Jewish audio on Chabad.org. Today's shiur will be מסכת Gittin דף מ"ב starting with the last word of the first line from עמוד א'. The Gemara here is still in the middle of the sugya where it discusses the machloket between Rabbi and the Rabbanan. And that is concerning whether a person is able to free half of his slave. Rabbi holds that he is able to, and the Rabbanan hold that a person cannot free half of his slave. The Gemara starts, אמר רבא, Rava said, machloket, this argument between Rabbi and the Rabbanan is only בששחרר חציו והניח חציו, if he freed half of the slave and left the other half for himself. אבל שחרר חציו ומכר חציו, but if he freed half of the slave and sold the other half to somebody else, או נתן במתנה חציו, or he gave the other half away as a present to somebody. So here, כיון דנפק מיניה כוליה, since the eved left the master completely, דברי הכל קנה, everyone agrees that the freedom that the master gave him takes effect and he is half free. And the reason for that is because the whole sevara of the Rabbanan that a person cannot free half of the slave is only because a person could only drop his whole connection to the slave, but if he leaves half of the connection, then that is not valid. In this case, since he gives away his whole connection, he doesn't free him completely, but he gives away his whole connection, he freed him partially, and the other part he gave it away to somebody else or sold to somebody else, in a case like this, the shichrur does take effect. But it is self-understood, as Rashi explains, that this is only if he first sold the other half to somebody, or gave that half away as a present to somebody, and then he freed the other half. But if he first freed the half, and then he gave away the other half as a present or sold the other half, then definitely this would not take effect, because when he freed half, the other half still didn't leave his master, and the Rabbanan hold that when you free only a half, it doesn't take effect. But if his other half was sold first, so then when he frees the half, by doing that, he leaves his master completely, so then his freedom takes effect.

אמר ליה אביי, Abaye said to רבא, ובכולו לא פליגי? Now you're telling me that if the whole eved leaves his master, there is no machloket, even the Rabbanan agree that his freedom does take effect? והתני חדא, but didn't we learn in one beraita: הכותב נכסיו לשני עבדיו, if someone writes away all his possessions to two of his slaves, he writes two shtarot, two documents. In one document, it says that he is giving away all his possessions to one slave. In the other document, it says that he is giving away all his possessions to the other slave. And then he takes both documents, and he gives it to a third party that that person should be zocheh these shtarot for his avadim. So since the two shtarot were given together, so not one of the slaves is able to say that his shtar came first, so he acquired the ownership over the possessions of his master first, so what do we say? We say that it goes half to one and half to the other, since he gave away together all his possessions to both. So the din is that kanu, they are koneh, each one is koneh half of the possessions, and since the avadim themselves are part of the possessions, so each one is koneh half of the avadim, that means that each one is koneh half of himself, and the other half of each one belongs to the other one. So what do they do? ומשחררין זה את זה, so they free each other. Since each one is now half free and half an eved of the other one, so each one frees each other, so therefore they are completely free now. That's the way it says in one beraita.

ותניא אידך, but we learned in another beraita: האומר, if someone says, כל נכסיי נתונין לפלוני ופלוני עבדיי, that all my possessions should be given away to so and so and so and so my slaves, so the din is, אף עצמן לא קנו, they are not even koneh themselves, not only are they not koneh all other possessions, they are not even koneh themselves. So the question is, this seems to be a similar case to the previous beraita, and in the previous beraita, it says that they are koneh, and then each one becomes a half an eved and half a ben chorin, and then each one frees the other, that's how they become complete bnei chorin, and in this beraita, it says that this whole thing is not valid and they're not koneh themselves. So מאי לאו, wouldn't you think, הא רבי הא רבנן, in order to answer this contradiction, we would say that one beraita goes according to Rabbi, and one beraita goes according to the rabbanan? The beraita that says that it they are koneh goes according to Rabbi, Because Rabbi holds that you could free half of an eved. The other beraita that says that they are not koneh goes according to the rabbanan that holds that you cannot free a half an eved. But if we're gonna say so, it seems that the rabbanan argue even in the case where the eved leaves his master completely. Because in this case where he gave away all his possessions to both of his avadim, so even though each one would become only half ben chorin and half he would remain an eved, but nevertheless he left his master, because when he remains half of an eved, he is now the eved of the other eved. So if we're gonna say to answer the two beraitot that one goes according to Rabbi and one goes according to the rabbanan, so this would prove that the rabbanan also argue on Rabbi in the case where they leave their master completely. So this is a kashya on

Rava who said that in the case where the master gives them up completely, he frees half and he sells the other half, or gives away the other half, the Rabbanan admit that it is valid and they become half-free. The Gemara answers, לא, no, the emes is the Rabbanan admit in such a case. And let's not answer the סתירה in the two beraitot that one is Rabbi and one is Rabbanan, but let's say אידי ואידי דרבנן. You could say that both beraitot go according to the Rabbanan. And the question is why does it say in one beraita that they are קונה and the other beraita it says not? Because הא דאמר כולי, הא דאמר חצי חצי. The first beraita where it says that they are קונה, it is speaking in a case where he wrote in each שטר that he's giving away all his possessions to the עבד. And since he wrote that in both שטרות for both עבדים, and then he gave both שטרות at the same time to a third party to be זוכה for them, so it comes out that at the same time he gave away half of the possessions to the first, and half of the possessions to the second. So at the same moment when he gave away half of his possessions to the first, which means that he is קונה himself half, at the same moment he gave the other half away of this עבד to the other person. And the same applies to the other עבד, that the other עבד at the same moment when he gave him half of the possessions, which includes half of himself, at the same moment he gave the other half away to somebody else. And as we said before, according to the Rabbanan, they admit in a case like that where while he frees half, at the same time the other half is given to somebody else, the שחרור is valid. And therefore the beraita says that in a case like this, the שחרור is valid, and everyone becomes a half an עבד and half a בן חורין, and the עצה is that they free each other later on. But the second beraita where it says that if he gives away all his possessions to both of his עבדים, they are not קונה, is speaking in a case where he wrote two שטרות, and in each שטר it said, "I give away half of my possessions to you," and the other שטר it said, "Half of the possessions to him." And in a case like that, the שטר is not valid. And the reason for that is, because there are two possibilities really here. If the case happened to be that he gave one שטר to one עבד first and the other שטר to the other עבד later, definitely it doesn't take effect, because when he gave the שטר to the first עבד first, where it said, "Half of my possessions go to you," which includes himself too, so half of himself he freed, but since at that time the other half was not given away to somebody else yet, so this is a case where he freed half without giving away the other half, and we said before the רבנן hold in a case like that the שחרור is not valid. So therefore the first שחרור is not valid, and the same would apply to the second one. Even if the case happened to be that he gave both שטרות to a third party at the same time, but nevertheless, since in the שטר it said that he's giving away half of the possessions to the עבד, and both שטרות said the same thing, so it is very possible that what he meant was that he's giving away the same half to both עבדים, and he cannot give away the same half to two people, and therefore the whole שטר is not valid. And that's why the ברייתא says that in a case like that, they are not קונה any possessions, and they are not even קונה themselves. Then the Gemara asks, how could you say that the second ברייתא is speaking in a case where he wrote in each שטר he's only giving away half, ומדקתני סיפא, since in the end of that second ברייתא it says clearly, ואם אמר חצי חצי, that if he said half-half, לא קנו, they are not קונה. The beginning of the ברייתא said as we said before, that he says all my נכסים should be given to פלוני ופלוני עבדי, then it says they are not קונה themselves. The end of the ברייתא says, but if he said half-half, they are not קונה. And the Gemara at this point assumes that the pshat in the ברייתא is that the second part of the ברייתא, the סיפא, is telling us that if he said half-half, he's also not קונה, it's like a continuation to the beginning. In the beginning it says that if he said all my נכסים should be given given to פלוני פלוני my עבדים, they're not קונה, and also if he said half-half, they're not קונה. But since in the סיפא it says that if he said half-half, they're not קונה, מכלל is a ראיה דרישא that the first part of the ברייתא is not in a case where he said half-half, but דאמר כולו, he said at the same time, let all my possessions be to both of my עבדים. And still the ברייתא says that they are not קונה. So how can you tell me that that ברייתא where it says they are not koneh is speaking in a case where they said half-half, he wrote two shtarot, one said half and the other one said half, when from here we see that the seifa is speaking about half-half, so obviously the reisha is speaking where he said the whole thing is to my avadim. And the Gemara answers: No, פירושא קמפרש. The braisa in the seifa is just explaining the reisha. It's not another case, it's just an explanation. And this is the pshat in the braisa: אף עצמו לא קנו, if he said all my nechasim should be given away to my avadim, they are not koneh themselves. כיצד? How is that? כגון, for instance, דאמר חצי חצי, that he said half-half. So in the seifa, where it said that if he said half-half, they're not koneh, this is the pshat of the reisha. The braisa is explaining why is the din that he is not they are not koneh themselves, because it is in a case where he said half-half. And the Gemara continues: הכא נמי מסתברא. The sevara tells us that this is the pshat in the braisa, that the seifa is not a separate case, but an explanation to the reisha. Because אי סלקא דעתך רישא דאמר כולו, if you didn't tell me that this is not an explanation to the reisha, but the reisha is speaking in a case where he said all my possessions should go to my avadim, he is they are not koneh, so if so, השתא אמר כולו לא קנה, if in a case where he said lechatchila all my possessions should go to my avadim, still they're not koneh, so אמר חצי חצי מבעיא? So certainly if he said half-half. Because when he said all my possessions should go to the avadim, there is more reason they should be koneh, more than if they said half-half. And still the din is that they are not koneh, so certainly if he said half-half. So why does the braisa have to continue and say that if he said half-half they're not koneh? That's self-understood. So that proves that the second part of the baraisa is not another din, because if it would be another din, the baraisa wouldn't have to tell us that. It is only an explanation to the reisha. The Gemara says: אי משום הא לא איריא. If this is going to be your proof, it is not enough. Because we could say: תנא סיפא לגלוי רישא. Be'emet the seifa is not the same case as the reisha. The seifa is really another case, the case of חצי חצי. The reisha is the case of kulo, and the seifa is חצי חצי. Ah, you ask, why does the baraisa have to tell us the din of חצי חצי, wouldn't it be self-understood from the reisha? So I could tell you that תנא סיפא לגלוי רישא. It says the din of the seifa to give us to understand, to reveal what is the real pshat in the reisha. שלא תאמר, you shouldn't say, if we wouldn't have the case of the seifa, we could have said that רישא דאמר חצי חצי, that the reisha

where it says that they are not koneh is the case of חצי חצי, and I would think that אבל אמר כולו, but if he said kulo, if he gave them both away all his possessions, kano, they are koneh. Therefore, תני סיפא, so therefore the seifa tells us, דאמר חצי חצי, that there is a case where he said חצי חצי and he is not koneh. Michlal, so from that we understand, דרישא דאמר כולו, that the reisha is the case of kulo. Because if the reisha would be the case of חצי חצי, then why does it say the סיפא חצי חצי? Since the סיפא says the din of חצי חצי, is a ראיה that the רישא is the case of כולו, ואפילו הכי לא קנו, and still he's not קונה. So the reason the סיפא tells us a din that would be self-understood from the רישא is only we should understand what is the real peshat in the רישא, that we should know that the רישא where it says לא קנו is in the case of כולו. And how do we know that? Since the סיפא says clearly חצי חצי, so we understand the רישא is not חצי חצי, the רישא is כולו, and we know the din is that לא קנו. Then the Gemara says: ואיבעית אימא, but if you want, I can give you another תירוץ to answer the contradiction between the two ברייתות.

לא קשיא, it's no kushya. כאן בשטר אחד, כאן בשני שטרות. The ברייתא where it says that they are not קונה is speaking in a case where he wrote one שטר for both. In one document he wrote that all my possessions should belong to this עבד and to this עבד. In a case like that, they are not קונה. Because the din is that just like by a גט, you cannot use one גט to divorce two wives, the same way by a שטר שחרור, you cannot use one שטר to free two עבדים. Because concerning a גט it says: וכתב לה ספר כריתות, he should write for her a ספר כריתות, a גט. And the Gemara learns out from the word לה, that he should write for her, it means לה ולא לחברתה, for her and not for her friend. That means that you cannot write one get for one and for her friend, meaning for two women. And since we have a גזירה שוה, לה לה, שטר שחרור we learn out from גט אשה, so the same din applies to a שטר שחרור, that you cannot write one שטר שחרור for two avadim. And therefore, the case where it says that they are not koneh is because which way will they become free? Through this document that he wrote that he gives away all his possessions to the avadim, and this automatically includes themselves, and that's how they will come free. But since you cannot write one שטר שחרור for two avadim, so therefore that שטר שחרור is not valid. But the other beraita, where it says that if he gives away all his possessions to two avadim, they are koneh themselves, that is where he wrote two שטרות. And in the case of two שטרות, each one is koneh half of the possessions, which means half of himself, so each one becomes half eved and half ben chorin, and then they are meshacherer each other. And then the Gemara asks: בשטר אחד, if the beraita where it says they are not koneh is speaking by one שטר, מאי איריא חצי חצי? Why does the beraita say that if he wrote half-half that's when they are not koneh? אפילו אמר כולי נמי לא קנו, even if he said that he gives away all his possessions to both, they should also not be koneh! Before we said that the seifa of that beraita, where it says חצי חצי, is really an explanation of the reisha. They are not two cases, but it's an explanation. So according to that, the whole beraita is speaking only in a case of חצי חצי. But if we just said now that the beraita is speaking בשטר אחד, and the reason why they are not koneh is because you cannot use one שטר to free two avadim, so why does the beraita say only you are not koneh if he wrote חצי חצי, half-half, the same din would have been if he would have written כולי, he would have written that he gives away all his possessions to the עבדים? And the Gemara answers: הכא נמי קאמר, this is really what it means. We're not learning the way we learned before, that the סיפא is an explanation to the רישא, but the פשט is different, that the פשט is אף עצמו לא קנה. First the ברייתא says that if he wrote all his possessions to these and these עבדים, they are not קונה themselves. And then we're supposed to put in some words: במה דברים אמורים, when was this said? בשטר אחד, only if he wrote one שטר for both. אבל בשני שטרות קנו, but if he wrote it in two separate שטרות, they are קונה. ואם אמר חצי חצי, but if he says half-half, אף בשני שטרות נמי לא קנו, even if it was written in two שטרות, they are also not קונה. So according to this פשט, the סיפא is not an explanation of the רישא, the סיפא is another case, in the case of two שטרות, that חצי חצי is not קונה even if it's in two שטרות. Because as we said before, if he writes half-half, so we're afraid maybe he means to both of them the same half, and therefore they are not קונה. And the Gemara says: ואי בעית אימא, if you want, I can give you another answer. לא קשיא, it's not a קשיא, I can explain the contradiction between the two ברייתות in a different way: כאן בבת אחת, כאן בזה אחר זה. That really both ברייתות are speaking in a case where he gave them two שטרות. And in both ברייתות we're speaking in a case where he wrote in the שטר, "I give away all my possessions to this עבד and to that עבד," and not חצי חצי. But the difference is that one ברייתא is the case where he gave both שטרות at the same time, and one ברייתא where he gave both שטרות one after another. The ברייתא where it says they are koneh is the case where he gave both shtaros to a third party at the same time. So then, they are both koneh equally. So right away, each one is koneh half of the possessions, so that means that he becomes half belonging to himself, so he's half-free, and at the same time the other half belongs to the other eved. And according to the Rabbanan, as we said before, in a case like this, it is koneh. But the other beraita where it says that they are not koneh is where it's בזה אחר זה, where he gave the shtaros one after another. So in a case like that, we cannot say that each one is koneh half, because how could the second one be koneh anything after he gave away everything already to the first one? But the Gemara asks: בשלמא בתרא, מילא the second one לא קני, cannot be koneh himself, cannot be koneh anything, דהא קנה ליה קמא, because the first one was koneh. Since he wrote in the shtar he's giving away all his possessions to his eved, and he gave the first eved that shtar, so automatically that eved is koneh everything, he's koneh himself and he's koneh all other possessions. So then, when afterwards he gives the other shtar to the other eved, the other eved cannot be koneh anything. אלא קמא, but the first עבד, ליקני נפשיה, let him be koneh himself, וליקני לחבריה, and also let him be koneh the friend, let him be koneh the other eved. Since he wrote in the shtar he gives away all his possessions to the eved, So the first eved, as soon as he gets that shtar, that itself should make that he should be koneh himself, because he is part of the possessions, and he also should be koneh his friend, that that eved now belongs to him. But the beraita says that they are both not koneh at

all anything. אלא מחוורתא, therefore the better tirutz is כדישנינן מעיקרא, as we answered before. In other words, the Gemara takeh disproves this last answer, this cannot be a proper answer. רב אשי אמר, Rav Ashi said, "No, we could stick to this last answer. So the case where it says that they are both not koneh is where he gave the שטרות בזה אחר זה, one after another." אי, the question you ask, "Why isn't the first one koneh himself, and koneh also the other eved?" שאני התם, there it's different, דקא קרי ליה עבדי, because when he wrote in the shtar, "I give away all my possessions to my avadim," so he calls them in the shtar "my avadim," "my slaves." Since he refers to them in the shtar as slaves, obviously he didn't mean to free them. So what he probably meant was he thought that he is able to give away a present to his slaves while they remain slaves. And that is not true, a person cannot give anything to an eved because כל מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו, whatever an eved acquires belongs to his master, so his master cannot give anything away to him. So therefore, the beraita says he is not koneh because he really didn't mean to free him, because in the shtar itself he called them avadim.

אמר ליה רב עמרם לרב אשי, so Rav Amram said to Rav Ashi, ודילמא, maybe עבדי שהיו כבר, when he referred to them in the shtar as avadim, he didn't mean that they should remain avadim, but he meant that "You were previously my avadim, I give away my possessions to those who were previously my avadim," and that's why he refers to them as avadim. מי לא תנן, didn't we learn in the משנה, הכותב כל נכסיו לעבדו, if someone writes all his possessions away to his עבד, יצא לחרות, automatically he goes out free, because since he is one of his possessions, and he gave him away all his possessions, including the eved himself, so that is a form of freeing the eved. שייר קרקע כל שהוא, but if he writes in the shtar that "I'm giving away all my possessions to my eved except a little bit of land," and he didn't write which land he meant, לא יצא לחרות, that eved is not free. Why? Because since he didn't write which land he's excluding from the shtar, so every little bit of land we could say that is the land he meant, and therefore he cannot acquire any land. And since he wrote in the shtar that he is giving him away all his possessions, which means all the land plus the eved himself, and since concerning the land we say that the שטר is not valid because he cannot acquire any land, so automatically he also cannot acquire himself either, because this תנא holds that we do not say פלגינן דיבורא, which means we do not divide a person's words. If we would hold פלגינן דיבורא, that means we separate a person's words, when a person says something, that part of what he said could be valid and part not, so we say whatever cannot be valid is not valid, whatever could be valid is accepted. But if you do not hold פלגינן דיבורא, that means that if the rest of the statement cannot be valid, so then the other part of the statement is not valid either. And here too, since he said that he's giving away all his possessions, which includes all the land and himself, and since concerning the land we say that he doesn't get any of the land, so automatically the other part of the statement, which is concerning the עבד himself, is also not valid, and therefore the עבד does not go out free.

Rabbi Shimon omer, Rabbi Shimon says, לעולם הוא בן חורין, that in a case like that really he does go out free, because Rabbi Shimon does hold of פלגינן דיבורא, he does say that we divide his words, whatever cannot be accepted is not accepted, and whatever is accepted is accepted, and therefore the part of the עבד could be accepted, the עבד goes out free. עד שיאמר, unless he says, כל נכסיי נתונים לפלוני עבדי, that "All my possessions should be given over to my עבד so-and-so, חוץ מאחד מריבוא שבהם, except even one of 10,000s of it." Which means that when he excluded a certain part of the possessions, he didn't say that he's excluding land, he just said he's excluding one little bit of his possessions. And since he didn't say which part of his possessions he's excluding, so we think maybe he's excluding the עבד himself. The עבד is part of his possessions, maybe that is what he meant that he's excluding from his present to the עבד. So therefore, the עבד doesn't go out free, because maybe he meant that he is not giving the עבד away to himself. So we see there, טעמא דאמר חוץ מאחד מריבוא שבהם, the reason why we don't accept his words and he doesn't go out free is because he used the expression that he excludes one of 10,000s of the possessions. הא לא אמר הכי, but if he wouldn't have said that, קני, the עבד would be קונה himself. אמאי, but the question is why? והא עבד קא קרי ליה, He's calling him עבד. He said, "I give away my possessions to my עבד." So he's referring to him as an עבד even in this case, and we said before that since he refers to him as an עבד, he probably doesn't mean to free him, so how could we say here that he does become free? And the only reason he doesn't is because he excluded part of the possessions, but if not for that, he would go out free, even though he referred to him as an עבד. אלא what must we say? When he said my עבד, he meant עבדי שהיה כבר, my עבד that was before, my previous עבד. הכא נמי, the same thing here too. In our case, when he said that I'm giving away my possessions to my עבדים, when he said עבדיי it means עבדיי שהיו כבר, that the עבדים that were before. So this disproves what Rav Ashi said before, that the reason why they are not קונה themselves in the ברייתא is because he referred to them as עבדים in the שטר, because we see here that when you refer to the עבד as an עבד in the שטר, doesn't mean that you're not freeing him. What you mean is that he was your עבד before. And now the Gemara goes back to the Mishnah. In the

Mishnah we had a case of a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, a person who was half עבד and half בן חורין, and we had a machloket between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. Beit Hillel said that since he is half-free and half עבד, so one day he works for his master, and one day he works for himself. And Beit Shammai said that this only was good for the master, but what about himself? Since he cannot marry, not a שפחה and not a בת חורין, so therefore they said that you have to force the master and he frees him. And the Gemara says later on, Beit Hillel changed their mind and they agreed to Beit Shammai. Now the Gemara says, נגחו שור, if an ox gored this person who was half עבד, half בן חורין, so if it happened יום של רבו, if it happened on the day that he worked for his master, לרבו. So the money that he gets for the נזק, for the damage that is done to him, because the דין is that if a שור, an ox, gores a person, the owner of the ox must pay for the damages, so the damages that is paid goes to his master, because it happened on the day that he worked for his master. יום של עצמו, if it happened on the day that he worked for himself, לעצמו, the money for the נזק goes to himself. And Tosafot explains that this Gemara only goes according to the way Beit Hillel learned before, before they admitted to Beit Shammai, because after they admitted to Beit Shammai that we force the master to free him, the Gemara says later on that in a case like that we do not say that he works one day for his master, one day for himself. Whatever he works, whatever he earns goes to himself constantly, because he is almost like not an עבד of his master anymore, since his master is going to be forced to free him. So this Gemara, where the Gemara makes a difference between the day that he works for his master and the day that he works for himself, obviously is going according to the משנה ראשונה, which means according to the way Beit Hillel's opinion was in the beginning, that he works one day for his master and one day for himself. So that's where the Gemara says that the money he gets for the damage, if it happened on the day that he works for his master goes to his master, if it happened on the day that he works for himself, goes to himself. Then the Gemara asks,

אלא מעתה, if so, יום של רבו ישא שפחה, the day that he works for his master, let him marry a slave, a female slave. יום של עצמו, the day that he works for himself, ישא בת חורין, he should be able to marry a free Jewish woman. Since you're dividing this, that it depends on which day it is concerning who gets the money for the damage, why can't we say the same thing concerning his marriage? On the day he works for his master, he is a slave, so that day he could marry a שפחה. The day that he works for himself, he is a בן חורין, so that day let him marry a בת חורין. And the Gemara answers, איסורא לא קאמרינן. Concerning איסור, not ממון, we weren't talking about. When we said before that depends on which day it happened, that's only concerning monetary things, but when it comes concerning איסור, whether he's allowed to marry a שפחה or is he allowed to marry a בת חורין, concerning that we were not talking about. Concerning איסור he remains one unit of a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, and therefore he cannot marry, not a שפחה and not a בת חורין. Then the Gemara says, תא שמע, come here, I'll ask you a kushya. We learn in the ברייתא, המית מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, if a שור, an ox, killed a person who was half עבד, half בן חורין, because the דין is that when an ox kills a person, a regular person, so he has to pay to the יורשים of the person who died the value of the person who died, and that is referred to in the Torah as כופר. On the other hand, if an ox kills an עבד, then there is a fixed amount that the Torah says that the owner of the ox must give to the master of the slave, and that is שלושים שקלים, thirty שקלים, whether the עבד was שקלים, thirty שקלים, whether the עבד was worth more or he was worth less. And this is referred to in the Torah as קנס, as a fine that is put on the owner of the ox to pay to the master of the slave. Here the case is if the ox killed a person who was half עבד and half בן חורין, so נותן חצי קנס לרבו, so he pays half of the קנס, half of the thirty שקלים to his master, וחצי כופר ליורשיו, and half of the כופר, which means half of the value of the person who died, to his יורשים. And the Gemara later on will explain how is it possible for an עבד to have יורשים, to have people to inherit him. But anyway, what do we see here? דאמאי, why is the דין that he pays half a קנס to the master and half of a כופר to the יורשים? הכא נמי לימא, let us say here too that if it happened on יום של רבו, if he was killed on the day that he worked for his master, לרבו, so then the owner of the ox should have to pay the קנס to his master. If it happened on יום של עצמו, on the day that he worked for himself and on that day he is considered like a free person, לעצמו, then all that should be paid is the כופר, the money that he was worth, to the יורשים of this עבד. And the Gemara answers, שאני הכא, here it's different, דקא כליא קרנא. Here the principal is damaged. In other words, here there is a permanent loss. So the division of the days cannot apply here because this is a loss that is going to stay constantly. Since the עבד died, so this is a permanent loss, so the division of the days make no difference because the loss is there constantly, not only for one day. When did... When we said before that it depends on which day it happened, that's in a case where there was no permanent loss. So there it is only because it happened on a certain day and for that you pay, so it depends on which day it happened. But if it's a permanent loss, so the loss is not only for the day it happened, it's a loss that is going to happen later on for all days, so over there we say that we divide it in half. Half is paid as an עבד, and that would be half of the קנס to his master, and half is paid as a בן חורין, and that is half of the כופר to his יורשים. Then the Gemara asks, ואלא היכי דמי דלא קא כליא קרנא? How is it possible that the damage should not be permanent, it shouldn't be a loss to the principal? And we said that when we made the division before between the days, that is in a case where there was no permanent loss, how is that possible? And the Gemara answers, כגון, for instance, שהכהו על ידו, the ox hit him on his hand, וצמתה ידו, and it caused his hand to shrivel, וסופו לחזור, but eventually the end will be that it will heal. So that is not a permanent loss. And that's where the דין is that it depends on which day it happened. Then the Gemara asks, הא ניחא לאביי דאמר נותן לו שבת גדולה ושבת קטנה, שפיר. We find in Bava Kamma דף פ״ו a machloket between Abaye and Rava. And this is concerning if a person hit another person and he caused his hand to shrivel, but eventually it's going to heal and it'll go back to the way it was before. So there's a machloket between Abaye and Rava how much money he has to pay him. Abaye says you have to pay שבת גדולה and שבת קטנה, big שבת and small שבת. Really, the word שבת means that you have to pay for the money that he lost because he couldn't work. What שבת גדולה means that because he couldn't work, therefore he is devaluated in value. Usually, you estimate the value of a person by seeing how much money you could get for him if you want to sell him as a slave in the market. If you would sell this person with this sick hand as a slave, people would pay for him less than if he would not have this sickness. So even though this is a sickness that is only temporary and eventually it'll heal, nevertheless at this moment he was devaluated. And therefore, the first thing that he has to pay is the devaluation, he has to pay the loss that he has in his value. And the Gemara refers to this as שבת, even though this is really נזק, that is what נזק is, meaning how much damage you cause the person that now he is worth less than he was worth before. But still it's referred to as שבת because the reason in this case why he is worth less is because of his inability to work. And also you have to pay שבת קטנה. שבת קטנה means that when he is sick, he cannot work the same way as when he was a hundred percent healed. Then he could do hard work. While he is sick, his hand is still sick, he cannot do any hard work, he could only do light work. For instance, he could be a guard by a cucumber field, for instance. While he has pain, he can't even do that. So what you have to pay here is while he has the pain, for those days, you have to pay him for the loss of money that he could have gotten if he would have worked the light work, being a guard in a cucumber field. But Rava says that's not how you judge the money that he's supposed to pay him. You judge it day by day. Those days that he cannot work at all because he has pain, so you pay him the loss of money that he could could have gotten if he would have worked his regular work. Those days that he could work light work, but you don't earn as much as if he would have worked his regular work, so you pay him the difference. The Gemara says here that according to Abaye who says that you give שבת גדולה and שבת קטנה, which means that you pay נזק and you also pay for his loss of work, שפיר, we understand. אלא לרבא, but according to רבא דאמר that he says, אינו נותן לו אלא שבת שבכל יום ויום, that you only give him the שבת, the loss of money from his work day by day, and all this is in a case where a person damaged another person. But in this case, האי שור הוא. In this case, we're talking about a case where the שור, an ox damaged him, and שור אינו משלם אלא נזק, the דין by a שור is that he only pays נזק. When a שור, an ox, damages a person, so the owner of the ox only has to pay for the damage. When we know that there are five things that you pay for if there is a damage caused to a person, and the five things are נזק, צער, ריפוי, שבת, and בושת, that you don't only pay for the damage, but you also pay for the loss of time and work, etc., that only applies if a person hurt another person. But if an ox hurt a person, so the owner of the ox only pays נזק. Now here we see the מחלוקת between Abaye and Rava, in the case where a person hurt another person in such a such a case, whether he pays נזק and שבת, that is according to Abaye, and according to Rava, he only pays שבת and there is no נזק paid whatsoever. In our case, where we're talking about a שור damaging the person, so there is nothing but נזק anyway. So according to Abaye who says that in a case where a person did it, you pay נזק and שבת, in the case where the ox did it, you only pay נזק. But according to Rava, where he says that in the case where a person did it, you only pay שבת, so if an ox did it, you shouldn't have to pay anything, because an ox doesn't pay שבת. So the question is how can you tell me that when we said before that if an ox hurt the עבד, חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, so depends on which day it happened, and we just said that it is speaking in a case where he hurt him on his hand and his hand shriveled, and the end is it'll heal, so according to Abaye who says that you pay nezek and sheves for this, so in this case we understand why he has to pay for this. And if it happened on the day of his master, he pays to the master, if it happened on his own day, you pay to him. But according to Rava who holds that if this happened by an אדם, you only pay sheves, so in this case where it happened through a שור, you shouldn't pay anything. So how could the Gemara say before that if a שור hit a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, you pay money depending on which day it happened, whether it's his own day or the day of his master, you shouldn't have to pay anything, because if a person did it, you only pay sheves, so if a שור did it, and a שור doesn't pay sheves, you shouldn't have to pay anything. And the Gemara answers: Iba'is eima, if you want, I could answer you, כשהיכהו אדם, that that Gemara where it said before that it depends on which day it is, but you definitely have to pay, is takeh not if a ox caused this damage, but if a person caused this damage. And it's obvious that according to that, you will have to change the words of that Gemara, because the Gemara used the לשון before נגחו שור, that if a שור gored him. So according to this pshat, we'll have to change it and say that if a damage was caused to this חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, then it depends on which day it happened. Iba'is eima, and if you want, I can answer you, מימרא היא, that is not a Mishnah, not a Beraisa. This דין that if a שור gored a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, you definitely pay, but it just depends to whom to pay, that is not a Mishnah, not a Beraisa, it wasn't written by Tannaim, it is a מימרא, a saying of Amoraim. ומימרא לרבא לא סבירא ליה. Rava doesn't hold of that מימרא. Rava who is an Amora cannot argue on the Tannaim, he cannot argue on a Mishnah or on a Beraisa, but on a מימרא of other Amoraim, he could argue. So ein hachi nami, that mimra does not fit according to Rava, but it doesn't matter, because Rava argues on that mimra, because Rava is an amora and he could argue on a mimra of amoraim. Then the Gemara continues: Iba'aya lehu, there was a question asked in the ישיבה: מעוכב גט שחרור, if an עבד who is really free, he's just awaiting to get his שטר שחרור, for instance, we learned before that according to one opinion, if the master is מפקיר the עבד, gives up ownership of the עבד, or if the master is מקדיש the עבד, makes the עבד into הקדש, so then the דין is he goes out free, but he still needs to get שחרור. Or the case of our Mishnah of half עבד half בן חורין, that the דין is that you force his master to give him a שטר שחרור and to free him. So before he gets his שטר שחרור, he really is free, because that is the דין that he's supposed to free him. But still he needs a שטר שחרור. And this is the שאלה in the Gemara that if one of these עבדים that are awaiting a שטר שחרור, יש לו קנס או אין לו קנס? If an ox will gore him, and the דין is as we said before, if an ox gores an עבד and kills him, he has to pay

קנס, the 30 shekalim to the master of the עבד. So the question is is, if it happened to one of these עבדים that really are free, they're just missing the גט שחרור, יש לו קנס או אין לו קנס, does the owner of the ox have to pay the קנס, the thirty shekalim to the master of this עבד or not? כסף שלשים שקלים יתן לאדוניו אמר רחמנא, the Torah says you should give thirty shekalim to his master, והאי לאו אדוניו הוא, and in this case he's not really his master because they're really free. או דילמא, or maybe, כיון דמחוסר גט שחרור, since they're still missing the גט שחרור, אדוניו קרינן ביה, we still could call him the master, and therefore the pasuk that says that thirty shekalim have to be given to the master does apply here too, and therefore they do have to pay the thirty shekalim to the master. And the Gemara says תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. We learn in a ברייתא, המית מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, that if a שור killed a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, נותן חצי קנס לרבו וחצי כופר ליורשיו, so he gives half of the kenas, half of the thirty shekalim to his master, and half of the כופר, half of the value of the person who died to his yorshim, to his heirs. So we see here clearly that you do have to pay kenas for this person who is a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, even though the din is that you have to force the master to free him, so he is considered only missing a שטר שחרור, and still here we see that you do pay the kenas to his master. And the

Gemara says מאי לאו, don't you think, כי משנה אחרונה, that this braisa also goes according to the משנה אחרונה, to the second Mishnah? This refers to the opinion that Beit Hillel, after they changed their mind and they agreed to Beit Shammai, that you force the master to free him. So if you say that this braisa goes also according to that opinion, so this braisa is speaking by a person who is a מחוסר גט שחרור, who is just missing a גט שחרור, and still the braisa says that you do give half of the kenas to his master, so we see from here that a מעוכב גט שחרור, somebody who is just awaiting a גט שחרור, you do pay kenas if the the שור will gore him. And the Gemara says לא, no, כי משנה ראשונה, this only goes according to the משנה ראשונה, the first Mishnah, which means according to the way Beit Hillel held in the beginning that you do not force his master to free him, but he works one day for himself and one day for his master. So according to that, he is not considered a מעוכב גט שחרור, he is not free at all because we will not force his master to free him. So according to that, we say that there is a din of kenas and it goes to his master. But according to the משנה אחרונה that says that you force his master to free him and he is considered a מעוכב גט שחרור, maybe according to that there is no קנס. So we have no ראיה and no answer to the question that we asked before. Then the Gemara continues, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer it to you from a different place. We

learn in a Beraita: הפיל את שינו וסימא את עינו, if a master knocked out the tooth of his עבד and then blinded his eye, the דין is that if a master knocks out a tooth of his עבד or blinds his eye, automatically the עבד goes out free. And really the חכמים learn out that this is not only by these two אברים, these two limbs, but also there are twenty-four ראשי אברים, twenty-four different parts of the body, that if the master damages one of those twenty-four parts, then the עבד automatically goes out free. But here is a case where he first knocked out his tooth, and then he blinded his eye. So the ברייתא says: יוצא בשינו ונותן דמי עינו. He goes out free for the first act, since he knocked out his tooth he's automatically free. Then when he blinded his eye, he blinded an eye of a free person, so he has to pay him for the damage of the eye. And at this point the Gemara feels that when the דין is that if you knock out the eye or the tooth of an עבד he goes out free, he still needs a גט שחרור afterwards. So according to that the Gemara asks, ואי אמרת יש לו קנס, if you're going to say that a מעוכב גט שחרור, somebody who is really free, he's just awaiting the גט שחרור, still there is a דין of קנס, and if a a שור will gore him and kill him there will be still the דין of thirty שקלים וקנס לרבו, and those thirty שקלים would go to his master because he's still considered his master, השתא דחבלו ביה אחריני יהבי ליה לרביה, so if others would do some harm, damage to him, they would have to pay the money for the damage to his master, חבל ביה רביה גופיה יהיב ליה לדידיה? If his master himself did the damage to him, has to give him the money? If the דין is that any damage done to an עבד after he is free before he gets the שטר שחרור, the money for the damage goes to the master, so if the master himself damaged that עבד in that status, certainly he would not have to pay him any money. So in this case, why does the ברייתא say that after he knocked out his tooth, he blinded his eye, he has to pay him for his eye? Since when he knocked out his tooth, even though he goes out free, he's still considered a מעוכב גט שחרור, still awaiting the גט שחרור, and in a case like that, if the דין is that the קנס goes to the master, so certainly his master does not have to pay him for any damage done to him. So that seems to prove that by מעוכב גט שחרור there is no דין of קנס, and if a שור would kill this עבד, then he would not have to pay קנס to his master. Then the Gemara says, דילמא maybe כמאן דאמר אינו צריך. Maybe this Beraisa goes according to the one that holds that if you knock out the tooth of your עבד, you don't have to give him a גט שחרור. So therefore this עבד is not considered a מעוכב גט שחרור, and that is the reason why afterwards if he knocked out his eye, he has to pay him. But we have no proof what would be the דין of a מעוכב גט שחרור. דתניא, we learn in a ברייתא, בכולן, by all of these parts of the body that if they're damaged by the master, the עבד goes out free, the דין is that עבד יוצא בהם לחירות, the עבד goes out for them free, וצריך גט שחרור מרבו, but he still needs a גט שחרור from his master. דברי

רבי ישמעאל, that is the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael. רבי מאיר אומר, Rabbi Meir says אינו צריך, he does not need a גט שחרור from his master. רבי אלעזר אומר צריך, Rabbi Elazar says he does need a גט שחרור. רב טרפון אומר אינו צריך, Rav Tarfon says he does not need a גט שחרור. רבי עקיבא אומר צריך, Rabbi Akiva says he does need a גט שחרור. והמכריעים לפני חכמים אומרים, but those that were sitting in front of the Chachamim to determine the הלכה, they said נראין דברי רב טרפון בשן ועין. The opinion of Rav Tarfon seems to be right only in the case of שן ועין, only if the master knocked out a tooth or knocked out the eye of his slave, so then the דין is that he does not need a גט שחרור, הואיל ותורה זיכתה לו, because the Torah said that he is זוכה himself, that he becomes free. ודברי רבי עקיבא, the opinion of Rabbi Akiva seems to be right, that he does need a גט שחרור בשאר איברים, if the עבד would be going out free by the damage of any other of the 24 different parts of the body, הואיל וקנס חכמים הוא, since that is only a fine that the חכמים made. The reason that the עבד goes out free if that happens by the other 24 איברים is only a fine of the חכמים. So since it's only a דין מדרבנן, therefore, he would still need a גט שחרור. So the Gemara asks, קנס הוא, how could you refer to it as קנס, as a fine of the רבנן? קראי קא דרשינהו, they learn it out from פסוקים. The חכמים learned it out from the דין of נגעים. The דין by a נגע is, if someone has leprosy, so the Torah says that you have to go to the כהן, and he's supposed to look at it, and say whether it's טהור or טמא. And the Torah uses a לשון לכל מראה עיני הכהן, that it has to be in front of the eyes of the כהן. So we learn out that it has to be in a place that the כהן could see it all together at the same time. But if it's on the tip of certain parts of the body that it cannot be seen all together because it's curvy, so those נגעים are not טמא. And we learn out the דין of עבד from the דין of נגעים, that if the master damaged his עבד in any of those איברים that by נגעים it would be טהור, so the עבד goes out free from that damage. So this is not a קנס of the חכמים, this is a דרש that is learned out from different פסוקים. So that's what the Gemara asks, how can the Gemara say that the reason in this case you need a שטר שחרור, because it is a קנס of the חכמים, when really it's not a קנס of the חכמים, it is a דרש that the חכמים learn out from the Torah? So the Gemara says, Ela eima, but say differently: הואיל ומדרש חכמים הוא. That since it's a derash of the chachamim, so therefore in this case you need a שטר שחרור. By the case of שן ועין, since it's written clearly in the Torah, so there the דין is that he goes out free right away, and he does not need a שטר שחרור. But the case of the other איברים that the עבד goes out free, since it's only a derash that the chachamim learn out from the Torah, that it's not outright clearly in the Torah, so there the דין is that he needs a גט שחרור. And the reason for that is, as Tosafot explains, that since it's not written clearly in the Torah, not everyone knows that דין that an עבד goes out free by those ראשי אברים. And it's possible his master will not know that דין either. So his master could meet him in the street later and say, "You know, you're still my עבד." And even though he'll tell him, "I was freed because of the damage you caused to one of my איברים," he'll say that that is not enough to make you free. And therefore he needs a גט שחרור, so if he'll have a גט שחרור he'll be able to show that he is definitely a free person. But by the case of שן ועין, since it's clearly in the Torah that an עבד goes out free if his master knocked out his tooth or knocked out his eye, so here we are not afraid that his master will say he's still an עבד, and therefore in a case like that, there is no need for a גט שחרור. Then the Gemara continues, Iba'aya lehu, there was a question asked in the ישיבה: מעוכב גט שחרור אוכל בתרומה או אינו אוכל? That if an עבד who still needs a גט שחרור, he was really freed, but he's still missing the גט שחרור, and he was an עבד of a כהן, can he eat terumah or not? Because the דין is that an עבד that belongs to a כהן could eat terumah, because the Torah says that anybody who is קנין כספו, who is the property of a כהן, is allowed to eat תרומה just like the כהן himself. So the שאלה here is, this עבד that belonged to a כהן, but now he is in a position that he is free, but still needs the גט שחרור, does that mean that he is still the עבד of the כהן, and he still could eat תרומה, or is he considered a free person, and he cannot eat תרומה? And the Gemara explains the question: קניין קניין כספו אמר רחמנא, the Torah says that who could eat תרומה? If he is קניין כספו, he is his possession, he belongs to him, he is his money, his property. והאי לאו קניין כספיה הוא, but this one is not really his property, because he was freed already, he is not the קניין כספו, the property of the כהן. או דילמא, or maybe, כיוון דמחוסר גט שחרור, since he is still missing the גט שחרור, קניין כספו קרינן ביה, we still could call him קניין כספו? He still is considered as if he belongs to his master the כהן? And the Gemara says, תא שמע, come here, I will answer you. דאמר Rav Mesharshiya, רב משרשיא said—and really what Rav Mesharshiya is going to say is a clear Mishnah in Yevamot. And here on the גיליון of the Gemara, he takeh asks the קשיא: how come the Gemara here quotes it in the name of Rav Mesharshiya and the Gemara doesn't quote it directly from the Mishnah in Yevamot? But whatever it is, we learned: הכהנת שנתערב ולדה בולד שפחתה, a כהנת, a woman who was married to a כהן and had a child, so her child is a כהן, but her child got mixed with the child of her שפחה. Her שפחה also gave birth to a child, and the two children were mixed up, and we do not know which child is the כהן and which child is the עבד, which child is the son of the כהנת and which child is the son of the שפחה. So the din is: הרי אלו אוכלין בתרומה, both of them could eat terumah. Because one of them is a kohen, the son of the כהנת is a kohen, the son of the שפחה is an eved of a kohen because his mother belongs to the kohen, so the child, the eved, is an eved of a kohen, and an eved of a kohen could also eat terumah, so mima nafshach both could eat terumah, even though we don't know which one is a kohen or which one is the eved, but an eved of a kohen could eat terumah and a kohen could eat terumah, so both of them could eat terumah. וחולקין חלק אחד על הגורן, and they both collect one share at the threshing floor where they give out the terumah. You can't give each one a separate share, because one of them is the eved of a kohen, and the eved of a kohen could eat terumah, but he himself cannot get a share of terumah. He can only eat from the terumah of his master. So therefore, since one of them is a kohen, so there is one share that is supposed to be given to them. So they get one share, and then they both take part in that one share. But as Rashi says, they could only be given that share if they both come together, because if only one of them will come, maybe he is the eved of a kohen, and the din is that you do not give terumah to the eved of a kohen. Even if the eved of a kohen comes to collect the share of his master, you do not give him terumah, because this Mishnah holds that if you see a person collecting terumah, this is enough evidence to consider him a kohen. So if we're going to allow an eved of a kohen to collect terumah, other people are going to think that he's a kohen himself. So therefore an eved of a kohen is not allowed to collect terumah. So in this case none of them are allowed to collect terumah, because each one is a safek, maybe he is the eved of a kohen. But if they both together come to collect terumah, so then they could get one share, because we know that one of them is a kohen, so then people will know that they are not going to be considered definitely both as kohanim. Then the Mishnah continues: הגדילו התערובות, if this mixture grew up, meaning when these two children grow up, משחררין זה את זה, so one frees the other. Since one of them is the eved, and the other one is the kohen who's automatically the master of the eved because his father was the master of this eved, and eventually the child becomes the master himself. So since we don't know which one it is, so each one gives the other a שטר שחרור, so automatically the eved is free. And from here the Gemara wants to answer the question we had before. Our question was that if an eved who was freed, but he was just missing a שטר שחרור, does he eat terumah from his master or not? So here we see that he does, because the Gemara considers both of these children as מעוכב גט שחרור. Since the din will be eventually that one will free the other, so before it happened, they are considered מעוכב גט שחרור. They are really going to be free, all they're missing is the שטר שחרור, so they are considered מעוכב גט שחרור, and nevertheless we see in the Mishnah that they do eat terumah. So we see from here, the Gemara wants to say, that a מעוכב גט שחרור is allowed to eat terumah. And the Gemara answers: hakhi hashta, what kind of comparison is it? התם, in the case of that משנה, אם יבוא אליהו ויאמר, if אליהו will come and he will say דחד מינייהו, on one of them, עבדא הוא, that he is the eved, if Eliyahu Hanavi, who is the one that will answer all the questions, will come and verify and say that one of these is the עבד, and will point out on which one is the עבד, so קניין כספו קרינן ביה, so he will be considered קניין כספו. He will be considered the property of the other one, and he will be able to eat terumah anyway. So mima nafshach he's able to eat terumah, because even if he would verify that he is the עבד, he could eat terumah as an עבד of a kohen. But הכא, but here in the case where he's a regular מעוכב גט שחרור, he was freed from his master the kohen, the only thing that he is missing is the שטר שחרור. So here לאו קניין כספו הוא כלל, here could be he is not considered קניין כספו. Over there in the Mishnah, even though eventually he's going to get a שטר שחרור, but at this point there is no reason why he shouldn't eat terumah, because even if he is definitely an עבד, he could eat terumah. But over there, in the case of a regular מעוכב גט שחרור, the she'elah is whether he is bikhlal considered קניין כספו or not, and therefore we cannot prove from this Mishnah that a מעוכב גט שחרור is allowed to eat terumah. Tosafos just asks a kashya on the din of the Mishnah itself: How could these two children eat terumah, if we don't know who is the kohen and who is the עבד? Since we have a din in Ketubos that a kohen who we don't know who his father is is not allowed to eat terumah, because he has to be a kohen that is מיוחס to his father, but if he is not מיוחס, he cannot eat terumah. And in this case, since we don't know which one is the kohen, so we don't know which one is מיוחס to his father the kohen, so therefore both of them shouldn't be able to eat terumah. And Tosafot answers one tirutz, as the Gemara says in Yevamot, that this whole din that a kohen has to be מיוחס to his father in order to eat terumah is only a דין דרבנן. So the רבנן only said that din in the case of זנות, if the reason we don't know who his father is because his father was מזנה with somebody and we don't know who it was. But in the case of marriage and they just got mixed up, there is no such din that the only way he could eat terumah if he's מיוחס. And another tirutz Tosafot gives, that here, they were born we knew who the father was, they got mixed up after birth. So since when they were born we knew that he was the kohen, so automatically he was allowed to eat terumah, now that they got mixed up, the din, the heter of eating terumah still remains.