מי איכא עבדא דלא מזדבן לקנסא—Is there a slave which cannot be sold for his fine

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited a ברייתא, which stated that even a קנין כספו (a slave) which is not worth a פרוטה, can also eat תרומה. The גמרא asked if one can sell his slave for קנס, how can there be a slave (קנין כספו) who is not worth a פרוטה.¹ This proves that a slave cannot be sold (only) for his קנס. Our תוספות challenges and explains this proof.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כי אמר נמי דאינו מכור תקשי ליה – And if you will say; even if we assume that if an עבד is sold for his קנס it is not a valid sale, the גמרא can still ask – מי איכא עבדא דלא מזדבן לקנסא שיוכל למכרו כולו לגמרי² – ‘Is there a slave who cannot be sold for his קנס; since he can sell the entire slave completely – תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלא ימצא קונים שיקנוהו לגמרי – And one can say that he will not find buyers who are willing to buy the slave completely; they won’t be willing to do it – אפילו לא לפרנסו שיוכל לומר עשה³ עמי ואיני זנך⁴ – Even if they will not feed him, for the rule is that the master can say to his slave, ‘work for me, but I will not feed you’ – מכל מקום מימנעי אינשי לקנותו שלא יהא רגיל אצלם – But nevertheless people will refrain from buying him, so that he will not be by them frequently; therefore he is not worth even a שוה פרוטה.This is true only if he has to buy him completely⁵ – אבל אם מכרו לקנס מכור זמנין דזבני ליה⁶ – However if the rule is that a sale for קנס only, is a valid sale, occasionally people will buy him, therefore he is worth a שוה פרוטה –**** תוספות offers an alternate solution ועוד יש לומר דאפילו מוכרו כולו לגמרי אינו מכור⁷ – And additionally one can say that even if he sells this עבד completely, it is not a sale – דהא אינו שוה כלום ואינו מוכרו אלא לקנס ולקנס אינו מכור: Since intrinsically this עבד is worthless, so he is being sold only for קנס and there is no sale for קנס only (if this is what we assume), therefore he is not worth even a שוה פרוטה.

SUMMARY People will not be willing to purchase an עבד (who is not worth a שוה פרוטה), even if they don’t feed him, for they do not want him being around, however if it’s only for קנס they may consider paying a פרוטה for the שלשים שקלים. Alternately, if we maintain מכרו לקנס אינו מכור, one cannot sell an עבד who is not worth a שוה פרוטה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. How can we explain the ועוי"ל of תוספות that even if he sold him לגמרי the sale is not valid;⁸ why should it not be valid since they both agreed to the sale?⁹
2. What are the relative advantages of both answers?

footnotes: ¹ Everyone would be willing to pay a פרוטה for the opportunity to receive שלשים שקלים if this slave is killed by an animal. ² The גמרא assumed that everyone is willing to pay a פרוטה for the קנס, so how can there be a slave that is not worth a פרוטה. However this question can be asked even if one cannot sell an עבד, only for the קנס; the question still remains how can there be an עבד who is not worth a פרוטה (even if he cannot be sold exclusively for the קנס), but he can be sold completely for a פרוטה. Seemingly everyone will pay a פרוטה to own an עבד completely and have the chance of receiving שלשים שקלים?! ³ See previously יב,א. ⁴ People will certainly not buy him if they are required to feed him, for they are just spending money and not receiving anything in return since this עבד is worthless. However, even if they do not need to feed him they still will not buy him. ⁵ No one wants a worthless עבד being in their household, and this עבד since he was bought completely by the master will assume that it is his home and be there against the will of the owner. ⁶ In this case since he is being sold only for the קנס, the עבד will assume that his real owner is the seller and will therefore make that his home, so people will not be reluctant to buy him for the קנס only. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. We are now assuming that מכרו לקנס אינו מכור. ⁸ See footnote # 7. ⁹ See נחלת משה.

אם תמצא לומר התקדשי לחציי מקודשת—If you decide to say; in a case where he said; ‘become betrothed to half of me’, she is betrothed

OVERVIEW The גמרא posed a query what is the ruling if a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין was מקדש a בת ישראל, is she מקודשת or not. This query is valid (the גמרא says) whether we assume that התקדשי לי לחציי is מקודשת,¹ or whether we maintains חצייך מקודשת לי אינה מקודשת.

וגבי אשה קאמר אם תמצא לומר חצייך מקודשת לי² אינה מקודשת – And regarding the half of the woman the גמרא states, את"ל when he says ‘half of you should be מקודשת לי’, she is not מקודשת; in either את"ל the query is still valid – תוספות comments:

And the גמרא could have stated the את"ל in the opposite manner, but he chose the truth, for this is how the גמרא concludes in the first פרק of מסכת קידושין.

SUMMARY The את"ל, in the manner in which the גמרא presents it, is the הלכה.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes והוי מצי למימר איפכא;⁵ what would be gained if it would be written איפכא; the הלכה is certainly not that way; why is תוספות even considering it?!

footnotes: ¹ In this את"ל the (entire) woman is becoming מקדושת to half the man. ² In this case half the woman is becoming מקודשת to the (entire) man. ³ See מהר"ם who explains this to mean that the גמרא could have said that the query is valid whether we maintain התקדשי לי לחציי אינה מקודשת (for there he was משייר בקנינו) or whether we maintain חצייך מקודשת לי מקודשת (because there he is חזיא לכולא). See ‘Thinking it over’. See מהרש"ל ומהרש"א who offer a different interpretation. ⁴ When he says התקדשי לי לחציי he meant to say that I’m given you only half of me to you, the other half I’m reserving to marry another wife. However when he says חצייך מקודשת לי we cannot interpret it that she can have another husband for that is forbidden; therefor it must mean literally that he is marrying half-a-wife and that cannot be done, for the תורה (in דברים [תצא] כד,א) writes כי יקח איש אישה, but ולא חצי אשה. ⁵ See footnote # 3.

ואי אמרת קדושיו לאו קדושין יורשין מנא ליה—And if you say his betrothal is not a betrothal; how does he have heirs

OVERVIEW The גמרא queried in a case where a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין was מקדש a בת ישראל, whether the קידושין are valid. The גמרא cited a ברייתא, which stated that if a שור killed a חעוחב"ח, half the קנס goes to his (remaining) master and the other half goes to his heirs. The גמרא infers from this that קידושיו קידושין, for if it is not a valid קידושין, how can he have heirs. תוספות analyzes this proof.

תוספות asks: תימה דמה תולה יורשין בקידושין¹ והלא בנו מן הפנויה יורשו – It is astounding! For why does he associate heirs with קידושין, for is not one’s son from an unmarried woman his heir; תוספות proves this – כדאמר (יבמות דף ק,ב) גבי עשרה כהנים שפירש אחד מהן ובעל דהולד שתוקי² – As שמואל ruled regarding ten כהנים, where one of them (who remains unknown) separated himself from the group, and had relations, that child who is from this relationship, is a שתוקי, meaning שמשתקין אותו מכנסי אביו משום דלא ידעינן אבוה מנו – That we silence him from the estate of his father, because we do not know who is father is, however if we would know, the child would inherit, even though there was no קידושין (and she is a פנויה) – ואפילו³ בנו ממזר מערוה דלא תפסי בה קידושין – And even if his son is a ממזר from an incestuous relation where קידושין do not take effect, nevertheless – תנן בפרק שני דיבמות (דף כב,א) דהוי בנו לכל דבר והיינו ליורשו – The משנה taught in the second פרק of מסכת יבמות that this ממזר is considered his son for all matters; this means that the son inherits him – והכא אי תפסי בה קידושין גרע טפי⁴ דאתי צד עבדות ומשתמש באשת איש – And here by the חעוחב"ח if קידושין would be effective it is even worse for the עבד, for the עבד part would be in a relationship with an א"א – כדאמרינן [בהחולץ] (שם דף מה,א⁵) – As the גמרא states in פרק החולץ. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דסבר הש"ס דאם איתא דלאו בר קדושין הוא אין בנו מתייחס אחריו – And one can say that the גמרא maintains that if indeed the חעוחב"ח cannot perform קידושין, his son is not related to him (he is not considered his son and cannot inherit him) – ולא דמי לעריות דתפסי בה קדושין לעלמא – And it is not comparable to incestuous relationships, where קידושין is effective by these people with people in general (they can marry others, therefore their children inherit them) –

However this חעוחב"ח who can never make an effective קידושין anywhere, his child is not related to him.

SUMMARY If one is not a בר קידושין anywhere, his progeny do not inherit him.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the reason that if one is not a בר קידושין בשום מקום therefore אין הבן מתייחס אחריו?
2. תוספות states that since an עבד is not a בר קידושין בשום מקום therefore his son is not מתייחס אחריו. We know however that regarding a נכרי who is also not a בר קידושין בשום מקום, and nevertheless his children are מתייחס אחריו,⁷ and inherit him.⁸ Why is there a difference between a נכרי and the עבד?⁹

footnotes: ¹ The slave can have heirs even if the קידושין are invalid; if he lived with someone and she bore him a child, this child is his heir regardless if there was קידושין or not. ² שתוקי (silenced one) is the term used to describe a person whose father is unknown to us. Whenever he refers to someone as his father, his mother tells him שתוק שתוק (be quiet); ‘he is not your father’. ³ תוספות is adding that perhaps by the case of the כהנים the כהן could have been מקדש the woman and therefore the son inherits; however here by the חעוחב"ח we are assuming that there is no קידושין, therefore perhaps his son will not inherit, therefore תוספות adds that we see even by a ממזר where לא תפסי קידושין and nevertheless he inherits, so why should not the son of the עבד also inherit. ⁴ It is preferable for the עבד that אין קידושיו קידושין, for if it were קידושין, this woman is married to the חצי בן חורין part of the עבד, so when the חצי עבד is with her he is violating the איסור of א"א (since she is not the wife of the חצי עבד). Therefore it is better that there is no קידושין and no איסור of א"א; however the child inherits as mentioned previously, ⁵ The expression דאתי צד עבדות ומשתמש באשת איש is actually brought there on מה,ב. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ יבמות סב,א. ⁸ קידושין יז,ב. ⁹ See נחלת משה.