Why do we need a verse to teach that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah
gifts? We know that the Torah compares an Amah Ivriyah to an Eved Ivri sold
by Beis Din, as the Gemara teaches earlier (14b) with regard to acquiring an
Eved Ivri with Kesef, and (16a) with regard to acquiring an Eved Ivri with
Shtar. The same Hekesh should teach that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah
gifts like an Eved Ivri! (RASHBA, end of 16b, MAHARIT)
(a) The RASHBA explains that we would have thought that an Amah Ivriyah does
not receive Ha'anakah gifts because the verse says, "Teshalchenu" -- "when
you send *him* away" (Devarim 15:12). We might have inferred from the verse
that only when the master sends *him* -- a male Eved -- away does he receive
Ha'anakah, but not when the master sends *her* away. (The Rashba concludes
that the matter still needs further clarification. Perhaps the Rashba is
bothered by the question that the Torah should have said neither
"Teshalchenu" nor "Ta'aseh;" it should have omitted the Mi'ut
("Teshalchenu") and then it would not have had to include a Ribuy
("Ta'aseh").)
In a similar vein, we might suggest that the Beraisa which learns that an
Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah from "v'Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh" rules like
the Tana Kama earlier (14b) who learns from "Ta'anik Lo" (Devarim 15:14)
that only an Eved sold by Beis Din receives Ha'anakah, and not an Eved who
sold himself, despite the Gezeirah Shavah of "Sachir Sachir." The same word,
"Lo," might similarly have excluded an Amah Ivriyah from the Hekesh that
compares her to an Eved sold by Beis Din, had the verse not said "Ta'aseh."
(b) The RITVA and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that we might have excluded Amah
Ivriyah from the Halachah of Ha'anakah because of the very verse, "Af
la'Amascha Ta'aseh *Ken*," which teaches that an Amah goes free with the
death of the master like an Eved Nirtza. Since the verse says "Ta'aseh
*Ken*," we might have thought that it is teaching that the only thing that
applies to an Amah which also applies to a Nirtza is that they both go free
with the death of the master. Other Halachos, though, which are written with
regard to Nirtza, such as Ha'anakah, do not apply to Amah Ivriyah.
We may question this explanation, though. What did the Gemara think
initially when it said that the verse, "Af la'Amascha Ta'aseh Ken," *only*
teaches that an Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah and not that she goes free
with the death of the master. Why should we need a verse for Ha'anakah? (See
MAHARIT.)
(c) The SHITAH LO NODA L'MI and PNEI YEHOSHUA suggest that the verse teaches
that Ha'anakah is given to an Eved because he served his master "double that
of a hired worker" (Devarim 15:18). The Gemara (15a) interprets this to mean
that the Eved works for the master at night, in addition to during the day,
since the master gives to the Eved a Shifchah Kena'anis to live with at
night. Since an Amah Ivriyah does not have this form of service at night,
perhaps she does not receive Ha'anakah.
The Pnei Yehoshua questions this answer. If this is true, then why does the
Tana Kama (on 14b), who holds that an Eved who sold himself is not given a
Shifchah Kena'anis, need a verse to teach that this Eved does not receive
Ha'anakah? Once we know that he does not serve a double service, we know
that he does not receive Ha'anakah!
The Pnei Yehoshua answers that since our Sugya learns from the verse,
"Ta'aseh," that an Amah Ivriyah does receive Ha'anakah, we might have
learned from Amah Ivriyah that Ha'anakah is not connected to the Halachah of
being given a Shifchah Kena'anis, and that is why we need a verse to teach
that an Eved who sold himself does not receive Ha'anakah.
(This might be the intention of TOSFOS on 17a, DH Amah, when he writes that
had the verse not said "Ta'aseh," we would not have seen anywhere that an
Amah Ivriyah receives Ha'anakah. It is not that there is a Mi'ut that
teaches that she does not get Ha'anakah, but rather that she is not included
in the verse in the first place.)