בשלוה על מנת למשכנו כולי—When he borrowed with the intent to collateralize it, etc. Overview¹ The גמרא differentiated between עבד (where it is considered as if he was sold) and שדה (where it is not considered as if it was sold), in a case where he borrowed the money with the intent to use them (the עבד or the שדה) as security, but he did not collect the security as collateral. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות how to understand this answer.

פירש בקונטרס² שאם לא אפרע עד זמן פלוני בא ומשכנני מקרקע זו ותהא שלך – רש"י explained (the case of שדה) that the נכרי said to the ישראל, ‘that if I do not repay the loan by this date, come and take this field as collateral and it will be yours’ (this is the meaning of בשלוה ע"מ למשכנו) – וכל זמן שלא בא ישראל ומשכנו הוי בחזקת עובד כוכבים – So as long as the ישראל did not come and take it as collateral (this is the meaning of ולא משכנו), the field is in the possession of the נכרי and it is פטור from מעשר – וגבי עבד כי האי גוונא³ קנסוה רבנן לישראל הואיל ועבר הזמן ולא פרע⁴ – And regarding an עבד in the same case, the רבנן penalized the ישראל, since the time of payment passed and he did not pay – ואף על פי שלא משכנו עדיין – So even though the נכרי did not take the עבד as collateral yet, nevertheless the עבד goes out free, תוספות asks on פירש"י: וקשה דהוה ליה למימר אידי ואידי דמטא זמניה⁵ – And there is a difficulty with this explanation, for the גמרא should have said; ‘that in both cases the time of payment has arrived’ – תוספות offers his explanation: לכך נראה דאתא לשנויי שנויא קמא הא דמטא זמניה והא דלא מטא זמניה – Therefore it appears to תוספות that the גמרא is coming to reinforce the first answer, that by the עבד it is מטא זמניה (and therefore it is considered a מכירה), and this case by a שדה is where לא מטא זמניה (therefore it is not considered a מכירה) – והא דאקשינן גבי עבד דמטא זמניה צריכא למימר בשלוה על מנת למשכנו ולא משכנו – And this which the גמרא asked on this answer; ‘is it necessary for the ברייתא to teach us regarding an עבד that if מטא זמניה it is considered a מכירה;’ it is obvious! The גמרא is answering this question; indeed it is מטא זמניה, but we are discussing a case where the ישראל borrowed from the נכרי with the intent to be ממשכן his עבד, but the נכרי did not yet take the עבד as a משכון – דסלקא דעתין כיון דלא משכנו עדיין לא יצא לחירות – So it may have entered our minds that since he was not ממשכן him yet, the עבד should not go free, because he is not yet ברשות הנכרי – קא משמע לן דהואיל ובידו למשכנו⁶ דיוצא לחירות: The ברייתא informs us that since the נכרי has the right to be ממשכן the עבד, therefore the עבד goes out free.

SUMMARY According to רש"י this איבעית אימא is a new answer (and אידי ואידי דמטי זמניה), however according to תוספות this איב"א is explaining the first answer (הא דלא מטי זמניה וכו') that even though it was לא משכנו, the עבד is freed since it is מטי זמניה.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling by a field if it is מטי זמניה and לא משכנו, according to this איבעית אימא; would it be חייב במעשר or not?⁷

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ to previous תוס' on מג,ב ד"ה הא. ² בד"ה הכי. ³ The ישראל told the נכרי, ‘if I do not pay you by this date you may take the עבד as a משכון and he will be yours’. ⁴ By the ישראל not paying back the money it is as if he already sold the עבד to the נכרי, since at any time the נכרי can take possession of the עבד, for his loan was not paid up. ⁵ In the previous answer the גמרא states, 'אידי ואידי דלא מטא זמניה'; therefore in this answer where, according to רש"י, it is מטא זמניה; the גמרא should have clarified that according to the איבעית אימא both cases are by מטא זמניה. ⁶ See footnote # 4. ⁷ See נחלת משה.

המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עובד כוכבים—One who sells his slave to a gentile PFarhang

OVERVIEW רב ruled that if one sells his slave to a פרהנג נכרי, the slave goes out free. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות, as to what this means.

פירש בקונטרס¹ מציק ושם עלילות ומכרו לו באותן דמים שהעליל² – רש"י explained that פרהנג is a מציק (an extortionist) and he created a libel against the ישראל that the ישראל owes him a sum of money, and the ישראל sold the עבד to the מציק for those monies which the מציק libelously claimed – תוספות asks on פרש"י: וקשה דלא שייך על זה לשון מכירה³ ולישנא שהיה לו לפייס ולא פייס⁴ לא משמע הכי⁵ – And there is a difficulty with this explanation for the expression 'מכירה' (sale) is not appropriate in this case, and the expression, ‘he should have appeased him and he did not appease him’, does not seem to support פרש"י – Another question on פרש"י: ועוד דמדמי⁶ למוכרו לשלשים יום – And additionally the גמרא compares the case of מכרו לפרהנג to the case where he sold his עבד for thirty days; according to רש"י what is the comparison?! תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה דהפרהנג נוטל עבדו על כורחו אלא שנותן לו דמים⁷ – And it appears to תוספות that the פרהנג takes his slave against his will, however the פרהנג pays him (the ישראל) money (the market value) – לכך פריך דאמאי יצא לחירות כיון דהוי בעל כורחו כמו גבאו בחובו – Therefore the גמרא asks, why should the עבד be freed, since this happened against the sישראל' will; it is like when someone (a נכרי) collects the עבד for a loan that is owed to him, where the ברייתא just ruled that לא יצא לחירות – ומשני דהיה לו לפייס דכיון דנותן דמים ודאי היה מתפייס בדבר מועט⁸ – And the גמרא answered that he should have appeased him, for since he is paying money (market price) for the עבד, he surely would have been appeased with something minor – ומדמי לו נמי למוכרו לשלשים יום דאחר שגומר מלאכתו דרכו להחזירו לישראל – And this explains why the גמרא compares it to the case of selling the עבד for thirty days, since after the slave finishes his work for the פרהנג, he usually returns the עבד back to the ישראל – וישראל מחזיר לו הדמים: And the ישראל returns to him his money; therefore it is similar to a temporary sale.

SUMMARY According to רש"י, the פרהנג extorts the עבד from the ישראל through some scheme, however according to תוספות the פרהנג coerces the ישראל to sell him the עבד (temporarily) for the market value.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks on פרש"י that the לשון מכירהis not שייך here according to פרש"י. However one can argue that according to רש"י that he is willingly giving him the עבד instead the money he is demanding; that is a regular מכירה; however according to תוספות that the פרהנג takes the עבד בע"כ, how is that considered a מכירה (even if he is paying him)?⁹

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה פרהנג. ² The מציק insisted (through blackmail) that the ישראל owes him a sum of money (which was not true). The ישראל, in order to free himself from this extortion, gave him the עבד in lieu of the money which he demanded. ³ רב said 'המוכר עבדו וכו'; selling implies receiving money (or payment). Here however the master received nothing. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The גמרא said the reason the עבד is יוצא לחירות, is because the owner should have appeased the פרהנג (by offering him a token of payment) and he did not appease him, but rather allowed him to take the עבד. ⁵ According to רש"י that the פרהנג was extorting a large sum of money (the value of the עבד), how could he have appeased him with a small payment. Alternately according to רש"י the גמרא should have simply said; ‘he should not have given him the עבד to pay off the blackmail’. ⁶ ר' ירמיה posed a query what is the rule if he sold his עבד for thirty days. The גמרא responds ת"ש המוכר עבדו לפרהנג וכו'; indicating that the two cases are similar. ⁷ It is now understood why it is called a מכירה, for the ישראל received payment. ⁸ If he is paying the market price for the עבד, he certainly would agree to forgo the עבד and receive something for free instead. ⁹ See תפארת יעקב.

וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהם—And he writes and brings it up to their courts

OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that if a נכרי forcibly took possession of a Jew’s house and the ישראל is not able to evict him, the ישראל is permitted to take payment from the נכרי for the house and write a bill of sale to the נכרי and he may bring it to the secular courts. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to what the novelty is in this ruling that he is כותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהם.

פירש בקונטרס¹ אף על פי דחשיבות הוא להן – רש"י explained; even though that by doing this he is giving a recognition of importance to the ערכאות**,** nevertheless one is permitted to be מעלה בערכאות –**** תוספות asks on פרש"י:** וקשה דשטרות העולין בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים מכשרינן² – And there is a difficulty** with this explanation, for the משנה rules; ‘any documents which are brought before the secular courts are valid’ – ולא מפלגינן בין לכתחילה בין לדיעבד³ – And we do not distinguish whether it was done initially or only where it was already done; it is always כשר, so what is the novelty here that he may bring the שטר מכירה to the ערכאות?! תוספות offers his explanation as to what the novelty is here: ומפרש רבינו תם דאף על גב דנראה כמקיים המקח⁴ שרי הכא – And the ר"ת explained that even though it appears that he is certifying the sale, nevertheless it is permitted here – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty:⁵ וההיא דפרק קמא דעבודה זרה (דף יג,א) הולכין ליריד של עובדי כוכבים – And that ברייתא in the first פרק of מסכת ע"ז which states, ‘we go to the fairs of נכרים – ולוקחים מהן בהמה ועבדים⁶ מפני שהוא כמציל מידם ומעלה בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים⁷ – And we buy from them animals and slaves, because he is saving it from them, and he may bring the sales document to the ערכאות of the נכרים’ – תוספות replies:

There too he is certifying the sale and it becomes public knowledge that he is aiding the נכרים, and nevertheless it is permitted because he is מציל מידם**.**

SUMMARY According to רש"י the novelty of מעלה בערכאות is that it is permitted even though that חשיבות הוא להן, while according to תוספות there needs to be some impropriety in the deal,⁹ and nevertheless it is permitted מפני שהוא כמציל מידם.

THINKING IT OVER

1. We see here and in the ברייתא of ע"ז that one may be מעלה בערכאות, only if it is כמציל מידם; why therefore does the משנה state that (even לכתחילה) the שטרות העולין בערכאות של עכו"ם are כשרין; in what type of case is that?¹⁰
2. Is the question from ע"ז,¹¹ apply according to פרש"י as well?¹²

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה ומעלהו. ² See previously the משנה on י,ב. ³ If we were to distinguish between לכתחלה and בדיעבד, and maintain that ערכאות are כשר only בדיעבד, the novelty here would be that in this case it is מותר even לכתחלה since he is מציל מידם, but now that we know from the משנה that it is כשר even לכתחלה, what is the חידוש here?! ⁴ Under normal circumstances one is forbidden to sell his house to a נכרי (in ארץ ישראל), as the ברייתא states, so we may have thought that he should not bring the deed to be approved by the ערכאות, for it seems like he is certifying the sale willingly. The ברייתא teaches that he may do it, nonetheless. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ The text there reads עבדים ומעלה בערכאת של עכו"ם מפני שהוא כמציל מידם (the order is reversed). See נחלת משה. ⁷ What is the novelty there; seemingly he is not doing any איסור (unlike here where one is forbidden to sell his house to a נכרי), so what is the חידוש of ומעלין בערכאות?! ⁸ The יריד was (usually) in conjunction with some holiday of the נכרים, so it appears as if the ישראל is participating (ח"ו), in their holiday. ⁹ This can be either selling them a house בא"י or being מהנה לעכו"ם. ¹⁰ See נחלת משה. ¹¹ See footnote # 4. ¹² See נחלת משה.

או לאו דוקא—Or is it not precise

OVERVIEW ר' יהושע בן לוי ruled that we penalize one who sold his slave to a נכרי that he must redeem him (buy him back) and pay up to a hundred times his sale price. The גמרא asked did ריב"ל mean precisely that he is obligated to redeem him for up to a hundred times his sale price, or perhaps he was not precise. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to the meaning of לאו דוקא.

פירש בקונטרס¹ דלא קנסינן ליה כולי האי וגוזמא קאמר – רש"י explained that לאו דוקא means that we do not penalize him that much to actually pay a hundred times his value, but rather ריב"ל exaggerated – תוספות asks on פרש"י: וקשה דאם כן איזה שיעור יהיב – And there is a difficulty with this פרש"י, for if indeed it is so that he is not required to redeem him for a hundred times, so what maximum amount is given that he is required to redeem him – דאכתי לא ידע ההיא² דקונסין אותו עד עשרה דנימא ביה ההוא שיעורא – For as yet the גמרא did not know that other ruling that we penalize him up to ten times his value, so we should use that limit – תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה לפרש או לאו דוקא אלא אפילו ביותר ממאה קנסינן ליה עד דפריק³ – And it appears to תוספות to explain 'או לאו דוקא' to mean not precisely a hundred, but rather we penalize him even for more than a hundred times his worth until he redeems the slave, no matter at what price. This explanation – כענין שפירש בקונטרס⁴ באיכא דאמרי⁵ – Is similar to how רש"י explained 'או לאו דוקא' in the איכא דאמרי version of ריב"ל – ומייתי מבהמה⁶ דקונסין אותו עד עשרה בדמיה אלמא לאו דוקא⁷ – And the גמרא cited from the ברייתא of בהמה where we penalize him up to ten times its value, indicating that ten times is לאו דוקא – דהוא הדין טפי כדקאמר הכא עד מאה גבי עבדים והוא הדין דהכא לאו דוקא: For the law requires that he redeem the בהמה for more than ten times, as ריב"ל stated here regarding slaves that it is up to a hundred times, so just as by a בהמה ten times is לאו דוקא, so the same rule applies here by an עבד that a hundred times is לאו דוקא.

SUMMARY According to רש"י, the meaning of לאו דוקא is that it can be less than one hundred times, and according to תוספות it means even more than one hundred times.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות cites the resolution the גמרא attempted to make on the query of דוקא או לאו דוקא.⁸ Why did תוספות find it necessary to do so? Is there a difficulty with the answer according to תוספות, but not according to פרש"י?⁹

footnotes: ¹ בד"ה דוקא. ² The גמרא immediately cites ריש לקיש that one who sells a בהמה גסה to a נכרי we penalize him to buy it back up to ten times its value. Had we known this ruling when we are asking this query of דוקא או לאו דוקא we could have said (according to פרש"י) That if מאה is לאו דוקא because it is too much, the limit will be ten like ר"ל; however when the question was asked we did not know the ruling of ר"ל (that ruling was used to resolve the query), so what amount could we substitute for מאה? ³ This removes the question which תוס' asked on רש"י, ‘so what is the שיעור’; according to תוספות there is no question, for there is no שיעור, the seller must redeem him at whatever price the נכרי asks. ⁴ בד"ה או. ⁵ According to the א"ד the amount was ten times, not a hundred times, and the גמרא there also asked דוקא או לאו דוקא. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ The גמרא at this point (when it brings proof from בהמה to עבד) sees no reason to differentiate between בהמה and עבד; it assumes that both of them should be penalized equally, therefore since we see that the עשרה בדמיו by a בהמה is לאו דוקא (for by an עבד it is מאה בדמיו [and there is no reason to distinguish between them]), and one is obligated to redeem the בהמה, even for more than עשרה בדמיו, therefore we may conclude that by the עבד as well מאה בדמיו is also לאו דוקא and he is liable to redeem the עבד, for whatever price the נכרי demands. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ See מהרש"א and נחלת משה.

התם דאיסורא דאורייתא—There it is a Torah prohibition

OVERVIEW ר' ירמיה posed a query what is the rule if a person sold his slave to a נכרי and died, do we penalize the son that he is required to redeem the slave from the נכרי, or not. The גמרא says (even) if we assume that in the case where a person made a מום in a בכור,¹ and died; we penalize the son (and do not permit him to slaughter it and eat it), nevertheless we cannot assume that the same law applies here by עבד, because by the בכור the father transgressed an איסור מה"ת, however here selling a בכור to a נכרי is only an איסור מדרבנן. Our תוספות suggests that there were more options to consider.

ובפרק כל פסולי המוקדשין (בכורות לד,ב) גבי צרם אוזן הבכור קאמר – And in פרק כל פסולי המוקדשין, regarding the case where one nicked the ear of a בכור (making it into a בעל מום) and died, the גמרא there states – דליכא למיפשט מהכא² דשאני עבד דמפקע ליה ממצות³ – That we cannot resolve the case of בכור from the case of עבד that we penalize the son, for an עבד is different and stricter than בכור, since by selling him to a נכרי, you remove him from observing the מצות, so – אם כן הוה מצי למימר הכא – Therefore the גמרא could have said here (also) the opposite – אם תימצי לומר דהתם לא קנסו הכא קנסו משום דמפקע ליה ממצות – Even if we assume that there by בכור they did not penalize the son, nevertheless here by עבד they did penalize the son because he removed him from מצות – וכן התם הוה מצי למימר איפכא⁴ כי הכא: And similarly there in בכורות, the גמרא could have said the opposite as the reasoning is here that בכור is stricter than עבד.

SUMMARY בכור has a strictness over עבד that it is a דאורייתא and עבד has a strictness over בכור because he is מפקע the עבד from מצות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Did תוספות mean that in each מסכת the גמרא should have only said the opposite of what it said, or should the גמרא also have said the opposite of what it said?
2. Is there any reason why indeed the גמרא did not mention (in either מסכת) that we cannot derive one from the other, even if we assume the opposite of what the גמרא assumes in each מסכת (as תוספות suggests)?⁵

footnotes: ¹ One is not permitted to make a מום in a בכור (so he will be permitted to eat it) because the תורה writes (in ויקרא [אמור] כב,כא) regarding קדשים that כל מום לא יהיה בו; one is not permitted to make a מום in קדשים (for instance a בכור). If one made a מום in a בכור (consciously) he is penalized and may not slaughter and eat it. ² The גמרא there is saying that even if by עבד we do penalize the son, we cannot assume that the same rule applies by צרם אוזן בכור. ³ The גמרא there is saying that an עבד is stricter than בכור (the opposite of what the גמרא is saying here that בכור is stricter than עבד). From one perspective, not allowing an עבד to perform the מצות is a worse ‘sin’ than making a מום in a בכור. ⁴ The גמרא there could have said that even if by עבד they did not penalize the בן, it is not proof that by בכור we do not penalize the son, since בכור is stricter for it is a דאורייתא. ⁵ See נחלת משה.