Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) ARE SLAVES CONSIDERED AS LAND?

(a) (Ula citing R. Elazar): The law is, we collect debts from slaves.
(b) Question (Rav Nachman): Did R. Elazar say we even collect slaves from orphans?
(c) Answer (Ula): No, only from the borrower himself.

1. Question: That is no Chidush - we collect even the shirt a borrower is wearing!
2. Answer: The case is, the slave was made an Apotiki (special collateral to pay the loan - it is collected even if it was sold).

i. (Rava): If a man made his slave an Apotiki and sold him, a creditor collects the slave;
ii. If a man made his ox an Apotiki and sold it, a creditor does not collect it.
iii. Question: What is the difference between them?
iv. Answer: People hear about making a slave an Apotiki, not about making an ox an Apotiki (so it is not fair that take the ox from the buyer).

(d) Retraction (Ula): R. Elazar said, we collect slaves even from orphans.

1. Rav Nachman: Cases occurred - the judges of Nehardai collected slaves from orphans, and so did R. Chana bar Bizna in Pumbadisa.
2. Rav Nachman (to the judges): Return the slaves - if not, I will make you pay from your houses!
3. Rava: R. Elazar, Ula, the judges of Nehardai and R. Chana bar Bizna all say that we collect - on whom do you rely to oppose this?
4. Rav Nachman: I rely on the Beraisa that Avimi taught.

i. (Beraisa): Pruzbul (a document handing over loans to Beis Din, so they will not be cancelled in Shemitah) takes effect (if the lender has) land; it does not takes effect on slaves;
ii. Metaltelim (movable objects) can be acquired with (an acquisition of land), not with an acquisition of slaves.

(a) Suggestion: Tana'im argue whether slaves are as land.

1. (Beraisa #1): Shimon was buying slaves and land. If he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he did not acquire the land; if he did a Chazakah to acquire the land, he does not acquire the slaves.

i. If he was buying land and Metaltelim - if he did a Chazakah to acquire the land, he did not acquire the Metaltelim; if he made an acquisition on the Metaltelim, he does not acquire the land.
ii. If he was buying slaves and Metaltelim - if he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he did not acquire the Metaltelim; if he made an acquisition on the Metaltelim, he does not acquire the slaves.

2. (Beraisa #2): If he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he acquires the Metaltelim.
3. Suggestion: The first Tana (Beraisa #1) holds, slaves are as Metaltelim; the other Tana holds, they are as land.
4. [Version #1 - Rejection (Rav Ika brei d'Rav Ami): All agree, slaves are as land;

i. The first Tana holds that Metaltelim are only acquired with land such as "Fortified cities in Yehudah" (the source for acquisition along with land), i.e. stationary land.
ii. (Mishnah): Property without Acharayos (i.e. Metaltelim) are acquired with property with Acharayos, through money, a document or Chazakah.
iii. Question: From where do we know this?
iv. Answer (Chizkiyah): "He gave them...gold, silver and nice things with fortified cities in Yehudah".]

5. [Version #2 - Rejection (Rav Ika brei d'Rav Ami): All agree, slaves are as Metaltelim;

i. The second Tana said that Metaltelim are acquired with slaves - he refers to the clothes the slave is wearing.
ii. Question: What does it help if he is wearing them - a slave is as a moving yard, which does not acquire Metaltelim inside it!
iii. Suggestion: Perhaps the case is, the slave is standing still.
iv. Rejection: Rava taught, anything that does not acquire when it moves, does not acquire when it stands still.
v. Answer: If the slave is tied up (he cannot move), what he is wearing is acquired with him.

6. Question (Beraisa #3): A Chazakah to acquire the land also acquires the slaves!
7. Answer: That is when the slaves are standing in the land.
8. (Inference): If so, Beraisa #1 says that they are not acquired even when standing in the land!

i. This fits Version #1, that slaves are as Metaltelim - Metaltelim are only acquired with land if they are on that land.

9. Question: According to Version #2, slaves are as land - what is the difference whether they are in the land or not?

i. (Shmuel): Reuven was buying lands in different places - he makes a Chazakah on 1 and acquires them all.
ii. Counter-question: According to Version #1, slaves are as Metaltelim - what is the difference whether they are in the land or not - we hold, Metaltelim are acquired with land even if they are not on that land!

iii. Answer: You must say, Metaltelim that move are different than Metaltelim that do not move.

10. Answer: We can likewise say, land that moves is different than land that does not move!

i. Slaves are land that moves; Shmuel spoke of (regular) land - all land is connected.

(a) (Mishnah): Property to which Me'ilah does not apply.
(b) (Inference): There is no Me'ilah by them, but they are Kodshim!
(c) Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?
(d) Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah speaks of Kodshei Kalim; it is as R. Yosi ha'Galili, who says that they are the property of their owner.

1. (Beraisa): "He transgressed in Hash-m (and denied his fellowman)" - this includes Kodshei Kalim, which (pertain to Hash-m and) are (also) a person's property.

(e) (Mishnah): One who is Mekadesh with his portion of Kodshim, whether Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshei Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.
(f) Suggestion: This Mishnah is not as R. Yosi ha'Galili!
(g) Rejection: It can even be as R. Yosi ha'Galili - he only said that Kodshei Kalim are the property of the owners in the life of the animal;

1. After slaughter, he admits, they are considered Hash-m's, just we are allowed to eat them.

(h) Question: Does R. Yosi ha'Galili really hold that Kodshei Kalim are the property of the owners in the life of the animal?!

1. (Mishnah): An unblemished firstborn animal may be sold when alive; if it is blemished, it may be sold alive or slaughtered; (the Kohen) may use it to Mekadesh a woman.
2. (Rav Nachman): This is only nowadays - since it cannot be offered, Kohanim own it;

i. When the Mikdash stands, Kohanim do not own it.

3. Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "He transgressed in Hash-m" - this includes Kodshei Kalim, which are a person's property.
4. Answer (Ravina): The Beraisa speaks of a firstborn animal in Chutz la'Aretz, according to R. Shimon;

i. He holds, if they were brought to the Mikdash unblemished, they are offered; L'chatchilah, we do not bring them.

5. (Summation of question): If R. Yosi ha'Galili says that they are a person's money while they are alive, Ravina should rather have answered, the Beraisa is as R. Yosi ha'Galili!

(i) Answer: Gifts to the Kohen are not as other Kodshei Kalim, they are Hash-m's (just the Kohen is allowed to eat them).