QUESTION: The Gemara cites a source to prove that an Amah Ivriyah is acquired through Kinyan Kesef from the verse, "v'Hefdah" (Shemos 21:8), which teaches the Halachah of Gira'on Kesef.

How does the verse of "v'Hefdah" imply that the Amah Ivriyah is acquired through Kesef? Perhaps she is acquired only through Shtar, and the Gira'on Kesef is accomplished by calculating the amount of money that was paid for her? How does the verse imply that the payment of money itself accomplishes a Kinyan? (RAMBAN)

(a) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH explains that the Gemara does not need a new source to teach that an Amah Ivriyah is acquired through Kinyan Kesef, since this is derived from the law of an Eved Ivri. The Gemara already proved that an Eved Ivri who is sold to a Nochri is acquired through Kinyan Kesef. Rather, the Gemara seeks a source that the Kinyan Kesef also applies to an Eved Ivri or Amah Ivriyah who was sold to a Jew. The verse of Gira'on Kesef suffices (as a "Giluy Milsa") to teach that the Kinyan of an Amah Ivriyah -- who is freed with Gira'on Kesef -- is similar to the Kinyan of an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri who is also freed with Gira'on Kesef; just as both are freed with Gira'on Kesef, both are acquired with Kinyan Kesef.

(b) The RAMBAN, RASHBA, and other Rishonim cite RABEINU TAM who explains that the Gemara's intention is to compare the method of acquisition of an Amah Ivriyah to the method of her emancipation. Since the Amah goes free with a transfer of money (i.e. Gira'on Kesef), she is also acquired with a transfer of money. (See also TOSFOS RID to 21b.)

(c) RABEINU TAM as cited by the TOSFOS RID (21b) suggests a different approach. The Gemara assumes that the Gira'on Kesef must be done with the actual money used to acquire her and not just with the value of the Amah. According to this explanation, an Amah who is purchased with a Kinyan Shtar is not freed with Gira'on Kesef. (Although the Gemara on 12a points out that an Amah cannot be purchased with a Perutah because Gira'on Kesef cannot be done with less than a Perutah, she nevertheless may be acquired with a Kinyan Shtar since it is possible to perform Gira'on Kesef when she is purchased with Kesef.)

This seems to be the opinion of RASHI (DH she'Megara'as), who writes that when the master acquired the Amah with a form of Kinyan other than Kesef, there is nothing with which to perform Gira'on Kesef.

The MINCHAS CHINUCH (43:1) discusses the words of the Tosfos Rid at length. He cites support for the Tosfos Rid from the Gemara (end of 11b) which proves that the Kinyan Kesef of an Amah must be done with at least two Perutos or a Dinar in order to allow for the possibility of redeeming her with Gira'on Kesef. If the Gira'on Kesef is calculated based on the value of the Amah and not based on the money used to acquire her, what is the proof that the Kinyan Kesef of an Amah must be two Perutos? Perhaps the Kinyan takes effect with a Perutah, while the master remains obligated to pay the rest of the money as a debt to the father! It must be that the Gira'on Kesef is calculated based on the money used to acquire her, and thus that money must be at least two Perutos.

The Gemara later (20b), however, seems to contradict the assertion of the Tosfos Rid. The Gemara teaches that if an Eved Ivri was sold for a sum of 200 Zuz and his value later depreciated to 100 Zuz, the Eved may redeem himself with Gira'on Kesef by giving 100 Zuz (minus the value of the amount he worked). If the Gira'on Kesef is calculated according to the amount of money used for his initial purchase and not according to the true value of the Eved, what difference does it make if the Eved's value decreases? The Kesef used for the Kinyan is still 200 Zuz!

According to the Tosfos Rid, apparently this Halachah is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv which the Torah established in order to make it easier for the Eved to redeem himself. (The Gemara there derives this Halachah from the verse, "Kefi Shanav" (Vayikra 25:52).)

QUESTION: The Gemara seeks the source for the law that an Eved who sells himself ("Mocher Atzmo," in contrast to one who is sold by Beis Din) is acquired through Kesef. Although there is a source for the Kinyan Kesef of an Eved sold by Beis Din ("Machruhu Beis Din"), perhaps such a Kinyan works only when Beis Din sells him, since Beis Din sells him against his will. RASHI explains that the fact that the sale of such an Eved may be done against his will shows that such a sale is easier to execute, and thus it is logical that his sale should take effect merely with Kesef and does not need Chazakah.

Why does Rashi suggest that without the verse, an Eved Ivri would be acquired only through Chazakah? An Eved Ivri cannot be acquired through Chazakah, as the Gemara (16a) derives from the verse, "v'Hisnachaltem Osam" (Vayikra 25:46)! Rashi should explain instead that without the verse which teaches Kinyan Kesef, an Eved Ivri would be acquired only through Meshichah, since -- as Rashi writes earlier -- Meshichah is the proper form of Kinyan for the acquisition of Metaltelin (movable objects).

(a) The PNEI YEHOSHUA explains that Rashi here uses the word "Chazakah" to mean Meshichah, the Kinyan made on Metaltelin. The act of Meshichah involves "holding on" ("Chazakah") to the object.

(b) HE'OROS B'MASECHES KIDUSHIN suggests that perhaps Rashi does not consider Meshichah an appropriate Kinyan for an Eved Ivri because he maintains that an Eved Ivri is compared to land. According to Rashi, the Torah compares not only an Eved Kena'ani to land, but it also compares an Eved Ivri (and even a free person) to land. (See Rashi to 7a, DH she'Yesh, and see Insights there.)