Gittin 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

And what if it concerns a slave who, once he fled, and the wife of a kohen who rebelled against her husband

and fled,

do they not eat

they

teruma?

But

this

freed slave

does not eat.

And therefore I maintain that his emancipation is a disadvantage for him!

After the Gemara explains the statement of Rabbi Meir, it asks:

He answered them well—

Rabbi Meir answered them correctly. [And now, what will the Sages answer to his statement?]

Rava said: This is what they answer him in the Mishna—

the Sages’ answer appears in the Mishna:

“Because

he is his property”—

this is the reason that a kohen’s slave who fled may eat teruma: he is still the kohen’s property. However,

if he wishes—

if he wishes to disqualify him—

he can take four zuz from an Israelite —

he can take four zuz from an Israelite and acquire him for that person

, and disqualify him—

and disqualify him—

wherever he is—

wherever he may be, since he is no longer a kohen’s slave. And since he can disqualify him even without emancipating him, it follows that emancipation is not a disadvantage.

The Gemara returns to question Rabbi Meir’s view:

And according to Rabbi Meir, this works for a kohen’s slave—

his answer is satisfactory and understandable concerning a kohen’s slave, for emancipation is a disadvantage to him since he becomes disqualified from teruma. But concerning

an Israelite slave, what can be said—

what answer can be given? [What loss does emancipation cause him, on account of which emancipation is considered a disadvantage?]

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzhak said: Because he loses a Canaanite maidservant.

Until now, while he was a slave, he was permitted to a Canaanite maidservant. But once he is emancipated, he is a full-fledged Israelite and is forbidden to a maidservant. This prohibition is a disadvantage for him.

The Gemara raises an objection:

On the contrary! It permits him

through the emancipation

to a free woman,

to whom he was previously forbidden. If so, this is an advantage, not a disadvantage?!

The Gemara answers:

A slave is comfortable with a life of licentiousness—

a slave prefers a life of lawlessness and frivolity. While he is still a slave, the maidservant

is degraded in his eyes—

she is beneath him, and he can satisfy all his desires with her, without restraint or impediment.

She is readily available to him—

she is always available to him.

And

furthermore, she herself

behaves licentiously with him—

she conducts herself with him immodestly. This is not so with a free woman, who conducts herself modestly and respectfully; she is not comfortable for him. Therefore, emancipation is a disadvantage for him.

Mishna:

A husband

who says: “Give this bill of divorce to my wife” ,

or a master who says: “Give

this bill of emancipation to my slave,” and dies

immediately, before the agent took the bill of divorce or the bill of emancipation.

They may not give [the listeners] the bill of divorce,

the bill of divorce

after his death.

This is because the bill of divorce takes effect only when it reaches the hand of the wife or the slave. Here, however, at the moment he dies, his authority ceases and the authority of the heirs takes effect over him [the slave].

But

one who says: “Give one maneh to so-and-so,” and dies—

they may give it after his death.

Gemara:

Rabbi Yitzhak bar Shmuel bar Marta said in the name—

in the name—

of Rav:

so-and-so acquires the maneh that the deceased gave him only when

the coins are gathered

the money

and placed in a particular corner.

The giver said: “Give this money [this maneh] to so-and-so.”

The Gemara asks:

What are we dealing with—

what kind of person is under discussion? [What was his status when he gave it?]

If you say—

if it is said [that the case is]—

a healthy person.

This is difficult:

If they are gathered—

even if the money is gathered—

what of it—

what does that accomplish—

after all

he did not take possession —

the recipient [still] did not take possession [of it] before the giver died. The law is that when a healthy person gives movable property as a gift, he may retract as long as the recipient has not taken possession of it.

Rather

what will you say: the case is

a person on his deathbed.

If so,

why specifically—

why did they cite Rav as establishing the case specifically when

they are gathered?

Even

when

in a situation in which

they are not

they

gathered as well—

they must likewise give him the maneh,

for we hold—

for it is accepted by us [as halakha]:

that the words of a person on his deathbed

on his deathbed—

a terminally ill person near death—

are considered as though written

in a document

and as though delivered [to the recipient]

to the recipient’s hand

they are considered—

that is how they are regarded!

The Gemara answers:

Rav Zevid said: Actually [the Mishna is dealing]

our Mishna is dealing

with a healthy person.

[And as for your question: “But he did not take possession”?] The answer is:

It is in accordance with what Rav Huna said in the name of Rav. For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav:

if one person says to another:

“You owe me a maneh

[you owe me a maneh], but instead of returning it to me,

give it to so-and-so

who is standing here with us. If he said this

in the presence of all three —

the depositor, the bailee [the one holding the deposit], and the recipient were all present—

the recipient acquires

the money without witnesses or any other act of acquisition, provided that the money was gathered in one place.

For according to Rav Zevid, Rav said that the recipient acquires the money [through the presence of all three] only in the case of a deposit, regarding which the principle is: wherever it is located, it is considered to be in the owners’ possession.

Rav Pappa establishes the case as one involving a person on his deathbed:

Rav Pappa said: Actually

I will establish our Mishna

as dealing with a person on his deathbed.

[And as for your question: If so, why must the money be gathered?] The answer is:

It is in accordance with another statement of Rav.

This law can be understood only on the basis of another law stated by Rav:

For Rav said: If a person on his deathbed says, “Give a maneh to so-and-so from my property,”

and dies, the matter depends on what he said. If he said:

“This maneh

to so-and-so

they give it.

But if he said:

“A maneh

to so-and-so

without specification,”

and did not specify which maneh he intended—

they do not give it.

The reason is:

we are concerned—

because we fear—

perhaps he was referring to a buried maneh—

perhaps he has a maneh buried in the ground, and intended to give that one rather than the maneh located here. Therefore, so as not to cause the heirs an unnecessary loss, they do not give it.

For this reason, although the case concerns a person on his deathbed, according to Rav Pappa Rav had to establish our Mishna as referring to money that is gathered.

The Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is—

the halakha is—

we are not concerned that he meant a buried maneh—

there is no concern that he intended buried money . Therefore, in every case, whether he said “this maneh” or simply “a maneh,” they give a maneh to so-and-so.

Now the Gemara seeks to clarify why each of them did not find it preferable to establish the Mishna in accordance with the statement of the other.

And it asks:

Rav Pappa

who established the case as involving one who is dangerously ill and said that there is concern for a buried maneh,

what is the reason—

what is the reason—

that he did not state his opinion in accordance with Rav Zevid,

who says that our Mishna is speaking of a healthy person and a transfer in the presence of all three parties (maamad sheloshtan)?