Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be in מסכת גיטין דף ל"ט, but we will start on דף ל"ח עמוד ב', two lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And the גמרא here is still in middle of the discussion concerning what רב said, that if someone is מקדיש his עבד, he goes out free, and he gives the reason that really, as רש"י explains, that there are three possibilities for what a person could mean when he is מקדיש something. Sometimes a thing can become קדושת הגוף, that if it is something that can be used as a קרבן on the מזבח, so then the object itself becomes קדוש, becomes holy, and must be used as a קרבן. Then there is a possibility of saying that I accept upon myself the worth of a certain object. So then the object itself has nothing to do to the קדושה, but the person is just obligated to give to הקדש the amount of money that that object is worth. Then there is a third possibility, that a person could be מקדיש an object, but the object itself cannot be brought as a קרבן on the מזבח, but what he meant was that this object should belong to הקדש, to בדק הבית, and הקדש would sell that object, and the money הקדש would get for that object would be used for בדק הבית, for the fixing of the בית המקדש. Now, in the case of a person being מקדיש an עבד, all three possibilities don't apply. The first possibility, that the עבד himself should become קדוש and should be used as a קרבן, definitely does not apply. The other possibility, that he meant that he takes it upon himself to give to הקדש the amount of money that the עבד is worth, doesn't apply here either, רב said, because if that's what he meant, he would have said that. He would have said, "דמי העבד עלי," the worth, the money of the עבד is upon me. And since he didn't say that, obviously this is not what he meant. The third possibility, that maybe he meant that the עבד should become holy and belong to הקדש, that הקדש should have to sell him and use the money for בדק הבית, doesn't apply here either. Because as רש"י explained before, that we only say in a case where the object is something that cannot become קדושת הגוף. So then we say the קדושה that he meant was קדושת דמים. For instance, if someone is מקדיש קרקע or someone is מקדיש a בהמה טמאה, if someone said that a piece of land should be הקדש, a בהמה טמאה, a non-kosher animal, should be הקדש. So there is no way we could apply קדושת הגוף to this object. There's no way that this object could have any קדושה in the body itself. So therefore we say, what kind of קדושה will fall upon this object? Only this type of קדושה, that it belongs to הקדש, and הקדש will sell it, and the money will be used for בדק הבית. But let's say if someone is מקדיש תמימים לבדק הבית, if someone is מקדיש an animal that is fit for a קרבן for בדק הבית, so then automatically that animal has to be used as a קרבן. Even if the person said clearly that, "I'm only מקדיש it for בדק הבית," since it's an object that can be used for a קרבן, and he used the לשון הקדש on that object, automatically that object has to be used as a קרבן. And the same here, too. Since there is a possibility of קדושת הגוף, a certain type of קדושת הגוף on this עבד, and that is that this עבד should become part of עם קדוש, part of the Jewish nation, of the holy nation, so then there is no such thing as being מקדיש it לדמים, that it should become קדוש and belong to הקדש only for its value to be sold. And therefore רב said that if someone is מקדיש an עבד, there is no other choice but to say that what he meant was that he should become part of עם קדוש, part of the Jewish nation, and automatically יצא לחירות, he goes out free. And now we will learn the גמרא where the גמרא asks a קשיא on רב. The גמרא says, "תא שמע," come here, we learned in a ברייתא: "המקדיש עבדו," if someone is מקדיש his עבד, "עושה ואוכל," he works and he supports himself, he eats from the money that he earns, "שלא היקדיש אלא דמיו," because when he was מקדיש him, he was only מקדיש him for his דמים, for his worth. Because we would think that since his master was מקדיש him, he belongs to הקדש, so any money he earns should belong to הקדש. And if he would use the money he earns, he would be מועל בהקדש, he would be having benefit of something that belongs to הקדש שלא כדין. So the ברייתא tells us, "No, he's allowed to use his money to support himself, because the money is not הקדש. He only belongs to הקדש for דמים." And as רש"י explains, what the גמרא thought the פשט in the ברייתא was, that when the master was מקדיש him, the עבד actually belongs to הקדש, but only לדמיו. He belongs to הקדש that הקדש will sell him, and the money that הקדש will get for him will belong to בדק הבית. But in the meantime, we see that this is a סתירה, a contradiction to what רב said. Because רב said if someone is מקדיש his עבד, we cannot assume that he was מקדיש him לדמיו, that he was מקדיש him that he belongs to הקדש only for his value that הקדש should sell him, because as we said before, in this case, we do not say that you could be מקדיש לדמיו. And what did he mean? That he should become part of עם קדוש, he should become free. And in this ברייתא we see that when someone is מקדיש his עבד, we do say that he was מקדיש him לדמיו, that he belongs to הקדש for his value, that first הקדש will sell him and use the money for בדק הבית. And the גמרא answers, הא מני רבי מאיר היא, that this ברייתא goes according to רבי מאיר. דאמר, that רבי מאיר says, אין אדם מוציא דבריו לבטלה, that a person does not use words in vain. That when a person says something, and if we take his words literally, it has no meaning, so what we have to do is we have to interpret it in such a way that it should have meaning. And רבי מאיר said this in גמרא ערכין דף ה׳ concerning the דין of ערכין. The דין of ערכין is that when a person says, ערכי עלי, I take upon myself to give to הקדש the ערך that I am worth, or ערכו עלי, the ערך, the worth of another person, or he says ערכך עלי, he says to a person, your ערך, your worth I take upon myself to give to הקדש. So it depends what לשון, what expression he used. If he uses the לשון דמי עלי, my money, my worth is upon me, or your worth is upon me, so then he has to pay the worth of the person that he took his value upon himself. The בית דין would evaluate how much he is worth or how much the other person is worth, meaning how much he would be worth to be sold as a slave in the market, and that's how much he has to give to הקדש. But if he uses the term ערך, ערכי עלי, ערכך עלי, ערכו עלי, so then the תורה has set up a fixed amount of money based on the age of the person of whose ערך he accepted upon himself. For instance, if that person is in the age between a month and five years, so then he has to pay five שקלים if it's a male, and three שקלים if it's a female. If he is between five and twenty, so then if it's a male, it's twenty שקלים, if it's a female, it's ten שקלים. If he is between twenty and sixty, so then if it's a male, it's fifty שקלים, if it's a female, then it's thirty שקלים. If the child is under a month, under a חודש, so then there is no דין of ערכין. So the case is if a person says: I take upon myself the ערך of that child that's under a חודש, under a month old. So the חכמים hold that since there is no ערך for a child under a month, so then these words don't mean anything and he is פטור from giving any money to הקדש. But רבי מאיר says, since a person does not say something for no reason, so if we take his words literally, they will not mean anything, so we must interpret it and say that probably what he meant was not that he takes upon himself the ערך of that child, but he takes upon himself the דמים of that child, the value of that child. And therefore, the בית דין would have to evaluate how much that child is worth, and he would be obligated to pay the value of that child. And our גמרא here wants to say that our ברייתא also goes according to רבי מאיר and follows the same סברא. In other words, that everyone really holds that when somebody is מקדיש an עבד, the עבד cannot be קדוש לדמיו. There is no such thing as having the עבד belong to הקדש, becoming הקדש, that הקדש will sell him and use the money for בדק הבית. So what do we say did he mean when he was מקדיש his עבד? So רבי מאיר says, since we have to interpret his words in a way it should have some meaning, so רבי מאיר interprets it and says that it's as if he said: I accept upon myself the value of this עבד. And this statement has no effect on the עבד at all, the עבד is not הקדש at all, but the person who was מקדיש the עבד is now obligated to give to הקדש the money that this עבד is worth. And this is what the ברייתא meant when it said, שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו, that when he was מקדיש his עבד, he was only מקדיש the value of the עבד, meaning that he took upon himself to give to הקדש the value of this עבד. The גמרא continues, הכא נמי מסתברא, it is also a סברא to say that this is the פשט in the ברייתא. It's done this way because it says at the end of the ברייתא, וכן הוא שהקדיש עצמו, the same is if a person is מקדיש himself עושה, he is allowed to work, ואוכל, and would support himself with the money that he earned. And even though he was מקדיש himself, still we don't say the money that he earned goes to הקדש, שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו, the same reason as we gave before, because he is מקדיש only the value. The גמרא explains: אי אמרת בשלמא, if you're going to explain this ברייתא that it goes according to רבי מאיר, and when the ברייתא says שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו means that we say that he accepted upon himself to pay to הקדש the value of his עבד, שפיר. So we understand how the ברייתא can say that also concerning himself, that when he was מקדיש himself, so what he meant was that he takes upon himself to give הקדש the value of himself. And the reason we say that's what he means is because רבי מאיר holds that a person is not מוציא דבריו לבטלה. So since we cannot say anything else when he says, "I am מקדיש myself," the only thing that he could mean is that he takes upon himself to give to הקדש the value of himself. אלא אי אמרת רבנן היא, but if you're going to tell me no, that it does not go according to רבי מאיר, but it goes according to the רבנן, and the פשט in the words of the ברייתא שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו means as we thought before, that when he is מקדיש his עבד, his עבד actually belongs to הקדש, and הקדש will sell him and the money will go to הקדש. So בשלמא עבדו לדמי קאי, so we can understand how the ברייתא can say that concerning his עבד, because an עבד is something that belongs to somebody, so we can understand that he should belong to הקדש, and הקדש will sell him, and הקדש will take the money. אלא איהו, but he, לדמי קאי? Does he stand for money? In other words, does he belong to anybody? So if we say that the words שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו means that he belongs to הקדש לדמיו, so the same thing would have to be in the סיפא too, that when it speaks about himself, we should also say the פשט is שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו, that he belongs to הקדש לדמיו, and that is impossible to say. A person does not belong to הקדש, and הקדש cannot sell him. So therefore we must say that what does the ברייתא mean when it says שלא הקדיש אלא דמיו, that we assume that he accepted upon himself to give to הקדש the value of the עבד. And the same thing with the סיפא, that he accepted upon himself to give to הקדש the value of himself. And the reason for that is because it goes according to רבי מאיר, that a person is not מוציא דבריו לבטלה, and therefore we say when he was מקדיש his עבד, that this is what he meant. Then the גמרא continues: לימא כתנאי, can I say that this דין, when a person is מקדיש an עבד, whether he goes out free or he belongs to הקדש, is a מחלוקת between תנאים? We learned: המקדיש עבדו, someone who is מקדיש his עבד, אין מועלין בו. The תנא קמא says you are not מועל, if you have הנאה from that עבד, it is not considered that you are מועל בהקדש, that you have benefit of הקדש שלא כדין. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, מועלין בשערו, that you have, if you have benefit from his hair, then you are מועל in the hair. So מאי לאו, don't you think בהא קמיפלגי, that this is their מחלוקת: דמר סבר קדוש, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל who says that you are מועל in his hair, it is because he holds that when someone is מקדיש an עבד, the עבד becomes קדוש, and therefore you are מועל if you have benefit of the עבד. ומר סבר, and the other one, the תנא קמא, that says that you are not מועל in the עבד, because he holds לא קדוש, that when you're מקדיש your עבד, he doesn't become קדוש. And the גמרא says: ותסברא? How can you think so? How can you explain this מחלוקת that way? האי מועלין בו ואין מועלין בו, why does the ברייתא say the מחלוקת is whether you are מועל if you have הנאה from this עבד, or you are not מועל? It should have said האי קדוש ואינו קדוש מיבעי ליה! It should have said in the ברייתא: the תנא קמא holds he is not קדוש, and רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds he is קדוש, if the whole מחלוקת is based whether he is קדוש or not. אלא, therefore we must say, דכולי עלמא קדוש, no, everyone holds that when you're מקדיש your עבד, the עבד is קדוש. והכא בהא קמיפלגי, and here the מחלוקת is in something else: מר סבר עבדי כמקרקעי דמי, that one holds that עבדים have the same דין as קרקע, as land. And just like there's a דין that אין מעילה בקרקעות, that if a person has הנאה from land that belongs to הקדש, he is not עובר on the איסור of מעילה, even though it is אסור to have הנאה from קרקע that belongs to הקדש, but there is no דין מעילה by קרקע of הקדש. The same way, if you have הנאה, benefit from an עבד that belongs to הקדש, there is no דין מעילה, because עבדים have the same דין as קרקע. ומר סבר, and one holds, but מטלטלי דמי, that עבדים have a דין like movable items, not like קרקע. And therefore, if you have הנאה from an עבד, you are עובר on the איסור of מעילה. גמרא says: אי הכי, if so, עד דמיפלגי בשעריה, instead of arguing concerning the hair, if you have הנאה from his hair, if you are מועל or not, ליפלגו בגופיה, let them have an argument in the גוף itself, in the body of the עבד, in any part of the עבד. If you have any הנאה from the עבד, whether you are מועל or you're not מועל. אלא, therefore you must say, כולי עלמא עבדי כמקרקעי דמי, that everyone holds that an עבד is like קרקע. And therefore, if you have הנאה from the עבד, you are not מועל, because just like you are not מועל in קרקע, you are not מועל in the עבד. The only שאלה is: והכא בשער העומד להיגזז קמיפלגי. The מחלוקת is only concerning the hair, concerning hair that are ripe to be cut. And the מחלוקת is that מר סבר כגזוז דמי, one holds that anything that is ready to be cut, we consider it as if it was cut already. So therefore, we consider the hair as if as being not part of the עבד, and therefore the hair is not considered like land, and if you have הנאה from the hair, you are מועל. ומר סבר, and the other one holds, לאו כגזוז דמי, that even though it's ready to be cut, it's not considered as if it's cut. So the hair is considered as part of the עבד, so just like the עבד is considered קרקע, and you have הנאה from the עבד you are not מועל, the same way, if you have הנאה from the hair, you are not מועל. Then the גמרא continues: לימא, let us say, הני תנאי כהני תנאי, that the מחלוקת between these תנאים is the same מחלוקת as other תנאים. This מחלוקת, whether hair that is ready to be cut, whether we consider it as if it's cut already or not, is really also a מחלוקת of other תנאים. Because דתנן, we learned in the משנה: רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, יש דברים שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע. There are things which are like land and not like land. In other words, even though they are really land, but in דין they are not considered like land. ואין חכמים מודים לו. חכמים do not admit, agree with רבי מאיר, that these objects that he is referring to don't have a דין of קרקע. כיצד? For instance, עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך, someone says to his watchman that I gave you to watch 10 vines which were full of grapes, והלה אומר, and the watchman, the שומר answers, אינן אלא חמש, there were only five. רבי מאיר מחייב, רבי מאיר says that the שומר, the watchman has to swear because he is considered a מודה במקצת. The דין is that when a person admits to part of the טענה, so then he has to swear מדאורייתא. That is called a שבועה of מודה במקצת. On the other hand, there is a דין that when if the argument is over קרקע, is over land, then there is no דין of שבועה. So in this case, where the argument is over vines that grow from the ground that were full, and he claims that I gave you 10, and he says you only gave me five, so רבי מאיר says that he has to swear like a regular מודה במקצת, even though the argument is over מחובר לקרקע, over something that is connected to the ground. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע, anything that is connected to the ground is like the ground itself. So just like concerning land itself, there is no דין of a שבועה, so the same here, there is no דין of a שבועה. אמר רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא, רבי יוסי ברבי חנינא says, ענבים העומדות ליבצר איכא בינייהו, that the real מחלוקת between them is concerning grapes that are ready to be gathered. רבי מאיר סבר, רבי מאיר holds, כבצורות דמי, that since they are ripe and ready to be gathered, we consider them as if they were gathered. And therefore, even though they are connected to the ground, they don't have a דין of קרקע, because we consider them as if they were already taken off the vine. ורבנן סברי, and the רבנן hold, לאו כבצורות דמי, they are not considered as if they were gathered, so they are considered still מחובר לקרקע, that they are connected to the ground, and therefore they have the same דין as קרקע, and therefore, you do not swear in a טענה concerning these grapes. So this seems to be the same מחלוקת as we explained before, because before we said the מחלוקת was whether hair that is ready to be cut is considered as if it was cut or not. And the same thing here, grapes that are ready to be gathered off the tree, are they considered as if they were gathered or not? גמרא says: אפילו תימא רבי מאיר, that באמת you could say that even רבי מאיר who holds in the case of grapes that we consider it as if it was taken off the vine, in the case of the hair he would admit that we do not consider it as if it was cut, because עד כאן לא קאמר רבי מאיר, when does רבי מאיר say his דין? Only התם, only there, by ענבים, by the case of the grapes, because דכמה דקיימי מכחשי כחישי, the longer they stay on the tree, the worse they will get. So therefore, when the time comes for it to be taken off the tree, we consider it as if it was taken off the tree. אבל הכא, but here in the case of the hair, כמה דקיימי אשבוחי משבח, the longer it stays on the head, the better it gets. So here, we do not consider it as if it was cut. הגמרא continues, סליק רב חייא בר יוסף, when רב חייא בר יוסף went up to ארץ ישראל, אמר לה להאי שמעתא דרב קמיה דרבי יוחנן, he gave over the מימרא, the saying of רב to רבי יוחנן. And this refers to the saying of רב that if someone is מפקיר his עבד, gives up his ownership over his עבד, he goes out free. אמר ליה, so רבי יוחנן said to him, אמר רב הכי? Did רב really say so? The גמרא asks, why was he surprised? והוא לא אמר הכי? Doesn't he himself say the same thing? והא אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן, didn't עולא say in the name of רבי יוחנן, המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות, that if someone is מפקיר his עבד he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור, but he needs a גט שחרור? His master must write to him a גט שחרור. But we see he's of the same opinion as רב, that if you're מפקיר your עבד he goes out free. The גמרא answers, הכי קאמר ליה, this is what he said to him: אמר רב כוותי? Did רב say like I do? In other words, he was surprised that רב is of the same opinion as him. ואיכא דאמרי, and some say, לא סיימוה קמיה, that they did not finish the whole statement of רב. Because as we learned in the גמרא before, there were two parts to רב's statement: The first part was that רב said if someone is מפקיר his עבד, he goes out free; then the other part was that he needs a גט שחרור, but he still has to have

that שטר שחרור. So when they told this to רבי יוחנן, they only told him the first part of the statement, and they didn't tell him the other part of the statement. So therefore, when he said to him, אמר ליה, he said to him, ולא אמר רב, did not רב say וצריך גט שחרור, that you need a גט שחרור? That was his surprise. ורבי יוחנן לטעמיה, why was he surprised of that? Because רבי יוחנן goes along with his own opinion, דאמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן, עולא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, המפקיר עבדו, if someone is מפקיר his עבד, יצא לחירות, he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור, and he needs a גט שחרור. Then the גמרא continues, גופא, now we're going to discuss the גוף of the דין that we mentioned before, דאמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן, עולא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, המפקיר עבדו יצא לחירות, if you're מפקיר your עבד he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור, and he needs a גט שחרור. איתיביה רבא לעולא, רבא asked a קושיא to עולא: We learned, גר שמת ובזבזו ישראל נכסיו, if a גר dies and יידן grab his property, because a גר is the only person that is able not to have יורשים. Normally, every ייד has יורשים, has people to inherit. If he doesn't have children then he has other relatives. But you always find the next relative that he is the next in line of ירושה. The only person that it's possible that he doesn't have any יורשים at all is a גר. If he does not have children from when after he was מגייר, after he converted. Then what happens to his property after he dies? Then it becomes הפקר automatically, it becomes ownerless because there is no one to ירש him. So anybody who wants could take it. That's why the ברייתא says, if a גר dies and יידן started grabbing his property, והיו בהן עבדים, and among this property there were slaves, עבדים כנענים, so the דין is that בין גדולים בין קטנים, whether they are adults or they are still children, קנו עצמן בני חורין, they are קונה themselves and they become free. Since we say that they became הפקר, so the first one that will grab them will be קונה them, so they are the ones that grabbed themselves first, and they are קונה themselves and therefore they become free.

אבא שאול אומר, but אבא שאול says, גדולים קנו עצמן בני חורין, that the גדולים, those that are adults, they טאקע are קונה themselves free and they become free, קטנים, but the children, כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן, anybody who grabs them first is זוכה. And the reason is, because a child, a קטן, cannot be קונה, and since these קטנים cannot be קונה they cannot be קונה themselves either. So therefore, they remain הפקר, and the first ייד that will grab them will be קונה them. The שאלה is, וכי מי כתב גט שחרור לאלו? But who wrote to them a גט שחרור? If you hold that an עבד that becomes הפקר still needs a גט שחרור to become a real בן חורין, so these עבדים here, who wrote them a גט שחרור that we should say they become completely בני חורין? אמר, עולא said, דמו הני מדרבנן כי דלא גמרי אינשי שמעתא. It seems like this תלמיד חכם that asked this question never studied anything in his life, because his question is not a good question at all. הגמרא asks, טעמא מאי? What is the reason? Why isn't it a good question? הגמרא answers,

אמר רב נחמן, רב נחמן said, קסבר עולא, עולא holds, עבדו דגר כאישתו, that the עבד of a גר is the same as his wife. מה אשתו משתלחה בלא גט, just like his wife could be divorced and sent away without a גט, that even though if he wants to divorce her while he is alive, he must give her a גט. But if he doesn't divorce her and he dies, she becomes free without a גט. אף עבדו משתלח בלא גט, the same with the עבדים of the גר, they become free without a גט. If he wants to send them away free while he's alive, then he must give them a גט שחרור. But if he dies, they become free automatically without a גט, just like his wife. And the reason we compare an עבד to the wife is because, as רש״י says, we learn it out from a גזירה שוה, that concerning the גט of a woman, it says in the תורה, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, and he should write to her a גט, a ספר כריתות. And the תורה uses the word לה. Concerning freeing an עבד, the תורה uses the לשון, או חפשה לא ניתן לה, freedom was not given to her. And there the תורה also uses the לשון לה. So we learn a גזירה שוה, לה, לה. The same דין that applies to a woman, to a wife, the same דין applies to an עבד. And that's what he says, just like if the גר dies, his wife is free automatically without a גט, so the עבד of the גר also becomes free after the גר dies. The

גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, אפילו ישראל נמי, the same should apply to regular איד. The דין should have been, that when a person owns עבדים and he dies, those עבדים should become free, just like when a person dies, his wife becomes free, his עבדים should become free, and his children should not inherit the עבדים. But we know that the דין is, if a person owns עבדים and he dies, his children inherit the עבדים. The גמרא answers, אמר קרא, the תורה says, והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם לרשת אחוזה, that you should make your עבדים inherited to your children as a regular inheritance. So the תורה tells us clear that the children do inherit עבדים. But in the case of a גר, since he has no children and he has no other people to inherit, he has no יורשים, so there is nobody to inherit. So there's nobody that can inherit, so therefore we say he goes out automatically free, just like his wife. But the גמרא asks, אי הכי, if so, המפקיר עבדו ומת, someone is מפקיר his עבד and then he dies, נמי the דין should be the same. Since he is מפקיר his עבד, his children do not inherit that עבד, and then when the master dies, so then the slave should become free, just like the man's wife becomes free after he dies. הלמה, why did אמימר say, המפקיר עבדו ומת, if someone is מפקיר his עבד and dies, אותו העבד אין לו תקנה, that עבד has no תקנה, nothing can be done for that עבד, and that עבד cannot marry a שפחה and cannot marry a regular בת חורין. He cannot marry a שפחה, because his master was מפקיר him, so he is not a hundred percent עבד, so he cannot marry a שפחה. He cannot marry a בת חורין, since his master did not give him the שטר שחרור, so he's not a hundred percent בת בן חורין. The children of this man cannot give him a שטר שחרור, because they didn't inherit him. When do children inherit an עבד? Only when the עבד belongs to their father. Then they inherit that עבד. But in this case, the עבד does not belong to the father. The only thing that he left here is the איסור, the דין that he is still an עבד, not a בן חורין. The children should give this עבד a שטר שחרור, they can't either, because they only can give a שטר שחרור to someone that they own. But here they never owned him, because the איסור that is left in this עבד is not inherited by the children. The children only inherit ממון. They could only inherit value. But in this case, the value of the עבד does not belong to their father, so they cannot inherit the עבד. So they cannot give the עבד a שטר שחרור, and there is nobody else that could give the עבד a שטר שחרור. So therefore, this עבד is stuck. He cannot marry a בת חורין and also cannot marry a שפחה, because his master was מפקיר him. But if it would be true what we said before, that an עבד is like the wife of a person, and the only reason why when the master dies he doesn't become free is because the children inherit him, so in a case where the children don't inherit, he should become free when his master dies. So why did אמימר say that if you're מפקיר your עבד and then he dies, then this עבד doesn't become free automatically? The גמרא says, All right, he did. בפירוש שמיע לך, did you hear clearly in the name of רבי יהושע בן לוי? He said clearly the הלכה is like אבא שאול, או מכללא שמיע לך? Or you heard it being learned out from something else that רבי יהושע בן לוי said? So he

asked him, מאי כללא? What kind of לימוד do you mean? What do you have in mind when you say that maybe I learned it out from a different statement that he said? So he said what he meant. דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, because you know that רבי יהושע בן לוי said, אמרו לפני רבי, they said in front of רבי, a person says, אומן יאשתי מפלוני עבדי, I am מתיאש, I give up hope from this and this person, my עבד, and giving up hope is equivalent to being מפקיר. מהו, what is the דין? אמר להם, so the רבי said to them, אומר אני, I say, אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר. This עבד has no תקנה, nothing can be done for him, only if he gets a שטר שחרור. But if he doesn't get a שטר שחרור, he cannot marry not a שפחה because, after all, he became הפקר already, but he also cannot marry a בת חורין because he wasn't freed completely, and the only way he can marry a בת חורין is if he gets a שטר שחרור. אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, מאי טעמא דרבי? What is the reason of רבי? גמר לה לה מאישה. He learns out a גזירה שוה the word לה and the word לה from a woman. מה אישה בשטר, just like a wife, the only way she can be freed from her husband is if she gets a שטר which is a גט, אף עבד נמי, and עבד also בשטר, the only way he can become free is with a שטר. That was the saying of רבי יהושע בן לוי, the way רבי יוחנן explained it. ודייקת מינה, so we want to be מדייק from this מימרא, since we compare it כאישה to a woman, so מה אישה איסורא ולא ממונא, just like the case of an אישה, when he gives a גט to an אישה, what he's doing here is he's getting rid of the איסור that is connected to the marriage, ולא ממונא, and there's nothing to do with ממון, with monetary things. אף עבד נמי איסורא ולא ממונא. So also when רבי compared the עבד to the אישה, probably he compared it in the same way. That in which case of an עבד was רבי talking about? A case of an עבד which only is involved in איסור, not in ממון. Normally, an עבד, when he belongs to a person, there are two things here: there is איסור and ממון. The fact that he belongs to his master as a piece of property, that is the ממון. Then there is the איסור part, the fact that he has a דין of an עבד and doesn't have a דין of a בן חורין. So when רבי compared the עבד to the אישה, he probably compared it a 100%, and the עבד he was talking about was an עבד that there is only an עניין of איסור, not the עניין of ממון, and that is only שייך by an עבד that is a גדול. Since he is a גדול, so he is able to be קונה, so when he became הפקר, so he was קונה himself. So as far as ממון, the monetary part of himself, he doesn't belong to his master anymore because his master was מפקיר him, and he was קונה himself. The only thing that's left is that he still is an עבד, not a בן חורין, in הלכה, the איסור part. And that's where רבי says that in order to get rid of the איסור part, you must give him a שטר, just like when you want to get rid of the איסור part of an אישה, you give her a שטר. But רבי was not talking about a case where the עבד is still a קטן, because in that case there is still ממון involved. Since the קטן cannot be קונה himself, so there is still a monetary thing, a monetary connection between the עבד and his master, so in that case, רבי was not talking about. And since רבי was not talking about that case, in other words, in that case רבי would not say that without a שטר this עבד has no תקנה, אדרבה, we would assume that in that case רבי would hold that this עבד could still marry a שפחה because he still remains an עבד. So if we learn that way, it comes out that רבי פסקנט like אבא שאול, that since he is a קטן, he is not קונה himself. And that's what he said, that is this where you take that רבי יהושע בן לוי פסקנט like אבא שאול? From this statement that רבי יהושע בן לוי repeated in the name of רבי, that from this דין we see that in the case of an עבד קטן, he still remains an עבד, and this fits to what אבא שאול said, that the קטנים are not קונה themselves free. הגמרא asks, ואי מכללא מאי? And if this is the case where we learned out the opinion of רבי יהושע בן לוי, that he פסקנט like אבא שאול, so what is wrong with that? אמר ליה, so he said to him, if this is if this is your only source to the opinion of רבי יהושע בן לוי, because רבי compares an עבד to an אישה, אדרבה, on the contrary, דייק מינה אידך גיסא, you could be מדייק from here to the other side. מה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה, just like the case of a woman, if you want to divorce a wife, so you have to give a גט to a wife whether she is a גדולה or a קטנה, אף עבד נמי, the עבד that רבי is talking about also is בין גדול בין קטן, whether he is a גדול or a קטן. So this דין that רבי said that without a שטר this עבד has no תקנה and cannot marry neither a שפחה nor a בת חורין, applies to an עבד גדול and to an עבד קטן. Because just like the case of an אשה applies to a גדולה and a קטנה, so the case of עבד also applies to a גדול and a קטן. So in that case we can be מדייק just the opposite, that רבי holds that even an עבד קטן, as soon as his master is מתיאש from him, automatically he becomes free, and therefore there is a problem that he cannot marry a שפחה and also he cannot marry a בת חורין. אמר ליה, so he said to him, that it wasn't from this דין that I learned it out, בפירוש שמיע לי, I heard בפירוש that רבי יהושע בן לוי said clearly that he פסק'נס like אבא שאול. ורבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי חייא בר אבא said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אין הלכה כאבא שאול, the הלכה is not like אבא שאול. אמר ליה רב זירא לרבי חייא בר אבא, so רב זירא said to רבי חייא בר אבא, בפירוש שמיע לך, did you hear clearly that the הלכה is not like אבא שאול, או מכללא שמיע לך, or you learned it out from something else that you heard? And he asked him, מאי כללא? Which other thing that you suspect I learned it out from? He says, דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, because רבי יהושע בן לוי said, and the גמרא brings in the same דין that we had before, דאמרו לפני רבי, they said in front of רבי, someone says נתייאשתי מפלוני עבדי, "I was מתיאש from my עבד so-and-so," מהו? What is the דין? אמר להם, he said to them, אומר אני, I say, אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר, this עבד has no תקנה, he cannot marry a שפחה, cannot marry a בת חורין until he gets a שטר שיחרור. ואמר רבי יוחנן, and רבי יוחנן said, מאי טעמא דרבי, what is the reason of רבי? Because גמר "לה" "לה" מאשה, he learns out a גזירה שוה from the word "לה" "לה" from אשה. מה אשה בשטר, just like a woman the only way she becomes free from her husband is through a שטר, through a גט, אף עבד נמי בשטר, an עבד also becomes free through a שטר, and as long as he doesn't have a שטר, he is not 100% free and therefore cannot marry a בת חורין, but he cannot marry a שפחה either because his master was מתיאש from him. And you want to be מדייק from here that since it's an אשה we compare it to a woman, so מה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה, just like a woman when she needs a גט is whether she is a גדולה or a קטנה, אף עבד נמי, the עבד that רבי is talking about is בין גדול בין קטן, whether he is a גדול and a קטן. And concerning both of these cases רבי said that this עבד has no תקנה unless he gets a שטר. In other words, he cannot marry a שפחה until he gets the שטר, and then he can marry a בת חורין, but before that he cannot marry a שפחה because when his master was מתיאש from him, automatically freed him and therefore he cannot marry a שפחה, he also cannot marry a בת חורין because he's not 100% free. But at least we see from here that even an עבד קטן, when his master is מתיאש from him, he automatically becomes free, so we see from here the הלכה is not like אבא שאול. That's what he asked him, is this the case that you learned out from that the הלכה is not like אבא שאול? So he says to him, ואי מכללא מאי, and if this is where I learned it out from, so what is wrong with that? So he said to him, אדרבה, if this is your only source, then on the contrary, דייק מינה להך גיסא, be מדייק from here to the other direction, that מה אשה איסורא ולא ממונא, just like the case of a woman, when we say that she needs a שטר is only in the case of איסור, there is no ממון, no monetary connection between the husband and the wife, all he's going to free is the איסור part. אף עבד נמי, also the עבד that רבי was talking about is איסורא ולא ממונא, is also only an עבד that's connected to איסור, not ממון. But an עבד that's a קטן, maybe רבי was not talking about him, because there is still some ממון, some money connection between the עבד and the master. And in a case like that, he wasn't free to begin with, and he's allowed to marry a שפחה. So if you learn that way, it could come out that רבי holds like אבא שאול, that an עבד קטן is not קונה himself and does not become free. That's the שאלה, did you hear בפירוש that the הלכה is not like אבא שאול, or did you just learn it out from this case? Because if you learned it out from this case, it is no ראיה. אמר ליה, so he said to him, בפירוש שמיע לי, I heard בפירוש that the הלכה is not like אבא שאול. אמר מר, we learned before, אמר להם, רבי said to them, they asked רבי the question, someone says "I am מתיאש from my עבד, what is the דין?" So he said to them, אומר אני, I say, אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר, that he has no תקנה, nothing can be done to him unless he gets a שטר, but otherwise he cannot marry neither a שפחה nor a בת חורין. The גמרא asks, והתניא, but we learned in a ברייתא, and this is the ברייתא that the גמרא brought before, that רבי אומר, רבי says, in the case where somebody is מקדיש his נכסים, and amongst his נכסים there are עבדים, תנא קמא says that the גזברים of הקדש, the treasurers of הקדש, sell these עבדים to others, and they are allowed to free these עבדים. But רבי said, אומר אני, I say, אף הוא נותן דמי עצמו ויוצא, that he is able to give his own money, pay for his own freedom, and he is able to go out, מפני שהוא כמוכר לו, because then it is as if the גזברים of הקדש sell the עבד to himself. So just like they are allowed to sell the עבד to others, and others free them, the same way, the גזברים are allowed to sell the עבדים to themselves. So what do we see from there? That רבי holds that there is another way of an עבד freeing himself by paying for his freedom. So how could רבי say here that אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר, the only way he could marry a בת חורין and become a hundred percent free if he gets a שטר שיחרור, when over there רבי says that there's another way by paying for his own freedom? The

גמרא answers, הכא קאמר, this is what it means: או בכסף או בשטר. רבי holds that you could free an עבד or through כסף by the עבד paying for his freedom or בשטר by the master giving him a שטר שיחרור. But והאי, this case, when the master was מייאש from him, פקע ליה כספא, so the money part left. So by him paying for his own freedom, it won't help, because he is not owned by his master anymore. So in this case, the only way that he could get a hundred percent free is if his master gives him a שטר. But in other cases, the עבד is able to pay for his own freedom. Then the גמרא says, ולאפוקי מהאי תנא. This that רבי says, that if an עבד pays for his own freedom, he becomes a hundred percent free, and he's even allowed to marry a בת חורין, comes to reject an opinion of another תנא who holds that even though if you give money, you become free, but still you cannot marry a regular בת חורין. דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, רבי שמעון אומר משום רבי עקיבא, רבי שמעון said in the name of רבי עקיבא, יכול, I would think, יהא כסף גומר בה כדרך שהשטר גומר בה, that money should finish off the freedom a hundred percent of a שפחה, just like שטר finishes off a hundred percent of the freedom of a שפחה. תלמוד לומר, the תורה says, והפדה לא נפדתה. This is a פסוק in קדושים י"ט, and this is a פרשה that deals with the case of שפחה חרופה. שפחה חרופה is a woman that she is a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין, she's half שפחה and half free, and she was מקודשת, engaged, to an עבד עברי, to a Jewish עבד, and the דין is that an עבד עברי is allowed to be married to her, because an עבד עברי has an exception. An עבד עברי is a regular Jew, and therefore he's allowed to marry a בת חורין, a regular Jewish woman. On the other hand, the דין is that an עבד עברי is also allowed to marry a שפחה כנענית. So therefore, this woman who is half שפחה and half בת חורין is allowed to marry an עבד עברי, because he's allowed to marry her because of her שפחה part, and also because of her בת חורין part. And then, someone else had relations with this woman. So the תורה

says that since she was not a hundred percent free, because והפדה לא נפדתה, she was not ransomed, או חפשה לא נתן לה, or freedom was not given to her, so therefore, the person that did the עבירה with her would not be punished with מיתה, with death penalty, as a person would be punished when he would have relations with a regular אשת איש, with a regular married woman. And the only thing he has to do is he has to bring a קרבן אשם. So from the words והפדה לא נפדתה או חפשה לא נתן לה, the תורה says that the reason he doesn't get killed is because she was not ransomed, and or freedom was not given to her, so it would seem that there are two ways she could be free: if she would have been ransomed, or she would have been freed, meaning with a שטר, then the man would get מיתה. Because then she would be a regular Jewish woman, and since she was מקודש to the עבד עברי, so she would have been a regular אשת איש. So from this פסוק, it would seem that this שפחה כנענית is able to be freed or through getting a שטר or through paying ransom, through buying her freedom. So it would seem from this פסוק that there are two ways a שפחה כנענית could get free, and the same would apply to עבד כנעני. So I would think that an עבד כנעני could buy his freedom with money. And that was the הוה אמינא that רבי שמעון in the name of רבי עקיבא said, that you would think that money could make her free just like a שטר makes her free. But in the beginning, here the תורה says והפדה לא נפדתה, when the תורה gives the reason why he doesn't get killed is because she was not ransomed and freedom was not given to her. But at the end, when the תורה finishes off the פסוק, the תורה says, כי לא חופשה, because she was not free. Really, the

תורה should have said at the end the same two things it says in the beginning. Just like in the beginning it says, והפדה לא נפדתה או חפשה לא נתן לה, she was not ransomed or freedom was not given to her, the תורה says, לא יומתו, they do not die, the תורה should should have said for the same two things, because כי לא נפדתה או לא חופשה, because she wasn't ransomed or she wasn't freed. But the תורה does not do that. At the end when the תורה says that there is no מיתה involved, the תורה just says כי לא חופשה, because she was not freed. What does that tell us? That עורו כל הפרשה כולה ללא חופשה. That the whole פרשה finishes, and the key words in this פרשה is לא חופשה, that she was not freed. In other words, that what would have made her חייב מיתה, what would have turned her into a regular בת חורין, וממילא into a regular אשת איש, only if she would have got a שטר. לומר לך, to tell you, שטר גומר בה, the שטר would finish off her freedom, ואין הכסף גומר בה, but money would not have finished off her freedom, and if she would have just paid for her freedom 100%, she still would not have been considered a regular בת חורין, and she would not have been considered like a regular אשת איש, and there still would not be מיתה. But the question is according to that, so why did the תורה mention the concept of paying for the freedom, the ransom in the beginning of the פרשה? The תורה shouldn't have mentioned it at all. If money plays no role in the case of freeing an עבד, and also in the case of freeing a שפחה, the תורה shouldn't have mentioned the concept of money at all. So

רש״י explains that it does play a role, that if she paid for her ransom, that is enough to consider her partially at least a free woman, and therefore the man that did the עבירה with her would have to at least bring an אשם. If she wouldn't have paid ransom for her freedom, then that person wouldn't even have to bring an אשם either, she wouldn't be in the category of a שפחה חרופה. And that is the reason why the תורה mentions the פדיון, mentions the ransom, because that is the reason why the person is חייב an אשם. If not for that ransom, he wouldn't even be חייב an אשם either. He would be פטור לגמרי, he'd be פטור completely. But when the תורה wants to say why there is no חיוב מיתה, he's not 100% free, there the תורה only says כי לא חופשה, that she wasn't given a שטר, because giving the money would not have made her free 100% anyway. And this is the opinion of רבי שמעון in the name of רבי עקיבא, that money does not make an עבד free 100%, he should be able to marry a בת חורין, while the רבי who said that money does make a person free, he argues on this תנא. He argues on רבי שמעון in the name of רבי עקיבא. And the

גמרא continues, אמר רב אבא בר חמא אמר רב נחמן, רב אבא בר חמא said in the name of רב נחמן, הלכה כרבי שמעון, the הלכה is like רבי שמעון, that an עבד cannot free himself through money. ורב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב יוחנן, but רב יוסף בר חמא said in the name of רב יוחנן, אין הלכה כרבי שמעון, the הלכה is not like רבי שמעון. And the גמרא tells a story, אשכחיה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא בר שילת, רב נחמן בר יצחק found רבא בר שילת דהוה קאי אפיתחא דבי תפילה, they happened to be standing by the door of the שול, אמר ליה, and he asked him, הלכה או אין הלכה, is the הלכה like רבי שמעון or the הלכה not like רבי שמעון? אמר ליה, he said to him, אני אומר, I say, אין הלכה, the הלכה is not like רבי שמעון, ורבנן דאתו ממחוזא, but the רבנן that came from מחוזא, אמרי, they said, that אמר רב זירא משמיה דרב נחמן, that רב זירא said in the name of רב נחמן, הלכה, that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון. כי אתאי לסורא, but when I came to סורא, אשכחתיה לרבי חייא בר אבין, I found רבי חייא בר אבין, אמרי ליה, I said to him, אימא לי איזי, tell me, my friend, גופא דעובדא היכי הוה, what was the story, what was the case where רב נחמן had said that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון? אמר לי, he said to me, the story, דההיא אמתא, there was this female slave, דהוה מרה שכיב מרע, her master was sick, אתיא, she came, בכיה קמיה, she was crying before him, ואמרה ליה, she said to him, עד אימת תשתעבד ותיזל ההיא איתתא, how long will this woman have to be enslaved and have to work so hard? שקל כומתיה, he

took his hat, שדא בה, he threw it at her, ואמר לה, he said to her, זיל קני הא וקני נפשיך, here take and be קונה this, and along with that, be קונה yourself. He wanted to free her through giving to her his hat, because there is a קנין called קנין חליפין, that if you give somebody to be קונה one of your objects, that is a form that the other person is קונה something. And in this case too, he thought by giving her his hat, and she should be קונה the hat, this would be a form of her being קונה herself, and she would become free. אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן, so they came to רב נחמן, and they asked him, is this valid or not, is she free or not? אמר להו, he said to them, לא עשה ולא כלום, he didn't do anything, this is not valid. So, מאן דחזא, whoever saw what happened here, סבר, thought, why did רב נחמן say that this was not valid? משום דהלכה כרבי שמעון, because he thought that רב נחמן פסק'נס like רבי שמעון. So, just like רבי שמעון says that an עבד cannot buy his freedom by paying money, the same way, he cannot become free through קנין חליפין, which is a קנין similar to paying money. And if this is so, then this שפחה would become free as far as working for her master, because even ר' שמעון agrees, as we said before, that money could buy her freedom concerning the שיעבוד of working, but she still could not marry a בן חורין, because ר' שמעון holds that money is not גומר, doesn't complete the freedom, and therefore, לגבי that דין, she would still remain a שפחה. Then the גמרא says, ולא היא, it is not true. In truth, this was not the reason why רב נחמן said that the act of this man was not valid. אלא the reason was, משום דהוה ליה כלי של מקנה, because the article that was used in this קנין belonged to the transferor, to the מקנה. והדין by קניין חליפין is that the article that is used must belong to the קונה, to the transferee. And since in this case it belonged to the מקנה, so the קניין חליפין was not valid. And therefore, רב נחמן said that what he did was nothing. And therefore, since it was nothing at all, not only was she not free לגבי marrying a Jewish man, she was not free, not even לגבי the work, because what he did was not valid at all. Therefore, she still remained his שפחה 100%, and she was still משועבדת to work for him. But one might ask that לכאורה, she should be free here for a different reason. We have a rule that דברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורים דמו, that when a שכיב מרע, a person who is sick, and he's laying on his deathbed, and he is מצוה, he commands, he says he wants something to be done, so then that is חל, that takes effect even if no קנין was done. It's as if it was written and signed and given over. So in this case, too, her master that wants to free her was laying on his deathbed, so by him just wanting to free her, and saying that he wants to free her should be enough for her to become free. So even though the קנין that he made was not valid, because it was done with the כלי of the מקנה, and really it should be done with כלי of the קונה, but she should be free just because he wanted to free her, and he was a שכיב מרע. And רש״י answers, and תוספות points it out, that when do we say דברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורים דמו? If he tells his children he wants something to be done, so then we say by just commanding for it to be done is as if it was done. But here, he didn't say he wants something to be done, he himself performed the קנין, and he wanted this to take effect through the קנין that he made. So here, it depends only on the קנין, cuz that's what he had in mind. So if the קנין would be a valid קנין, it would take effect. If the קנין is not a valid קנין, it doesn't take effect. And we can't say here דברי שכיב מרע ככתובים וכמסורים דמו, because he didn't say it in the form that he wanted it to take effect as a שכיב מרע, he wanted it to take effect as a קנין. And לפועל, the קנין here couldn't take effect, because it was the כלי of the מקנה. Then we continue with the גמרא: אמר רב שמואל בר אחיסנאי, רב שמואל בר אחיסנאי says, אמר רב המנונא סבא, in the name of רב המנונא סבא, אמר רב יצחק בר אשיאן, in the name of רב יצחק בר אשיאן, אמר רב הונא, in the name of רב הונא, אמר רב המנונא, in the name of רב המנונא, that הלכה כרבי שמעון, that the הלכה is like רבי שמעון. גמרא says, ולא היא, really it is not true, אין הלכה כרבי שמעון, the הלכה is not like רבי שמעון. And

therefore, if an עבד pays for his own freedom, he becomes free 100%, and is also allowed to marry a בת חורין.