There is something awkward in Rav Shach between the first law in laws of marriage [chapter one] and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out at least to the Tosphot Ri''d that there are two kinds of barter and the type that is "this equals that" is works as money. The other type of barter is handkerchief and that works to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the handkerchief. So the first type works as a kind of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money].
But if that is the case then look at Rav Shach in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף [something worth money] to be a kind of barter, because if it would be because of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money] then it would work to redeem a Hebrew slave from a gentile. [But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money that does not matter. The Hebrew slave remains a slave until redeemed with actual money.
But then the question comes up how can marriage become valid by שווה כסף [something worth money]. That Rav Shach answered showing that the type of ownership of a wife or Hebrew slave [owned by an Israeli] is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if barter would work [to marry} if it has the worth of a penny that would be ok in terms of something worth money [also to marry] except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a Hebrew slave from a gentile--which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a Hebrew slave then leave it at that. Answer, he needs it to be like a קניין סודר so that it can cause a קניין just like he is explaining that the Hebrew slave עבד עברי or the wife is not physically owned but rather obligations are owned. [That is the slave is obligated to work similar to the same kind or arrangement you have as an employee. The obligations are not monetary obligation. They are physical obligations of the body of the employee. He must work as he agreed to. But his body is not owned. He simply has obligation that he must fulfill.]
However even we could answer this, still the question is if the kinyan sudar is worth more than a penny and thus becomes money does it still retain teh ability cause a kinyan?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something awkward in רב שך between the first law in הלכות אישות פרק א and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out to the תוספות הרי''ד that there are two kinds of חליפין. The type that is שווה בשווה works as כסף. The other type of חליפין is סודר and that works to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the סודר. So the first type works as a kind of קניין כסף. But if that is the case then look at רב שך in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף to be a kind of חליפין, because if it would be because of קניין כסף then it would work to redeem a עבד עברי from a gentile. But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money, that does not matter. The עבד עברי remains a slave until redeemed with actual money. But then the question comes up. How can קידושין become valid by שווה כסף . That רב שך answered showing that the type of ownership of a wife or עבד עברי owned by an יהודי is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case, there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if חליפין would work to marry if it has the worth of a פרוטה that would be OK in terms of something worth money also to marry except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a עבד עברי from a gentile, which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a עבד עברי, then leave it at that. Answer. He needs it to be like a קניין סודר handkerchief so that it can cause a קניין just like he explained that the עבד עברי או a wife is not physically owned, but rather שיעבודים are owned. However even we could answer this, still the question is if the קניין סודר is worth more than a פרוטה and thus becomes money does it still retain ability cause a קניין?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if that is the case then look at Rav Shach in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף [something worth money] to be a kind of barter, because if it would be because of kinyan kesef [acquisition by means of money] then it would work to redeem a Hebrew slave from a gentile. [But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money that does not matter. The Hebrew slave remains a slave until redeemed with actual money.
But then the question comes up how can marriage become valid by שווה כסף [something worth money]. That Rav Shach answered showing that the type of ownership of a wife or Hebrew slave [owned by an Israeli] is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if barter would work [to marry} if it has the worth of a penny that would be ok in terms of something worth money [also to marry] except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a Hebrew slave from a gentile--which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a Hebrew slave then leave it at that. Answer, he needs it to be like a קניין סודר so that it can cause a קניין just like he is explaining that the Hebrew slave עבד עברי or the wife is not physically owned but rather obligations are owned. [That is the slave is obligated to work similar to the same kind or arrangement you have as an employee. The obligations are not monetary obligation. They are physical obligations of the body of the employee. He must work as he agreed to. But his body is not owned. He simply has obligation that he must fulfill.]
However even we could answer this, still the question is if the kinyan sudar is worth more than a penny and thus becomes money does it still retain teh ability cause a kinyan?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is something awkward in רב שך between the first law in הלכות אישות פרק א and the first law of chapter 3. The first law comes out to the תוספות הרי''ד that there are two kinds of חליפין. The type that is שווה בשווה works as כסף. The other type of חליפין is סודר and that works to accomplish and finalize a deal and that is not because of monetary value of the סודר. So the first type works as a kind of קניין כסף. But if that is the case then look at רב שך in chapter three. There he requires שווה כסף to be a kind of חליפין, because if it would be because of קניין כסף then it would work to redeem a עבד עברי from a gentile. But it does not. Only actual money or injury or a document would free him or her. Even if the gentile owner wants to accept something worth money, that does not matter. The עבד עברי remains a slave until redeemed with actual money. But then the question comes up. How can קידושין become valid by שווה כסף . That רב שך answered showing that the type of ownership of a wife or עבד עברי owned by an יהודי is not physical ownership of an object, but an ownership of obligations like when makes a contract with an employee. In any case, there seems to be a contradiction here.
I mean that if חליפין would work to marry if it has the worth of a פרוטה that would be OK in terms of something worth money also to marry except that if something worth money is because of money, not barter then it should work to free a עבד עברי from a gentile, which in fact it does not.
Now you can ask why does רב שך need שווה כסף to be any particular kind of קניין? As long as it is learned from a עבד עברי, then leave it at that. Answer. He needs it to be like a קניין סודר handkerchief so that it can cause a קניין just like he explained that the עבד עברי או a wife is not physically owned, but rather שיעבודים are owned. However even we could answer this, still the question is if the קניין סודר is worth more than a פרוטה and thus becomes money does it still retain ability cause a קניין?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
יש משהו קשה להבין ברב שך בין החוק הראשון בהלכות אישות פרק א לחוק הראשון של פרק 3. בחוק הראשון רב שך מסיק לתוספות הרי''ד שיש שני סוגים של חליפין. הסוג שהוא שווה בשווה עובד כמו כסף. הסוג האחר של חליפין הוא סודר וזה פועל להשגת עסקה סופית וזה לא בגלל הערך הכספי של הסודר. אז הסוג הראשון עובד כסוג של קניין כסף. אבל אם זה נכון, התבונן ברב שך בפרק השלישי. שם הוא דורש ששווה כסף הוא סוג של חליפין, כי אם זה היה בגלל קניין כסף זה היה עובד לפדות עבד עברי מגוי, אבל זה לא. רק כסף או פגיעה בפועל או מסמך ישחררו אותו או אותה. גם אם הבעל הגוי רוצה לקבל משהו ששווה כסף, זה לא משנה. עבד עברי נשאר עבד עד שיגאל בכסף בפועל. אבל אז עולה השאלה. כיצד קידושין יכולים להיות תקפים על ידי שווה כסף. כי רב שך ענה כי סוג הבעלות על אישה או עבד עברי בבעלות יהודי איננו בעלות פיזית על חפץ, אלא בעלות על התחייבויות כמו חוזה עם עובד. בכל מקרה, נראה שיש כאן סתירה.
אני מתכוון שאם חליפין הייתה עובדת להתחתן אם יש לזה ערך של פרוטה זה יהיה בסדר מבחינת משהו ששווה כסף גם כדי להתחתן בגלל קניין כסף. אבל אם משהו ששווה כסף זה בגלל כסף, לא חליפין הוא צריך לעבוד כדי לשחרר עבד עברי מגוי, שלמעשה זה לא.
עכשיו אתה יכול לשאול מדוע רב שך צריך שווה כסף כדי להיות קניין מסוג מסוים? כל עוד זה נלמד מעבד עברי, אז השאר אותו בזה. תשובה. הוא צריך שזה יהיה כמו קניין סודר כדי שזה יכול לגרום לקניין בדיוק כמו שהסביר שהעבד עברי או אשה אינם בבעלות פיזית, אלא שיעבודים הם בבעלות. עם זאת, אפילו אנו יכולים לענות על זה, עדיין השאלה היא אם קניין סודר שווה יותר מפרוטה וכך הופך לכסף האם הוא עדיין שומר על היכולת לגרום לקניין
