ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 17
KIDUSHIN 17 - dedicated in honor of the marriage of Yitzchak Kramer to Naomi
Katz, 2 Sivan 5761, Yerushalayim. May they be "Boneh Bayis Ne'eman
(a) The problem with the Beraisa, which begins by saying 'Chalah Shalosh,
ve'Avad Shalosh, Ein Chayav Lehashlim', and then continues 'Chalah Kol
Sheish Chayav Lehashlim' is - that the inference from the Reisha contradicts
the inference from the Seifa.
(b) We resolve this problem - by explaining the Beraisa like this: 'Chalah
Shalosh, ve'Avad Shalosh, Ein Chayav Lehashlim, Ha Chalah Arbah, Na'aseh
ke'Mi she'Chalah Kol Sheish, ve'Chayav Lehashlim'.
(c) In view of this Beraisa, we establish the previous Beraisa, which
implies that even if he was sick all six years, he goes free at the end of
six years - when he was at least able to do needlework. Otherwise, he would
have had to work for another six years.
(a) According to Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, the Eved Ivri receives five
Sela'im from each of the three species - sheep, wine and oil.
(b) According to Rebi Yehudah, he receives thirty Sela'im. Rebbi Shimon
says - fifty Sela'im.
(c) Rebbi Meir found it necessasry to conclude with the words 'she'Hein
Chameish-Esrei Sela'im' - to teach us that even if he did not give the Eved
five Sela'im of each of these kinds, it did not matter, as long as he gave
him a total of fifteen.
(a) Rebbi Meir learns a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Reikam" "Reikam". The source of
the other "Reikam" is - by Pidyon ha'Ben (where the Torah writes "ve'Lo
Yera'u Panai Reikam").
(b) He then requires five Sela'im from each of the species, and not the sum
total of five - because of the order of the P'sukim " ... ve'Lo Seshalchenu
Reikam. Ha'anek Ta'anik Lo mi'Tzoncha ... " (implying that he gives him the
required sum in Tzon, in Goren and in Yekev).
(c) And he learns this 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Bechor and not from Olas
Re'iyah, which is only two Ma'ah Kesef (according to Beis Shamai) - because
the Torah writes "Asher Berach'cha Hashem Elokecha", implying the larger of
the two amount.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from an ox which gored an Eved
(Cana'ani). We ask why he does not learn "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Erchin -
in which case he would receive fifty Sela'im.
(b) We reject this suggestion however, on the basis of the principle
'Tafasta Merubeh Lo Tafasta' (we always learn from the smaller amount). The
other reason for Rebbi Yehudah's choice is - because he prefers to learn
Eved from Eved )Otherwise, "Asher Berach'cha" may have overridden the
principle of 'Tafasta Merubeh ... ').
(c) We initially give the source of Rebbi Shimon as "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from
Erchin. We ask why he does not learn from the least amount of Erchin - three
(d) We answer - that it is because of the Pasuk "Asher Berach'cha ... " (in
the way that we explained earlier).
(a) We refute the previous source (of "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Erchin to
explain Rebbi Shimon) - on the grounds that, in that case, he should have
learned "Nesinah" "Nesinah" from Eved (like Rebbi Yehudah, for the reasons
(b) Rebbi Shimon's source is - "Michah" "Michah" (still from Erchin).
(c) The basis of the Machlokes Tana'im (why each Tana Darshens the
'Gezeirah-Shavah' from a different word is - because that is how they
received it from their Rebbes.
(a) The Torah needs to write "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev" according to Rebbi
Meir - to teach us that the total sum of Ha'anakah is fifteen Sela'im, as we
(b) This poses a Kashya on Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, who do not
connect the sum total of Ha'anakah with "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev". According to
them, then - why does the Torah need to mention them?
(c) We know that, according to Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon, Ha'anakah is
not confined to "Tzon, Goren ve'Yekev" - because the Torah adds "Asher
Berach'cha Hashem Elokecha", implying that one may may give him any
commodities that fall in the category of B'rachah.
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the Torah specifies these three commodities
in order to preclude money. According to Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov - they
preclude mules (which do not proliferate).
(b) The reason that ...
1. ... Rebbi Shimon declines to learn like Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov is -
because granted mules do not proliferate; they do however, grow.
(c) Having written ...
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov declines to learn like Rebbi Shimon is -
because money can be invested.
1. ... "Tzon", the Torah needs to insert "Goren" - to teach us that what
grows from the ground is included no less than living species.
2. ... "Goren", the Torah need to insert "Tzon" - to teach us that living
species is included no less than what grows from the ground.
3. ... "Tzon and Goren", the Torah needs to insert "Yekev" - to preclude
either money or mules, as we just explained.
(a) The Tana Kama learns from ...
1. ... "Ha'anek Ta'anik" - that the master is obligated to give the Eved
Ivri Ha'anakah, even though he did not bring B'rachah to his house.
(b) Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learns from "Asher Berachecha Hashem
Elokecha" - that if the master's house was not blessed on his account, he is
not obligated to give him Ha'anakah.
2. ... "Asher Berachecha Hashem Elokecha" - that he should give him the
minimum Ha'anakah in any case, but should increase it, in accordance with
(c) He explains the double expression "Ha'anek Ta'anik" - in accordance
with the principle 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon B'nei Adam'.
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa discusses what happens to the Eved Ivri after
his master's death. A Mocher Atzmo or a Machruhu Beis-Din continue to serve
the son until his term ends. The Tana says that ...
1. ... he does not however, serve his daughter (or his brother).
(b) The Tana of another Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
2. ... an Amah Ivriyah and a Nirtza - serve neither the son nor the daughter
(but go free).
3. ... a Nimkar le'Akum - does not the son either.
1. ... *va'Avadcha* Sheish Shanim" - that the Eved Ivri serves the master
for six years, but not his heirs.
(c) The ...
2. ... "Sheish Shanim Ya'avod" - that he must serve the full six-year term
(i.e. in the event of his master's death, he continues to serve his son for
the rest of his term).
1. ... two advantages of a son over a brother are - that he can perform
Yi'ud with his father's Amah Ivriyah and that, should he redeem his father's
inherited field that his father declared Hekdesh, he retains it in the Yovel
(i.e. it does not go to the Kohanim, which it would do if his brother or
anyone else redeemed it)).
(d) The advantage that ...
2. ... advantage of a brother over a son is - that he performs Yibum.
1. ... a brother performs Yibum and not a son does not match the fact that a
son makes Yi'ud and not a brother - because if there was a son, the brother
would not perform Yibum in the first place.
2. ... a son has the same power as his father regarding S'dei Achuzah does
not count to give a son two advantages over the brother's one - because in
fact, we only know there that it is the son rather than the brother, from
the same source as in our Sugya ('if there was a son, the brother would not
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Kein" that an Amah
Ivriyah does not even serve her master's *son* upon his death. And from ...
1. ... the redundant word "Ta'aseh" we learn - that her master is obligated
to give her Ha'anakah when she leaves.
(b) And we learn from the Pasuk ...
2. ... the Pasuk "ve'Im Amor Yomar *ha'Eved*" we learn - that only an Eved
Ivri can have his ear pierced (to continue working until the Yovel) but not
an Amah Ivriyah.
1. ... "ve'Ratza Adonav es Ozno ba'Martze'a *va'Avado* le'Olam" - that, in
the event of his master's death, a Nirtza does not even serve the son (but
(c) Rava extrapolates from this latter D'rashah (of Chizkiyah) - that the
son of a Nochri inherits his father.
2. ... "ve'Chishav Im Koneihu"- that, in the event of his master's death, a
Nimkar le'Akum works for the Akum but not for his heirs.
(a) The Mishnah in D'mai discusses two brothers, a Ger and a Nochri who
inherit their Nochri father. In a case where the Ger strikes an agreement
whereby his brother takes the idols and he, the money; his brother the wine,
and he, the fruit, assuming this agreement is reached ...
1. ... before they divided their father's property, says the Tana - it is
(b) Rava extrapolates from there - that a Ger inherits his Nochri father
only mid'Rabanan. If it were d'Oraysa, the heir would not be permitted to
make such a stipulation at all (even before he had already received the
property (seeing as, the moment his father dies, the property belongs to
him, whether he has already taken it or not).
2. ... after they divided it - it is invalid.
(c) The basis for the Isur is - benefiting from Avodah-Zarah.
(d) The Rabbanan issued this decree (declaring the Ger to be an heir) -
because they were afraid that, otherwise (if the Ger's brother would inherit
more than him, he might give up everything and go back to his former
(a) The Tana of another Beraisa further bears out Rava's ruling - by
restricting the above concession to a Ger and his brother who came to
inherit, but not to a case where they were partners, in which case no
stipulation is permitted.
(b) The Beraisa says that if, in the case where someone borrowed money from
a Ger who converted together with his sons and the Ger died - the Chachamim
are indifferent should the debtor return the debt to his heirs.
(c) We reconcile this with the Mishnah in Shevi'is, which says 'Ru'ach
Chachamim Nochah Heimenu' - by establishing that Mishnah when (although the
son was conceived when his father was still a Nochri) his father had already
converted by the time he was born. In such a case the Chachamim would
encourage him to pay the outstanding debt to the son, to avoid people
erroneously inferring that one is not obligated to repay a debt to a Jew.
(d) Rava extrapolates from the Beraisa - that a Ger does not inherit a
Nochri at all (even mid'Rabanan - otherwise, why would the Chachamim not be
pleased with the debtor for paying the money to the Nochri's converted