Gittin 13a — the Talmud in English

And what if he were a slave, since he fled, and the wife of a kohein who rebelled against her husband

and fled—

do they not eat

—

teruma.

[But]

this

the freed slave

does not eat.

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

And after the Gemara explained the words of Rabbi Meir, it asks:

It is apparent that

he has answered them well—

Rabbi Meir answered them very well. [And from now, what will the Sages answer to his words?]

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

the Sages’ answer appears in the Mishna:

“Because

he is his property”—

what is the reason that a kohein’s slave who fled eats teruma? Because he is still the kohein’s property. However,

if he wishes

to disqualify him—

he takes four zuz from an Israelite —

he takes four zuz from an Israelite and acquires him for him

, and disqualifies him—

and disqualifies him—

wherever he is—

wherever he is found, since he is no longer a kohein’s slave. And since he can disqualify him even without the emancipation, it follows that the emancipation is not a liability.

And the Gemara returns and asks about Rabbi Meir’s method:

And according to Rabbi Meir, this is understandable regarding a kohein’s slave—

his answer is appropriate and understandable concerning a kohein’s slave, for whom the emancipation is a liability since he is disqualified from teruma. But concerning

an Israelite’s slave, what is there to say—

what answer can be given? [And what loss is caused to him by the emancipation, because of which the emancipation is considered a liability?]

Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: Because it causes him to lose a Canaanite maidservant.

Until now, while he was a slave, a Canaanite maidservant was permitted to him. But once he is emancipated, he is a complete Israelite, and a maidservant is forbidden to him. And this prohibition is a liability for him.

And the Gemara objects:

On the contrary! It permits him

through the emancipation

to a free woman,

to whom he had previously been forbidden. If so, there is a benefit here and not a liability?!

And the Gemara answers:

A slave is content with licentiousness—

the slave is comfortable with a life of promiscuity and debauchery. And while he is still a slave, the maidservant

is contemptible to him—

she is degraded in his eyes, enabling him to fulfill all his desire with her, without any restraint or barrier.

She is readily available to him—

she is always available to him.

And

further, she herself

is licentious toward him—

she behaves licentiously with him. This is not so with a free woman, who behaves modestly and honorably; she is not comfortable for him. Therefore, it is a liability for him to be emancipated.

Mishna:

A husband

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

or a master who says: Give

this emancipation document to my slave, and dies

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

They shall not give

[those who heard him] the bill of divorce

after death.

For the bill of divorce takes effect only when it reaches the hand of the woman or the slave. Here, at the moment he dies, his domain ceases and the heirs’ domain takes effect over him [over the slave].

But

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

they shall give it after death.

Gemara:

Rav Yitzḥak 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 under the following condition:

that they are gathered

the coins

and placed in a corner

of a particular place. And the giver said: “Give these coins [this maneh] to so-and-so.”

The Gemara asks:

With what are we dealing—

with what kind of person are we dealing? [What was his status when he gave it?]

If you say—

if it is said [that the case is]—

with a healthy person.

It is difficult:

When they are gathered—

even if the coins are gathered—

what of it—

what benefit is this—

since

he did not pull them —

for the recipient [still] did not pull them [before the giver died]. And the law is that a healthy person who gives movable property as a gift can retract as long as the recipient has not pulled it.

But if so

what will you say: the case is

with one mortally ill.

If so,

why specifically—

why did they state in Rav’s name specifically the case

where they are gathered?

Even

when

[the case is one]

where they are not

gathered,

also—

they must likewise give him the maneh,

for we have established—

for it is accepted by us [as halakha]:

that the words of one mortally

ill

—a sick person inclined toward death—

are like written

in a document

and like delivered

[into the recipient’s hand]

they are considered—

they are considered so!

And it answers:

Rav Zevid said: Actually

[our Mishna is dealing]

with a healthy person.

[And as to what you found difficult: he did not pull it?] The answer is:

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

If one says to his fellow:

“I have a maneh with you”

[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 —

when the depositor, the depositary [the one with whom the deposit was], and the recipient were present—

he acquires

the recipient acquires the coins without witnesses and without another acquisition. This is provided that the coins were gathered in one place.

For according to Rav Zevid’s view, Rav said “he acquires” [in the presence of all three] only in the case of a deposit, regarding which the rule is: Wherever it is, it is considered to be in the owners’ domain.

Rav Pappa establishes it in the case of one mortally ill:

Rav Pappa said: Actually

[I will establish our Mishna]

with one mortally ill.

[And as to what you asked: If so, why must the coins be gathered?] The answer is:

And in accordance with another statement of Rav.

This law is understandable only on the basis of another law that Rav stated.

For Rav said: One mortally ill who said: Give a maneh to so-and-so from my property

and died. This depends: 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.

And the reason is:

We are concerned—

because we are concerned—

perhaps he meant a buried maneh—

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

And for this reason, although the case is of one mortally ill, according to Rav Pappa Rav had to establish our Mishna with coins that were gathered.

And the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha—

the halakha is—

we are not concerned about burial—

we are not concerned that perhaps he intended buried coins . Therefore, in every case, whether he said “this maneh” or said merely “a maneh,” they give so-and-so a maneh.

Now the Gemara seeks to clarify why it did not seem preferable to each of them to establish [the Mishna] in accordance with the words of the other.

And it asks:

Rav Pappa

who established it in the case of one dangerously ill and [said] that there is concern for a buried maneh,

what is the reason —

what is the reason —

that he did not say in accordance with Rav Zevid,

that our Mishna is speaking of a healthy person and an acquisition through the presence of the three parties?