ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 15
KIDUSHIN 14&15 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him in kind.
(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns from "Ha'anek Ta'anik *Lo*" - "Lo",
've'Lo le'Mocher Atzmo'.
(b) We reject the suggestion that Rebbi Elazar learns from there "Lo" 've'Lo
le'Yorshav' - because, seeing as the Torah refers to the Eved Ivri as
'Sachir', it would be illogical to say that his heirs should not inherit it
should he die.
(c) We conclude that his D'rashah from there is based on Rebbi Nasan, who
says - that if Reuven owes Shimon money and Shimon owes Levi, we make Reuven
pay Levi directly (known as 'Shibuda de'Rebbi Nasan').
(d) Rebbi Elazar now learns from "Ha'anek Ta'anik Lo" - "Lo", 've'Lo
le'Ba'al Chovo' (teaching us that in this case, Rebbi Nasan's Din does not
(a) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Elazar in this case - because they do
not hold like Rebbi Nasan.
(b) What induces Rebbi Yitzchak in a Beraisa to explain "Ki Mishneh S'char
Sachir Avadcha" to mean that the Eved Ivri's master gives him a Shifchah
Cana'anis - is the Pasuk "Ki Tov Lo Imach", from which we Darshen 'Imach
be'Ma'achal, Imach be'Mishteh' (which negates the literal meaning of the
(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Im Adonav Yiten *Lo* Ishah" - "Lo",
've'Lo le'Mocher Atzmo'.
(b) Rebbi Elazar learns from there - "Lo", 'Ba'al Korcho'.
(c) The Rabbanan learn this from the Pasuk "Ki Mishneh S'char Sachir" -
which implies that this is the right of the master, with or without the Eved
(d) Rebbi Elazar argues - that the Pasuk might well refer specifically when
the Eved Ivri consents.
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov explains the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Shav el
Mishpachto ... " (to teach us that an Eved Ivri goes out with the advent of
the Yovel). This Pasuk can refer neither to a Mocher Atzmo nor to a Nirtza,
since both have already been mentioned ('Ad Sh'nas ha'Yovel Ya'avod Imach"
and "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" respectively).
(b) Consequently, the Pasuk can only be referring to a Machruhu Beis-Din.
(c) We try to prove from here that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is the Tana who
does not hold of "Sachir" "Sachir" - because, if he did, why would he need
an extra Pasuk for Machruhu Beis-Din? Why could he not learn it from Mocher
Atzmo via "Sachir" "Sachir"?
(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak repudiates this suggestion however, because,
even assuming that Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns the 'Gezeirah-Shavah',
he would not learn Machruhu Beis-Din from Mocher Atzmo in this regard -
since there is good reason to say that, the latter, having performed an
Aveirah, would have to serve his full six-year term. (Note, that one can
only ask a Pircha on a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' if only one of the words is
redundant, but not if they both are).
(a) We establish "ve'Shavtem Ish el Achuzaso" by a Nirtza (to teach us that
when the Yovel arrives, he goes free). Rava bar Shilo extrapolates from the
Pasuk itself that it is speaking about a Nirtza - because the Torah uses the
word "Ish", hinting at 'Retzi'ah' which does apply to a woman (as we learned
(b) Having taught us that ...
1. ... a Machruhu Beis-Din goes free in the Yovel, the Torah nevertheless
needs to repeat the Din by a Nirtza - because we might otherwise have
thought that we punish the latter to make him serve a full six-year term
(even if Yovel occurs in the middle), for deliberately remaining after his
initial term came to an end.
(c) The Torah also finds it necessary to write both the Pasuk of
"ve'Shavtem" (by Nirtza) and "va'Avado Le'olam". In spite of having written
2. ... a Nirtza goes free in the Yovel, the Torah needs to repeat the Din by
a Machruhu Beis-Din - because we would otherwise have thought that we punish
the latter for having stolen by making him serve his full term.
1. ... "Le'olam" it needed to write "ve'Shavtem" - because we would
otherwise have interpreted "Le'olam" literally, and he would never have gone
2. ... "ve'Shavtem" it needed to write "Le'olam" - because we would
otherwise have thought that he works for another six-year period and then
(a) The Torah writes in Behar (in connection with a Jew who sells himself to
a Nochri "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el be'Eileh" - which refers to Ge'ulas K'rovim'
(being redeemed by relatives).
(b) Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from there "be'Eileh Hu Nig'al, ve'Eino
Nig'al be'Sheish". He learns a 'Kal va'Chomer' from Mocher Atzmo, who
*cannot be redeemed by relatives*, yet he goes free after six years, then
certainly a Nimkar le'Akum (someone who sold himself to a Nochri), who
*can*, should go free after six years (if not for "be'Eileh").
(c) What leads us to initially believe that Rebbi is the Tana who does not
hold of "Sachir" "Sachir" is - that, if he did, then why does he say that a
Mocher Atzmo cannot be redeemed by relatives? Why does he not learn via the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Sachir" "Sachir" from a Nimkar le'Akum, that he can?
(Note, that until now, we have been referring to learning a Mocher Atzmo
from a Machruhu Beis-Din; not we are referring to learning it from a Nimkar
le'Akum (where the Torah also writes "ki'S'chir Shanah be'Shanah Yihyeh
(d) Based on the Pasuk (written by a Nimkar le'Akum) "O Dodo O ben Dodo
Yig'alenu", Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rejects the proof from there - because
the D'rashah "Yig'alenu", 'la'Zeh ve'Lo le'Acher' (precluding a Mocher Atzmo
from being redeemed by relatives) overrides the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
(a) Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva disagree with Rebbi. Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili Darshens from "be'Eileh", 'be'Eileh le'Shichrur, ve'Sha'ar Kol Adam
le'Shibud' - meaning that if relatives redeem the Eved Ivri from the Nochri
he goes free, but if others redeem him, he has to work for them until the
(b) Rebbi Akiva says the exact opposite (that he has to work for the
relatives bur goes free if redeemed by others).
(c) We initially base their dispute on their respective interpretations of
the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el be'Eileh, ve'Yatza bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel", which
Rebbi Yossi Hagelili interprets literally to mean - that if he is not
redeemed by relatives (but by somebody else), then he goes free only in the
(d) Rebbi Akiva Darshens the Pasuk "ve'Im Lo Yiga'el Ela be'Eileh, ve'Yazta
bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel", meaning that it is when he is redeemed by relatives
that he must work until the Yovel. This interpretation is unacceptable
however - because Rebbi Akiva's D'rashah twists the Pasuk to say what it
(a) So we cite another source (though still connected with the D'rashah from
"be'Eileh", as we shall soon see) to explain their Machlokes, based on the
Pasuk "O Dodo ... Yig'alenu, O Hisigah Yado, ve'Nig'al". "O Dodo ...
Yig'alenu" obviously refers to the redemption of relatives. The Pasuk ...
1. ... "O Hisigah Yado" refers to Ge'ulas Atzmo.
(b) Bearing in mind that the Torah places Ge'ulas Atzmo in the middle, we
now attempt to interpret the Machlokes Tana'im in that Rebbi Yossi Hagelili
Darshens backwards ('Lefanav'), comparing Ge'ulas Atzmo (where the Eved Ivri
obviously goes free) to Ge'ulas K'rovim which precedes it; whereas Rebbi
Akiva Darshens forwards ('le'Acharav'), comparing it to Ge'ulas Acheirim
which is written after it.
2. ... "ve'Nig'al" refers Ge'ulas Acheirim.
(c) We nevertheless need "be'Eileh" - because we would otherwise Darshen
both backwards and forwards, setting the Eved Ivri free both by Ge'ulas
K'rovim and by Ge'ulas Acheirim.
(d) We reject this explanation too however - for the same reason that we
rejected the previous one (because Rebbi Akiva is twisting the Pasuk).
(a) We finally base the Machlokes on a S'varos. The S'vara of ...
1. ... Rebbi Yossi Hagelili is that by Ge'ulas Acheirim, the Eved Ivri is
more likely to have to work for them - because otherwise, what incentive
will total strangers have to redeem him?
(b) Rebbi Akiva will explain - that "be'Eileh" (which until now, we have
seen, supported Rebbi Yossi Hagelili's explanation) pertains, not to Ge'ulas
K'rovim, as we thought until now, but to Acheirim, which are mentioned just
before it (in the word "ve'Nig'al", as we just explained).
2. ... Rebbi Akiva is that by Ge'ulas Acheirim, this is more likely to be
the case - because otherwise, whoever needs money will go and sell himself
to a Nochri, in the knowledge that his good relatives will redeem him, and
he will go free.
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan restricts the above opinions to
the two Tana'im concerned, but according to the Chachamim, he goes free both
by Ge'ulas K'rovim and by Ge'ulas Acheirim. The Rabbanan is - Rebbi, who
uses "be'Eileh" for "be'Eileh" 'Hu Nig'al, ve'Eino Nig'al be'Sheish'.
Consequently, there is nothing to restrict the D'rashah from Ge'ulas Atzmo,
and to say 'Mikra Nidrash Bein mi'Lefanav u'Vein mi'le'Acharav'.
(d) According to Rebbi, the Pasuk "ve'Yatza bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel" - speaks
when the Eved Ivri was not redeemed (and is referring to a Nochri who lives
under our jurisdiction). It is coming to teach us that, under no
circumstances, may one force him to relinquish his rights over the Eved Ivri
before the Yovel.