Notes for today's shiur (Kiddushin 14)

Forgive the lack of formatting, capitalization, or complete sentences. These are notes to myself for my shiur today.

yesterday's daf had very late people. parich rav achai who may be really late. And Rav Acha bar Rav (7th generation Amora) who asked Ravina, who elsewhere interacts with Ravina II. Rav Mesharshiya his paternal grandson, also Rav Shmuel b. Rabbi Avahu known Savoraim who interact with him.

yavo aleha ulkacha lah le'isha: see yerushalmi parallel:

* tanna kamma - maamar like kiddushin

* r shimon (hakohen, student of r yochann ben zakkai) - either kinyan gamur or not at all

* r elazar ben arach - kinyan gamur

note use of gomeret here, and what that may imply.

baal korcha. See Rashi, noting yevamot 42a parallel. It is one of the tanya idachs

הַאי ״יִשְׂרָאֵל״ לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?

See Yevamot 101b

First, important that it is goyim rather than nochrim. And if look at the waad alchagara (Guadalahara) printing, it has geirim. And that matches the parallel. Not goyim but geirim.

There, it is also in a derasha chain / musical chairs scenario, where two argue, and each needs to find a basis for their position and get shifted over to the next one. There are echoes of this here. (One idea not mentioned here is that this does not need to be a beit din of mumchin, Rabbi Yehuda, while Tanna Kamma does require it. le'einei means cannot be blind, but obviously designated professional judges cannot be blind.)

rav ashi (here, previous daf) responded to the stamma, suggesting that stamma was at least at his scholastic era. unless he made his statement independently and was reworked.

here, rav ashi said:

הָא נָמֵי אוֹסְרָהּ מַתִּירָהּ – יָבָם אוֹסְרָהּ, יָבָם שָׁרֵי לַהּ.

Rather than being framed as a challenge to the kal vachomer, we can simply read it as an analogy to the mitat habaal. In other words, that it hearkens back to אֶלָּא מִיתַת הַבַּעַל מְנָלַן? סְבָרָא הוּא: הוּא אַסְרַהּ וְהוּא שָׁרְתַהּ. on 13b. in which case he wouldn't be responding to the Stamma's kal vachomer.

one difference is: as a pircha to the kal vachomer, yavam shari lah means via chalitza (as Rav Steinsaltz takes it). Rashi takes it even here at death of the yavam, so no difference in import.

kacha le'ikuva...

הא לאו הכי דרשינן ק"ו אע"ג דכתיב ביה חוקה

- see Tosafot. importance of knowing who says what. In Yoma 41a, Stam Sifra is Rabbi Yehuda, and in Yoma 60a, we know that Rabbi Yehuda says chuka only applies to things done with bigdei lavan bifnim. and hagrala is done with bigdei lavan bachutz. this undermines the attack on this means of derasha. gives answers, but questions are good.

why write vechatav lah twice? dealing with machzir gerushato in pasuk.

עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף. מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״מִכֶּסֶף מִקְנָתוֹ״

Need to know it is in Vayikra, about eved ivri sold to a non-Jew

also, that it skipped over an earlier verse, kesef mimkaro.

why? because even if via shtar, there will be money paid. this verse in particular designates it as miknato, the money of his acquisition.

all aquisitions with kesef.

rashi vs. tosafot here. rashi: since meshicha doesn't work.

tosafot: but then having stama of gemara siding with Reish Lakish over Rabbi Yochanan. מיד עמיתך בכסף הא לעובד כוכבים במשיכה, bechorot 13b.

אמרי ולאמימר דאמר משיכה בעובד כוכבים קונה הניחא אי סבר לה כר' יוחנן דאמר דבר תורה מעות קונות משיכה לא אהני לעמיתך לעמיתך בכסף לעובד כוכבים במשיכה

אלא אי סבר לה כר"ל דאמר משיכה מפורשת מן התורה לעמיתך במשיכה ולעובד כוכבים במשיכה לעמיתך למה לי

(Personally, I'm not sure that's a problem. The statement is that we side like Reish Lakish in this subset, not that we side with Rabbi Yochanan always elsewhere..)

rather, says rabbeinu tam, there for a non-jew, it is only with kesef, not shtar, because says mikesef miknato.

״וְכִי תַשִּׂיג״ – מוּסָף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן, וְיִלְמַד עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן.

but the preceding was Jews owning gentile servants, not Jews owning Jewish servants? Yes, the topic in general. But that topic ended with saying

וּבְאַ֨חֵיכֶ֤ם בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ אִ֣ישׁ בְּאָחִ֔יו לֹא־תִרְדֶּ֥ה ב֖וֹ בְּפָֽרֶךְ׃

as different from Canaanite servants

rav tavyumi mishmei de-abaye - fifth-generation. not necessarily mar bar rav ashi who would be later.

then, a stammaic derasha chain.

derasha chain ends with eved / ha'eved not darshening.

Implication is that Rabbi Eleazar, the Tanna, does not darshen ha- definite article distinctions. Should check across Shas for consistency. Sometimes we find inconsistencies in the end of these derasha chains, when they say לָא דָּרֵישׁ.