Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HITTING SLAVES

1. (Mishnah): Reuven hit Shimon's Kena'ani slave - he is liable...(R. Yehudah says, embarrassment does not apply to slaves).

(b) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(c) Answer: "When men will fight, a man with his brother" - this refers to people that have (according to Torah law) brothers, to exclude slaves.

1. Chachamim argue - since a slave is also commanded to keep Mitzvos, he is called a brother of a free man.

(d) Question: According to R. Yehudah, Zomemim witnesses that tried to kill a slave should not be killed - it says, "As he plotted to do to his brother"!
(e) Answer (Rava): "You will eradicate the evil from your midst" includes this case.
(f) Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified to be king (even though a king must be appointed from "Your Brothers")!

1. Counter-question: All agree that a convert is called your brother, but he may not be appointed king!

(g) Answer (to both questions): "From the midst of your brothers" - from the best (lineage) of your brothers.
(h) Question: Chachamim should say that a slave is qualified to testify - "He testified falsely about his brother"!
(i) Answer #1 (Ula): A Kal va'Chomer disqualifies slave from testimony.

1. Even women, who may marry a Yisrael, cannot testify - all the more so slaves, who cannot marry into Yisrael!
2. Question: But women are not fit for circumcision - perhaps slaves, who are fit for circumcision can testify!
3. Answer: We see that minors cannot testify, even though they are fit for circumcision.
4. Question: But children are exempt from Mitzvos - perhaps slaves, who are commanded in the Mitzvos, can testify!
5. Answer: Women are commanded in the Mitzvos, yet they cannot testify (showing that this is not the criterion);

i. The stringent sides of women and children are dissimilar; we learn from the common side: they are not commanded in all the Mitzvos, and cannot testify - the same applies to slaves!

6. Question: But (women and children) are not men - we cannot learn to disqualify slaves that are men!
7. Answer: We learn from a robber (just as he cannot testify, also a slave).
8. Question: But his sin disqualified him - we cannot learn to a slave!
9. Answer: We learn from the common side of a robber, and a woman or minor.

(j) Answer #2 (Mar brei d'Ravina): "Fathers shall not be put to death due to children " - one is not sentenced to die through testimony of fathers that have no connection (lineage) to their children.

1. The verse cannot mean that fathers will not die though testimony of their children - if so, it should have said 'Fathers shall not be put to death due to *their* children'!
2. Rather, it means as above.

(k) Question: If so, we should similarly expound "Children shall not be put to death due to fathers" - one is not sentenced to die through testimony of children that have no lineage to their fathers, to disqualify converts (and this is false)!
(l) Answer: No - converts have no lineage to their parents, but they have lineage to their children; the verse excludes slaves, who have no lineage, not to their parents nor to their children.

1. If converts were disqualified, the verse would read as follows: 'Children shall not be put to death due to their fathers' - a father is not sentenced to die through testimony of his children;
2. ''And children shall not be put to death due to fathers"' - this would teach 2 laws:

i. Children are not sentenced to die through testimony of their fathers;
ii. No one is sentenced to die through testimony of people that have no lineage to their fathers (converts);

3. We would then learn a Kal va'Chomer: if converts are disqualified, even though they have lineage to their children, all the more so slaves, who have no lineage to their parents or children, are disqualified!

i. Since the Torah did not write this. It must be that converts can testify, only slaves are disqualified.

(m) Question: The Torah should have written ' And children shall not be put to death due to *their* fathers' - writing ''And children shall not be put to death due to fathers' connotes that no one is sentenced to die through testimony of people that have no lineage to their fathers!
(n) Answer: Since the verse starts, "Fathers shall not be put to death due to children", the verse continues "Children shall not be put to death due to fathers".

(a) (Mishnah): One loses through encounters with a deaf person, lunatic or child.
(b) The mother of Rav Shmuel bar Aba of Hegronya wrote a document giving her Milug property to Rav Shmuel. After she died, R. Yirmeyah bar Aba, ruled that Rav Shmuel gets the property.

(c) Rav Yehudah: Shmuel taught, if a woman sold her Milug property in her husband's lifetime, and she died, her husband takes the property from the buyer.
(d) R. Yirmeyah: I ruled like a Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): Reuven wrote a document giving his property to his son after Reuven's death. The son may not sell the property, because it is in the father's jurisdiction; the father may not sell it, for he gave a document giving it to his son.
2. If the father sold it - the sale stands until the father dies; if the son sold it - the buyer does not get it until the father dies.

i. When the father dies, the buyer gets it, even if the son died before the father, and the son never received the property - this is as Reish Lakish.

(e) (R. Yochanan): If the son sold the property and then died in the father's lifetime, the buyer never gets it;
(f) (Reish Lakish): The buyer gets it (after the father dies).

1. According to R. Yochanan, when the Mishnah says, if the son sold it, the buyer does not get it until the father dies - this is when the father died before the son, and the property passed to the son;
2. If the son died before the father, the property never passed to the son, the buyer never gets it.
3. Inference: He holds, ownership of the produce (the father owns the produce as long as he is alive) is as owning the land itself, so the son sold something he does not own.
4. According to Reish Lakish, the Mishnah says that the buyer gets it when the father dies - this is even if the son died before the father, and the property never passed to the son.
5. Inference: He holds, ownership of the produce is not as owning the land itself; the son was considered the owner when he sold it, so the sale stands.

(g) Both R. Yirmeyah bar Aba and Rav Yehudah hold as Reish Lakish.

1. R. Yirmeyah bar Aba holds, we cannot say that ownership of the produce is as owning the land itself - if so, when the son died before the father, the buyer would not never get the property, for the son never owned it.

(h) Rav Yehudah (citing Shmuel): The case (of the mother who wrote a gift to her son) is not as the Mishnah.
(i) Question: Why is it different?
(j) Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): Had the Mishnah said that Shimon wrote a document giving his property to his father after Shimon's death, we could indeed learn that ownership of the produce is as owning the land itself.

1. But the case of the Mishnah is when Reuven gave his property to his son - (perhaps) the son's sale stands because he is fitting to inherit his father!

(k) Objection (Abaye): Also a father is fitting to inherit his son!

1. Surely, a man that gave his property to his father intended that his own children should not inherit it - likewise, a man that gave his property to 1 son intended that his other children should not inherit it!
2. (The reason that the son's sale stands is not because he is fitting to inherit his father - he was only fitting to inherit part! Rather, we must say that ownership of the produce is as owning the land itself.)

(l) Answer #2 (Abaye): The case of Rav Shmuel's mother is different because of the enactment of Usha.

1. (R. Yosi bar Chanina): In Usha, they enacted that if a woman sells her Milug property and dies in her husband's lifetime, he takes the property from the buyer.

(m) (Rav idi bar Avin): A Beraisa teaches this!

1. (Beraisa): 'Two witnesses testified that Reuven divorced his wife and paid her Kesuvah'; she is still living with him as his wife. They were found to be Zomemim - they do not pay to her the full value of her Kesuvah, only the Tovas Hana'ah.
2. Question: What is the Tovas Hana'ah?
3. Answer: We estimate how much someone (Shimon) would pay for the following proposition: if she is divorced or widowed, he will receive her Kesuvah; if she dies before her husband, her husband inherits her (Shimon receives nothing).
4. Summation of answer: If not for the enactment of Usha, why does her husband inherit her - she should be able to sell (property she brought into the marriage which is written in) her Kesuvah absolutely!

(n) Rejection (Abaye): This is no proof of the enactment of Usha; granted, without an enactment, she could sell Milug property (for which the husband has no responsibility, he just has rights to eat the produce during the marriage);

1. But Tzon Barzel property (for which the husband has responsibility to restore to her its initial value when she brought it into the marriage), even without an enactment, she could not sell it!