Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 14

14b

QUESTION: The Gemara cites a source to prove that an Amah Ivriyah is acquired through Kinyan Kesef from the verse of "v'Hefdah" (Shemos 21:8), which teaches the Halachah of Gira'on Kesef.

How do we see from the verse of "v'Hefdah" that the Amah Ivriyah is acquired through Kesef? Perhaps she is acquired only through Shtar, and the Gira'on Kesef is accomplished by calculating the amount of money that was paid for her? How can we prove from here that the payment of money itself accomplishes a Kinyan? (RAMBAN)

ANSWERS:

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the Gemara does not need a new source to teach that an Amah Ivriyah can be acquired through Kinyan Kesef, because the Kinyan of Kesef can be learned from the Halachah of an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri, who can be acquired through Kesef as the Gemara already proved. Rather, the Gemara is merely looking for a source to teach that the Kinyan of Kesef also applies to an Eved Ivri or an Amah Ivriyah who was sold to a Jew. The verse that teaches Gira'on Kesef suffices (as a "Giluy Milsa") to teach that the Kinyan of an Amah Ivriyah -- who is freed with Gira'on Kesef -- is similar to the Kinyan of an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri who is also freed with Gira'on Kesef; just like they are both freed with Gira'on Kesef, they are both acquired with Gira'on Kesef.

(b) The RAMBAN, RASHBA, and other Rishonim cite RABEINU TAM who explains that the Gemara means to compare the method of acquiring an Amah Ivriyah with the method of freeing her. If the Amah can go free with a transfer of money (i.e. Gira'on Kesef), then she also can be acquired with a transfer of money. (See TOSFOS RID 21b.)

(c) RABEINU TAM, as cited by TOSFOS RID (21b), suggests a different approach. Rabeinu Tam suggests that the Gemara is assuming that the Gira'on Kesef must be done with the Kesef of Kinyan, and not just with the value of the Amah. According to this explanation, an Amah who is purchased with a Kinyan Shtar is not freed with Gira'on Kesef! (Even though the Gemara on 12a points out that an Amah cannot be sold for a Perutah because it is not possible to perform Gira'on Kesef with less than a Perutah, nevertheless if it is possible to perform Gira'on Kesef when she is sold with Kesef, then she can be sold with a Shtar even though it is not possible to do Gira'on Kesef when she is sold with a Shtar.)

This also seems to be the opinion of RASHI (DH she'Megara'as) who writes that if the master did not acquire the Amah with Kesef, then there is nothing with which to perform Gira'on Kesef.

The MINCHAS CHINUCH (Mitzvah 43:1) discusses the words of the Tosfos Rid at length. He cites support for the Tosfos Rid from the Gemara (end of 11b) which proves that the Kinyan Kesef of an Amah must be done with at least two Perutos or a Dinar in order that it be possible to redeem her with Gira'on Kesef. If the Gira'on Kesef is done based on the value of the Amah, and not based on the money that was used to acquire her, then how can we prove that the Kinyan Kesef of an Amah must be two Perutos? Perhaps a Perutah makes the Kinyan, while the master becomes indebted to pay the rest of the money, as a debt, to the father!

We may note, however, that the Gemara later (20b) seems to contradict the assertion of the Tosfos Rid. The Gemara teaches that if an Eved Ivri was sold for a sum of 200 Zuz and later his value depreciated to 100 Zuz, the Eved may redeem himself with Gira'on Kesef by giving 100 Zuz (minus the amount that he worked). If the Gira'on Kesef is calculated based on the money that was used for the purchase of the Eved, rather than the true value of the Eved, then what difference does it make if the Eved goes down in value? The Kesef Kinyan was still 200 Zuz!

According to the Tosfos Rid, apparently this Halachah is simply a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which the Torah established in order to make it easier for the Eved to redeem himself. (The Gemara there learns this Halachah from the verse, "k'Fi Shanav" (Vayikra 25:52).)

QUESTION: The Gemara asks how we know that an Eved who sells himself ("Mocher Atzmo," in contrast to one who is sold by Beis Din) is acquired through Kesef. Even though we have a source for the Kinyan Kesef of an Eved whom Beis Din sold ("Machruhu Beis Din"), perhaps only he can be acquired through Kesef since he is sold against his will. RASHI explains that since it is easier to sell such an Eved since he is sold against his will, therefore it makes sense that it should be easier to sell him, and he should be acquired with Kesef and not need Chazakah.

Why does Rashi suggest that without this verse, an Eved Ivri would be acquired through *Chazakah*? We know that an Eved Ivri cannot be acquired through a Chazakah (even without the verse teaching that he is acquired through Kesef), as we is learn (16a) from the verse, "v'Hisnachaltem Osam" (Vayikra 25:46)! Moreover, why does Rashi not mention that without the verse teaching Kinyan Kesef, an Eved Ivri would be acquired through *Meshichah*, since Rashi earlier writes that normally a Jew acquires Metaltelin (movable objects) through Meshichah!

ANSWERS:

(a) The PNEI YEHOSHUA explains that Rashi uses the word Chazakah in the context of meaning Meshichah, the Kinyan made on Metaltelin, and it refers to "holding on" ("Chazakah") to an item.

(b) HE'OROS B'MASECHES KIDUSHIN suggests that perhaps Rashi does not consider Meshichah an appropriate Kinyan for Eved Ivri because Rashi learns that an Eved Ivri (or even a free person) is compared to land and not just an Eved Kena'ani (see Rashi 7a, DH she'Yesh, and see Insights there).