ולימא ליה הקדש עד האידנא כולי—And הקדש should say to him, until now, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא initially proved from the ruling of רב (that המקדיש ידי עבדו, the עבד must borrow in order to eat) that the master has a right to tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. The גמרא rejected this proof, for רב may be discussing a case where the master is feeding the slave, and the slave is borrowing in order to eat more than necessary. The גמרא asked that הקדש should prevent him from working to pay off the loan in order to eat extra. תוספות explains why when we initially assumed that the master is not feeding him, there was no thought that הקדש should also prevent him from working to pay off the loan.

לענין¹ עשה עמי ואיני זנך ניחא דלא אמר ליה הקדש הכי² – Regarding the presumed rule of עשה עמי ואיני זנך, it is understood why הקדש does not say this to the slave – אף על גב דרבו מצי אמר ליה – even though his master can tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. The reason הקדש does not tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך, is –

Because it is obvious that הקדש prefers that its slave should not die of hunger.⁴

SUMMARY הקדש has no interest in telling its slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך.

THINKING IT OVER Can הקדש tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך (if the master can)?⁵

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is now discussing the הו"א when we assumed that the master has the right to say עשה עמי ואיני זנך (and therefore he can be מקדיש ידי עבדו); see ‘Overview’. ² הקדש should seemingly also be able tell the slave, עשה עמי ואיני זנך, and you cannot work to pay off the loan, for all your work belongs to הקדש; just as according to the מסקנא, the גמרא asks that הקדש should prevent the slave from working to pay off the העדפה. ³ See נח"מ, that it does not mean he will die from hunger; rather he will have to beg for food. ⁴ However, according to the מסקנא that the עבד is working to pay off for the extra food, the גמרא initially thought that הקדש can (and should) prevent him from working for himself (for extra food), when he can be working for הקדש. The גמרא concludes that הקדש prefers that the עבד have the extra food. ⁵ See סוכ"ד אות מב.

פחות משוה פרוטה—Less than the value of a פרוטה

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the handiwork of the עבד does not become הקדש because he works each time for the value of less than a פרוטה (which cannot become הקדש [according to רש"י]). The עבד can pay off his loan piecemeal. תוספות disagrees with פירש"י and offers an alternate explanation.

פירש בקונטרס דאין הקדש חל על פחות משוה פרוטה – רש"י explains that הקדש cannot take effect on anything which is less than the value of a פרוטה. Therefore the handiwork of the עבד (which is less than a שוה פרוטה, each time he works) does not become הקדש. תוספות disagrees with פירש"י: והקשה רבינו יצחק¹ דתנן בהזהב (בבא מציעא דף נה,א) חמש פרוטות הן² – And the ר"י asked on פרש"י, for he have learnt in a משנה in פרק הזהב, ‘There are five פרוטות’; however according to רש"י here – ליתני שש פרוטות הן דאין הקדש חל על פחות משוה פרוטה – The משנה should teach ‘there are six פרוטות, since (according to רש"י) הקדש cannot take effect on a פחות משוה פרוטה. Since the משנה only mentions five this proves that הקדש is חל on a פחות משוה פרוטה. תוספות offers his explanation why the מעשה ידיו of the עבד does not become הקדש: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהכא היינו טעמא – And the ר"י explains that here the reason the מעשה ידיו do not become הקדש is because –

It was not the intent of the מקדיש that the הקדש of מעשה ידי עבדו should take effect on less than a שוה פרוטה.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains that הקדש is not חל on a פחות משו"פ; while תוספות maintains הקדש is חל on a פחות משו"פ unless the מקדיש has no intent that it should be חל on a פחות משו"פ.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains that it is not the intent of the מקדיש that the הקדש should be חל on a פחות משו"פ. However the owner was מקדיש the hands of his עבד (he was not מקדיש the מעשה ידיו of his עבד), so what effect should his intent have; since the ידים are הקדש, then whatever he does should become הקדש (even if it is פחות משו"פ?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ In the תוה"ר this question is ascribed to the ריב"ם (ר' יצחק בן מאיר). ² The משנה there states that regarding five laws the minimum requirement is a פרוטה. They are 1. The admission of a מודה במקצת must be (at least) a פרוטה, 2. קידושין requires a שוה פרוטה, 3. מעילה בהקדש requires a שוה פרוטה (to bring a קרבן), 4. השבת אבידה requires a שוה פרוטה, and 5. Returning a stolen object requires a שוה פרוטה. ³ See תוה"ר who adds that the master wants that the slave should be able to sustain himself comfortably. ⁴ See בל"י.

שבתו ורפואתו לרבו—His unemployment and healing go to his master

OVERVIEW ר' יוחנן ruled; if one chops off the hand of his friend’s slave, he is liable to pay the master שבתו and רפואתו and the slave is supported from צדקה. The גמרא derives from this ruling that the master can tell the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. Our תוספות discusses the other obligations of נזק, צער and בושת which a מזיק normally has to pay.

שבתו היינו שבת קטנה וגדולה דהיינו נזק¹ – The word שבתו includes both the minor שבת (which is his temporary unemployment)² and major שבת which is the damage that was done to the עבד. והוא הדין צער ובושת לרבו – And the same rule applies to צער (pain) and בושת (shame); they also belong to his master. תוספות qualifies that בושת belongs לרבו, only – לרבנן דרבי יהודה דאמרי בהחובל (בבא קמא דף פז,א) דיש לעבד בושת – According to the רבנן who argue with ר"י and maintain that there is a בושת payment for shaming an עבד. According to ר"י there is no בושת payment at all. תוספות explains why ר"י does not mention צער (and בושת): ולא נקט להו משום דאין חידוש שהן לרבו – And ר"י did not mention צער ובושת because there is no novelty that they belong to his master – אבל בשבתו קא משמע לן דאף על גב דשקיל הרב שבת דידיה לא מיחייב במזונותיו – However concerning שבת (even though there is no חידוש that it belongs לרבו), ר"י is teaching us that even though the master takes the שבת of the עבד, nevertheless, the master is not obligated to feed the עבד – דיכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך³ – Because the master can say to the slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: והא דפריך בסמוך שבתו פשיטא – And that which the גמרא shortly asks; ‘it is obvious that שבתו belongs לרבו’!⁴ תוספות responds: הכי פירושא פשיטא דשבתו לרבו אף על פי שלא יזוננו – This is the explanation of the question; it is obvious that שבתו belongs לרבו even if the master will not feed the עבד – כיון דיכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי כולי – Since the master can tell the slave עשה עמי, etc. so therefore – ולא הוה ליה לרבי יוחנן למינקט קוטע יד עבדו של חבירו – ר"י should not have mentioned the case of chopping off the hand of his friend’s slave – אלא הוה ליה למימר בהדיא יכול הרב לומר לעבד כולי אם לא בא להשמיענו דבר אחר⁵ – But rather ר"י should have stated explicitly that יכול הרב לומר לעבד, etc., unless he wants to teach us an additional concept (besides יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי וכו') – ומשני דנקט קוטע יד עבדו לאשמעינן חידוש שני – To which the גמרא responds that he mentioned קוטע יד עבד to let us know a second חידוש (besides יכול הרב לומר לעבד וכו'), which is – דרפואתו לרבו דהיינו צער דסמא חריפא – That his healing profit also belongs to his master, which is the pain of the sharp medicine – כדמסיק דהוה אמינא שיהא לעצמו כמו רפואתו שהיא לעצמו – As the גמרא concludes, that I would have thought that the profit of סמא חריפא should belong to the slave, just as the healing goes to the slave,⁶ similarly גם כשיסבול צער כדי להרויח שכר רפואתו יהא לעצמו – When he suffers pain to gain the profit of his healing⁷ it should also belong to the slave. The חידוש of ר"י is that the master receives this profit as well.

However the pain the slave endured by the chopping of his hand, that obviously belongs to the master and therefore ר"י did not teach it and similarly with בושת. The above is the view of the ר"י.

SUMMARY צער and בושת obviously belong to the master. נזק and שבת also belong to the master however the חידוש is that the master need not feed him. The reason for mentioning קוטע יד עבדו is that the master retains the שכר of צערא דסמא חריפא.

THINKING IT OVER The גמרא asks that שבתו is פשיטא, so why mention it. The גמרא answered רפואתו אצטריכא ליה. If the reason he mentions שבתו is [only] because of רפואתו, why did he not mention (instead) צערו and say that רפואתו איצטריכא ליה, just as we say regarding שבתו?! 2. Why did not the גמרא prove that יכול הרב וכו', from the fact that ר"י mentioned שבתו לרבו and not צערו ובושתו?⁸ This indicates that there is a חידוש by שבתו that יכול הרב וכו'; however there is no such חידוש by⁹ צערו ובשתו!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ נזק is included in שבת because the עבד cannot continue to do the same work [permanently] as he did previously because of this נזק. See רש"י ד"ה ורפואתו that it was not necessary for ר"י to mention נזק (and צער) because it is obvious that it belongs to the master (see מהר"ם שי"ף). ² See רש"י ד"ה נותן. ³ The חידוש that the master takes the payment and need not feed the עבד is applicable only to שבת (קטנה וגדולה), since the עבד cannot work to feed himself and the owner is taking his benefit away from him. It has no bearing however for צער ובושת (and רפואה [see (however) נח"מ]) which has no connection to his ability to work and support himself. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ What is the question?! תוספות just explained that the חידוש of שבתו is (not that it is לרבו, but rather that even though שבתו לרבו, nevertheless) that the master can say עשה עמי ואיני זנך. ⁵ The only חידוש of שבתו לרבו is that nonetheless the master is not obligated to feed him, since יכול הרב לומר וכו'. So ר"י should have just taught us that יכול הרב וכו' and I would know that שבתו לרבו even if he does not feed him. ⁶ The master must heal the slave with the רפואה money paid to him by the קוטע. ⁷ The עבד accepted a more painful healing procedure which reduced the cost of his ריפוי. The difference in price between a regular treatment and the lower cost of the painful treatment is what we are discussing. ⁸ This is (seemingly) a stronger proof that how the גמרא infers it (that it should say מתפרנס instead of ניזון). ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See מהרש"א (הארוך).

שמע מינה יכול שמע מינה—We indeed derive from this that he can

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that ר' יוחנן maintains that the master can tell his slave עשה עמי ואיני זנך. Our תוספות explains how we can reconcile this view of ר"י with the previously mentioned מחלוקת between רשב"ג and the רבנן.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר רבי יוחנן היכי מוקי פלוגתייהו דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן דלעיל¹ – And if you will say; how will ר"י establish the previous מחלוקת between רשב"ג and the רבנן? תוספות explains his question – דלא מצי למימר דפליגי דמר סבר יכול ומר סבר אינו יכול כדפריך לעיל² – For we cannot say that the argument is that the רבנן maintains that the master can say עשה עמי and רשב"ג maintain he cannot, for the גמרא already refuted this interpretation – ואי כדאסיקנן לעיל דאמר צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך ובשני בצורת לא ספיק כולי – And if we will interpret their מחלוקת as the גמרא concluded previously that the master told the slave צא מעשה ידיך במזונותיך but that is not sufficient to support the עבד in שני בצורת, etc. אם כן לכולי עלמא אינו יכול³ – If that indeed is their מחלוקת then it turns out that everyone (the רבנן and רשב"ג) agrees that the master cannot say עשה עמי וכו', which is the opposite of sר' יוחנן' ruling. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאף על גב דבשאר שנים יכול בשני בצורת אינו יכול – And one can say; that even though generally by other years (not hunger years) the master can say עשה עמי וכו', however during hunger years he cannot say עשה עמי.⁴ The reason for this is – דבשאר שנים ימצא מרחמים יותר כשיחזור על הפתחים מבשני בצורת:⁵ because in ‘other years’ (not hunger years) he will find more merciful people to help him when he goes from door to door, than he will find בשני בצורת.

SUMMARY Even if we maintain יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואני זנך, however this does not apply to hunger years.

THINKING IT OVER According to the מסקנא of תוספות what is the מחלוקת between רשב"ג ורבנן, and what do they maintain regarding whether יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך or not?⁶

footnotes: ¹ On the previous עמוד they argue if the עבד can tell his master during hunger years; או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות (the view of רשב"ג), or not (the view of the רבנן). ² The גמרא there asks that even if רשב"ג maintains אין הרב יכל לומר עשה עמי וכו', nevertheless that does not give the עבד the right to say או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות at most he can claim או תן לי מעשה ידי בפרנסתי. ³ If the master is able to say עשה עמי וכו', why establish the case where the master said צאי מעשה ידיך וכו' (for even though it is necessary according to רשב"ג, nevertheless), let the חכמים state explicitly that הרשות ביד רבו to (even) say עשה עמי ואיני זנך. See (also) אמ"ה # 90. ⁴ This explains that the מחלוקת between רשב"ג ורבנן is as the גמרא stated previously, and the reason we maintain there that אין הרב יכול לומר עשה עמי is because there it is a special case of שני בצורת. ⁵ In prosperous times people are more willing to help than in times of hunger. ⁶ See אמ"ה # 93-95.

רפואתו דידיה הוא—His healing belongs to him

OVERVIEW The גמרא asks how can we say that רפואתו לרבו when ‘we know’ that the master must heal the slave. תוספות will reconcile our גמרא with a contradicting משנה.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דתנן בפרק החובל (בבא קמא פז,א) בעבד כנעני שלו פטור מכולן – And regarding this which the משנה teaches in פרק החובל that if one wounds his own עבד כנעני, he is exempt from all payments (seemingly) including ריפוי that he is not obligated to heal his עבד. Why does the גמרא here simply assume that רפואתו דידיה הוא, meaning that the payment for healing the עבד must be used to heal the עבד?¹ תוספות responds: שמא יש לחלק דאף על גב דכשחבל בו אחר נותן רפואתו לעבד הוא שחבל בעבדו לא מיחייב – Perhaps we can differentiate between the two cases, that even though when another person wounded his עבד, he pays the רפואה to the עבד, however when the master wounds his עבד, the master is not obligated to pay**** for his רפואה. תוספות offers an alternate solution:

Or you may also say; that the משנה when it says that the master is פטור it means that if the master healed him with a strong medicine (which reduced the cost of healing), the master is exempt from paying the עבד the rest of the expense that it could usually cost if regular medicine was used. This would be in agreement with what the גמרא states here.

SUMMARY A master who wounds his own slave is either completely exempt from healing him, or is exempt from paying the difference when a סמא חריפא is used.

THINKING IT OVER What is the logic of differentiating between another who wounds the עבד and the master who wounds his עבד?²

footnotes: ¹ Perhaps the master needs to be paid the healing fee, but he may keep the money for himself without healing the עבד. ² See נח"מ.

שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה—For if he was the slave of a כהן he disqualifies him from תרומה

OVERVIEW ר' מאיר explained that it is a חוב for an עבד to be freed if his master was a כהן, for he can no longer eat תרומה. This חוב applies only by an עבד כהן, however ר"מ maintain that it is a חוב for every עבד to be freed. תוספות explains why ר"מ chose this חוב and not a more universal חוב which applies to all עבדים.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר טפי הוה ליה למנקט לפי שאוסרו בשפחה¹ דשייך אף בעבד ישראל – And if you will say; it would have been better for ר"מ to mention a different חוב; namely, since he is now forbidden to be with a שפחה, for this חוב is applicable even by an עבד of a ישראל (not only by an עבד כהן)!² תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלדבריהם קאמר להו דסברי אדרבה הרי מתירו בבת חורין:³ And one can say; that ר"מ could not mention the חוב of שפחה, for he was responding to the words of the רבנן who maintain on the contrary (that leaving the שפחה is no חוב), for his freedom permits him to be with a בת חורין (a Jewish woman).

SUMMARY The חוב of איסור שפחה is offset by the היתר of a בת חורין (according to the רבנן).

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to ר"מ is it a חוב for an עבד ישראל to be freed? Why?
2. Why did not תוספות answer that the reason of פוסלו מן התרומה has an advantage over אוסרו בשפחה, because it applies to an עבד קטן and שפחה of a כהן?⁴

footnotes: ¹ An עבד כנעני is permitted to live with a שפחה כנענית [but not with a בת ישראל (בת חורין)], however a בן חורין is forbidden to live with a שפחה כנענית. ² The גמרא mentions this חוב (that he is אסור בשפחה כנענית) at the end of this סוגיא. ³ The רבנן would however seemingly agree that the loss of תרומה is a חוב (albeit only by an עבד כהן). ⁴ See אמ"ה # 98-99.

השבתוני על המזונות—You answered me regarding his sustenance

OVERVIEW The dialogue between ר"מ and the חכמים is as follows: ר"מ maintains that if he is an עבד כהן it is a חוב for him for he loses his תרומה rights. The חכמים respond this is not a חוב for the master can withhold his food completely. ר"מ then responded, ‘ומה אלו עבד כהן שברח וכו'’. The גמרא explained that ר"מ meant (in this last response) השבתוני על המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה. Seemingly this is not understood, for תרומה is מזונות; how is ר"מ differentiating between the two?¹ תוספות resolves this issue.

רבנן שהשיבו לו ומה אם ירצה שלא לזונו רשאי היו סבורין הא דקאמר רבי מאיר – The רבנן who replied to ר"מ, saying; ‘and what if the master does not want to feed the slave, he is permitted to do so’; they (the רבנן) thought that this which ר"מ argued – שאם היה עבד כהן פוסלו מן התרומה הוי חוב לו – That if he was a slave of a כהן the freedom would disqualify him from תרומה which is a חוב for the עבד, the רבנן thought that the reason ר"מ maintains that it is a חוב for the עבד, is – לפי שנותן לו הרב מזונות בריוח בשביל שיש תרומה הרבה לכהנים – Because the master gives him an abundance of food since the כהנים possess much תרומה and now that he is free the עבד will no longer have this much food – או משום שיש מצוה באכילת תרומה² – Or (another reason why the חכמים thought that it is a חוב according to ר"מ) because there is a מצוה to eat תרומה (and once he is freed the עבד will no longer have this מצוה); this is what the רבנן assumed – ומשום הכי מהדרי ליה ומה אם ירצה שלא לזונו³ – And therefore they replied to ר"מ; but what if he chooses not to feed him at all?! וקאמר להו רבי מאיר השבתוני על המזונות מה תשיבוני על התרומה – And ר"מ responded to the חכמים, ‘you answered me concerning his sustenance, what will you answer me regarding תרומה, meaning – שאפילו לא ירצה הרב לזונו יש חובה – That even if the master will not want to feed the עבד (as you claim) nevertheless there is a חוב for the עבד in becoming free – דמכל מקום מוצא העבד לקנות תרומה בזול יותר מן החולין⁴ – Because in any event (even if the master does not feed him), the עבד finds that it is cheaper to buy תרומה than to buy חולין – וגם חולקין לו על הגורן לרבי יוסי דאמר (כתובות דף כח,ב) – And the farmers will also dispense תרומה to the עבד at the threshing floor according to ר"י who maintains that – חולקין תרומה לעבד אף על פי שאין רבו עמו: We dispense תרומה to an עבד כהן even if his master (the כהן) is not together with the עבד.⁵**** However, now that he is freed he will lose these two privileges.

SUMMARY The רבנן thought that the advantage of תרומה is (only) that it is plentiful and a מצוה; however ר"מ maintains that it is [also] cheap, and for free (according to ר"י)

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to תוספות explanation, what is meant by מזונות and what is meant by תרומה?
2. What is תוספות adding on פירש"י?⁶
3. When תוספות states that there is a מצוה באכילת תרומה,⁷ does he mean that there is a מצוה for the עבד to eat תרומה?⁸

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה מה who is (seemingly) also addressing this issue. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ² See ‘Thinking it over # 3. ³ Even if the master does not free the עבד, it is still possible that the עבד will not reap any of the (two) benefits of תרומה mentioned, since the master has the option of not feeding him; so what is the עבד losing by becoming free? ⁴ חולין is something which everyone can use therefore it fetches a higher price; תרומה on the other hand is only fit for כהנים, so there are not so many buyers, pushing down the price. ⁵ Not only can the עבד buy תרומה cheaper than חולין, he can actually receive תרומה for free as long as he is an עבד (according to ר"י). Even if the master will not feed him, he can still go directly to the farmers and receive תרומה. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ See אמ"ה # 102-103.

וכי תימא אי בעי זריק ליה גיטא—And if you will say, if he wants he can throw a גט to him

OVERVIEW ר"מ mentions, rhetorically, a reason why the רבנן maintain that it is not a חוב for the [שליח to receive the שטר שחרור on behalf of the] עבד, since the master has the option of throwing a שטר שחרור to the עבד and he will be freed (anyway).¹

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מה בכך מכל מקום חוב הוא לו זה השחרור שפוסלו מתרומה² – And if you will say; what of it that the master can free him regardless; nonetheless this שחרור which the שליח is receiving is a חוב for the עבד, because it disqualifies him from eating תרומה?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דקסבר דלא חשיב ליה חובה מה שמקבלו זה³ – And one can say; that he maintains that the receiving of the שטר שחרור by the שליח cannot be considered a חוב for the עבד – כיון דאפילו אם לא יקבלנו יכול רבו לפוסלו מתרומה בענין אחר⁴ – Since, even if this שליח will not accept the שטר שחרור, his master can disqualify the עבד from תרומה in a different manner, by throwing a שטר שחרור to him. תוספות offers an alternate explanation: אי נמי הכי פירושו אי בעי זריק ליה האדון גיטא ספק קרוב לו וספק קרוב לעבד – Or you may also say; this is the explanation of 'אי בעי זריק ליה גיטא'; if the master wants he can throw a גט שחרור to the עבד so that it is questionable whether the גט is closer to the master or whether it is closer to the עבד. In such a situation the עבד – ויאסר בתרומה ובשפחה ובבת חורין וטוב לו להיות משוחרר – Will be forbidden in תרומה and in a שפחה and in a בת חורין, and it is better for the עבד to be entirely משוחרר instead of being in this half-state of ספק עבד and ספק בן חורין, where he loses out in both ‘worlds’. That is why it is not a חוב for the עבד to be free, for the אדון can make matters much worse for him.

And similarly, if the master wants he can take four זוז⁵ from a fellow ישראל (not a כהן)**** and thereby selling him this עבד,⁶ which will disqualify him from תרומה, and he still remains an עבד, therefore the שחרור is not (such) a חוב, for even though he is losing the תרומה but at least he is a free man.

SUMMARY We can either say that the act of the שליח receiving the שחרור is no חוב because the master can free him regardless, or that the act of שחרור is no חוב since the owner can make him a ספק משוחרר, or an עבד ישראל which is even worse that a ודאי משוחרר.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How are we to understand the ruling of אין חבין לאדם אלא בפניו according to תוספות question and according to תוספות [first] answer?
2. תוספות asks (on the statement of וכ"ת אי בעי זריק ליה גיטא) that nevertheless the שחרור is a חוב.⁷ Why did not תוספות ask this question directly on the משנה which states והלא אם ירצה שלא לזונו רשאי, that nevertheless the שחרור is a חוב?!⁸
3. תוספות answered that receiving the שטר שחרור (by the שליח) is not a חוב for the עבד, since the אדון can throw it directly to the עבד.⁹ If this is indeed so then why by the אשה is receiving the גט by a שליח considered a חוב, the husband can throw a גט at her as well?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See רש"י ד"ה וכי. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ The שחרור per se may be a חוב; however the receiving of the שטר שחרור by the שליח cannot be considered a חוב. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁵ This is just a random number for the sale price; it could be any amount (see ערכין כ,א). ⁶ An עבד כנעני is acquired through קנין כסף. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ See מהרש"ל and מהרש"א (הארוך). ⁹ See footnote # 4. ¹⁰ See (footnote # 8 and) אמ"ה # 109-110.

שביק ליה ועריק ואזיל לעלמא—He will leave him, run away and go elsewhere

OVERVIEW ר"מ is saying to the חכמים you cannot say that (receiving) the שטר שחרור is not a חוב for the עבד since the owner can free him regardless by throwing a גט שחרור at him; this is not true, for the עבד can run away and the master will not be able to free him and yet (seemingly) the עבד will still be able to eat תרומה, therefore this (קבלת) גט שחרור is a חוב for the slave. תוספות questions and explains the logic of this premise that the עבד can eat תרומה.

משמע דאי עריק אוכל בתרומה¹ – It is apparent that if the slave runs away he can still eat תרומה (without his master).**** תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ליחוש שמא מכרו לישראל ומיתסר בתרומה² – And if you will say; let us be concerned that perhaps the master sold the עבד to a ישראל which forbids the עבד to eat תרומה! תוספות answers:

And one can say that it is not usual that a ישראל will buy this עבד since he ran away, and therefore there is no concern and he is permitted to eat תרומה.

SUMMARY A runaway slave may eat תרומה since the master cannot sell him.

THINKING IT OVER If we are concerned that the master sold him לישראל, then the whole argument of ר"מ is refuted as the גמרא later⁴ concludes.⁵

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’. ² If indeed the עבד is forbidden to eat תרומה (when he runs away) then it would be understood why the שחרור is not a חוב, for the master can either throw him a גט שחרור (depriving him from תרומה), and if he runs away from his master he will also be אסור בתרומה and still be an עבד, which is even worse than שחרור. ³ No one buys a slave who is not here and he is not sure if he will ever find him. ⁴ יג,א. ⁵ See אמ"ה # 121-123.