tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post1636275249306683748..comments2024-03-05T21:22:43.426-05:00Comments on parshablog: How has the eved ivri served you 'twice as much as a hired servant'?joshwaxmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03516171362038454070noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-6570380848642490862011-08-24T15:34:56.150-04:002011-08-24T15:34:56.150-04:00Thanks for elaborating/ clarifying.
But regarding...Thanks for elaborating/ clarifying.<br /><br />But regarding your second post, it only seems to make sense if we apply the ibn Ezra that the allusion to the hireling was for sake of precision. So what if 1 is part of 3, why mention it unless in terms of exactness and precision. And then the whole proof falls.Jrnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-21328462930245737632011-08-24T14:27:25.776-04:002011-08-24T14:27:25.776-04:00or, alternatively, not something so developed.
ra...or, alternatively, not something so developed.<br /><br />rather, 3 years is the maximum. we know that from the pasuk in Devarim which assumes it. one pasuk in Yeshaya refers to a sachir for 3 years, which is the maximum. another pasuk refers to a sachir for one year, which is less than the maximum, but certainly within the allowed range. and according to ibn ezra, they were hired for precise, fixed years.<br /><br />so, there is within the maximum (=200, or 3), a smaller amount (=100, or 1).<br /><br />i think this is a fine answer.joshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-59080150413970543452011-08-24T14:19:05.003-04:002011-08-24T14:19:05.003-04:00thanks! very interesting.
it sounds to me that Ra...thanks! very interesting.<br /><br />it sounds to me that Rav Chaim Kanievsky was giving the same answer i was giving. יש בכלל מאתים מנה means that within 200 (matayim), there is 100 (a maneh). Similarly, within the 3 year maximum, there is a single year.<br /><br />The idea would be that the first prophecy was made at time 0, while the second was made at time 2. Yeshaya was alluding to the earlier prophecy, such that the three-year hireling is now only a one-year hireling.<br /><br />yes, I still see difficulties in this, because the phrase no longer is (as strong a?) proof that there is a 3 year maximum.<br /><br />kol tuv,<br />joshjoshwaxmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05149022516101476797noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5589564.post-69598256661918235862011-08-24T14:11:57.605-04:002011-08-24T14:11:57.605-04:00The tosfos in kiddushin 17a also says like the ibn...The tosfos in kiddushin 17a also says like the ibn Ezra or ibn kaspi and mentions verse in yeshaya as proof. I was always bothered by this bc of the other verse (of one year) and subsequently found this question in kli yakar in mishpatim. Now I know it's much earlier question.<br /><br />I don't understand your answer, even if two years passed, why would it say כשכיר שנה if only one year is left.<br /><br />I once asked rav Chaim Kanyevsky and he wrote יש בכלל מאתים מנה and I have no idea what he meant. It doesn't seem like he knew that it's a question from the rishonim (assuming he understood my question).Jrnoreply@blogger.com