Gittin 40

יצא לחירות אמר לו רבי יוחנן כל כך יש בידך ואני שונה הכותב שטר אירוסין לשפחתו רבי מאיר אומר מקודשת וחכמים אומרים אינה מקודשת

he is emancipated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Zeira: You possess such an extreme halakha, but I teach this halakha: With regard to one who writes a document of betrothal for his maidservant, stating: You are hereby betrothed to me, Rabbi Meir says: She is betrothed, and the Rabbis say: She is not betrothed, as even this, when he betroths her directly, does not serve as proof that he emancipates her.

כדאמר רבה בר רב שילא כשרבו הניח לו תפילין הכא נמי כשרבו השיאו אשה

The Gemara answers: Just as that which Rabba bar Rav Sheila says in a different context, that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to a case where a slave’s master placed phylacteries on him, here too, the context of Rabbi Zeira’s statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master’s presence but a case where the slave’s master himself provided a wife for him, as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him.

ומי איכא מידי דלעבדיה לא מעבד ליה איסורא ואיהו עבד איסורא

The Gemara questions this answer: Is there anything like this, where for his slave he would not violate a prohibition, and by providing a wife for his slave he indicates that he must have emancipated the slave, but he himself might violate the prohibition, as he is suspected of marrying his maidservant without having freed her?

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לה צאי בו והתקדשי בו רבי מאיר סבר יש בלשון הזה לשון שחרור ורבנן סברי אין בלשון הזה לשון שחרור

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he said to the maidservant when he gave her the document of betrothal: Become emancipated with this and become betrothed to me with this. Rabbi Meir holds that this formulation written in the document of betrothal: You are hereby betrothed to me, contains a formulation of emancipation and therefore serves both as a bill of manumission and a document of betrothal. And the Rabbis hold: This formulation is not a formulation of emancipation. That is why the Rabbis hold she is not betrothed in this case. However, according to everyone, a master is not suspected of marrying his maidservant without first freeing her.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי עבד שהניח תפילין בפני רבו יצא לחירות מיתיבי לוה הימנו רבו או שעשאו רבו אפוטרופוס או שהניח תפילין בפני רבו או שקרא שלשה פסוקים בבית הכנסת בפני רבו הרי זה לא יצא לחירות

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: A slave who dons phylacteries in the presence of his master is emancipated, as this is unusual behavior for a slave because slaves are not obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a slave’s master borrowed money from him; or if his master appointed him as a steward over his possessions; or if the slave donned phylacteries in the presence of his master; or if he read three verses of the Torah reading in the synagogue in the presence of his master, although all of these activities are ordinarily performed only by freemen, this slave is not emancipated. This seems to contradict the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

אמר רבה בר רב שילא כשרבו הניח לו תפילין

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was referring to a case where the slave’s master placed phylacteries on him. In that case it is clear that the slave is donning phylacteries with the consent of his master, and a master would not place phylacteries on his slave unless he had already emancipated him.

כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו פלונית שפחתי אל ישתעבדו בה לאחר מותי כופין את היורשים וכותבין לה גט שחרור אמרו לפניו רבי אמי ורבי אסי רבי אי אתה מודה שבניה עבדים

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of one who says at the moment of his death: With regard to so-and-so, my maidservant, my heirs should not treat her as a slave after my death, the court compels the heirs and they write for her a bill of manumission. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi said before him: My teacher, don’t you admit that her children are slaves? The master meant only that his heirs should not subjugate her excessively. He did not intend to free her, and her children remain slaves. Why, then, are the heirs compelled to free the maidservant?

כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר רבי יוחנן מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו פלונית שפחתי קורת רוח עשתה לי יעשה לה קורת רוח כופין את היורשין ועושין לה קורת רוח מאי טעמא מצוה לקיים דברי המת

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported a different version of what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of one who says at the moment of his death: So-and-so, my maidservant, gave me satisfaction and one should do for her something that gives her satisfaction, the court compels the heirs to give her satisfaction, and if she will be satisfied only by being emancipated, they must do so. What is the reason for this? It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead.

אמר אמימר המפקיר עבדו אותו עבד אין לו תקנה מאי טעמא גופיה לא קני ליה איסורא הוא דאיכא גביה ואיסורא לא מצי מקני ליה

Ameimar says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, there is no halakhic remedy for that slave, and he cannot marry a Jewish woman. What is the reason for this? The slave himself does not belong to his master. However, there is the prohibition against marrying a Jewish woman that remains in the master’s possession, and the master cannot transfer ownership of the prohibition to the slave, as this is not something that can be transferred. A bill of manumission is not effective in this case because the slave already does not belong to him.

אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והאמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רב אחד זה ואחד זה יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור אמר ליה צריך ואין לו תקנה

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn’t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and similarly Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rav says: Both in this case of one who betroths his slave, and in that case of one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission? This demonstrates that when one renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is no longer in his possession but can still become a freeman upon receiving a bill of manumission. Ameimar said to him: They meant that he requires a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman and to marry a Jewish woman, but there is no remedy for him, as the master cannot issue one.

איכא דאמרי אמר אמימר המפקיר עבדו ומת אותו העבד אין לו תקנה מאי טעמא גופיה לא קני ליה איסורא הוא דאיכא גביה ואיסורא לבריה לא מורית אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן

There are those who say a different version of this exchange: Ameimar says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no halakhic remedy for that slave and he cannot marry a Jewish woman. What is the reason for this? The slave himself does not belong to his master; however, there is the prohibition against marrying a Jewish woman that remains in the master’s possession, and the master cannot bequeath the prohibition to his son. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that if one says that his heirs should not treat his maidservant as a slave, the heirs are compelled to write a bill of manumission. This demonstrates that the heirs can write a bill of manumission although they do not own the maidservant.

דרב דימי טעותא היא אמר ליה מאי טעותא דלא אמרה בלשון שחרור הא אמרה בלשון שחרור הכי נמי אמר ליה אנא כדרב שמואל בר יהודה סבירא לי

Ameimar answered: The report of Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yoḥanan is erroneous, and Rabbi Yoḥanan never stated that halakha. He said to him: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi’s statement? The reason it is erroneous is that the master did not state this using a formulation of emancipation, but if he had stated this using a formulation of emancipation, then indeed they would be able to write for her a bill of manumission? Why then do you not concede to his opinion? He said to him: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, that Rabbi Yoḥanan was discussing a case where the master said that his heirs should give the maidservant satisfaction. Therefore, the master never stated that the heirs would not have ownership over the maidservant, only that they should fulfill his dying instruction to grant her satisfaction.

ההוא דסקרתא דעבדי דאזדבן לגוי כלו מרוותא בתראי אתו לקמיה דרבינא אמר להו זילו אהדרו אבני מרוותא קמאי ויכתבו לכו גיטא דחרותא אמרו ליה רבנן לרבינא והאמר אמימר המפקיר עבדו ומת אותו העבד אין לו תקנה

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain city [diskarta] of slaves that was sold to gentiles. When their final gentile masters died, the slaves came before Ravina and said that since they had no masters, they wanted to be considered full-fledged Jews. He said to them: Go and return to the children of your first masters and have them write for you bills of manumission so that you will be considered freemen in every respect. The Rabbis said to Ravina: But didn’t Ameimar say that with regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no remedy for that slave? Similarly, if one sells his slave to a gentile, he no longer has the right to the slave’s labor and can no longer write a bill of manumission for him.

אמר להו אנא כרב דימי סבירא לי אמרו ליה דרב דימי טעותא היא אמר להו מאי טעותא דלא אמרה בלשון שחרור הא אמרה בלשון שחרור הכי נמי והלכתא כרבינא

Ravina said to them: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Dimi, who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the heirs can give a bill of manumission. They, the Rabbis, said to him: That which Rav Dimi said is erroneous. He said to them: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi’s statement? The reason it is erroneous is that he did not state this using a formulation of emancipation, but if he had stated this using a formulation of emancipation, then indeed they would be able to write a bill of manumission. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina, that the original masters can write a bill of manumission for the slaves.

ההוא עבדא דבי תרי קם חד מינייהו ושחרריה לפלגיה אמר אידך השתא שמעי בי רבנן ומפסדו ליה מינאי אזל אקנייה לבנו קטן

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who belonged to two partners. One of them arose and emancipated his half of the slave. The other master said: Now the rabbis of the local court will hear that my slave is half emancipated and they will cause me to lose him, i.e., they will force me to release him, as is stated in the mishna (41b) that the court forces a master to release his slave who has been half emancipated. He went and transferred ownership of the slave to his minor son, who could not be forced by the court to emancipate him, so that the slave would remain in his possession.

שלחה רב יוסף בריה דרבא לקמיה דרב פפא שלח ליה כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו גמולו ישיב לו בראשו אנן קים לן בינוקא דמקרבא דעתיה לגבי זוזי מוקמינן ליה אפוטרופוס

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, sent before Rav Pappa the question of what the halakha is in this circumstance. He sent to him a response that paraphrased biblical verses: As he has done, so shall it be done to him, his dealing shall return upon his own head (see Leviticus 24:19 and Obadiah 1:15). In other words, since the master acted deceitfully to circumvent the ruling of the Sages, one should deal with him deceitfully. We know that a child is attracted to money. We will appoint a steward for the child, who will clarify the slave’s market value,

ומקרקיש ליה זוזי וכתב ליה גיטא דחירותא על שמיה

and the slave should jingle the dinars before him. The child will want the money and he will decide to emancipate him, and they should write him a bill of emancipation in his name.

תנו רבנן האומר עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין עשוי בן חורין הרי הוא בן חורין הרי הוא בן חורין

§ The Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I made so-and-so my slave a freeman, or: My slave was made a freeman, or: Behold he is a freeman, in all of these cases he is a freeman as a result.

אעשנו בן חורין רבי אומר קנה וחכמים אומרים לא קנה אמר רבי יוחנן וכולן בשטר

If he says: I will make him a freeman, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The slave has acquired himself, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And all of these halakhot apply only when the formulation was written in a document that was transferred to the slave. A verbal statement alone is not effective in emancipating the slave.

תנו רבנן האומר נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני נתונה לפלוני הרי היא שלו הרי היא שלו אתננה לפלוני רבי מאיר אומר קנה וחכמים אומרים לא קנה אמר רבי יוחנן וכולן בשטר

Similarly, the Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I gave such and such a field to so-and-so as a gift; or: This field is given to so-and-so; or: Behold it is his, in all of these cases it belongs to the recipient. If he says: I will give it to so-and-so, then Rabbi Meir says: That person has acquired the field. And the Rabbis say: He has not acquired it. With regard to this, Rabbi Yoḥanan also says: And all of these halakhot apply only when the formulation was written in a document that was transferred to the recipient. A verbal statement alone is not effective in transferring the field.

תנו רבנן האומר עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין והוא אומר לא עשאני חיישינן שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר כתבתי ונתתי לו והוא אומר לא כתב לי ולא נתן לי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי

The Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I made so-and-so my slave a freeman, and the slave says: He did not make me a freeman, then we are concerned that perhaps the master transferred the slave’s emancipation to him through another person without the slave being aware of this, and the slave is assumed to be emancipated. However, if the master said: I wrote and I gave to him a bill of manumission, and the slave says: He did not write it for me and he did not give me a bill of manumission, then he remains a slave, as the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to the testimony of one hundred witnesses. Just as the testimony of witnesses is deemed credible by the court, so is the admission of a litigant deemed credible.

האומר נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני והוא אומר לא נתן לי חיישינן שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר כתבתי ונתתי לו והוא אומר לא כתב ולא נתן לי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי

Similarly, with regard to one who says: I gave such and such a field to so-and-so, and the supposed recipient says: He did not give me it, then we are concerned that perhaps he transferred the field to him through another person without the recipient being aware of this, and the field becomes his. However, if one says: I wrote and gave to him a document stating that I am giving him the field, and the supposed recipient says: He did not write it and did not give me a document stating that he is giving me the field, then he does not take possession of the field, as the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to the testimony of one hundred witnesses.

מי אוכל פירות רב חסדא אמר נותן אוכל פירות ורבה אמר משלשין את הפירות

The Gemara asks: In this case, where the original owner states that he gave the field to his friend, and the supposed recipient states that he did not receive it, who consumes the produce of the field? Rav Ḥisda says: The giver consumes the produce, as the field remains in his possession, and Rabba says: The produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

ולא פליגי הא באבא הא בברא

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather, they are referring to different cases: This case pertains to the father, the one who is the supposed recipient of the field. As long as he is alive and states that he did not receive the field, the produce is consumed by the original owner. That case pertains to the son of the supposed recipient of the field, who claims that his father did not receive it. Since it is possible that the father received it without the son’s knowledge, the produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

מתני׳ עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי לאחרים ושיחררו שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על דמיו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו כותב אלא משחרר

MISHNA: In the case of a slave whose master set him aside as designated repayment [apoteiki] of a debt to other people from whom he borrowed money, and afterward he emancipated him, then according to the letter of the law the slave bears no responsibility for the debt. However, for the betterment of the world, his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value to pay the debt to the creditor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He does not write a promissory note; he only emancipates the slave.

גמ׳ עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי ושיחררו מי שחררו אמר רב רבו ראשון שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום לרבו שני

GEMARA: The mishna taught the case of a slave whose master set him aside as designated repayment of a debt to other people and afterward emancipated him. The Gemara clarifies: Who emancipated him? Rav said: His first master emancipated him, and the mishna is teaching as follows: According to the letter of the law, the slave is not obligated to serve his second master at all.

כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שיעבוד אלא מפני תיקון העולם שמא ימצאנו בשוק

Why does he not have to serve the second master? This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: Consecration of an item to the Temple, becoming subject to the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon an item. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, the slave should be a freeman after his master emancipates him, and the creditor may not take possession of him. However, for the betterment of the world, lest the creditor will find the slave in the market