Gittin 41

ויאמר לו עבדי אתה כופין את רבו שני ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב עבד שטר על דמיו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אין העבד כותב אלא משחרר כותב

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.

במאי קא מיפלגי במזיק שיעבודו של חבירו קא מיפלגי דמר סבר חייב ומר סבר פטור

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’s lien, as one Sage, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, holds that one who causes damage to his friend’s 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.

איתמר נמי המזיק שיעבודו של חבירו באנו למחלוקת רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ורבנן

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’s lien, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis, which supports the above analysis.

עולא אמר מי שיחררו רבו שני שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום במצות אלא מפני תיקון העולם שהרי יצא עליו שם בן חורין כופין את רבו ראשון ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על דמיו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו כותב אלא משחרר כותב

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.

במאי קמיפלגי בהיזק שאינו ניכר קמיפלגי מר סבר שמיה היזק ומר סבר לא שמיה היזק

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.

עולא מאי טעמא לא אמר כרב אמר לך שני רבו קרית ליה

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.

ורב מאי טעמא לא אמר כעולא אמר לך שני משחרר קרית ליה

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.

איתמר העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחרים ושטפה נהר אמי שפיר נאה אמר רבי יוחנן אינו גובה משאר נכסים ואבוה דשמואל אמר גובה משאר נכסים

§ 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’e, literally meaning Ami the Beautiful, says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The creditor does not collect from other property, and because this field was ruined the creditor incurs a loss. And Shmuel’s father said: He collects from other property.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק משום דאמי שפיר נאה הוא אומר שמעתא דלא שפירן תתרגם שמעתיה דאמר ליה לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because Ami is beautiful [shappir na’e], 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’e ruled that if that field is destroyed, the creditor has no recourse.

תניא נמי הכי העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחר ושטפה נהר גובה משאר נכסים ואם אמר לו לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו אינו גובה משאר נכסים

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.

תניא אידך העושה שדהו אפותיקי לבעל חוב ולכתובת אשה גובין משאר נכסים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בעל חוב גובה משאר נכסים אשה אינה גובה משאר נכסים שאין דרכה של אשה לחזר על בתי דינין

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’s 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.

מתני׳ מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד דברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם לישא שפחה אי אפשר שכבר חציו בן חורין

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.

בת חורין אי אפשר שכבר חציו עבד יבטל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו וחזרו בית הלל להורות כדברי בית שמאי

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’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן המשחרר חצי עבדו רבי אומר קנה וחכמים אומרים לא קנה

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.

אמר רבה מחלוקת בשטר דרבי סבר והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה

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: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: “And not at all redeemed,” and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: “Nor was freedom given her.”

מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו

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.

ורבנן גמרי לה לה מאשה מה אשה חציה לא אף עבד נמי חציו לא אבל בכסף דברי הכל קנה פדויה ואינה פדויה

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 “her [lah]” written here: “Nor was freedom given to her [lah]” (Leviticus 19:20), and the word “her [lah]” written with regard to a man who divorces a woman: “And he writes her [lah] a scroll of severance” (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.

לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר הקישא עדיפא ומר סבר גזרה שוה עדיפא

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.

לא דכולי עלמא גזירה שוה עדיפא ושאני הכא דאיכא למיפרך מה לאשה שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף תאמר בעבד שיוצא בכסף

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.

ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת בכסף דרבי סבר והפדה לא נפדתה פדויה ואינה פדויה ורבנן סברי דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם אבל בשטר דברי הכל לא קנה

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: “And not at all redeemed [vehofde lo nifdata]” (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.

מיתיבי המשחרר חצי עבדו בשטר רבי אומר קנה וחכמים אומרים לא קנה תיובתא דרב יוסף תיובתא

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav Yosef’s 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.

(נימא) בשטר הוא דפליגי אבל בכסף לא פליגי לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי

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?

אמר לך רב יוסף פליגי בשטר והוא הדין בכסף והא דקא מיפלגי בשטר להודיעך כחו דרבי

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.

וליפלגי בכסף ולהודיעך כחן דרבנן כח דהיתירא עדיף ליה

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.

תא שמע והפדה יכול לכל תלמוד לומר לא נפדתה אי לא נפדתה יכול לכל תלמוד לומר והפדה הא כיצד פדויה ואינה פדויה בכסף ובשוה כסף

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 “vehofde lo nifdata,” literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The baraita analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only “and redeemed,” one might have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is entirely redeemed. Therefore, the verse states “not redeemed.” If it had stated only “not redeemed,” one might have thought that it means an entirely unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, the verse states “and redeemed.” 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.

ואין לי אלא בכסף בשטר מנין תלמוד לומר והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה ולהלן הוא אומר וכתב לה ספר כריתות מה להלן בשטר אף כאן בשטר

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: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20), and later on, in the case of divorce, it states: “And he writes her a scroll of severance” (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.

אין לי אלא חציו בכסף או כולו בשטר חציו בשטר מנין תלמוד לומר והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו

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: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her,” 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.

בשלמא לרב יוסף בתר דאיתותב הא מני רבי היא אלא לרבה רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי

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?

אמר לך רבה אין רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי רב אשי אמר רבי היא

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.

אלא מתניתין דקתני מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין בשלמא לרבה מוקים לה בכסף ודברי הכל אלא לרב יוסף לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן אמר רבינא

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: