely. And the second thing, for those people who used to go on שבת and look into their property to see what has to be done, so the מהרש"א also explains, because the גמרא says in שבת דף ק"נ, there was a story with a חסיד that on שבת he once passed by his field and he saw a fence that was broken, and it just entered his mind that after שבת he has to fix it. And just because of that, he made up his mind later not to do it at all, because on שבת he thought about his business, which he really shouldn't have. And because of that, השם made a miracle and his work was done by itself. So we see from there that when a person does not think about his work on שבת, that is a cause for a ברכה and הצלחה to come into his property. So these people who did think about their work on שבת was a reason to take away the הצלחה, to take away the ברכה in their property, and therefore this was a cause for them to lose their property. And concerning the third thing, which is those people that used to establish their meal on שבת in the time when they really should have been in the בית המדרש learning תורה from the חכם, so the מהרש"א says that the גמרא says in ברכות that the חסידים הראשונים, the first חסידים, they used to make תורתן קבע, they used to make their תורה permanent. And the גמרא explains, so what used to happen to their מלאכה? What would happen to their work that they had to do in order to earn a livelihood? So the גמרא says that מלאכתן מתברכת, their work would get blessed, there would be a special הצלחה in their work because they would make their תורה a קבע, they would make their תורה in a קביעות, in a strong, established way. So we see from there that when a person makes his תורה קבע, this is a reason to have a ברכה in the person's property, in the person's work. So in this case, these people who would do just the opposite, that in the time when they should have been in the בית המדרש learning, they would make their סעודה, their meal a קבע, that should be the established, permanent thing, so that was a reason to take away their ברכה from their מלאכה, from their work, and therefore this was a cause for them to lose their money, to become poor.

קדושת הגוף, and that means to free him, to put him in the עם קדוש, to put him into the holy nation. So therefore, when a person says, "I am מקדיש my עבד לדמיו," which means for בדק הבית, automatically he becomes free anyway, because since there is a גדר of קדושה similar to קדושת הגוף by an עבד, so therefore רש"י says the גמרא here couldn't have answered that the ברייתא is talking in a case where he said, "I am מקדיש the עבד לדמיו," and that's the case where the גזבר of הקדש has a right to sell him, etc., because his דמים belong to בדק הבית, because there is no such thing, because as soon as he says, "I am מקדיש the עבד," automatically he becomes עם קדוש, and he goes out free. So, therefore, the only way we could have said that the ברייתא is talking about is where he says, "דמי עבד עלי", that the worth of the עבד I take upon myself to give. But that the גמרא said couldn't be because of all the different expressions in the משנה. So the only thing we're able to say is that there is an argument between רב and that ברייתא.