Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SELLING A SLAVE JUST FOR THE FINE

(a) Question: A master sold his slave only regarding the right to collect the fine if the slave will be gored - is this a valid sale?

1. This question may be asked according to R. Meir, and according to Chachamim.
2. R. Meir only said that a person can acquire something not yet in the world in a case such as fruits of a date tree, which normally come; but in our case, nothing suggests that the slave will be gored!

i. Even if he is gored - perhaps the owner will be exempt from paying, by admitting to the fine!

3. One can ask according to Chachamim - Chachamim only said that a person cannot acquire something not yet in the world regarding fruits of a date tree, for they are not here yet; but regarding the fine, the slave and oxen are already in the world.

(b) Answer (R. Aba - Beraisa): "One born to a slave of a Kohen may eat Terumah";

1. Question: What does this teach? Even a slave bought for money may eat, all the more so, one born to a slave!
2. Answer: One might have thought, just as the slave bought for money must be worth a Perutah, also the child of a slave only eats Terumah if he is worth a Perutah - the verse teaches, he eats even if he is not worth anything.
3. Suggestion: This only teaches about the child of a slave - perhaps a slave bought for money only eats Terumah if he is worth a Perutah!
4. Rejection: "One bought for money and one born to his slave" - just as the child of a slave eats Terumah if he is not worth anything, also a purchased slave.
5. (Culmination of answer): If a slave may be sold regarding rights to collect the fine (if he will be gored), every slave is worth a Perutah (he may be sold for this)!

(c) Rejection: Really, slaves can be sold regarding the fine; the case of a worthless slave is a Treifah slave, for whom there is no fine.
(d) Question: Even a Treifah is worth money, he can serve the master!
(e) Answer: The case is, he is also a disgusting Metzora (and unfit for service).

(a) Question: A half-slave engaged a Bas Yisrael - does it take effect?

1. If you will say that a Yisrael that told a Bas Yisrael 'You are engaged to half of me', that this takes effect - (we cannot learn from that,) because she is fitting to be married to all of him (but a half-slave is not fully fitting for a Bas Yisrael)!
2. If you will say that a Yisrael that told a Bas Yisrael 'Half of you is engaged to me', that this does not take effect - (we cannot learn from that,) because he did not try to acquire all of her (but the half-slave engaged all of her)!

(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. If engagement of a half-slave is invalid, he would not have any heirs!

(c) Rejection #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, the ox did not kill the half-slave, it only made him a Treifah; when the Beraisa says that the heirs get half the Kofer, it means the half-slave himself.

1. Objection #1 (to this rejection - Rava): The Beraisa says 'heirs', you cannot say it means him himself!
2. Objection #2 (Rava): Reish Lakish taught, Kofer is only paid after the victim dies.

(d) Rejection #2 (of the proof from the Beraisa - Rava): The Beraisa means, it is fitting that Kofer be paid to the heirs, but there are no heirs.

(a) Answer #2 (Rava): Just as a Yisrael that half-engages a Bas Yisrael, this does not take effect, also engagement of a female half-slave does not take effect.
(b) Rabah bar Rav Huna taught this same law.

1. Rav Chisda: You cannot learn from half-engagement, where he did not try to acquire all of her; to (full) engagement of a female half-slave!
2. Rabah bar Rav Huna: "This stumbling under your hand" - a person only understands words of Torah after stumbling in them.
3. Rather, even though half-engagement of a Bas Yisrael does not take effect, engagement of a female half-slave takes effect.

i. This is because in the former case, he did not try to acquire all of her; in the latter case, he did.

(c) (Rav Sheshes): Just as a half-engagement of a Bas Yisrael does not take effect, also engagement of a female half-slave does not take effect.

1. Suggestion: We should learn differently from a Beraisa!

i. (Beraisa): The Charufah (designated) female slave the Torah speaks of is a half-slave engaged to a Yisrael slave - we see, she can be engaged!

2. Rejection (Rav Sheshes): R. Yishmael says that the Charufah slave is a (full) female slave engaged to a Yisrael slave.

i. Clearly a slave cannot be engaged - you must say, when he says 'engaged', he means 'designated'.
ii. We can say the same according to the opinion that she is an 'engaged' half-slave!

(d) (Rav Chisda): A female half-slave was engaged to Reuven, then was freed, and became engaged to Shimon his brother. Reuven and Shimon died - she does Yibum (or Chalitzah) with their brother, she is not considered the widow of 2 brothers (who does not do Yibum).

1. If you will say that Reuven's engagement takes effect, Shimon's engagement does not!
2. If you will say that Shimon's engagement takes effect, Reuven's engagement does not!

(e) A female half-slave was engaged to Reuven, then was freed, and became engaged to another man.

1. (Rav Yosef bar Chama citing Rav Nachman): Reuven's engagement is uprooted.
2. (R. Zeira citing Rav Nachman): Reuven's engagement becomes full engagement.
3. Support (R. Zeira for himself): "(The Charufah slave and the man that had relations with her) will not die, for she was not freed" - we infer, if she had been freed, they would be killed (for she is fully engaged)!
4. Rejection: (Abaye): Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael says that the Charufah slave is a (full) female slave engaged to a Yisrael slave - he cannot say that had she been freed, they would be killed!

i. Rather, he must explain, had she been freed and then engaged, (she and the man that slept with her) would be killed.
ii. We can say the same according to the opinion that she is an engaged half-slave!

(f) (Rav Huna bar Ketina): There was a case in which Chachamim forced the owner of a female half-slave to free her.

1. Suggestion: This is as R. Yochanan ben Brokah, who says that "Be fruitful and multiply" is a Mitzvah for both men and women.
2. Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): No - they forced him to free her because men were sinning with her.

(a) (Mishnah): One who sells his slave to a Nochri or to Chutz La'aretz, the slave becomes free.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): One who sells his slave to a Nochri, the slave becomes free, and needs a Get of freedom from his master that sold him;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, this only applies if his Ono was not written; if it was written, it serves as his Get of freedom.
2. Question: What is an Ono?
3. Answer (Rav Sheshes): He wrote - 'when you flee from the new master, I have nothing to do with you'.

(c) (Beraisa): A Yisrael borrowed from a Nochri, and used his slave as collateral - once the Nochri makes Nimuso on him, the slave goes free.
(d) Question: What is Nimuso?
(e) Answer #1 (Rav Huna bar Yehudah): A neck brace identifying him as his slave.

1. Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): The produce of a Nochri's field is exempt from Ma'aser in all these cases:

i. Reuven is a regular or hereditary sharecropper working it;
ii. Reuven is renting it;
iii. The field is collateral for a loan Reuven gave the Nochri, even though he made Nimuso on it.

2. It makes no sense to speak of a neck brace for a field!

(f) Answer #2 (Rav Sheshes): Nimuso means a date (after which the collateral will be collected as payment of the loan).
(g) Question: In the first Beraisa, setting a date makes it considered a sale; in the second Beraisa, it does not!
(h) Answer #1: It is only considered a sale after the date arrives.
(i) Objection: If (in the case of the slave) the date has arrived, obviously, it is as a sale!
(j) Answer #2: In both Beraisos, the date did not arrive.

1. [Rashi: Regarding the slave, when the date arrives, the slave will be fully sold (so it is considered a sale once the date is set); by the field, only the fruits will be sold when the date arrives, so the field is not considered sold to the Yisrael.]
2. [Tosfos: The slave himself is already by the Nochri, and cannot keep the Mitzvos, so it is as bad as if he was already sold; by the field, the Yisrael only gets the fruits, the field itself always belongs to the Nochri.]

(k) Answer #3: [Rashi: In both cases, the date arrived; regarding the field, Reuven did not take the fruit, so it is exempt from Ma'aser.]
(l) [Tosfos: The date arrived in the Beraisa regarding the slave - we need to hear that he goes free, even though the Nochri did not yet take him. In the Beraisa regarding the field, the date did not yet arrive.]