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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 28, 2023 | 讟壮 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 43

Can a master sell the potential k’nas (fine) payment that the master would receive in the event that an ox gored his/her slave and killed him? They bring a source to answer the question, but it is inconclusive. There is a debate regarding a half-slave/half-free man who betroths a woman or a man who betroths a woman who is half maidservant/half-free – is the kiddushin valid? Is it the same as one who betroths half a woman or is there reason to distinguish between the cases? If she was betrothed before she was entirely freed and then freed, does the emancipation cancel the kiddushin or complete it? There was a case where they forced an owner to release his half-maidservant/half-free woman. Was it because they held like Rabbi Yochanan ben Broka that also women are commanded to procreate or was it to protect her as men were taking advantage of her since she was unable to be married? The rabbis penalized those who sold their slaves to a Gentile or Jewish owner outside of Israel. Do they need to also give them an emancipation document? If one used a slave as collateral for a loan to a gentile, at what stage is the slave considered freed?

讚诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讜诪讬驻讟专


Perhaps he will admit his obligation and become exempt from his obligation to pay, for one who admits that he is required to pay a penalty before the court obligates him to pay it is exempt.


讜转讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讚讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讗讬 砖讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗讬 注讘讚 诪讗讬


And you could raise this dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, as the Rabbis state that a person cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world only in a case such as the produce of a date palm, which now, at least, is not in the world. However, here, the ox is standing and the slave is standing, and there is no need for any change in the reality. What is the halakha in this case?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rabbi Abba said: Come and hear a proof based on a halakhic exposition of the verse that details those who may partake of teruma. The verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any person, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and those who are born in his house, they may eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and the Sages expound as follows: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd those who are born in his house鈥? If a slave, who is the purchase of his money, may partake of teruma, then in the case of those slaves who are born to the priest in his house, is it not all the more so that they should be able to partake of teruma?


讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


The baraita continues: If so, if the halakha that a born slave may partake of teruma is derived only due to this a fortiori inference, I would have said: Just as with regard to the purchase of his money it is only one who has monetary value that partakes, so too, with regard to one born in his house, only one who has monetary value partakes. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies when a born slave is not worth anything, e.g., in the case of a newborn, who cannot perform any labor? The verse states: 鈥淭hose who are born in his house,鈥 in any case, regardless of their present monetary value.


讜注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转讜 诪讛 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜讻诇


The baraita continues: And I still say that perhaps one born in the priest鈥檚 house may partake of teruma whether he has monetary value or whether he does not have monetary value. But with regard to a slave purchased of the priest鈥檚 money, when he has monetary value, he may partake; when he does not have monetary value, he may not partake. The verse states: 鈥淭he purchase of his money鈥nd those who are born in his house, they may eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). The verse compares the two, indicating: Just as one born in the priest鈥檚 house may partake of teruma although he is not worth anything, so too, the purchase of his money may partake of teruma although he is not worth anything. In any event, it is clear from this baraita that it is possible for a slave to have no monetary value.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讚 砖诪讻专讜 专讘讜 诇拽谞住 诪讻讜专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 注讘讚讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘讬谉 诇拽谞住讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 注讘讚 讟专驻讛


Rabbi Abba now states his proof. And if it enters your mind to say that a slave whose master sold him to another person only with regard to the penalty is sold, is there a slave that cannot be sold with regard to the penalty? Even if he cannot perform any labor, he still has value in that he can be sold with regard to the penalty. The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the case of a slave who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa]. Since he will die from an injury that is already present, one would not be required to pay a penalty if one鈥檚 ox gored him.


讜讛讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讬讛 讘诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 he fit to stand before his master in honor, even if he cannot perform any other service, so he has some value as a slave? The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a slave who is not only a tereifa and for whom there is no penalty, but is also disgusting [menuvval] or afflicted with boils [mukeh she岣n]. It would not be a display of honor for the slave to stand before the master, and therefore he is worthless. This question of the Gemara remains unresolved.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 诪讛讜 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讞爪讬讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讬讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman who betrothed a free woman, what is the halakha? The Gemara discusses the elements of this question: If you say that this should be compared to a Jewish man who said to a Jewish woman: Become betrothed to half of me, and the halakha is that she is betrothed, this is because she is fit to marry all of him. However, in this case one could say that she is not fit to marry all of him because he is a half-slave, so it is not a valid betrothal.


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讜讛讗 注讘讚 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬


However, if you say that this should be compared to the case of a Jewish man who betroths half a woman, where the halakha is that she is not betrothed because he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition, as betrothal acquires a complete woman and not half of a woman, but this slave did not leave any part of her out of his acquisition, as his Jewish half betrothed her fully. What is the halakha in this case?


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讬转 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 拽谞住 诇专讘讜 讜讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诇讗讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof based on that which is taught in a baraita: If an ox killed a half-slave half-freeman, then the owner of the ox gives half of a penalty, i.e., fifteen shekels, to his master and half of a ransom, i.e., half of the value of the deceased, to his heirs. And if you say that his betrothal is not a valid betrothal, and the half-slave half-freeman may not marry a woman, then from where does he have heirs? It must be that he may betroth and marry a woman, and as a result he can have heirs.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻砖注砖讗讜 讟专驻讛 讜诪讗讬 讬讜专砖讬讜 谞驻砖讬讛


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: This is referring to a case where the ox did not actually kill him. Rather, it made him a tereifa, and a tereifa is like a dead person. And what is the meaning of: His heirs? It means the half-slave half-freeman himself.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讬讜专砖讬讜 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讻讜驻专 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讜驻专 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讜


Rava said that there are two refutations of your statement: One is that it teaches: His heirs, and it is not reasonable to say that this is referring to the victim himself. And furthermore, it is referring to ransom here, and Reish Lakish says: Ransom is paid only after the death of the victim but not while he is still alive, even if he is a tereifa. Rather, Rava says: When the baraita states that half of the ransom is given to his heirs, it means that it is fitting for heirs to take the ransom, but he does not actually have heirs.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉


Rava says: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal.


讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜


The Gemara says: Rabba bar Rav Huna taught this halakha in public: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal. Rav 岣sda said to him as a question: Are the cases comparable? There, where he betroths half a woman, he leaves a portion of the woman out of his acquisition. That is why the betrothal does not take effect. However, here, she was a half-maidservant half-free woman when he betrothed her, and he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition, so the betrothal should take effect.


讛讚专 讗讜拽讬诐 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讜讛诪讻砖诇讛 讛讝讗转 转讞转 讬讚讬讱 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻砖诇 讘讛谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讘诇 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜


Rabba bar Rav Huna went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and he interpreted a verse homiletically. The verse states: 鈥淎nd let this stumbling-block be under your hand鈥 (Isaiah 3:6). A person does not understand statements of Torah unless he stumbles in them. Therefore, I retract my previous statement and say that although the Sages said that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, however, if there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is a valid betrothal. What is the reason for the distinction? There, he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition; here, he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讞砖讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讝讜 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 讗诇诪讗 讘转 讗讬转专讜住讬 讛讬讗 讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬


Rav Sheshet said in response to this: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal. And if a person whispers to you [le岣shekha], saying, based on what was taught in a baraita: Who is the designated maidservant mentioned in the Torah? This is a woman who is a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, apparently indicating that she can be betrothed, then say to him: Go to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, for he says that this is not referring to a woman who is a half-slave, but rather to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave.


讜砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讘转 讗讬转专讜住讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 诪讗讜专住转 诪讬讜讞讚转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讜专住转 诪讬讜讞讚转


Rav Sheshet questions his own statement: But can a Canaanite maidservant be betrothed? Rather, what have you to say: What is the meaning of the word betrothed in the statement of Rabbi Yishmael? It means that she is designated for him, and it is not actual betrothal. Here, also, in the baraita, what does it mean that the Canaanite maidservant is betrothed to a Hebrew slave? It means that she is designated to cohabit with him, but they are not in fact betrothed.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 讜诪转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇诇讜讬


Rav 岣sda says: If there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuven, and afterward she was emancipated entirely, and she went back and was betrothed to Shimon his brother, and both brothers died without children, then she enters into levirate marriage with Levi, the third brother, because she was considered to be the complete wife of only one of the brothers,


讜讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讗砖转 砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽讚讜砖讬 讚专讗讜讘谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 讚砖诪注讜谉 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬 拽讚讜砖讬 讚砖诪注讜谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 讚专讗讜讘谉 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉


and I do not declare her to be the wife of two dead men. The halakha is that a yevama whose requirement for levirate marriage results from marriage to two brothers does not enter into levirate marriage at all. Here, that halakha does not apply, as whichever way you look at it, she was not married to two brothers: If Reuven鈥檚 betrothal was a valid betrothal, then Shimon鈥檚 betrothal was not a valid betrothal, and she is only Reuven鈥檚 widow. And if Shimon鈥檚 betrothal was a valid betrothal, it could only be that Reuven鈥檚 betrothal was not a valid betrothal. Either way, she had been married to only one of the brothers, and therefore she enters into levirate marriage with the third.


讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻拽注讜 拽讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙诪专讜 拽讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉


It was stated: If there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuven, and afterward she was emancipated entirely, and she went back and was betrothed to Shimon, who in this case was not the brother of Reuven, then Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rav Na岣an says: Through her emancipation the first betrothal was entirely abrogated, and the second betrothal takes effect. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says: The first betrothal was completed. Reuven鈥檚 betrothal took effect immediately once she was emancipated. Consequently, Shimon鈥檚 betrothal did not take effect at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讞讜驻砖讛 讛讗 讞讜驻砖讛 讬讜诪转讜


Rabbi Zeira says: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion, as it is written with regard to one who engages in sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant: 鈥淭hey shall not be put to death, because she was not free鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and one can infer: But if she was free, then they will be put to death, because she is a married woman. This teaches that her betrothal is complete once she is emancipated.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讛诪讗讜专住转 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讞讜驻砖讛 讬讜诪转讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讞讜驻砖讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讞讜驻砖讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛


Abaye said to him: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: It is referring to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave, so too, will you say that when she is free they are put to death? Once she is free, her betrothal to a Hebrew slave certainly is abrogated. Rather, what have you to say in order to understand the inference from the verse according to Rabbi Yishmael? That is a case where she was free, and she then went back and was betrothed. Here too, even if the verse is discussing a half-maidservant half-free woman, they will be put to death only in a case where she was free and she then went back and was betrothed, but the emancipation itself does not complete her earlier betrothal.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻驻讜 讗转 专讘讛 讜注砖讗讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗讜转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讜讙讜壮 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 讜诪诇讗讜 讜讙讜壮


Rav Huna bar Ketina says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: An incident occurred involving one woman who was a half-maidservant half-free woman, and they forced her master to emancipate her, and he made her a free woman. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is it? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: For both Adam and Eve the verse states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), indicating that the mitzva to procreate is incumbent upon women as well, and therefore a half-maidservant half-free woman must be freed to enable her to procreate?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专 谞讛讙讜 讘讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: No, it need not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as the reason that he was forced to emancipate her was because she was unable to marry, and other men took liberties with her, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her. Consequently, the court forced her master to emancipate her so that she could marry.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉


MISHNA: In a case of one who sells his slave to gentiles, or even to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated. Since the slave, who is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, would be restricted in his ability to fulfill them in his new situation, either because he would be under the authority of a gentile or because he will no longer be in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages penalized his original owner that he should become a freeman, so that if he succeeds in escaping his new owner, he is a full-fledged freeman.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 诪专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讻转讘 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讗讘诇 讻转讘 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讝讛讜 砖讞专讜专讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:16): In a case of one who sells his slave to gentiles, the slave is emancipated, but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his first master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? When the master did not write a document for him, but if he wrote a document for him, then this is his emancipation and he does not require a bill of manumission.


诪讗讬 讗讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讻砖转讘专讞 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 注住拽 讘讱


The Gemara asks: What is the nature of this document? Rav Sheshet said: He writes to him like this: When you will escape from the gentile, I have no business with you. Even though this is not an explicit bill of manumission, it is sufficient for him to be considered a freeman.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜讛 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖注砖讛 诇讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讜住讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 谞诪讜住讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖拽讬


The Sages taught: If he borrows from a gentile on the basis of the slave, i.e., using the slave as collateral so that the creditor can collect the slave in payment of the debt in the event that the debtor defaults, then once the gentile behaves with the slave according to his law [nimmuso], the slave is emancipated, just like a slave who is sold to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What is defined as: His law? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: He places a seal [nashkei] upon him.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗专讬住讬谉 讜讛讞讻讬专讜转 讜讗专讬住讬 讘转讬 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜讬 砖诪砖讻谉 砖讚讛讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注砖讛 诇讜 谞诪讜住讜 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this based on a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:11): If there was a field owned by a gentile, but there were Jewish sharecroppers, or Jewish tenant farmers, or Jewish family sharecroppers, i.e., an entire family of sharecroppers who work a field generation after generation; or in the case of a gentile who mortgaged his field to a Jew, then even though the gentile acted for the Jew based on his, the Jew鈥檚, law, the field is exempt from tithes, because the field belongs to a gentile. It is not considered as if it were transferred to the Jew.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞砖拽讬 砖讚讛 讘转 谞砖拽讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讝诪谉


And if it enters your mind that the phrase: His law, means a seal, is a field able to be sealed? Rather, Rav Sheshet says: The expression: He acted for him based on his law, means time. In other words, a deadline was set and if the debt was not paid by the given date the slave would automatically be transferred to the possession of the gentile.


拽砖讬讗 讝诪谉 讗讝诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: If that is so, there is a difficulty with regard to the issue of time in the case of the slave and the issue of time in the case of the field. In the case of the slave the halakha is that after the set time, he leaves the debtor鈥檚 authority and is emancipated, while in the case of the field its produce does not become obligated to be tithed like the produce of a Jew鈥檚 field after that set time. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since the following distinction can be made: This, the case of the slave who is emancipated, is referring to when his time to be transferred has arrived, and this, the case of the field, is referring to where its time to be transferred has not yet arrived.


讗诇讗 讙讘讬 注讘讚 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讙讜驻讗 讜讛讗 诇驻讬专讗


The Gemara asks: But with regard to a slave whose time to be transferred has arrived, does it need to be said that he is emancipated? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that once he is transferred to the authority of the gentile, he is emancipated, just as in the case of a sale? Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: This case and that case are referring to when his time to be transferred has not yet arrived, and it is not difficult: This, the case of the slave who is emancipated, is with regard to the slave himself, as the slave himself is to be transferred to the gentile, and that case is with regard to the produce. In other words, the Jewish creditor has the rights to the produce of the field, but he does not take possession of the actual field. Therefore, it remains exempt from tithes.

  • 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 43: Penalizing the Seller of Slaves

What happens when a half-slave gets betrothed to a fully free woman? Or vice versa? Plus, does a half-slave have...

Gittin 43

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 43

讚诇诪讗 诪讜讚讛 讜诪讬驻讟专


Perhaps he will admit his obligation and become exempt from his obligation to pay, for one who admits that he is required to pay a penalty before the court obligates him to pay it is exempt.


讜转讘注讬 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪拽谞讛 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 驻讬专讜转 讚拽诇 讚讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讛讗 拽讗讬 砖讜专 讜讛讗 拽讗讬 注讘讚 诪讗讬


And you could raise this dilemma according to the opinion of the Rabbis as well, as the Rabbis state that a person cannot transfer ownership of an entity that has not yet come into the world only in a case such as the produce of a date palm, which now, at least, is not in the world. However, here, the ox is standing and the slave is standing, and there is no need for any change in the reality. What is the halakha in this case?


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 转讗 砖诪注 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗诐 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉


Rabbi Abba said: Come and hear a proof based on a halakhic exposition of the verse that details those who may partake of teruma. The verse states: 鈥淏ut if a priest buys any person, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and those who are born in his house, they may eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and the Sages expound as follows: What is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淎nd those who are born in his house鈥? If a slave, who is the purchase of his money, may partake of teruma, then in the case of those slaves who are born to the priest in his house, is it not all the more so that they should be able to partake of teruma?


讗讬诇讜 讻谉 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐


The baraita continues: If so, if the halakha that a born slave may partake of teruma is derived only due to this a fortiori inference, I would have said: Just as with regard to the purchase of his money it is only one who has monetary value that partakes, so too, with regard to one born in his house, only one who has monetary value partakes. And from where is it derived that the same halakha applies when a born slave is not worth anything, e.g., in the case of a newborn, who cannot perform any labor? The verse states: 鈥淭hose who are born in his house,鈥 in any case, regardless of their present monetary value.


讜注讚讬讬谉 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讘讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 拽谞讬谉 讻住祝 讬砖 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讜讻诇 讗讬谉 讘讜 砖讜讛 讻住祝 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讬诇讬讚 讘讬转讜 诪讛 讬诇讬讚 讘讬转 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜讻诇 讗祝 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谞讜 砖讜讛 讻诇讜诐 讗讜讻诇


The baraita continues: And I still say that perhaps one born in the priest鈥檚 house may partake of teruma whether he has monetary value or whether he does not have monetary value. But with regard to a slave purchased of the priest鈥檚 money, when he has monetary value, he may partake; when he does not have monetary value, he may not partake. The verse states: 鈥淭he purchase of his money鈥nd those who are born in his house, they may eat of his bread鈥 (Leviticus 22:11). The verse compares the two, indicating: Just as one born in the priest鈥檚 house may partake of teruma although he is not worth anything, so too, the purchase of his money may partake of teruma although he is not worth anything. In any event, it is clear from this baraita that it is possible for a slave to have no monetary value.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 注讘讚 砖诪讻专讜 专讘讜 诇拽谞住 诪讻讜专 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 注讘讚讗 讚诇讗 诪讝讚讘讬谉 诇拽谞住讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讻讗 注讘讚 讟专驻讛


Rabbi Abba now states his proof. And if it enters your mind to say that a slave whose master sold him to another person only with regard to the penalty is sold, is there a slave that cannot be sold with regard to the penalty? Even if he cannot perform any labor, he still has value in that he can be sold with regard to the penalty. The Gemara answers: Yes, there is the case of a slave who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [tereifa]. Since he will die from an injury that is already present, one would not be required to pay a penalty if one鈥檚 ox gored him.


讜讛讗 讞讝讬 诇诪讬拽诐 拽诪讬讛 讘诪谞讜讜诇 讜诪讜讻讛 砖讞讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 he fit to stand before his master in honor, even if he cannot perform any other service, so he has some value as a slave? The Gemara answers: This baraita is referring to a slave who is not only a tereifa and for whom there is no penalty, but is also disgusting [menuvval] or afflicted with boils [mukeh she岣n]. It would not be a display of honor for the slave to stand before the master, and therefore he is worthless. This question of the Gemara remains unresolved.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 诪讛讜 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 砖讗诪专 诇讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讛转拽讚砖讬 诇讞爪讬讬 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬讗 诇讻讜诇讬讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In the case of one who is a half-slave half-freeman who betrothed a free woman, what is the halakha? The Gemara discusses the elements of this question: If you say that this should be compared to a Jewish man who said to a Jewish woman: Become betrothed to half of me, and the halakha is that she is betrothed, this is because she is fit to marry all of him. However, in this case one could say that she is not fit to marry all of him because he is a half-slave, so it is not a valid betrothal.


讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讘谉 讬砖专讗诇 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讚砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讜讛讗 注讘讚 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 诪讗讬


However, if you say that this should be compared to the case of a Jewish man who betroths half a woman, where the halakha is that she is not betrothed because he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition, as betrothal acquires a complete woman and not half of a woman, but this slave did not leave any part of her out of his acquisition, as his Jewish half betrothed her fully. What is the halakha in this case?


转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讬转 诪讬 砖讞爪讬讜 注讘讚 讜讞爪讬讜 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 谞讜转谉 讞爪讬 拽谞住 诇专讘讜 讜讞爪讬 讻讜驻专 诇讬讜专砖讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 拽讬讚讜砖讬讜 诇讗讜 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讬讜专砖讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛


The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof based on that which is taught in a baraita: If an ox killed a half-slave half-freeman, then the owner of the ox gives half of a penalty, i.e., fifteen shekels, to his master and half of a ransom, i.e., half of the value of the deceased, to his heirs. And if you say that his betrothal is not a valid betrothal, and the half-slave half-freeman may not marry a woman, then from where does he have heirs? It must be that he may betroth and marry a woman, and as a result he can have heirs.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻砖注砖讗讜 讟专驻讛 讜诪讗讬 讬讜专砖讬讜 谞驻砖讬讛


Rav Adda bar Ahava says: This is referring to a case where the ox did not actually kill him. Rather, it made him a tereifa, and a tereifa is like a dead person. And what is the meaning of: His heirs? It means the half-slave half-freeman himself.


讗诪专 专讘讗 砖转讬 转砖讜讘讜转 讘讚讘专 讞讚讗 讚讬讜专砖讬讜 拽转谞讬 讜注讜讚 讻讜驻专 讛讜讗 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻讜驻专 讗讬谉 诪砖转诇诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讗讜讬 诇讬讟讜诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讜


Rava said that there are two refutations of your statement: One is that it teaches: His heirs, and it is not reasonable to say that this is referring to the victim himself. And furthermore, it is referring to ransom here, and Reish Lakish says: Ransom is paid only after the death of the victim but not while he is still alive, even if he is a tereifa. Rather, Rava says: When the baraita states that half of the ransom is given to his heirs, it means that it is fitting for heirs to take the ransom, but he does not actually have heirs.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉


Rava says: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal.


讚专砖 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜


The Gemara says: Rabba bar Rav Huna taught this halakha in public: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal. Rav 岣sda said to him as a question: Are the cases comparable? There, where he betroths half a woman, he leaves a portion of the woman out of his acquisition. That is why the betrothal does not take effect. However, here, she was a half-maidservant half-free woman when he betrothed her, and he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition, so the betrothal should take effect.


讛讚专 讗讜拽讬诐 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪讜专讗 注诇讬讛 讜讚专砖 讜讛诪讻砖诇讛 讛讝讗转 转讞转 讬讚讬讱 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 注讜诪讚 注诇 讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 谞讻砖诇 讘讛谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讗讘诇 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 拽讚讜砖讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜 讛讻讗 诇讗 砖讬讬专 讘拽谞讬谞讜


Rabba bar Rav Huna went back and placed an interpreter before him so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, and he interpreted a verse homiletically. The verse states: 鈥淎nd let this stumbling-block be under your hand鈥 (Isaiah 3:6). A person does not understand statements of Torah unless he stumbles in them. Therefore, I retract my previous statement and say that although the Sages said that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, however, if there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is a valid betrothal. What is the reason for the distinction? There, he left a portion of the woman out of his acquisition; here, he did not leave a portion of the woman out of his acquisition.


讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讻砖诐 砖讛诪拽讚砖 讞爪讬 讗砖讛 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻讱 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 讗讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖讬讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗诐 诇讞砖讱 讗讚诐 诇讜诪专 讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讝讜 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 讗诇诪讗 讘转 讗讬转专讜住讬 讛讬讗 讗诪讜专 诇讜 讻诇讱 讗爪诇 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讘砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讛诪讗讜专住讛 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬


Rav Sheshet said in response to this: Just as the halakha is that in the case of one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too, if there is a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed, then her betrothal is not a valid betrothal. And if a person whispers to you [le岣shekha], saying, based on what was taught in a baraita: Who is the designated maidservant mentioned in the Torah? This is a woman who is a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, apparently indicating that she can be betrothed, then say to him: Go to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, for he says that this is not referring to a woman who is a half-slave, but rather to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave.


讜砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讘转 讗讬转专讜住讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 诪讗讬 诪讗讜专住转 诪讬讜讞讚转 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诪讗讬 诪讗讜专住转 诪讬讜讞讚转


Rav Sheshet questions his own statement: But can a Canaanite maidservant be betrothed? Rather, what have you to say: What is the meaning of the word betrothed in the statement of Rabbi Yishmael? It means that she is designated for him, and it is not actual betrothal. Here, also, in the baraita, what does it mean that the Canaanite maidservant is betrothed to a Hebrew slave? It means that she is designated to cohabit with him, but they are not in fact betrothed.


讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 讜诪转讜 砖谞讬讛诐 诪转讬讬讘诪转 诇诇讜讬


Rav 岣sda says: If there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuven, and afterward she was emancipated entirely, and she went back and was betrothed to Shimon his brother, and both brothers died without children, then she enters into levirate marriage with Levi, the third brother, because she was considered to be the complete wife of only one of the brothers,


讜讗讬谉 讗谞讬 拽讜专讗 讘讛 讗砖转 砖谞讬 诪转讬诐 诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讬 拽讚讜砖讬 讚专讗讜讘谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 讚砖诪注讜谉 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讜讗讬 拽讚讜砖讬 讚砖诪注讜谉 拽讚讜砖讬谉 拽讚讜砖讬 讚专讗讜讘谉 诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉


and I do not declare her to be the wife of two dead men. The halakha is that a yevama whose requirement for levirate marriage results from marriage to two brothers does not enter into levirate marriage at all. Here, that halakha does not apply, as whichever way you look at it, she was not married to two brothers: If Reuven鈥檚 betrothal was a valid betrothal, then Shimon鈥檚 betrothal was not a valid betrothal, and she is only Reuven鈥檚 widow. And if Shimon鈥檚 betrothal was a valid betrothal, it could only be that Reuven鈥檚 betrothal was not a valid betrothal. Either way, she had been married to only one of the brothers, and therefore she enters into levirate marriage with the third.


讗讬转诪专 讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 砖谞转拽讚砖讛 诇专讗讜讘谉 讜谞砖转讞专专讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 诇砖诪注讜谉 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 驻拽注讜 拽讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙诪专讜 拽讚讜砖讬 专讗砖讜谉


It was stated: If there was a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuven, and afterward she was emancipated entirely, and she went back and was betrothed to Shimon, who in this case was not the brother of Reuven, then Rav Yosef bar 岣ma says that Rav Na岣an says: Through her emancipation the first betrothal was entirely abrogated, and the second betrothal takes effect. Rabbi Zeira says that Rav Na岣an says: The first betrothal was completed. Reuven鈥檚 betrothal took effect immediately once she was emancipated. Consequently, Shimon鈥檚 betrothal did not take effect at all.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚讬讚讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗 讬讜诪转讜 讻讬 诇讗 讞讜驻砖讛 讛讗 讞讜驻砖讛 讬讜诪转讜


Rabbi Zeira says: It stands to reason in accordance with my opinion, as it is written with regard to one who engages in sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant: 鈥淭hey shall not be put to death, because she was not free鈥 (Leviticus 19:20), and one can infer: But if she was free, then they will be put to death, because she is a married woman. This teaches that her betrothal is complete once she is emancipated.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘砖驻讞讛 讻谞注谞讬转 讛诪讗讜专住转 诇注讘讚 注讘专讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讻讬 讞讜驻砖讛 讬讜诪转讜 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讞讜驻砖讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 砖讞讜驻砖讛 讜讞讝专讛 讜谞转拽讚砖讛


Abaye said to him: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: It is referring to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave, so too, will you say that when she is free they are put to death? Once she is free, her betrothal to a Hebrew slave certainly is abrogated. Rather, what have you to say in order to understand the inference from the verse according to Rabbi Yishmael? That is a case where she was free, and she then went back and was betrothed. Here too, even if the verse is discussing a half-maidservant half-free woman, they will be put to death only in a case where she was free and she then went back and was betrothed, but the emancipation itself does not complete her earlier betrothal.


讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 拽讟讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 诪注砖讛 讘讗砖讛 讗讞转 砖讞爪讬讛 砖驻讞讛 讜讞爪讬讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讜讻驻讜 讗转 专讘讛 讜注砖讗讛 讘转 讞讜专讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讘专讜拽讛 讚讗诪专 注诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讬讘专讱 讗讜转诐 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讬讗诪专 讜讙讜壮 驻专讜 讜专讘讜 讜诪诇讗讜 讜讙讜壮


Rav Huna bar Ketina says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says: An incident occurred involving one woman who was a half-maidservant half-free woman, and they forced her master to emancipate her, and he made her a free woman. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is it? Is it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, who says: For both Adam and Eve the verse states: 鈥淎nd God blessed them, and God said to them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth and subdue it鈥 (Genesis 1:28), indicating that the mitzva to procreate is incumbent upon women as well, and therefore a half-maidservant half-free woman must be freed to enable her to procreate?


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讛驻拽专 谞讛讙讜 讘讛


Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: No, it need not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Beroka, as the reason that he was forced to emancipate her was because she was unable to marry, and other men took liberties with her, i.e., engaged in intercourse with her. Consequently, the court forced her master to emancipate her so that she could marry.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讗讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉


MISHNA: In a case of one who sells his slave to gentiles, or even to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated. Since the slave, who is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, would be restricted in his ability to fulfill them in his new situation, either because he would be under the authority of a gentile or because he will no longer be in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages penalized his original owner that he should become a freeman, so that if he succeeds in escaping his new owner, he is a full-fledged freeman.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬诐 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜爪专讬讱 讙讟 砖讞专讜专 诪专讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讻转讘 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讗讘诇 讻转讘 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讝讛讜 砖讞专讜专讜


GEMARA: The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:16): In a case of one who sells his slave to gentiles, the slave is emancipated, but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his first master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? When the master did not write a document for him, but if he wrote a document for him, then this is his emancipation and he does not require a bill of manumission.


诪讗讬 讗讜谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讻砖转讘专讞 诪诪谞讜 讗讬谉 诇讬 注住拽 讘讱


The Gemara asks: What is the nature of this document? Rav Sheshet said: He writes to him like this: When you will escape from the gentile, I have no business with you. Even though this is not an explicit bill of manumission, it is sufficient for him to be considered a freeman.


转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诇讜讛 注诇讬讜 诪谉 讛讙讜讬 讻讬讜谉 砖注砖讛 诇讜 讙讜讬 谞诪讜住讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 谞诪讜住讜 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 谞砖拽讬


The Sages taught: If he borrows from a gentile on the basis of the slave, i.e., using the slave as collateral so that the creditor can collect the slave in payment of the debt in the event that the debtor defaults, then once the gentile behaves with the slave according to his law [nimmuso], the slave is emancipated, just like a slave who is sold to a gentile. The Gemara asks: What is defined as: His law? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: He places a seal [nashkei] upon him.


诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 讛讗专讬住讬谉 讜讛讞讻讬专讜转 讜讗专讬住讬 讘转讬 讗讘讜转 讜讙讜讬 砖诪砖讻谉 砖讚讛讜 诇讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖注砖讛 诇讜 谞诪讜住讜 驻讟讜专讛 诪谉 讛诪注砖专


Rav Sheshet raises an objection to this based on a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 2:11): If there was a field owned by a gentile, but there were Jewish sharecroppers, or Jewish tenant farmers, or Jewish family sharecroppers, i.e., an entire family of sharecroppers who work a field generation after generation; or in the case of a gentile who mortgaged his field to a Jew, then even though the gentile acted for the Jew based on his, the Jew鈥檚, law, the field is exempt from tithes, because the field belongs to a gentile. It is not considered as if it were transferred to the Jew.


讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 谞砖拽讬 砖讚讛 讘转 谞砖拽讬 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讝诪谉


And if it enters your mind that the phrase: His law, means a seal, is a field able to be sealed? Rather, Rav Sheshet says: The expression: He acted for him based on his law, means time. In other words, a deadline was set and if the debt was not paid by the given date the slave would automatically be transferred to the possession of the gentile.


拽砖讬讗 讝诪谉 讗讝诪谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛


The Gemara asks: If that is so, there is a difficulty with regard to the issue of time in the case of the slave and the issue of time in the case of the field. In the case of the slave the halakha is that after the set time, he leaves the debtor鈥檚 authority and is emancipated, while in the case of the field its produce does not become obligated to be tithed like the produce of a Jew鈥檚 field after that set time. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, since the following distinction can be made: This, the case of the slave who is emancipated, is referring to when his time to be transferred has arrived, and this, the case of the field, is referring to where its time to be transferred has not yet arrived.


讗诇讗 讙讘讬 注讘讚 讚诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗诇讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讝诪谞讬讛 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 诇讙讜驻讗 讜讛讗 诇驻讬专讗


The Gemara asks: But with regard to a slave whose time to be transferred has arrived, does it need to be said that he is emancipated? Isn鈥檛 it obvious that once he is transferred to the authority of the gentile, he is emancipated, just as in the case of a sale? Rather, the Gemara offers a different explanation: This case and that case are referring to when his time to be transferred has not yet arrived, and it is not difficult: This, the case of the slave who is emancipated, is with regard to the slave himself, as the slave himself is to be transferred to the gentile, and that case is with regard to the produce. In other words, the Jewish creditor has the rights to the produce of the field, but he does not take possession of the actual field. Therefore, it remains exempt from tithes.

Scroll To Top