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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 26, 2023 | 讝壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 41

If a slave is used as a designated payment for a loan (apotiki) and the master frees the slave, the slave has no responsibility to the creditor. However, the rabbis instituted a takana and force the master to free him. To compensate the creditor, the slave writes a promissory note for his value. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the one who frees the slave writes the promissory note. Rav and Ulla each explain this case differently. Which master freed the slave, which master needs to free the slave and who writes the promissory note according to Rashbag? What is the purpose of the takana and what is the root of the debate between tana kamma and Rashbag? If one designated a field to repay and loan and the field is damaged, can the creditor collect from other property of the debtor? On what does it depend? If a slave is half freed, Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not the owner needs to free the other half. In the end, Beit Shamai convince Beit Hillel that we need to free the slave in order to permit him to marry a woman so he can fulfill the mitzva of procreation. Can one free a slave partially? There is a debate between Rebbi and the rabbis about whether this works. Raba and Rav Yosef disagree about whether the debate relates only to a slave freed by a document or also by money.

讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讚讬 讗转讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 砖谞讬 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 注讘讚 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 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讻讜转讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讞专专 讻讜转讘


and will say to him: You are my slave, because he was designated to be used as repayment for the debt, and lest the future children of this emancipated slave acquire the reputation of being disqualified, the court forces his second master, i.e., the creditor, and he makes him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value, that he owes his own value to the creditor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write a promissory note for his value. Rather, his first master, who emancipated him, writes a promissory note, and then pays the value of the slave to the creditor, as the master designated the slave to be used for repayment.


讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讝讬拽 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专


The Gemara explains: With regard to what halakha do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the halakha in the case of one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien, as one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien is liable to pay for the damage, although the liened object itself does not belong to his friend. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, the one who emancipated the slave is required to write a promissory note for his value. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that he is exempt. Consequently, it is the slave who is required to write a promissory note for his value.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讛诪讝讬拽 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉


It was also stated that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree with regard to that issue: When discussing one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, which supports the above analysis.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪讬 砖讬讞专专讜 专讘讜 砖谞讬 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 讘诪爪讜转 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 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 讻讜转讘


Ulla said another explanation of the dispute in the mishna: Who emancipated him? His second master, for whom he served as a lien for his debt. The mishna should be explained as follows: According to the letter of the law, the slave is not at all obligated in mitzvot as a result of this emancipation, because the creditor did not have the authority to emancipate him. However, for the betterment of the world, since a rumor has spread about him that he is a freeman as a result of the emancipation, his first master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value to be paid to his original master, who was forced to emancipate his slave without receiving compensation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write a promissory note for his value. Rather, the one who emancipates, the creditor, writes a promissory note and pays the original master.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? They disagree with regard to damage that is not evident, i.e., a case where the value of an item was lowered due to a change that occurred that is not noticeable in the physical properties of that item. One Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that damage that is not evident is termed damage. Consequently, since the master is forced to emancipate his slave as a result of the action of the creditor, it is viewed as if the creditor has damaged the item of the master. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that damage that is not evident is not termed damage, and the creditor is not liable to pay.


注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讬 专讘讜 拽专讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Ulla did not say an explanation in accordance with the explanation of Rav with regard to the proper understanding of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: Do you call the second person: His master, which is the term employed in the mishna to describe the one who emancipated the slave? The creditor never was in fact the master of the slave, as the slave was only liened to him.


讜专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讬 诪砖讞专专 拽专讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not say in accordance with the explanation of Ulla with regard to the proper understanding of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: Do you call the second person: One who emancipates, which is the term employed in the mishna to describe the action taken? The action he performed is not emancipation, as he does not have the authority to emancipate a slave that does not belong to him.


讗讬转诪专 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讗诪讬 砖驻讬专 谞讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐


It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to a similar question: In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment for others to whom he owes a debt, and a river flooded the field in a way that caused permanent damage, the Sage known as Ami Shappir Na鈥檈, literally meaning Ami the Beautiful, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The creditor does not collect from other property, and because this field was ruined the creditor incurs a loss. And Shmuel鈥檚 father said: He collects from other property.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讬 砖驻讬专 谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讗 讚诇讗 砖驻讬专谉 转转专讙诐 砖诪注转讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Because Ami is beautiful [shappir na鈥檈], does he say halakhot that are not beautiful and correct? Why should the creditor not be able to collect his debt from other property? Interpret his halakha as referring to a case where the debtor said explicitly to the creditor: Not only is this field liened property, but you will have payment only from this field. In such a case, Ami Shappir Na鈥檈 ruled that if that field is destroyed, the creditor has no recourse.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐


This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment for another to whom he owes a debt, and a river flooded the field, the creditor collects from other property. But if the debtor said to the creditor: You will have payment only from this field, then he does not collect from other property.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇讞讝专 注诇 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉


It is taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:3): In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment to a creditor or for a woman鈥檚 marriage contract, and he later sells that field, the creditor or the woman collects only from other property but not from the field that was sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A creditor collects only from other property, but a woman does not need to collect from other property. She may seize the field that had been designated. What is the reason for the distinction? Since it is not the way of a woman to go to court, it is assumed that that particular field was designated to pay her marriage contract in any event, to avoid the need for her to enter into litigation to claim her due.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman because only one of his two owners emancipated him, he serves his master one day and serves himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: Through such an arrangement you have remedied his master, as his master loses nothing through this. However, you have not remedied the slave himself, as the slave himself remains in an unsustainable situation. It is not possible for him to marry a maidservant because he is already a half-freeman, as it is prohibited for a freeman to marry a maidservant.


讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讜讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 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 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


It is also not possible for him to marry a free woman, as he is still a half-slave. If you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn鈥檛 it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, that a half-slave must be set free.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 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


GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to a master who emancipates only half of his slave, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, i.e., the transaction is complete and half of the slave is emancipated, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讟专 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛


Rabba said: Their dispute pertains only to a case where the master emancipated him with a bill of manumission, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: In the context of a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave, the Torah writes that neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, though the man is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the woman had been emancipated, she would be a regular married woman, and they would incur the death penalty for their act of intercourse. In describing the woman in that case, the Torah writes: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed,鈥 and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: 鈥淣or was freedom given her.鈥


诪拽讬砖 砖讟专 诇讻住祝 诪讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜 讗祝 砖讟专 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜


The verse juxtaposes the freeing of a slave via a bill of manumission to the freeing of a slave via payment of money, to teach that just as with money the slave can free either all of him or half of him, for if he were to pay half of his value to the master he would be half-redeemed, so too, by receiving a bill of manumission either all of him or half of him can be emancipated.


讜专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讞爪讬讛 诇讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讞爪讬讜 诇讗 讗讘诇 讘讻住祝 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛


And the Rabbis derive their opinion, that a slave cannot acquire half of his freedom via a bill of manumission, from a verbal analogy of the word 鈥渉er [lah]鈥 written here: 鈥淣or was freedom given to her [lah]鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and the word 鈥渉er [lah]鈥 written with regard to a man who divorces a woman: 鈥淎nd he writes her [lah] a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as in the case of a woman, one is not able to divorce half of her with a bill of divorce, so too, in the case of a slave, one is not able to emancipate half of him with a bill of manumission. However, with regard to a slave who frees himself by giving money, everyone agrees that the slave acquires half of himself, and a female slave would also be partially redeemed but not fully redeemed.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛拽讬砖讗 注讚讬驻讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬驻讗


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and consequently he derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha stated in the same verse concerning redemption via money. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a verbal analogy is preferable and therefore derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha of the divorce of a woman, where the verse employs an analogous term.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讻住祝 转讗诪专 讘注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 讘讻住祝


The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that generally a verbal analogy is preferable, but it is different here because the verbal analogy can be refuted by stating the following: What is unique about a woman is that she cannot leave a marriage via money at all, shall you say that one should compare her case to that of a slave, who does leave his servitude via money? Since there are differences between divorce and emancipation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha from a juxtaposition.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻住祝 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 拽谞讛


And Rav Yosef said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis pertains only to a case where the slave was freed via money, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The halakha that a slave can be half-freed can be derived from the phrase: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed [vehofde lo nifdata]鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), indicating that she has been partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. And the Rabbis hold: The Torah spoke in the language of people, and the repetition of the verb in the verse is not to be used as a source for deriving a halakha. However, when the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission, everyone agrees that the slave has not acquired himself and remains a full slave.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 讘砖讟专 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement based on what was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave with a bill of manumission, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation.


(谞讬诪讗) 讘砖讟专 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讘讻住祝 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘转专转讬


The Gemara suggests: In this baraita, they disagree in a case where the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. However, they do not explicitly disagree in a case where the slave is half-redeemed with money. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef with regard to two aspects: First, as above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he is half-freed via a bill of manumission; second, according to his statement, the dispute pertains to redeeming with money, yet the baraita gives no indication that the Rabbis would hold that the slave can be half-redeemed with money?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讟专 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讟专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬


The Gemara rejects this: Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, and the same is true, that they would disagree, with regard to redeeming with money. And this, that they explicitly disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a slave can be half-freed even by receiving a bill of manumission.


讜诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘讻住祝 讜诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讻讞 讚讛讬转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And let them disagree with regard to redeeming with money, and to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that they hold he cannot be half-freed even through redeeming with money. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency, and therefore the dispute is presented as it is.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讛驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to this discussion based on a baraita: The verse in Leviticus employs the double expression 鈥vehofde lo nifdata,鈥 literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The baraita analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only 鈥渁nd redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渘ot redeemed.鈥 If it had stated only 鈥渘ot redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that it means an entirely unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd redeemed.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? The verse is discussing a case where she is partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. This was accomplished via money or an equivalent value of money.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讟专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讟专


The baraita continues. And I have derived only that she can be partially redeemed via money. From where do I derive that she can also be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and later on, in the case of divorce, it states: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as later on freedom is granted via a bill of divorce, so too here, a maidservant is freed via a bill of manumission.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讘讻住祝 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘砖讟专 讞爪讬讜 讘砖讟专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 诪拽讬砖 砖讟专 诇讻住祝 诪讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜 讗祝 砖讟专 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜


I have derived only that half of a slave can be redeemed via money, as detailed above, or that all of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission. From where do I derive that half of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her,鈥 and thereby juxtaposes a bill of manumission to money. Just as a slave can be either fully redeemed or half-redeemed via money, so too, he can be either fully emancipated or half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. This marks the end of the baraita.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘转专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬


The Gemara analyzes the baraita in light of the earlier opinions. Granted, according to Rav Yosef after he was conclusively refuted, who now holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree both with regard to money and a bill of manumission, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for half of the slave is freed, whether via money or a bill of manumission. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a bill of manumission, but everyone agrees that the slave can redeem half of himself with money, do all agree with the statement of the first clause, but the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬讗


Rabba could have said to you: Yes, all agree with the statement of the first clause, and the last clause is in accordance with only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said: This baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘讻住祝 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: But with regard to the mishna that teaches: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman, granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, he establishes the mishna as referring to a case where the slave was half-redeemed with money, and everyone agrees that this is effective. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, the Rabbis hold that a slave cannot be half-free, regardless of whether he is freed via money or a bill of manumission. Ravina said:


  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 37-43 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we are going to learn laws pertaining to Canaanite slaves. We will learn when and how they can...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 41: Freeing Slaves for Tikkun Olam

2 mishnayot: 1. A slave whose owner uses him as a payment of debt to another person, but then is...

Gittin 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 41

讜讬讗诪专 诇讜 注讘讚讬 讗转讛 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 砖谞讬 讜注讜砖讛 讗讜转讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻讜转讘 注讘讚 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 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讻讜转讘 讗诇讗 诪砖讞专专 讻讜转讘


and will say to him: You are my slave, because he was designated to be used as repayment for the debt, and lest the future children of this emancipated slave acquire the reputation of being disqualified, the court forces his second master, i.e., the creditor, and he makes him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value, that he owes his own value to the creditor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write a promissory note for his value. Rather, his first master, who emancipated him, writes a promissory note, and then pays the value of the slave to the creditor, as the master designated the slave to be used for repayment.


讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘诪讝讬拽 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讞讬讬讘 讜诪专 住讘专 驻讟讜专


The Gemara explains: With regard to what halakha do they disagree? They disagree with regard to the halakha in the case of one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien, as one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien is liable to pay for the damage, although the liened object itself does not belong to his friend. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, the one who emancipated the slave is required to write a promissory note for his value. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that he is exempt. Consequently, it is the slave who is required to write a promissory note for his value.


讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讛诪讝讬拽 砖讬注讘讜讚讜 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘谞谉


It was also stated that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis disagree with regard to that issue: When discussing one who causes damage to his friend鈥檚 lien, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, which supports the above analysis.


注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诪讬 砖讬讞专专讜 专讘讜 砖谞讬 砖讜专转 讛讚讬谉 讗讬谉 讛注讘讚 讞讬讬讘 讻诇讜诐 讘诪爪讜转 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 砖讛专讬 讬爪讗 注诇讬讜 砖诐 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 讗转 专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 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 讻讜转讘


Ulla said another explanation of the dispute in the mishna: Who emancipated him? His second master, for whom he served as a lien for his debt. The mishna should be explained as follows: According to the letter of the law, the slave is not at all obligated in mitzvot as a result of this emancipation, because the creditor did not have the authority to emancipate him. However, for the betterment of the world, since a rumor has spread about him that he is a freeman as a result of the emancipation, his first master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value to be paid to his original master, who was forced to emancipate his slave without receiving compensation. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write a promissory note for his value. Rather, the one who emancipates, the creditor, writes a promissory note and pays the original master.


讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽


The Gemara explains: With regard to what principle do they disagree? They disagree with regard to damage that is not evident, i.e., a case where the value of an item was lowered due to a change that occurred that is not noticeable in the physical properties of that item. One Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that damage that is not evident is termed damage. Consequently, since the master is forced to emancipate his slave as a result of the action of the creditor, it is viewed as if the creditor has damaged the item of the master. And one Sage, the first tanna, holds that damage that is not evident is not termed damage, and the creditor is not liable to pay.


注讜诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讬 专讘讜 拽专讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Ulla did not say an explanation in accordance with the explanation of Rav with regard to the proper understanding of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Ulla could have said to you: Do you call the second person: His master, which is the term employed in the mishna to describe the one who emancipated the slave? The creditor never was in fact the master of the slave, as the slave was only liened to him.


讜专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讻注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讱 砖谞讬 诪砖讞专专 拽专讬转 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not say in accordance with the explanation of Ulla with regard to the proper understanding of the mishna? The Gemara answers: Rav could have said to you: Do you call the second person: One who emancipates, which is the term employed in the mishna to describe the action taken? The action he performed is not emancipation, as he does not have the authority to emancipate a slave that does not belong to him.


讗讬转诪专 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讗诪讬 砖驻讬专 谞讗讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐


It was stated that the Sages disagreed with regard to a similar question: In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment for others to whom he owes a debt, and a river flooded the field in a way that caused permanent damage, the Sage known as Ami Shappir Na鈥檈, literally meaning Ami the Beautiful, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: The creditor does not collect from other property, and because this field was ruined the creditor incurs a loss. And Shmuel鈥檚 father said: He collects from other property.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪讬 砖驻讬专 谞讗讛 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诪注转讗 讚诇讗 砖驻讬专谉 转转专讙诐 砖诪注转讬讛 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: Because Ami is beautiful [shappir na鈥檈], does he say halakhot that are not beautiful and correct? Why should the creditor not be able to collect his debt from other property? Interpret his halakha as referring to a case where the debtor said explicitly to the creditor: Not only is this field liened property, but you will have payment only from this field. In such a case, Ami Shappir Na鈥檈 ruled that if that field is destroyed, the creditor has no recourse.


转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讗讞专 讜砖讟驻讛 谞讛专 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讬讛讗 诇讱 驻专注讜谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐


This is also taught in a baraita: In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment for another to whom he owes a debt, and a river flooded the field, the creditor collects from other property. But if the debtor said to the creditor: You will have payment only from this field, then he does not collect from other property.


转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讛注讜砖讛 砖讚讛讜 讗驻讜转讬拽讬 诇讘注诇 讞讜讘 讜诇讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 讙讜讘讬谉 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讘注诇 讞讜讘 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 讙讜讘讛 诪砖讗专 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讛 砖诇 讗砖讛 诇讞讝专 注诇 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉


It is taught in another baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 12:3): In the case of one who sets aside his field as designated repayment to a creditor or for a woman鈥檚 marriage contract, and he later sells that field, the creditor or the woman collects only from other property but not from the field that was sold. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A creditor collects only from other property, but a woman does not need to collect from other property. She may seize the field that had been designated. What is the reason for the distinction? Since it is not the way of a woman to go to court, it is assumed that that particular field was designated to pay her marriage contract in any event, to avoid the need for her to enter into litigation to claim her due.


诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讜讘讚 讗转 专讘讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 转拽谞转诐 讗转 专讘讜 讜讗转 注爪诪讜 诇讗 转拽谞转诐 诇讬砖讗 砖驻讞讛 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉


MISHNA: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman because only one of his two owners emancipated him, he serves his master one day and serves himself one day; this is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: Through such an arrangement you have remedied his master, as his master loses nothing through this. However, you have not remedied the slave himself, as the slave himself remains in an unsustainable situation. It is not possible for him to marry a maidservant because he is already a half-freeman, as it is prohibited for a freeman to marry a maidservant.


讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗驻砖专 砖讻讘专 讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讬讘讟诇 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讘专讗 讛注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 诇驻专讬讛 讜专讘讬讛 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转讜讛讜 讘专讗讛 诇砖讘转 讬爪专讛 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 讞爪讬 讚诪讬讜 讜讞讝专讜 讘讬转 讛诇诇 诇讛讜专讜转 讻讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬


It is also not possible for him to marry a free woman, as he is still a half-slave. If you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn鈥檛 it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: 鈥淗e did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited鈥 (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to his master. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, that a half-slave must be set free.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 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


GEMARA: The Sages taught: With regard to a master who emancipates only half of his slave, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, i.e., the transaction is complete and half of the slave is emancipated, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself.


讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讟专 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛


Rabba said: Their dispute pertains only to a case where the master emancipated him with a bill of manumission, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: In the context of a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave, the Torah writes that neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, though the man is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the woman had been emancipated, she would be a regular married woman, and they would incur the death penalty for their act of intercourse. In describing the woman in that case, the Torah writes: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed,鈥 and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: 鈥淣or was freedom given her.鈥


诪拽讬砖 砖讟专 诇讻住祝 诪讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜 讗祝 砖讟专 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜


The verse juxtaposes the freeing of a slave via a bill of manumission to the freeing of a slave via payment of money, to teach that just as with money the slave can free either all of him or half of him, for if he were to pay half of his value to the master he would be half-redeemed, so too, by receiving a bill of manumission either all of him or half of him can be emancipated.


讜专讘谞谉 讙诪专讬 诇讛 诇讛 诪讗砖讛 诪讛 讗砖讛 讞爪讬讛 诇讗 讗祝 注讘讚 谞诪讬 讞爪讬讜 诇讗 讗讘诇 讘讻住祝 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 拽谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛


And the Rabbis derive their opinion, that a slave cannot acquire half of his freedom via a bill of manumission, from a verbal analogy of the word 鈥渉er [lah]鈥 written here: 鈥淣or was freedom given to her [lah]鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and the word 鈥渉er [lah]鈥 written with regard to a man who divorces a woman: 鈥淎nd he writes her [lah] a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as in the case of a woman, one is not able to divorce half of her with a bill of divorce, so too, in the case of a slave, one is not able to emancipate half of him with a bill of manumission. However, with regard to a slave who frees himself by giving money, everyone agrees that the slave acquires half of himself, and a female slave would also be partially redeemed but not fully redeemed.


诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛拽讬砖讗 注讚讬驻讗 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬驻讗


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and consequently he derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha stated in the same verse concerning redemption via money. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a verbal analogy is preferable and therefore derives the halakha of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the halakha of the divorce of a woman, where the verse employs an analogous term.


诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬驻讗 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗砖讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讛 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讻住祝 转讗诪专 讘注讘讚 砖讬讜爪讗 讘讻住祝


The Gemara rejects this: No, everyone agrees that generally a verbal analogy is preferable, but it is different here because the verbal analogy can be refuted by stating the following: What is unique about a woman is that she cannot leave a marriage via money at all, shall you say that one should compare her case to that of a slave, who does leave his servitude via money? Since there are differences between divorce and emancipation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is preferable to derive the halakha from a juxtaposition.


讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讻住祝 讚专讘讬 住讘专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讚讘专讛 转讜专讛 讻诇砖讜谉 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讟专 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 拽谞讛


And Rav Yosef said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis pertains only to a case where the slave was freed via money, for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The halakha that a slave can be half-freed can be derived from the phrase: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed [vehofde lo nifdata]鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), indicating that she has been partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. And the Rabbis hold: The Torah spoke in the language of people, and the repetition of the verb in the verse is not to be used as a source for deriving a halakha. However, when the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission, everyone agrees that the slave has not acquired himself and remains a full slave.


诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪砖讞专专 讞爪讬 注讘讚讜 讘砖讟专 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 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬讜讘转讗


The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement based on what was taught in a baraita: With regard to one who emancipates half of his slave with a bill of manumission, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He has acquired himself, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation.


(谞讬诪讗) 讘砖讟专 讛讜讗 讚驻诇讬讙讬 讗讘诇 讘讻住祝 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讘转专转讬


The Gemara suggests: In this baraita, they disagree in a case where the slave is half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. However, they do not explicitly disagree in a case where the slave is half-redeemed with money. Shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the statement of Rav Yosef with regard to two aspects: First, as above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he is half-freed via a bill of manumission; second, according to his statement, the dispute pertains to redeeming with money, yet the baraita gives no indication that the Rabbis would hold that the slave can be half-redeemed with money?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讬讜住祝 驻诇讬讙讬 讘砖讟专 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘砖讟专 诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞讜 讚专讘讬


The Gemara rejects this: Rav Yosef could have said to you: They disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, and the same is true, that they would disagree, with regard to redeeming with money. And this, that they explicitly disagree with regard to emancipation via a bill of manumission, is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that a slave can be half-freed even by receiving a bill of manumission.


讜诇讬驻诇讙讬 讘讻住祝 讜诇讛讜讚讬注讱 讻讞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讻讞 讚讛讬转讬专讗 注讚讬祝 诇讬讛


The Gemara asks: And let them disagree with regard to redeeming with money, and to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, that they hold he cannot be half-freed even through redeeming with money. The Gemara responds: It is preferable to the tanna to emphasize the power of leniency, and therefore the dispute is presented as it is.


转讗 砖诪注 讜讛驻讚讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讬 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 驻讚讜讬讛 讜讗讬谞讛 驻讚讜讬讛 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讜讛 讻住祝


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof with regard to this discussion based on a baraita: The verse in Leviticus employs the double expression 鈥vehofde lo nifdata,鈥 literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The baraita analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only 鈥渁nd redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渘ot redeemed.鈥 If it had stated only 鈥渘ot redeemed,鈥 one might have thought that it means an entirely unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, the verse states 鈥渁nd redeemed.鈥 How can these texts be reconciled? The verse is discussing a case where she is partially redeemed but not fully redeemed. This was accomplished via money or an equivalent value of money.


讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘讻住祝 讘砖讟专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻转讘 诇讛 住驻专 讻专讬转讜转 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讟专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讟专


The baraita continues. And I have derived only that she can be partially redeemed via money. From where do I derive that she can also be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and later on, in the case of divorce, it states: 鈥淎nd he writes her a scroll of severance鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:1). Just as later on freedom is granted via a bill of divorce, so too here, a maidservant is freed via a bill of manumission.


讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讞爪讬讜 讘讻住祝 讗讜 讻讜诇讜 讘砖讟专 讞爪讬讜 讘砖讟专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛驻讚讛 诇讗 谞驻讚转讛 讗讜 讞讜驻砖讛 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讛 诪拽讬砖 砖讟专 诇讻住祝 诪讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜 讗祝 砖讟专 谞诪讬 讘讬谉 讻讜诇讜 讘讬谉 讞爪讬讜


I have derived only that half of a slave can be redeemed via money, as detailed above, or that all of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission. From where do I derive that half of him can be emancipated via a bill of manumission? The verse states: 鈥淎nd not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her,鈥 and thereby juxtaposes a bill of manumission to money. Just as a slave can be either fully redeemed or half-redeemed via money, so too, he can be either fully emancipated or half-emancipated via a bill of manumission. This marks the end of the baraita.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘转专 讚讗讬转讜转讘 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬


The Gemara analyzes the baraita in light of the earlier opinions. Granted, according to Rav Yosef after he was conclusively refuted, who now holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree both with regard to money and a bill of manumission, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, for half of the slave is freed, whether via money or a bill of manumission. However, according to the opinion of Rabba, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a bill of manumission, but everyone agrees that the slave can redeem half of himself with money, do all agree with the statement of the first clause, but the last clause is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?


讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讛 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讜住讬驻讗 专讘讬 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讬讗


Rabba could have said to you: Yes, all agree with the statement of the first clause, and the last clause is in accordance with only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rav Ashi said: This baraita is entirely in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi.


讗诇讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讛 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 讘讻住祝 讜讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗


The Gemara asks: But with regard to the mishna that teaches: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman, granted, according to the opinion of Rabba, he establishes the mishna as referring to a case where the slave was half-redeemed with money, and everyone agrees that this is effective. However, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, shall we say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of only Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, the Rabbis hold that a slave cannot be half-free, regardless of whether he is freed via money or a bill of manumission. Ravina said:


Scroll To Top