Jewish audio on Chabad.org. This שיעור will be מסכת גיטין דף מ״ג. We will start on דף מ״ב עמוד ב׳, six lines from the bottom of the עמוד. And the גמרא here is still discussing all the different דינים of an עבד כנעני. And the גמרא starts: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked in the ישיבה: עבד שמכרו רבו לקנס, an עבד that his master sold him to someone else just for the קנס. As we learned before, the דין is that if a שור, an ox, gores an עבד and kills him, so the owner of the ox has to pay a fixed amount of money as fine to the master of the עבד, and that is 30 שקלים. And the שאלה in the גמרא is, if someone sold his עבד only for the קנס, he sold the rights of collecting the קנס if the עבד will ever be gored by an ox, the question is: מכור או אינו מכור? Is it sold or is it not sold? Does this sale take effect? Since at the moment it's being sold there is no money value at all, because he was not gored yet, so the question is, can he sell the rights now of something that's going to happen later? And really we have an argument between רבי מאיר and the רבנן, as the גמרא will bring soon, whether a person could be מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, whether a person could give away, be מקנה to somebody else, something that didn't come to the world yet, something that doesn't exist yet. And the

מחלוקת is that רבי מאיר holds אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, that a person can be מקנה, can give away something that still doesn't exist, and the חכמים hold אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, a person cannot give away something that doesn't exist yet. For instance, if someone sells somebody else a דקלא לפירותיו, which means he sells him a palm tree for the פירות, he says that the פירות that are going to grow on this palm tree are sold to you. And even though the פירות are not there yet, the fruit hadn't grown yet, still רבי מאיר holds that this sale is valid, and when the fruit grow, that person keeps the fruit. While the רבנן hold that אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, so therefore, since the fruit don't exist yet, so he cannot sell him that fruit. So the גמרא's question here is, in the case of the עבד, when he sold the right to collect the fine that will be paid for the עבד, is that sale a sale or not? And the גמרא explains that we shouldn't think that the answer to this question would be that it depends on the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the רבנן, that according to רבי מאיר who holds that a person could sell something that doesn't exist yet, so in this case too, the sale should be a sale, according to the רבנן who hold a person cannot sell something that doesn't exist, so this sale wouldn't be a sale. So the גמרא says it is not so: תיבעי לרבי מאיר תיבעי לרבנן. The question here is even according to רבי מאיר, and the question is also according to the רבנן. And the גמרא explains why: תיבעי לרבי מאיר, we have a question even according to רבי מאיר, because עד כאן לא קאמר רבי מאיר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, where do we find that רבי מאיר holds that a person can give away something that didn't come into the world yet, אלא כגון פירות דקל דעבידי דאתו, in the case where he sells the fruit of a palm tree, and there he holds that the sale is valid because they will definitely come, even though the fruit is not there yet, but normally, under normal circumstances, the fruit will grow, so therefore he holds that a sale like that is valid. אבל הכא, but in this case, מי יימר דמינגח, who says it'll ever come?

Firstly, who says that an ox will ever gore this עבד? ואם תמצי לומר דמינגח, and even if an ox will gore this עבד, ממאי דמשלם, how do we know that there will ever be a payment, because דילמא מודה ומפטר, maybe the owner of the ox will admit and he will be פטור, because the דין is that מודה בקנס פטור, that any payment, any חיוב ממון, that is under the category of קנס, of a fine, the דין is that if the person who is obligated to pay that fine, if he admits without עדים, witnesses, coming to testify that the thing was done, then he is פטור. The דין of קנס only applies if two witnesses come and say that a person did so and so, and therefore he has to pay the fine, then he pays the fine. For instance, if someone steals, so the דין by a גנב is that you have to pay כפל, double. You pay back the principal that you stole, plus you pay double, which is כפל. So the דין is that if the person himself admits that he stole, without witnesses coming, so then he only pays the principal, but the fine, the extra part, he does not pay. And the same applies to the payment of thirty שקלים for the נגיחה of an עבד. Since the payment of the thirty שקלים is considered a קנס, a fine, as we see that the תורה set aside a fixed amount for payment of this נגיחה, of this goring, that shows that it is not payment for the damage, but it is a fine. So this דין, that if you admit on the fine you are פטור, applies to this דין, too. So if ever a שור, an ox, would gore or kill an עבד, and the owner of the ox would admit before the witnesses come, then he would be פטור from paying that fine. And that's what the גמרא says: how do you know that it'll ever come for this fine to be paid? Even if he will be gored by an ox, maybe the owner of the ox will admit and he will be פטור from paying the fine? So therefore, maybe in a case like this, רבי מאיר is מודה that a person cannot sell something that doesn't exist, and we are not sure even that it'll ever come. And

also, ותיבעי לרבנן, the question is also according to the רבנן who hold that a person cannot be מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, but maybe in this case they would admit that you could sell the rights to collect the fine if it'll ever happen, because עד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן אין אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם, because when do the רבנן say that a person cannot be מקנה something that didn't come into the world yet? אלא כגון פירות דקל, only in the case of the fruit of the tree, דהשתא מיהא ליתנהו, because now when he is making the sale, the fruit isn't there yet, so it's actually not in the world yet. And therefore, they hold you cannot sell that. אבל הכא, but in the case of the עבד, הכא שור והכא עבד, the שור that might gore him is existing, the עבד that we're dealing with that might be gored is existing. So maybe in a case like that, even though the act didn't happen yet, and his חיוב, the obligation of payment didn't come yet, but since the objects that are involved here are existing, maybe the רבנן would admit that you could sell and you could give away something that didn't come into the world under such circumstances. And the question is מאי, what is the דין? אמר רבא, so רבא said, תא שמע, come here, I will answer your question.

There's a פסוק that says, ויליד בית. This is a פסוק in פרשת אמור, פרק כ״ב, פסוק י״א. Now I'll quote the whole פסוק. The פסוק speaks about the דינים of תרומה, who could eat תרומה. So the תורה says, וכהן כי יקנה נפש קנין כספו, a כהן that will buy a נפש that belongs to him, his property, הוא יאכל בו, he could eat. That means that an עבד of a כהן, an עבד כנעני, could eat תרומה. Then the תורה continues, ויליד ביתו, and those that were born in his house, הם יאכלו בלחמו, they could eat in his bread. And that means those עבדים that were born from his שפחות. That if a כהן owned שפחות, female goyishe slaves, the children that they have are עבדים, so they also are able to eat from the תרומה of the כהן. So the ברייתא asks: מה תלמוד לומר? Why does the תורה have to tell us that the children of the שפחות of the כהן are allowed to eat תרומה? Because we would understand it ourselves: אם קנין כסף אוכל, if those that he bought with money, they are able to eat from the תרומה, יליד בית לא כל שכן? Those that were born in his house, those עבדים that were born already when the mother belonged to the כהן, certainly are able to eat תרומה. And the ברייתא answers: אילו כן הייתי אומר, if so, if the תורה wouldn't mention separately that those that are born in the house of the כהן could eat תרומה, so I would think, מה קנין כסף שיש בו שוה כסף אוכל, that just like קנין כסף has a worth of money, has at least the worth of a פרוטה, cuz when you buy an עבד, he definitely has the worth of a פרוטה, because otherwise it's not called קנין כסף, you're not קונה anything. In order to be קונה something, it has to have the value of a פרוטה. So just like קנין כספו that is mentioned in the פסוק has the worth of a פרוטה, אף יליד בית, so too, the עבד that was born in the house of the כהן, שיש בו שוה כסף אוכל, only if that עבד happens to be worth a פרוטה, he could eat. ומנין, and how would we know, שאף על פי שאינו שוה כלום, that even if that עבד is not worth anything, he still could eat? Because there is a possibility for an עבד not to be worth even a פרוטה. If he is sick and there is no use in the עבד, so then he's not even worth a פרוטה. So I would think that when could an עבד that was born in the house of a כהן eat תרומה? Only if he is worth at least a פרוטה. But I wouldn't know if he's not worth a פרוטה that he could also eat. Therefore, תלמוד לומר יליד בית, therefore the תורה tells us separately, יליד בית, that an עבד that is born in the house of a כהן could eat תרומה to teach us מכל מקום, that in any way, as long as he is born in the house of a כהן and he is the עבד of the כהן, whether he is worth a פרוטה or not, he is able to eat תרומה. עדיין אני אומר, but still I would think יליד בית, בין שיש בו שוה כסף, בין שאין בו שוה כסף, אוכל, that this יליד בית, this עבד that was born in the house of the כהן, he could eat תרומה whether he's worth a פרוטה or not, as we just learned out, because the תורה puts an extra word, ויליד בית. But קנין כסף, יש בו שוה כסף אוכל, אין בו שוה כסף אינו אוכל. But I would think, the one that was bought by the כהן, so there the דין should be that if he has a שוה פרוטה, then he could eat תרומה, but if he doesn't, he shouldn't eat תרומה, because we have no special ראיה that the one that was bought by the כהן, even if he doesn't have a שוה פרוטה he still could eat, because the word קנין כסף would be implying that he has to be worth at least a פרוטה. תלמוד לומר, so we have a לימוד we learn out from the פסוק, since the פסוק puts together the two words, קנין כספו, ויליד ביתו, the one that he bought for his money and the one that was born in his house, so we combine the two and we learn out one from the other and we say, מה יליד בית, just like the יליד בית, the one that was born in the house of the כהן, אף על פי שאינו שוה כלום אוכל, even if he's not worth anything, he still could eat, as we learned out before, אף קנין כספו, the same applies to the עבד that he bought for his money, אף על פי שאינו שוה כלום, even if he's not worth anything, אוכל, he still could eat. This is the ברייתא. And from this ברייתא the גמרא wants to prove that ואי סלקא דעתך עבד שמכרו רבו לקנס מכור, that if you're gonna think that if the master sold his עבד just for קנס, just the rights to collect the קנס, the sale is valid, מי איכא עבדא דלא מזדבן לקנסא? Is there such a thing that an עבד should not be worth a פרוטה, that an עבד should not be able to be sold for the קנס? In other words, the ברייתא mentions a possibility of an עבד not being worth a פרוטה. How's that possible? A פרוטה you could always get for the עבד. If he would just sell the עבד for the קנס, that if ever a שור will gore that עבד and kill him, the קנס will go to the buyer, so then there would definitely be a customer that would buy the עבד for a פרוטה. Everybody would invest a פרוטה that he might on that פרוטה make thirty שקלים. So how can there be a possibility of an עבד not being worth a פרוטה? And since the ברייתא does mention that there is an עבד not worth a פרוטה, that shows that if you would sell the עבד for the קנס, the sale would not be valid. And therefore, there could be an עבד not worth a פרוטה. And the גמרא says, אין, yes, there is a possibility for an עבד not to be able to be sold for the קנס. In other words, could be the דין is that if you sell the עבד for the קנס, then the sale is valid. Ah, you asked, if so, how can there be a possibility of an עבד not being worth even a פרוטה? Because there is a possibility of an עבד that you cannot sell him for the קנס. איכא עבד טריפה. There is an עבד that is טריפה. טריפה means if he is sick with such a sickness that he will die. And the דין is that in a case like that, the owner of the שור would be פטור. If a שור gores an עבד that was טריפה, so the owner of the שור does not have to pay the thirty שקלים. So the case of the ברייתא where it says that there is a possibility for an עבד not even to be worth a פרוטה must be in the case where the עבד was טריפה, so he himself is not worth anything, to sell him for his קנס you can't either because there is no קנס in that case, and that is an עבד that is not worth a פרוטה. But the

גמרא asks, והא חזי למקם קמיה, even though he is טריפה, but still you could, he could stand in front of his buyer, he could do some light work. So even though you can't sell him for the קנס, but till he dies he still could do some light work, at least that's worth a פרוטה, so he could also be sold for a פרוטה. So we're back to the question, how can there be an עבד not worth a פרוטה? And the גמרא answers, במנוול ומוכה שחין, a disgusting, sick עבד full of boils, etc. And he is also a טריפה. So an עבד like that, he cannot do any work, people don't want him for the work, so therefore they won't pay a פרוטה for his work. They can't pay a פרוטה for the קנס because since he is טריפה, there is no קנס, so an עבד like that is not worth anything. Then the גמרא continues, איבעיא להו, there was an איבעיא, a question asked in the ישיבה, מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין שקידש בת חורין מהו? An עבד who was half עבד and half free, and he gave קידושין to a בת חורין, to a regular free Jewish woman, מהו, what is the דין? Is she מקודשת or is she not מקודשת? And it would seem that this could be answered very simply. Because we find a דין by קידושין, that if a man says to a woman, you should be מקודשת to half of me, so the דין is that she is מקודשת. On the other hand, if a man says to a woman, half of you should be מקודשת to me, the דין is that she is not מקודשת. So we could compare this case here to one of the two cases. If we compare it to the first case, where the man says, "You should be מקודשת to half of me," so in this case too, when he is a half עבד and half בן חורין, so when he is מקדש the woman, it's as if he is מקדש only to half of himself. So just like the דין by קידושין is that if a person says, "You should be מקודשת to half of me," she is מקודשת, in this case she also should be מקודשת, because half of him is a בן חורין, so she is מקודשת to half of him and that is possible. On the other hand, if we're going to compare it to the second case, so in this case which should be definite that she is not מקודשת. Just like over there we say that if he says to a woman, "Half of you should be מקודשת to me," she is not מקודשת, the same here, that when the עבד is מקדש her to half of him, because he is half בן חורין only, the דין should also be he is not מקודשת. And that's what the גמרא is going to discuss, that we cannot compare this case to both of those cases. And the גמרא explains: אם תמצי לומר, if you're going to tell me and you're going to want to compare this case to the דין of a בן ישראל שאמר לבת ישראל, a regular Jewish man said to a regular Jewish woman, "התקדשי לחציי, be מקודשת to half of me," מקודשת, she is מקודשת. So here too, the דין should be that she is מקודשת. I could tell you, over there, דחזיא לכוליה, she is ראויה to be מקודשת to him completely. In other words, he could have been מקדש her to himself completely. So therefore, when he says, "You should be מקודשת to half of me," he didn't mean to say that only half of me should be your husband. What he meant to say was that I want to leave myself the right to marry another wife. But the קידושין that he gave her is 100% קידושין. So therefore, over there we say the קידושין is קידושין. But in this case, פה here לא חזיא לכוליה, she is not fit to be married to him completely, since half of him is an עבד. So here, she is not able to be מקודשת to him completely. Maybe in a case like that, the קידושין is not קידושין. אם תמצי לומר, if you're going to want to say and compare this to a case of בן ישראל המקדש חצי אשה, אינה מקודשת, that if a ייד gives קידושין to half of the woman, she is not מקודשת, and you want to say the same thing here, if he gives קידושין to that woman, it is half of him that is being married, because he is only half בן חורין, so also the קידושין should not be קידושין. So I could make a difference, the גמרא says. Over there, דשייר בקנייניה, over there when he was מקדש half of the woman, he left over half of the קניין. You can't explain him that he meant to say that she should be able to marry another man, that he leaves over the right that she should be able to marry another man, because a woman who is married cannot marry another man. So what must we say? That he actually meant only half of her should be מקודשת. So since she is a complete בת חורין, a regular Jewish woman, and he could marry her completely, so when he said, "I'm only marrying half of you," he left out half of the קניין. And that you cannot do, and therefore the דין is that she is not מקודשת. But והא, but in this case, עבד לא שייר בקנייניה, here he didn't leave anything of the קניין. As much as he was able to give into קידושין, he gave. Since he is only half בן חורין, so that half, that complete half of him being a בן חורין, he was מקדש to her. So maybe in a case like that, the קידושין should be חל. When is the קידושין not חל? When you could give the קידושין to the complete woman and you don't. But when you're not able to give anymore, so then maybe the קידושין is חל. מאי, what is the דין? The גמרא says, "תא שמע, come hear, I'll try to answer your question. We learn in the ברייתא, same ברייתא that we mentioned in the דף before, המית מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין, that if an ox gored and killed the one that was half עבד and half בן חורין, נותן חצי קנס לרבו וחצי כופר ליורשיו. The דין as we mentioned before is that if a שור kills an עבד, you pay קנס, the 30 שקלים. If a שור kills a בן חורין, then you don't pay קנס, you pay כופר. כופר is money that this person that died was worth, the value of the person. So here, since he was half עבד and half בן חורין, so the owner of the שור has to pay half קנס and half כופר. And that's what the ברייתא says: He pays half קנס and gives it to his master, and then he pays half כופר, half of his value, and gives it to the יורשים, to the heirs of this חצי עבד חצי בן חורין. Now the גמרא asks, ואי אמרת קידושיו לאו קידושין, if you're going to tell me that when a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין gives קידושין, the קידושין don't take effect, יורשים מנא ליה, how does he have heirs? How does he have יורשים? And since the ברייתא says you would have to pay half of the כופר to his יורשים, obviously he was able to be married and to have children to have יורשים. So we have an answer to the question that a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין that was מקדש a Jewish woman, the קידושין is קידושין.

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה, רב אדא בר אהבה said, "No, there's no proof from there. It could be כשעשאו טריפה, that the case is where the שור didn't actually kill this חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, he just made him into a טריפה. He hurt him so that he's going to die eventually, and that's why you have to pay. But when it says that you have to pay half of a כופר to the יורשים, ומאי יורשיו? What does it mean if you give to his heirs? It means נפשיה, it means himself. It doesn't mean to his heirs, it means you give it to him, because he didn't die yet, and on the other hand you have to pay the money, so you pay half of the כופר to him. But it doesn't mean that he has יורשים, and therefore we have no ראיה that the קידושין of a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין is קידושין." אמר רבא, so רבא said, "שתי תשובות בדבר, I have two answers on this, two objections to your פשט. חדא, one, דיורשיו קתני, it says clearly in the ברייתא that you give the כופר to the יורשים, and you're telling me that the ברייתא means he gives the כופר to

himself. ועוד, another reason why you can't say your פשט, כופר הוא, since this is כופר, we're dealing here with the כופר that a person has to pay if his ox killed a person, ואמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש had said, כופר אינו משתלם אלא לאחר מיתה, that כופר isn't paid until after the person dies. In other words, according to ריש לקיש, if a שור gores a person, and the person becomes טריפה that will eventually die, but he didn't die yet, there is still no obligation of paying כופר. After the person will die, that's when the owner of the שור has to pay כופר. So in this case, when you said that whom does he pay? To himself. And the reason is because he made him into a טריפה, if he made him into a טריפה, there is no כופר to begin with. But now we're back to the question. So what does the ברייתא mean that you have to pay half of the כופר to his יורשים if it is a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, and he actually died, how does he have יורשים? So

again, we're back to the proof that if a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין gives קידושין to a woman, the קידושין is קידושין." אלא אמר רבא, so רבא said, "No, there is no proof from that ברייתא. איי, what did the ברייתא mean that you give כופר to the יורשים? It means ראוי ליטול ואין לו. It was fit for him to take the כופר, but he doesn't have. Since he died, and he is a half a בן חורין, really there is an obligation of payment of כופר here, and who should it really go? To his יורשים. But since he has no יורשים, so there is no כופר. So the owner of the ox who has to give the כופר, but has nobody to give it to, doesn't have to give it. He holds onto it and keeps it. So when the ברייתא said that you pay half of the כופר to the יורשים, it doesn't mean actually that you have to give it to the יורשים, he has no יורשים. What it means is, it would be fit to give to his יורשים if he would have had יורשים, but since he doesn't have, you don't give any כופר." Then the גמרא continues, אמר רבא, רבא said, כשם שהמקדש חצי אשה אינה מקודשת, just like if someone gives קידושין to half of a woman, he says to her, "Half of you should be מקודש to me," she is not מקודש, כך חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין שנתקדשה, if a woman who was half slave and half בת חורין, half free, and she got קידושין from a regular Jewish man, אין קידושיה קידושין, her קידושין are not קידושין, because really this is the same case, because she is getting קידושין for half of herself, and we said the דין that if you give קידושין to half of a woman, the קידושין is not קידושין. So here too, since she is only half free, so the קידושין would only be to half of her, so the קידושין are not קידושין. דרש רבה בר רב הונא, רבה בר רב הונא דרשנ'ד, and he said the same thing, that כשם שהמקדש חצי אשה אינה מקודשת, just like if you give קידושין to half of a woman, she is not מקודש, כך חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין שנתקדשה אינה מקודשת, the same, if a half שפחה half בת חורין got קידושין, she is not מקודשת. אמר ליה רב חסדא, רב חסדא said to him, מי דמי? How could you compare the two? התם שייר בקניינו. In the case of a regular Jewish woman who got קידושין only for half of her, he left over part of the קנין. Since he was able to be מקדש her completely, and he only was מקדש half of her, so he left half of the קנין that he should have been מקדש, and therefore the קידושין is not חל. But הכא in this case, in the case of half שפחה half בת חורין, לא שייר בקניינו, he didn't leave anything over. He was מקדש of her as much as as possible, because she is only half בת חורין, so only half of her could be מקודש, and that half he was מקדש. So maybe in this case, the קידושין should be חל, since he didn't leave over anything. גמרא continues, הדר אוקים רבה בר רב הונא אמורא עליה.

Later on, when רבה בר רב הונא set up an אמורא, set up a מתורגמן. In those times when the חכמים used to speak in public, they used to have a מתורגמן, a person who would repeat what they said in public. So רבה בר רב הונא set up a מתורגמן, ודרש, and he told him to דרשן, to start his דרשה with this פסוק: והמכשלה הזאת תחת ידך. This stumbling block is under your hand. And as רש''י explains at length, this פסוק refers to the תורה. So he told him to דרשן that why does the פסוק refer to the תורה with the term מכשלה, a stumbling block? To teach us that אין אדם עומד על דברי תורה, a person does not stand on the words of תורה, which means a person cannot be clear in the words of תורה, אלא אם כן נכשל בהן, unless he first stumbled over them. First he made a mistake. After you make a mistake, and then you want to know the truth, the real פשט, so later on, you will have the דין clear. And he meant to say that he too made a mistake in a דין that he said before: that אף על פי שאמרו המקדש חצי אשה אינה מקודשת, that even though the דין is that if you give קידושין to half of a woman, she is not מקודשת, אבל חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין שנתקדשה, but if half שפחה, half בת חורין got קידושין, קידושיה קידושין, the קידושין are קידושין. And this is what he meant to say: before he had said that also by a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין, the קידושין is not קידושין, because he compared it to the case of a person giving קידושין to half a woman. So after he realized this mistake, he said that even though by the case of giving קידושין to half a woman, she is not מקודשת, but by חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין she is מקודשת. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? התם שייר בקנייניה, over there he left over part of the קנין. Since he could have been מקדש her completely, and he wasn't, the קידושין is not קידושין. הכא, but in the case of חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין, לא שייר בקנייניה, he didn't leave over anything in the קנין, because there wasn't anything more he could have been מקדש, and therefore the קידושין is קידושין. אמר רב ששת, רב ששת said, כשם שהמקדש חצי אשה אינה מקודשת, just like if you מקדש half a woman she is not מקודשת, כך חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין שנתקדשה אין קידושיה קידושין. The same if a half שפחה, half בת חורין received קידושין, her קידושין is not קידושין. In other words, he argues on what the גמרא said before. And then he continued saying: ואם לחשך אדם לומר, if someone will whisper into your ear to say, to ask a קשיא on my דין, and will say: איזו היא שפחה חרופה? We know, what is a שפחה חרופה? The דין in the חומש that if there was a שפחה חרופה, and somebody had relations with her, the דין is that that person has to bring a קרבן אשם. So it says, what is a שפחה חרופה? זו שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין המאורסה לעבד עברי, a half שפחה, half בת חורין who was מקודש to an עבד עברי. The reason we mention עבד עברי here is because he is allowed to marry a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. Since the דין is that an עבד עברי, a Jewish slave that sold himself to another ייד for six years, so if he has his own wife and children, his master is allowed to give him a שפחה, and he is allowed to live with that שפחה. So the דין of a שפחה חרופה is if she got קידושין from an עבד עברי, and there was no עבירה involved, because he could live with her ממה נפשך. The half of her being free, so since he is Jewish, that half of her is also Jewish, there is no problem. The half of her being a שפחה is also no problem, since he is an עבד עברי, he is allowed to marry a שפחה. So if an עבד עברי gave קידושין to a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין, she is called a שפחה חרופה. And that's where the whole פסוק goes on saying that you have to bring a קרבן אשם if anybody had relations with her. But anyway, אלמא, we see from here, בת אירוסי היא, that she is able to receive קידושין. Because we say that she got קידושין from that עבד עברי. So you could ask the question, he said, but how could I say that a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין cannot receive קידושין, the קידושין is not קידושין, here we see that the קידושין is קידושין. So if someone will ask you that question, אמור לו, tell him, קלח אצל רבי ישמעאל. Go to רבי ישמעאל. שהוא אומר, רבי ישמעאל says, בשפחה כנענית המאורסת לעבד עברי. He argues on that what we said before, that a שפחה חרופה is a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין. He holds that a שפחה חרופה is a regular שפחה כנענית, a regular גויישע female slave. And the case of a שפחה חרופה in the תורה is if she had קידושין from an עבד עברי, and then someone had relations with her, then we have the דין of a שפחה חרופה. So according to רבי ישמעאל you could definitely ask a קשיא: ושפחה כנענית בת אירוסי היא? Is a שפחה כנענית That was מאורסת, that was מקודש to an עבד עברי, it means מיוחדת. It doesn't mean she actually received קידושין because she can't receive קידושין. It means that she was מיוחדת. She was set aside specifically for this עבד עברי. So if so, הכא נמי, here too, when we say that a שפחה חרופה means a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין, מאי מאורסת? What did we mean when we said that she was מאורסת, מקודשת to an עבד עברי? It means מיוחדת, not that she actually received קידושין, but she was מיוחדת to him. So really the קידושין is not קידושין, but since she was set aside for this עבד עברי, that's what the תורה says that if anybody has relations with her, so then he has to bring an אשם. Then the גמרא continues, אמר רב חסדא, רב חסדא said, חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין שנתקדשה לראובן, she received קידושין from ראובן, ונשתחררה, and then she was freed, וחזרה ונתקדשה לשמעון, then after she was freed she received קידושין from ראובן's brother, from שמעון, ומתו שניהם, and they both died, the two brothers died, מתיבמת ללוי, she's able to get יבום from לוי. Because the דין is that when a person dies without children, his wife is supposed to get יבום, get married to the husband's brother. If he doesn't want, then he could give her חליצה. Now there is another דין, that if she is considered a יבמה from two brothers, then the third brother does not give her יבום. For instance, if her husband died, and a brother, instead of being מיבם her, gave her מאמר. מאמר means this type of קידושין. He said to her, "I will be מקדש you, and I will eventually marry you." That מאמר is not really marriage, because by the דין of יבום it is not like by a regular woman that when you give her קידושין, that itself turns her into an אשת איש, she is already married to this man. By יבום, the only way she becomes an אשת איש married to her יבם is actually after the חתונה, after they come home, and after they are together. But just for מאמר, which is a type of קידושין, she is not still considered his יבמה. So let's say the brother died, and another brother gave her מאמר, and then the other brother died. So now she is considered a יבמה to the third brother from two brothers. The third brother has to be מיבם her because of the first brother that died, and also because she was already somehow connected to the second brother, and he also died, so she is a יבמה from two brothers for the third brother. The דין is that in a case like that you cannot be מיבם, because we learn out from a פסוק, the פסוק says, ומת אחד מהם, תורה says if two brothers lived together and one of them died, then the second one should marry the wife of the first brother. So we דרשן from there that מי שעליה זיקת יבם אחד, that you only are מיבם a woman who has a זיקה, a connection, from one יבם, one brother, but not a woman who has a connection, a יבום, from two brothers. In the case of our גמרא here, where she was originally a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין, she got קידושין from one brother, and then she was freed and got קידושין from another brother, and then both of them died. So the גמרא says here that לוי, the third brother, could be מיבם her. ואין אני קורא בה, and I do not call her, I do not apply to her this דין of אשת שני מתים, that she is the wife of two dead brothers, where the דין is that you cannot be מיבם. Why not? You would think that she would be considered the wife of two brothers, because now she was the wife of ראובן, then she became the wife of שמעון, so she is now the wife of two dead brothers. So he says no, because ממה נפשך: אי קידושי דראובן קידושין, if the קידושין that the first brother, ראובן, gave her were קידושין, קידושי דשמעון לאו קידושין, so the קידושין of שמעון are not קידושין, because if you give קידושין to a married woman, that קידושין is not קידושין at all. So here too, if the קידושין of ראובן were קידושין, so then when שמעון gave her קידושין, those קידושין were not קידושין at all, so she was not married to שמעון at all. ואי קידושי דשמעון קידושין, and if we're going to say that the real קידושין were the קידושין of שמעון, קידושי דראובן לאו קידושין, so the קידושין of ראובן were not קידושין, so she was never married to ראובן. So ממה נפשך, she is the wife of לוי's brother, and only of one of the brothers. And as רש"י explains, רב חסדא had a ספק whether the הלכה is that a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין can receive קידושין or cannot. Since in the גמרא before we had a מחלוקת, רב חסדא didn't know what the הלכה was. And that's what he said: is the הלכה that a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין can get קידושין, so then the קידושין that ראובן gave her while she was still a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין were קידושין, so then automatically שמעון's קידושין are not קידושין. If the הלכה is that a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין cannot get קידושין, so then ראובן's קידושין were not קידושין at all, because he gave her the קידושין while she was still a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין. So then שמעון's קידושין are קידושין, so she is the wife of שמעון, but she's not the wife of ראובן at all, and therefore she could get יבום ממה נפשך. Then the גמרא continues, איתמר we learned, חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין שנתקדשה לראובן, she received קידושין from ראובן, ונשתחררה, and then she became free, וחזרה ונתקדשה לשמעון, then she got קידושין from שמעון, from another person, not the brother of ראובן, but from another person. רב יוסף בר חמא אמר רב נחמן, רב יוסף בר חמא said in the name of רב נחמן, פקעו קידושי ראשון. The קידושין of the first are dropped, since she became free after she received the קידושין, so it's like a newborn child. When an עבד is נשתחרר, becomes free, he becomes like a new person. So the קידושין that ראובן gave her while she was still a little bit a שפחה, so those קידושין are not קידושין anymore because now she's a new person. רב זירא אמר רב נחמן, but רב זירא says in the name of רב נחמן, גמרו קידושי ראשון, just the opposite. The קידושין of the first are finished. When he gave her קידושין, it only applied to half of her, because she was only half free. Now that she was free completely, so the קידושין are automatically extended to the whole person, and they are finished. Now she is completely an אשת איש, she's 100% married. אמר רב זירא, and רב זירא said, כוותי דידי מסתברא. It sounds logical like I say, because I have a ראיה from the פסוק. דכתיב, the תורה says in the case of the שפחה חרופה, לא יומתו כי לא חופשה, that if someone had relations with this שפחה חרופה, he should not die, he only has to bring a קרבן אשם. And the תורה says, why shouldn't they die? Because she really wasn't free. So what do we see from there? הא חופשה, if she would have been freed, יומתו they would die. And the way he learned the פשט in the פסוק, that if she would have been freed later on and then someone would have relations with her, that person would die. So he learns out from here that this שפחה חרופה, who was a half שפחה half בת חורין that received קידושין from the עבד עברי, and the תורה says if she would have been freed afterwards, and then someone would have relations with her, that person would die. So we see clearly that a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין that had קידושין, after she becomes free, the קידושין automatically are stretched and extended that she becomes completely קידושין, and then she's a regular אשת איש, and if someone would live with her, he would get killed. So there's a ראיה that the דין is that גמרו קידושי ראשון, that the first קידושין are extended and finished. אמר ליה אביי, אביי said to him, ולתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל דאמר בשפחה כנענית המאורסת לעבד עברי, and according to תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל who holds that a שפחה חרופה is not a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין that was מקודשת to an עבד עברי, but it is a regular שפחה כנענית that was מקודשת to an עבד עברי, הכא נמי will you also tell me דהא חופשה יומתו, that the תורה is telling us that if she was freed afterwards and someone has relations with her, that person would die? According to your פשט, he is saying, that when the תורה says כי לא חופשה, that the reason that they don't die is because she was not free, and you're learning the פשט that it means that when, as soon as she is freed, even without new קידושין, the old קידושין is extended, so according to רבי ישמעאל we'll have to learn the פשט that if she was a שפחה כנענית and had קידושין from an עבד עברי, and later she was freed, automatically she becomes an אשת איש? That is impossible, because that is for sure that the קידושין given to a שפחה כנענית is not קידושין at all. No one would ever think that קידושין that was given to a שפחה כנענית, after she is freed automatically becomes regular קידושין. אלא מאי אית לך למימר, so what will you say according to רבי ישמעאל, that the פשט in the תורה is שחופשה וחזרה ונתקדשה? When the תורה says that they don't die because she wasn't freed, it means that if she would have been freed and then received קידושין, then she would have been considered a regular אשת איש. And the same is with a שפחה כנענית, that if the שפחה כנענית, according to רבי ישמעאל, would have been freed and afterwards she would have received קידושין, then she would have been a regular אשת איש, because a שפחה כנענית who is freed is a regular Jewish woman. So if she receives קידושין afterwards, then she's an אשת איש, and anybody who would have relations with her would be חייב מיתה. And the same would be here. הכא נמי, also according to the פשט that a שפחה חרופה is a חצי שפחה חצי בת חורין, what does the תורה mean? לא יומתו כי לא חופשה, שחופשה וחזרה ונתקדשה, that the תורה is saying the reason they don't die, the reason she's not a regular אשת איש because she wasn't freed, but if she would have been freed and then received קידושין, then there would be a חיוב מיתה because she would have been a regular אשת איש. But we have no ראיה from here that if the קידושין was given before she was freed 100%, And then she was freed, that automatically she becomes an אשת איש. That we don't see from the תורה. אמר רב הונא בר קטינא אמר רב יצחק, רב הונא בר קטינא said in the name of רב יצחק, מעשה באשה אחת, there was a story with this one woman, שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין, that she was half שפחה and half בת חורין, וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין, and they forced her master, and he made her into a בת חורין, he freed her. And the גמרא says: כמאן, according to which מאן דאמר does this go? כרבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, it only could fit according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה. דאמר, he says: על שניהם הוא אומר, on both the תורה says: ויברך אותם אלקים ויאמר וגו׳ פרו ורבו ומלאו וגו׳, that you should multiply and be fruitful and fill up the world. Because like this we know that the מצוה of פריה ורביה, the מצוה of multiplying and having children, is only on the man. The woman is not obligated to fulfill this מצוה. רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה holds that when the תורה says that השם said to them פרו ורבו, you should multiply, He said it to both. So a woman is also obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פריה ורביה. So according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, just as we said in the משנה that if a man is a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, we force his master to free him because otherwise he cannot fulfill the מצוה of פריה ורביה, because while he's half עבד, half בן חורין, he cannot marry not a שפחה כנענית and not a בת חורין, and in order to fulfill the מצוה we must force his master to free him, so then he'll be able to marry a Jewish woman. So according to רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה, this also applies to a חציה שפחה חציה בת חורין, because by her we have the same problem. Since according to him she is also obligated to fulfill the מצוה of פריה ורביה, so and she also cannot marry not a Jewish man and not an עבד because she is a חציה שפחה חציה בת חורין. So therefore they forced her master and he freed her. So that's what the גמרא says, that that story, that they forced the master of the חציה שפחה חציה בת חורין to free her was because they held like רבי יוחנן בן ברוקה. And the גמרא says: אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, רב נחמן בר יצחק said: לא, no, מנהג הפקר נהגו בה, they acted

with her in a מנהג of הפקר. They used her for immoral purposes. Since she wasn't able to be married, she couldn't marry an עבד and she couldn't marry a בן חורין, so she wasn't set aside to any specific man. So many people used her for immoral purposes, and that was a good enough reason for the בית דין to force her master to free her. So now she would be able to marry a regular בן חורין, so she would be set aside specifically for a single man, so then no one would be able to do any עבירות with her. And now we'll learn the משנה. The משנה says: המוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים, if someone sells his עבד כנעני, his gentile slave, to a גוי, או לחוצה לארץ, or to somebody outside of ארץ ישראל, יצא בן חורין, he automatically goes out free. And as רש״י explains it, the case where he sells his עבד to a גוי, he goes out free, or when he runs away from the גוי, or, even if he doesn't run away from the גוי, the דין is that the בית דין would force the one that sold him to the גוי to redeem him from the גוי, and after he redeems him, the בית דין would force him to free him and not work with him. And the reason for that is, since he is an עבד כנעני of a איד, so he is מחוייב במצות, certain מצות an עבד כנעני that belongs to a איד has to do, by him selling him to a גוי, he was מפקיע him from the מצות. He stopped him from doing מצות because being by the גוי he will not be able to do the מצות. So because of that the חכמים קנס׳ד the seller that his עבד would have to go out free. And the

same is with selling an עבד to חוצה לארץ. The חכמים also קנס׳ד that as soon as he sells the עבד, automatically he goes out free. And the גמרא says: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned: המוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים יצא לחירות, if you sell your עבד to a גוי he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור מרבו ראשון, but he still needs a גט שחרור, this document that would free him, from his first master. אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל, שמעון בן גמליאל said: במה דברים אמורים, when is this דין said that he still needs a גט שחרור from his first master? שלא כתב עליו אונו, that he didn't write for this עבד his אונו. אונו is a שטר. And the גמרא is going to explain soon what kind of שטר. אבל כתב עליו אונו, but if he did write the שטר for this עבד, זהו שחרורו, that אונו, that שטר itself is the שטר שחרור, is the document that frees him, and the first master would not have to write another שטר שחרור. And the גמרא asks: מאי אונו? What is this אונו that we're saying here that if the first master when he sold him to the גוי wrote this אונו, then he doesn't have to give him a שטר שחרור later on?

אמר רב ששת, רב ששת said: דכתב ליה הכי, that he wrote to him this. When he sold him to the גוי he wrote to him in the document as follows: לכשתיברח ממנו, if you will run away from him, אין לי עסק בך, I have nothing to do with you. So that itself is the שטר שחרור, so later on when he runs away from the גוי, he doesn't have to give him another שטר שחרור. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, לוה עליו מן העכו״ם, if a ייד borrowed money from a גוי on the security of the עבד, כיוון שעשה לו עובד כוכבים נימוסו, as soon as the גוי did on this עבד the נימוסו, his נימוס, נימוס really means his order, his proper thing, יצא לחירות, automatically he goes out free. And the גמרא asks, מאי נימוסו? What does this נימוסו mean? What kind of thing did the גוי do to the עבד that we say as soon as that is done, he automatically goes out free? אמר רב הונא בר יהודה, רב הונא בר יהודה answered, נשכי, it means the collar. As soon as the גוי puts on that special collar that shows that he is his slave, so then automatically he goes out free. מתיב רב ששת, רב ששת asked a קושיא, we learn in a ברייתא, והאריסין והחכיריס ואריסי בתי אבות, the אריסין, an אריס of a גוי, and an אריס is a person who works for somebody else on his field, and his payment is a certain percentage of whatever will grow, whether it's 50% or a third or etc. And here we're talking about an אריס of a גוי. He works on the field of a גוי, and his payment would be a certain percentage. Or a חוכר is a person who works for another person and his payment is not a percentage, but a fixed amount of things that will grow. And here we're talking about a חוכר of a גוי. And אריסי בתי אבות, that means if you are an אריס of the גוי, but not just from this גוי, but it goes from generation to generation, that this person, this ייד, and his father were workers for that גוי and his parents before him. Or עובד כוכבים שמשכן שדהו לישראל, or a גוי who gave his field as a משכון, as collateral to the ייד on a loan, אף על פי שעשה לו נימוס, even though the נימוס was done already, so in all these cases, פטורים מן המעשר, it's פטור from מעשר. Because like this, the דין is that any crop that grows in ארץ ישראל, you're not allowed to eat from that food till after you take off מעשר. But if the field belongs to a גוי, this ברייתא holds that it's פטור from מעשר, because this ברייתא holds as רש״י says, יש קנין לעכו״ם בארץ להפקיע מיד מעשר, that a גוי has the power in ארץ ישראל to פטור the land from מעשר. So the land that belongs to a גוי is פטור from מעשר. Now all these cases mentioned in the ברייתא, even though there is some connection between the field and a ייד, nevertheless they are פטור. Even though the ייד is the אריס on the field, or the ייד is the חוכר on the field, or the ייד is not just a plain אריס, but אריס בתי אבות, which means that he is working on the field for generations already, his father worked and they worked for the father of that גוי, that shows a stronger connection between the ייד and the field, nevertheless it's פטור from מעשר. And the same thing with a field that belongs to a גוי that was given as a משכון to the ייד, even after the נימוס was done, still the ברייתא says that it is פטור from מעשר. But the גמרא asks, ואי סלקא דעתך נשכי, if you're going to say that נימוס means the collar for the עבד, שדה בת נשכי היא? Does a שדה, a field, have this collar? So what does the ברייתא mean that even if the נימוס was done to the field, it's still פטור from מעשר? So it couldn't mean a collar, so there must be another meaning to this נימוס that we say here. And the גמרא answers, אלא אמר רב ששת, so רב ששת said, what does נימוס mean? זמן, time. That there was a time written by when the גוי is supposed to pay up. And this is what the ברייתא says: that when the גוי gave this field as a משכון to the ייד, so even though he wrote that if he doesn't pay up by a certain time, then the ייד will be able to keep the field, so that shows a stronger connection between the ייד and the field, because at a certain time he will be able to keep it, nevertheless, it is still פטור from מעשר. And that is also the פשט of נימוס in the other ברייתא, the ברייתא of עבד, that when the ייד borrowed money from the גוי on the security of the עבד, so the ברייתא says that if the גוי wrote the נימוס, in other words, if there's a time limit by when the ייד is supposed to pay up, and if he doesn't pay up by then, so then the עבד belongs to the גוי, so as soon as that time limit is written, automatically the עבד belongs to the גוי and the עבד goes out free. So the גמרא asks, קשיא זמן אזמן? Doesn't this create a קושיא, a contradiction from the two ברייתות in the דין of time? In the ברייתא of עבד, it says that if the time is written, automatically the עבד belongs to the גוי and he goes out free. And in the ברייתא of מעשר, it says that even though there was a time limit written, nevertheless the שדה still belongs to the גוי and it doesn't belong to the ייד and it's still פטור from מעשר. And the גמרא answers, לא קשיא, there's no קושיא. הא דמטא זימניה, one is speaking in a case where the time actually came. The case of עבד where it says that the עבד goes out free is not only that he wrote a time limit, but the time has come. for the איד to pay and he didn't pay up yet. So then we say that the עבד belongs to the גוי, and therefore he goes out free. הא דלא מטא זמניה, the ברייתא where it says that even though there was written the סנימוס, still the field belongs to the גוי, that's in the case where the time hasn't come yet. So now, as long as the time didn't come, the field still belongs to the גוי, and therefore it is פטור from מעשר. גמרא asks, אלא לגבי עבד דמטא זמניה, צריכא למימר? By the case of an עבד, does the ברייתא have to tell us that if the time came when he was supposed to pay and he didn't pay, that he goes out free? Definitely! Since he wrote in the שטר that if by this and this date I don't pay, the עבד is yours, so as soon as the date comes and he doesn't pay, automatically the עבד belongs to the גוי. That is very simple, the ברייתא doesn't have to tell us that. אלא, therefore, the גמרא changes the פשט is, אידי ואידי דלא מטא זמניה, both ברייתות are in a case where the time hasn't come yet. ולא קשיא, there is no קשיא, there is no contradiction between the two ברייתות. הא לגופיה, והא לפירא. The ברייתא about the עבד is a case of גופו, where the גוף of the עבד, the body of the עבד, the עבד himself, will belong to the גוי. והא, and the other one, the ברייתא of the שדה, is לפירות, only for fruits. In other words, the case of the עבד, the case was that he told him that if I do not pay you by this and this date, then the עבד himself belongs to you, to the גוי. So even before the time came, he is משועבד already to the גוי, and the גוי makes him work for him. So in a case like that, the חכמים said, since you set a time limit that the עבד himself will belong to the גוי, so even before the time came, the חכמים made a קנס, they fined the person, and the עבד goes out free because he caused him to eventually become an עבד of a גוי. The case of the field is a משכנתא, not that he said that by the time the the date comes and you don't pay, the field becomes yours. That's not what he said. He said that if the time comes and you don't pay, then all the פירות that grow on that field will be yours till you will collect all the money that are on the חוב from these פירות. So in a case like that, the field will never become eventually the איד's. And therefore there the חכמים said that the פירות are still considered פירות from a field of a גוי, and they are פטור from מעשר. אי בעית אימא, if you want, the גמרא says I could answer different, בשלוה על מנת למשכנו ולא משכנו. It's talking in a case where he borrowed the money, but he didn't make the משכון then yet, he didn't take it then yet as collateral. They made up a condition that if the time will come and you won't pay, that's when I will come and take it away from you as collateral. And the case is that the time has come, and he didn't pay, but the other person didn't come yet to take him away as collateral. And that is the difference between the two cases. In the case of the field, since לפועל the איד didn't take it away from the גוי yet, it's still in the hands of the גוי, even though the time for the payment has come, but as long as the איד didn't take it away, it's still considered a field of a גוי, and therefore it is פטור from מעשר. But in the case of the עבד, even though the גוי didn't come to take the עבד away yet, but since the time has come, and if the גוי would want, he's able to come and take the עבד away now, so right away the חכמים made a קנס that since you did something that could cause this עבד to become an עבד of a גוי, חכמים קנס'ט, and he goes out free right away. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט in the last תירוץ of the גמרא. תוספות learns a little bit different in the last תירוץ. תוספות learns that when the גמרא says, אי בעית אימא בשלוה על מנת למשכנו ולא משכנו, it goes back to the first תירוץ. When the גמרא answered before that the case of עבד is speaking in a case where the time has come already for him to pay and he didn't pay, and the case of שדה is in a case where the time hasn't come yet, so the גמרא asked a קשיא that if the time has come, what is the חידוש of the ברייתא that he belongs to the גוי and therefore he goes out free? Definitely, the time has come for him to pay, and he didn't, and the עבד was the משכון, so definitely he belongs to the גוי. So what is the חידוש of the ברייתא? And this is what the גמרא answers, that there is still a חידוש, because the ברייתא is speaking in a case where even though the time has come for him to pay, but since the גוי actually didn't come to take him yet, so we might think that he still belongs to the איד and he shouldn't go out free, that's the חידוש of the ברייתא, that since the time has come for him to pay, so now if the גוי would want, he was able to come and take him, so the חכמים already קנס'ט the איד, and the עבד goes out free. תוספות also asks a קשיא on the משנה itself. The דין in the משנה is that if someone sells his עבד to חוץ לארץ, he goes out free. So תוספות asks a קשיא, what is the case? It can't be that he was forced by his master to leave ארץ ישראל to חוץ לארץ, because the דין is in כתובות that you cannot force anybody to leave ארץ ישראל, so the master wasn't able to force him to go out. אלא מאי, he went out willingly with his master? The גמרא says later on on דף מ״ד עמוד ב׳ that if the עבד goes out willingly after the master to חוץ לארץ, איבד The עבד loses his זכות of going out free and he remains an עבד. So what is the case of the משנה where it says that if you sell your עבד to חוץ לארץ he goes out free? And תוספות answers that this is the case where he sold him while he was still in ארץ ישראל to somebody that that person would take him to חוץ לארץ. So the דין is that he goes out free right away because we're afraid that his second master will convince him and he will go out willingly. So because of that we קנס him right away and he goes out free right away. Going back a little bit earlier in the גמרא, where the גמרא wanted to prove if a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין is able to be מקדש, and the גמרא wanted to prove it from the ברייתא where it says that you have to pay half of the כופר to his יורשים and the גמרא asked, "How is it possible for a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין to have יורשים if his קידושין are not קידושין?" And that proves that his קידושין are קידושין. So תוספות asks a קשיא, what is the connection? It is possible that his קידושין should not be קידושין and still he should have יורשים. If he lives with a woman without קידושין and they have a child, that child is considered his child, and that child is his heir, just like the דין even by a ממזר, that if somebody lives with somebody who is forbidden to him, חייבי כריתות, and the דין is that the קידושין are not תופס, that the man's קידושין to this woman are not valid, and nevertheless if he has a child, even though the child is a ממזר, but that child is considered his יורש and that child will inherit everything that he has. So we see that it doesn't have to be קידושין in order for the children to be יורשים. And תוספות answers that there is a difference. In the case of a ממזר where we say that he is considered a יורש, there, because באמת this person is בר קידושין. He is able to be מקדש. It's only in this specific case that the קידושין are not קידושין because it is חייבי כריתות. But otherwise he is in the category of קידושין. So in a case like that we say that the child that is born, even in the case where he had no קידושין, that child is called his יורש. But in the case of חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, since there is no possibility of קידושין whatsoever, so here the גמרא feels that if there is no קידושין, so then his children are not considered his יורשים. And that's the גמרא's ראיה. Since it says that you have to pay the half כופר to his יורשים, that's a ראיה that probably his קידושין are קידושין.