Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

March 28, 2016 | 讬状讞 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Kiddushin 17

The Jewish slave gets a gift when he leaves (severance pay). 聽How much? 聽What types of items can聽be given? 聽In what cases does he not receive the gift? 聽Does one have to make up sick days? 聽Do slaves pass down to sons as inheritance? 聽It depends of which types of slaves and those who are are only passed down to sons, not to daughters or other inheritors.

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖讘注转 讬爪讗

One might have thought that even a slave who became sick and is unable to work must work additional time to compensate for the time missed. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd in the seventh he shall go out鈥 (Exodus 21:2), which indicates that he leaves his master in any case, even if he has not worked the full six years.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讘专讞 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讬讜讘诇 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽谞住讬讛 讜谞注谞讬拽 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here? This concerns a case where he fled and the Jubilee Year arrived immediately afterward, and therefore he did not complete the six years of servitude. The novelty of this halakha is as follows. Lest you say: Since the Jubilee Year released him, he is considered sent away by you, the master, and therefore we should not penalize him but grant him the severance gift, the baraita teaches us that once he flees he forfeits his right to the severance gift.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖讘注转 讬爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诇讛 砖诇砖 讜注讘讚 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪讞讟

The Master said above: One might have thought that even a slave who became sick and was unable to work must work additional time to compensate for the time missed. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd in the seventh he shall go out鈥 (Exodus 21:2). The Gemara asks: Is he excused from working additional time even if he was sick for all six years? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he was sick for three years and served for three years, he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor, but if he was sick for all six years he is obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where he is unable to perform strenuous labor but can execute minor tasks, such as performing needlework or sewing clothes. Since he can perform work of some kind, this slave is not required to work additional time to compensate for the time missed, even if he was ill for all six years.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讞诇讛 砖诇砖 讜注讘讚 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讗专讘注 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞诇讛 讗专讘注 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐

The Gemara comments: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is apparently self-contradictory. On the one hand, you said that if he was sick for three years and he served for the other three years he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. This indicates that if he was ill for four years he is obligated to complete the six years of labor. On the other hand, say the last clause of the baraita: If he was sick for all six years he is obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. That indicates that if he was ill for four years he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: If he was sick for four years he becomes as one who was sick for all six years, and therefore he is required to complete the six years of actual labor.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 砖讛谉 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讻砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讞诪砖讬诐 砖讘注专讻讬谉

The Sages taught: How much does one grant a freed slave as a severance gift? It is five sela in value of each and every type mentioned in this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which is a total of fifteen sela. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is given thirty sela in total, like the thirty shekels of the fine that is paid for a slave (see Exodus 21:32). Rabbi Shimon says: The master gives him fifty shekels, like the sum of valuations, in which fifty shekels is the largest designated amount for a man (see Leviticus 27:3).

讗诪专 诪专 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 砖讛诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬讘爪专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘爪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 诪谞讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讘爪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讜讟驻讬 诇讬讛 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Master said above: The master gives five sela of each and every type, which is fifteen sela; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir come to teach us to count? His novelty certainly cannot be that three fives equal fifteen. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir teaches us this: The master may not give less than this total number, but if he gives him less of one type and more of one other type, we have no problem with it, and he has fulfilled the mitzva.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬诇讬祝 专讬拽诐 专讬拽诐 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara explains: He derives a verbal analogy from 鈥渆mpty鈥 stated with regard to the severance gift: 鈥淵ou shall not send him away empty鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13), and 鈥渆mpty鈥 stated with regard to a firstborn: 鈥淎ll the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem; and none shall appear before Me empty鈥 (Exodus 34:20). Just as there, in the case of the firstborn, one must give five sela, so too here, in the case of severance gifts, one must give five sela.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬 讻转讬讘 专讬拽诐 诇讘住讜祝 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 专讬拽诐 讘专讬砖讗 砖讚讬 专讬拽诐 讗爪讗谉 专讬拽诐 讗讙讜专谉 专讬拽诐 讗讬拽讘

The Gemara asks: But one can say that he is obligated to give only five sela in total from all of the three types listed in the verse. The Gemara answers: If 鈥渆mpty鈥 were written at the end of the verse, i.e., Deuteronomy 15:14, the halakha would be as you said. But now that 鈥渆mpty鈥 is written before the verse, i.e., at the end of Deuteronomy 15:13, apply the phrase 鈥淒o not send him away empty鈥 to 鈥渇lock,鈥 and apply 鈥渆mpty鈥 to 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and likewise apply 鈥渆mpty鈥 to 鈥渨inepress.鈥 Consequently, there must be five sela for each type.

讜谞讬诇祝 专讬拽诐 专讬拽诐 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱

The Gemara asks: And let us derive a verbal analogy between 鈥渆mpty鈥 and 鈥渆mpty鈥 from the case of the burnt-offering of appearance in the Temple brought on the pilgrimage Festivals, with regard to which it is said: 鈥淎nd they shall not appear before the Lord empty鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:16). The burnt-offering of appearance has no fixed value. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which indicates that one must give a respectable amount as a severance gift.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讻砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注讘讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐

The baraita states that Rabbi Yehuda says that a freed slave is given thirty sela in total, like the thirty shekels of the fine that is paid for a slave. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He derives a verbal analogy between giving, as stated with regard to the severance gift, from the expression of giving stated in connection to a Canaanite slave gored by an ox: 鈥淗e shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver鈥 (Exodus 21:32). Just as there, he must pay thirty shekels for the slave, so too here, in the case of a severance gift, he must pay thirty.

讜谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注专讻讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But let him derive a similar verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 stated with regard to the severance gift and 鈥済iving鈥 from valuations (see Leviticus 27:23): Just as there, in the case of valuations, it is fifty shekels for an adult male, so too here, it should be fifty.

讞讚讗 讚转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 转驻砖转讛 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘讚 诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara responds: One answer is, as people say, that if you grasped too much, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a bit, you grasped something. In other words, if there are two possible sources from which to derive the sum of the severance gift, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger amount. Consequently, the master should be required to give only thirty shekels, not fifty. And furthermore, one should derive the halakha of a slave, i.e., the severance gift, from another case involving a slave, i.e., the thirty shekels paid when a Canaanite slave is gored by an ox, rather than derive the halakha of the severance gift from valuations, which apply to all people.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讞诪砖讬诐 砖讘注专讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪专 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注专讻讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讘驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讻转讬讘

The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The master gives him fifty shekels, like the fifty shekels of valuations for an adult male. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? He derived a verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 and 鈥済iving鈥 from valuations (Leviticus 27:23): Just as there, he pays fifty, so too here, he pays fifty. The Gemara asks: But one can say that as this verbal analogy is referring to valuations in general, he should pay the smallest of the valuations, which is merely three sela. The Gemara answers that it is written: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which indicates that one must give a respectable amount as a severance gift.

讜谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注讘讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讞讚讗 讚转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘讚 诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 讙诪专

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Shimon derive, like Rabbi Yehuda, the verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 and 鈥済iving鈥 from the verses discussing the goring of a Canaanite slave, teaching that just as there he pays thirty, so too here, he pays thirty? The Gemara adds that there are two reasons to prefer this derivation, as stated above: One reason is that if you grasped too much, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a bit, you grasped something. And furthermore, one should derive the halakha of a slave from another case involving a slave. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between poverty and poverty. With regard to valuations the Torah states: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), and concerning a Hebrew slave the verse says: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor鈥 (Leviticus 25:39).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诇诪讛 诇讬

Having ascertained the source for each of the opinions in the baraita, the Gemara analyzes their opinions. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is as it is written 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress,鈥 as he derives from these three terms that the severance gift must be worth fifteen sela. But according to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, why do I need these terms 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress,鈥 in light of the fact that one may give his slave any product?

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 诪爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 讘专讻讛 讬爪讗讜 讻住驻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬爪讗讜 驻专讚讜转

The Gemara answers: These terms are necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one grants severance gifts only from the flock, the threshing floor, and the winepress; from where is it derived to include every matter? The verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14). If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress鈥? This serves to tell you that just as a flock, a threshing floor, and a winepress are unique in that they are included in the category of blessing, i.e., they grow and multiply, so too all items that are included in the category of blessing may be given as a severance gift. This excludes money, which does not increase on its own. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: This excludes mules, which cannot reproduce.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讚讜转 诪砖讘讞谉 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讻住驻讬诐 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, why does he exclude money but not mules? The Gemara answers: With regard to mules, their bodies grow and enhance. Although they do not reproduce, they still grow. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, why doesn鈥檛 he exclude money? He maintains that one can conduct business with money and thereby profit from it. In this manner money can increase.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讜专谉 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讙讜专谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谉 讬拽讘 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for the Torah to mention a flock, a threshing floor, and a winepress, as, if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渇lock,鈥 I would say that animals, yes, the master may give them to his slave upon his release, but that which grows from the ground, no, he may not give them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渢hreshing floor.鈥 And if the Torah had written only 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 I would say that that which grows from the ground, yes, he may give them, but animals, no, he may not give them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渇lock.鈥 The Gemara asks: Since threshing floor is stated, why do I need the mention of a winepress?

诇诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻住驻讬诐 诇诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 驻专讚讜转

The Gemara answers: According to one Master, Rabbi Shimon, this term serves to exclude money. According to the other Master, Rabbi Eliezer, it serves to exclude mules.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讬讻讜诇 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注谞拽 转注谞讬拽 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讘专讻讛 转谉 诇讜

The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14). One might have thought that if the house is blessed due to him, then the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house is not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance [ha鈥檃nek ta鈥檃nik],鈥 with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift in any case. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥? This teaches that all that one gives him as a severance gift should be in accordance with the blessing one possesses.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注谞讬拽 转注谞讬拽 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The meaning of the statements of the Torah is as they are written, i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if the house was blessed due to him, the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house was not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift at all. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance [ha鈥檃nek ta鈥檃nik],鈥 with the doubled form of the verb? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel halakha.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘转 讗诪讛 注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讛谞专爪注 讜讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讗诪专 诪专 注讘讚 注讘专讬 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son of his deceased master but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, but only the master. A pierced slave and a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said above: A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讛专讬 诇讘谉 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖

As the Sages taught, with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves you and not an heir, i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do you say: You and not an heir, or perhaps is it even: You and not a son? The Gemara answers: When it says: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor鈥 (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of a son is thereby stated. How then do I uphold the other verse: 鈥淎nd he shall serve you six years鈥? The expression 鈥渟erve you鈥 emphasizes that he serves only you but he does not serve an heir other than a son.

诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讗讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘谉 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to include the son who inherits a Hebrew slave and to exclude the brother from inheriting his brother鈥檚 slave? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. And similarly, he replaces his father with regard to an ancestral field (see Leviticus 27:16鈥21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.

讗讚专讘讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗讞 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 讘谉 讗讬谉 讬讘讜诐

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother鈥檚 place with regard to levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? If there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗 驻讬专讻讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讗讞 注讚讬祝 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason for this halakha is specifically that there is this refutation that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that without this consideration I would say that a brother is preferable to a son? But let me derive that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother from the fact that here, with regard to the preference of a son, there are two cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, and here, in the case of a brother, there is only one: Levirate marriage.

砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field too, the tanna derives the halakha from this same refutation. The tanna learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: Is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.

讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇谞专爪注 诪讛 谞专爪注 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讜讛讗讬 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛注谞讬拽

搂 The baraita taught that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). The verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to a pierced slave: Just as a pierced slave serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: And does this verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,鈥 come to teach this matter? The tanna requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,鈥 is a command to grant her a severance gift.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛注谞讬拽 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专爪讬注讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 讛注讘讚 讜诇讗 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讛专讬 专爪讬注讛 讗诪讜专

Do you say that this comparison obligates one to grant a severance gift to a Hebrew maidservant, or is it teaching only that the halakha of piercing a Hebrew slave鈥檚 ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: When it says with regard to piercing: 鈥淏ut if the slave shall say鈥 (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, the halakha of piercing is thereby stated and accounted for.

讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛注谞讬拽 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗诪转讱 讻谉 诪讗讬 转注砖讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise鈥? This obligates a master to grant a severance gift to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: If so, that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, let the verse write merely: To your maidservant likewise. What is the meaning of the additional phrase: 鈥淵ou shall do鈥? Draw two conclusions from this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.

讛谞专爪注 讜讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 谞专爪注 讚讻转讬讘 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注 讜注讘讚讜 诇注诇诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗转 讛讘转 谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜

搂 The baraita further teaches that a pierced Hebrew slave and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara explains: The halakha of a pierced slave is as it is written: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever鈥 (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, but not the son or the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile? 岣zkiyya says that the verse states with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser but not to the heirs of his purchaser.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 谞讻专讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讬讜专砖讬诐 讙专 讗转 讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits the property of his father, as it is stated with regard to one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser,鈥 but not with his purchaser鈥檚 heirs. One can derive from here by inference that ordinarily a gentile has heirs. By contrast, by Torah law a convert does not inherit the property of his father or any other gentile, as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. Rather, a convert inherits the property of his father by rabbinic law.

讚转谞谉 讙专 讜谞讻专讬 砖讬专砖讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛诐 谞讻专讬 讙专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇谞讻专讬 讟讜诇 讗转讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗谞讬 诪注讜转 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜讗谞讬 驻讬专讜转 诪砖讘讗讜 诇专砖讜转 讙专 讗住讜专

As we learned in a mishna (Demai 6:10): With regard to a convert and a gentile who inherited property from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take money; you take wine used for a libation to idolatry and I will take produce. Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But once they have come into the convert鈥檚 possession, it is prohibited for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 诇讗 讘讗讜 诇专砖讜转讜 谞诪讬 讻讬 砖拽讬诇 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇

And if it would enter your mind that a convert inherits property from his father by Torah law, it should be prohibited when these objects have not yet come into his possession as well, as when he takes money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, he takes an item that has been exchanged for objects of idol worship. Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well.

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 诇住讜专讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬专砖讜 讗讘诇 讻砖谞砖转转驻讜 讗住讜专

Rather, a convert inherits property from his father by rabbinic law, as this is a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his previous wayward path [suro]. The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father鈥檚 property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? He may do this when they inherited. But when the convert and the gentile formed a partnership, it is prohibited for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.

谞讻专讬 讗转 讛讙专 讜讙专 讗转 讛讙专 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讚转谞谉 诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讘谞讬讜 注诪讜 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

With regard to the same issue it is taught: By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not inherit property from his father who is a convert, nor does a convert inherit property from his father who is a convert. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:9): If one borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, he does not return it to the creditor鈥檚 sons, as they are not considered his heirs. And if he does return it, the Sages are not pleased with him.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜专转讜 讜诇讬讚转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Sages are pleased with him? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to a convert whose conception and birth were not in sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Kiddushin 17

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 17

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖讘注转 讬爪讗

One might have thought that even a slave who became sick and is unable to work must work additional time to compensate for the time missed. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd in the seventh he shall go out鈥 (Exodus 21:2), which indicates that he leaves his master in any case, even if he has not worked the full six years.

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讘专讞 讜驻讙注 讘讜 讬讜讘诇 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗驻讬拽 诇讬讛 讬讜讘诇 砖讬诇讜讞讜 诪注诪讱 拽专讬谞谉 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 谞讬拽谞住讬讛 讜谞注谞讬拽 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Sheshet said: With what are we dealing here? This concerns a case where he fled and the Jubilee Year arrived immediately afterward, and therefore he did not complete the six years of servitude. The novelty of this halakha is as follows. Lest you say: Since the Jubilee Year released him, he is considered sent away by you, the master, and therefore we should not penalize him but grant him the severance gift, the baraita teaches us that once he flees he forfeits his right to the severance gift.

讗诪专 诪专 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讘砖讘注转 讬爪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讜讛转谞讬讗 讞诇讛 砖诇砖 讜注讘讚 砖诇砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 诪讞讟

The Master said above: One might have thought that even a slave who became sick and was unable to work must work additional time to compensate for the time missed. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd in the seventh he shall go out鈥 (Exodus 21:2). The Gemara asks: Is he excused from working additional time even if he was sick for all six years? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: If he was sick for three years and served for three years, he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor, but if he was sick for all six years he is obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. Rav Sheshet said: This is referring to a case where he is unable to perform strenuous labor but can execute minor tasks, such as performing needlework or sewing clothes. Since he can perform work of some kind, this slave is not required to work additional time to compensate for the time missed, even if he was ill for all six years.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讞诇讛 砖诇砖 讜注讘讚 砖诇砖 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讗专讘注 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讗 讗专讘注 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讞诇讛 讗专讘注 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖讞诇讛 讻诇 砖砖 讜讞讬讬讘 诇讛砖诇讬诐

The Gemara comments: This matter itself is difficult, as the baraita is apparently self-contradictory. On the one hand, you said that if he was sick for three years and he served for the other three years he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. This indicates that if he was ill for four years he is obligated to complete the six years of labor. On the other hand, say the last clause of the baraita: If he was sick for all six years he is obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. That indicates that if he was ill for four years he is not obligated to complete the six years of actual labor. The Gemara answers that this is what the baraita is saying: If he was sick for four years he becomes as one who was sick for all six years, and therefore he is required to complete the six years of actual labor.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诪讛 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 砖讛谉 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讻砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讞诪砖讬诐 砖讘注专讻讬谉

The Sages taught: How much does one grant a freed slave as a severance gift? It is five sela in value of each and every type mentioned in this verse: 鈥淎nd you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which is a total of fifteen sela. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is given thirty sela in total, like the thirty shekels of the fine that is paid for a slave (see Exodus 21:32). Rabbi Shimon says: The master gives him fifty shekels, like the sum of valuations, in which fifty shekels is the largest designated amount for a man (see Leviticus 27:3).

讗诪专 诪专 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻诇 诪讬谉 讜诪讬谉 砖讛诐 讞诪砖 注砖专讛 住诇注讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪谞讬谞讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讬讘爪专 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪讘爪专 诇讬讛 诪讛讗讬 诪谞讬谞讗 讜讗讬 讘爪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 讜讟驻讬 诇讬讛 诪讞讚 诪讬谞讗 诇讬转 诇谉 讘讛

The Master said above: The master gives five sela of each and every type, which is fifteen sela; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir come to teach us to count? His novelty certainly cannot be that three fives equal fifteen. The Gemara answers that Rabbi Meir teaches us this: The master may not give less than this total number, but if he gives him less of one type and more of one other type, we have no problem with it, and he has fulfilled the mitzva.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讬诇讬祝 专讬拽诐 专讬拽诐 诪讘讻讜专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Meir? The Gemara explains: He derives a verbal analogy from 鈥渆mpty鈥 stated with regard to the severance gift: 鈥淵ou shall not send him away empty鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:13), and 鈥渆mpty鈥 stated with regard to a firstborn: 鈥淎ll the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem; and none shall appear before Me empty鈥 (Exodus 34:20). Just as there, in the case of the firstborn, one must give five sela, so too here, in the case of severance gifts, one must give five sela.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞诪砖 住诇注讬诐 诪讻讜诇讛讜 讗讬 讻转讬讘 专讬拽诐 诇讘住讜祝 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 专讬拽诐 讘专讬砖讗 砖讚讬 专讬拽诐 讗爪讗谉 专讬拽诐 讗讙讜专谉 专讬拽诐 讗讬拽讘

The Gemara asks: But one can say that he is obligated to give only five sela in total from all of the three types listed in the verse. The Gemara answers: If 鈥渆mpty鈥 were written at the end of the verse, i.e., Deuteronomy 15:14, the halakha would be as you said. But now that 鈥渆mpty鈥 is written before the verse, i.e., at the end of Deuteronomy 15:13, apply the phrase 鈥淒o not send him away empty鈥 to 鈥渇lock,鈥 and apply 鈥渆mpty鈥 to 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and likewise apply 鈥渆mpty鈥 to 鈥渨inepress.鈥 Consequently, there must be five sela for each type.

讜谞讬诇祝 专讬拽诐 专讬拽诐 诪注讜诇转 专讗讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱

The Gemara asks: And let us derive a verbal analogy between 鈥渆mpty鈥 and 鈥渆mpty鈥 from the case of the burnt-offering of appearance in the Temple brought on the pilgrimage Festivals, with regard to which it is said: 鈥淎nd they shall not appear before the Lord empty鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:16). The burnt-offering of appearance has no fixed value. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which indicates that one must give a respectable amount as a severance gift.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖讬诐 讻砖诇砖讬诐 砖诇 注讘讚 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讬诇讬祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注讘讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐

The baraita states that Rabbi Yehuda says that a freed slave is given thirty sela in total, like the thirty shekels of the fine that is paid for a slave. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: He derives a verbal analogy between giving, as stated with regard to the severance gift, from the expression of giving stated in connection to a Canaanite slave gored by an ox: 鈥淗e shall give to their master thirty shekels of silver鈥 (Exodus 21:32). Just as there, he must pay thirty shekels for the slave, so too here, in the case of a severance gift, he must pay thirty.

讜谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注专讻讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: But let him derive a similar verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 stated with regard to the severance gift and 鈥済iving鈥 from valuations (see Leviticus 27:23): Just as there, in the case of valuations, it is fifty shekels for an adult male, so too here, it should be fifty.

讞讚讗 讚转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 转驻砖转讛 诪讜注讟 转驻砖转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘讚 诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝

The Gemara responds: One answer is, as people say, that if you grasped too much, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a bit, you grasped something. In other words, if there are two possible sources from which to derive the sum of the severance gift, then without conclusive proof one may not presume that the Torah intended to teach the larger amount. Consequently, the master should be required to give only thirty shekels, not fifty. And furthermore, one should derive the halakha of a slave, i.e., the severance gift, from another case involving a slave, i.e., the thirty shekels paid when a Canaanite slave is gored by an ox, rather than derive the halakha of the severance gift from valuations, which apply to all people.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖讬诐 讻讞诪砖讬诐 砖讘注专讻讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讙诪专 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注专讻讬谉 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讞诪砖讬诐 讜讗讬诪讗 讘驻讞讜转 砖讘注专讻讬谉 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讻转讬讘

The baraita further teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: The master gives him fifty shekels, like the fifty shekels of valuations for an adult male. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? He derived a verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 and 鈥済iving鈥 from valuations (Leviticus 27:23): Just as there, he pays fifty, so too here, he pays fifty. The Gemara asks: But one can say that as this verbal analogy is referring to valuations in general, he should pay the smallest of the valuations, which is merely three sela. The Gemara answers that it is written: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14), which indicates that one must give a respectable amount as a severance gift.

讜谞讬诇祝 谞转讬谞讛 谞转讬谞讛 诪注讘讚 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖讬诐 讞讚讗 讚转驻砖转讛 诪专讜讘讛 诇讗 转驻砖转讛 讜注讜讚 注讘讚 诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讻讛 诪讬讻讛 讙诪专

The Gemara asks: But let Rabbi Shimon derive, like Rabbi Yehuda, the verbal analogy between 鈥済iving鈥 and 鈥済iving鈥 from the verses discussing the goring of a Canaanite slave, teaching that just as there he pays thirty, so too here, he pays thirty? The Gemara adds that there are two reasons to prefer this derivation, as stated above: One reason is that if you grasped too much, you did not grasp anything; if you grasped a bit, you grasped something. And furthermore, one should derive the halakha of a slave from another case involving a slave. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon derives a verbal analogy between poverty and poverty. With regard to valuations the Torah states: 鈥淏ut if he is too poor鈥 (Leviticus 27:8), and concerning a Hebrew slave the verse says: 鈥淎nd if your brother grows poor鈥 (Leviticus 25:39).

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗讬 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诇诪讛 诇讬

Having ascertained the source for each of the opinions in the baraita, the Gemara analyzes their opinions. The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is as it is written 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress,鈥 as he derives from these three terms that the severance gift must be worth fifteen sela. But according to the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, why do I need these terms 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress,鈥 in light of the fact that one may give his slave any product?

讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讜 诪注谞讬拽讬谉 讗诇讗 诪爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 爪讗谉 讙讜专谉 讜讬拽讘 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 讘专讻讛 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖谞谉 讘讻诇诇 讘专讻讛 讬爪讗讜 讻住驻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬爪讗讜 驻专讚讜转

The Gemara answers: These terms are necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one grants severance gifts only from the flock, the threshing floor, and the winepress; from where is it derived to include every matter? The verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14). If so, what is the meaning when the verse states 鈥渇lock,鈥 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 and 鈥渨inepress鈥? This serves to tell you that just as a flock, a threshing floor, and a winepress are unique in that they are included in the category of blessing, i.e., they grow and multiply, so too all items that are included in the category of blessing may be given as a severance gift. This excludes money, which does not increase on its own. This is the statement of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: This excludes mules, which cannot reproduce.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讚讜转 诪砖讘讞谉 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讻住驻讬诐 注讘讬讚 讘讛讜 注讬住拽讗

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Shimon, why does he exclude money but not mules? The Gemara answers: With regard to mules, their bodies grow and enhance. Although they do not reproduce, they still grow. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, why doesn鈥檛 he exclude money? He maintains that one can conduct business with money and thereby profit from it. In this manner money can increase.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讙讜专谉 讜讗讬 讻转讘 讙讜专谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讙讬讚讜诇讬 拽专拽注 讗讬谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 爪讗谉 讬拽讘 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara notes: And it is necessary for the Torah to mention a flock, a threshing floor, and a winepress, as, if the Merciful One had written only 鈥渇lock,鈥 I would say that animals, yes, the master may give them to his slave upon his release, but that which grows from the ground, no, he may not give them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渢hreshing floor.鈥 And if the Torah had written only 鈥渢hreshing floor,鈥 I would say that that which grows from the ground, yes, he may give them, but animals, no, he may not give them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes 鈥渇lock.鈥 The Gemara asks: Since threshing floor is stated, why do I need the mention of a winepress?

诇诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 讻住驻讬诐 诇诪专 诇诪注讜讟讬 驻专讚讜转

The Gemara answers: According to one Master, Rabbi Shimon, this term serves to exclude money. According to the other Master, Rabbi Eliezer, it serves to exclude mules.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 讬讻讜诇 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注谞拽 转注谞讬拽 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讘专讻讱 讛讻诇 诇驻讬 讘专讻讛 转谉 诇讜

The Sages taught with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:14). One might have thought that if the house is blessed due to him, then the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house is not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance [ha鈥檃nek ta鈥檃nik],鈥 with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift in any case. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淥f that with which the Lord your God has blessed you鈥? This teaches that all that one gives him as a severance gift should be in accordance with the blessing one possesses.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讚讘专讬诐 讻讻转讘谉 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 诇讗 谞转讘专讱 讘讬转 讘讙诇诇讜 讗讬谉 诪注谞讬拽讬诐 诇讜 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注谞讬拽 转注谞讬拽 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The meaning of the statements of the Torah is as they are written, i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if the house was blessed due to him, the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house was not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift at all. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall grant severance [ha鈥檃nek ta鈥檃nik],鈥 with the doubled form of the verb? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel halakha.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 注讘专讬 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘转 讗诪讛 注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讛谞专爪注 讜讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讗诪专 诪专 注讘讚 注讘专讬 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 讗转 讛讘转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son of his deceased master but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, but only the master. A pierced slave and a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said above: A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讘谉 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 讬注讘讚 讛专讬 诇讘谉 讗诪讜专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注讘讚讱 砖砖 砖谞讬诐 诇讱 讜诇讗 诇讬讜专砖

As the Sages taught, with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd he shall serve you six years鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves you and not an heir, i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do you say: You and not an heir, or perhaps is it even: You and not a son? The Gemara answers: When it says: 鈥淪ix years he shall labor鈥 (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of a son is thereby stated. How then do I uphold the other verse: 鈥淎nd he shall serve you six years鈥? The expression 鈥渟erve you鈥 emphasizes that he serves only you but he does not serve an heir other than a son.

诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛讗讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讘谉 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讘讬讜 诇讬注讚讛 讜诇砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to include the son who inherits a Hebrew slave and to exclude the brother from inheriting his brother鈥檚 slave? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. And similarly, he replaces his father with regard to an ancestral field (see Leviticus 27:16鈥21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.

讗讚专讘讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗讞 砖讻谉 拽诐 转讞转 讗讞讬讜 诇讬讘讜诐 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉 讛讗 讬砖 讘谉 讗讬谉 讬讘讜诐

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother鈥檚 place with regard to levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? If there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讗 驻讬专讻讗 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讗讞 注讚讬祝 讜转讬驻讜拽 诇讬 讚讛讻讗 转专转讬 讜讛讻讗 讞讚讗

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason for this halakha is specifically that there is this refutation that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that without this consideration I would say that a brother is preferable to a son? But let me derive that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother from the fact that here, with regard to the preference of a son, there are two cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, and here, in the case of a brother, there is only one: Levirate marriage.

砖讚讛 讗讞讜讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讛讗讬 驻讬专讻讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 讻诇讜诐 讬砖 讬讘讜诐 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讘谉

The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field too, the tanna derives the halakha from this same refutation. The tanna learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: Is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.

讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 驻讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 讛拽讬砖讛 讛讻转讜讘 诇谞专爪注 诪讛 谞专爪注 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讗祝 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讗讬谞讛 注讜讘讚转 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 讜讛讗讬 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛注谞讬拽

搂 The baraita taught that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise鈥 (Deuteronomy 15:17). The verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to a pierced slave: Just as a pierced slave serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: And does this verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,鈥 come to teach this matter? The tanna requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,鈥 is a command to grant her a severance gift.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讛注谞讬拽 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇专爪讬注讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讬讗诪专 讛注讘讚 讜诇讗 讗诪讛 讛注讘专讬讛 讛专讬 专爪讬注讛 讗诪讜专

Do you say that this comparison obligates one to grant a severance gift to a Hebrew maidservant, or is it teaching only that the halakha of piercing a Hebrew slave鈥檚 ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: When it says with regard to piercing: 鈥淏ut if the slave shall say鈥 (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, the halakha of piercing is thereby stated and accounted for.

讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗祝 诇讗诪转讱 转注砖讛 讻谉 诇讛注谞讬拽 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻转讜讘 拽专讗 诇讗诪转讱 讻谉 诪讗讬 转注砖讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd also to your maidservant you shall do likewise鈥? This obligates a master to grant a severance gift to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: If so, that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, let the verse write merely: To your maidservant likewise. What is the meaning of the additional phrase: 鈥淵ou shall do鈥? Draw two conclusions from this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.

讛谞专爪注 讜讛谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 注讜讘讚 诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘转 谞专爪注 讚讻转讬讘 讜专爪注 讗讚谞讬讜 讗转 讗讝谞讜 讘诪专爪注 讜注讘讚讜 诇注诇诐 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讘谉 讜讗转 讛讘转 谞诪讻专 诇谞讻专讬 诪谞讬谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜

搂 The baraita further teaches that a pierced Hebrew slave and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara explains: The halakha of a pierced slave is as it is written: 鈥淎nd his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever鈥 (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, but not the son or the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile? 岣zkiyya says that the verse states with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser鈥 (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser but not to the heirs of his purchaser.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 谞讻专讬 讬讜专砖 讗转 讗讘讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讞砖讘 注诐 拽谞讛讜 讜诇讗 注诐 讬讜专砖讬 拽讜谞讛讜 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讬讜专砖讬诐 讙专 讗转 讛谞讻专讬 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐

Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits the property of his father, as it is stated with regard to one sold to a gentile: 鈥淎nd he shall reckon with his purchaser,鈥 but not with his purchaser鈥檚 heirs. One can derive from here by inference that ordinarily a gentile has heirs. By contrast, by Torah law a convert does not inherit the property of his father or any other gentile, as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. Rather, a convert inherits the property of his father by rabbinic law.

讚转谞谉 讙专 讜谞讻专讬 砖讬专砖讜 讗转 讗讘讬讛诐 谞讻专讬 讙专 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇谞讻专讬 讟讜诇 讗转讛 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讗谞讬 诪注讜转 讟讜诇 讗转讛 讬讬谉 谞住讱 讜讗谞讬 驻讬专讜转 诪砖讘讗讜 诇专砖讜转 讙专 讗住讜专

As we learned in a mishna (Demai 6:10): With regard to a convert and a gentile who inherited property from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take money; you take wine used for a libation to idolatry and I will take produce. Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But once they have come into the convert鈥檚 possession, it is prohibited for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 诇讗 讘讗讜 诇专砖讜转讜 谞诪讬 讻讬 砖拽讬诇 讞讬诇讜驻讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 砖拽讬诇

And if it would enter your mind that a convert inherits property from his father by Torah law, it should be prohibited when these objects have not yet come into his possession as well, as when he takes money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, he takes an item that has been exchanged for objects of idol worship. Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well.

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 砖诪讗 讬讞讝讜专 诇住讜专讜 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖讬专砖讜 讗讘诇 讻砖谞砖转转驻讜 讗住讜专

Rather, a convert inherits property from his father by rabbinic law, as this is a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his previous wayward path [suro]. The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father鈥檚 property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? He may do this when they inherited. But when the convert and the gentile formed a partnership, it is prohibited for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.

谞讻专讬 讗转 讛讙专 讜讙专 讗转 讛讙专 讗讬谞讜 诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讜诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 讚转谞谉 诇讜讛 诪注讜转 诪谉 讛讙专 砖谞转讙讬讬专讜 讘谞讬讜 注诪讜 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讗诐 讛讞讝讬专 讗讬谉 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜

With regard to the same issue it is taught: By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not inherit property from his father who is a convert, nor does a convert inherit property from his father who is a convert. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 10:9): If one borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, he does not return it to the creditor鈥檚 sons, as they are not considered his heirs. And if he does return it, the Sages are not pleased with him.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讜讞 讞讻诪讬诐 谞讜讞讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讜专转讜 讜诇讬讚转讜 砖诇讗 讘拽讚讜砖讛

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that the Sages are pleased with him? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to a convert whose conception and birth were not in sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son.

Scroll To Top