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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 21, 2016 | 讬状讗 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Gittin 39

Rav says that one who is mafkir his slave聽still needs to give him a document to free him in order to allow him to marry a Jew. 聽Raba raises a number of questions on Rav but answers them. 聽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"

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 砖讛拽讚讬砖 注爪诪讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讚诪讬讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 砖驻讬专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚讜 诇讚诪讬 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讚诪讬 拽讗讬

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪拽讚讬砖 注讘讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘砖注专讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 拽讚讜砖 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. 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?

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗讬 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诪讬

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖注专讜 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讙讜驻讜

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 slave鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘砖注专讜 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬

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.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛诐 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖专 讙驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谞讜转 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m are parallel to the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注谞讘讬诐 讛注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

The Gemara continues the comparison: And with regard to this, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 讚讻诪讛 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪讬讻讞砖 讻讞讬砖讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻诪讛 讚拽讗讬 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the baraita with regard to a slave鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 opinion with regard to a slave鈥檚 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专

In connection with Rav鈥檚 statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: When Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in astonishment: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say so? But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan so surprised by Rav鈥檚 statement?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜讜转讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan was not objecting to Rav鈥檚 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 岣yya bar Yosef did not conclude Rav鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yo岣nan by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: And didn鈥檛 Rav say that the slave requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讬讞专讜专

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讙专 砖诪转 讜讘讝讘讝讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘讛谉

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.

讜讻讬 诪讬 讻转讘 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 诇讗诇讜

This appears difficult for Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 讚讙专 讻讬 讗砖转讜 诪讛 讗砖转讜 诪砖转诇讞讛 讘诇讗 讙讟 讗祝 注讘讚讬讜 诪砖转诇讞讬诐 讘诇讗 讙讟

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 Abba鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗讜转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 诇专砖转 讗讞讜讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession鈥 (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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 拽砖讬讗

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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of Ulla鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi:

讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 谞转讬讬讗砖转讬 诪驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专

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 Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘砖讟专 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘砖讟专

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of 鈥渢o her [lah],鈥 written with regard to a maidservant in the verse: 鈥淣or was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of 鈥渇or her [lah],鈥 written with regard to a wife: 鈥淎nd he writes for her a bill of divorce鈥 (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.

讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讻讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master鈥檚 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 master鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Levi鈥檚 statement, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by her husband鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 谞转讬讬讗砖转讬 诪驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly that Rabbi Yo岣nan said it, or did you hear it by inference? Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘砖讟专 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘砖讟专

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 鈥渢o her,鈥 written with regard to a maidservant, from the meaning of 鈥渇or her,鈥 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.

讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讻讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master鈥檚 death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by her husband鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讗砖讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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 master鈥檚 death from a prohibition and not a monetary bond. He said to him: I heard this explicitly from Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬 注爪诪讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜讻专讜 诇讜

搂 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讘讻住祝 讗讜 讘砖讟专 讜讛讗讬 驻拽注 诇讬讛 讻住驻讬讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻住祝 讙讜诪专 讘讛 讻讚专讱 砖砖讟专 讙讜诪专 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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 free鈥 (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.

讗讜专注讛 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诇诇讗 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讟专 讙讜诪专 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讻住祝 讙讜诪专 讘讛

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 鈥渘or was freedom given her鈥 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 鈥渁nd not at all redeemed,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rami bar 岣ma says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 转驻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k found Rava bar She鈥檈ilta 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 Me岣za say that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Na岣an: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇住讜专讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪专讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讗转讬讗 讘讻讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 注讚 讗讬诪转 转砖转注讘讬讚 讜转讬讝讬诇 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 砖拽诇 讻讜诪转讬讛 砖讚讗 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬 讛讗 讜拽谞讬 谞驻砖讬讱 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [izi], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.

诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讬转讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rav Shmuel bar A岣ttai says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注讘讚 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi 岣nina 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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗 讚讘专讬讜 诇讘讟诇讛

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.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 砖讛拽讚讬砖 注爪诪讜 注讜砖讛 讜讗讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛拽讚讬砖 讗诇讗 讚诪讬讜 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 砖驻讬专

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚讜 诇讚诪讬 拽讗讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讛讜 诇讚诪讬 拽讗讬

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.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛诪拽讚讬砖 注讘讚讜 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘砖注专讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 拽讚讜砖 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 拽讚讜砖

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is parallel to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. 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?

讜转住讘专讗 讛讗讬 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讛讗讬 拽讚讜砖 讜讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讚讜砖 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 讻诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚诪讬

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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讚诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖注专讜 诇讬驻诇讙讜 讘讙讜驻讜

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 slave鈥檚 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.

讗诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讬 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘砖注专讜 讛注讜诪讚 诇讬讙讝讝 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 讻讙讝讜讝 讚诪讬

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.

诇讬诪讗 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讬砖 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛诐 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谞谉 讻拽专拽注 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讜讚讬诐 诇讜 讻讬爪讚 注砖专 讙驻谞讬诐 讟注讜谞讜转 诪住专转讬 诇讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞谉 讗诇讗 讞诪砖 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讞讬讬讘 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讜讘专 诇拽专拽注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻拽专拽注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m are parallel to the opinions of those tanna鈥檌m, 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 注谞讘讬诐 讛注讜诪讚讜转 诇讬讘爪专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗讜 讻讘爪讜专讜转 讚诪讬讬谉

The Gemara continues the comparison: And with regard to this, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, 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.

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘注谞讘讬诐 讚讻诪讛 讚拽讬讬诪讬谉 诪讬讻讞砖 讻讞讬砖讬 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻诪讛 讚拽讗讬 讗砖讘讜讞讬 诪砖讘讞

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the baraita with regard to a slave鈥檚 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 one鈥檚 opinion with regard to a slave鈥檚 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讗讬 砖诪注转讗 讚专讘 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讻讬 讜讛讜讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专

In connection with Rav鈥檚 statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: When Rabbi 岣yya 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 Yo岣nan. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him in astonishment: Did Rav actually say so? This indicates that Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan himself say so? But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan so surprised by Rav鈥檚 statement?

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讻讜讜转讬 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 诇讗 住讬讬诪讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专

The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan was not objecting to Rav鈥檚 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 岣yya bar Yosef did not conclude Rav鈥檚 statement before Rabbi Yo岣nan by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: And didn鈥檛 Rav say that the slave requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yo岣nan conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讬讞专讜专

搂 The Gemara discusses the matter itself: Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讗 诇注讜诇讗 讙专 砖诪转 讜讘讝讘讝讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞讻住讬讜 讜讛讬讜 讘讛谉 注讘讚讬诐 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讬诐 讜讘讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讬诐 拽谞讜 注爪诪谉 讘谞讬 讞讜专讬谉 拽讟谞讬诐 讻诇 讛诪讞讝讬拽 讘讛谉 讝讻讛 讘讛谉

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.

讜讻讬 诪讬 讻转讘 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 诇讗诇讜

This appears difficult for Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

讗诪专 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 诪讚专讘谞谉 讻讚诇讗 讙诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 砖诪注转讗 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 拽住讘专 注讜诇讗 注讘讚讜 讚讙专 讻讬 讗砖转讜 诪讛 讗砖转讜 诪砖转诇讞讛 讘诇讗 讙讟 讗祝 注讘讚讬讜 诪砖转诇讞讬诐 讘诇讗 讙讟

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 Abba鈥檚 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 Na岣an 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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讛转谞讞诇转诐 讗讜转诐 诇讘谞讬讻诐 讗讞专讬讻诐 诇专砖转 讗讞讜讝讛

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: 鈥淎nd you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession鈥 (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.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 谞诪讬 讗诇诪讛 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 讗讜转讜 讛注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讚讗诪讬诪专 拽砖讬讗

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 Na岣an鈥檚 explanation of Ulla鈥檚 statement.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讘专 讗讬讚讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Ya鈥檃kov bar Idi:

讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 谞转讬讬讗砖转讬 诪驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专

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 Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘砖讟专 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘砖讟专

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of 鈥渢o her [lah],鈥 written with regard to a maidservant in the verse: 鈥淣or was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of 鈥渇or her [lah],鈥 written with regard to a wife: 鈥淎nd he writes for her a bill of divorce鈥 (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.

讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讻讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master鈥檚 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 master鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讗讬讚讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov 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 Levi鈥檚 statement, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by her husband鈥檚 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.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讗讜 诪讻诇诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 诪讗讬 讻诇诇讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 谞转讬讬讗砖转讬 诪驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专

And Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly that Rabbi Yo岣nan said it, or did you hear it by inference? Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讙诪专 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘砖讟专 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘砖讟专

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 鈥渢o her,鈥 written with regard to a maidservant, from the meaning of 鈥渇or her,鈥 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.

讜拽讗 讚讬讬拽转 诪讬谞讛 讻讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇讛 讘讬谉 拽讟谞讛 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讙讚讜诇 讘讬谉 拽讟谉

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master鈥檚 death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by her husband鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬 诪讻诇诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讚专讘讛 讚讜拽 诪讬谞讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 诪讛 讗砖讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讗讬住讜专讗 讜诇讗 诪诪讜谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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 master鈥檚 death from a prohibition and not a monetary bond. He said to him: I heard this explicitly from Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 诪专 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 讗谞讬 讗祝 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讚诪讬 注爪诪讜 讜讬讜爪讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜讻专讜 诇讜

搂 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讘讻住祝 讗讜 讘砖讟专 讜讛讗讬 驻拽注 诇讬讛 讻住驻讬讛 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛讗讬 转谞讗

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.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讻住祝 讙讜诪专 讘讛 讻讚专讱 砖砖讟专 讙讜诪专 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛

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: 鈥淎nd 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 free鈥 (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.

讗讜专注讛 讻诇 讛驻专砖讛 讻讜诇讛 诇诇讗 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 砖讟专 讙讜诪专 讘讛 讜讗讬谉 讛讻住祝 讙讜诪专 讘讛

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 鈥渘or was freedom given her鈥 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 鈥渁nd not at all redeemed,鈥 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.

讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rami bar 岣ma says that Rav Na岣an says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讗砖讻讞讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 讘专 砖讗讬诇转讗 讚讛讜讛 拽讗讬 讗驻讬转讞讗 讚讘讬 转驻诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛诇讻讛 讗讜 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讜专讘谞谉 讚讗转讜 诪诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛诇讻讛

The Gemara relates: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k found Rava bar She鈥檈ilta 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 Me岣za say that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Na岣an: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讜讻讬 讗转讗讬 诇住讜专讗 讗砖讻讞转讬讛 诇专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讬 讗讬讝讬 讙讜驻讗 讚注讜讘讚讗 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讬 讚讛讛讬讗 讗诪转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪专讛 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讗转讬讗 讘讻讬讗 拽诪讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 注讚 讗讬诪转 转砖转注讘讬讚 讜转讬讝讬诇 讛讛讬讗 讗讬转转讗 砖拽诇 讻讜诪转讬讛 砖讚讗 讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛 讝讬诇 拽谞讬 讛讗 讜拽谞讬 谞驻砖讬讱 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐

And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi 岣yya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [izi], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Na岣an 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 Na岣an for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.

诪讗谉 讚讞讝讗 住讘专 诪砖讜诐 讚讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讻诇讬讜 砖诇 诪拽谞讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讬转讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 住讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗砖讬讗谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉

Rav Shmuel bar A岣ttai says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rabbi Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 注讘讚 砖谞砖讗 讗转 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi 岣nina 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