Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

December 25, 2015 | 讬状讙 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 12

The gemara attempts to聽determine whether or not an owner of a slave can say to his slave “work for me (I will get the proceeds) and I will not support you.”

Study Guide Gittin 12


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

Perhaps that is not so. Perhaps this is not the point of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. There are two ways to explain why this might not be the case. First, it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion only there, when the person took possession of the pe鈥檃 despite not being eligible to collect it for himself, since if the one who collected the produce desired, he could declare his property ownerless and become a poor person, and then the produce would have been fit for him to retain for himself. And since he could have acquired the pe鈥檃 for himself, he can likewise acquire it for another as well. However, here, where he seizes property on behalf of a creditor, he cannot seize this property for himself. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer does not rule that he can do so when it is against the interests of another person.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇注谞讬 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇讜 诇注谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

Second, one can argue from the opposite perspective: The Rabbis state their opinion only there, that one cannot acquire on behalf of the poor person, as it is written: 鈥淭he corner of your field you shall not reap and the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather; for the poor you shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22), and the Sages expounded this verse by reading it as though there were no break in the middle: You shall not gather for the poor, i.e., the poor person must collect the produce for himself. However, here, where one seizes property on behalf of a creditor, this verse does not apply, and therefore the Rabbis did not rule that the action of the third party is ineffective. Consequently, it is possible that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is not with regard to the issue of whether one can seize property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讝讛讬专 诇注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Eliezer, with regard to this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not gather,鈥 what does he do with it? How does he interpret this phrase, from which the Rabbis derived that one may not collect pe鈥檃 on behalf of a poor person? The Gemara answers: He requires it to warn a poor person with regard to his own field, i.e., if a poor person had a field of his own he is not permitted to gather pe鈥檃 from it for himself, his poverty notwithstanding.

砖讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讻讜壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

搂 The mishna taught: As, if the master wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed to act accordingly. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the mishna that the master is legally able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not a conclusive proof, as with what are we dealing here, in the mishna? We are dealing with a case where he said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. In other words, I will not provide for you; rather, you must work and earn money for your sustenance on your own. However, this does not mean that a master can force his slave to work for him without providing him with sustenance.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 讗砖讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗砖讛 讘讚诇讗 住驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding situation in the mishna with regard to a wife, will one explain that he could have said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself? The mishna rules that one cannot exempt himself from his obligation to provide sustenance for his wife. In the case of a wife, why may he not do so? It is certainly permitted for a husband to stipulate with his wife that she will keep her earnings and not receive sustenance from him, yet it is clear in the mishna that there is a difference between a slave and a wife with regard to his ability to refuse to provide sustenance. The Gemara answers: The wife mentioned in the mishna is one whose earnings are not sufficient for her sustenance, and in that case the husband may not stipulate in this manner.

注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讚诇讗 住驻讬拽 注讘讚讗 讚谞讛讜诐 讻专住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬讗 诇诪专讬讛 讜诇诪专转讬讛 诇诪讗讬 诪讬转讘注讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the slave also is referring to a situation where his earnings are not sufficient for his sustenance, and he is unable to sustain himself. Nevertheless, his master can refuse to sustain him. Therefore, one can conclude from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. The Gemara explains: A slave who is not worth the bread that he consumes, for what is he needed by his master or his mistress? If the value of his labor does not even pay for the cost of his sustenance why is he needed at all? The mishna certainly does not refer to a case of this kind. By contrast, with regard to a wife, the marriage does not depend on her ability to provide for herself by means of her earnings. Consequently, one cannot prove from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

转讗 砖诪注 注讘讚 砖讙诇讛 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讗讬谉 专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讝讜谞讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 诇专讘讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a baraita (Tosefta, Makkot 2:8): With regard to a slave who unintentionally killed someone and was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, his master is not required to sustain him. And not only that, but his earnings in his city of refuge belong to his master. Conclude from the baraita that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, as in the case of a slave exiled to a city of refuge the master is entitled to his earnings despite not providing for him. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the master said to him: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讗诪讗讬 诇专讘讜 诇讛注讚驻讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if the master said this to the slave, then why do his earnings belong to his master? After all, his master stipulated that he should sustain himself. The Gemara answers: This halakha is referring to his surplus earnings, i.e., if the slave works and earns more than the cost of his sustenance, his surplus income belongs to the master.

讛注讚驻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that any surplus belongs to the master, as he owns the slave? The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that since, when he does not work enough the master does not give him all he needs to eat, then when he has a surplus from his work the master should also not take it. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that despite this consideration the surplus belongs to the master.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讞讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And what is different with regard to a slave who was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, concerning whom the baraita was stated? According to this reasoning, the surplus should belong to the master no matter where the slave is located. The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to one who is exiled to a city of refuge: 鈥淎nd that fleeing to one of these cities he might live鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:42), one should act for him so that he has extra life, i.e., in this specific case the slave should be allowed to retain any additional amount he earns. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that no special obligation of this kind applies even if the slave had been exiled to a city of refuge.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 砖讙诇转讛 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of that baraita teaches: However, with regard to a woman who was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, her husband is obligated in her sustenance, by inference the baraita is dealing with a case where he did not say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, which is why he must sustain her. As, if he said this to her, why is her husband obligated to provide her with sustenance?

讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛

And from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is speaking about a case where he did not say this to her, it may be inferred that the first clause is also dealing with a situation where he did not say to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. The two clauses of the baraita must be referring to similar cases or they would not be taught together.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗砖讛 讘讚诇讗 住驻拽讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: Actually, the baraita is referring to a case where the master said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and the husband issued a similar statement to his wife. However, in the case of a woman it is referring to a situation when her earnings are not sufficient for her sustenance.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诪住驻拽转 讜讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬

The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the last clause teaches: And if the husband said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted to act accordingly, it may be inferred that the first half of the last clause is referring to a case where he did not say this to her. The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: And if her earnings suffice to pay for her sustenance, and he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, it is permitted for him to say that.

诪住驻拽转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 讻讘讜讚讛 讘转 诪诇讱 驻谞讬诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where her earnings suffice, what is the purpose of stating this halakha with regard to one who was exiled to a city of refuge? The same halakha applies to all wives. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that in light of the verse: 鈥淎ll glorious is the king鈥檚 daughter within the palace鈥 (Psalms 45:14), from which it is derived that it is improper for a wife to spend too much time outside her home, this woman鈥檚 husband should be concerned that while his wife is in a city of refuge she should not work out of the home, but only in the home. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that there is no need to be concerned about this matter, and her husband may say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, even in a city of refuge.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛注讘讚 诇讜诪专 诇专讘讜 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚 专讘讜

With regard to the question of whether a master can decide to cease providing sustenance for his slave while the slave continues to serve him, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A slave can say to his master in years of famine: Either sustain me from your property or emancipate me. And the Rabbis say: His master has permission to retain his ownership over him without sustaining him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讻讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇

What, is it not correct to say that they disagree about this issue, that one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a master can say to his slave that he should work for him and he will not sustain him. Consequently, he is not required to emancipate him even when he cannot provide for him. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the master cannot say this, and therefore he is required to free him.

讜转讬住讘专讗 讛讗讬 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬 讘驻专谞住转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转

The Gemara responds: And can you understand the dispute that way? If so, this expression: Either sustain me or emancipate me, is inaccurate, as the baraita should have said: Either sustain me or give me my earnings for my sustenance. And furthermore, if the dispute concerns this general issue, what is different about years of famine? The same dispute should apply in all years.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 讜讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 诇讗 住驻拽

Rather, with what are we dealing here? This baraita is referring to a case where the master said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and subsequently, during years of famine, the slave鈥檚 earnings do not suffice to provide himself with sustenance, as prices are higher than usual.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讞讝讜 诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讗谉 讚诪专讞诐 讗讘谞讬 讞专讬 讗注讘讚 谞诪讬 专讞讜诪讬 诪专讞诐

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in this case the slave can say to his master: Either sustain me or emancipate me, so that people will see me in my helpless state, and they will have mercy on me and provide me with charity. And the Rabbis hold that this is not a justification for emancipating a slave, as those who have mercy on freemen will also have mercy on a slave. Consequently, it is not necessary for the slave to be emancipated for him to receive help from generous people. According to this interpretation, the baraita has no bearing on the question as to whether a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 诇讜讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讜注讜砖讛 讜驻讜专注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a statement that Rav said: In the case of one who consecrates the hands of his slave, so that all the work he does becomes Temple property, preventing the slave from working on his own behalf, then that slave borrows and eats, and afterward performs work and repays what he borrowed, as will be explained. Conclude from Rav鈥檚 statement that the master is able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. In this case the master has prevented his slave from working for himself, and yet he is not required to provide for him.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讬

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a case where the master provides sustenance for him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, for what reason

诇讜讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛注讚驻讛

does he find it necessary to borrow and eat? After all, his master provides for him. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讚砖 注讚 讛砖转讗 住讙讬 诇讱 讘诇讗 讛注讚驻讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 转讬住讙讬 诇讱 讘诇讗 讛注讚驻讛 讛拽讚砖 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖讘讞 注讘讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Temple treasurer say to him: Until now it was enough for you without a surplus; now too it should be enough for you without a surplus. Why do you seek more now? Consequently, the consecration should apply to this surplus as well. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to the Temple treasury itself that he work and eat more, so that the value of its slave will be enhanced when he consumes this extra amount, as he will become stronger.

注讜砖讛 讜驻讜专注 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

搂 It was stated that the slave borrows and eats and afterward performs work and repays the loan. The Gemara asks: But his work immediately becomes consecrated, as his hands have been consecrated. How, then, can he repay this loan? The Gemara answers: The slave performs work of less than the value of one peruta. Anything worth less than one peruta does not become consecrated. Therefore he can collect these small sums and repay his debt little by little.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诪讗谉 驻诇讞 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rav is referring to a case where the master provides sustenance for him. As Rav says: With regard to one who consecrates the hands of his slave, that slave works and eats, as, if the slave does not work for himself, who will work and provide for him? This ruling indicates that Rav maintains that consecration does not apply to the slave鈥檚 hands.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讱 讘诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讜讛讗 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 砖驻讬专

The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that this earlier halakha that Rav said, that the slave borrows and repays, refers to a situation where his master provides sustenance for him, and this is because in general he cannot say to him: Work for me but I will not sustain you, and this second halakha is referring to a case where his master does not provide him with sustenance, and therefore he cannot consecrate the slave鈥檚 hands, it is well, as there is no contradiction between the two statements of Rav.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讱 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 讜讬讻讜诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诪讗谉 驻诇讞 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 谞讬驻诇讞讬讛

However, if you say that this first halakha is also speaking of a case where his master does not provide sustenance for him, and the consecration is effective because he can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, then what is the meaning of the statement: As, if the slave does not work for himself who will work for him? Let whoever desires work for him, i.e., the slave will be compelled to sustain himself from charity, but this is not the master鈥檚 concern.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from here that Rav holds that a master cannot say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed conclude from here that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 砖讘转讜 讜专驻讜讗转讜 诇专讘讜 讜讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 谞讬讝讜谉 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another source concerning the same dilemma, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who severs the hand of another鈥檚 slave must give compensation for his loss of livelihood, i.e., compensation for the slave鈥檚 inability to work as a result of his injury, and the slave鈥檚 medical costs to his master. And that slave, who can no longer work, is sustained from charity. Conclude from Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that the master is able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, as otherwise the master would not receive compensation for his time in the form of payment for the slave鈥檚 earnings while the slave lives off of charity.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讝讜谉 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 诇讛注讚驻讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a case where his master provides sustenance for him. The Gemara asks: If so, why is he sustained from charity? He already has sustenance. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讝讜谉 诪转驻专谞住 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the phrase: Sustained from charity, is imprecise, as it indicates that he is provided only with enough for his basic needs. It should have said: He earns a living from charity. Rather, must one not conclude from his statement that Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that the master can to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed conclude from his statement that this is the case.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 砖讘转讜 讜专驻讜讗转讜 诇专讘讜 砖讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 专驻讜讗转讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara discusses the aforementioned halakha. The Master says earlier: He must give compensation for the slave鈥檚 loss of livelihood and his medical costs to his master. The Gemara comments: With regard to compensation for loss of livelihood, it is obvious that this is the halakha, as the master incurs the loss when his slave does not work, and therefore it was necessary for the Sages to mention only that the compensation for his medical costs goes to his master.

专驻讜讗转讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬转住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪讚讜讛 诇讞诪砖讗 讬讜诪讬 讜注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 住诪讗 讞专讬驻讗 讜讗转住讬 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: Why is the payment for his medical costs given to his master? Shouldn鈥檛 the compensation for his medical costs belong to him, as he needs to be healed with it? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where doctors estimated that the blow or wound would heal in five days and they made a strong medicine for him, and he was healed in three days instead of five. Lest you say: Since the pain suffered by the slave by taking the strong medicine that caused a decrease in the costs of healing was his, the money should belong to him, Rabbi Yo岣nan therefore teaches us that this is not the case, as even this money belongs to the master, not the slave.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专谞讜 诇讜 诇诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讜 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 注讘讚 讻讛谉 驻讜住诇讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诪专谞讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谞讜 讜砖诇讗 诇驻专谞住讜 专砖讗讬

搂 With regard to the discussion in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5) that Rabbi Elazar said: We said to Meir: But isn鈥檛 it in the interest of a slave to leave his master to freedom? He said to us: It is to his detriment, as if he were the slave of a priest, then by emancipating him the master thereby disqualifies him from partaking of teruma. We said to him: But what would be if the master wishes not to sustain him and not to provide him with a living? He is permitted to do so. Therefore, the slave does not lose out when he is emancipated, as he was not guaranteed sustenance in any event.

讗诪专 诇谞讜 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖讘专讞 讜讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖诪专讚讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讛 砖讻谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Meir said to us: Even if the master is not obligated to provide for him, it is still permitted for the slave to partake of teruma. The proof for this is the following case: And what would be if there were the slave of a priest, who fled from his master, or in the case of the wife of a priest, who rebelled against her husband, i.e., she refused to fulfill her obligations as a married woman? Are they not permitted to partake of teruma, although not the teruma belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of teruma. But this slave who was emancipated may not partake of teruma at all, even teruma that belongs to other priests. But in any event, in the case of a woman, a bill of divorce is to her detriment, as it disqualifies her from partaking of teruma and causes her to lose her sustenance.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛砖讘转讜谞讬 注诇 讛诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讛 转砖讬讘讜谞讬 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What did the Rabbis say to Rabbi Meir, and what did he respond to them? In other words, the two sides do not appear to be discussing the same issue, as the Rabbis refer to sustenance while Rabbi Meir talks about teruma. The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to them: You have answered me about sustenance, that the master is not required to provide for his slave. However, what will you answer me about teruma?

讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 讜注专讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 诇注诇诪讗

And if you were to say that the acceptance of the document by the agent is not to the slave鈥檚 detriment, as in any event if the master desires, he can throw the bill of manumission within four cubits of the slave and thereby disqualify him from partaking of teruma; the slave can prevent this from occurring by leaving his master, and escaping and going out to the world. If he acts in this manner his master will be unable to emancipate him, and he can continue partaking of teruma.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 12

讚诇诪讗 诇讗 讛讬讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚诪讬讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬 诪驻拽专 诇讛讜 诇谞讻住讬讛 讜讛讜讬 注谞讬 讜讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜诪讬讙讜 讚讝讻讬 诇讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛 讝讻讬 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

Perhaps that is not so. Perhaps this is not the point of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. There are two ways to explain why this might not be the case. First, it is possible that Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion only there, when the person took possession of the pe鈥檃 despite not being eligible to collect it for himself, since if the one who collected the produce desired, he could declare his property ownerless and become a poor person, and then the produce would have been fit for him to retain for himself. And since he could have acquired the pe鈥檃 for himself, he can likewise acquire it for another as well. However, here, where he seizes property on behalf of a creditor, he cannot seize this property for himself. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer does not rule that he can do so when it is against the interests of another person.

讜注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇注谞讬 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诇讜 诇注谞讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诇讗

Second, one can argue from the opposite perspective: The Rabbis state their opinion only there, that one cannot acquire on behalf of the poor person, as it is written: 鈥淭he corner of your field you shall not reap and the gleaning of your harvest you shall not gather; for the poor you shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22), and the Sages expounded this verse by reading it as though there were no break in the middle: You shall not gather for the poor, i.e., the poor person must collect the produce for himself. However, here, where one seizes property on behalf of a creditor, this verse does not apply, and therefore the Rabbis did not rule that the action of the third party is ineffective. Consequently, it is possible that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is not with regard to the issue of whether one can seize property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讗讬 诇讗 转诇拽讟 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讝讛讬专 诇注谞讬 注诇 砖诇讜

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Eliezer, with regard to this verse: 鈥淵ou shall not gather,鈥 what does he do with it? How does he interpret this phrase, from which the Rabbis derived that one may not collect pe鈥檃 on behalf of a poor person? The Gemara answers: He requires it to warn a poor person with regard to his own field, i.e., if a poor person had a field of his own he is not permitted to gather pe鈥檃 from it for himself, his poverty notwithstanding.

砖讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谉 讻讜壮 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

搂 The mishna taught: As, if the master wishes not to sustain his slave he is allowed to act accordingly. The Gemara comments: Conclude from the mishna that the master is legally able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not a conclusive proof, as with what are we dealing here, in the mishna? We are dealing with a case where he said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. In other words, I will not provide for you; rather, you must work and earn money for your sustenance on your own. However, this does not mean that a master can force his slave to work for him without providing him with sustenance.

讚讻讜讜转讛 讙讘讬 讗砖讛 讚讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 讗砖讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗砖讛 讘讚诇讗 住驻拽讗

The Gemara asks: If so, in the corresponding situation in the mishna with regard to a wife, will one explain that he could have said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself? The mishna rules that one cannot exempt himself from his obligation to provide sustenance for his wife. In the case of a wife, why may he not do so? It is certainly permitted for a husband to stipulate with his wife that she will keep her earnings and not receive sustenance from him, yet it is clear in the mishna that there is a difference between a slave and a wife with regard to his ability to refuse to provide sustenance. The Gemara answers: The wife mentioned in the mishna is one whose earnings are not sufficient for her sustenance, and in that case the husband may not stipulate in this manner.

注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讚诇讗 住驻讬拽 注讘讚讗 讚谞讛讜诐 讻专住讬讛 诇讗 砖讜讬讗 诇诪专讬讛 讜诇诪专转讬讛 诇诪讗讬 诪讬转讘注讬

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the slave also is referring to a situation where his earnings are not sufficient for his sustenance, and he is unable to sustain himself. Nevertheless, his master can refuse to sustain him. Therefore, one can conclude from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. The Gemara explains: A slave who is not worth the bread that he consumes, for what is he needed by his master or his mistress? If the value of his labor does not even pay for the cost of his sustenance why is he needed at all? The mishna certainly does not refer to a case of this kind. By contrast, with regard to a wife, the marriage does not depend on her ability to provide for herself by means of her earnings. Consequently, one cannot prove from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

转讗 砖诪注 注讘讚 砖讙诇讛 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讗讬谉 专讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讝讜谞讜 讜诇讗 注讜讚 讗诇讗 砖诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 诇专讘讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear a baraita (Tosefta, Makkot 2:8): With regard to a slave who unintentionally killed someone and was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, his master is not required to sustain him. And not only that, but his earnings in his city of refuge belong to his master. Conclude from the baraita that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, as in the case of a slave exiled to a city of refuge the master is entitled to his earnings despite not providing for him. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? With a case where the master said to him: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 讗诪讗讬 诇专讘讜 诇讛注讚驻讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, if the master said this to the slave, then why do his earnings belong to his master? After all, his master stipulated that he should sustain himself. The Gemara answers: This halakha is referring to his surplus earnings, i.e., if the slave works and earns more than the cost of his sustenance, his surplus income belongs to the master.

讛注讚驻讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 讻讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 诪讬谞讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that any surplus belongs to the master, as he owns the slave? The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, lest you say that since, when he does not work enough the master does not give him all he needs to eat, then when he has a surplus from his work the master should also not take it. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that despite this consideration the surplus belongs to the master.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讞讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 讞讬讜转讗 讟驻讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And what is different with regard to a slave who was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, concerning whom the baraita was stated? According to this reasoning, the surplus should belong to the master no matter where the slave is located. The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to one who is exiled to a city of refuge: 鈥淎nd that fleeing to one of these cities he might live鈥 (Deuteronomy 4:42), one should act for him so that he has extra life, i.e., in this specific case the slave should be allowed to retain any additional amount he earns. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that no special obligation of this kind applies even if the slave had been exiled to a city of refuge.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 砖讙诇转讛 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讚讗讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讗诪讗讬 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But from the fact that the latter clause of that baraita teaches: However, with regard to a woman who was exiled to one of the cities of refuge, her husband is obligated in her sustenance, by inference the baraita is dealing with a case where he did not say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, which is why he must sustain her. As, if he said this to her, why is her husband obligated to provide her with sustenance?

讜诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 专讬砖讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛

And from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is speaking about a case where he did not say this to her, it may be inferred that the first clause is also dealing with a situation where he did not say to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. The two clauses of the baraita must be referring to similar cases or they would not be taught together.

诇注讜诇诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜讗砖讛 讘讚诇讗 住驻拽讛

The Gemara rejects this claim: Actually, the baraita is referring to a case where the master said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and the husband issued a similar statement to his wife. However, in the case of a woman it is referring to a situation when her earnings are not sufficient for her sustenance.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讗诐 诪住驻拽转 讜讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 专砖讗讬

The Gemara raises an objection: But from the fact that the last clause teaches: And if the husband said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted to act accordingly, it may be inferred that the first half of the last clause is referring to a case where he did not say this to her. The Gemara explains that this is what the baraita is saying: And if her earnings suffice to pay for her sustenance, and he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, it is permitted for him to say that.

诪住驻拽转 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻诇 讻讘讜讚讛 讘转 诪诇讱 驻谞讬诪讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: If the baraita is referring to a case where her earnings suffice, what is the purpose of stating this halakha with regard to one who was exiled to a city of refuge? The same halakha applies to all wives. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, lest you say that in light of the verse: 鈥淎ll glorious is the king鈥檚 daughter within the palace鈥 (Psalms 45:14), from which it is derived that it is improper for a wife to spend too much time outside her home, this woman鈥檚 husband should be concerned that while his wife is in a city of refuge she should not work out of the home, but only in the home. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that there is no need to be concerned about this matter, and her husband may say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, even in a city of refuge.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讛注讘讚 诇讜诪专 诇专讘讜 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚 专讘讜

With regard to the question of whether a master can decide to cease providing sustenance for his slave while the slave continues to serve him, the Gemara suggests: Let us say that this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as it was taught that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A slave can say to his master in years of famine: Either sustain me from your property or emancipate me. And the Rabbis say: His master has permission to retain his ownership over him without sustaining him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬讻讜诇 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇

What, is it not correct to say that they disagree about this issue, that one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that a master can say to his slave that he should work for him and he will not sustain him. Consequently, he is not required to emancipate him even when he cannot provide for him. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the master cannot say this, and therefore he is required to free him.

讜转讬住讘专讗 讛讗讬 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 转谉 诇讬 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬 讘驻专谞住转讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讜注讜讚 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转

The Gemara responds: And can you understand the dispute that way? If so, this expression: Either sustain me or emancipate me, is inaccurate, as the baraita should have said: Either sustain me or give me my earnings for my sustenance. And furthermore, if the dispute concerns this general issue, what is different about years of famine? The same dispute should apply in all years.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讜 爪讗 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讱 诇诪讝讜谞讜转讬讱 讜讘砖谞讬 讘爪讜专转 诇讗 住驻拽

Rather, with what are we dealing here? This baraita is referring to a case where the master said to the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and subsequently, during years of famine, the slave鈥檚 earnings do not suffice to provide himself with sustenance, as prices are higher than usual.

专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗讜 驻专谞住谞讬 讗讜 讛讜爪讬讗谞讬 诇讞讬专讜转 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讞讝讜 诇讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讜诪专讞诪讬谉 注诇讬 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讗谉 讚诪专讞诐 讗讘谞讬 讞专讬 讗注讘讚 谞诪讬 专讞讜诪讬 诪专讞诐

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that in this case the slave can say to his master: Either sustain me or emancipate me, so that people will see me in my helpless state, and they will have mercy on me and provide me with charity. And the Rabbis hold that this is not a justification for emancipating a slave, as those who have mercy on freemen will also have mercy on a slave. Consequently, it is not necessary for the slave to be emancipated for him to receive help from generous people. According to this interpretation, the baraita has no bearing on the question as to whether a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 诇讜讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讜注讜砖讛 讜驻讜专注 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

The Gemara offers another suggestion: Come and hear a proof from a statement that Rav said: In the case of one who consecrates the hands of his slave, so that all the work he does becomes Temple property, preventing the slave from working on his own behalf, then that slave borrows and eats, and afterward performs work and repays what he borrowed, as will be explained. Conclude from Rav鈥檚 statement that the master is able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. In this case the master has prevented his slave from working for himself, and yet he is not required to provide for him.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 诇诪讗讬

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a case where the master provides sustenance for him. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, for what reason

诇讜讛 讜讗讜讻诇 诇讛注讚驻讛

does he find it necessary to borrow and eat? After all, his master provides for him. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛拽讚砖 注讚 讛砖转讗 住讙讬 诇讱 讘诇讗 讛注讚驻讛 讜讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 转讬住讙讬 诇讱 讘诇讗 讛注讚驻讛 讛拽讚砖 讙讜驻讬讛 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇砖讘讞 注讘讚讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Temple treasurer say to him: Until now it was enough for you without a surplus; now too it should be enough for you without a surplus. Why do you seek more now? Consequently, the consecration should apply to this surplus as well. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to the Temple treasury itself that he work and eat more, so that the value of its slave will be enhanced when he consumes this extra amount, as he will become stronger.

注讜砖讛 讜驻讜专注 拽诪讗 拽诪讗 拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 讘驻讞讜转 驻讞讜转 诪砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛

搂 It was stated that the slave borrows and eats and afterward performs work and repays the loan. The Gemara asks: But his work immediately becomes consecrated, as his hands have been consecrated. How, then, can he repay this loan? The Gemara answers: The slave performs work of less than the value of one peruta. Anything worth less than one peruta does not become consecrated. Therefore he can collect these small sums and repay his debt little by little.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讬讚讬 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诪讗谉 驻诇讞 诇讬讛

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rav is referring to a case where the master provides sustenance for him. As Rav says: With regard to one who consecrates the hands of his slave, that slave works and eats, as, if the slave does not work for himself, who will work and provide for him? This ruling indicates that Rav maintains that consecration does not apply to the slave鈥檚 hands.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讛讱 讘诪注诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 讜讛讗 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 砖驻讬专

The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that this earlier halakha that Rav said, that the slave borrows and repays, refers to a situation where his master provides sustenance for him, and this is because in general he cannot say to him: Work for me but I will not sustain you, and this second halakha is referring to a case where his master does not provide him with sustenance, and therefore he cannot consecrate the slave鈥檚 hands, it is well, as there is no contradiction between the two statements of Rav.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讛讱 讘砖讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 讜讬讻讜诇 讚讗讬 诇讗 注讘讚讗 诪讗谉 驻诇讞 诇讬讛 诪讗谉 讚讘注讬 谞讬驻诇讞讬讛

However, if you say that this first halakha is also speaking of a case where his master does not provide sustenance for him, and the consecration is effective because he can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, then what is the meaning of the statement: As, if the slave does not work for himself who will work for him? Let whoever desires work for him, i.e., the slave will be compelled to sustain himself from charity, but this is not the master鈥檚 concern.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, must one not conclude from here that Rav holds that a master cannot say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed conclude from here that this is the case.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛拽讜讟注 讬讚 注讘讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 谞讜转谉 砖讘转讜 讜专驻讜讗转讜 诇专讘讜 讜讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 谞讬讝讜谉 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 讛专讘 诇讜诪专 诇注讘讚 注砖讛 注诪讬 讜讗讬谞讬 讝谞讱

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another source concerning the same dilemma, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who severs the hand of another鈥檚 slave must give compensation for his loss of livelihood, i.e., compensation for the slave鈥檚 inability to work as a result of his injury, and the slave鈥檚 medical costs to his master. And that slave, who can no longer work, is sustained from charity. Conclude from Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that the master is able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, as otherwise the master would not receive compensation for his time in the form of payment for the slave鈥檚 earnings while the slave lives off of charity.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘诪注诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讜谞讜转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪讗讬 谞讬讝讜谉 诪谉 讛爪讚拽讛 诇讛注讚驻讛

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a case where his master provides sustenance for him. The Gemara asks: If so, why is he sustained from charity? He already has sustenance. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讬讝讜谉 诪转驻专谞住 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讬讻讜诇 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the phrase: Sustained from charity, is imprecise, as it indicates that he is provided only with enough for his basic needs. It should have said: He earns a living from charity. Rather, must one not conclude from his statement that Rabbi Yo岣nan maintains that the master can to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed conclude from his statement that this is the case.

讗诪专 诪专 谞讜转谉 砖讘转讜 讜专驻讜讗转讜 诇专讘讜 砖讘转讜 驻砖讬讟讗 专驻讜讗转讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara discusses the aforementioned halakha. The Master says earlier: He must give compensation for the slave鈥檚 loss of livelihood and his medical costs to his master. The Gemara comments: With regard to compensation for loss of livelihood, it is obvious that this is the halakha, as the master incurs the loss when his slave does not work, and therefore it was necessary for the Sages to mention only that the compensation for his medical costs goes to his master.

专驻讜讗转讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讬讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬转住讜讬讬 讘讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪讚讜讛 诇讞诪砖讗 讬讜诪讬 讜注讘讚讜 诇讬讛 住诪讗 讞专讬驻讗 讜讗转住讬 讘转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 爪注专讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara comments: Why is the payment for his medical costs given to his master? Shouldn鈥檛 the compensation for his medical costs belong to him, as he needs to be healed with it? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where doctors estimated that the blow or wound would heal in five days and they made a strong medicine for him, and he was healed in three days instead of five. Lest you say: Since the pain suffered by the slave by taking the strong medicine that caused a decrease in the costs of healing was his, the money should belong to him, Rabbi Yo岣nan therefore teaches us that this is not the case, as even this money belongs to the master, not the slave.

转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗诪专谞讜 诇讜 诇诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讝讻讜转 讛讜讗 诇注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 诪转讞转 讬讚讬 专讘讜 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇谞讜 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讜 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 注讘讚 讻讛谉 驻讜住诇讜 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讗诪专谞讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 诪讛 讗诐 讬专爪讛 砖诇讗 诇讝讜谞讜 讜砖诇讗 诇驻专谞住讜 专砖讗讬

搂 With regard to the discussion in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5) that Rabbi Elazar said: We said to Meir: But isn鈥檛 it in the interest of a slave to leave his master to freedom? He said to us: It is to his detriment, as if he were the slave of a priest, then by emancipating him the master thereby disqualifies him from partaking of teruma. We said to him: But what would be if the master wishes not to sustain him and not to provide him with a living? He is permitted to do so. Therefore, the slave does not lose out when he is emancipated, as he was not guaranteed sustenance in any event.

讗诪专 诇谞讜 讜诪讛 讗讬诇讜 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖讘专讞 讜讗砖转 讻讛谉 砖诪专讚讛 注诇 讘注诇讛 讛诇讗 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讗讘诇 讗砖讛 讞讜讘 讛讜讗 诇讛 砖讻谉 驻住诇讛 诪谉 讛转专讜诪讛 讜诪驻住讬讚讛 诪谉 讛诪讝讜谞讜转

Rabbi Meir said to us: Even if the master is not obligated to provide for him, it is still permitted for the slave to partake of teruma. The proof for this is the following case: And what would be if there were the slave of a priest, who fled from his master, or in the case of the wife of a priest, who rebelled against her husband, i.e., she refused to fulfill her obligations as a married woman? Are they not permitted to partake of teruma, although not the teruma belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of teruma. But this slave who was emancipated may not partake of teruma at all, even teruma that belongs to other priests. But in any event, in the case of a woman, a bill of divorce is to her detriment, as it disqualifies her from partaking of teruma and causes her to lose her sustenance.

诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛砖讘转讜谞讬 注诇 讛诪讝讜谞讜转 诪讛 转砖讬讘讜谞讬 注诇 讛转专讜诪讛

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What did the Rabbis say to Rabbi Meir, and what did he respond to them? In other words, the two sides do not appear to be discussing the same issue, as the Rabbis refer to sustenance while Rabbi Meir talks about teruma. The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to them: You have answered me about sustenance, that the master is not required to provide for his slave. However, what will you answer me about teruma?

讜讻讬 转讬诪专讜 讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讜驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 砖讘讬拽 诇讬讛 讜注专讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 诇注诇诪讗

And if you were to say that the acceptance of the document by the agent is not to the slave鈥檚 detriment, as in any event if the master desires, he can throw the bill of manumission within four cubits of the slave and thereby disqualify him from partaking of teruma; the slave can prevent this from occurring by leaving his master, and escaping and going out to the world. If he acts in this manner his master will be unable to emancipate him, and he can continue partaking of teruma.

Scroll To Top