לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא—He will not abandon the permitted and eat the forbidden

OVERVIEW רב נחמן ruled that if the lender claims that he lost the שטר פרוסבול he is believed since no one will willingly choose to do the wrong thing (transgress שמיטה) when he could just as easily do the right thing (write a פרוסבול).

אומר רבינו תם דמהאי טעמא נאמן אפילו בלא שבועה:¹ The ר"ת said that for this same reason (of לא שביק היתירא ואכיל איסורא), the מלוה is believed that he lost the פרוסבול (even) without taking an oath.

SUMMARY The מלוה is not (even) required to swear that he wrote a פרוסבול.

THINKING IT OVER

1. We learnt previously² that a post dated פרוסבול is פסול, for a פרוסבול is only effective for what was loaned before the פרוסבול was written but not for the loans that came later. Therefore there is concern (by a post dated פרוסבול) that the מלוה will use this פרוסבול to collect (even) the later loans. However since we say here that לא שבק היתירא ואכל איסורא, why is there this concern, he will surely write another פרוסבול for the subsequent loans?!³
2. If the לוה claims that he is certain that the מלוה did not write a פרוסובול, what is the ruling (regarding שבועה)?⁴

footnotes: ¹ Usually in cases where we award the claimant his money (even though the respondent denies owing it), the claimant is required to swear that the money is due him (נשבע ונוטל). However here the claimant is not required to swear that he made a פרוסבול (so the money is due him) ² See תוספות לו,ב ד"ה דאלימי. ³ See אמ"ה # 58. ⁴ See נח"מ.

לעולם לפני יאוש כולי—Really it is before abandonment, etc.

OVERVIEW אביי explained that our משנה is discussing a case where the slave was redeemed (by others) before the master abandoned hope of retrieving him. Therefore if he was redeemed with the intent that he remain a slave, the original master may continue working him, however if he was redeemed with the intent that he be freed, the slave does not serve the original master or the second master (the one who redeemed him). תוספות discusses the reasons why he does not serve the second master.

אביי stated that the slave – לרבו שני לא דהא לשום בן חורין פרקיה¹ – Does not serve the second master, because he redeemed him with the intent that he should be a free man; תוספות comments – הוא הדין דמצי למימר לרבו שני לא דהא לפני יאוש הוא:² אביי could have just as well said that he does not serve the second master, because the slave was redeemed before יאוש, so the slave ‘technically’ belongs to the first master. Therefore the second master cannot acquire him.

SUMMARY The slave cannot serve the second master because (since he was redeemed before יאוש) he still belongs to the first master.

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of the two reasons mentioned?³

footnotes: ¹ The second ‘master’ disqualified himself as an owner of this slave. ² One cannot argue that this reason is insufficient; because even though he redeemed the slave before יאוש, nevertheless he should serve רבו שני for otherwise, people will not redeem him (and he will remain in captivity). However תוספות does not accept this argument because it still gives us no right to steal the slave from his rightful owner (רבו ראשון). See (מהרש"א and) following תוספות ד"ה דלמא. ³ See אמ"ה # 162-4.

דלמא מימנעי ולא פרקי ליה—Perhaps they will refrain and not redeem him

OVERVIEW אביי explained that the reason the slave does not serve רבו ראשון if רבו שני redeemed him with the intent to free him (even though it was before יאוש) is because otherwise people will be reluctant to redeem him from the עכו"ם, since he will remain a slave. תוספות qualifies the application of this concept.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מהאי טעמא כשפדאו לשום עבד ישתעבד לרבו שני – And if you will say; for this same reason, when he was redeemed to remain an עבד, he should serve רבו שני, who redeemed him**** (for otherwise no one will redeem him, for they are not benefitting from it) – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמטעם זה אין ראוי לגזול לזה¹ את עבדו וליתנו לחבירו – And one can say; that this reason is not sufficient to steal the slave from רבו ראשון and give it to רבו שני –

For this reason (of דלמא ממנעי ולא פרקי) is applicable only when he redeems him for the sake of a מצוה, that he should be a בן חורין, but not if he redeems him for personal gain.

SUMMARY The reason of דלמא ממנעי ולא פרקי (which permits us to ‘steal’ the עבד from רבו ראשון) applies only when the slave is redeemed לשם מצוה.

THINKING IT OVER Why, when he is פודה לשם מצוה the reason of דלמא ממנעי ולא פרקי is sufficient to ‘steal’ the עבד from רבו ראשון (and set him free); however when he is פודה לשם עבדות then this reason is not sufficient to ‘steal’ the עבד from רבו ראשון?²

footnotes: ¹ רבו ראשון was not מייאש; we cannot give away his slave so that someone else should benefit at his expense. ² See פנ"י and נח"מ.

בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד כדחזקיה—In either case he should be enslaved, like חזקיה

OVERVIEW רבא explained the ruling of רשב"ג that in any event he remains a slave (even) if he was redeemed לאחר יאוש, for otherwise if he were to be freed then the slaves would turn themselves in to marauders in order that they should be redeemed and set free. תוספות discusses whom the slave must serve.

פירש בקונטרס לרבו ראשון וכן מגיה רבינו תם¹ – רש"י explained that ישתעבד means to רבו ראשון, and similarly the ר"ת edited רבו ראשון in the text – דאי כשפדאו לשם עבד ישתעבד לשני יפיל עצמו לגייסות – For if the rule would be that when he redeemed him to remain an עבד, he would serve רבו שני, the slave would still give himself over to marauders – כדי שירויח לענין מציאה ומתנה דלא קני ליה שני אלא למעשה ידיו² – In order that the slave should profit regarding a מציאה and gifts,³ since רבו שני only acquires the עבד for his מעשה ידיו, but the עבד keeps the מציאה or מתנה – תוספות offers an additional reason why the עבד would be מפיל עצמו לגייסות: ופעמים נמי שהוא שונא לרבו ראשון מתמול שלשום ומפקיע עצמו ממנו – And also occasionally the עבד hates רבו ראשון from previous days and by מפיל עצמו לגייסות the slave will extricate himself from רבו ראשון. Therefore we must say that ישתעבד means to רבו ראשון.⁴ תוספות considers an alternate approach:⁵ ומיהו נוכל לומר דלא פליג רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אתנא קמא אלא בפדאו לשום בן חורין – However we can say that רשב"ג only argues with the ת"ק when he redeemed him לשם בן חורין (where the ת"ק maintains he is freed and רשב"ג maintains ישתעבד לרבו שני) however if he was redeemed לשם עבדות then everyone agrees that ישתעבד לרבו שני. ⁶ תוספות explains that (regarding פדאו לשם עבדות) we can disregard the previously mentioned concerns: דמשום דבר מועט לא יפיל עצמו לגייסות:⁷ Since the עבד will not be מפיל עצמו לגייסות for a petty amount.

SUMMARY רשב"ג can maintain either that if פדאו לשם עבדות he is עובד רבו ראשון (and argue with the ת"ק in both cases), or עובד רבו שני (and argue with the ת"ק only if פדאו לשם בן חורין). This depends if the עבד will gamble for דבר מועט or not.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות maintains (initially) that if he was redeemed לשם עבדות he serves רבו ראשון, for otherwise there is the concern that יפיל עצמו לגייסות, for by רבו שני he will be able to keep מציאה ומתנה.⁸ Seemingly since legally he should serve רבו שני (for רבו ראשון was מתיאש), and we are only concerned for יפיל עצמו לייסות because he will gain מציאה ומתנה, so let the חכמים enact that in this case the מציאה ומתנה belong to רבו שני, so there will be no concern of יפיל עצמו לגייסות?⁹
2. Seemingly when the עבד is contemplating להפיל עצמו לגייסות, he is anticipating that he will be redeemed and freed. Therefore we make the תקנה that (even if נפדה לשם בן חורין, nevertheless) ישתעבד לרבו שני. This will prevent the עבד from להפיל עצמו לגייסות.¹⁰ How can we even contemplate (regarding נפדה לשם עבד) that the (possible) minor gain of מציאה ומתנה will have any impact on the עבד (once he knows that he will never be freed), especially since he cannot be sure that he will be נפדה לשם עבד. How can we explain the initial assumption of תוספות?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא reads (according to the ר"ת) בין כך ובין כך ישתעבד לרבו ראשון כדחזקיה. ² See the גמרא later on the bottom of this עמוד, that רבו שני (after יאוש) acquires him only for מעשה ידיו. ³ He would rather serve רבו שני for he has these additional benefits, which he did not have by רבו ראשון. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ If ישתעבד לשני there is (still) the concern of מפיל עצמו לגייסות because of מציאה ומתנה or שונא רבו ראשון. See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁵ According to תוספות (until now) רשב"ג maintains that whether he was redeemed לשם עבדות or לשם בן חורין, (לאחר יאוש) he serves רבו ראשון. The ת"ק however maintains that if he was redeemed לשם עבדות he serves רבו שני (and if he was redeemed לשם בן חורין he is freed); meaning that the ת"ק and רשב"ג argue in both cases. תוספות offers now an alternate approach. ⁶ According to the 'ומיהו', if רבו שני redeemed him לשם בן חורין then רשב"ג (argues with the ת"ק [who maintain לא ישתעבד] and) maintains ישתעבד לרבו ראשון (he cannot belong to רבו שני for he redeemed him לשם בן חורין); however if he was redeemed לשם עבדות then רשב"ג agrees with the ת"ק that ישתעבד לרבו שני, as תוספות explains. ⁷ The incentive of (perhaps) gaining מציאה ומתנה or finding a new master will not warrant the dangers of מפיל עצמו לגייסות (for who knows if he will be redeemed, and even if redeemed who says he will find מציאות and be given מתנות; or that the new master will be better than the old one); however if there is a chance of complete freedom (if רבו שני redeemed him לשם בן חורין), then there is certainly the concern of מפיל עצמו לגייסות. ⁸ See footnote # 3. ⁹ See מהר"ם שי"ף. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ See (the opposite) אמ"ה # 56.

אי לפני יאוש קאמריתו—If you are saying before יאוש

OVERVIEW רשב"ג (according to רבא) was not sure what the רבנן meant (when they said אם לשום עבד וכו' ואם וכו'); whether they were discussing לפני יאוש or after יאוש. He responded to both situations. תוספות clarifies sרבא' view.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:¹ אף על פי שמסתפק רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בדברי רבנן² – Even though רשב"ג is uncertain as to the view of the חכמים; it is possible that they maintain that (even) לפני יאוש, nevertheless if פדאו לשם בן חורין the rule is לא ישתעבד – מכל מקום לא מסתבר ליה לרבא כלל לומר דפליג³ לפני יאוש:⁴ Nevertheless it does not seem logical at all to רבא to assume that the ת"ק argues on רשב"ג לפני יאוש.

SUMMARY רבא totally negates the concern of ממנעי ולא פרקי.

THINKING IT OVER How are we to understand that רשב"ג gave credence that the רבנן (who are his בר פלוגתא) maintain לפני יאוש he goes free, and רבא (who merely has to justify their מחלוקת [not his own logic]) could not bring himself to do so?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ It would seem that רבא does not establish the משנה before יאוש, for we would not understand the view of the רבנן; why if פדאו לשם בן חורין, the עבד does not work for רבו ראשון (since he was not מתייאש). רבא does not accept the argument of אביי that if ישתעבד לרבו ראשון then מימנעי ולא פרקי. ² It is therefore evident that רשב"ג entertained the idea that the רבנן maintain that לפני יאוש if פדאו לשם בן חורין the עבד goes free (presumably) because מימנעי ולא פרקי. Why then could not רבא agree that the מחלוקת is לפני יאוש?! ³ In the תוה"ר it reads 'פליגי'; see מהרש"א הארוך. ⁴ רבא totally negates the concern of ממנעי ולא פרקי. ⁵ See תפא"י.