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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2016 | ื™ืดื ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Gittin 39

Rav says that one who is mafkir his slaveย still needs to give him a document to free him in order to allow him to marry a Jew. ย Raba raises a number of questions on Rav but answers them. ย Some other issues are raised regarding slaves who were set free in non typical ways, like for example the death of the owner in the event that the owner was a convert who had no heirs.


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

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืœื‘ื˜ืœื”

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not make a statement of consecration for naught. If one declared an item consecrated, even if he did not use the correct formulation, his statement is interpreted in a manner to render it meaningful. Therefore, although the master did not say that the slave is consecrated with regard to his monetary value, his statement is interpreted in this way. However, Rav holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis. In their opinion the slave is not consecrated.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืœื ื“ืžื™ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื™ืจ

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita: And so too, a freeman who consecrated himself works and is sustained from his labor, as he consecrated only his monetary value and he did not consecrate his body. Granted, if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, then the entire baraita works out well. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even when he consecrated himself, his statement is interpreted so that it is referring to a type of consecration that is meaningful.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื“ืžื™ ืงืื™ ืืœื ืื™ื”ื• ืœื“ืžื™ ืงืื™

Rather, if you say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis, granted, the first clause of the baraita that deals with one who consecrates his slave is understood, as his slave exists primarily for monetary value. It is logical that when the owner consecrates him he intends to consecrate his monetary value. However, in the case of the latter clause of the baraita, which is referring to one who consecrates himself, does he exist for monetary value? Therefore, the baraita must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื‘ื“ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืงื“ื•ืฉ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. A baraita taught: With regard to one who consecrates his slave, if one then makes use of the slave, there is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. Rabban Shimon ban Gamliel says: One misuses property consecrated to the Temple if one makes use of his hair. What, is it not that they disagree about this issue, as one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the slave is consecrated, and therefore the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property apply, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the slave is not consecrated?

ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื”ืื™ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand that to be their dispute? If that were the case, then these expressions of: One misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and: There is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple, are not the correct expressions. They should have used these expressions, of: Consecrated, and: Not consecrated, if that were actually the subject of their dispute.

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื ื›ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ื“ืžื™

Rather, everyone agrees that the slave is consecrated, in opposition to the opinion of Rav. And here they disagree about this, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a slave is considered equivalent to land, as slaves are compared to land in several areas of halakha. Just as the misuse of consecrated property does not apply in the case of land, so too, it does not apply to slaves. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that they are considered equivalent to movable property, and therefore the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property do apply to slaves.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ืœื™ืคืœื’ื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื•

The Gemara challenges this explanation: If that is so, and they disagree with regard to whether a slave is equivalent to land or movable property, instead of disagreeing with regard to whether making use of the slaveโ€™s hair constitutes a misuse of consecrated property, let them disagree with regard to whether making use of the slave himself constitutes a misuse of consecrated property.

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืขื‘ื“ื ื›ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื’ื–ื•ื– ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื–ื•ื– ื“ืžื™

Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that a slave is considered equivalent to land, and making use of the slave himself does not constitute a misuse of consecrated property. And here they disagree with regard to his hair that is ready to be cut, whether it is still considered a part of the slave. One Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that it is considered as if it were already cut and is no longer part of the slave. Since it is viewed as detached, it is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, like all movable property. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that it is not considered as if it were already cut. Until it is cut, the hair is part of the slave, and, like all land, is not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

ืœื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื ื›ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉืจ ื’ืคื ื™ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืžืกืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื—ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ืœืงืจืงืข ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืงืจืงืข

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of these tannaโ€™im are parallel to the opinions of those tannaโ€™im, as we learned in a mishna (Shevuot 42b) that Rabbi Meir says: There are certain things that are like land with regard to their form but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective, but the Rabbis do not admit to him that this is so. How so? If one makes the claim: I gave you ten grapevines laden with fruit to guard, and the other one says: They are only five vines, then Rabbi Meir obligates the defendant to take an oath, for one who makes a partial admission to a claim concerning movable property is obligated to take an oath that he is stating the truth. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of anything that is attached to the ground is like the ground itself, and therefore one does not take an oath in this case, as one does not take an oath if one makes a partial admission to a claim concerning land.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื”ืขื•ืžื“ื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืฆืจ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื‘ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœืื• ื›ื‘ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืŸ

The Gemara continues the comparison: And with regard to this, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says that the practical difference between them is not concerning all vines. It exists only in a case of grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds that since they are ready to be harvested, they are considered like they are already harvested, and the defendant must take an oath, as he is denying a claim concerning movable property. And the Rabbis hold that they are not considered like they are already harvested, and they still have the status of land. This dispute seems to be identical to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื“ื›ืžื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ื—ื™ืฉื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื›ืžื” ื“ืงืื™ ืืฉื‘ื•ื—ื™ ืžืฉื‘ื—

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the baraita with regard to a slaveโ€™s hair is not necessarily parallel to the dispute with regard to grapes. Even if you say the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that grapes that are about to be harvested are considered like they are already harvested, this does not dictate oneโ€™s opinion with regard to a slaveโ€™s hair that is ready to be cut. Rabbi Meir states his opinion only there, with regard to grapes, since the longer they remain on the vine after ripening the more they become withered and are ruined. Since they no longer benefit from their attachment to the ground, they are considered to be like movable property. However, here, with regard to hair, the longer it remains on the slave the more it improves, i.e., grows, and therefore it should not be considered as if it were already cut.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืื™ ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืจื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ

In connection with Ravโ€™s statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: When Rabbi แธคiyya bar Yosef ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav, that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him in astonishment: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan himself say so? But didnโ€™t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission. Why then was Rabbi Yoแธฅanan so surprised by Ravโ€™s statement?

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืกื™ื™ืžื•ื” ืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was not objecting to Ravโ€™s opinion, but this is what he said to him: Did Rav actually say in accordance with my opinion? And alternatively, there are those who say that Rabbi แธคiyya bar Yosef did not conclude Ravโ€™s statement before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: And didnโ€™t Rav say that the slave requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื™ื—ืจื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission to be fully considered a freeman and to be able to marry a Jewish woman.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื’ืจ ืฉืžืช ื•ื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืงื ื• ืขืฆืžืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืงื ื• ืขืฆืžืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื”ืŸ ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from a baraita: If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, as his possessions became ownerless property with his death because he had no heirs, and among his possessions were slaves, then, whether the slaves were adults or minors, they acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen, as they can acquire themselves from the ownerless property. Abba Shaul says: Adult slaves acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen. However, with regard to minor slaves, anyone who takes possession of them acquires them.

ื•ื›ื™ ืžื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ืœืืœื•

This appears difficult for Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, as one could ask: But who wrote a bill of manumission for those slaves who became free men? Their owner died without freeing them, and nevertheless they are emancipated. Therefore, the baraita demonstrates that when a slave becomes ownerless, he is emancipated entirely and does not require a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman.

ืืžืจ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ื“ื’ืจ ื›ื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžื” ืืฉืชื• ืžืฉืชืœื—ื” ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื• ืžืฉืชืœื—ื™ื ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜

Ulla said in reply: This one of the Rabbis, Rabbi Abba, is like a person who has not studied halakha. He refused to address Rabbi Abbaโ€™s objection, as he did not think it was worthy of a response. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that these slaves do not require a bill of manumission? Rav Naแธฅman said that Ulla holds as follows: A slave of a convert is comparable to his wife in this case. Just as his wife is freed by his death without a bill of divorce, and she is no longer considered married with regard to any halakhot, so too, his slaves are freed without a bill of manumission.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืชื ื—ืœืชื ืื•ืชื ืœื‘ื ื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื›ื ืœืจืฉืช ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, if a slave is comparable to a wife, then even the slave of a Jew that dies should be freed entirely as well, just as his wife is. Why should this halakha apply only to the slave of a convert? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to slaves: โ€œAnd you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possessionโ€ (Leviticus 25:46). Therefore, slaves are not emancipated with the death of their owner, as the heirs have a right to the slaves. However, in the case of a convert who does not have heirs, the slaves are emancipated.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืžืช ื ืžื™ ืืœืžื” ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืžืช ืื•ืชื• ื”ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ื“ืืžื™ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in a case of one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, the slaves should not require a bill of manumission as well, as they are not part of the inheritance of the children. Why then did Ameimar say that with regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no remedy for that slave and he cannot marry a Jewish woman, as there is no one to emancipate him? The Gemara states: This statement of Ameimar poses a difficulty to Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s explanation of Ullaโ€™s statement.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul with regard to a convert who died and left behind slaves. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi:

ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืื• ืžื›ืœืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉืชื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

Did you hear it explicitly said by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you hear it by inference, i.e., did you infer it from some other statement of his? Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi asked him: What inference could I have drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืœื” ืœื” ืžืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of โ€œto her [lah],โ€ written with regard to a maidservant in the verse: โ€œNor was freedom given to herโ€ (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of โ€œfor her [lah],โ€ written with regard to a wife: โ€œAnd he writes for her a bill of divorceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3). Just as a wife is released from her husband via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืงื ื“ื™ื™ืงืช ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his masterโ€™s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his masterโ€™s death from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond. Therefore, an adult slave, who can acquire ownership of himself, is freed entirely by means of the death of his master. However, in the case of a minor slave, who cannot acquire possession of his own person, the monetary bond remains, in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

ื•ืื™ ืžื›ืœืœื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ื•ืง ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื™ื“ืš ื’ื™ืกื ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi said to him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Leviโ€™s statement, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by her husbandโ€™s death and requires no bill of divorce whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated when his master dies whether he is an adult or a minor, in opposition to the opinion of Abba Shaul. He said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืื• ืžื›ืœืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉืชื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

And Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said it, or did you hear it by inference? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba asked: What inference could have been drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืœื” ืœื” ืžืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of the words โ€œto her,โ€ written with regard to a maidservant, from the meaning of โ€œfor her,โ€ written with regard to a wife. Just as a wife can leave her husband only via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืงื ื“ื™ื™ืงืช ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his masterโ€™s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by her husbandโ€™s death whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated whether he is an adult or a minor, and there is no distinction between a minor slave who receives a bill of manumission and a minor slave whose master dies.

ื•ืื™ ืžื›ืœืœื ืžืื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ื•ืง ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ืš ื’ื™ืกื ืžื” ืืฉื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™

Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba asked him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition and not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his masterโ€™s death from a prohibition and not a monetary bond. He said to him: I heard this explicitly from Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืžื•ื›ืจื• ืœื•

ยง In connection with the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. The Master said above: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission. The Gemara challenges: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that even the slave himself can give his own monetary value and is emancipated, due to the fact that it is as if the Temple treasurer sold him to himself. This demonstrates that a slave can be emancipated by paying money in addition to receiving a bill of manumission.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืื• ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ืคืงืข ืœื™ื” ื›ืกืคื™ื” ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืชื ื

The Gemara answers: This is what he is saying: A slave can be emancipated either via money or via a bill of manumission. And with regard to this master, who despaired of recovering his slave, his monetary hold over this slave is abrogated, and he can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. And this statement, that generally a slave can be emancipated either via a bill of manumission or by paying money, serves to exclude the opinion of this tanna in the following baraita.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืฉื˜ืจ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื”

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One might have thought that paying money completes the emancipation of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a bill of manumission completes her emancipation. The verse states, concerning a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave: โ€œAnd whoever lies carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her; there shall be inquisition; they shall not be put to death, because she was not freeโ€ (Leviticus 19:20). In this case, neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, in contrast to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a married woman.

ืื•ืจืขื” ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจืฉื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืœื ื—ื•ืคืฉื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืฉื˜ืจ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”

The halakha of this entire portion of a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave is linked to, i.e., dependent on, only the phrase โ€œnor was freedom given herโ€ by means of a bill of manumission. The reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not granted her freedom by means of a bill of manumission. If the halakha of this portion would be dependent upon the phrase โ€œand not at all redeemed,โ€ this would indicate that the reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not redeemed with money. This is in order to say to you: A bill of manumission completes her emancipation entirely, and money does not complete her emancipation. According to Rabbi Shimon, a slave can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission but not by paying money.

ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Rami bar แธคama says that Rav Naแธฅman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Yosef bar แธคama says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืœืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ ืืคื™ืชื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชืคืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ืžืžื—ื•ื–ื ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

The Gemara relates: Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak found Rava bar Sheโ€™eilta when he was standing at the entrance to a house of prayer. He said to him, with regard to this issue: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? He said to him: I say that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion in this matter, and the Rabbis who came from Meแธฅoza say that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naแธฅman: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ื•ื›ื™ ืืชืื™ ืœืกื•ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ืชื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืจื” ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืžืจืข ืืชื™ื ื‘ื›ื™ื ืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืขื“ ืื™ืžืช ืชืฉืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื•ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ืฉืงืœ ื›ื•ืžืชื™ื” ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื–ื™ืœ ืงื ื™ ื”ื ื•ืงื ื™ ื ืคืฉื™ืš ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœื ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [izi], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Naแธฅman say? He said to me that there was a certain maidservant whose master was on his deathbed. She came crying before him and said to him: Until when will that woman, i.e., I, continue to be subjugated? He took his hat [kumtei], threw it to her, and said to her: Go acquire this hat and thereby acquire yourself as a free woman. They came before Rav Naแธฅman for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.

ืžืืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื ื”

One who saw this incident thought that he ruled in this manner because he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a maidservant can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. But that is not so. Rather, it was because this was a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership that was performed with the items of the one who transfers ownership, and this mode of acquisition takes effect only when the one who transfers ownership acquires an item belonging to the one to whom the ownership is being transferred. Since the item of the owner was used, the maidservant was not emancipated.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื—ื™ืชืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Rav Shmuel bar Aแธฅittai says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ashyan says that Rav Huna says that Rav Hamnuna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: And that is not so, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืฉื ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื•

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi แธคanina says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of a slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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 39

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 39

ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืื“ื ืžื•ืฆื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืœื‘ื˜ืœื”

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not make a statement of consecration for naught. If one declared an item consecrated, even if he did not use the correct formulation, his statement is interpreted in a manner to render it meaningful. Therefore, although the master did not say that the slave is consecrated with regard to his monetary value, his statement is interpreted in this way. However, Rav holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis. In their opinion the slave is not consecrated.

ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื•ืฉื” ื•ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืืœื ื“ืžื™ื• ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ื™ื ืฉืคื™ืจ

The Gemara comments: This too stands to reason, as it teaches in the latter clause of the baraita: And so too, a freeman who consecrated himself works and is sustained from his labor, as he consecrated only his monetary value and he did not consecrate his body. Granted, if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, then the entire baraita works out well. According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even when he consecrated himself, his statement is interpreted so that it is referring to a type of consecration that is meaningful.

ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืขื‘ื“ื• ืœื“ืžื™ ืงืื™ ืืœื ืื™ื”ื• ืœื“ืžื™ ืงืื™

Rather, if you say that it is the opinion of the Rabbis, granted, the first clause of the baraita that deals with one who consecrates his slave is understood, as his slave exists primarily for monetary value. It is logical that when the owner consecrates him he intends to consecrate his monetary value. However, in the case of the latter clause of the baraita, which is referring to one who consecrates himself, does he exist for monetary value? Therefore, the baraita must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ื”ืžืงื“ื™ืฉ ืขื‘ื“ื• ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื ืงื“ื•ืฉ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. A baraita taught: With regard to one who consecrates his slave, if one then makes use of the slave, there is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple. Rabban Shimon ban Gamliel says: One misuses property consecrated to the Temple if one makes use of his hair. What, is it not that they disagree about this issue, as one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that the slave is consecrated, and therefore the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property apply, and one Sage, the first tanna, holds that the slave is not consecrated?

ื•ืชืกื‘ืจื ื”ืื™ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืขืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื”ืื™ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara asks: And how can you understand that to be their dispute? If that were the case, then these expressions of: One misuses property consecrated to the Temple, and: There is no misuse of property consecrated to the Temple, are not the correct expressions. They should have used these expressions, of: Consecrated, and: Not consecrated, if that were actually the subject of their dispute.

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื ื›ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ื“ืžื™

Rather, everyone agrees that the slave is consecrated, in opposition to the opinion of Rav. And here they disagree about this, as one Sage, the first tanna, holds that a slave is considered equivalent to land, as slaves are compared to land in several areas of halakha. Just as the misuse of consecrated property does not apply in the case of land, so too, it does not apply to slaves. And one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that they are considered equivalent to movable property, and therefore the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property do apply to slaves.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืื“ืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ืœื™ืคืœื’ื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื•

The Gemara challenges this explanation: If that is so, and they disagree with regard to whether a slave is equivalent to land or movable property, instead of disagreeing with regard to whether making use of the slaveโ€™s hair constitutes a misuse of consecrated property, let them disagree with regard to whether making use of the slave himself constitutes a misuse of consecrated property.

ืืœื ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืขื‘ื“ื ื›ืžืงืจืงืขื™ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืฉืขืจื• ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื™ื’ื–ื– ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื’ื–ื•ื– ื“ืžื™ ื•ืžืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœืื• ื›ื’ื–ื•ื– ื“ืžื™

Rather, it must be that everyone agrees that a slave is considered equivalent to land, and making use of the slave himself does not constitute a misuse of consecrated property. And here they disagree with regard to his hair that is ready to be cut, whether it is still considered a part of the slave. One Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that it is considered as if it were already cut and is no longer part of the slave. Since it is viewed as detached, it is subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, like all movable property. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that it is not considered as if it were already cut. Until it is cut, the hair is part of the slave, and, like all land, is not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

ืœื™ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื›ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื ื›ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ืงืจืงืข ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืขืฉืจ ื’ืคื ื™ื ื˜ืขื•ื ื•ืช ืžืกืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ื”ืœื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ื ืŸ ืืœื ื—ืžืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื—ื•ื‘ืจ ืœืงืจืงืข ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืงืจืงืข

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of these tannaโ€™im are parallel to the opinions of those tannaโ€™im, as we learned in a mishna (Shevuot 42b) that Rabbi Meir says: There are certain things that are like land with regard to their form but are not treated like land from a halakhic perspective, but the Rabbis do not admit to him that this is so. How so? If one makes the claim: I gave you ten grapevines laden with fruit to guard, and the other one says: They are only five vines, then Rabbi Meir obligates the defendant to take an oath, for one who makes a partial admission to a claim concerning movable property is obligated to take an oath that he is stating the truth. And the Rabbis say: The halakhic status of anything that is attached to the ground is like the ground itself, and therefore one does not take an oath in this case, as one does not take an oath if one makes a partial admission to a claim concerning land.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื”ืขื•ืžื“ื•ืช ืœื™ื‘ืฆืจ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื‘ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœืื• ื›ื‘ืฆื•ืจื•ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืŸ

The Gemara continues the comparison: And with regard to this, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, says that the practical difference between them is not concerning all vines. It exists only in a case of grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds that since they are ready to be harvested, they are considered like they are already harvested, and the defendant must take an oath, as he is denying a claim concerning movable property. And the Rabbis hold that they are not considered like they are already harvested, and they still have the status of land. This dispute seems to be identical to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.

ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื”ืชื ืืœื ื‘ืขื ื‘ื™ื ื“ื›ืžื” ื“ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืžื™ื›ื—ืฉ ื›ื—ื™ืฉื™ ืื‘ืœ ื”ื›ื ื›ืžื” ื“ืงืื™ ืืฉื‘ื•ื—ื™ ืžืฉื‘ื—

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the baraita with regard to a slaveโ€™s hair is not necessarily parallel to the dispute with regard to grapes. Even if you say the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that grapes that are about to be harvested are considered like they are already harvested, this does not dictate oneโ€™s opinion with regard to a slaveโ€™s hair that is ready to be cut. Rabbi Meir states his opinion only there, with regard to grapes, since the longer they remain on the vine after ripening the more they become withered and are ruined. Since they no longer benefit from their attachment to the ground, they are considered to be like movable property. However, here, with regard to hair, the longer it remains on the slave the more it improves, i.e., grows, and therefore it should not be considered as if it were already cut.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืื™ ืฉืžืขืชื ื“ืจื‘ ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ

In connection with Ravโ€™s statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: When Rabbi แธคiyya bar Yosef ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he stated this halakha of Rav, that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him in astonishment: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan himself say so? But didnโ€™t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission. Why then was Rabbi Yoแธฅanan so surprised by Ravโ€™s statement?

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืœื ืกื™ื™ืžื•ื” ืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื˜ืขืžื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan was not objecting to Ravโ€™s opinion, but this is what he said to him: Did Rav actually say in accordance with my opinion? And alternatively, there are those who say that Rabbi แธคiyya bar Yosef did not conclude Ravโ€™s statement before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: And didnโ€™t Rav say that the slave requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืขื•ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื™ืฆื ืœื—ื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืฆืจื™ืš ื’ื˜ ืฉื™ื—ืจื•ืจ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ulla says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission to be fully considered a freeman and to be able to marry a Jewish woman.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืœืขื•ืœื ื’ืจ ืฉืžืช ื•ื‘ื–ื‘ื–ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื›ืกื™ื• ื•ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื™ื ืงื ื• ืขืฆืžืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืื•ืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ื ืงื ื• ืขืฆืžืŸ ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื™ื ื›ืœ ื”ืžื—ื–ื™ืง ื‘ื”ืŸ ื–ื›ื” ื‘ื”ืŸ

Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla from a baraita: If a convert died and Jews plundered his property, as his possessions became ownerless property with his death because he had no heirs, and among his possessions were slaves, then, whether the slaves were adults or minors, they acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen, as they can acquire themselves from the ownerless property. Abba Shaul says: Adult slaves acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen. However, with regard to minor slaves, anyone who takes possession of them acquires them.

ื•ื›ื™ ืžื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื’ื˜ ืฉื—ืจื•ืจ ืœืืœื•

This appears difficult for Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, as one could ask: But who wrote a bill of manumission for those slaves who became free men? Their owner died without freeing them, and nevertheless they are emancipated. Therefore, the baraita demonstrates that when a slave becomes ownerless, he is emancipated entirely and does not require a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman.

ืืžืจ ื“ืžื™ ื”ืื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื“ืœื ื’ืžืจื™ ืื™ื ืฉื™ ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืงืกื‘ืจ ืขื•ืœื ืขื‘ื“ื• ื“ื’ืจ ื›ื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžื” ืืฉืชื• ืžืฉืชืœื—ื” ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื• ืžืฉืชืœื—ื™ื ื‘ืœื ื’ื˜

Ulla said in reply: This one of the Rabbis, Rabbi Abba, is like a person who has not studied halakha. He refused to address Rabbi Abbaโ€™s objection, as he did not think it was worthy of a response. The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that these slaves do not require a bill of manumission? Rav Naแธฅman said that Ulla holds as follows: A slave of a convert is comparable to his wife in this case. Just as his wife is freed by his death without a bill of divorce, and she is no longer considered married with regard to any halakhot, so too, his slaves are freed without a bill of manumission.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืชื ื—ืœืชื ืื•ืชื ืœื‘ื ื™ื›ื ืื—ืจื™ื›ื ืœืจืฉืช ืื—ื•ื–ื”

The Gemara challenges this answer: If so, if a slave is comparable to a wife, then even the slave of a Jew that dies should be freed entirely as well, just as his wife is. Why should this halakha apply only to the slave of a convert? The Gemara answers: The verse states with regard to slaves: โ€œAnd you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possessionโ€ (Leviticus 25:46). Therefore, slaves are not emancipated with the death of their owner, as the heirs have a right to the slaves. However, in the case of a convert who does not have heirs, the slaves are emancipated.

ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืžืช ื ืžื™ ืืœืžื” ืืžืจ ืืžื™ืžืจ ื”ืžืคืงื™ืจ ืขื‘ื“ื• ื•ืžืช ืื•ืชื• ื”ืขื‘ื“ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ื“ืืžื™ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ื

The Gemara challenges: If so, then in a case of one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, the slaves should not require a bill of manumission as well, as they are not part of the inheritance of the children. Why then did Ameimar say that with regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no remedy for that slave and he cannot marry a Jewish woman, as there is no one to emancipate him? The Gemara states: This statement of Ameimar poses a difficulty to Rav Naแธฅmanโ€™s explanation of Ullaโ€™s statement.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ืจ ืื™ื“ื™

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi says that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul with regard to a convert who died and left behind slaves. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi:

ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืื• ืžื›ืœืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžืจ ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉืชื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

Did you hear it explicitly said by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you hear it by inference, i.e., did you infer it from some other statement of his? Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi asked him: What inference could I have drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืœื” ืœื” ืžืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of โ€œto her [lah],โ€ written with regard to a maidservant in the verse: โ€œNor was freedom given to herโ€ (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of โ€œfor her [lah],โ€ written with regard to a wife: โ€œAnd he writes for her a bill of divorceโ€ (Deuteronomy 24:3). Just as a wife is released from her husband via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืงื ื“ื™ื™ืงืช ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his masterโ€™s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his masterโ€™s death from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond. Therefore, an adult slave, who can acquire ownership of himself, is freed entirely by means of the death of his master. However, in the case of a minor slave, who cannot acquire possession of his own person, the monetary bond remains, in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

ื•ืื™ ืžื›ืœืœื ืžืื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ื•ืง ืžื™ื ื” ืœืื™ื“ืš ื’ื™ืกื ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov bar Idi said to him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Leviโ€™s statement, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by her husbandโ€™s death and requires no bill of divorce whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated when his master dies whether he is an adult or a minor, in opposition to the opinion of Abba Shaul. He said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืื‘ื ืฉืื•ืœ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืื• ืžื›ืœืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœืš ืžืื™ ื›ืœืœื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืืžืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชื™ื™ืืฉืชื™ ืžืคืœื•ื ื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ ืžื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

And Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said it, or did you hear it by inference? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba asked: What inference could have been drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื’ืžืจ ืœื” ืœื” ืžืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of the words โ€œto her,โ€ written with regard to a maidservant, from the meaning of โ€œfor her,โ€ written with regard to a wife. Just as a wife can leave her husband only via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

ื•ืงื ื“ื™ื™ืงืช ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืืฉื” ืžื” ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ื ื” ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืงื˜ืŸ

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his masterโ€™s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by her husbandโ€™s death whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated whether he is an adult or a minor, and there is no distinction between a minor slave who receives a bill of manumission and a minor slave whose master dies.

ื•ืื™ ืžื›ืœืœื ืžืื™ ืื“ืจื‘ื” ื“ื•ืง ืžื™ื ื” ืœื”ืš ื’ื™ืกื ืžื” ืืฉื” ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืฃ ืขื‘ื“ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืกื•ืจื ื•ืœื ืžืžื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™

Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba asked him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition and not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his masterโ€™s death from a prohibition and not a monetary bond. He said to him: I heard this explicitly from Rabbi Yoแธฅanan.

ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืื ื™ ืืฃ ื”ื•ื ื ื•ืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ ืขืฆืžื• ื•ื™ื•ืฆื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืžื•ื›ืจื• ืœื•

ยง In connection with the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. The Master said above: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission. The Gemara challenges: But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that even the slave himself can give his own monetary value and is emancipated, due to the fact that it is as if the Temple treasurer sold him to himself. This demonstrates that a slave can be emancipated by paying money in addition to receiving a bill of manumission.

ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื• ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืื• ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื”ืื™ ืคืงืข ืœื™ื” ื›ืกืคื™ื” ื•ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื”ืื™ ืชื ื

The Gemara answers: This is what he is saying: A slave can be emancipated either via money or via a bill of manumission. And with regard to this master, who despaired of recovering his slave, his monetary hold over this slave is abrogated, and he can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. And this statement, that generally a slave can be emancipated either via a bill of manumission or by paying money, serves to exclude the opinion of this tanna in the following baraita.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ื›ื“ืจืš ืฉืฉื˜ืจ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื“ื” ืœื ื ืคื“ืชื”

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One might have thought that paying money completes the emancipation of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a bill of manumission completes her emancipation. The verse states, concerning a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave: โ€œAnd whoever lies carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her; there shall be inquisition; they shall not be put to death, because she was not freeโ€ (Leviticus 19:20). In this case, neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, in contrast to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a married woman.

ืื•ืจืขื” ื›ืœ ื”ืคืจืฉื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืœื ื—ื•ืคืฉื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ืฉื˜ืจ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ื”ื›ืกืฃ ื’ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”

The halakha of this entire portion of a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave is linked to, i.e., dependent on, only the phrase โ€œnor was freedom given herโ€ by means of a bill of manumission. The reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not granted her freedom by means of a bill of manumission. If the halakha of this portion would be dependent upon the phrase โ€œand not at all redeemed,โ€ this would indicate that the reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not redeemed with money. This is in order to say to you: A bill of manumission completes her emancipation entirely, and money does not complete her emancipation. According to Rabbi Shimon, a slave can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission but not by paying money.

ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Rami bar แธคama says that Rav Naแธฅman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Yosef bar แธคama says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืจื‘ื ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ืœืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืื™ ืืคื™ืชื—ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืชืคืœื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ืื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืืชื• ืžืžื—ื•ื–ื ืืžืจื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ืœื›ื”

The Gemara relates: Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak found Rava bar Sheโ€™eilta when he was standing at the entrance to a house of prayer. He said to him, with regard to this issue: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? He said to him: I say that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion in this matter, and the Rabbis who came from Meแธฅoza say that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naแธฅman: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ื•ื›ื™ ืืชืื™ ืœืกื•ืจื ืืฉื›ื—ืชื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืžื ืœื™ ืื™ื–ื™ ื’ื•ืคื ื“ืขื•ื‘ื“ื ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ ื“ื”ื”ื™ื ืืžืชื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืžืจื” ืฉื›ื™ื‘ ืžืจืข ืืชื™ื ื‘ื›ื™ื ืงืžื™ื” ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ืขื“ ืื™ืžืช ืชืฉืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื•ืชื™ื–ื™ืœ ื”ื”ื™ื ืื™ืชืชื ืฉืงืœ ื›ื•ืžืชื™ื” ืฉื“ื ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืœื” ื–ื™ืœ ืงื ื™ ื”ื ื•ืงื ื™ ื ืคืฉื™ืš ืืชื• ืœืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืœื ืขืฉื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi แธคiyya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [izi], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Naแธฅman say? He said to me that there was a certain maidservant whose master was on his deathbed. She came crying before him and said to him: Until when will that woman, i.e., I, continue to be subjugated? He took his hat [kumtei], threw it to her, and said to her: Go acquire this hat and thereby acquire yourself as a free woman. They came before Rav Naแธฅman for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.

ืžืืŸ ื“ื—ื–ื ืกื‘ืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ื›ืœื™ื• ืฉืœ ืžืงื ื”

One who saw this incident thought that he ruled in this manner because he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a maidservant can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. But that is not so. Rather, it was because this was a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership that was performed with the items of the one who transfers ownership, and this mode of acquisition takes effect only when the one who transfers ownership acquires an item belonging to the one to whom the ownership is being transferred. Since the item of the owner was used, the maidservant was not emancipated.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืื—ื™ืชืื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืกื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืืฉื™ืืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ

Rav Shmuel bar Aแธฅittai says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak bar Ashyan says that Rav Huna says that Rav Hamnuna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: And that is not so, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืขื‘ื“ ืฉื ืฉื ืืช ื‘ืช ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื•

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi แธคanina says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of a slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master,

Scroll To Top