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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 22, 2016 | 讬状讘 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 40

Sometimes actions of the slave in front of the master or actions of the master to the slave can indicate whether or not the slave has been freed. 聽Also situations of heirs are discussed – if the father gave up聽financial聽rights to the slave, can they redeem the slave in terms of allowing him to marry a Jew?

讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讻讱 讬砖 讘讬讚讱 讜讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讛讻讜转讘 砖讟专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇砖驻讞转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

he is emancipated. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻砖专讘讜 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专讘讜 讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛

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鈥檚 master placed phylacteries on him, here too, the context of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master鈥檚 presence but a case where the slave鈥檚 master himself provided a wife for him, as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇注讘讚讬讛 诇讗 诪注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讬讛讜 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 讘讜 讜讛转拽讚砖讬 讘讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讬砖 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讘讚 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讜 讗讜 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讗讜 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻砖专讘讜 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was referring to a case where the slave鈥檚 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖驻讞转讬 讗诇 讬砖转注讘讚讜 讘讛 诇讗讞专 诪讜转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讛 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 专讘讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讘谞讬讛 注讘讚讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖驻讞转讬 拽讜专转 专讜讞 注砖转讛 诇讬 讬注砖讛 诇讛 拽讜专转 专讜讞 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 拽讜专转 专讜讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported a different version of what Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and similarly Rav 岣yya 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讜专讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Ameimar answered: The report of Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yo岣nan is erroneous, and Rabbi Yo岣nan never stated that halakha. He said to him: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚住拽专转讗 讚注讘讚讬 讚讗讝讚讘谉 诇讙讜讬 讻诇讜 诪专讜讜转讗 讘转专讗讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚专讜 讗讘谞讬 诪专讜讜转讗 拽诪讗讬 讜讬讻转讘讜 诇讻讜 讙讬讟讗 讚讞专讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 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

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 labor and can no longer write a bill of manumission for him.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讻专讘 讚讬诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗

Ravina said to them: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Dimi, who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讘讬 转专讬 拽诐 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖讞专专讬讛 诇驻诇讙讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬讚讱 讛砖转讗 砖诪注讬 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讝诇 讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讘谞讜 拽讟谉

搂 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.

砖诇讞讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讙诪讜诇讜 讬砖讬讘 诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 讗谞谉 拽讬诐 诇谉 讘讬谞讜拽讗 讚诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住

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鈥檚 market value,

讜诪拽专拽讬砖 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 注诇 砖诪讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 注砖讬转讬 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注砖讜讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

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.

讗注砖谞讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讘砖讟专

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 Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 谞转讜谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讗转谞谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讘砖讟专

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 Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 注砖讬转讬 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 注砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻转讘转讬 讜谞转转讬 诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻转讘转讬 讜谞转转讬 诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

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.

诪讬 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转

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 岣sda 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.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讗讘讗 讛讗 讘讘专讗

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鈥檚 knowledge, the produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讬讞专专讜 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讚诪讬讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讜转讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讞专专

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.

讙诪壮 注讘讚 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜砖讬讞专专讜 诪讬 砖讞专专讜 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬

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.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓 讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖讬注讘讜讚 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗谞讜 讘砖讜拽

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 40

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 40

讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讻讱 讬砖 讘讬讚讱 讜讗谞讬 砖讜谞讛 讛讻讜转讘 砖讟专 讗讬专讜住讬谉 诇砖驻讞转讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜讚砖转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转

he is emancipated. Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讻讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻砖专讘讜 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻砖专讘讜 讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛

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鈥檚 master placed phylacteries on him, here too, the context of Rabbi Zeira鈥檚 statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master鈥檚 presence but a case where the slave鈥檚 master himself provided a wife for him, as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇注讘讚讬讛 诇讗 诪注讘讚 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讜讗讬讛讜 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗

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?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 爪讗讬 讘讜 讜讛转拽讚砖讬 讘讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住讘专 讬砖 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讗讬谉 讘诇砖讜谉 讛讝讛 诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 注讘讚 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讬转讬讘讬 诇讜讛 讛讬诪谞讜 专讘讜 讗讜 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住 讗讜 砖讛谞讬讞 转驻讬诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讗讜 砖拽专讗 砖诇砖讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘驻谞讬 专讘讜 讛专讬 讝讛 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 砖讬诇讗 讻砖专讘讜 讛谞讬讞 诇讜 转驻讬诇讬谉

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was referring to a case where the slave鈥檚 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖驻讞转讬 讗诇 讬砖转注讘讚讜 讘讛 诇讗讞专 诪讜转讬 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜专砖讬诐 讜讻讜转讘讬谉 诇讛 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讗诪专讜 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 专讘讬 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜讚讛 砖讘谞讬讛 注讘讚讬诐

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檛 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?

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬 砖讗诪专 讘砖注转 诪讬转转讜 驻诇讜谞讬转 砖驻讞转讬 拽讜专转 专讜讞 注砖转讛 诇讬 讬注砖讛 诇讛 拽讜专转 专讜讞 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 讛讬讜专砖讬谉 讜注讜砖讬谉 诇讛 拽讜专转 专讜讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪爪讜讛 诇拽讬讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛诪转

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported a different version of what Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诪驻拽讬专 注讘讚讜 讗讜转讜 注讘讚 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪拽谞讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 爪专讬讱 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn鈥檛 Ulla say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and similarly Rav 岣yya 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.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 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 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讙讘讬讛 讜讗讬住讜专讗 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪讜专讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗诪讬诪专 讜讛讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉

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鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讚专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘讬专讗 诇讬

Ameimar answered: The report of Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yo岣nan is erroneous, and Rabbi Yo岣nan never stated that halakha. He said to him: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi鈥檚 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讛讜讗 讚住拽专转讗 讚注讘讚讬 讚讗讝讚讘谉 诇讙讜讬 讻诇讜 诪专讜讜转讗 讘转专讗讬 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讝讬诇讜 讗讛讚专讜 讗讘谞讬 诪专讜讜转讗 拽诪讗讬 讜讬讻转讘讜 诇讻讜 讙讬讟讗 讚讞专讜转讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜讛讗诪专 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

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 labor and can no longer write a bill of manumission for him.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讻专讘 讚讬诪讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讘 讚讬诪讬 讟注讜转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诪讗讬 讟注讜转讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讗 讗诪专讛 讘诇砖讜谉 砖讞专讜专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘讬谞讗

Ravina said to them: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Dimi, who said that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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鈥檚 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.

讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚讘讬 转专讬 拽诐 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜砖讞专专讬讛 诇驻诇讙讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬讚讱 讛砖转讗 砖诪注讬 讘讬 专讘谞谉 讜诪驻住讚讜 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讗讬 讗讝诇 讗拽谞讬讬讛 诇讘谞讜 拽讟谉

搂 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.

砖诇讞讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 砖诇讞 诇讬讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 讻谉 讬注砖讛 诇讜 讙诪讜诇讜 讬砖讬讘 诇讜 讘专讗砖讜 讗谞谉 拽讬诐 诇谉 讘讬谞讜拽讗 讚诪拽专讘讗 讚注转讬讛 诇讙讘讬 讝讜讝讬 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗驻讜讟专讜驻讜住

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鈥檚 market value,

讜诪拽专拽讬砖 诇讬讛 讝讜讝讬 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 注诇 砖诪讬讛

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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 注砖讬转讬 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注砖讜讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

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.

讗注砖谞讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讘砖讟专

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 Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 谞转讜谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讛专讬 讛讬讗 砖诇讜 讗转谞谞讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 拽谞讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 讘砖讟专

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 Yo岣nan 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 注砖讬转讬 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 注砖讗谞讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻转讘转讬 讜谞转转讬 诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

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鈥檚 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.

讛讗讜诪专 谞转转讬 砖讚讛 驻诇讜谞讬转 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 砖诪讗 讝讬讻讛 诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 讗讞专 讻转讘转讬 讜谞转转讬 诇讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻转讘 讜诇讗 谞转谉 诇讬 讛讜讚讗转 讘注诇 讚讬谉 讻诪讗讛 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

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.

诪讬 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 谞讜转谉 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讜专讘讛 讗诪专 诪砖诇砖讬谉 讗转 讛驻讬专讜转

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 岣sda 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.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘讗讘讗 讛讗 讘讘专讗

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鈥檚 knowledge, the produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

诪转谞讬壮 注讘讚 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讬讞专专讜 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 砖讟专 注诇 讚诪讬讜 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讻讜转讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讞专专

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.

讙诪壮 注讘讚 砖注砖讗讜 专讘讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 讜砖讬讞专专讜 诪讬 砖讞专专讜 讗诪专 专讘 专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 诇专讘讜 砖谞讬

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.

讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讛拽讚砖 讞诪抓 讜砖讞专讜专 诪驻拽讬注讬谉 诪讬讚讬 砖讬注讘讜讚 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗谞讜 讘砖讜拽

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

Scroll To Top