Kiddushin, Daf Tet Zayin, Part 4

 

Introduction

In yesterday s section Resh Lakish ruled that a Hebrew maidservant goes free at the death of her father. Today R. Sheshet raises more difficulties on this halakhah that is not found in tannaitic literature.

 

מתיב רב ששת ר’ שמעון אומר ד’ מעניקים להם ג’ באיש וג’ באשה ואי אתה יכול לומר ד’ באחד לפי שאין סימנים באיש ואין רציעה באשה ואם איתא ניתני נמי מיתת אב

 

R. Sheshet raised a difficulty: R. Shimon said: Four are presented with gifts [on becoming free], three in the case of a man, and three in the case of a woman.

And you cannot say four in the case of either, because signs do not apply to a man, and boring does not apply to a woman.

Now if this be correct, the father’s death should also be taught?

 

Upon going free a slave receives a gift from his master. There are a total of four different ways of going free (to be listed below), three for a man and three for a woman. Signs of puberty free a woman but not a man and the death of the master of a slave who had his ear bored frees a man but not a woman (she cannot have her ear bored). But according to Resh Lakish there would be another way for a woman to go free the death of her father.

 

וכ"ת ה"נ תני ושייר והא ארבעה קתני

 

And if you say: Here too he teaches [some] and omits [others], but he states four ?

 

The fact that R. Shimon specifies four means that there are no other ways for her to go free. He did not leave anything out.

וכי תימא תנא דבר שיש לו קצבה קתני ודבר שאין לו קצבה לא קתני והא סימנין דאין להם קצבה וקתני

 

And if you says: He teaches [only] that which is fixed, but not that which is not fixed, but what about signs, which are not fixed and which he nevertheless teaches?

 

We can t say that he only teaches things that are fixed in time or amount because signs of puberty are not fixed.

 

וכי תימא ה"נ כדרב ספרא והאיכא מיתת אדון דאין להם קצבה וקתני מיתת אדון נמי לא קתני

 

And if you say: Here too it goes according to R. Safra, but there is the master’s death, which is likewise not fixed, and yet it is taught?

The master’s death too is not taught.

 

We might have thought to say that R. Shimon taught signs because they have a lower amount, as we learned yesterday from R. Safra. But the problem is that the death of the master is assumed to be one of these four ways and yet it too does not have a fixed time.

The Talmud responds by saying the death of the master is also not taught.

 

ואלא ארבעה מאי ניהו שנים ויובל ויובל של רציעה ואמה העבריה בסימנים ה"נ מסתברא דקתני סיפא אי אתה יכול לומר ארבעה באחד מהם לפי שאין סימנים באיש ואין רציעה באשה ואם איתא באשה מיהא משכחת לה ארבעה שמע מינה

 

Then what are the four? Years, the Jubilee, the Jubilee for him whose ear was bored, and a Hebrew maidservant by signs. This is also reasonable, for the second part teaches: And you cannot say four in the case of either, because signs do not apply to a man, nor boring to a woman. Now if [Resh Lakish s ruling] was correct, then in the case of a woman at least four may be found. This proves it.

 

The four does not include the death of the master. This can be shown by the end of the mishnah for if the mishnah had meant to include this, there would be four ways for a female slave to go free.

Thus the mishnah omitted two ways of going free death of the father and death of the master, and we have, for the time being, resolved the difficulty raised by R. Sheshet on Resh Lakish.

 

מתיב רב עמרם ואלו מעניקים להם היוצא בשנים וביובל ובמיתת האדון ואמה העבריה בסימנים

ואם איתא ניתני נמי מיתת אב

וכי תימא תנא ושייר והא אלו קתני

וכי תימא דבר שיש לו קצבה קתני דבר שאין לו קצבה לא קתני והא סימנין דאין להם קצבה וקתני וכי תימא ה"נ כדרב ספרא האיכא מיתת אדון תיובתא דריש לקיש תיובתא

 

R. Amram raised an objection: Now these are the ones that are presented with gifts: He who is freed by [six] years, by the Jubilee, by his master’s death, and a Hebrew maidservant by signs.

But if [Resh Lakish] was correct, the father’s death should also be taught.

And should you answer: He teaches [some] and omits [others] but he stated these are the ones ?

And should you answer: He teaches that which is fixed, but not that which is not fixed, but what of signs which are not fixed, and which he nevertheless teaches?

And should you answer: Here too, it goes according to R. Safra but there is the master’s death!

This is a refutation of Resh Lakish. It is indeed a refutation.

 

Resh Lakish, who said that a female slave goes out with the death of her father, is finally defeated. The fact that the baraita specifically taught the death of the master, means that this baraita did not leave anything out of the list.

 

והא ריש לקיש ק"ו אמר

קל וחומר פריכא היא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לסימנין שנשתנה הגוף תאמר במיתת אב שכן לא נשתנה הגוף

 

But Resh Lakish used a kal vehomer! It is a kal vehomer which can be refuted. For one can refute it [in the following way]: as for signs, that is because there is a physical change [in her]; will you say [the same] of her father’s death, seeing that there is no physical change?

 

Resh Lakish s argument is based on a kal vehomer argument and thus if Resh Laskish is defeated, then what about his kal vehomer argument. The Talmud refutes it by pointing out a difference between signs of puberty and her father s death. The former entails a physical change, and therefore she goes free. The latter does not, and therefore she remains a slave.