Jewish Audio on Chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת גיטין דף מ"ד עמוד א' starting with the second line from the top of the עמוד. The גמרא here is discussing the דין of the משנה that if someone sells his עבד כנעני to a גוי and then he runs away from the גוי, automatically that עבד becomes a בן חורין, becomes free. Here the גמרא says, תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, גבאו בחובו, if the גוי collected the עבד כנעני of the ייד for a debt that the ייד owed to the גוי, או שלקחו סיקריקון, or if סיקריקון took away an עבד כנעני from a ייד, סיקריקון were those people that would want to kill יידן, but a ייד, if he would give them something of value, then the סיקריקון would spare his life. So what happened is that the סיקריקון wanted to kill a ייד, and in order to save his life, he gave away to the סיקריקון his עבד כנעני, לא יצא לחירות. In a case like that, if the עבד כנעני runs away from his גויישע new master, he does not go out free, because he did not really sell him to the גוי willingly, it was done by force. And the

גמרא asks, ובחובו לא, and will you tell me that if the גוי collects him for a debt that he owes him, it is not considered as if he sold him to the גוי? ורמינהו, I will ask you a קשיא, we learned, הרי שאנסו בית המלך גורנו, if the officers of the king forced a ייד to give up his גורן, to give up his grain from his threshing field to the king, ואם בחובו, if the reason they forced him to give it up was because he owed money to the בית המלך, חייב לעשר, he must take off מעשר, a tenth, from that crop that was taken away by the בית המלך, because we consider it as if he sold that גורן to the בית המלך. And the דין is that when you sell any of your crop, you must take off מעשר. אם באנפראי, פטור. If it was taken away just באנפראי, אנפראי are those that just wanted to take it away by force, they caused יידן to lose their property, and as רש"י explains later on on דף מ"ז עמוד ב', they were not people who threatened the life of the יידן, but nevertheless they would take away belongings of the יידן. So if they took away the גורן for the בית המלך just by force without him owing anything to the בית המלך, then פטור מלעשר, then he is פטור from taking off מעשר. So we see from here that if the king took it away for the חוב, it is considered as if he sold it to the king and he has to take off מעשר. So how come by the case of עבד, if a גוי took away the עבד as payment for the loan, we don't consider it as if he sold the עבד to the גוי and he does not go out free? And the גמרא answers, שאני התם, there it's different, in the case of מעשר it's different, because דקא מיתהני ליה, because he gains. Since this was taken away for payment of his loan, so now he gains that he doesn't owe the money anymore, so therefore it's considered as if he sold it. And by מעשר the דין is that if you sell your גורן, then it is פטור from מעשר. But by the case of עבד, it is only a קנס that the חכמים fined the person for selling his עבד to a גוי. In a case where he actually didn't sell him, but it was taken away for the חוב, the חכמים did not fine him that his עבד should go out free. Then the גמרא says,

תא שמע, come here, I will ask you a קשיא. דאמר רב, רב says, המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עכו"ם, if a person sells his עבד כנעני to a גויישע פרהנג, פרהנג רש"י explains was a person who was an informer, he would go and מסור the יידן, and the ייד would have to pay him blackmail money, so the ייד sold his עבד to this פרהנג, so then יצא לחירות, he does go out free. So even though he was forced to do it, he didn't sell him willingly, nevertheless since he did sell him to the גוי, he does go out free. So how come before we said that if the גוי collects him for his חוב, or if the סיקריקון take him, so then he does not go out free? And the גמרא answers, התם הוה ליה לפיוסי ולא פייס, in the case of the פרהנג, he should have persuaded him to take something else, and since he didn't do it and he gave him the עבד, so we consider it as if he willingly gave away the עבד. But in the case of the חוב where the גוי took him as a חוב, or if the סיקריקון took the עבד, he couldn't have persuaded him to take anything else, so that we consider as if he was given away by force and there is no fine and he does not go out free. Then the גמרא continues, גופא, now we will discuss the גוף, the saying, the statement itself that was mentioned before. We said before, אמר רב, רב said, המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עכו"ם, if a person sells his עבד כנעני to a גויישע פרהנג, יצא לחירות, he automatically goes out free. And the גמרא asks, מאי הוה ליה למעבד, what should he have done? Wasn't he taken away by force? And the גמרא says, no, הוה ליה לפיוסי ולא פייס, he should have persuaded him to take something else, and since he didn't, so it's as if he gave him away willingly and therefore he goes out free. And the גמרא continues,

בעי רבי ירמיה, רבי ירמיה asked a בעיא, asked a question, מכרו לשלשים יום מהו? What is the דין if a איד sells his עבד כנעני to a גוי just for 30 days? He doesn't sell him for permanent, he just sells him for 30 days, does he go out free, or doesn't he? And the גמרא says, תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. דאמר רב, רב said, המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עובדי כוכבים יצא לחירות. If you sell your עבד to a פרהנג a גוי, he goes out free. And at this point, the גמרא felt that the פרהנג wouldn't take away the עבד completely. He would just take him to him to work for him. And when he would work for him the amount of money that he wanted the איד to give him, then he would send the עבד back to his owner. So, we see from here that even though the עבד will come back to the איד, but since for the time being he was sold to a גוי, he goes out free. So, that answers רבי ירמיה's question that if you sell your עבד for 30 days to a גוי, he does go out free. And the גמרא says, it's no ראיה, התם there בפרהנג עובדי כוכבים שאינו מחזרת. There it's speaking in a case where he sold him to a פרהנג a גוי, and he will not give him back. He didn't just take him to work for him for a certain amount of time, but the פרהנג took away the עבד completely that it becomes his. So, therefore, we have a ראיה what would be the דין if you sell your עבד to a גוי just for 30 days? Then the גמרא asks another שאלה:

מכרו חוץ ממלאכתו מהו? The whole reason why the חכמים consend a person if he sells his עבד to a גוי is because since the עבד is מחוייב במצות, he's obligated to do the מצות like a woman, and by selling him to the גוי, he will not be able to keep the מצות. That's why the חכמים made a קנס that he goes out free. Now, what would be if he sold him to the גוי, but except his work that he doesn't have to work for the גוי. And the reason the גוי bought him was so the children that this עבד will have will belong to that גוי. So, in this case, you did not stop him from doing מצות because he doesn't work for the גוי anyway. מהו? What is the דין? Did the חכמים consend him or not? Does he go out free or not? Or if he sold him חוץ מן המצות, he sold him to the גוי, but he said clearly except the מצות, meaning that the גוי will not stop him from doing the מצות. מהו? What is the דין? חוץ משבתות וימים טובים מהו? Or if he said, "I'm selling him for the work, but he shouldn't work שבתות and ימים טובים," so he will not transgress any מצות. He will not do any עבירות. What is the דין there? לגר תושב, if you sold him to a גר תושב. A גר תושב was a גוי that was allowed to live in ארץ ישראל because he accepted upon himself not to worship עבודה זרה and to keep all the seven מצות that the גויים are obligated to keep. So, he's still a גוי, but he's considered a גר תושב. So, what is the דין if you sell your עבד to a גר תושב, does he go out free or not? לישראל מומר, to an ישראל a מומר, a איד who worships עבודה זרה, what is the דין? לכותי מהו? What is the דין if you sell him to a כותי? The כותיים were people who kept some of the מצות, and some of the מצות they didn't keep. And there is really a מחלוקת in the גמרא whether they were real גרים, they were real converts and they had a דין of אידן, or they were גירי אריות. They only converted because they were afraid at a certain point from lions and the way they saved their lives was by converting to אידישקייט, but really they weren't גירי צדק. They weren't true converts. But anyway, the גמרא שאלה here is: If you sell your עבד to a כותי, does he go out free or not? And the גמרא says, פשוט מיהא חדא, at least one we could answer from the ברייתא that the גמרא is going to bring. We learn in a ברייתא, גר תושב הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים, that a גר תושב has the same דין like a גוי. So, one of our questions before was if you sell your עבד to a גר תושב, what is the דין? So, here we see clearly that if you sell your עבד to a גר תושב, it has the same דין as if you sold him to a גוי. But if you sold him to a כותי or ישראל מומר, so then, אמרי לה כעובד כוכבים, some say it has the same דין as if you sold him to a גוי, and he does go out free. ואמרי לה, and others say, כישראל, it has the same דין as if you would sell him to a איד, and he does not go out free. Then the גמרא continues,

בעו מיניה מרב אמי, there was a בעיא, a question asked from רב אמי: עבד שהפיל עצמו לגייסות, an עבד that let himself be captured by bandits ואין רבו יכול להוציאו, and his master cannot take him out from there, cannot get him free from there, לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים, not according to the Jewish דינים, not through the Jewish courts, and not through the legal goyishe courts, מהו שיטול דמיו? What is the דין, can he take money for him? If he is offered money for that עבד, is he allowed to take the money for that עבד? אמר ליה רבי ירמיה לרבי זריקא, and רבי ירמיה said to רבי זריקא, פוק, go out, עיין במכילתיך, look into your studies. Look into your notes. Look into the things that you learned and find the answer to this question. נפק, he went out, דק, he looked into it, ואשכח, and he found the answer. דתניא, we learned in a ברייתא, המוכר ביתו לעובדי כוכבים, if someone sells his house to a גוי, and this is in ארץ ישראל, because the דין is that in ארץ ישראל you are not allowed to sell a house to a גוי, because there's a פסוק that says לא תחנם, and it means do not give them a חניה בקרקע, do not give a גוי an inheritance of land in ארץ ישראל. So a איד is not allowed to give or sell a land to a גוי in ארץ ישראל. If a איד did do it, דמיו אסורין, the money he gets for it is אסור, he is forbidden to use that money. אבל עובד כוכבים שאנס ביתו של ישראל, but if a גוי forced the איד out of his house and took over the איד's house in ארץ ישראל, ואין בעליו יכול להוציאו, and the master, the original owner, cannot get it out of the גוי, לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים, not through the Jewish courts and not through the גוייאישע courts, מותר ליטול את דמיו, then he's allowed to take the money for that house, וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהן, and he's even allowed to have a document written up in the גוייאישע courts. Even though normally you shouldn't go to the גוייאישע courts, but in this case, in order to secure his money, he's allowed to go and have a document, a deed, written in the גוייאישע courts, מפני שהוא כמציל מידם, because this is only as if he is saving the money from the hands of the גוים. Since he can't get the house back anyway, so at least let him get get the money back. So we see from there that in a case where normally if you sell it you can't use the money, nevertheless if it's not your fault and you can't get it back, you are allowed to take the money for it. So the same thing with the עבד, that if the עבד was taken away by bandits and you can't get it out, so then you are allowed to take the money for that עבד. And the גמרא says, no, ודילמא maybe הני מילי בית, maybe this is only said in the case of a house, דכיוון דלא סגי ליה בלא בית, since it is impossible for a person to be without a house, לא אתי לזבוניה, he will not sell it. In other words, the reason the גמרא thought why maybe the חכמים would say that you're not allowed to take the money for the house even though the house was taken away by force, was because if the חכמים would allow to take the money in this case, other people would learn from this case and they would think that you're לכתחילה allowed to sell a house to a גוי in ארץ ישראל. So therefore, we thought the חכמים said that even if it was taken by force you cannot take the money, so nobody will sell their houses to a גוי. So that's why we understand that the דין in this case is not so. The דין is that you are allowed to take the money because by a house it is a far-fetched גזירה, because people need houses. So it's hard to say that a person will because of this דין also sell their house to a גוי, because it is not common for a person to sell a house because a person must have a house. אבל עבד, but by the case of an עבד, דסגי ליה בלא עבד, it is possible for a person to be without an עבד, so אתי לזבוניה, so then he might come to sell it. If we're going to say that in the case where the עבד fell into the hands of bandits and you can't take him out, the דין is you're allowed to take the money, so other people will think that you're לכתחילה allowed to sell an עבד to a גוי. And therefore the חכמים maybe did make a גזירה. או לא, or maybe no, that the חכמים even in the case of עבד didn't make a גזירה. In other words, we have no ראיה from בית, because by the case of a house there is more סברא for the חכמים not to make a גזירה and therefore they said that you're allowed to take the money, and maybe by an עבד the חכמים did make a גזירה or maybe not. So we still have no ראיה, what will be the דין in this case. שלח להו רב אמי, so רב אמי sent them the answer: מיני אמי בר נתן תורה יוצאה לכל ישראל, from me, אמי בר נתן, the תורה, the הלכה will go out to all the אידן. And what is the הלכה? עבד שהפיל עצמו לגייסות, that an עבד that let himself be captured by bandits, ואין רבו יכול להוציאו, and his master cannot get him out from there, לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים, not through the Jewish דינים and not through the גוייאישע דינים, the דין is מותר ליטול את דמיו, he's allowed to take the money for that עבד if he is offered, וכותב, and he's allowed to write, ומעלה בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים, and bring it up in the גוייאישע courts, he's allowed to have a document, a deed, written even in the גוייאישע courts, and take the money for it, מפני שהוא כמציל מידם, because this is as if he's saving the money. Because if he wouldn't do that, the עבד would anyway stay in the hands of the גוים, so he might as well save the money for the איד, and therefore he's allowed to take the money, and not only allowed to take the money, he's even allowed to have a document written up in the courts of the גוים. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, המוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים, if a person sells his עבד to a גוי, קונסין אותו עד מאה בדמיו, they קנס him, and the חכמים fine him that he's supposed to buy him back, redeem him, even up to a hundred times his value. And the גמרא asks a question: דווקא או לאו דווקא, when we say that he has to buy him back even up to a hundred times his value, is it דווקא that even that much you must pay for the עבד, or it's לאו דווקא? It's just an exaggeration, but what it means is that you must buy him back even if it's more than his value, but it doesn't really mean a hundred times his value. The גמרא says תא שמע, come here, I'll answer your question. אמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said, המוכר בהמה גסה לעובד כוכבים, if someone sells a big animal, for instance an ox or similar to an ox, to a גוי, קונסין אותו, the חכמים fined him, עד עשרה בדמיה, up to ten times its value, that he must buy it back from the גוי even if he has to pay ten times its value. Because the דין is that you're not allowed to sell a בהמה גסה, an ox etc., to a גוי. And the reason for that is because we're afraid that the גוי will work with that בהמה on שבת. And even though the בהמה that is sold to a גוי is his, and that בהמה is allowed to do work on שבת, it is only a ייד's בהמה that is not allowed to work on שבת, but still the חכמים made a גזירה, as the גמרא explains in עבודה זרה דף טו, that we're afraid if we're going to allow a ייד to sell a בהמה גסה to a גוי, another ייד is going to lend it to him, another ייד is going to rent it to him, or sometimes even when the גוי is going to want to buy the בהמה, he might want to test it first, take it for a test drive first, and he might do that on שבת while it still belongs to the ייד, and that is not allowed. And because of that the חכמים said you're not even allowed to sell a בהמה גסה to a גוי. And this is the דין here, that if you sell a בהמה גסה to a גוי, the חכמים said that you must buy it back even to pay up to ten times its value. But what do we see here? That the דין is only up to ten times its value. So that proves that when we said before, that if you sell an עבד to a גוי, you must buy him back even up to a hundred times his value, that was really an exaggeration. Really it is only up to ten times its value. And the

גמרא says no, what's the comparison? ודילמא שאני עבד, maybe an עבד is different, דכל יומא ויומא מפקע ליה מן מצות, that every day he took him out of the מצות. By the case of the בהמה, he did an עבירה once, he sold this בהמה to the גוי when he wasn't allowed, so the חכמים fined him only to buy it back up to ten times its value. But by the עבד, since the עבירה is much greater, because constantly you have made him not do any מצות, so therefore maybe here the חכמים made a stronger fine, that you must buy him back even up to a hundred times his value. איכא דאמרי, others say that this statement was different: אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, המוכר עבדו לעובד כוכבים, someone sells his עבד to a גוי, קונסין אותו עד עשרה בדמיו, the חכמים fined him up to ten times its value, that he must buy it back even if he has to pay up to ten times its value. And here the גמרא asks, דווקא או לאו דווקא, is this ten times דווקא, only up to ten times and not more, or not, or really it's only an example that we mentioned, that רבי יהושע בן לוי mentioned, and really what it is that you have to buy him even for much more than ten times value? The גמרא says תא שמע, come here, I will answer your question: דאמר ריש לקיש, ריש לקיש said, המוכר בהמה גסה לעובד כוכבים, if someone sells a בהמה גסה to a גוי, קונסין אותו עד מאה בדמיה, you fine him up to a hundred times its value. This was the גירסא according to this לשון in the גמרא. So we see from here that by the case of the בהמה גסה, they fined him up to a hundred times its value. That proves that when we said by the case of the עבד that he only buys him back up to ten times its value, it is not דווקא, it is just an example, but really it is even much more. Really the דין is that up to a hundred times its value you must buy him back. And the גמרא says it's no ראיה from the case of the בהמה to the case of the עבד, because שאני עבד, עבד is different, דלא הדר ליה, the עבד will not go back to him, because the דין is even after he will redeem him from the גוי, we said before יצא לחירות, the עבד will go out free. So the owner of the עבד will not keep the עבד, so therefore maybe the חכמים didn't fine him that much, that he should have to buy him back for a hundred times his value, but only up to ten times his value, because even when he redeems him, he's not going to keep him. But by the case of the בהמה, since when he will buy the בהמה back from the גוי, he will keep the בהמה, so maybe here the חכמים fined him even more, that he has to buy him back even if it's a hundred times its value. But the גמרא asks a קשיא on that, אלא בהמה, but by בהמה you're telling me, טעמא מאי, what is the reason why we say we fined him up to a hundred times its value? משום דהדרא ליה, because he will get it back, לינקטיה בחד, so let him just be קנס, be fined with one more. The difference between עבד and בהמה is that by the עבד he's not going to keep the עבד, by בהמה he will keep the בהמה, so he should be fined that by the בהמה he should have to pay with one more than by the עבד, because by the בהמה he will get the בהמה

itself, so he will get with one time the value of the בהמה to himself. So therefore what should be the דין? That he should be fined only that, not should he have to pay ten times its value. value, whether it should be eleven times its value. Because here, that extra one time will go back to him is not really a loss, because he will get the בהמה back. But not a hundred times its value. You can't give me a reason why here it's a hundred times the value, because he will get the בהמה back, which is only once its value. And the גמרא answers a different תירוץ: אלא עבד מילתא דלא שכיחא. The case of עבד, that a איד should sell an עבד to a גוי, is a case which is not common. ומילתא דלא שכיחא לא גזרו בה רבנן. And in a case which is not common, the חכמים did not make any גזירות. And therefore, even though in this case they did make a גזירה, but they didn't make the גזירה that strict. So in the case of a בהמה, where it's very common to sell a בהמה to a גוי, so the חכמים were much stricter, and they said, you have to buy it back even if it costs you a hundred times its value. But in the case of an עבד, since it's not common, they weren't strict in their decree, in their גזירה, and they said, only up to ten times its value you must buy it back, but if it's more than that, you don't have to buy him back. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט in this גמרא. תוספות learns the פשט in this גמרא a little bit differently, concerning the first לשון of the גמרא, where רבי יהושע בן לוי said that by the case of an עבד, you must buy him back a hundred times its value. And the גמרא asked whether it's דוקא or לאו דוקא. So according to רש״י, as we said before, the פשט is that the גמרא שאלה is, is a hundred exactly, or really it doesn't mean a hundred, it means less? And the גמרא brought a proof from the case of the בהמה that you only buy him back up to ten times its value, and that proved that it doesn't really mean a hundred, it only means ten. But in the

second לשון of the גמרא, where רבי יהושע בן לוי had said that if you sell your עבד you must buy him back for ten times his value, and there the גמרא also asked, is it דוקא or לאו דוקא? There רש״י learned that the שאלה of the גמרא was that's ten דוקא, or maybe it is more than ten. And the גמרא brought a ראיה from the case of a בהמה that it's more than ten, because over there we see it's up to a hundred. But תוספות learns the פשט in that גמרא different. תוספות learns that also in the first לשון of the גמרא, when רבי יהושע בן לוי said that you have to buy him back for a hundred times his value, and the גמרא asked, דוקא or לאו דוקא, the קשיא was also: is a hundred דוקא, only a hundred, or maybe it is more than a hundred? And to that the גמרא brought a ראיה from the case of בהמה, that it says you only buy it back for ten times its value. So we see that it's לאו דוקא, because when it says there ten times its value, definitely does not mean only ten times, because we see here in the case of עבד that you had to pay a hundred times its value. So we see where the גמרא gives an amount, it doesn't mean דוקא that amount, it could mean more. וממילא by the case of עבד where it says a hundred times its value, it is לאו דוקא, maybe it could mean more. In other words, תוספות learns in the first לשון of the גמרא where the גמרא asks דוקא or לאו דוקא, the שאלה is also, is it more or is it exactly? Not like רש״י who learns in the first לשון that the גמרא שאלה was, is it a hundred דוקא, or is it maybe less? And now we'll continue with the גמרא:

בעו מיניה דרבי ירמיה מרבי אבא, רבי ירמיה asked in a בעיא, a שאלה from רבי אבא: מכר עבדו ומת, a איד sold his עבד כנעני to a גוי and he died, מהו שיקנסו את בנו אחריו, what is the דין, did the חכמים קנס'ן, fine his son after him? If he himself would be alive, the חכמים would force him to buy that עבד back. But since he died, and now his son inherited all his possessions, did the חכמים force the son too, that he should also buy him back? And there was a similar question asked, and it would seem that whatever the answer to that similar question would be, would apply here too. And that similar question is concerning a כהן who made a מום in a בכור. A בכור is a firstborn בהמה, and the דין is that that must be given to the כהן, and that בהמה is a קרבן. That בכור turns into קדשים, is a קרבן. If that בכור gets a מום, gets a blemish, so the דין is then you're allowed to שחט that בהמה, and it's allowed to be eaten as חולין. The דין is also that you are not allowed to make a מום in a בכור. There's a פסוק that says כל מום לא יהיה בו, that no מום should be in it, and from here we learn out that you are not allowed to make a מום in a בכור. You're not allowed to mutilate that בכור. Now the דין is that if a כהן did mutilate, did cause a מום in the בכור, so the חכמים קנס'ן him that that בכור could never be slaughtered, could never be geschacht, and never be eaten. And there was a שאלה in גמרא in בכורות, what would be if a כהן caused a מום in the בכור, and then he died? Does the קנס that the חכמים put on this בכור apply to the son that inherits the possessions of his father, too? In other words, is the son allowed to שחט that בכור that has the מום, or not? And it would seem that whatever the answer to that question would be, would apply to our case, too, in the case where the father sold the עבד כנעני to a גוי, and then died, whether the קנס applies to the son or not. But the גמרא continues and says: אם תמצי לומר, if you're going to want to tell me and פסק'ן the דין, that if צרם אוזן בכור ומת, that if a person split the ear of the בכור, and that is just an example of a מום, and he died, קנסו בנו אחריו, they did make the קנס for the son, so I would think the same thing would be in the case of the עבד, that they did קנס the son that he should have to redeem the עבד, I could say no, there is no proof from there. משום דאיסורא דאורייתא. Over there, making a מום in a בכור is a איסור דאורייתא, and therefore the חכמים were stricter in the קנס, and they applied it to the son too. אבל הכא, but in this case where he sold the עבד, איסורא דרבנן, that is only איסור דרבנן, and therefore maybe here the חכמים did not apply this קנס to the son. There is another place where there was a similar question asked, and we might think that whatever the פסק דין will be there will be here too. There is a דין that you are not allowed to do a מלאכה on חול המועד, on the days between the first day יום טוב and the last day יום טוב on פסח and on סוכות. On the other hand, there is a דין that certain מלאכות under certain circumstances you are allowed to do. For instance, a דבר האבד. If it is something that if you will not do the מלאכה, the work, it'll get spoiled, then you are allowed to do it on חול המועד. There is also another דין that you are not allowed to start the מלאכה before יום טוב knowing that you will have to stop in the middle when יום טוב will come, and then when חול המועד will come, it'll be a דבר האבד. If this was a case that you were able not to start it at all and leave it for after יום טוב, or a case that you were able to finish it before יום טוב. What would be the דין if a person didn't listen to this דין, and he started the מלאכה before יום טוב, even though he was able to leave it for after יום טוב, and when יום טוב came he had to stop, and when חול המועד came it became a דבר האבד, so the חכמים made a קנס that he is not allowed to finish that מלאכה? And even though it'll get spoiled, the חכמים said let it get spoiled, because it was his own fault, he didn't have to start it before יום טוב. And the גמרא in מועד קטן has a שאלה, what would be if a person started a מלאכה before יום טוב when he didn't really have to, and when יום טוב came he left he stopped the מלאכה, and then he died, and when חול המועד came it was a דבר האבד? So if he himself would be alive, he definitely wouldn't be able to finish it because the חכמים קנסed him. But in this case where he died, and now it belongs to his son, did the חכמים קנס his son, that his son also cannot finish the מלאכה, or since his son didn't do anything wrong, his son is allowed to finish it because לגבי his son it is considered a דבר האבד? And it would seem that whatever the answer would be to that question would apply to our case too, to the case of a person selling an עבד כנעני to a גוי and then dying, whether his son is קנסed to redeem the עבד or not. But the גמרא says,

אם תמצי לומר, if you're gonna tell me that by the case of כיוון מלאכתו במועד, that he was מכוון exactly his מלאכה on יום טוב, that it should come out that on חול המועד it should be a דבר האבד, ומת, and he died, לא קנסו בנו אחריו, they did not קנס his son, so I would think if the דין over there is that the קנס does not apply to the son, the same דין would be in our case that the קנס would not apply to the son, so we could say no, it's no comparison. Over there maybe משום דלא עבד איסורא. The son didn't do any עבירה, so there is no reason to קנס him. The whole קנס came because the person did an עבירה, the חכמים said do not start the מלאכה in a way that you know that it'll become a דבר האבד on חול המועד, and the person didn't listen to the חכמים, so he did an עבירה, that's why they קנסed him. But a son who didn't do any עבירה, there is no reason to קנס the son. But הכא מאי, what is the דין here, in other words in the case of עבד, it still is a question, because maybe לדידיה קנסו רבנן, maybe the קנס was similar to there, it's a קנס on the person. The person who sold the עבד to the גוי, the קנס is on him, so therefore והא ליתא, he is not around anymore, and the son doesn't get the קנס. או דילמא, or maybe לממוניה קנסו רבנן, that the חכמים did not קנס the person, that he must redeem the עבד that he sold, but it's his money that they קנסed, that he must spend the money to redeem the עבד. And the money, והא איתיה, the money is still here. Since the son inherited the money, so if the דין that you must inherit doesn't apply to the person, it applies to the money of the person, so now the money of the person is still around because the son inherited that money, so maybe the son also must redeem the עבד from the גוי. אמר ליה, so he said to him, תניתוה, we learned it in the משנה. I can answer you this question from a different דין that we learned in the משנה. We learned in the משנה in שביעית: שדה שנתקוצה בשביעית, a field that the thorns were cleared away during שמיטה, תזרע למוצאי שביעית, can be planted immediately after שמיטה. Because the דין is on the שמיטה year, on the seventh year you're

not allowed to work in the fields. If a person did do מלאכה in the field during שמיטה, the חכמים made a קנס that he cannot work in that field even מוצאי שביעית, even after שמיטה. But the משנה says here that if the only work that was done that the thorns were cleared away in order to make the field nice, since it is only a מלאכה which is אסור on שמיטה מדרבנן, the חכמים did not put this קנס on this case, and you are allowed to plant this field after שמיטה. But if נתטייבה, if he manured it, he actually brought