Rav Shach asks how could the Rambam derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the value of money. Tosphot derives this from a Hebrew slave. [כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a Hebrew slave is acquired by money or the value of money. But the Rambam holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that Tosphot agrees with this because it is an open verse] At any rate, Rav Shach says the sort of acquisition by which a Hebrew slave is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by monetary acquisition we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring, and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by trade or barter.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slaves is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as a in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition but not the same type as if there was a sale.
____________________________________________________________________
רב שך asks how could the רמב''ם derive the fact that a wife is acquired by the שווה כסף. While תוספות derives this from a עבד עברי. The verse says כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף] For a עבד עברי is acquired by money or the value of money. But the רמב''ם holds that if the owner is a idolater he can only accept money. [כסף ממכרו. And I would say that תוספות agrees with this because it is an open verse]. At any rate, רב שך says the sort of acquisition by which a עבד עברי is bought back from his owner who is an idolater is monetary. This is different from the type of acquisition he is acquired from an Israeli master. That is an acquisition that applies to his work, not his body. For we know that by קניין כסף we need something to be the coin that does the acquiring and something else to be the thing that is acquired. [Now the value of money can also cause a monetary acquisition, but that is by קניין חליפים.] At any rate, I was at the beach and wondering why this makes a difference? After all if a Hebrew slave is acquired by a Israeli master by the value of money and from a idolater master only by money, then anyway it is a half of a derivation. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים But on the way back it occurred to me that we learn a wife from a Hebrew slave being acquired from a Israeli master because she is more like that. I mean both the Hebrew slave and the wife are not property in the same way as in a monetary transaction. Rather the acquisition applies to certain obligations that they are required to do and certain rights they get by way of their status as a slave or as a wife. So if we have a choice to learn from which case then from which case do we learn? Obviously the one that is closer. David Bronson was the first one to point out to me that there are different types of acquisitions. The most obvious example is that of renting. There is there an acquisition, but not the same type as if there was a sale.
רב שך שואל כיצד יכול היה הרמב''ם ללמוד את העובדה שאישה נרכשת על ידי שווה כסף. בעוד שתוספות לומדים א זאת מעבד עברי. הפסוק אומר כסף ישיב לבעליו לרבות שווה כסף. שכן עבד עברי נרכש בכסף או בערך כסף. אבל הרמב''ם מחזיק שאם הבעלים הוא עובד אלילים הוא יכול לקבל רק כסף. [כסף ממכרו. והייתי אומר שתוספות מסכימים עם זה כי זה פסוק פתוח]. מכל מקום, רב שך אומר שסוג הרכישה שבאמצעותו עבד עברי נקנה בחזרה מבעליו שהוא עובד אלילים היא כספית. זה שונה מסוג הרכישה שהוא נרכש ישראלי. זו רכישה שחלה על העבודה שלו, כי אנחנו יודעים שעל ידי קניין כסף אנחנו צריכים שמשהו יהיה המטבע שעושה את הרכישה ומשהו אחר שיהיה הדבר הנרכש. [עכשיו ערך הכסף יכול לגרום גם לרכישה כספית, אבל זה על ידי קניין חליפים.] בכל מקרה, תהיתי למה זה משנה? הרי אם עבד עברי נרכש על ידי אדון ישראלי בערך כסף ומאדון עובד אלילים רק בכסף, אז ממילא זה חצי גזירה. ואין גזירה שווה לחצאים. אבל עלה בדעתי שאנחנו לומדים אישהמעסד עברי שנרכש מאדון ישראלי כי היא יותר כזו. כלומר גם העבד העברי וגם האישה אינם רכוש כמו בעסקה כספית. אלא הרכישה חלה על חובות מסוימות שהם נדרשים לעשות וזכויות מסוימות שהם מקבלים בדרך של מעמדם כעבד או כאישה. אז אם יש לנו ברירה ללמוד מאיזה מצב אז מאיזה מצב אנחנו לומדים? ברור המצב היותר קרוב. דיוויד ברונסון היה הראשון שציין בפניי שיש סוגים שונים של רכישות. הדוגמא הברורה ביותר היא זו של שכירות. יש רכישה, אבל לא אותו סוג כאילו הייתה מכירה.
