ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Kidushin 24
KIDUSHIN 24-30 (9-15 Sivan) - This week's study material has been dedicated
by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving memory of her husband,
Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many
people quietly in an unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew
him. His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
(a) Only the owner needs to add a fifth (twenty-five percent of the amount)
when redeeming Ma'aser Sheini, as the Torah writes in Korach, "mi'Ma'asro".
(b) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, a woman is obligated to add a
fifth when redeeming Ma'aser Sheini (which we initially think belongs to her
husband). Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in the name of Rebbi Meir says - that she
(c) The Tana cannot be referring to when ...
1. ... both the Ma'aser and the money belong to her husband - because then
she would merely be a Sheli'ach (in which case even Rebbi Meir would agree
that she is obligated to add a fifth).
(d) So we try to establish the case when someone else gave her the money on
the express condition that she redeems her husband's Ma'aser, and the basis
of their Machlokes is - whether whatever a woman acquires belongs to her
husband (in which case, since both the Ma'aser and the money are his, she is
obligated to add a fifth - the Rabbanan), or that the condition is
effective, and the money remains hers (in which case it is not "mi'Ma'asro"
and she is Patur from adding a fifth - Rebbi Meir).
2. ... the Ma'aser belongs to her husband and the money is hers -because
then - even the Chachamim would be forced to agree that she is Patur from
adding a fifth, seeing as it is not "mi'Ma'asro".
(a) Our interpretation of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim
regarding 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo' creates a problem on our interpretation
of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim here - inasmuch as
they appear to have reversed their opinions (e.g. the Rabbanan there hold
that her husband does not acquire the money, whereas here they hold that he
(b) Abaye answers 'Eipuch', which must mean that we switch the opinions of
the current Machlokes and not the previous one - because a Mishnah always
overrides a Beraisa.
(a) Rava retains the Machlokes as it stands, and he establishes the Beraisa
by Ma'aser that the woman inherited from her father. The basis of their
Machlokes is equivalent to an old Machlokes of theirs regarding the status
of Ma'aser Sheini - whether Ma'aser belongs to Hashem (is and is therefore
Hekdesh) or to the owner (in which case it is Chulin).
(b) We establish the Beraisa by a woman who inherited Ma'aser Sheini from
her father, which falls under the category of Nechsei Milug.
(c) Their Machlokes is now as follows ...
1. ... Rebbi Meir holds - that her husband does not obtain any rights in the
fruit, seeing as they do not belong to his wife (who only acquires the right
to eat it from Hashem's table. Consequently seeing she uses *her* money to
redeem it, she is obligated to add a fifth).
2. ... The Rabbanan holds - that the fruit is Chulin, and that her husband
therefore obtains the right to eat it like any other fruit. Consequently,
she is not obligated to add a fifth.
(a) Besides Shen ve'Ayin, the Tana of the Beraisa inserts in the list of
things that enable an Eved Cana'ani to go free - the twenty-four main limbs
(should the master cause them to become blemished).
We conclude - that the Torah needs to add ...
(b) We propose to learn the other twenty-four main limbs - from a 'Mah
Matzinu' (otherwise known as a Binyan Av).
(c) The two characteristics that they all share - are that they are revealed
(i.e. external) and incurable.
(d) The problem we have with learning a 'Mah Matzinu' from two sources is -
that this falls under the category of 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad',
where we rule 'Ein Melamdin' (meaning that they are exceptions rather than
1. ... "Ayin", after having written "Shen" - to teach us that the Eved only
goes free for the removal of a tooth, which, like an eye, is irreplaceable
(but not for a milk tooth).
2. ... "Shen", after having written "Ayin" - to teach us that he goes free
even though the tooth (unlike his eyes, appeared only after he was born).
(a) We counter the suggestion that "Ki Yakeh" and "Shen ve'Ayin" are a
'K'lal u'F'rat', in which case, we would not be able to include anything
else - by pointing out that "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" is a K'lal, turning it
into a 'K'lal u'F'rat u'Ch'lal'.
(b) The other condition inherent in Shen ve'Ayin, that we try to incorporate
in the second K'lal ("la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu") is - that the wound negates
the use of the limb concerned.
(c) We learned in a Beraisa however - that if the master pulled out his hair
or dislocated a bone (even assuming the latter to be permanent), the Eved
goes free (despite the fact that it does not affect the use of the limb
concerned [disproving our previous contention]).
(d) The Tana ignores that contention - because, the Pasuk "la'Chofshi
Yeshalchenu" implies a Ribuy, not just an ordinary K'lal.
(a) Another Beraisa says that a master who struck and wounded his slave's
arm, which shriveled as a result, but which will later heal - does not go
(b) Even though "la'Chofshi Yeshalchenu" is a Ribuy (rather than a P'rat),
he does not go free - because we learn from the fact that the Torah writes
"Shen ve'Ayin", that only wounds that are similar in two ways go free.
(a) Rebbi Shimon maintains that a slave who goes free in this way requires a
Get Shichrur. He is by no means the only Tana to hold like that - because
both Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Akiva agree with him.
(b) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Tarfon - he does not require a Get
(c) The Machri'in Lifnei Chachamim compromise between Shen ve'Ayin, which do
not require a Get Shichrur (because they are written explicitly in the
Torah) - and the other twenty-four limbs, which do (because they are a
(d) What they really meant when they referred to the twenty-four limbs as a
'K'nas Chachamim' was - that it is a Medrash Chachamim (not explicit in the
(a) If the master struck the Eved on his ear and deafened him or on his eye
and blinded him, he goes free. When the Tana of the Beraisa adds 'ke'Neged
Eino ve'Eino Ro'eh, ke'Neged Ozno ve'Eino Shomei'a, Ein Eved Yotzei Bahem
le'Cheirus', he means - that if the master struck the wall next to his eye
or ear, and blinded or deafened him, he does not go free (because he is only
guilty of 'G'rama', causing him to go blind and not of actually blinding
1. The Tana quoted by Rami bar Yechezkel says - that if a rooster smashed a
glass jar by crowing into it - the owner of the rooster is obligated to pay.
(c) Rav Ashi answer Rav Sh'man, who asked from these two rulings on the
previous Beraisa, which exempts someone who deafened or blinded a person by
making a loud noise next to him - by drawing a distinction between animals
(who become instinctively blinded and deafened by a loud blast next to their
ear, and a human being, who is largely affected by the state of his nerves,
over which he has control (Consequently, his going blind or deaf is
basically his own fault).
2. Rav Yosef quoting Bei Rav says - that if a horse that neighed or a donkey
that brayed in the house and broke vessels, the owner of the horse or the
donkey is obligated to pay.
(d) The Beraisa says that someone who causes his friend damage by giving him
a shock is Patur according to Torah law, but Chayav by Rabbinical law.
(a) The Tana of a Beraisa says that if a master struck the eye or the tooth
of his slave ...
1. ... and weakened their function - the slave goes free, provided he can no
longer use the eye or the tooth.
(b) Having taught ...
2. ... which were already weak, blinding him or deafening him completely -
the slave goes free, provided the eye and the tooth were still functioning
before they were struck.
1. ... the former case, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to add the
latter - because we might otherwise have thought that, since the limb
concerned was not fully functional to begin with, the Eved does not go free.
2. ... the latter case, the Tana nevertheless found it necessary to add the
former - because we might otherwise have thought that, since he did not
become completely blind, he does not go free.
1. The Tana Kama of another Beraisa says that if an Eved asked his master
who was a doctor, to paint his eye or to scrape his tooth, and he ended up
by blinding him or by pulling out his tooth completely - the Eved can laugh
at the master and goes free.
(b) The Rabbanan Darshen "ve'Shichasah" like Rebbi Eliezer, who explains -
that if the master, placing his hand into his Shifchah's womb (to help her
give birth) blinds her baby, the baby does not go free.
2. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Chi Yakeh Ish es Ein
Avdo ... ve'Shichasah" - that since the master did not intend to destroy the
limb concerned, the Eved does not go free.
(c) The Rabbanan concede in this case that the Shifchah does not go free -
because he did not mean to touch the limb that he wounded at all (and is
therefore a case of 'Mis'asek'), whereas in the previous case, where he
intended to cure the limb concerned, it is included in "ve'Shichasah, and
the Eved goes free.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel learns the two cases from "Shiches" "Shichasah"
(giving us two D'rashos from the same word). The Rabbanan do not consider
this to be two D'rashos.
(a) Rav Sheishes rules that if the master removed his slave blind eye from
its socket, he goes free - because he has now turned the Eved into a
Mechusar Eiver (missing a limb).
(b) We prove this from a Mishnah in Temurah. The Tana learns from the Pasuk
1. ... "li'Retzonchem Tamim Zachar ba'Bakar ba'Kesavim u'va'Izim" - 'Tamus
and Zachrus bi'Veheimah, ve'Ein Tamus ve'Zachrus be'Of' (a bird never needs
to be without blemish and never needs to be a male).
(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav permits an Eved whose master severed his
extra (sixth) finger. Rav Huna qualifies this ruling - restricting it to
when the finger is in line with the other fingers (otherwise, it would not
be any different than a growth on the hand, for which an Eved would
certainly not go free).
2. ... "ve'Im *min* ha'Of Korbano" - that only some birds are eligible to be
brought as Korbanos, but not all birds (to preclude birds with a missing