Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HALF-FREEDOM

(a) (Mishnah): Someone that was a half-slave...
(b) According to Rabah, the Mishnah can be as everyone - the slave was half-freed through money.
(c) Question: According to Rav Yosef - must we say that the Mishnah is only as Rebbi?
(d) Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah can be as everyone - the slave belonged to partners, and 1 partner freed his half.
(e) (Rabah): Rebbi and Chachamim only argue when the master frees half and retains the other half;

1. But if the master frees half and sells or gives the other half as a gift, since the slave totally leaves the master, all agree that this works.

(f) Question (Abaye): They argue even if this case!

1. (Beraisa #1): A master wrote a document giving all his property to his 2 slaves; they acquire the property, and free each other;
2. (Beraisa #2): A master wrote a document saying, 'All my property is given to my 2 slaves', they do not even acquire themselves.

i. Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is as Rebbi, Beraisa #2 is as Chachamim.

(g) Answer: No, both are as Chachamim; in Beraisa #1, he gave each slave a document giving all his property; in Beraisa #2, the document says that each slave receives half.
(h) Question: But the end of Beraisa #2 says, 'If he said half-half, they do not acquire' - this implies, in the beginning of the Beraisa the document says that he gives all his property!
(i) Answer #1: No, the end of the Beraisa explains the beginning - they do not even acquire themselves if he said half-half.

1. Support: This must be correct - if in the beginning of the Beraisa, he gave all his property, and they do not acquire - there would be no need to teach the case of half-half!
2. Rejection: No the end of the Beraisa is needed, so we will not say that the case is that he said half-half, but had he said 'All', they would acquire.

i. Now that there is a second clause explicitly saying half-half, we infer that in the first clause, he said all, and still, they do not acquire.

(j) Answer #2: In Beraisa #1, he gave a document to each slave; in Beraisa #2, he gave one document to both of them.
(k) Question: If he only wrote 1 document, why does the Beraisa say that he wrote half-half - even if it said 'All', they would not acquire!
(l) The Beraisa indeed means to say this!

1. If he only wrote 1 document, they do not acquire themselves; if he gave each a document, they acquire themselves;
2. If he wrote half-half, even if each got his own document, they do not acquire themselves.

(m) Answer #3: (Each document says 'All'.) In Beraisa #1, he gave the documents simultaneously; in Beraisa #2, he gave them 1 after the other.

1. If he gave 1 after the other, we understand why the latter does not acquire.
2. Objection: The first should acquire himself and the other slave!
3. This answer is rejected; we must learn like Answer #1 or Answer #2.

(n) Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): In Beraisa #2, they do not acquire because the document calls them slaves (indicating that he does not intend to free them).
(o) Objection (Rafram): Perhaps it means, that used to be my slaves!

1. (Mishnah): Reuven wrote a document giving all his property to his slave - he goes free; if Reuven retained any land for himself, he does not go free;
2. R. Shimon says, he always goes free unless Reuven writes, 'All my property is given to my slave except for 1 part in 10,000'.

i. Had he not retained something for himself, the slave would go free, even though the document calls him a slave.
ii. We must say, it means, that used to be my slave; we may say the same in our case!

(a) A half-slave was gored by an ox. If this was on a day when he works for his master, the master receives damage payments; if on his own day, he keeps them.
(b) Question: If so, on his master's day, he should be permitted to marry a slave; on his own day, he should be permitted to marry a Bas Yisrael!
(c) Answer: The division of the slave between the master and himself is only financial, it does not affect prohibitions.
(d) (Beraisa): Reuven's ox (a Mu'ad, an established gorer) killed a half-slave; Reuven pays half of the fine (for a slave killed by a Mu'ad) to the master, and half the Kofer (for a free man killed by a Mu'ad) to the half-slave's heirs.

(e) Question: Why don't we say, if he was gored on the master's day, the master gets the full fine; on the slave's day, the slave gets the full Kofer!
(f) Answer: The division of days only applies to the earnings; here is different, for the principle (the slave) was consumed (died)!
(g) Question: Above, we said that the damage is paid to the one whose day it was - what case of damage does not (at least partially) consume the principle?
(h) Answer: He was gored on the hand; it dried up, by will later return as initially.

1. This answer fits Abaye, who says that a man that causes such a wound pays both the decrease in value (if the victim would be sold as a slave) and compensation for inability to work until he recovers.
2. Question: According to Rava, who says that a man would only pay the latter compensation - the owner of a goring animal only pays the former compensation, this answer does not work!
3. Answer #1: The case is, a man wounded the half-slave.
4. Answer #2: The teaching that the payment goes to the one whose day it was, this was a teaching of Amora'im - Rava argues on it.

(a) Question: Shimon must give a Get of freedom to his slave Tavi, he may not force him to work. If an animal gores Tavi, does Shimon receive the fine (that would be paid for a regular slave)?

1. "Thirty Shekalim will be paid to the master" - Shimon is not his master, so he doesn't get it;
2. Or - do we say he is as a master, since he must give a Get?

(b) Answer (Beraisa): Reuven's ox killed a half-slave; Reuven pays half of the fine to the master, and half the Kofer to the half-slave's heirs.

1. Suggestion: This Beraisa is as the latter Mishnah, that the master must free his half-slave.

(c) Rejection: No, it is as the original Mishnah, that he need not free him.
(d) Answer (Beraisa): If a master knocked out the tooth of his slave and blinded his eye, the slave goes free on account of the tooth, and the master must pay him for his eye.

1. If you would say that the master of a slave (whom he must free) receives the fine if another man's ox gores the slave - it is illogical to say that the master would have to pay the slave if he himself hit him!

(e) Rejection: The Beraisa is as the opinion that the slave goes free (on account of the tooth) and does not need a Get of freedom.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael, R. Eliezer, R. Akiva): If a master destroys any of the external limbs of his slave, the slave goes free, and needs a Get of freedom;
2. R. Meir and R. Tarfon say, he goes free and does not need a Get;
3. The arbitrators say, if a tooth or eye was knocked out, since the Torah said he goes free, a Get is not needed; if any other limb was destroyed, he needs a Get, since he goes free because of a fine mid'Rabanan.
4. Question: This is not a fine mid'Rabanan - Chachamim expounded verses!
5. Answer: Rather, because it is a fine expounded by the Chachamim.

(f) Question: A Kohen's slave is waiting to be freed - may the slave eat Terumah?

1. "The acquisition of his money may eat (Terumah)" - this slave is not the Kohen's acquisition!
2. Or - since the Kohen must give him a Get, he is as his acquisition.

(g) Answer: Rav Mesharshiya taught, the children of a Kohen's wife and her slave got mixed up - they may eat Terumah, and they receive 1 share of Terumah at the granaries;

1. When they grow up, they free each other.

(h) Rejection: That is no proof - there, they eat, because if we would find out which is the slave, he is properly the acquisition of his master;

1. In our question, the master has no right to make his slave work!