בעבד של שני שותפין ודברי הכל—By a slave of two partners and according to everyone

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the case of a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין is where the slave belonged to two partners, where everyone agrees that each one of them can free his share of the slave, so if one of them frees his part, the עבד is a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא לרבי אליעזר דבפרק החובל¹ (בבא קמא דף צ,א) אינו יכול לשחרר חלקו² – And if you will say; but according to ר"א in פרק החובל, a partner in an עבד cannot free his share – כמו שאינו יוצא בשן ועין³ דבעינן עבדו המיוחד לו – Just like this עבד who has two masters cannot go free if his tooth or eye are destroyed, for we require that it should be ‘his slave’ one who is designated specifically for him, but not that it is designated for others as well – ומוקי התם אליביה הא דאמר אמימר איש ואשה שמכרו בנכסי מלוג⁴ לא עשו ולא כלום⁵ – And the גמרא there established this which אמימר ruled, ‘a man and his wife who sold the נכסי מלוג they did not accomplish anything’, this ruling is according to the teaching of ר"א – תוספות concludes his question⁶ וקאמר התם חציו עבד וחציו בן חורין – And the גמרא there cites a ברייתא, which states, ‘a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין – וכן עבד של שני שותפין [פירוש אליביה דרבי אלעזר] אין יוצאין בראשי איברים⁷ – And similarly an עבד of two partners do not go out if the tips of their limbs' were cut off, as it is by a regular עבד, and רבא there explained that this ברייתא is according to ר"א, so just as he cannot go out בראשי אברים since he is not עבדו המיוחד לו, he also cannot free him, so how can the גמרא here say that a חציו עבד וחציו בן חורין is possible by an עבד של ב' שותפין according to everyone, when we see from the גמרא in ב"ק that by an עבד של ב' שותפין neither one can free him (on their own). תוספות answers: ויש לומר דשותפין דהתם היינו לזה גוף ולזה פירות⁸ – And one can say that the term שותפין there in the ברייתא means that one owns the גוף and the other owns the פירות – כמו מוכר עבדו⁹ לאחר ופסק עמו על מנת שישמשנו ל' יום דהוי דומיא דאיש ואשה¹⁰ – It is like the case of one who sold his slave to another with the stipulation that he should still service him (the seller) for thirty days, which that case is also similar to a man and his wife regarding their ownership of נכסי מלוג; it is only in these cases where there is the issue of המיוחד לו and therefore neither owner is considered his total owner, and he will not be able to free him either – אבל כשיש לו גוף ופירות יכול לשחרר חציו – However, when each of the partners owns half the גוף and half the פירות, either one can free his half of the עבד – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: והא דקאמר התם חציו עבד וחציו בן חורין¹¹ היינו למשנה אחרונה¹² – And this which the ברייתא states there that a חצי עבד וחצי ב"ח does not go out בראשי אברים, that it (only) according to the latter משנה that ב"ה agreed to ב"ש that we force the remaining master to free the slave –**** תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא אמימר גופיה אית ליה לעיל¹³ לחד לישנא דמפקיר עבדו יש לו תקנה בשטר – And if you will say; but אמימר himself maintained previously according to one version, that one who frees his slave there is recourse for this slave to gain his complete freedom if the owner gives him a שטר שחרור – תוספות answers:

And one can say that a שטר can certainly remove the prohibition, as the גמרא states previously, just like a woman the גט removes only the prohibition aspect, but not any monetary obligation, the same is with a שטר שחרור of an עבד.

SUMMARY The restriction of ר"א regarding 'המיוחד לו', is only if one owns קנין הגוף and the other קנין פירות, but not if they are שותפין in both. A שטר שחרור, however is effective to remove איסור but not ממון.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks how can it be אליבא דכו"ע, when ר"א (seemingly) disagrees.¹⁶ Why cannot we answer that when the גמרא states 'ואליבא דכו"ע' it means according to both רבי ורבנן who we were discussing previously, however we did not mean כו"ע literally (especially since ר"א שמותי הוא he follows ב"ש which is אינה משנה במקום ב"ה); so what is תוספות question?!¹⁷
2. תוספות writes that the ruling of אמימר regarding נכסי מלוג is according to ר"א (as part of the question).¹⁸ Seemingly why was it necessary at all for תוספות to cite the ruling of אמימר, why is the question from the ברייתא (of שותפין) insufficient?!¹⁹
3. תוספות asks a contradiction from אמימר.²⁰ Seemingly the same question can be asked directly on our משנה; how can we say that we force him to be משחרר the עבד, but he only has a קנין הגוף on the עבד?!²¹

footnotes: ¹ The case there is where one sold his slave to another, but they agreed that for the next thirty days the slave would work exclusively for his previous master (the one who sold him). There is a rule that if the master hits his slave and the slave dies after a twenty-four hour period, the master is פטור, as the פסוקים in שמות (משפטים) כא,כ-כא state; וְכִי יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם. כא. אַךְ אִם יוֹם אוֹ יוֹמַיִם יַעֲמֹד לֹא יֻקַּם כִּי כַסְפּוֹ הוּא. In the previous case where the slave has two masters, there is a dispute who is considered the master to be exempt under the יום או יומים rule. ר"א maintains that neither is exempt under the יום או יומים rule, since neither can say that this עבד is his כספו המיוחד לו (since there is another master). ² This is תוספות assumption as תוספות will continue to explain. ³ The תורה rules in שמות (משפטים) כא,כו-ז that if שן עבדו or עין עבדו is destroyed, the עבד כנעני is freed. However if the עבד has two masters he is not freed (according to ר"א) since we require עבדו המיוחד לו, just as we require כספו המיוחד לו. ⁴ נכסי מלוג are the assets, which the wife brings into the marriage; they belong to her, however during their marriage the husband has the right to eat the fruits of these assets (if it is a field he eats the fruits, if it is an עבד, the עבד works for him, etc.) The status of the נכסי מלוג vis-a vis the husband and wife is similar to the status of the עבד mentioned in footnote # 1, where one person (the wife) owns the גוף of the נכסי מלוג and the other (the husband) owns the פירות. ⁵ The sale is invalid, since one owns only the גוף and the other only the פירות, it is not מיוחד to any of them, So it is just like by the עבד (in footnote # 1) where there is no rule of יום או יומים and he is not יוצא בשן ועין, since one (the buyer) has only a קנין הגוף, and the other (the seller) has only קנין פירות, it is not מיוחד to either of them according to ר"א. Therefore by the נכסי מלוג, when either the husband or the wife dies, the remaining spouse may take back the נכסי מלוג, which they sold, from the buyers. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ At this point there is no question yet, because we can distinguish between the case of ר"א where one owns the גוף and the other owns the פירות, so we can say that neither can free him (because it is not מיוחד לו), however in the case of two partners where the both have קנין הגוף וקנין פירות in this עבד, perhaps ר"א agrees that each one can be משחרר his half (see רש"י there ד"ה לא עשו). The question however is from what תוספות cites now. (See footnote # 7.) ⁷ תוספות is assuming now that עבד של ב' שותפים in this ברייתא means that they were equal partners (בגוף ובפירות), not like the case in footnote # 1, and as the simple meaning of עבד של ב' שותפין indicates, therefore the question is how can our גמרא say that if two partners own an עבד, he can become a ח"ע וחב"ח, and it is אליבא דכו"ע, when it certainly cannot follow the view of ר"א who requires עבדו המיוחד לו, even in a case of two complete partners (see footnote # 6). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ תוספות is retracting from what he assumed in the question; see footnote # 7. ⁹ See footnote # 1. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ תוספות concluded that only when both partners have קנין הגוף וקנין פירות that each one is able to free his half. Therefore we must conclude that when that ברייתא mentions a ח"ע וחב"ח (that he does not go out בראשי אברים) we are discussing a case where the remaining half-owner had a קנין הגוף וקנין פירות in this עבד just as the previous partner had (otherwise how could he have been freed); The question is, since the remaining owner has both קנין הגוף וקנין פירות why does this ח"ע וחב"ח not go out בראשי אברים. In this case it is עבדו המיוחד לו; so just as he can be משחרר half, he should also be able to go out בראשי אברים! ¹² The משנה אחרונה is that ב"ה agreed to ב"ש that we force the remaining master to free him; so even before he frees him, he cannot have the עבד work for him, therefore he only has a קנין הגוף in this עבד but no קנין פירות, so it is not עבדו המיוחד לו anymore, and therefore he does not go out בראשי אברים. ¹³ מ,א, according to the איכא דאמרי only by מת אין לו תקנה but not if the master is alive. The question is that when one is מפקיר the עבד he loses his קנין פירות, but retains the קנין הגוף and nevertheless אמימר maintains that he can be freed, indicating that קנין הגוף is sufficient and we have no problem with עבדו המיוחד לו, so why does אמימר rule that איש ואשה שמכרו בנכסי מלוג לא עשו ולא כלום, since one has קנין פירות (the husband) and one has קנין הגוף (the wife), and we see by עבד that even if he only has קנין הגוף he can still free him, so here too the wife who has קנין הגוף should be able to sell her נכסי מלוג! See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁴ לט,ב. ¹⁵ תוספות is answering that we cannot compare the two cases of עבד and נכסי מלוג. Regarding an ח"ע וחב"ח where the master only has a קנין הגוף in this עבד, which practically means that this עבד is prohibited from marrying a בת ישראל, therefore he can write him a שטר שחרור to free him completely and remove this איסור, for we derive עבד from אשה, that just like by a woman the גט removed the prohibition on the woman to marry anyone else, but it does not affect any monetary issues, similarly the שטר שחרור is effective only for איסור but not for ממון. However by נכסי מלוג we are discussing a monetary transaction, so אמימר maintains that since she only has a קנין הגוף but no קנין פירות she cannot complete the transaction (even together with her husband). ¹⁶ See footnote # 7. ¹⁷ See מהרש"א. ¹⁸ See footnote # 5. ¹⁹ See פני יהושע and נחלת משה. ²⁰ See footnote # 13. ²¹ See מהרש"ל, מהרש"א and נחלת משה.

הא דאמר חצי חצי—Here is where he said; half – half

OVERVIEW The גמרא is attempting to reconcile two contradictory ברייתות regarding one who delivered all his assets to his two slaves.¹ The ברייתא which states that the slaves acquire the assets is where he wrote over the entire assets to both slaves, and the ברייתא which states that they do not acquire the assets is where he wrote חצי חצי. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of חצי חצי. פירש בקונטרס² שכתב בשטר אחד חצי נכסיי לך וכן בשני לחברו – רש"י explained that חצי חצי means that he wrote in one שטר, ‘half of my assets are yours’, and he wrote the same thing in the second שטר to the other עבד – ואפילו מסר בבת אחת³ לא קנו דדלמא חד פלגא הוא דכתב לתרוייהו⁴ ואיכא שיור⁵ – So even if he delivered both שטרות simultaneously to both עבדים**, they do not acquire** his assets, for perhaps it is the same half of his assets that he wrote to both of his slaves, so there is a remainder, and therefore they are not קונה – תוספות asks on פרש"י: וקשה לרבינו שמואל דהא מדקאמר כל נכסיי משמע שמפרש בשטר – And the ר"ש has a difficulty with this explanation, for since the ברייתא of חצי חצי states 'כל נכסי נתונין לפלוני ולפלוני עבדי', this indicates that it was explicit in the שטר – שחציו שנתן לזה לא נתן לזה אלא הכל נתן לשניהם – That the half which he gave to this slave he did not give to the other slave, but rather he gave all his assets to both slaves, so how can רש"י state that he meant the same half, how would that fit with the expression כל נכסי?! Another question on פרש"י: ועוד מדמפליג בין אמר כולו לאמר חצי משמע דוקא אמר כולו קנו – And additionally since the גמרא differentiates whether he said כולו (where the עבדים are קונה) or whether he said חצי (where they are not קונה), this indicates that the עבדים are קונה only if he said כולו – אבל חצי אפילו פירש שלא חצי אחד נותן לשניהם אלא הכל אפילו הכי לא קנה⁶ – But if he said 'חצי', even if he specified that he is not giving them both the same half, but rather he is giving them everything, nevertheless they are not קונה, but according to רש"י if he gave them everything בבת אחת even if he said חצי they would be קונה! תוספות offers his interpretation: ונראה לרבינו שמואל דרבה לטעמיה דאית ליה⁷ בפרק שני דקידושין (דף נ,ב) – And it is the view of the ר"ש that חצי חצי is never קונה even if he explicitly gave it all away, for רבה follows his reasoning in the second פרק of מסכת קידושין – ובמי שהוציאוהו (עירובין נ,א) כל שאין בזה אחר זה אפילו בבת אחת אינו – And in the פרק מי שהוציאוהו that anything which is not effective when it occurs consecutively, it is not effective even when it occurs simultaneously – ובזה אחר זה לא קנה כיון דשייר⁸ – And by חצי if it were done consecutively, the עבדים would not be קונה, since he left over part of the עבד, so therefore they will not be קונה even בב"א – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: ולא דמי לשיחרר חציו ומכר חציו⁹ דהתם הוי בזה אחר זה אם מכר חציו תחילה – And this case of חצי is not similar to a case where he freed half the slave and sold half the slave בב"א where it is effective; because there it would be effective בזה אח"ז if he first sold half the slave and then freed the other half, so he is not משייר in the שחרור, however here by חצי חצי it can never take effect בזה אח"ז therefore it cannot take effect by ב"א. תוספות asks: וקצת קשה לפירושו דאם כן כי אמר כולו נמי לא ליקני בבת אחת – And there is a slight difficulty with the explanation of the ר"ש, for if indeed it is so that since it is not effective בזה אח"ז it is not effective even בב"א, so even if he said 'כולו' it should also not be effective even בב"א – כיון דבזה אחר זה שני לא קני כמו במקדש שתי אחיות דאינן מקודשות – Since by בזה אח"ז the second עבד will not acquire anything, so it should be like one who is מקדש two sisters that both are not מקודשות – כיון דבזה אחר זה לא תפסי קדושין בשניה¹⁰ – Since in a case where he was מקדש them בזה אח"ז the קידושין does not take effect by the second one, the same should be here that since if he gave them his assets בזה אח"ז the second one receives nothing so (even) if he gave it to both of them בב"א neither should receive anything! תוספות explains why the rule of כל שאין וכו' does not apply everywhere: אלא ודאי לא שייך כל שאינו בזה אחר זה אלא היכא שהראשון מונע את השני מלחול – Rather the rule of כל שאין בזה אח"ז is certainly not applicable unless the first act prevents the second act from taking effect – כמו בשתי אחיות שמונעים קידושי הראשונה מלחול קידושי שניה – As it is by the case of the two sisters that the קידושין of the first sister prevents the קידושין of the second sister from taking effect אבל הכא הא דלא קני שני בזה אחר זה לאו משום דלא חזי לקנות – However here by the עבד this that the second עבד cannot acquire the assets where it was בזה אחר זה is not because the second עבד is not fit to acquire the assets (as it is by the second sister who is now not fit to be מקודשת to her sister’s husband because of her sister) – אלא משום דכבר נסתלק הנותן ואין לו בהן כלום – Rather the reason the second עבד is not קונה is because the grantor has already been removed from his assets and he owns nothing of them anymore; he has nothing what to give. The case of the two עבדים – מידי דהוה אנותן כל נכסיו לשנים וכתב לכל א' נכסיי נתונין לך במתנה – Is similar to a case where one gives his assets to two people and wrote to each of them my assets are given to you as a gift – וזיכה להן בבת אחת דקנו כל הנכסים¹¹ – And he was מזכה it to them בב"א that they both acquire all the assets equally –

For we cannot compare money which can be separated and divided, as the גמרא states there concerning מעשר.

SUMMARY רש"י maintains that the reason they are not קונה by חצי is because it may be the same חצי. According to the ר"ש they are not קונה even if it is a different חצי, since כל שאין בזה אח"ז אפי' בב"א אין. The difficulty with this is why are they קונה by כולו. There is a need to differentiate between קידושין and ממון which is divisible.

THINKING IT OVER According to the 'קצת קשה',¹³ what would be the ruling by חצי חצי where it was made clear that between the two of them they acquire everything, are they קונה or not?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ This reconciliation is assuming that both ברייתות follow the view of the רבנן that המשחרר חצי עבדו לא קנה. ² בד"ה הא. ³ See רש"י ד"ה הכותב that he was מזכה through a שליח both שטרות to both עבדים simultaneously. ⁴ He gave both slaves the same half of his assets (part A) but he gave none of them his other half (part B). ⁵ He only freed one half of each slave and the רבנן maintain that one cannot free half-a-slave (see footnote # 1). It seems from רש"י if we would be certain that each slave received a different half, then it would be effective if he was מוסר both שטרות simultaneously, for then each slave would be freed completely at the same time (one half is freed from the שטר he received and his other half is freed with the שטר the other slave received). ⁶ The way in which the גמרא distinguishes between the two ברייתות, that it depends whether he said כולו or חצי חצי, indicates that חצי is never קונה, only כולו is קונה, for if there is a case where חצי is also קונה the גמרא should have been more clear and differentiate whether he gave away everything or not. The fact that the גמרא differentiates between כולו and חצי tells us that חצי is never קונה even if he gives it all away; not like רש"י (in footnote # 5) ⁷ The משנה there states that if one is מקדש two sisters בבת אחת, neither of them is מקודשת, because as רבה stated כל שאין בזה אח"ז אפי' בב"א אינו. Once he is מקדש one sister he cannot be מקדש the other, therefore even בב"א they are not מקודשות. ⁸ All agree (according to the רבנן) that if he would first give half his assets to one עבד (and then the other half to the other עבד) that they would not be קונה, for he only freed half the עבד; he was משייר the other half, so therefore since it is not effective בזה אח"ז, therefore it is not effective even בב"א. ⁹ Seemingly there too if he would first free half and then sell the other half it would not be effective, since he only freed half so he is משייר, we should therefore say since it is not effective בזה אח"ז, it should not be effective even בב"א. ¹⁰ By קידושין if he was first מקדש one sister, she is מקודשת, and then if he is מקדש the other sister there is no קידושין and therefore we rule that if he was מקדש both together there is no קידושין at all (since כל שאין בזה אח"ז אפי' בב"א אין), the same should apply by the עבד, if he first gave all his assets to one עבד and later gave it to the other עבד, the second עבד has nothing, so it should follow that if he gave it to both בב"א, neither should become free because of the same rule that כל שאין בזאח"ז אפי' בב"א אין! Our תוספות is saying that this rule of כל שאין וכו' cannot be applied universally. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹¹ We do not say here כל שאין בזאח"ז אינו בב"א. ¹² נא,א. The גמרא there differentiates that by מעשר if instead of giving a tenth he gave a fifth (2/10) בב"א, the rule is that the פירות are מתוקן (they can be eaten) but the מעשר is מקולקל for only one tenth is מעשר but not the other tenth (but we do not know which part of the fifth is מעשר and which remains טבל). However we do not say that since if he would give first one tenth and then later a second tenth where the rule would be that there is no שם מעשר on the second tenth (it is not בזה אח"ז) so even if he gave both tenths בב"א, it should not be מעשר at all. The difference is that by מעשר (and similarly by money matters) we can separate and divide by saying half is מעשר and half not, but when one is מקדש two women we cannot say that half of the woman is מקודשת and not the other half; there is no such thing as a half woman being מקודשת. ¹³ See footnote # 10. ¹⁴ Can we say that even though that by חצי חצי they are not קונה (even if he gave all his assets to both of them [half to each]) because there, neither can be קונה בזה אח"ז, however by כולו since the first one can be קונה if it is בזה אח"ז, and it is ממון (which is אפשר לחלק) we do not say כל שאין בזאח"ז אפי' בב"א אינו?

מאי איריא חצי¹ אפילו כולו נמי—Why teach ‘half’, it is also even by ‘all’

OVERVIEW The גמרא reconciles the two ברייתות, saying that the ברייתא which stated לא קנו is where it was בשטר אחד. The גמרא asked why then does the סיפא of this ברייתא state that if it was חצי חצי in one שטר they are not קונה, but why mention חצי (which is more reason not to be קונה [since he is משייר]), since the rule of לא קנו applies even if he said כולו. Our תוספות explains why the גמרא did not attempt to answer this question with the same answer it gave previously in a similar situation.²

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: הכא ליכא לשנויי תנא סיפא לגלויי ארישא³ – Here the גמרא could not have answered תנא סיפא לגלויי ארישא – דפשיטא דבשטר אחד אין חילוק⁴ בין אמר חצי חצי לאמר כולו: For it is obvious that the רישא is discussing even כולו, for if he gave them both one שטר, there is no difference whether he said חצי חצי or whether he said כולו. It is (the same) פסול in either case

SUMMARY By one שטר there is no conceivable difference between חצי and כולו.

THINKING IT OVER Why can’t we say that without the סיפא we would have thought that the רישא is only by חצי,⁵ and by writing חצי in the סיפא it is לגלויי ארישא that it is even by כולו because of לה ולא לה ולחברתה?⁶

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות the text reads חצי חצי אפילו (instead of חצי אפילו). ² The גמרא initially reconciled the two ברייתות by saying that the ברייתא of לא קנו is where he said חצי. The גמרא asked but in the סיפא of that ברייתא it states 'ואם אמר חצי לא קנו', indicating that the רישא is not discussing חצי. The גמרא answered that the סיפא is merely explaining the רישא and ה"נ מסתברא for if the רישא is by כולו then why mention חצי in the סיפא since it is obvious. The גמרא rejected this ה"נ מסתברא, saying תני סיפא לגלויי רישא that even by כולו, it is לא קנו. ³ The reason the סיפא mentions that by חצי לא קנו (even though it is obvious, since לא קנו even by כולו [see ‘Overview]), because it was necessary for the ברייתא to inform us that לא קנו even by כולו (if it is שטר אחד), so it mentions חצי in the סיפא so we now know that the רישא is כולו and nevertheless לא קנו. ⁴ If it is one שטר to both עבדים it is פסול because of לה ולא לה ולחברתה (see רש"י ד"ה בשטר), so it makes no difference whether he said כולו or חצי. Previously however where the פסול is because of משייר, in that case there may be a difference between כולו (where he is not משייר) and חצי (where he may be משייר), therefore it is appropriate to say תנא סיפא לגלויי ארישא that even by כולו (where he may not be משייר), nevertheless it is פסול. ⁵ We may not have known of this rule; לה ולא לה ולחברתה, this is what the ברייתא is teaching us! ⁶ See אוצר מפרשי התלמוד # 124.

יום של רבו לרבו—The day of his master; it goes to his master

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that if an ox gored a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין on the day he is supposed to work for his master, the payment for the damage by the ox is paid to his master. Our תוספות discusses the practical application of this הלכה

היינו למשנה ראשונה¹ דלמשנה אחרונה² מעשה ידיו שלו³ – This ruling that יום של רבו לרבו is only according to the first משנה, however according to the last משנה, the handiwork of the עבד belongs to him – דבסמוך מדמי ליה למעוכב גט שחרור⁴ – For shortly the גמרא compares a חעוחב"ח to one who is held back from marrying a בת ישראל because he does not have a שטר שחרור – תוספות responds to the anticipated difficulty:⁵ ומיהו נפקא מינה אף למשנה אחרונה כגון בשל יתומים קטנים⁶ דלאו בני כפייה נינהו – However there is relevance to this rule of יום רבו לרבו even according to the משנה אחרונה in a case where for instance the חצי עבד belonged to minor orphans, who cannot be coerced to free their חצי עבד – או בחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין⁷ ולא נהגו בה מנהג הפקר – Or in a case of a חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין where they were not acting with her in a promiscuous manner – תוספות asks: וקצת תימה כיון דלפי משנה אחרונה מעשה ידיו שלו – And it is slightly puzzling; since according to the משנה אחרונה the מעשה ידיו of a חעוחב"ח belong to the עבד, but not to the master, so –** מה הרויח לעיל⁸ ההוא גברא דאקני לבנו קטן – Previously,** regarding that person who was מקנה his חצי עבד to his minor son; what did he gain by it – והא מכי משחרריה חבריה לפלגיה מיד זכה העבד בעצמו והוה ליה מעוכב גט שחרור⁹ – For as soon as his partner freed his half, the עבד immediately acquired ownership for himself that he is not required to work anymore for the remaining partner, and he became a מעוכב גט שחרור – ואין יכול להקנות לבנו אלא מה שיש לעצמו בו אבל טפי לא – And the remaining partner can be מקנה to his son, only whatever rights he owns in this עבד, but no more, so since he has no rights in the מעשה ידיו of the עבד, what did he gain by transferring ownership to his son; the עבד no longer works for them!**** תוספות answers:

And perhaps he was מקנה the עבד to his son before his partner freed the עבד, for he realized that his partner wants to free his share of the עבד.

SUMMARY Once an עבד is freed halfway, he no longer works for his remaining master.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות taught previously (בד"ה בעבד) that if one owns the גוף without the פירות, one cannot sell this asset. Why then did not תוספות ask how was it at all possible for the father to be מקנה the עבד to his son, since after his partner was מפקיר his half the father only retains a קנין הגוף in this עבד (he has no קנין פירות since the חצי עבד no longer works for him), and by קנין הגוף only, one cannot transfer his ownership?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The משנה ראשונה is the original ruling of ב"ה that a חעוחב"ח works one day for himself and one day for his master. ² The משנה אחרונה is where ב"ה rescinded and agreed to ב"ש that the master must free the חעוחב"ח. ³ We force the master to free him and from that point on the מעשה ידיו of the עבד belong to the עבד and not the master, so the payment of damages from the ox, also goes to the עבד and not to the master. ⁴ See רש"י on the עמוד ב' ד"ה מעוכב. These are various עבדים (including a חעוחב"ח) who are not obligated to work for their master anymore. They however, cannot marry a בת ישראל until they receive a גט שחרור from their master. ⁵ The rule of יום של רבו לרבו seems to have relevance only according to the משנה ראשונה, so why cite this ruling here since now we follow the משנה אחרונה, so there is no יום של רבו, since he does not work for his master anymore?! ⁶ Two people owned a slave in partnership, one of them died and his minor heirs became his half owner (see footnote # 9). The remaining partner freed his half of the slave so now the יתומים own a חצי עבד (who is also a חצי ב"ח). However בי"ד cannot force the קטנים to free their חצי עבד (for generally we do not force קטנים), therefore the חצי עבד continues to work for them half the time. The whole reason a חצי עבד generally does not work for the master for this is a means of coercion to hasten the master to free him, however since we do not force the יתומים קטנים to free him therefore he continues to work for them ⁷ We coerce the master of a חעוחב"ח to free the עבד in order to enable him to be מקיים the מצוה of פריה ורביה, however a שפחה (or a woman in general) is not מחוייב in פו"ר, therefore we do not force the master of a חציה שפחה to free her, unless they were נהגו בה מנהג הפקר. In these two case of יתומים and חשוחב"ח where לא נהגו בה מנהג הפקר, the slaves keep on working for their master, therefore the rule of יום של רבו לרבו is relevant in these two cases. ⁸ מ,א. The case there is where one of the partners owning an עבד died and the remaining partner, being concerned that בי"ד will force him to free him, transferred the ownership of this עבד to his minor son, so בי"ד cannot force his son to free him. ⁹ See footnote # 4. This question of תוספות explains why the case of עבד של יתומים was explained in this manner in footnote # 6 ¹⁰ In this scenario the slave must work for the son because at the time of the transfer, the slave was beholden to the father. After the other partner freed his half, the slave would still be obligated to serve the son, since we do not force the קטן to free the slave, as mentioned earlier. ¹¹ See נחלת משה.