[Avodah] She-lo Asani Isha

[Chana Luntz]

RAF writes:
> In continuation of my previous post to Chana Luntz, my brother (R.
> Prof.) Dov Frimer writes:
> 
> Aryeh, we already anticipated this in our WPG article around footnote
> 26-  or more accurately the Rav did. See RHS, Eretz Hatzvi pp 96, at
> length, where the Rav explains that an eved has only miktzat keddushat
> yisrael - and therefore has certain partial OBLIGATIONS - while a woman
> has complete kiddushat yisrael with partial EXEMPTIONS. While the
> bottom line may be similar with regards to the performance of mitzvoth
> aseh shz״g, the starting points are at exactly opposite poles.


The problem I see with this is, that the exemption for avadim in relation to mitzvas aseh shehazman grama is learnt out a gezera shava "la", "la" from the obligations of a woman, as is explicit in Chagiga 4a.  So I just can't see how anybody can claim that the nature of the exemption is different. However such an exemption is characterised, whether as partial obligations or partial exemptions, whatever applies to the one has to apply to the other.  (I am not aware of anybody denying the validity of this gezera shava - as far as I am aware the only question is whether it only applies to mitzvas aseh shehazman grama or to all mitzvos that a woman is patur from).

Note by the way that the actual gezera shava is between the pasuk dealing with the giving of a get isha, and the pasuk dealing with a get shichrur of a shifcha.  And that brings me to the other parallel, that of marriage.  The situation with a married woman and an eved is again parallel (I erred when I referred to an amoni or moavi, because there, while the marriage is forbidden, it is still chal if performed).  In the case of a married woman, any other marriage cannot be chal, unless and until her husband gives her a get (or he dies).  I would have said that this was part of (if not the essence of) the shibud to which Rashi refers, because the husband (while forbidden by the takana of Rabbanu Gershom to remarry) retains the d'orisa power to marry others, while a woman does not.  Similarly a marriage between an eved and a free Jewess is not chal, unless and until the master gives a get shichror.  I would have characterised the nature of that inability as due to the shibud of the eved to the master, and that by issuing the get (whether to an eved or an isha) what the master is doing (and remember in both cases he does it unilaterally, all he needs is witnesses, there is no formal requirement for a beis din) is removing the shibud.

Now once you characterise what the master does by giving a get shichror as in fact conferring kidushas yisroel (or most of kidushas yisroel) on an eved, you fundamentally change the nature of the parallel between a get shichror and a get isha - a parallel that runs throughout the halacha, where there are constant references back and forth - unless of course you say that on marriage a woman loses some part of her kedushas yisrael, only to get it back on the receipt of a get or the death of her husband.  Also, you have to deal with the question as to the nature of the relationship between an eved ivri and a shifcha.  Does he also lose some of his kedushas yisrael in order to be able to marry her (but then he can have, and according to many is required to have, a wife who is not a shifcha as well as the shifcha)? 

Unless of course kedushas yisrael is such a weak concept that it really doesn't matter that it breaks the parallel between the get shichror and the get isha.  But even if you accept that an eved has some reduced form of kidushas yisroel, and thus the parallels are broken between a get isha and a get shichror in terms of what it achieves, even so, you still have to contend with the gezera shava, that clearly learns the mitzvah obligations of an eved from an isha, meaning that kedushas yisrael or no, the level of mitzvah obligations would seem to have nothing to do with this.  

> Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer

Shabbat shalom

Chana