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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 26, 2016 | 讟状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 44

One who sells his slave to a non-Jew or sells him to a Jewish owner outside of Israel is penalized because the slave will no longer be able to fulfill all the mitzvot. 聽He needs to buy back the slave a free him. 聽The gemara discusses various situations and tries to determine if the owner should be penalized in those situations as well (e.g. if the non Jew forced him to sell him the slave, etc.)


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘砖诇讜讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜诇讗 诪砖讻谞讜

And if you wish, say instead: Even if the time for the slave or the field to be taken as collateral had arrived, there is something novel about this in a case where he borrowed on the condition that the creditors collect from it, i.e., the slave or field, but they did not yet collect from it. Since the field had not yet been collected from the gentile by the Jew as payment of the debt, it remains exempt from tithes, but the mere fact that the Jew agreed to have his slave be collected suffices for the rabbinic penalty to take effect, and the slave is emancipated.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讘讗讜 讘讞讜讘讜 讗讜 砖诇拽讞讜 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讘讞讜讘讜 诇讗

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:16): If a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, or the slave was taken by a Sicarius, i.e., one who would use violence and intimidation to force people to give them their property, then he is not emancipated. The Gemara asks: And is it so that if a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, the Sages did not institute a penalty and the slave is not emancipated?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛专讬 砖讗谞住讜 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讙讜专谞讜 讗诐 讘讞讜讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖专 讗诐 讘讗谞驻专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where the household of the king seized one鈥檚 threshing floor by force, if they took it for payment of his debt to the king, then he is obligated to tithe in order to render fit for consumption the grain that they seized. The reason for this is because if he were not to tithe it, it would be considered as if he paid a debt using tithe. If they engaged in unjust seizure [anparot] then he is exempt from tithing. This baraita indicates that an item taken for payment of a debt is akin to a sale, so why should the slave taken in payment of the debt not be emancipated?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because he profits by repaying a portion of his debt with tithe. If they would have taken regular produce, it would have been more of a financial loss for him. Therefore, he must separate tithe for the seized grain. In the case of the slave, he did not profit from the seizure. Therefore, the Sages did not penalize him.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile government official [parhang], then the slave is emancipated even though the owner agreed to the sale only because he was pressured by the official. There too, he neither desired nor profited from the sale. The Gemara answers: There, the owner should have appeased the official in some other way so that he would not take the slave, and he did not appease him, therefore it is appropriate to penalize him.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile government official, then the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: What could he have done; the gentile government official forced him to agree to the sale. The Gemara answers: He should have appeased the official in some other way, and he did not appease him.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讻专讜 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讘驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If he sold the slave to a gentile for thirty days, then what is the halakha; is this considered to be a sale and he is emancipated as a result, or is it not a sale? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rav says: With regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile government official, the slave is emancipated. The assumption is that he would be sold to the official in order to work for a limited amount of time or perform a specific task, yet he is emancipated. The Gemara answers: There, he was sold to a gentile government official, as this sale is not reversed. No proof can be brought from here with regard to the halakha of a sale that is in effect for a limited duration.

诪讻专讜 讞讜抓 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 诪讛讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转 诪讛讜 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 诪讛讜 诇讻讜转讬 诪讛讜 驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬 讻讜转讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讙讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yirmeya asks several questions with regard to the extent of the application of this penalty: If he sold the slave to a gentile aside from his labor, i.e., the gentile will own the slave but he will still perform labor for the Jewish master, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a gentile aside from the mitzvot, i.e., he stipulated that the slave would be able to continue observing the mitzvot, what is the halakha? If he sold him aside from Shabbatot and Festivals, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], or to a Jewish apostate, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a Samaritan, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: You can resolve at least one of these questions, as it was taught: A ger toshav is like a gentile. With regard to a Samaritan and a Jewish apostate, some say they are like gentiles and some say they are like Jews.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚 砖讛驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜

They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If a slave fled from his master and gave himself over to a foreign army to serve as a solider, and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for the master to at least take his value from the army, or would this be considered as if he is selling the slave?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘诪讻讬诇转讬讱 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转讜 诇讙讜讬 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讙讜讬 砖讗谞住 讘讬转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讜转专 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: Go out and examine your mishanyot to find an answer. He went out, examined, and discovered an answer, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 6:2): One who sells his house in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile, the monies received from the sale of the house are forbidden to him. And if there was a gentile who seized a Jew鈥檚 house by force and its owner cannot remove it, i.e., get it back, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, then he is permitted to take the house鈥檚 value from the gentile, and he may even write a document and register the sale in their courts, because he is like one who rescues the money from their possession. Although it is prohibited for a Jew to sell his house in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile, if it was taken from him by force he is permitted to take payment for it. Similarly, if the slave cannot be retrieved from a gentile, it should be permitted for him to take money in return.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬转 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讘讬转 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注讘讚讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: But perhaps this matter applies only to a house, that since it is not sufficient, i.e., not possible, for him to live without a house, he would not sell it willingly. Therefore, there is no reason to penalize him when it is taken by force. But with regard to a slave, as it is sufficient for him to live without a slave, there is a concern that he will also come to sell him willingly, and therefore there should be a penalty in this case as well. Or it is possible that this distinction is not made.

砖诇讞 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪讬谞讬 讗诪讬 讘专 谞转谉 转讜专讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚 砖讛驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讜转专 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

Rabbi Ami sent the following message to the other Sages: From me, Ami bar Natan, Torah emerges to all of Israel: If a slave fled his master and gave himself to a foreign army to serve as a solider, and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, then he is permitted to take the slave鈥檚 value, and he writes a deed of sale and registers this transaction in gentile courts, because he is like one who rescues the money from their possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讘讚诪讬讜

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, even though he can no longer enslave him, he is penalized and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for up to one hundred times the slave鈥檚 value.

讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜讻专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated specifically or not specifically? Perhaps this number is an exaggeration? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from that which Reish Lakish says: One who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for up to ten times its value. It can be seen here that one who violates an ordinance of the Sages by engaging in a prohibited sale must pay up to only ten times the item鈥檚 value to purchase it back, and the same would presumably apply to the case of the slave.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讘讚 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 诪驻拽注 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讜转

The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps a slave is different, as each and every day the owner releases him from the fulfillment of mitzvot by selling him to a gentile, so there may be a greater penalty as a result.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜讻专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讘讚诪讬讛

And there are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that with regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, even though he can no longer enslave him, he is penalized and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for up to ten times the slave鈥檚 value. The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated specifically or not specifically; is his penalty limited to up to ten times the value of the slave? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from that which Reish Lakish says: With regard to one who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for up to one hundred times its value, and the penalty in the case of the slave should be at least as large as in the case of the animal.

砖讗谞讬 注讘讚 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: A slave is different, as he does not return to him. Since the slave will be emancipated once the master redeems him, it may be that the Sages would not penalize him to such a great extent.

讗诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讚专讗 诇讬讛 诇拽谞住讬讛 讟驻讬 讞讚 讗诇讗 注讘讚 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges: Rather, what is the reason that he is penalized in the case of an animal more so than in the case of a slave; because of the fact that it returns to him? If so, he should be penalized only one additional amount. If the difference is that an animal returns to its owners and a slave does not, then the difference in penalties should be reflective of this, and he should have to purchase the animal for no more than eleven times its value. Rather, the Gemara offers a different distinction: The sale of a slave is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter. Therefore, one cannot compare the penalty in the case of selling a slave to the penalty in the case of selling an animal.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讻专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬拽谞住讜 讗转 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 爪专诐 讗讜讝谉 讘讻讜专 讜诪转 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one sold his slave to a gentile and died, what is the halakha: Is his son penalized after him? Is the son also required to redeem the slave, or does the penalty apply only to the seller? The Gemara compares this to other penalties assessed by the Sages. If you say, in accordance with the opinion that holds that if one slit the ear of a firstborn animal and by doing so intentionally blemishes it so that it may be eaten, and then that person died, then his son is penalized after him and his son may not slaughter and eat it, perhaps this is because it is a prohibition by Torah law. Here, however, with regard to the sale of a slave, it is a prohibition only by rabbinic law and perhaps the son is not penalized.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讜讜谉 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘诪讜注讚 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪诪讜谞讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

And if you say that there is a different comparison: The halakha is that while there are types of labor that one is permitted to perform on the intermediate days of Passover and Sukkot, one may not intentionally schedule the labor to be performed at those times. One who does so is penalized and must forfeit the profits of that labor. The halakha is that if one planned to perform his labor on the intermediate days of the Festival, and he died, then his child is not penalized after him, because the son did not perform a prohibited act. Here, what is the halakha? Did the Sages penalize only him, and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages penalized his property, by saying that he should lose it, and his property still exists?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖讚讛 砖谞转拽讜讜爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讟讬讬讘讛 讗讜 谞讚讬讬专讛 诇讗 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Rabbi Asi said to him: You already learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, since removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the produce of the field prohibited. And it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 3:6): If it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been populated by the owner鈥檚 herd in order to fertilize the field with their manure, it may not be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, for the Sages imposed a penalty to prevent one from benefiting from prohibited labor.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛讟讬讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a forbidden manner, and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, we should infer that the general principle with regard to penalties is that the Sages applied the penalty to the one who committed the transgression himself, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讜拽谞住讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Abaye said: We have a tradition that if someone defiled his friend鈥檚 ritually pure items, thereby incurring liability to pay for the damage that he caused, and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? Damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change to the goods that is visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; but since the other party did suffer a loss, there is a penalty of the Sages. The Sages applied the penalty only to the one who caused the damage himself, but the Sages did not apply the penalty to his son.

讗讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 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 砖谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 讬爪讗 讜驻注诪讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讻专转讬讛讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗谞讟讜讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 砖讘讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 讬爪讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one sells his slave to a gentile or to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael then the slave is emancipated. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:18): With regard to one who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated, but he nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Sometimes he is emancipated and sometimes he is not emancipated. How so? If the master said: So-and-so my slave, I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch, then he is not emancipated, because it is possible that he describes the purchaser this way because he was born in Antioch, and now he lives in Eretz Yisrael. However, if he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch who is in Antioch, then he is emancipated, as his statement clarifies that he is selling his slave to one who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪讻专转讬讛讜 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 讬爪讗 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 讛砖专讜讬 讘诇讜讚 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in that same baraita: If he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch, then the slave is emancipated, but if he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch who dwells in Lod, a city in Eretz Yisrael, then the slave is not emancipated. This indicates that if he states that he sold the slave to so-and-so of Antioch, without further comment, the slave is emancipated; this is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This case, when he is not emancipated, is referring to when the purchaser from Antioch has a house in Eretz Yisrael, and it may be that he purchased the slave to serve in his house in Eretz Yisrael. That case, in which the slave is emancipated, is referring to when he has only an inn [ushpiza] where he is staying in Eretz Yisrael, and the only home belonging to the purchaser is outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讘讘诇 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讜讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If there was a resident of Babylonia who married a woman in Eretz Yisrael, and she brought in to the marriage slaves and maidservants for him, and he intends to return to Babylonia, then what is the halakha? Is marrying him akin to selling the slaves to her husband? Since he plans to take them out of Eretz Yisrael, will they be emancipated?

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜

Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who said: The law is with her, that in the event of a divorce the slaves remain in her possession, and her husband cannot pay her for them in order to maintain possession of them; and let the dilemma be raised according to the one who said: The law is with him, and he may pay her and retain possession of the slaves.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讻讚讬讚讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讗 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara explains: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the law is with her, and since the law is with her, the slaves are therefore considered as hers. It is not considered as if she sold them, and consequently they are not emancipated; or perhaps since they are liened to the husband for him to keep the profits of the slaves鈥 labor, as the profits from their labor belong to the husband like the revenue from other property that a woman brings into the marriage, the slaves are considered as his, and it is as though he purchased her slaves.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讻讚讬讚讛 讚诪讜 转讬拽讜

And let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says: The law is with him, and since the law is with him, the slaves are therefore considered as his, and they should be emancipated; or perhaps since the husband did not acquire the slave himself, but only the rights to his labor, the slaves are considered as hers. No answer was found, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖谞讛 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讘讚 砖讬爪讗 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讜诪讻专讜 砖诐 专讘讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

Rabbi Abbahu says: Rabbi Yo岣nan taught me: If there was a slave who willingly followed his master to Syria, which is considered to be outside of Eretz Yisrael with regard to the sale of slaves, and his master sold him there, then the slave is emancipated. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If a slave left Eretz Yisrael willingly, he lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, where he is emancipated, it is referring to a case where his master鈥檚 intention upon traveling to Syria was to return, and the slave followed him under that assumption. Therefore, when the master sold the slave in Syria, it is as though he sold him from Eretz Yisrael to outside of Eretz Yisrael. There, where he is not emancipated, is referring to a case where his master does not intend to return, and the slave followed him under that assumption. Since the slave willingly left Eretz Yisrael permanently, he lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讬讜爪讗 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讛转谞谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉

And the Gemara notes that this distinction is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:18): The slave follows his master to Syria. The Gemara asks: Must he follow him? Is it not possible for him not to follow his master? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ketubot 110b): All may ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., a woman or slave can say that he or she wishes to ascend, and they may do so against the wishes of their husbands or masters; but all may not remove, i.e., one cannot force his slave to leave Eretz Yisrael with him.

讗诇讗 讬爪讗 讛注讘讚 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讜诪讻专讜 专讘讜 砖诐 讗诐 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜

Rather, the baraita should be understood as speaking after the fact: If a slave willingly followed his master to Syria, and his master sold him there, then if his master鈥檚 intention when he traveled to Syria was to return to Eretz Yisrael, then he is forced to emancipate the slave; but if his master did not intend to return to Eretz Yisrael, and the slave willingly left with him, then he is not forced to emancipate the slave, as the slave has lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讱 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

Rav Anan said: I learned two halakhot from Mar Shmuel. One was this halakha, that a slave is emancipated after being sold to someone outside of Eretz Yisrael; and the other halakha I learned is as it was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following issue: Certain types of fields that were sold before the Jubilee Year are returned to their original owners in the Jubilee Year. What is the halakha with regard to one who sells his field in the Jubilee Year itself? Rav says: It is sold in principle. However, it leaves the possession of the purchaser immediately, and the purchaser is not refunded his money. And Shmuel says: It is not sold at all.

讘讞讚讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讘讞讚讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Anan continues his statement with regard to the two halakhot he was taught by Mar Shmuel: In one of the two sales the money received from the sale is returned, and in one of the two sales the money received from the sale is not returned, and the purchaser loses his money, but I do not know in which of the cases the money is returned and in which of the cases it is not returned.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪讚转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 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 砖谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞讬讬讛 专讘讜 砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it could be determined which case involves which halakha. From what is taught in the baraita: One who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, then he is emancipated, but he nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Learn from the baraita that his second master acquired him, and the money of the sale is not returned. In other words, from the fact that there is the need for the second master to emancipate him, it is clear that the sale took effect. Therefore, it stands to reason that the purchaser is not refunded the money of the sale. And if so, when Shmuel said there that the field is not sold, he meant that the sale does not take effect at all and the money returns to the purchaser.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 44

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘砖诇讜讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪砖讻谞讜 讜诇讗 诪砖讻谞讜

And if you wish, say instead: Even if the time for the slave or the field to be taken as collateral had arrived, there is something novel about this in a case where he borrowed on the condition that the creditors collect from it, i.e., the slave or field, but they did not yet collect from it. Since the field had not yet been collected from the gentile by the Jew as payment of the debt, it remains exempt from tithes, but the mere fact that the Jew agreed to have his slave be collected suffices for the rabbinic penalty to take effect, and the slave is emancipated.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讘讗讜 讘讞讜讘讜 讗讜 砖诇拽讞讜 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讘讞讜讘讜 诇讗

The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:16): If a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, or the slave was taken by a Sicarius, i.e., one who would use violence and intimidation to force people to give them their property, then he is not emancipated. The Gemara asks: And is it so that if a gentile collected a slave for payment of his debt, the Sages did not institute a penalty and the slave is not emancipated?

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讛专讬 砖讗谞住讜 讘讬转 讛诪诇讱 讙讜专谞讜 讗诐 讘讞讜讘讜 讞讬讬讘 诇注砖专 讗诐 讘讗谞驻专讜转 驻讟讜专 诪诇注砖专

And the Gemara raises a contradiction based on what was taught in a baraita: With regard to a case where the household of the king seized one鈥檚 threshing floor by force, if they took it for payment of his debt to the king, then he is obligated to tithe in order to render fit for consumption the grain that they seized. The reason for this is because if he were not to tithe it, it would be considered as if he paid a debt using tithe. If they engaged in unjust seizure [anparot] then he is exempt from tithing. This baraita indicates that an item taken for payment of a debt is akin to a sale, so why should the slave taken in payment of the debt not be emancipated?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚拽讗 诪砖转专砖讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: It is different there, because he profits by repaying a portion of his debt with tithe. If they would have taken regular produce, it would have been more of a financial loss for him. Therefore, he must separate tithe for the seized grain. In the case of the slave, he did not profit from the seizure. Therefore, the Sages did not penalize him.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile government official [parhang], then the slave is emancipated even though the owner agreed to the sale only because he was pressured by the official. There too, he neither desired nor profited from the sale. The Gemara answers: There, the owner should have appeased the official in some other way so that he would not take the slave, and he did not appease him, therefore it is appropriate to penalize him.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇驻讬讬住 讜诇讗 驻讬讬住

The Gemara discusses the matter itself. Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile government official, then the slave is emancipated. The Gemara asks: What could he have done; the gentile government official forced him to agree to the sale. The Gemara answers: He should have appeased the official in some other way, and he did not appease him.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪讻专讜 诇砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讛转诐 讘驻专讛谞讙 讙讜讬 砖讗讬谞讛 讞讜讝专转

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If he sold the slave to a gentile for thirty days, then what is the halakha; is this considered to be a sale and he is emancipated as a result, or is it not a sale? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof, as Rav says: With regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile government official, the slave is emancipated. The assumption is that he would be sold to the official in order to work for a limited amount of time or perform a specific task, yet he is emancipated. The Gemara answers: There, he was sold to a gentile government official, as this sale is not reversed. No proof can be brought from here with regard to the halakha of a sale that is in effect for a limited duration.

诪讻专讜 讞讜抓 诪诪诇讗讻转讜 诪讛讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛诪爪讜转 诪讛讜 讞讜抓 诪砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 诪讛讜 诇讙专 转讜砖讘 诇讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 诪讛讜 诇讻讜转讬 诪讛讜 驻砖讜讟 诪讬讛讗 讞讚讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讙讜讬 讻讜转讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讙讜讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讬砖专讗诇

Rabbi Yirmeya asks several questions with regard to the extent of the application of this penalty: If he sold the slave to a gentile aside from his labor, i.e., the gentile will own the slave but he will still perform labor for the Jewish master, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a gentile aside from the mitzvot, i.e., he stipulated that the slave would be able to continue observing the mitzvot, what is the halakha? If he sold him aside from Shabbatot and Festivals, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav], or to a Jewish apostate, what is the halakha? If he sold him to a Samaritan, what is the halakha? The Gemara suggests: You can resolve at least one of these questions, as it was taught: A ger toshav is like a gentile. With regard to a Samaritan and a Jewish apostate, some say they are like gentiles and some say they are like Jews.

讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗诪讬 注讘讚 砖讛驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讛讜 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜

They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: If a slave fled from his master and gave himself over to a foreign army to serve as a solider, and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, what is the halakha? Is it permitted for the master to at least take his value from the army, or would this be considered as if he is selling the slave?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇专讘讬 讝专讬拽讗 驻讜拽 注讬讬谉 讘诪讻讬诇转讬讱 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪讜讻专 讘讬转讜 诇讙讜讬 讚诪讬讜 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讙讜讬 砖讗谞住 讘讬转讜 砖诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇讬讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讜转专 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇讛谉 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: Go out and examine your mishanyot to find an answer. He went out, examined, and discovered an answer, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 6:2): One who sells his house in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile, the monies received from the sale of the house are forbidden to him. And if there was a gentile who seized a Jew鈥檚 house by force and its owner cannot remove it, i.e., get it back, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, then he is permitted to take the house鈥檚 value from the gentile, and he may even write a document and register the sale in their courts, because he is like one who rescues the money from their possession. Although it is prohibited for a Jew to sell his house in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile, if it was taken from him by force he is permitted to take payment for it. Similarly, if the slave cannot be retrieved from a gentile, it should be permitted for him to take money in return.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘讬转 讚讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 讘讬转 诇讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 讗讘诇 注讘讚讗 讚住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗转讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗

The Gemara rejects this comparison: But perhaps this matter applies only to a house, that since it is not sufficient, i.e., not possible, for him to live without a house, he would not sell it willingly. Therefore, there is no reason to penalize him when it is taken by force. But with regard to a slave, as it is sufficient for him to live without a slave, there is a concern that he will also come to sell him willingly, and therefore there should be a penalty in this case as well. Or it is possible that this distinction is not made.

砖诇讞 诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诪讬谞讬 讗诪讬 讘专 谞转谉 转讜专讛 讬讜爪讗讛 诇讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 注讘讚 砖讛驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 诇讙讬讬住讜转 讜讗讬谉 专讘讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讗 讘讚讬谞讬 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 诪讜转专 诇讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 讜讻讜转讘 讜诪注诇讛 讘注专讻讗讜转 砖诇 讙讜讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪爪讬诇 诪讬讚诐

Rabbi Ami sent the following message to the other Sages: From me, Ami bar Natan, Torah emerges to all of Israel: If a slave fled his master and gave himself to a foreign army to serve as a solider, and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, then he is permitted to take the slave鈥檚 value, and he writes a deed of sale and registers this transaction in gentile courts, because he is like one who rescues the money from their possession.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讘讚诪讬讜

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: With regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, even though he can no longer enslave him, he is penalized and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for up to one hundred times the slave鈥檚 value.

讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜讻专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬诐 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讛

The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated specifically or not specifically? Perhaps this number is an exaggeration? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from that which Reish Lakish says: One who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for up to ten times its value. It can be seen here that one who violates an ordinance of the Sages by engaging in a prohibited sale must pay up to only ten times the item鈥檚 value to purchase it back, and the same would presumably apply to the case of the slave.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗谞讬 注讘讚 讚讻诇 讬讜诪讗 讜讬讜诪讗 诪驻拽注 诇讬讛 诪诪爪讜转

The Gemara rejects this: But perhaps a slave is different, as each and every day the owner releases him from the fulfillment of mitzvot by selling him to a gentile, so there may be a greater penalty as a result.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 注砖专讛 讘讚诪讬讜 讚讜拽讗 讗讜 诇讗讜 讚讜拽讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛诪讜讻专 讘讛诪讛 讙住讛 诇讙讜讬 拽讜谞住讬谉 讗讜转讜 注讚 诪讗讛 讘讚诪讬讛

And there are those who say a different version of this discussion: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that with regard to one who sells his slave to a gentile, even though he can no longer enslave him, he is penalized and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for up to ten times the slave鈥檚 value. The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated specifically or not specifically; is his penalty limited to up to ten times the value of the slave? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from that which Reish Lakish says: With regard to one who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for up to one hundred times its value, and the penalty in the case of the slave should be at least as large as in the case of the animal.

砖讗谞讬 注讘讚 讚诇讗 讛讚专 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: A slave is different, as he does not return to him. Since the slave will be emancipated once the master redeems him, it may be that the Sages would not penalize him to such a great extent.

讗诇讗 讘讛诪讛 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讚专讗 诇讬讛 诇拽谞住讬讛 讟驻讬 讞讚 讗诇讗 注讘讚 诪讬诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 讜诪诇转讗 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬 讘讛 专讘谞谉

The Gemara challenges: Rather, what is the reason that he is penalized in the case of an animal more so than in the case of a slave; because of the fact that it returns to him? If so, he should be penalized only one additional amount. If the difference is that an animal returns to its owners and a slave does not, then the difference in penalties should be reflective of this, and he should have to purchase the animal for no more than eleven times its value. Rather, the Gemara offers a different distinction: The sale of a slave is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter. Therefore, one cannot compare the penalty in the case of selling a slave to the penalty in the case of selling an animal.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讗住讬 诪讻专 注讘讚讜 讜诪转 诪讛讜 砖讬拽谞住讜 讗转 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 爪专诐 讗讜讝谉 讘讻讜专 讜诪转 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讚专讘谞谉

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: If one sold his slave to a gentile and died, what is the halakha: Is his son penalized after him? Is the son also required to redeem the slave, or does the penalty apply only to the seller? The Gemara compares this to other penalties assessed by the Sages. If you say, in accordance with the opinion that holds that if one slit the ear of a firstborn animal and by doing so intentionally blemishes it so that it may be eaten, and then that person died, then his son is penalized after him and his son may not slaughter and eat it, perhaps this is because it is a prohibition by Torah law. Here, however, with regard to the sale of a slave, it is a prohibition only by rabbinic law and perhaps the son is not penalized.

讜讗诐 转讬诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讻讜讜谉 诪诇讗讻转讜 讘诪讜注讚 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 注讘讚 讗讬住讜专讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 诇讬转讬讛 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇诪诪讜谞讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讗 讗讬转讬讛

And if you say that there is a different comparison: The halakha is that while there are types of labor that one is permitted to perform on the intermediate days of Passover and Sukkot, one may not intentionally schedule the labor to be performed at those times. One who does so is penalized and must forfeit the profits of that labor. The halakha is that if one planned to perform his labor on the intermediate days of the Festival, and he died, then his child is not penalized after him, because the son did not perform a prohibited act. Here, what is the halakha? Did the Sages penalize only him, and he is no longer alive, or perhaps the Sages penalized his property, by saying that he should lose it, and his property still exists?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 砖讚讛 砖谞转拽讜讜爪讛 讘砖讘讬注讬转 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转 谞讟讬讬讘讛 讗讜 谞讚讬讬专讛 诇讗 转讝专注 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Rabbi Asi said to him: You already learned in a mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 4:2): A field whose thorns were removed during the Sabbatical Year may be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, since removing thorns is not full-fledged labor that renders the produce of the field prohibited. And it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 3:6): If it had been improved with fertilizer, or if it had been populated by the owner鈥檚 herd in order to fertilize the field with their manure, it may not be sown after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, for the Sages imposed a penalty to prevent one from benefiting from prohibited labor.

讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讛讟讬讘讛 讜诪转 讘谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, says: We have a tradition that if one improved his field in a forbidden manner, and then died, his son may sow it. Apparently, we should infer that the general principle with regard to penalties is that the Sages applied the penalty to the one who committed the transgression himself, but the Sages did not penalize his son.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讟讬诪讗 讟讛专讜转 砖诇 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪转 诇讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讜 讗讞专讬讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讬讝拽 砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讻专 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讛讬讝拽 讜拽谞住讗 讚专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 拽谞住讜讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇讘专讬讛 诇讗 拽讗 拽谞住讜 专讘谞谉

Abaye said: We have a tradition that if someone defiled his friend鈥檚 ritually pure items, thereby incurring liability to pay for the damage that he caused, and died before paying, the Sages did not penalize his son after him to pay for the damage. What is the reason for this? Damage that is not evident, i.e., that does not involve any physical change to the goods that is visible to the eye, is not considered damage by Torah law; but since the other party did suffer a loss, there is a penalty of the Sages. The Sages applied the penalty only to the one who caused the damage himself, but the Sages did not apply the penalty to his son.

讗讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 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 砖谞讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 驻注诪讬诐 讬爪讗 讜驻注诪讬诐 诇讗 讬爪讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 诪讻专转讬讛讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讗谞讟讜讻讬 诇讗 讬爪讗 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 砖讘讗谞讟讜讻讬讗 讬爪讗

搂 The mishna taught that if one sells his slave to a gentile or to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael then the slave is emancipated. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:18): With regard to one who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, the slave is emancipated, but he nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Sometimes he is emancipated and sometimes he is not emancipated. How so? If the master said: So-and-so my slave, I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch, then he is not emancipated, because it is possible that he describes the purchaser this way because he was born in Antioch, and now he lives in Eretz Yisrael. However, if he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch who is in Antioch, then he is emancipated, as his statement clarifies that he is selling his slave to one who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪讻专转讬讛讜 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 讬爪讗 诇讗谞讟讜讻讬 讛砖专讜讬 讘诇讜讚 诇讗 讬爪讗

The Gemara challenges: But isn鈥檛 it taught in that same baraita: If he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch, then the slave is emancipated, but if he said: I sold him to so-and-so of Antioch who dwells in Lod, a city in Eretz Yisrael, then the slave is not emancipated. This indicates that if he states that he sold the slave to so-and-so of Antioch, without further comment, the slave is emancipated; this is not in accordance with the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讗讜砖驻讬讝讗 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. This case, when he is not emancipated, is referring to when the purchaser from Antioch has a house in Eretz Yisrael, and it may be that he purchased the slave to serve in his house in Eretz Yisrael. That case, in which the slave is emancipated, is referring to when he has only an inn [ushpiza] where he is staying in Eretz Yisrael, and the only home belonging to the purchaser is outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘谉 讘讘诇 砖谞砖讗 讗砖讛 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛讻谞讬住讛 诇讜 注讘讚讬诐 讜砖驻讞讜转 讜讚注转讜 诇讞讝讜专 诪讛讜

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If there was a resident of Babylonia who married a woman in Eretz Yisrael, and she brought in to the marriage slaves and maidservants for him, and he intends to return to Babylonia, then what is the halakha? Is marrying him akin to selling the slaves to her husband? Since he plans to take them out of Eretz Yisrael, will they be emancipated?

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜

Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who said: The law is with her, that in the event of a divorce the slaves remain in her possession, and her husband cannot pay her for them in order to maintain possession of them; and let the dilemma be raised according to the one who said: The law is with him, and he may pay her and retain possession of the slaves.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬谉 注诪讛 讻讚讬讚讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诪砖注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诇驻讬专讗 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讜

The Gemara explains: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the law is with her, and since the law is with her, the slaves are therefore considered as hers. It is not considered as if she sold them, and consequently they are not emancipated; or perhaps since they are liened to the husband for him to keep the profits of the slaves鈥 labor, as the profits from their labor belong to the husband like the revenue from other property that a woman brings into the marriage, the slaves are considered as his, and it is as though he purchased her slaves.

讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚讬谉 注诪讜 讻讚讬讚讬讛 讚诪讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 诇讬讛 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讻讚讬讚讛 讚诪讜 转讬拽讜

And let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says: The law is with him, and since the law is with him, the slaves are therefore considered as his, and they should be emancipated; or perhaps since the husband did not acquire the slave himself, but only the rights to his labor, the slaves are considered as hers. No answer was found, and the Gemara concludes that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 砖谞讛 诇讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注讘讚 砖讬爪讗 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讜诪讻专讜 砖诐 专讘讜 讬爪讗 诇讞讬专讜转 讜讛转谞讬 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗讬讘讚 讗转 讝讻讜转讜

Rabbi Abbahu says: Rabbi Yo岣nan taught me: If there was a slave who willingly followed his master to Syria, which is considered to be outside of Eretz Yisrael with regard to the sale of slaves, and his master sold him there, then the slave is emancipated. The Gemara challenges: But didn鈥檛 Rabbi 岣yya teach: If a slave left Eretz Yisrael willingly, he lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael?

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讻讗谉 砖讗讬谉 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专

The Gemara answers: It is not difficult. Here, where he is emancipated, it is referring to a case where his master鈥檚 intention upon traveling to Syria was to return, and the slave followed him under that assumption. Therefore, when the master sold the slave in Syria, it is as though he sold him from Eretz Yisrael to outside of Eretz Yisrael. There, where he is not emancipated, is referring to a case where his master does not intend to return, and the slave followed him under that assumption. Since the slave willingly left Eretz Yisrael permanently, he lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讬讜爪讗 讛注讘讚 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讬讜爪讗 诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 谞驻讬拽 讜讛转谞谉 讜讗讬谉 讛讻诇 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉

And the Gemara notes that this distinction is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:18): The slave follows his master to Syria. The Gemara asks: Must he follow him? Is it not possible for him not to follow his master? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Ketubot 110b): All may ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., a woman or slave can say that he or she wishes to ascend, and they may do so against the wishes of their husbands or masters; but all may not remove, i.e., one cannot force his slave to leave Eretz Yisrael with him.

讗诇讗 讬爪讗 讛注讘讚 讗讞专 专讘讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讜诪讻专讜 专讘讜 砖诐 讗诐 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 讚注转 专讘讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬谉 讻讜驻讬谉 讗讜转讜

Rather, the baraita should be understood as speaking after the fact: If a slave willingly followed his master to Syria, and his master sold him there, then if his master鈥檚 intention when he traveled to Syria was to return to Eretz Yisrael, then he is forced to emancipate the slave; but if his master did not intend to return to Eretz Yisrael, and the slave willingly left with him, then he is not forced to emancipate the slave, as the slave has lost his right to be emancipated if he is then sold outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讗诪专 专讘 注谞谉 砖诪注讬转 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专转讬 讞讚讗 讛讱 讜讗讬讚讱 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 讘砖谞转 讛讬讜讘诇 注爪诪讛 专讘 讗诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讜讬讜爪讗讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讻诇 注讬拽专

Rav Anan said: I learned two halakhot from Mar Shmuel. One was this halakha, that a slave is emancipated after being sold to someone outside of Eretz Yisrael; and the other halakha I learned is as it was stated that there was a dispute with regard to the following issue: Certain types of fields that were sold before the Jubilee Year are returned to their original owners in the Jubilee Year. What is the halakha with regard to one who sells his field in the Jubilee Year itself? Rav says: It is sold in principle. However, it leaves the possession of the purchaser immediately, and the purchaser is not refunded his money. And Shmuel says: It is not sold at all.

讘讞讚讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讘讞讚讗 诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Anan continues his statement with regard to the two halakhot he was taught by Mar Shmuel: In one of the two sales the money received from the sale is returned, and in one of the two sales the money received from the sale is not returned, and the purchaser loses his money, but I do not know in which of the cases the money is returned and in which of the cases it is not returned.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 谞讬讞讝讬 讗谞谉 诪讚转谞讬 讘讘专讬讬转讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 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 砖谞讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 拽谞讬讬讛 专讘讜 砖谞讬 讜诇讗 讛讚专讬 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讻讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛转诐 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Let us see if it could be determined which case involves which halakha. From what is taught in the baraita: One who sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael, then he is emancipated, but he nevertheless requires a bill of manumission from his second master. Learn from the baraita that his second master acquired him, and the money of the sale is not returned. In other words, from the fact that there is the need for the second master to emancipate him, it is clear that the sale took effect. Therefore, it stands to reason that the purchaser is not refunded the money of the sale. And if so, when Shmuel said there that the field is not sold, he meant that the sale does not take effect at all and the money returns to the purchaser.

Scroll To Top