דילמא לא היא—Perhaps it is not so

OVERVIEW רב חסדא stated that the argument between ר"א ורבנן regarding פאה is whether we maintain התופס לבע"ח במקום שחב לאחרים קנה (the view of ר"א), or not (the view of the רבנן). רב פפא rejected this interpretation and said that it is possible that the argument between ר"א ורבנן is regarding other issues; not תופס לבע"ח. Our תוספות qualifies the seriousness of sרב פפא' rejection.

דחויא בעלמא היא – **This (**rejection of רב חסדא by ¹רב פפא) was a mere rejoinder² –

For רב פפא explicitly³ maintains that התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה.

SUMMARY רב פפא maintains התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה (agreeing with רב חסדא).

THINKING IT OVER In the case of פאה there is the concept of מגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה.⁴ ר' יוחנן who maintains that התופס לב"ח וכו' לא קנה agrees that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה⁵ since מגו דזכי לנפשיה וכו'. When רב חסדא stated that the מחלוקת by פאה is dependent on התופס לב"ח, it turns out that the חכמים who maintain by פאה (where there is a מגו דזכי וכו') that לא קנה will also maintains that המגביה מציאה לחבירו is also לא קנה (since they do not say מגו דזכי לנפשיה וכו'). This is what רב פפא challenges, that even ר' אליעזר maintains התופס לב"ח לא קנה, and here he is קונה since there is a מגו, and similarly the רבנן, even though there is a מגו by פאה, nevertheless he is not קונה since there is a פסוק. However, all agree that התופס לב"ח לא קנה and המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה! What is תוספות question?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ It would appear from the response of רב פפא that even the רבנן maintain התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים קנה, and the reason the עני is not קונה (by פאה) is because there is a פסוק which prohibits gathering for an עני. This would indicate that רב פפא maintains התופס לב"ח קנה, therefore he wants to argue that the רבנן also maintain קנה. However, this is not so, as תוספות points out. ² רב פפא was merely saying that it is possible that their מחלוקת is based on other issues, so there is no conclusive proof from this מחלוקת that the רבנן maintain התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה. ³ This is in the story with יימר בר חשו (see תוס' יא,ב ד"ה התופס [footnote # 2]), who sent a שליח to seize the ship; רב פפא (and רהבדר"י) told the agent that his תפיסא is meaningless since התלבחבמשחל"א לא קנה. ⁴ Either one מגו if it is מעני לעני or two מגו if it is מעשיר לעני (see ב"מ ט,ב). ⁵ See previous תוספות ד"ה כל (יא,ב). ⁶ See אמ"ה # 5-7.

אלא דכתיב לא תלקט לעני—Only because it states; do not gather for the poor

OVERVIEW רב פפא explained that (it is possible) the reason the רבנן maintain יתננה לעני הנמצא ראשון (is not because of התופס לב"ח וכו'), but rather there is a פסוק¹ which states לא תלקט לעני, indicating that it is forbidden to gather פאה for the עני. Our תוספות explains how this translates to the inability of the עני to acquire it.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר למאן דאמר בפרק קמא דתמורה (דף ד,ב) – And if you will say; according to the one who maintains in the first פרק of מסכת תמורה, regarding – כל מילתא דאמר רחמנא לא תעביד אי עביד מהני² אם כן קנה העני³ – Anything which the ‘Merciful One’ orders not to do, if one transgressed and did it, the task is accomplished; if this is indeed so, the עני should acquire the פאה regardless that**** there is a prohibition to gather it for him. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהכא בתר לא תלקט כתיב לעני ולגר תעזוב אותם⁴ משמע דלא קני – And one can say; that here after the words of לא תלקט (from which we derive the prohibition for gathering for an עני), it is written in the תורה, ‘you should leave it for the poor and the convert’; indicating that (even) if one gathered for the עני, nonetheless the עני does not acquire it. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ונילף מהכא בעלמא דהמגביה מציאה לחבירו דלא קנה חבירו⁵ – And if you will say; so let us derive from here that elsewhere (also) המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו? תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהכא סברא הוא – And one can say that here by פאה it is logical that the עני is not קונה – שלא זכתה תורה לעני אלא מה שכל אחד מלקט לצורך עצמו⁶ – For the תורה limited the right of the עני to what each עני can gather for his own needs, however by מציאה where this סברא is not applicable, the ruling can be that המגביה מציאה לחבירו קנה חבירו – ולרב חסדא דמפרש הכא דטעמייהו דרבנן משום דתופס לבעל חוב לא קני – However, according to רב חסדא who explains here that the reason of the רבנן (who maintain that the עני is not קונה) is because התופס לב"ח לא קני – איכא למימר דמהכא יליף: We can indeed say that he derives from פאה, this rule that המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו (and also the rule that התופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים לא קנה).

SUMMARY The עני does not acquire the פאה because of the repetition of לעני וגו' תעזב אתם. We can distinguish between פאה and מציאה regarding המגביה לחבירו.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that even though one is not permitted to be מלקט for the עני, nevertheless the עני should be קונה according to the מ"ד of אי עביד מהני.⁷ Seemingly the one who is מלקט for the עני is זוכה for the עני מטעם שליחות⁸, and by שליחות there is a rule that אין שליח לדבר עבירה, so therefore the שליחות is בטל and the עני cannot be קונה!⁹

footnotes: ¹ The פסוק in ויקרא (אמור) כג,כב reads: לא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת שָׂדְךָ בְּקֻצְרֶךָ וְלֶקֶט קְצִירְךָ לא תְלַקֵּט, לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזב אתָם וגו'. The simple reading of the פסוק is that you should not destroy the corners of your field and do not gather the gleanings of your harvest; leave them over for the poor and the stranger, etc. However in this דרשה we join the words of לא תלקט to the word עני, which is interpreted to mean do not gather for another עני. ² One is prohibited to be שוחט an animal on שבת (for instance); if one however, was שוחט on שבת, the שחיטה is valid and one may eat from this animal (after שבת). ³ One is prohibited from gathering פאה for the עני, nevertheless if one transgressed and gathered for the עני; the עני should acquire it. Why is it necessary to give it לעני הנמצא ראשון?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ After saying לא תלקט, the תורה repeats and says תעזוב אותם, the repetition indicates that even בדיעבד לא קני. [Alternately, the word עני is read together with לא תלקט to prohibit one from gathering for the עני, and the word עני is also read together with תעזב אתם, that if you picked it for an עני, you are still obligated to leave it for the other עניים.] ⁵ The case of פאה is similar to מציאה; in both cases he is a תופס לב"ח במקום שחב לאחרים and in both instances there is a מגו דזכי לנפשיה זכי נמי לחבריה (see רש"ש). The תורה rules that (not only are you prohibited from gathering for the עני, but also that) the עני is not קונה. The reason for this is presumably because generally the ruling is המגביה מציאה לחבירו לא קנה חבירו (by מציאה as well as by פאה). ⁶ The תורה commanded us to leave פאה, so that all the עניים will have the opportunity to benefit from it. If however one can be זוכה for another עני, it is possible that a small group of עניים may collect פאה for each other thus denying all the other עניים the benefit of פאה. There is no such concern regarding מציאה. ⁷ See footnote # 3. ⁸ See previous תוספות יא,ב ד"ה התופס (TIE footnote # 5) that זכייה is מטעם שליחות. ⁹ See בל"י אות רסו.

עבד נמי בדלא ספיק—A slave also; when it is not sufficient

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that there is a difference between a wife and a slave where the husband and master told them each respectively, ‘go support yourself with your handiwork’. Regarding a wife if her handiwork is insufficient to support herself, the husband is obligated to make up the difference; however by a slave, the גמרא concluded, the master is not obligated to make up the difference. תוספות clarifies why the גמרא initially thought the master would be obligated to feed the slave if he told him צא מעשה ידיך למזונותיך.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אטו משום דלא ספיק יהא רבו חייב לזונו – And if you will say; is it indeed so, that because the slave cannot earn sufficiently to support himself, his master should be obligated to feed him?! ולא יוכל לומר לו צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך¹ – And the master cannot tell the slave, ‘spend your handiwork for your food’?! תוספות asks an additional question: ועוד קשה הלשון דקאמר עבדא דנהום כריסיה לא שוי² – And furthermore the expression which the גמרא uses, namely ‘a slave who is not worth the bread of his stomach is not worth that his master should keep him**’,** this expression is difficult – הוה ליה למימר בהדיא דלא מחייב לזונו – The גמרא should have stated clearly that the master is not obligated to feed the slave – כיון דאמר ליה צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך – Since the master told him, צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך! תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דסלקא דעתיה דרגילות הוא שעבד עצמו הולך ועובד את רבו – And the ר"י answers, that the גמרא initially assumed that (since) it is usual for a slave to work for his master – אפילו כשאמר ליה צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך³ – Even if the master told him, צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך – משום הכי בעי למימר (אף על גב⁴) דלא ספיק שיתחייב במזונות – Therefore the גמרא assumed that the master should be responsible to feed the עבד (even) in a case where his work is insufficient to support himself – כיון שמכל מקום עובדו – Since nonetheless the עבד is working for him – משום הכי מהדר ליה בלשון זה עבדא דנהום כריסיה לא שוי כולי⁵ – Therefore the גמרא responded with this expression 'עבדא דנהום כריסיה לא שוי, etc. instead of saying ‘but he told him צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך’. תוספות explains that according to the abovementioned, another difficulty will be resolved: ולהכי קאמר לעיל שמע מינה יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך⁶ – And therefore the גמרא said previously, we derive from the משנה, that the master can say, ‘work for me, but I will not feed you’ – דאפילו מיירי דאמר ליה צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך – For even if the משנה is discussing a case where the master said צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך – מכל מקום כיון שעובדו היה לו להתחייב במזונותיו⁷ אי לאו משום דיכול – Nevertheless the גמרא assumed in the ס"ד that since the**** slave is working for the master, the master should be obligated to feed him, unless we assume that because the master can tell him עשה עמי ואיני זנך. תוספות offers an alternate explanation to the last question:⁸

And an additional explanation is that the גמרא assumed that the משנה is discussing a case where the master did not tell the slave צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך (and nevertheless he is not obligated to feed him) just as by a woman (where the גמרא also assumed that we are not discussing a case where he told her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך); ⁹ the reason for this assumption is that it is not common¹⁰ that a person’s work should not be sufficient to sustain him.

SUMMARY The מקשן assumed that (even if the master said צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך) that he is obligated to feed his slave if the slave works for him (unless we maintain that the master can say עשה עמי ואיני זנך).

THINKING IT OVER Initially the גמרא assumed that in a case where the אדון told the slave צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך, but the עבד continues to work for the אדון, the אדון is חייב במזונות even if the work of the עבד is insufficient to cover the cost of מזונות. The conclusion is that if the work of the עבד is insufficient, the אדון is פטור from מזונות (if he told him צא מעשה ידיך וכו').¹¹ What are the respective סברות of the הו"א and מסקנא of the גמרא?¹²

footnotes: ¹ The owner is releasing the עבד from working for him. If the עבד cannot support himself, why should the owner (who is not receiving any benefit from the עבד) be required to support him more than anyone else. ² The גמרא seems to be answering that such a slave that cannot even support himself is worthless, and since he is worthless for his master, therefore the master is not required to support him. The true answer however is that since he released the עבד from working for him; the עבד is on his own (regardless whether he can support himself or not)! ³ The slave (perhaps) feels more comfortable to continue working for his master (hoping that his master will compensate him for his work), rather than to find employment by strangers. ⁴ Others amend this to 'היכא'. In the תוה"ר it reads: דאי לא ספיק וכו'. ⁵ The master is willing to forgo the (minimal) work the עבד is doing and not be required to feed him. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ The גמרא infers from the משנה (which states that the master need not feed the עבד) that the master can say to the עבד, ‘work for me but I will not feed you’. How does the גמרא derive this? Perhaps the master cannot say , 'עשה עמי ואיני זנך', and when the משנה states that the master has the right not to feed his slave that is in a case where he told the slave צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך! ⁷ If the master cannot say עשה עמי ואיני זנך, that means that if the slave works for the master; the master is obligated to feed him, therefore even if the master said צא מעשה ידיך וכו', nevertheless if the slave is working for the master, then the (גמרא assumed that the) master must feed him. However the תרצן misunderstood the מקשן (he did not understand that the מקשן is discussing a case of צאי and the עבד is still working for the master), therefore he answered that the משנה is in a case of צא וכו'. See מהרש"א. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ If by an אשה we are discussing a case where the husband told her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך, then indeed why is he obligated to feed her. ¹⁰ The מקשן assumed that we cannot say that by an אשה we are indeed discussing a case where the husband told her צאי מעשה ידיך וכו' (seep previous footnote # 9) and the reason the husband must feed her is because her handiwork is insufficient to support her, the מקשן rejects this solution for it is unusual that a woman cannot support herself with her מעשה ידיה. [However, the תרצן insists that indeed the משנה is discussing a case of צא מעשה ידיך and לא ספיק (both by אשה and עבד).] ¹¹ See footnote # 5. ¹² See סוכ"ד אות ט בד"ה בקצרה.

מאי שנא לערי מקלט—Why are cities of refuge different

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ברייתא which states that the master is not obligated to feed his slave who was exiled to the ערי מקלט, however the מעשה ידיו of that slave belongs to the master; proving that the master can tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. The גמרא rejects this proof saying that we are discussing a case where the master said צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך, and when the ברייתא states that the מעשה ידיו belong to the master that is referring to the extra מעשה ידיו, that is more than his need for food. The גמרא then asks so why mention ערי מקלט, this rule applies everywhere. תוספות explains that if we would maintain יכול האדון לומר עשה עמי ואיני זנך, then it would be understood why ערי מקלט is mentioned.

פירוש¹ אי אמרת בשלמא יכול – The explanation of the question (מ"ש לערי מקלט) is as follows: if we assume that יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך then it is understood why the ברייתא – אשמועינן ערי מקלט דאף על גב דאמר רחמנא² וחי עביד ליה חיותא טפי – Teaches us this rule (of עשה עמי וכו') by ערי מקלט; for even though the ‘Merciful One’ writes regarding one who is in an עיר מקלט that 'וחי', meaning that you should give him more sustenance which would therefore lead us to assume that in an עיר מקלט the master cannot tell his slave עשה עמי וכו', the ברייתא teaches us that – אפילו הכי יכול הרב לומר כולי – Nevertheless the master can say, etc. עשה עמי ואיני זנך – אבל לענין העדפה לא משמע ליה דמשום וחי תיהוי העדפה דידיה:³ However if we assume that the master cannot say עשה עמי וכו', and we are merely discussing the העדפה, it does not seem to the מקשן regarding העדפה, that on account of 'וחי' the העדפה should belong to the slave, therefore there is no חידוש by עיר מקלט.⁴

SUMMARY The difference between the מקשן and the תרצן is whether we may have assumed that the פסוק of וחי teaches that the העדפה (in an עיר מקלט) belongs to the slave (the תרצן), or not (the מקשן).

THINKING IT OVER The תרצן assumes that (without the ברייתא) we would have (mistakenly) derived from 'וחי', that the העדפה should belong to the עבד.⁵ When the גמרא previously asked that it is פשיטא that the העדפה belongs to the master, why did not the גמרא answer that it is not פשיטא at all, since the פסוק 'וחי' may teach us that even the העדפה belongs to the עבד (as the גמרא subsequently answered regarding ערי מקלט)?!⁶

footnotes: ¹ תוספות explains that if we maintain יכול הרב לומר עשה עמי ואיני זנך then it will be understood why the ברייתא finds it necessary to mention ערי מקלט; however if we maintain that the master cannot say עשה עמי וכו', then (the מקשן assumed that) it is not understood why the ברייתא mentions ערי מקלט. ² In דברים (ואתחנן) ד,מב the פסוק reads: ונס אל אחת הערים האל וחי. ³ The ברייתא is teaching a novelty that even though one may think that the עבד has more rights in ערי מקלט than elsewhere, nevertheless the rights do not extend to this case. If we assume that usually the master has the right to say עשה עמי וכו', then we may have assumed that by ערי מקלט where the תורה writes וחי, that the עבד has more rights than usual and the master cannot say עשה עמי וכו', for then it will not be וחי. The ברייתא therefore teaches us that this is not so and the master can say עשה עמי even in ערי מקלט. If however we maintain that the master can never say עשה עמי וכו' (he can only say צא מעשה ידיך וכו'), then (according to the מקשן), it does not seem to be even a הו"א, that the עבד should receive the העדפה in עיר מקלט; for העדפה is not considered וחי. ⁴ The גמרא concludes, however, that without the ברייתא we would have assumed that וחי teaches us that even the העדפה belongs to the עבד (see ‘Thinking it over’). Therefore it was necessary for the ברייתא to teach us that the העדפה (even) of an עבד who is in an עיר מקלט, belongs to the master. ⁵ See footnote # 4. ⁶ See מהרש"א (הארוך) and מהוד"ב.

מספקת מאי למימרא כולי—Why say it, if it is sufficient, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites the סיפא of the ברייתא regarding ערי מקלט, that by a woman who is exiled to ערי מקלט, the husband is obligated to feed her; indicating that the ברייתא is discussing a case where צא מעשה ידיך וכו' was not said (neither by the husband not by the master). The גמרא rejects this and maintains that the ברייתא is discussing where the husband said צאי מעשה ידיך and if it is insufficient, then the husband must feed her; however if her מעשה ידיה is sufficient then he is not obligated to feed her. The גמרא then asks, if her מעשה ידיה is sufficient then it is obvious that he need not feed her; what is the ברייתא teaching us? תוספות explains why this question is only if we assume that the רישא (of the סיפא) is a case of לא ספקה, but if we assume that in all cases it is ספקה, there will be no question.¹

אי אמרת בשלמא כולה² בדספקא³ – The ברייתא will be properly understood if we assume that the entire ברייתא is in a case of ספקא, for then we can say that the ברייתא – תנא סיפא דאמר לה לגלויי ארישא⁴ דאיירי בלא אמר לה – Taught us the סיפא (דסיפא) that (when) he told her צאי מעשה ידיך וכו' (he does not have to support her), the purpose of this ruling is to reveal that the רישא (דסיפא) where it states that בעלה חייב במזונותיה is in a case where he did not say to her צאי מעשה ידיך וכו' – אבל השתא דמוקמת רישא בדלא ספקא⁵ – However, now that you have established the רישא in a case of לא ספקא – ולא תנא הך סיפא אלא לאשמועינן – And therefore the סיפא was merely taught to inform us – דבמספקת יכול לומר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך – That by מספקת he can tell her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך, then the question arises- מאי למימרא דזה אינו שום חידוש:⁶ What is this teaching us**; for there is no novelty at all in this** ruling?!

SUMMARY There is a purpose in stating an obvious ruling if we can infer from this ruling a novelty regarding another ruling.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות explains the sגמרא' question, that if the רישא is by צאי וכו' and לא ספקה, then the סיפא is superfluous.⁷ Why can we not say that the סיפא teaches us that the רישא is בלא ספקא (just as תוספות says [according to the מקשן] that the סיפא teaches us that the רישא is בלא אמר צאי וכו')?!⁸
2. תוספות could have said that if we would assume that יכול הרב לומר עשה וכו', then we could establish the סיפא דסיפא (where it says ואם אמר לה צאי וכו') that it is לא ספקה and nevertheless he is not obligated to make up the לא ספקה, since he can claim that מזלה גרמה that she was גולה, and the רישא דסיפא (where it states בעלה חייב וכו') is where he did not tell her צאי וכו', and he mentions the סיפא לגלויי ארישא, that עבד is also not discussing צא (proving that יכול הרב וכו'). The advantage of this explanation is that there is a חידוש (by the סיפא דסיפא) as opposed to תוספות explanation!⁹

footnotes: ¹ The סיפא (of the סיפא) in the ברייתא states that if he told her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך then the husband need not feed her. This is obviously in a case where ספקה (for otherwise he is required to feed her). The question is why is the ברייתא teaching us an obvious הלכה, that by ספקה he can tell her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך. ² This includes also the רישא (דסיפא) where the ברייתא states בעלה חייב במזונותיה (and he did not tell her צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך). ³ See מהר"ם שי"ף who comments that seemingly תוספות should have said 'אא"ב רישא בדלא אמר לה תנא סיפא וכו' (but not אא"ב כולה בדלא ספקה). ⁴ Granted that there is no novelty in the law of the סיפא itself (for it is obvious that if he told her צאי and ספקא, he need not feed her), however, by teaching us this ruling, it permits us to assume that the רישא (where it states that בעלה חייב במזונותיה) is discussing where he did not say צאי וכו'. [And therefore (by inference) the case of the עבד is also without saying צא; proving that יכול האדון לומר לעבד עשה עמי וכו' (see תוה"ר).] ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ #1 (&2). ⁶ The גמרא answered that there is a novelty; he can tell his wife צאי מעשה ידיך וכו' (in the ערי מקלט) even though כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה (see רש"י ד"ה פנימה). ⁷ See footnote # 5. ⁸ See מהר"ם שי"ף. ⁹ See אמ"ה # 64.

ומר סבר אינו יכול—And this master maintains, he cannot

OVERVIEW The גמרא initially assumed that the dispute whether the slave could tell his master during a hunger, ‘either feed me or set me free (the view of רשב"ג)’, or he cannot (the view of the חכמים), depends on whether the master can tell his slave, 'עשה עמי ואיני זנך' (the חכמים) or not (רשב"ג). Our תוספות clarifies the meaning of הוציאני לחירות.

והא דקתני או הוציאני לחירות לאו דוקא¹ – And that which the ברייתא teaches that the slave can say, ‘or set me free’, it does not mean precisely that the slave can demand to be set free – אלא כלומר שיהיה מעשה ידי לעצמי כמו לבן חורין:² Rather the ברייתא means to say that the עבד has the right to demand that my handiwork should belong to me just like a free man.

SUMMARY הוציאני לחירות merely means that the עבד retains the right to מעשה ידיו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Seemingly this which תוספות wishes to clarify (regarding הוציאני לחירות)³ is discussed immediately in the גמרא; what is תוספות concern (or alternately [if we accept תוספות explanation], what is the גמרא asking later)?!⁴
2. Why did not תוספות attempt to explain the necessity of mentioning 'שנת בצורת' according to the הו"א, just as he explained 'הוציאני לחירות' according to the הו"א?⁵

footnotes: ¹ It appears from the גמרא (which says that רשב"ג maintains that the master cannot say to the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך) that the reason the עבד can say או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות is because the master has no right to tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. However, the fact that the master must feed the עבד (if he works for him) cannot give the עבד the right to demand freedom, if the master cannot feed him. At most he can demand that his work should belong to him (see ‘Thinking it over’). תוספות explains that indeed this is the meaning of הוציאני לחירות. ² לחירות should be understood in this limited fashion; that the מעשה ידיו of the עבד belongs to him (like the מעשה ידיו of a free man), but not to the master. ³ See footnote # 1. ⁴ See אמ"ה # 68. ⁵ See מהוד"ב.

כי היכי דחזו אינשי ומרחמי—In order that people will see and have mercy

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that the dispute between רשב"ג ורבנן whether the עבד can demand from his master (in a hunger year) או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות, depends on whether people are as merciful for slaves as for freemen (רבנן), or not (רשב"ג). תוספות explains how this גמרא does not contradict another which seemingly indicates that רשב"ג ורבנן maintain the exact opposite.

הקשה הרב רבינו יצחק בן הרב רבינו מאיר דבפרק השולח (לקמן דף לז,ב) – The ריב"ם asked that in פרק השולח – גבי עבד שנשבה ופדאו ישראל אחר שמעינן להו איפכא – Regarding a slave who was captured and another Jew redeemed him; we find that רשב"ג and the חכמים maintain there the opposite of what they maintain here – דקא אמרי רבנן לא ישתעבד לא לרבו ראשון ולא לרבו שני – For there the רבנן rule that this slave shall not be indentured not to the first master (who owned him originally [when he was taken captive]) and not to his second master (the ישראל who redeemed him). אביי explains the ruling – לרבו שני לא דהא לשם בן חורין פרקיה – The second master shall not enslave him, because the second ישראל redeemed him to become a free man (and not to keep him as a slave) – לרבו ראשון לא דלמא מימנעי ולא פרקי¹ – The first master cannot enslave him, because perhaps people will be reluctant to redeem the slave from captivity if they know he will return to be a slave. This is the view of the רבנן – ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבר כשם שמצוה לפדות בני חורין כן מצוה לפדות את העבדים- רשב"ג maintains that just as it is a מצוה to redeem free men, so too is there a מצוה to redeem the slaves, therefore even if he remains a slave by רבו ראשון, this will not deter people from redeeming slaves.² תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל סבר דלענין פדיון פרקי ליה טפי – And the ר"י answers that רשב"ג maintains that regarding פדיון, people will be more apt to redeem an עבד**** (than feed him) in order – שלא יטמע בין העובדי כוכבים³ – That he should not become intermingled (assimilated) between the עכו"ם- ורבנן סברי דלענין מזונות מרחמי עליה טפי שלא ימות ברעב⁴ – While the רבנן maintain that regarding food, people will be more merciful on the עבד (than redeeming him), in order that he should not die from hunger – וגם⁵ כל אחד יתן לו מעט לחם אבל בפדיון צריך הרבה ביחד: And also (it is easier to feed him, because) each one needs to give the עבד only a little bread to sustain him, however regarding redeeming an עבד, much (money) is necessary at one time, which people may not have.

SUMMARY On one hand it is more apt to save someone from assimilation than to worry about his sustenance (רשב"ג); on the other hand one is more concerned for dying from hunger than a possible assimilation, especially since feeding is less expensive than redeeming (רבנן).

THINKING IT OVER It appears from תוספות that according to the רבנן, people will give for hunger quicker than for פדיון שבויים. However the גמרא in ב"ב ח,ב states that captivity is worse than the others (including hunger) for in captivity one suffers from hunger as well. How can we reconcile תוספות with that גמרא?⁶

footnotes: ¹ This indicates that people are willing to redeem בני חורין, but not עבדים (not as the חכמים maintain here). ² Regarding פדיון (there) the רבנן maintain that people do not ‘care’ about slaves as much as they ‘care’ about free people, while רשב"ג maintains that people ‘care’ about slaves just as they care about free people. However here (regarding feeding) the רבנן maintain that people will be merciful for slaves just as they will be merciful for בני חורין, while רשב"ג maintains that they will not be as merciful to slaves as they are to בני חורין. The רבנן and רשב"ג both contradict themselves. ³ The עבד כנעני is מחויב במצות like a woman. If he remains in captivity by the עכו"ם he may assimilate and stop observing the מצות. Here however there is no such concern; if he is hungry, the עבד will merely have to try harder to procure food. ⁴ People tend to be more merciful when it comes to someone dying from hunger, as opposed to a case where his spiritual nourishment may be taken from him. ⁵ This is a second reason why the רבנן maintain that one is more apt to feed the עבד (since it is inexpensive) than to redeem him (which is more expensive). ⁶ See סוכ"ד אות כד and אמ"ה # 71-73.

אמר רב המקדיש ידי עבדו—רב said one who sanctifies the hands of his slave

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a ruling of רב; if a master is מקדיש the hands of his slave, the rule is that anything which the slave accomplishes (with his hands) belongs to הקדש (and therefore appropriate steps need to be taken). תוספות first insists that the proper גירסא is המקדיש ידי עבדו (not המקדיש עבדו). תוספות then discusses the rule if one is מקדיש עבדו.

גרסינן ולא גרסינן המקדיש עבדו דהתם יצא לחירות – The text reads המקדיש ידי עבדו; however, the text does not read המקדיש עבדו (one who sanctifies his slave), for in that case, the slave is freed – כדאמר רב בהשולח (לקמן דף לח,ב) דליהוי עם קדוש קאמר¹ – As רב ruled in פרק השולח, that when the master states that he is מקדיש עבדו, he means that the slave should be freed and become part of the ‘holy nation’. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וכי היכי דמקדיש ידי עבדו אמרינן דהן קדושים למלאכתן – And if you will say; that just as when one is מקדיש the hands of his slave, we say that they become holy regarding their work (that the work that he does with his hands belong to הקדש) – הכי נמי כשהקדיש כל עבדו הוה לן למימר שהקדישו למלאכתו – Similarly we should also say, that when he is מקדיש the entire עבד, he is מקדיש every aspect of the עבד for its work, this means – פיו לדבורו ידיו למעשהו רגליו להילוכו² – The mouth of the עבד is הקדש, regarding his speech, his hands are הקדש regarding what he does, his feet are הקדש regarding his walking³ – דבענין זה חשיב הקדש כדאמרינן בסוף פרק קמא דנדרים⁴ (דף יג,ב) – For being מקדיש in such a manner is considered a valid הקדש as the גמרא states in the end of the first פרק of מסכת נדרים. תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דסברא הוא דלא נתכוין להקדישו למלאכתו – And the ר"י answers that it is logical to assume that the master had no intention to be מקדיש the עבד for his work (that all his work should be הקדש) – לפי שיש חילוק במלאכתו שאין פיו ידיו ורגליו שוין במלאכתן – Since there is a difference in his work; for his mouth, his hands and his feet are not equal in their work (they all do different types of work) – הלכך אית לן למימר דלשחררו נתכוין דהוי הכל בענין אחד⁵ – Therefore we rather assume that he intended to free him (when he was מקדיש the עבד) for then it is all in one context (the entire עבד is equally freed). תוספות offers a different distinction between המקדיש ידי עבדו (where his מעשה ידיו become הקדש) and המקדיש עבדו (where the עבד is freed): אי נמי יש לומר התם כשמקדיש עבדו סתם משמע יותר למיהוי עם קדוש – Or you may also say; there when he is מקדיש his slave generally without being specific what he is מקדיש, it is more indicative that the master meant that the slave become an עם קדוש (by being freed) – דהא למלאכתו לא קאמר – For the master did not mention that he is מקדיש him for his work – אבל מקדיש ידי עבדו הקדיש מלאכת ידיו דלא שייך למימר בענין אחר:⁶ However when he is מקדיש the hands of his slave (even though here too the master did not mention work, nevertheless), the master was certainly מקדיש his handiwork, for it cannot mean anything else!

SUMMARY If one is מקדיש עבדו he becomes free and joins the עם קדוש; he does not become הקדש regarding his various actions, since the owner made only one general statement of הקדש and (in addition) he did not mention that he is מקדיש him for his work.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות second answer is that by מקדיש ידי עבדו, it cannot mean actual הקדש (for one cannot be מקדיש part of the עבד⁷). However we know there is a rule of פשטה קידושי בכולה, that if one is מקדיש part of an animal, the קדושה spreads to the entire animal; let us say here as well that if he was מקדיש the ידים, they become actually הקדש and the קדושה spreads throughout the entire עבד, that he becomes completely הקדש!⁸

footnotes: ¹ רב is teaching there that one should not (mistakenly) assume that when a master is מקדיש the עבד, he means to transfer the ownership of the עבד to הקדש so that the עבד receives a קדושת דמים and הקדש can either have the עבד work for הקדש or sell the עבד and keep the money, but rather the intention of the owner is to free the עבד. The master was מקדיש the עבד, therefore we presume that he meant for the עבד to become a ישראל גמור (by becoming a בן חורין), and thereby be part of the עם קדוש, so the עבד will be קדוש. If however the עבד will retain a קדושת דמים, then the עבד will be forbidden (perhaps) from deriving benefit from his own body. ² This would seemingly mean that any action the עבד does, becomes הקדש and no one (except for הקדש) is permitted to derive any benefit from it. [If the עבד teaches, the payment should go to הקדש; if he travels as a messenger, the fee should go to הקדש, etc.] ³ This would seemingly be a better interpretation of his הקדש; the actions of the עבד are הקדש, as opposed to saying that the עבד is freed, which is seemingly not what he said (and meant) when he was מקדיש the עבד. This would also remove the difficulty we encountered if we say that the עבד retains a קדושת דמים (mentioned in footnote # 1), for here the הקדש will merely affect his actions See [however] אמ"ה # 75. ⁴ The גמרא there states that even though one cannot make a נדר to prohibit someone to derive benefit from his speech (since it is considered a דבר שאין בו ממש), nevertheless he can say that my mouth should be forbidden to you (for the mouth is a דבר שיש בו ממש), thereby forbidding that person from deriving benefit from his speech (which emanates from his mouth). Similarly here too since he is being מקדיש the עבד, it should have the effect that whatever the עבד does should be הקדש and אסור for everyone except הקדש. ⁵ The master stated that he is מקדיש the עבד; indicating one (and the same) קדושה for the entire עבד, including all his parts. This occurs if the עבד is freed. However, if the various parts of the עבד become קדוש for the different actions they produce, then it becomes a multi-faceted הקדש as opposed to a single הקדש. ⁶ One cannot be מקדיש only the hands of an עבד (and one cannot free only the hands of an עבד), therefore since it cannot mean anything else we assume that he was מקדיש מעשה ידיו for his work. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ See footnote # 6. ⁸ See אמ"ה # 77-79.