4a bottom and 2b top
Lemaskono, The drosho of the gemoro of 'mi sheeyn lo eloh odon echod' only refers to a chatzi eved when we are not forced to free him, because a full eved is potur from zechur-excluding women. And a chatzi eved that we are forced to free, has only got one master and he is chayav in reiyoh.
My question is, Why does beis shamai say we have to force the eved to be freed because the world was made for sheves, so we see that hashem doesn't want this chatzi eved to be bottul from pirya vrivyah.
But the torah made a special drosho exclusively for a chatzi eved, who is not being forced to be freed, that he is potur from reiyoh. So obviously the torah never intended to force this chatzi eved to be freed. So why should we make a takonoh for this eved, when you see clearly the torah was talking about a chatzi eved as if he did not need to be forced to be freed, so obviously the torah doesn't care about sheves by this eved??
Avrumi Hersh, London england
The Torah made a drosho to exempt a chatzi eved from reiyoh. Therefore we would not make a special takonah that the master be forced to set him free just so that he can do reiyoh, since he has a petur from this. But the Mitzvah of having children is different. "The world was only created to be fruitful and mulitply" (top 2b). No exemption helps to avoid this Mitzvah. The Teshuvas Avnei Nezer Even Ha'Ezer 1:9 writes that, if necessary, a person has to spend all his money in order to fulfil the Mitzva of Pru uRevu. Since we make a man give all his money for this Mitzvah, we also force the master to set the eved free so that he can do the Mitzvah.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
Follow-up reply:
I should just add that one does not actually have to come on to the Avnei Nezer in order to answer this question, although it does sharpen the awareness of the importance of the Mitzvah of Pru uRevu, when we see that it has no financial limits.
To answer the question it is sufficient to say the difference between the Mitzvah of Pru uRevu and the Mitzvah of reiyoh is that for Pru uRevu there is Tikun HaOlam, as we learn on 2b. To give birth to children establishes the world, which is why we force the eved to be freed, whilst Tikun HaOlam is not applicable for the Mitzvah of reiyoh.
Dovid Bloom
Uprooting a Mitzvah entirely:
1) A friend suggested that your question can be understood based on a famous idea of the Taz. We know that when Rosh Hashana falls on Shabbos, one does not blow the Shofar because we are worried that they might carry the Shofar in Reshus Harabim to ask help from an expert on how to do the blowing. We see that even though blowing the Shofar is a Torah Mitzvah, Chazal have the power to make a Gezera to uproot the Mitzvah. The question is why did Chazal not say that on Yomtov also one may not blow because the Shofar might get broken and people will mend the Shofar on Yomtov, which is a Torah prohibiton?! The Taz Orach Chaim 588:5 answers that Chazal do not possess the power to make a Gezera to uproot a Torah Mitzvah totally. The Torah said to blow the shofar on Yomtov, so Chazal cannot say that we can never do so, even when Yomtov falls on a weekday.
2) So we can ask the same question about the half eved. We see that there is a drasha that he is exempt from reiyoh, so how can Beis Shamai force the master to free him and make him do reiyoh?!
3) The answer is to be found in Rashi Berachos top 20a DH Shev. If Chazal do not actively uproot the Mitzvah but it is "Ne'ekar Me'ailav"; indirectly uprooted; this is acceptable. Here too, Beis Shamai forced the master to free the half eved in order to carry out Pri uRevu, and indirectly it means that he can also carry out reiyoh.
Dovid Bloom
My question is, that you see clearly that the torah's standard does not require that he be freed to fulfill pru urvu. Otherwise the torah would not have had a special drosho that is unique to his situation by the case of reiyah.
From the fact that the torah discusses his Din in particular, it tells us that the torah does not require that he should be freed?
Ali, I think you did this once before! You have asked the question of Rabbi Akiva Eiger in Drush veChidush here!
Rabbi Akiva Eiger answers that the drasha of the Torah is required to exempt a eunuch from reyioh. We do not force the master of a eunuch to set him free because anyway he cannot have children. He is exempt from reiyoh
because he has more than one master. This is the kind of eved that the Torah's standard does not require to set free.
Thanks
Dovid Bloom
Answer of Rabeinu Avraham Min HaHar:-
One of the Rishonim here in Chagigah; R. Avraham min Hahar; writes that someone who is a half eved, half free, is obliged in all other Mitzvos of the Torah because of his half free side. It is only for the Mitzvah of reiyoh that he is exempt because of the special verse that states that he must see the face of the Master, which teaches that only a person who has only one master is obliged. I think that this answers your question, since we see that the Torah wants him to do every mitzvah apart from reiyoh. We can therefore say that the Torah also wants him to fulfil Pru uRevu. It is only if he has not yet been freed that he is exempt from reiyoh but the Torah never said he should not be set free.
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom
The Torah does not only discuss ideal situations:-
1) Firstly, I want to summarise what we saw above in the name of Rabeinu Avraham min Hahar and Rabbi Akiva Eiger.
One sees from both of these mefarshim that the half eved situation is not an ideal one, but it is a situation that the Torah deals with. There is a line in Rabeinu Avraham min Hahar (which I do did not cite clearly above) that reads:
"As long as he has not been set free, he is exempt from reiyoh".
We see that even though Beis Shamai say that it is best that the master be forced to free him, nevertheless it is possible that this does not always happen. For instance, the master might be a powerful and unco-operative individual who it is difficult to force to do what he does not want to. For such a scenario, or similar ones, the Torah says that before we manage to force the release, the eved is patur from reiyoh.
R. Akiva Eiger gives another example of a master who is not forced to release; where the eved is not physically capable of having children. This is another non-ideal situation. We are very sorry for the eved that he cannot have children, but clearly there is no justification in forcing his release since he can anyway not fulfil Pru uRevu.
2) I argue that the Torah does sometimes discuss bedieved situations. Dvarim 6:11 tells us that when Bnei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael they will take over "houses full of all good things". Chulin 17a tells us that they are even allowed to eat chazir that they find inside the houses, but the Rambam Hilchos Melachim 8:1 writes that this only applies if they are hungry and cannot find anything else to eat apart from these forbidden foods. One sees that the Torah is discussing a scenario which it prefers should not happen.
Another example may be the Mitzvah of appointing a king over Am Yisrael. The Torah states (Dvarim 17:14) "When you will come to the Land....and you will say 'I will appoint a king like all the nations around me'". The Ramban there in Chumash writes that this is hinting at what will happen in the future, when the People asked Shmuel Hanovi (1 Shmuel 8:5) "Give us a king who will judge us like all the Goyim". This is unworthy for Klal Yisrael; that they should want a king just like the Goyim; but to our regret it happened, and the Torah does relate to this.
3) So we can say that the half eved scenario is not ideal, and it is much better that he should be set free, but the Torah also tells us what the Halacha is if for some reason he has not been released.
Dovid Bloom