Bottom of the עמוד, from the beginning of the משנה. משנה starts: עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי, עבד כנעני, his master made him security to others, which means borrowed money from somebody, and said, "When it comes to collect your borrow, you should be able to collect from this עבד. This עבד should be your security." ושיחררו, and then he freed him. שורת הדין, מצד הדין, אין העבד חייב כלום, עבד is not חייב anything. אלא מפני תיקון העולם, but for the betterment of the world, כופין את רבו, we force his master, ועושה אותו בן חורין, and he makes it, וכותב שטר על דמיו, עבד has to write a שטר on the value of himself. Since he freed him, so he gave him freedom which is worth money, so there is a loss to the person, so the עבד has to pay back the money that he gained through his freedom. But since the עבד has no money, so he would have to write a שטר to the master saying that when he will have money, he will pay him money that... רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אינו כותב, not the עבד on his money, but אלא משחרר, the one that freed him, he is the one that is supposed to write the שטר on the money. The גמרא will explain all the details of the משנה. Who freed the עבד? And also, if the עבד was freed, why do we force his master to free him again if he was freed already? And why he has to write the שטר on the money, and what is the opinion of רבן שמעון בן גמליאל that says that not the עבד is the one that writes the שטר, but the משחרר, the one that freed him is the one that writes the שטר. Now the גמרא goes on to explain.

גמרא starts like this: תנו רבנן: עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי, an עבד that his master made him an אפותיקי for a loan, and then... גמרא asks: Who freed him? אמר רב, so רב said: רבו ראשון, his first master freed him, his original master. So the פשט in the משנה is that שורת הדין, מצד הדין, אין העבד חייב כלום לרבו שני, the עבד doesn't owe anything to his second master, even though the עבד was set aside as security for the loan that his master owed to the second person, still after he was freed, the second person, the creditor, has no hold on this עבד. This עבד became free, and owes nothing to the second master. And the reason for that is כי דרבא, as רבא said, דאמר רבא, because רבא said: הקדש, חמץ, ושיחרור מפקיעין מידי שיעבוד, that הקדש, חמץ, and freeing take away from a שיעבוד. If there was an object that belonged to a person, and there was a lien on that object to someone else, so then, if one of these three things happened to the object, automatically the lien is released. The three things are, firstly, הקדש. If that object became הקדש, if the owner of the object said, "Let this be a קרבן," he set aside that object for a קרבן on the מזבח. In other words, if the object happened to be an animal that was fit for a קרבן, and the owner of the object made that animal into a קרבן, set it aside for a קרבן, automatically that releases the lien that's on this object. And רש"י and תוספות explain it's only in the case of a קרבן. If it was an object that's not fit for a קרבן, and the owner of the object just made it הקדש for בדק הבית, which is קדושת דמים, that the object itself is not used for הקדש, but the object is given to הקדש, הקדש sells it and takes the money for בדק הבית, in a case like that, it does not release the שיעבוד, the lien, but only if it's קדושת הגוף, it became a קרבן, which the קדושה is on the גוף, on the object itself, so in a case like that, it takes away the שיעבוד. Or the case of חמץ, which is a case if a person borrows money from a גוי, and set aside חמץ as security, and then פסח came, that חמץ on פסח is אסור בהנאה, you're not allowed to have any benefit from it, and even after פסח, it is חמץ שעבר עליו הפסח, it is חמץ that went through פסח באיסור, so then after פסח it is also אסור בהנאה, you're not allowed to have any benefit Benefit from it. Automatically, the lien the גוי had on this חמץ falls and is released. And also, the third thing is שחרור, that if the lien was on an עבד, and then the master freed the עבד, automatically, the lien falls off. And this is what the גמרא refers here, that the פשט in the משנה is that this עבד, that there was a lien on him to somebody else, and the master went ahead and freed him, ומצד הדין this עבד is free, and the second master, the creditor, has no hold on the עבד. The עבד doesn't owe anything to the second master. אלא the משנה says מפני תיקון העולם, for the betterment of the world, meaning שמא ימצאנו בשוק, the second master, the one that had security on this עבד, might find this עבד in the street ויאמר לו, and he would say to him, עבדי אתה, since he was משועבד to him, which in turn will give out a bad name on the children of this עבד, that the children of this עבד are regular Jews, because this עבד was freed by his first master, and that released the claim of the second master. But the second master nevertheless will say, "You are my slave, and your children are עבדים." So in order to prevent that, כופין את רבו שני, so the בית דין would force the second master ועושה אותו בן חורין, and he should also turn him into a free person, that the second master should write a שטר שחרור to this עבד. וכותב עבד שטר על דמיו, and the עבד has to write a שטר on his value, he has to give the second master a שטר that he owes him the money that he is worth, because when the second master gave him the שטר שחרור, that made him lose his security. So therefore, the עבד has to give him a שטר that he owes him the money that he was security for. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אין העבד כותב, it is not the עבד that writes that שטר, אלא משחרר כותב, but the משחרר is the one that writes, the one that freed him, his first master who freed him, who was the cause for the second person to lose the security. So he is the one that is supposed to write a שטר that he owes the second person the money that he lost through him freeing the עבד. The גמרא continues, במאי קמיפלגי? What is the סברא of their מחלוקת is? The גמרא answers, דהמזיק שעבודו של חבירו קמיפלגי. Concerning somebody that damages the שעבוד... The question is, since he did not damage his property, he just damaged something that was security for that person, is he responsible to pay for that or not? מר סבר חייב, one holds that if you cause damage to the security of somebody else, you are responsible. In this case, when the first master freed the עבד, that was the time when the second person lost his security. The first master is responsible, therefore the first master is the one that is supposed to write a שטר to saying that he owes him the money that he caused him to lose, because he lost the security, and he was the cause, he has to give him a שטר that he owes him the money of that security. ומר סבר פטור, and another one holds פטור, in this case the רבנן, they hold that if you cause damage to someone's security you are not responsible, and therefore the original owner who caused the damage to the second person's security does not have to give a שטר, he is not responsible. But it is the עבד that is supposed to write a שטר to the second person, that he is the one that owes him the money. The גמרא continues, איתמר נמי, we also learned like that, המזיק שעבודו של חבירו, that if someone causes damage to someone's security, באנו למחלוקת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן, this is an argument between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and רבנן. So we see clearly that the מחלוקת between רבן שמעון בן גמליאל and רבנן depend on this סברא, whether if you're מזיק someone's שעבוד, if you are חייב or פטור. רבא אמר, רבא says the פשט in the משנה is different. אי שחררו, when an עבד who was security to somebody else, and then he was freed, who freed him? רבו שני, the second master. Later on, the שורת הדין, אין העבד חייב כלום, that על פי דין the עבד owes nothing, the פשט is that this עבד is not חייב כלום במצות, he is in no way obligated to do any מצות. The second master has no ownership over this עבד that he should be able to free him, so therefore this עבד remains a regular עבד and he is not חייב in more מצות than he was חייב before. An עבד is חייב in those מצות a woman is חייב. So when this person was משחרר the עבד, he remains an עבד and doesn't have any more obligations. If the first master would free him, so then and this automatically would make him חייב in all the מצוות like a regular Jew. But since it's the second master who freed him, and the second master really doesn't own him, he just has שעבוד on him, so then מצד הדין the עבד is not חייב in מצוות, אלא מפני תיקון העולם because of the betterment of the world. In order to prevent problems, שהרי יצא עליו שם בן חורין, since he was already known as a בן חורין, because his second master freed him, people think that he is a בן חורין. So people would mistake him in being a regular Jew, and also would mistake that his children are regular Jews, and really his children are עבדים. Therefore כופין את רבו ראשון, we force his first master, ועושה אותו בן חורין and he makes him a בן חורין, a free person, his first master has to free him. If the עבד was worth more than the amount of money the security was for, then this is a loss to the first master. The amount of money that he... that is no loss, because anyway it was as security for the second master person for the loan. The second person, no money is owed because the second person freed him so he gave up his security. But the first master who is going to free him now, he's going to lose the difference between the worth of the עבד and the amount of the security. Because of that, וכותב עבד שטר על דמיו, so the עבד has to write a שטר to his first master on that money that was the difference between the security and his worth. If he was worth more than the security, so he owes his master the amount of money that he was worth more than the... because that is a loss to the first master. רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says, אינו כותב, it is not the עבד who writes that שטר who owes the money to the first master, אלא משחרר כותב, but it is the משחרר, that is the second person who freed him first, he is the one that caused the first master to lose that difference, and therefore he is the one that writes the שטר that he owes the difference. Notice, the גמרא continues, מאי קסבר, what does this מחלוקת, היזק שאינו ניכר קמיפלגי. If someone damages somebody else's property, but in such a damage that is not recognizable, מר סבר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds, שמיה היזק, it is still considered damage, and therefore the one that caused that damage is responsible to pay. And in this case, since the second person who originally freed this עבד, he was the cause that later on the first master had to free him and lost that difference, therefore, he is the one that caused the damage, and even though this is not a recognizable damage, because you cannot see the loss that was caused to the first master, nevertheless רבן שמעון בן גמליאל holds it's still considered damage and you have to pay for that. And therefore the second person who caused that damage to the first person must pay him for it, and he must write the שטר that he owes him the money. ומר, מר סבר לאו שמיה היזק, but the חכמים hold that if it was not recognizable damage, you do not have to pay for it. So in this case too, when the second person freed this עבד and was a cause that the first person would have to free him and lose the difference, that is not recognizable damage and therefore he is not responsible to pay. So the one that does have to write the שטר that he owes the money to the first master is the עבד. And then the גמרא continues, עולא מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב, why didn't עולא want to explain the משנה the way רב explained the משנה? And the גמרא answers, אמר לך, עולא will tell you, שני רבו קרי ליה, according to the פשט of רב, when it says in the משנה that they force את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין, force his master to free him, so according to רב it means they force the second person to free him too. So he asks, can you call the second person master? The second person only has security on this... doesn't own the עבד. So how could the משנה refer to him as רבו? And therefore עולא says we must say that the case was as he explained, that the second person freed him, and the משנה says you force his master to free him, this refers to the first person. ורב מאי טעמא לא אמר כעולא, why doesn't רב want to explain the משנה like עולא? אמר לך, he will tell you, שני משחרר קרי ליה, when רבן שמעון בן גמליאל said that not the עבד is the one that writes the שטר, but the משחרר, the one that freed him writes the שטר, and according to עולא that means the second person, he is the one that writes the שטר to his first master, so רב asks, how could you call that second person the משחרר, the one that freed him? Even though physically he was the one that first freed him, but his שחרור was not really valid, since he was not his master. The only reason why we accepted that שחרור was because of תיקון העולם, but otherwise he is not really the משחרר. So how could רבן שמעון בן גמליאל refer to the second person as the משחרר? משחרר, and therefore רבא learns a different פשט, and according to the פשט of רבא, as we said before, when it says in the משנה according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, the משחרר writes the שטר, this is the first master. He is referred to as the משחרר, and he has to write the שטר of the money to the second person, because he caused him to lose his The גמרא continues: איתמר, we learned: העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחרים, if someone makes his field an אפותיקי to others, he owes money to someone else and he says, "Collect your חוב, your debt, it should be from this field." He sets aside the field as security for the debt. שטפה נהר, and the river overflowed and washed away the field, or because it's full of water, אמי שפיר נאה said in the name of רבי יוחנן, אינו גובה משאר נכסים, that the creditor cannot collect his חוב from the rest of the properties of the debtor. ואבוה דשמואל אמר, but the father of שמואל said, גובה משאר נכסים, that he could collect his חוב from the other properties of the debtor. אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, רב נחמן בר יצחק said: משום דשמיה אמי שפיר נאה הוא, אמר שמעתתא דלא שפירן? Is it because his name is אמי שפיר נאה, and the word שפיר נאה means nice, the word שפיר means nice, and the word נאה means nice, so he says because his name is אמי שפיר נאה, he should say דינים which are not nice, which are wrong? Because רב נחמן בר יצחק also held that you could collect from the other נכסים. The גמרא says, he might say, he could explain only in a case לא יהא לך פירעון אלא מזו, you should not get your payment only from this field. When he made clear before that the payment should come only from this field, then the דין is that if his field was washed away, he cannot claim his debt from another field. But in a case where he did not say that, he just said collect from this field, and then it was washed away, then he would also agree that it could be collected from other נכסים. תנינא נמי הכי, we טאקע learned: העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחר, if someone made security to others, שטפה נהר, and washed away by the river, גובה משאר נכסים, he is able to collect from the other properties. אבל אמר לו, but if he said, לא יהא לך פירעון אלא מזו, that you can collect only from this, then אינו גובה משאר נכסים, then he cannot collect from the other properties. עוד תניא אידך, we learned in another ברייתא: העושה שדהו אפותיקי לבעל חוב If someone makes his field security for a בעל חוב, or for the wife, husband owes money for the כתובה of a wife, and sometimes he sets aside a field, "This is the field you should collect the כתובה from." The דין is that גובה משאר נכסים, they are able to collect other fields, other properties if, by the time they come to collect, not around because he sold it, they collect from other properties. And therefore the דין is that the debtor, or in the case of the כתובה, the husband, is allowed to sell this field that he made an אפותיקי for that debt, because anyway they will be able to collect from others. But רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר, רבן שמעון בן גמליאל says: בעל חוב גובה משאר נכסים, that a בעל חוב could collect from other נכסים, the creditor could collect from other properties. אישה אינה גובה משאר נכסים, but the wife cannot collect from other properties if he set aside a certain field for an אפותיקי. Why? אין דרכה של אישה לחזר על בתי דינין. Not the דרך, it is not custom, common for women to go to courts and to go look where to collect her debt. And we assume that that is טאקע the reason why the husband set aside a certain field for her payment, she

shouldn't have to later on go to בית דין and find out which field was sold first, which field was sold second, which one she could collect from, which one she can't collect from, so that's why he set aside a field, she should have from where to collect. Therefore the דין is like this: by the case of בעל חוב, according to רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, since he could collect from other properties, debtor has a right to sell that אפותיקי, yes, because anyway the בעל חוב will come later and collect from other properties. But in the case of the כתובה, since she has no right to collect from other properties, so therefore the husband has no right to sell this field which was set aside as an אפותיקי for his wife. And now we will continue with the משנה. The משנה says: מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, if someone is half slave and half free, and the גמרא will later on explain how that is possible, and according to the מסקנא of the גמרא, is a very simple possibility: if this slave belonged to two partners, and then one of them freed him, so automatically, half of him is free, and the other half, which belongs to the other partner, is still a slave. So the דין is that עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד. One day he works for his master, and one day he works for himself. In other words, since he is half free, which means half belongs to himself, half he belongs to his master, so there are alternate days: one day he works for his master, and all the profit from that day would go to his master, and one day he would work for himself. דברי בית הלל, that's the opinion of בית הלל. בית שמאי אומרים, but בית שמאי say, תקנתם את רבו, you straightened things out for his master, ואת עצמו לא תקנתם, but you didn't straighten things out for himself, because he has a problem now whom to marry. לישא שפחה אי אפשר, to marry a שפחה he can't, שכבר חציו בן חורין, because half of him is a בן חורין, so because of that he cannot marry a שפחה. בת חורין אי אפשר, he cannot marry a regular Jewish woman, a regular free Jewish woman, שכבר חציו עבד, because half of him is an עבד and an עבד is not allowed to marry a Jewish woman. Let him not marry at all, יבטל, let him abstain from marriage? You can't say that either. והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה, wasn't the world created for people to multiply? שנאמר, as the פסוק says, it's a פסוק in ישעיה, לא תהו בראה, ה׳ didn't create the world to be empty, לשבת יצרה, He created it to be inhabited. So therefore, there is an obligation to have children. But this half עבד half בן חורין cannot marry. So what is the advice for him? So therefore בית שמאי say, אלא מפני תיקון העולם, for the betterment of the world, כופין את רבו, we would force his master ועושה אותו בן חורין, he would free him. And now he would be able to marry a regular בת חורין. But since this causes a loss to his master, he lost the value of the half of the עבד, so the עבד has to pay his master that amount of money. But since the עבד doesn't have any money, so therefore, וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו, he would write a שטר that he owes him half of his value. This was the opinion of בית שמאי. וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי, and בית הלל had חרטה, they changed their mind, and later on they also פסקנ'ד like בית שמאי. The גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, we learn in a ברייתא, המשחרר חצי עבדו, if someone frees half of his עבד, if he tells his עבד, "Half of you should be free," רבי אומר קנה, רבי says he is קונה and he becomes half free, וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, לא קנה, he is not קונה and he remains an עבד as before. אמר רבה, so רבה said, מחלוקת בשטר, the argument between רבי and the רבנן is only if he freed him through a שטר, through giving him the document. The reason for their מחלוקת is, because דרבי סבר, רבי holds, the תורה says, והפדה לא נפדתה או חפשה לא נתן לה. This is the case of the שפחה חרופה. That if a שפחה חרופה was מקודשת to an עבד עברי and someone else had relations with her, so that person is חייב a קרבן אשם. Now, what is a שפחה חרופה? The תורה says it is a שפחה that והפדה לא נפדתה, she was not redeemed, או חפשה לא נתן לה, or freedom was not given to her. והפדה לא נפדתה, as the גמרא learns here means, that she was freed and was not freed, she was half free and half not free. And the way she was freed was through money, by her paying for her freedom, because usually the word פדיון, which means redemption, is through money. So the תורה says here, והפדה לא נפדתה, she was a שפחה that was redeemed, והפדה, and לא נפדתה, was not redeemed, she was half redeemed and half not. In other words, she paid money for half of her freedom, and she remained half of a שפחה and half a בת חורין. And then the תורה says, או חפשה לא נתן לה, or freedom was not given to her. That is a kind of freedom that comes through a שטר, through the document, because the לשון here is לא נתן לה, wasn't given to her, the תורה uses the word לה, and we find by a woman, when she gets divorced, the תורה says, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, that the husband would write for her a גט. So we make a גזירה שוה from the two words לה, so just like לה in the case of the woman means a גט, the לה that says here, חפשה לא נתן לה, is also a גט. So the תורה in this פסוק mentions two types of ways of freeing the שפחה: one is through money, and one is through a שטר, through the document. Concerning the money case, the תורה mentions והפדה לא נפדתה, that she was half-free. So we see that through money, she could free half of herself. And since the תורה also mentions in the same פסוק the דין of the שטר שחרור, so we learn out that מקיש שטר לכסף, we compare the שטר to money. מה כסף, just like through money, בין כולה בין חציה, could be redeemed or completely or half, אף שטר נמי, through a שטר also, בין כולה בין חציה, she could be redeemed or completely or half. So that's why רבי says that if a person gives his עבד a שטר שחרור just for half of the עבד, that עבד becomes half-free. רבנן, רבנן argue, and they learn out גמרי לה לה מאישה. They learn out the גזירה שוה, לה לה, the word לה that says by the גט of the woman, and the word לה that says here from the case of the שטר שחרור, and they compare the two, and they say that all the דינים that apply to the גט of the woman apply to the שטר of the שפחה. And they say, מה אישה חציה לא, just like a woman you cannot divorce half of your wife, אף עבד נמי חציה לא, עבד also you cannot be משחרר half of your עבד. So the מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן is whether through a שטר you could be משחרר, you could free, half of your עבד. אבל בכסף, but if the עבד wants to buy his freedom through money, דהכל קונה, everyone agrees that he is קונה, that an עבד or a שפחה, when they pay for half of their freedom, they are קונה half of their freedom, and the שפחה would remain פדויה ואינה פדויה, she would be free and not free at the same time, half-free and half-not free. And the גמרא continues, לימא בהא קמיפלגי, will we say that

their argument is based on this thing, דמר סבר הקישא עדיפא, ומר סבר גזירה שוה עדיפא? Really the מחלוקת is here is that according to רבי, he makes a היקש, a comparison between the כסף and the שטר. Since the תורה puts them both in the same פסוק, so he says that we compare the two. Just like כסף could free her half, the same way a שטר could free half. But the רבנן, they say we have a גזירה שוה from the case of שטר שחרור to the case of the גט of a woman, and we say just like the woman cannot be divorced half, the שפחה cannot be freed half through the שטר. So it seems like the מחלוקת is that according to רבי, a היקש is stronger than a גזירה שוה. The comparison in a פסוק is stronger than the דין of a גזירה שוה when we have two similar words and we compare the two things. But the רבנן hold that a גזירה שוה is stronger, and therefore they hold that we base our דין on the גזירה שוה rather than basing it on the comparison of שטר to כסף. And the גמרא answers, לא, דכולי עלמא, everyone holds גזירה שוה עדיפא, that a גזירה שוה is stronger. And the reason for that is because usually a גזירה שוה is when there's an extra פסוק. So when the תורה says an extra word to teach us a certain דין, it's as if that דין is written clearly in the תורה. So when you have a דין written clearly in the תורה, certainly this is stronger than a היקש. And even in the case where the גזירה שוה is not learned out from an extra פסוק, still a גזירה שוה is stronger than a היקש, because we have a כלל that all the גזירות שוות were handed down ממשה מסיני. משה רבינו received them from השם, and he handed it down from generation to generation, and a person cannot make up a גזירה שוה on his own. So because of that, a גזירה שוה is stronger than a היקש. So here too, the גזירה שוה of לה לה מאישה is stronger than the היקש of שטר to כסף. But then the question is, why does רבי here accept the היקש over the גזירה שוה, and he פסקנ'ס that we compare שטר of שחרור to כסף, and we say just like כסף could free her half, the same way through a שטר you could free her half, while according to the גזירה שוה, the דין should be that through a שטר you should not be able to free her half, just like you cannot divorce your wife half, you cannot free the שפחה half? So the גמרא answers, דשאני הכא, here it's different, דאיכא למיפרך, we have a קשיא on the דין that's learned out from the גזירה שוה, because we could say, מה לאישה, you know why a woman, the דין is, cannot be divorced half, שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף, because she can בכלל not be freed through כסף. So we see that by a woman, there is a חומרא בכלל, that a woman cannot be freed through כסף only, and therefore, since she has a חומרא, there is another חומרא, woman cannot be freed through כסף only, and therefore, since she has a חומרא, there is another חומרא by the woman that she cannot be divorced half. תאמר בעבד, but say by the case of עבד, שיוצא בכסף, an עבד could be freed through כסף. So we see that an עבד is not as strict as an אישה. So maybe an עבד is not as strict also on that דין, that an אישה could not be divorced half, but an עבד could be freed half. So therefore, רבי learns that we in this case accept the היקש over the גזירה שוה. But רב יוסף אמר, רב יוסף says that מחלוקת בכסף, the מחלוקת between רבי and the חכמים is only if he freed the עבד through money, דרבי סבר, that רבי holds, ו... והפדה לא נפדתה, פדויה ואינה פדויה. That when the תורה, in the case of the שפחה חרופה, mentions the words והפדה לא נפדתה, the תורה means that she's פדויה ואינה פדויה, that she is redeemed and not redeemed, which means she was redeemed half. And since פדיון, redemption usually means through money, so we see clearly from the תורה that there is a possibility to redeem half of a שפחה, and the same thing would be by an עבד, and the other half should remain an עבד. That's why רבי holds that when it comes to redeeming through money, you could redeem half of the עבד. But רבנן סברי, the רבנן hold that when the תורה says by the שפחה חרופה והפדה לא נפדתה, does not mean that she was redeemed and not redeemed, meaning half of her was redeemed and half not, the תורה means she was not redeemed at all. איי, why does the תורה use such an interesting לשון והפדה לא נפדתה? The תורה should have said ולא נפדתה. Why does the תורה mention the first word והפדה, which means yes redeemed? So the גמרא says, because דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם, the תורה speaks the same way people speak, and this is the way people would speak, that when a person would want to say that she was not redeemed, a person would use the לשון redeemed she wasn't redeemed. And that's why the תורה uses that לשון, too. So, therefore, the תורה does not mention at all that there is such a thing as being half redeemed through money. So, therefore, the רבנן hold that if an עבד buys his freedom through money, he cannot buy half of his freedom. Could only buy his whole freedom, but you can't redeem half of the עבד through money. אבל בשטר, but if the master wants to free his עבד through a שטר, דברי הכל לא קנה, everyone agrees that he is not קונה, that you cannot do that. In other words, according to the רבנן, an עבד could never be partially free and partially עבד. And according to רבי, if you do it through money, you could redeem half of the עבד, but if it's done through a שטר, רבי also holds that you cannot free half of the עבד. The גמרא continues, מיתיבי, I

will ask you a קושיא, we learn in the ברייתא: המשחרר חצי עבדו בשטר, if someone frees half of his עבד in a through a שטר, רבי אומר קנה, רבי says he is קונה, which means he becomes half free. וחכמים אומרים לא קנה, the חכמים say that he is not קונה, he does not become half free. He remains a regular עבד. So here we see clearly that in the case where you free your עבד through a שטר, רבי says that he does become half free. But רב יוסף said before that in the case of שטר, everyone agrees that you cannot free half of your עבד. So the גמרא says, תיובתא דרב יוסף תיובתא. This is a קושיא on רב יוסף, and רב יוסף's opinion is wrong. And the גמרא continues, when we look at this ברייתא that we just brought, so the מחלוקת between רבי and the חכמים was בשטר הוא דפליגי, they argued in the שטר. In the case where he freed his עבד through a שטר, that's where there was a מחלוקת that רבי said he does become half free and the חכמים say no. אבל בכסף, but if he redeemed himself through money, לא פליגי. There is no מחלוקת in the ברייתא. And it seems as if the ברייתא made it clear that the whole מחלוקת is only through a שטר. But in the case of money, there is no מחלוקת, and it seems that everyone would agree that if the עבד wants to redeem himself through money, if he only gives half of the money, he becomes half free. So if that is so, לימא, let us say, תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי, that this should be a קושיא on רב יוסף in both cases. Because really רב יוסף said two things. One thing he said was that if he was redeemed through money, there's a מחלוקת between רבי and the חכמים. Another thing he said, that if he was freed through a שטר, everyone agrees that he cannot become half free. So one קושיא we asked on רב יוסף before, that we see that in the case of שטר, רבי holds that it is valid, and he does become half free. Now we're saying that the whole מחלוקת is only in the case of שטר, but if through כסף, everyone agrees that it is valid, so this is another קושיא on רב יוסף, because because רב יוסף said that in the case of כסף, the חכמים also argue and they say that he is not קונה. אמר לך רב יוסף, רב יוסף could answer that really פליגי בשטר והוא הדין בכסף. In the ברייתא where there's a מחלוקת between the חכמים and רבי, even though the ברייתא speaks about שטר, but really the same מחלוקת is also in the case of כסף. והא דקא מיפלגי בשטר, and the reason they argue only by שטר, the reason the ברייתא mentions שטר, להודיעך כחו דרבי, to show you the power of רבי, that even in the case of שטר, where there is a stronger סברא to say that you shouldn't be able to free half of the עבד, because we learn out from a גט of a woman that just like a woman cannot be divorced half, you shouldn't be able to free half of your עבד, nevertheless, even in this case, רבי holds that you could free half of the עבד. And therefore, they mentioned clearly שטר to show you how strong רבי is of his opinion. So the גמרא asks, וליפלגו בכסף, on the contrary, let them argue in the case of כסף. ולאודיעך כוחא דרבנן, to show you how strong the רבנן are of their opinion, that even in the case of כסף, where there is more סברא that it should be valid, because the תורה says והפדה לא נפדתה, which would seem to be showing that you could redeem half. Nevertheless, the חכמים still argue and they say that you cannot do it and she is not redeemed half. And the גמרא answers: כח דהיתרא עדיף, the כח of היתר, the power of permitting something is stronger. To say that something is forbidden, you don't have to have such a strong power, because when a person doesn't know the דין in a certain case, he could also say don't do it, prohibit it, and he certainly wouldn't do anything wrong. But to allow something, there you have to have a strong כח. So the ברייתא would rather show us the כח of רבי, where he is מתיר, where he says that it is valid, rather than to show us the כח of the רבנן, where they say that it is not valid. The גמרא continues, תא שמע, come here, I will ask you a קשיא. We learned in a ברייתא: והפדה - this refers to the פסוק that it says by the שפחה חרופה, והפדה לא נפדתה, and this ברייתא will explain that פסוק. The פסוק starts first with the word והפדה. והפדה means that she was redeemed. יכול הכל? So I would think that she was redeemed completely, that a שפחה חרופה is a שפחה that was completely redeemed. תלמוד לומר, so the תורה tells us לא נפדתה, that she was not redeemed. אי לא נפדתה, יכול הכל? So now that the תורה says she was not redeemed, so I would think she was not redeemed at all. תלמוד לומר, but the תורה says והפדה, the first word of the תורה is that she was redeemed. הא כיצד? Now, how is that possible? Was she redeemed, or wasn't she redeemed? So therefore, the ברייתא says: פדויה ואינה פדויה, that she was redeemed and was not redeemed, בכסף ובשוה כסף. Through money or through an object which is worth money, she was redeemed and not redeemed, which means she only was able to pay for half of her value, so she was only redeemed half. אין לי אלא בכסף, so so far we only know that an עבד or a שפחה could be redeemed through money. בשטר מנלן? How do we know that an עבד could be given a שטר and that is a form of freedom? תלמוד לומר, because the פסוק says: והפדה לא נפדתה או חפשה לא ניתן לה. So, in addition to the redemption, the תורה also mentions: או חפשה לא ניתן לה, freedom was not given to her. So obviously there's another form of freedom. Now, what is that? להלן הוא אומר, in a different place the תורה says by the case of גט אשה, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, that if the husband wants to divorce his wife, he writes to her a ספר that would cut them off, he would give her this document which is called a גט, and the תורה uses the term לה. So, מה להלן בשטר, just like in the case of the גט, how does a person divorce his wife, through a שטר, אף כאן, so here too, how can a person free his עבד or שפחה, בשטר, is through a שטר. So, we know that a person could give a שטר and that would free the עבד. אין לי אלא חציה בכסף וכולה בשטר, so so far all we know is that a person is able to free his עבד or by redemption, and that could be done or completely or half. If the עבד pays for his freedom, so he becomes free, or if he gives the whole money he becomes free completely, if he gives half of the money he becomes partially free, and that we saw from the words והפדה לא נפדתה, which means that a person, the עבד, could be free and not free at the same time. And we also have a פסוק that the עבד could be free through a שטר, but so far we only know that he could be freed completely through a שטר. But חציה בשטר מניין, how do we know also that you could free half of the עבד through a שטר too? תלמוד לומר, because the פסוק says: והפדה לא נפדתה או חפשה לא ניתן לה. And we said before that והפדה לא נפדתה means that she could be redeemed half through money. The פסוק או חפשה לא ניתן לה means that she could be redeemed through a שטר. But here the תורה puts the דין of שטר together with the דין of כסף that you could free half of the עבד through כסף. So, we compare מקיש שטר לכסף, we compare שטר to the money. מה כסף בין כולה בין חציה, just like כסף could free or the complete עבד or part of the עבד, אף שטר נמי, also through a שטר, בין כולה בין חציה, you could free or the whole עבד or you could free half of the עבד. This is the ברייתא. And the גמרא is going to want to know now according to who this ברייתא goes. So, בשלמא לרב יוסף בתר דאיתותב, מילא according to רב יוסף, after we've proven him wrong, so we know who this ברייתא is. הא מני? Who is this ברייתא? רבי, it goes according to רבי. Because after we proved that רב יוסף was wrong, so we came to a conclusion that the מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן is in both cases, by שטר and by כסף. That the רבנן hold that you cannot redeem half of the עבד and you cannot free half of the עבד with a שטר, but רבי holds that in both cases you could do. An עבד could redeem himself half, and the master could free half of the עבד through a שטר. So, this ברייתא where it says clearly that with כסף and with a שטר you could free half of the עבד This fits according to רבי the way it was after we proved that רב יוסף was wrong and we came to a conclusion that רבי holds in both cases that you could do

half. אלא לרבא, but according to רבא, he said before in the גמרא that in the case of שטר there is a מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן. In the case of כסף, everyone agrees that you could redeem half of the עבד. So this ברייתא comes out: רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי. The רישא where it says in the beginning of the ברייתא where it says that you could redeem through כסף half of the עבד, that fits according to everybody, because according to רבא everyone agrees that through כסף you could redeem half of the עבד. But the סיפא, the second part of the ברייתא where it says that you could also free half of the עבד through שטר, רבי, that only goes according to רבי. So it comes out that this ברייתא does not go according to the same opinion from the beginning to end. אמר לך רבא, the גמרא says רבא will answer you: אין, yes, רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי. There is no problem with that. The beginning of the ברייתא will fit according to everybody, and the end of the ברייתא will only go according to רבי. רב אשי אמר, רב אשי said: רבי היא, that the whole ברייתא is only רבי. רבי was the one that said this ברייתא, and he holds that by כסף you could redeem half, and by שטר you could free half. And

the רבנן, when they argued on this ברייתא, when they argued on רבי, they only argued on the second half of the ברייתא, on the דין of שטר, but on the case of כסף they didn't argue. But the ברייתא in itself goes according to one מאן דאמר. רבי was the one that said that ברייתא. Then the גמרא continues: אלא מתניתין, but our משנה, דקתני, it said, מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, our משנה started with these words, that somebody who is half עבד and half בן חורין, so there we have the מחלוקת between בית שמאי, בית הלל, etc. But the שאלה is בשלמא לרבא, מילא according to רבא, מוקמת לה בכסף ודברי הכל. רבא would say that how is it possible for a person to be a half עבד and half בן חורין? So he says it is through כסף. The עבד redeemed himself half through כסף, and it fits according to everybody, because according to רבא through כסף he holds everybody, even the רבנן, admit that a person could free himself half. So when this משנה says that there is a person who is half עבד, half בן חורין, could be if he did it through כסף, and it fits according to everybody. אלא לרב יוסף, but according to רב יוסף who holds that there is a מחלוקת between רבי and the רבנן in the case of כסף and in the case of שטר, לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן? So we must say that this משנה is only according to רבי, not according to the רבנן? Because according to רב יוסף the רבנן hold that a person could never become half free, not through כסף and not through שטר. So when this משנה says that there is this חציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, obviously this משנה only goes according to רבי. And the גמרא says אמר רבינא, רבינא said: No, there is another possibility that would fit according to everybody: בעבד של שני שותפין ודברי הכל. The case is if an עבד belonged to two partners, and one of the partners freed him. So here, everyone agrees that he remains half עבד and half בן חורין. Because when did the רבנן say that he cannot become half עבד, half בן חורין? If he belongs to one person. So that person did not free his complete connection to the עבד. That cannot be done. But if he belonged to two partners, and one partner freed him, so that partner freed his complete connection to the עבד. Because as far as he is concerned, he gave away his complete right of the עבד. So here the רבנן agree that that could be done, and this עבד remains a half a עבד and a half a בן חורין. Going back to the משנה, where the משנה said that this חציו עבד וחציו בן חורין cannot marry a שפחה and cannot marry a בת חורין. So therefore, we have no עצה but to force his master to free him, because otherwise he won't be able to marry, and the תורה says: לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה. So תוספות and many other ראשונים ask many קושיות on this דין, and we will try to go through a few of the קושיות the way תוספות asks it and the way תוספות answers it. One of the קושיות is: Why don't we say that the עשה of פרו ורבו is דוחה the לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש? What is the reason why an עבד cannot marry a בת חורין? Because there is a פסוק לא יהיה קדש, and from that פסוק we learn out that an עבד is אסור בבת חורין. But the שאלה is, since there is a מצות עשה of פרו ורבו, and the כלל is whenever we have a contradiction between a עשה and a לא תעשה, that we have to fulfill a positive מצוה, but at the same time if we're going to fulfill that positive מצוה, the person will be עובר on a negative מצוה, on a לא תעשה, so the דין is that עשה דוחה לא תעשה, that the positive מצוה is דוחה, and we make the person do the positive מצוה, and go against the negative מצוה, the לא תעשה. This case too There is a מצות עשה of פרו ורבו, there is a לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש, and this person cannot fulfill them both, because if he will not marry, he will go against the עשה of פרו ורבו. If he will marry, he will go against the לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש. So since there is a כלל of עשה דוחה לא תעשה, so let the עשה of פרו ורבו be דוחה the לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש, and he should be able to marry without him being free. And תוספות gives three answers. One answer is that when do we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה? Only if there is no other way. If you cannot fulfill them both, so then we say the עשה is stronger than the לא תעשה. But in a case where you could fulfill the עשה and not go against the לא תעשה, then definitely that's what we would do. And in this case it is considered as if we could do them both, because we have an עצה, we could force the master to free the עבד, so then he will fulfill the מצוה of פרו ורבו, and at the same time he will not be עובר on the לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש. Another answer תוספות gives that when do we say עשה דוחה לא תעשה? Only if the fulfillment of the עשה and the עבירה of the לא תעשה are being done at the same time. But in a case where you are עובר on the עבירה at one time and the עשה is not fulfilled till a few moments later, then we do not say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. And in this case, this is what would happen. Because the עשה he will not fulfill till the end of the ביאה, because that's when she is ראוי, fit to become pregnant, but the לא תעשה he will be עובר right away in the beginning of the ביאה, and therefore here we do not say עשה דוחה לא תעשה. And another תירוץ that תוספות gives is that the עשה דוחה לא תעשה would only apply to him. Since he has an עשה of פרו ורבו and he has a לא תעשה of לא יהיה קדש, so to him we could say עשה דוחה לא תעשה, and he should marry a בת חורין. But what about the בת חורין herself? She has no מצוה of marrying this עבד, so why should she be עובר the עבירה of marrying an עבד? And by her there is no עשה that should push away the לא תעשה. And therefore we cannot say here עשה דוחה לא תעשה. Another קושיא that תוספות asks is that there's another עצה here. Why doesn't he sell himself as an עבד עברי? The דין is that if a Jewish person sells himself as an עבד to another Jew, he becomes an עבד עברי, so his master is allowed to give him a שפחה כנענית, a גויישע שפחה, and he lives with her, and the children are עבדים. So here, let him sell himself as an עבד עברי, and then he will be able to marry a שפחה. Because his side of עבדות of being an עבד, he's allowed to marry a שפחה to begin with. Even the side of his being a בן חורין, since he's an עבד עברי, he's also allowed to marry a שפחה. So then why do we force his master to free him? Let him sell himself as an עבד עברי. And תוספות answers that the דין is that a גר, a convert, or an עבד that became free, is not able to sell himself as an עבד עברי. And therefore, his side of being a בן חורין is a משוחרר, is a עבד that became משוחרר, and the דין is that a משוחרר cannot sell himself as an עבד עברי. Then תוספות asks another קושיא: Why can't he marry a woman who is in the same situation as him, a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין, a woman who is half שפחה and half בת חורין? And תוספות answers that he's not allowed, because his half of עבד will be living with her and she is half בת חורין, so it comes out that the עבד part would also be married to the בן חורין part, and also his בן חורין part will be living with her being half a שפחה. So therefore a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין is not allowed to marry a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. Then תוספות asks another קושיא: What do we do? We force the master to free this חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין. Freeing an עבד, as we learned before, is an עבירה. There's a פסוק that says והתנחלתם אותם לבניכם אחריכם, that you have to have your יורשים inherit the עבדים, so from here we learn out that it's a עשה not to free an עבד. What we do here is we force the master to free him, to go against the דין that you're not allowed to free an עבד. So the שאלה is, there is a גמרא in שבת that says, וכי אומרים לאדם חטא כדי שיזכה חברך? Do we tell a person, "You should do an עבירה in order to prevent someone else from doing an עבירה"? And this is concerning the דין of הדביק פת בתנור. If somebody put bread into the oven on שבת, and if he's going to leave it there, then the bread is going to be baked, and he's going to be עובר on the מלאכה of baking on שבת. Someone else who sees him put it in, if he would take it out, he would be עובר on an איסור דרבנן, because the רבנן said that on שבת you're not allowed to take out bread from the oven. The way they used to put bread into the oven in those days, in order to take it out, you had to have a special חכמה. So the חכמים made a גזירה that you're not allowed to take out bread from the oven on שבת, even if it was baked before שבת. So in this case, if a person sees his friend put in bread into the oven on שבת, so the גמרא says that he's not allowed to take it out to prevent his friend from coming to a מלאכה דאורייתא, because when he will take it out, he will be doing an איסור דרבנן. And the גמרא says, do we tell a person, you do a small עבירה in order to prevent your friend from doing a big עבירה? And this is really what's happening here. We force his master to free him, so we tell his master, you do an עבירה of freeing the עבד in order to prevent the עבד from doing his עבירה of not fulfilling the מצוה of פרו ורבו. How are we allowed to do that? And תוספות says that there's a difference between our case and the case in the גמרא in שבת. Because over there, the person who put the bread into the oven was פושע. He did something wrong. So therefore, the דין is that we don't allow someone else to do a small עבירה in order to prevent him from doing a big עבירה, because he was the cause himself for his עבירה to be done. But here, the עבד didn't do anything wrong. And therefore, here we're allowed to tell the master, do an עבירה in order to prevent this עבד from doing another עבירה, from not fulfilling the מצוה of פרו ורבו. Another קשיא that תוספות asks is that when the גמרא says that we can't let the עבד not get married at all is because the תורה says לא תהו בראה לשבת יצרה, so why does the גמרא bring that פסוק? Why doesn't the גמרא bring the פסוק of פרו ורבו? The תורה says פרו ורבו ומלאו את הארץ, and that is the פסוק where we learn out that there is a מצוה to have children. And one of the תירוצים that תוספות gives, especially the way תוספות elaborates on it in the גמרא in בבא בתרא דף י״ג, is that מצד the פסוק of פרו ורבו, there would be no reason to force the עבד. Since the reason the עבד cannot fulfill this מצוה of פרו ורבו is because he is forced, he's an אנוס, there is no other way, he has no choice, he cannot marry not a שפחה not a בת חורין, and therefore he is an אנוס, and the דין is if you are an אנוס, you are פטור from the מצוה. And therefore, in this case, he is פטור from פרו ורבו. But this פסוק of לא לתוהו בראה לשבת יצרה, תוספות has ראיות that this is considered a מצוה רבה, a great מצוה, and therefore, because of this מצוה, is that we force the master to free the עבד. But we have to understand, what is the difference between these two מצוות? Why is it that because of פרו ורבו we would not force the master to free the עבד, while because of the מצוה of לשבת יצרה we do force the master to free the עבד? So the ראגאטשאווער in his שאלות ותשובות צפנת פענח עמוד כ״ט, and the same way more or less רבי יוסף ענגיל in his ספר אתוון דאורייתא כלל י״ג, explain the difference as follows: The מצוה of פרו ורבו is a מצוה on the person. It's a positive מצוה that the person has to fulfill. And therefore, if the person is forced, is an אנוס, and he cannot fulfill the מצוה of פרו ורבו, he is פטור from that מצוה. But the מצוה of שבת is not a מצוה on the person, it is a מצוה מפני תיקון העולם, it is a מצוה, so to speak, on the world, that the world should be inhabited with people. So here we cannot say that since the person is an אנוס, therefore the מצוה is dropped, and there is no חיוב at all. If the מצוה is on the person, so if the person can't fulfill it, then there is no more מצוה. But if the מצוה is on the world, so even if the person can't do it, but nevertheless, the מצוה still exists. And therefore, if there is still any possibility for us to see that the מצוה should be done, it is our obligation to see to it. Concerning a מצוה on the person, if the person can't do it, so there is no more מצוה left, so we have no obligation to go out of our way and to see that the מצוה should be done. But in the case where the מצוה is not on the person, on the world, so as long as we could see that the מצוה should be done, it is our obligation to see to that. And therefore, מצד the מצוה of פרו ורבו, we would not force the master to free his עבד, but because of the מצוה of שבת, there we say that כופין את רבו, and he makes him into a בן חורין. This is the נקודה of their תירוץ. They just use different expressions. The ראגאטשאווער uses the expression that the difference between פרו ורבו and שבת is that פרו ורבו the עיקר is the פועל, the act, while by the case of שבת, the עיקר is the נפעל, the outcome, the reaction of the מצוה. And רבי יוסף ענגיל uses the term that the מצוה of פרו ורבו is a מצוה בין אדם למקום, between the person and השם, while the מצוה of שבת is the תכלית בשביל העולם, there is it is a מצוה between the person and the world.