Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah rules 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Acheirim', from which we can infer - Aval Lo al-Yedei Atzmo'.

(b) He cannot be speaking about others giving the money to his master without the Eved's knowledge, due to the principle 'Zachin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav, ve'Ein Chavin le'Adam she'Lo be'Fanav', and he considers going free a disadvantage for the Eved - because if he is the Eved of a Kohen, he will be deprived of the right to eat Terumah (which was plentiful in the house of the Kohen). Otherwise, he will be deprived of the right to live with a Shifchah Cana'anis, who was always available to him, and whose lack of modesty suited his own upbringing.

(c) In that case, we can infer from Rebbi Meir that he must be speaking with the Eved's knowledge, in which we can extrapolate that Rebbi Meir holds 'Ein Kinyan le'Eved be'Lo Rabo'.

(d) The problem that this poses on the Seifa, where Rebbi Meir says 'bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Atzmo' (implying 'Aval Lo al-Yedei Acheirim') is - that inferring there too, 'Aval Lo al-Yedei Acheirim', there is no logical reason why this should be.

(a) We would like to answer the above Kashya by interpreting Rebbi Meir in the Seifa to mean interpret his words to mean '*Af* al-Yedei Atzmo', in which case the Chidush would be - that 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad' (that the Eved acquires the Get Shichrur and his own Yad simultaneously).

(b) What prevents us from learning the Seifa like that is - the fact that Rebi Meir himself, in a Beraisa states 'bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acheirim ve'Lo al-Yedei Atzmo'.

(a) What Abaye means when (to answer the above Kashya) he declares money to be different is - that since money can acquire the Eved against his will, why should it not also set him free against his will?

(b) Despite the fact that a Sh'tar acquires an Eved against his will just like Kesef does, Rebbi Meir nevertheless permits the latter even without his knowledge, but not the former - because whereas the money that sets the Eved free is exactly the same as the money which acquired him, this cannot be said about Kinyan Sh'tar, since the wording on the two Sh'taros is different.

(c) Rava makes a more basic distinction between a Kinyan Kesef and the Kinyan Sh'tar that come to set an Eved free. According to him, the Reisha (concerning Kinyan Kesef) speaks even without his knowledge (which explains why, in the Seifa, Rebbi Meir precludes Sh'tar al-Yedei Acheirim.

(d) The reason for the distinction between Kesef and Sh'tar is - that whereas it is others who accept the Sh'tar on the Eved's behalf (and one cannot be someone's Sheli'ach when it is to his detriment), it is the master who accepts the money on his own behalf, and he does not need the consent of the Eved.

(a) The Chachamim say 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo'. This must mean '*Af* al-Yedei Atzmo', despite the fact that 'al-Yedei Acheirim speaks when it is without his knowledge (as we just established) - because the Rabbanan consider an Eved going free to be to his advantage.

(b) The Chidush of the Chachamim's ruling will then be - that there is a way for an Eved to acquire without his master acquire?

(c) The problem this creates with the Seifa ('bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acheirim'), which we assume, means specifically 'al-Yedei Acheirim' is - that, since we rule (traditionally), that the Eved's Yad comes together with his Get, why should we preclude a 'Sh'tar al-Yedei Atzmo'?

(d) What leads us to assume that this is indeed so is - that if the Seifa too, meant 'Af al-Yedei Acheirim', then the Chachamim ought to have combined Kesef and Sh'tar into one statement and said 'be'Kesef u'vi'Sh'tar Bein al-Yedei Acheirim Bein al-Yedei Atzmo.

(a) We therefore conclude that there are three opinions and that the author of the Seifa must be Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - who says that 'Af bi'Sh'tar al-Yedei Acheirim ve'Lo al-Yedei Atzmo'.

(b) The Rabbanan hold 'bi'Shtar Af 'al-Yedei Acheirim'.

(c) The three opinions cannot be 1. Rebbi Meir (as we explained); 2. the Rabbanan, who learn the Seifa of our Mishnah as we just explained, and 3. Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, who holds like them regarding Sh'tar, and like Rebbi Meir regarding Kesef - because how could we then rule 'Gito ve'Yado Ba'in ke'Echad', seeing as it would only be the opinion of Rebbi Meir? Note, that according to this 'Havah Amina', we establish the author of the Seifa as Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (not to preclude the Rabbanan, like whom he in fact holds, but) because his opinion regarding Sh'tar is known (whereas that of the Rabbanan is not).

(d) Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar learns this "Lah" "Lah" from a Get Ishah - inasmuch as the Sh'tar Shichrur, like the Get Ishah must leave the owner's domain completely (meaning one that was not his prior to the Shichrur).

7)

(a) Rabah asks whether, according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar, an Eved can appoint a Sheli'ach to accept his Get Shichrur on his behalf. The Tzad to say that he can is the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lah" "Lah" from Get Ishah. The Tzad to say that he cannot is - that since he cannot accept his own Get (whereas a woman can), he cannot appoint a Sheli'ach either.

(b) Rabah asks this She'eilah particularly according to Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar - because according to the Rabbanan, who permit an Eved to accept the Get himself, there is simply nothing to ask.

(c) Rabah concudes - that he can appoint a Sheli'ach (because we learn "Lah" "Lah" from Ishah).

(a) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua proves that the Kohanim are Sheluchim of Hashem and not of the owner of the Korban that they are bringing - because if they were the Yisrael's Sheli'ach, how can a Sheli'ach perform something for someone who cannot do it himself?

(b) Nevertheless, Rabah rules that an Eved, who cannot accept his own Get Shichrur, can appoint a Sheli'ach to accept it for him - because even though the Eved cannot accept his own Get, he can be appointed a Sheli'ach to accept the Get Shichrur of a fellow Eved (proving that it is not because he is intrinsically disqualified from this area of Halachah that he cannot accept his own Get, but because of a technical hitch).

(c) The Tana of the Beraisa confines this leniency to the Get of a fellow Eved of another master but not of his own - because of the principle 'Yad Eved ke'Yad Rabo', in which case, his master will not have placed the Get outside his domain (as we explained earlier), whereas in the case of someone else's Eved, he has.

(a) Rebbi Meir forbids Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo, even with money given to him by others; the Chachamim permit it. We initially explain the basis of their Machlokes to be - whether an Eved has a Kinyan without his master or not.

(b) In spite of the Halachah that whatever an Eved produces or finds belongs to his master, the Rabbanan might say otherwise in this case - because the Eved is only acquiring what others are giving him, and those others give to him on the unspoken understanding that it should belong to him, and not to his master (how can the master then acquire it against the donor's will).

(c) Rabah Amar Rav Sheishes however, concludes, that, in this case, even the Rabbanan will agree that 'Ein Kinyan le'Eved be'Lo Rabo, ve'Ein Kinyan le'Ishah be'Lo Ba'alah', and the basis of the Machlokes is - when the donor specifically stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Ein le'Rabach Reshus Bah'.

(d)

1. Rebbi Meir still declines to permit 'al-Yedei Atzmo' - because the moment the Eved acquires it, it belongs to his master (as if he was literally the hand of his master), and no condition can change this.
2. The Rabbanan disagree with him - because the stipulation prevents the master from acquiring the Get.

(a) Rebbi Elazar (ben P'das, the Amora) maintains that, in such a case, even the Rabbanan will apply the principle 'Mah she'Kana Eved Kana Rabo ... ', and they argue in a case - when the others stipulated 'al-M'nas she'Teitzei Bo le'Cheirus'.

(b) The Rabbanan now hold 'be'Kesef al-Yedei Atzmo' - because the donors were not even Makneh the money to the Eved either'; they only gave it to him to hand over to his master (in which case, their condition stands and the money is used for that purpose).

(c) Our Sugya compares Ishah to Eved regarding this matter. We know that a husband acquires his wife's property - from the fact that her husband acquires the work of her hands and whatever she finds.