Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) DOES A HUSBAND GET ALL THAT HIS WIFE ACQUIRES?

(a) Contradiction: Elsewhere, the opinions of R. Meir and Chachamim are reversed!

1. (Beraisa): A woman that redeems Ma'aser Sheni must always add a fifth of the value; R. Meir says, she can redeem it without adding the fifth.
2. Question: What is the case?

i. Suggestion: She redeems the husband's Ma'aser with the husband's money.
ii. Rejection: If so, she is his agent, all would agree that she adds a fifth!

3. [Version #1 (Rashi) Answer #1: Rather, she redeems his Ma'aser with her money.
4. Rejection: If so, all would agree that she does not add a fifth - "A man (will add a fifth)", not his wife.]
5. [Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer #1: Rather, she redeems her Ma'aser with her money.
6. Rejection: If so, all would agree that she does not add a fifth - "A man (will add a fifth)", not a woman.]
7. Answer #2: Rather, someone gave her money and said 'you only acquire this money in order to redeem the Ma'aser'.

i. (R. Meir says that the stipulation works, therefore, she does not add a fifth; Chachamim say that the money belongs to her husband, she is just his agent, so she adds a fifth) - this is the opposite of what they hold by a slave!

(b) Answer #1 (Abaye): The text is wrong; their opinions must be switched (in the Beraisa).
(c) Answer #2 (Rava): The text is correct - the case is, she inherited the Ma'aser from her father (and redeemed it with the husband's money).

1. R. Meir (generally) considers Ma'aser Sheni as belonging (primarily) to Hash-m; therefore, the husband does not acquire it;

i. (No fifth is added, since he does not redeem his Ma'aser.)

2. Chachamim consider Ma'aser Sheni as normal property of its owner; the husband acquires it (as any property his wife inherits);

i. A fifth is added, since she is his agent to redeem his Ma'aser.

(a) (Beraisa): (If the master knocks out) an eye, tooth or extremal limb (that does not grow back) of his slave, he goes free.

1. We know why he goes free for an eye or tooth - the Torah says so explicitly.

(b) Question: From where do we know the other extremal limbs?
(c) Answer #1: We learn from an eye and tooth: just as these are exposed blemishes that will not grow back, also all such blemishes.
(d) Question: We should say that "eye" and "tooth" are 2 verses, each of which could have been learned from the other - we do not learn other cases from such verses!
(e) Answer: It is necessary to write "eye" and "tooth", we could not learn either from the other.

1. Had the Torah only said "tooth" - one might have thought, even baby teeth - therefore, it had to write "eye" (to teach, only things that do not grow replacements).

2. Had the Torah only said "eye" - one might have thought, only things that a person is born with, but not teeth - therefore, it had to write "tooth".

(f) Question: We should say that "When he will hit" is a generality, "tooth or eye" is a specific;

1. From a generality and specific, we only learn the specific case - a tooth or eye!

(g) Answer #1: "He will send him free" is a generality; from a generality, specific, generality we learn everything similar to the specifics;

1. A tooth or eye that is knocked out - these are visible blemishes that will not heal; we include all such damage.
2. Objection: The specifics are visible blemishes that will not heal and the injured limb can no longer function - we should only include such cases!

i. (Beraisa): If the master pulled the slave's beard and dislocated the bone, the slave goes free!

(h) Answer #2: Rather, "He will send him free" is an inclusion (we expound by the method of inclusion, exclusion, inclusion).
(i) Question: If so, the slave should go free even if he was hit on the hand and it dried up, even if it will heal!

1. (Beraisa): (In such a case) the slave does not go free!

(j) Answer: "Eye" and "tooth" were written to exclude this case.
(k) (Beraisa - R. Shimon, R. Eliezer, R. Akiva): For any of the blows that free the slave, a Get of freedom is needed;

1. R. Meir and R. Tarfon say, a Get is not needed;
2. The arbitrators say, a Get is not needed when he strikes an eye or tooth, because the Torah said that he goes free;

i. A Get is needed if a different limb is stricken, since this is a fine of Chachamim.
ii. Objection: It is mid'Oraisa, it was expounded from verses!
iii. Correction: Rather, a Get is needed since it is (not explicit, rather) expounded by Chachamim.

(l) Question: What is the reason for those that say that a Get is needed?
(m) Answer: They learn a Gezeirah Shavah "Shilu'ach-Shilu'ach" from divorce - just as a document is needed there, also here.

1. The others say that the Torah did not write 'He will send him free', rather "Free, he will send him" to teach that he is free immediately (without a Get).

(a) (Beraisa): The master hit him on the eye and blinded it, or on the ear and deafened it - he goes free;

1. If he hit (a wall) near the organ and it ceased functioning (from fright), he does not go free.

(b) Question (R. Shaman): This implies that one is not liable for damage caused through noise!

1. But Rami bar Yechezkel taught, if Reuven's chicken cackled inside a jar and the sound broke it, Reuven must pay the full damage!
2. (Rav Yosef): An animal that whinnied and broke vessels pays half damage.

(c) Answer (Rav Ashi): It is different when a man was damaged - he caused the damage to himself (by his fright).

1. (Beraisa): Reuven scared Shimon - Beis Din cannot make him pay, but he is accountable at the hands of Heaven;
2. If he blew (a Shofar) in his ear and deafened him, he is exempt; if he was holding him when he did this, he is liable.

(d) (Beraisa #1): A master hit his slave's eye and weakened it, or his tooth and loosened it - if the organ no longer works, the slave goes free.
(e) (Beraisa #2): A master hit his slave's weak eye and blinded it, or his loose tooth and knocked it out - if the organ was usable until now, the slave goes free; if not, not.
(f) It is necessary to hear both cases.

1. If we only heard the first case - we would think that he only goes free when a healthy limb was damaged, not if the limb was already impaired;
2. If we only heard the second case - we would think that he only goes free when a limb was rendered totally useless.

(g) (Beraisa): A slave asked his master (a doctor) to treat his eye or dig around his tooth; in doing so, he blinded the eye or knocked out the tooth - the slave goes free;

1. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "and he will destroy" - he is only free if the master intended for destruction.
2. Chachamim learn R. Eliezer's law from this verse.

i. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): A master stuck his hand into his Shifchah's womb and blinded her fetus - he is exempt, for he did not intend to harm it.
ii. R. Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that the master must have intent for the limb that was stricken, since the Torah added "and he will destroy it".
iii. Chachamim do not expound the extra "it".

(h) (Rav Sheshes): If a master knocked out an eye that was already blind, the slave goes free, because he causes the slave to be lacking a limb.

1. (Beraisa): Animal sacrifices must be unblemished and (in some cases) male - there is no such restriction by bird offerings;
2. One might have thought, a bird is acceptable even if its wings dried, its leg was cut off, or its eye was gouged out' - "From the birds", not all birds are acceptable.

(i) (R. Chiya bar Ashi): If a master knocked out an extra finger, the slave goes free.

1. (Rav Huna): This only applies if it is in line with the other fingers.