Gittin 38a — the Talmud in English

You [Israel]

Israel]

purchase from them [from the gentile resident population] slaves with bodily ownership,

from the gentile resident population] slaves with ownership of their persons,

but they [the gentiles]

the gentiles]

do not purchase [one of]

one of]

you bodily ownership!

with ownership of his person!

And

so

they do not purchase from one another,

a gentile does not purchase another gentile with bodily ownership.

Could it be that they do not purchase

the gentiles

one another?

And the Gemara interrupts in the middle of the words of Reish Lakish and challenges him: How did you say

“Could it be that they do not purchase one another”?!

But is this not indeed the truth, for

you said

in the previous passage:

“They do not [the gentiles]

the gentiles]

purchase from one another

slaves.”

And we explain:

This is what

Reish Lakish

said: “But they”

do not purchase from one another

a slave

for his body; could it be that they do not purchase

the gentiles at all

one another

as a slave, and not even ownership

for his labor?”

It is not so; rather, certainly a gentile also purchases a gentile for his labor, because

you derive a kal va-chomer:

For the

gentile

the

Israelite purchases

for his labor—as it is stated: “When the hand of a resident alien and a settler with you becomes wealthy, and your brother becomes poor with him, and he is sold to the resident alien with you, or to the family of the resident alien’s family” [the family of the resident alien consists of gentiles]—

And if so—since he purchases an Israelite slave for his labor—

a

gentile

with regard to a gentile, is it not all the more so

that he should purchase him for his labor?!

Therefore, the captor purchases the slave for his labor after his master has despaired of him, and he again transfers him for his labor to the one who redeemed him from him; and when the slave immersed for the sake of slavery, the redeemer acquires him also with regard to his body.

And we still challenge:

And say: This applies

that the gentile purchases a gentile for his labor only

with money,

as he purchases the Israelite, for that is what you learn from there!

But with possession,

say that a gentile

does not

purchase a slave at all!? That is to say: The captor did not purchase the slave with money from the Israelite; rather, the slave’s master despaired of him and rendered him ownerless. If so, the gentile still needs to perform an act of acquisition in order to acquire him, and he can acquire him only through possession, such as when the slave dressed him or put shoes on him, for through this possession a Canaanite slave is acquired by an Israelite. But from where do we know that a gentile also acquires through possession? For concerning land we have not found that a gentile acquires land through possession!?

Rav Pappa said: A gentile also acquires land through possession, for the land of

Ammon and Moab

was purified through Sihon!

That is to say: Although Israel was told not to distress Ammon and Moab, and they were forbidden to conquer their land, nevertheless Israel conquered the lands of Ammon and Moab that Sihon had first conquered. It follows that Sihon purified these lands for Israel.

It is thus that Sihon acquired these lands, although he did not acquire them with money; necessarily, he acquired them through acquisition by possession. If so, we have learned that a gentile acquires a gentile’s land through possession; and just as he acquires land from a gentile through possession, so too he acquires a gentile slave whose master despaired of him through acquisition by possession.

And we still challenge: Indeed, we find [we find]

we find

we find]

a gentile

who acquires

a gentile

through possession, as we derive from Sihon—but our Mishna also deals with a slave who circumcised and immersed with his first master, and is no longer a gentile; and

a gentile

who acquires

an Israelite

as a slave through possession,

from where do we know it?!

And we answer: We learn this from

as it is written concerning the war with the Canaanite [Numbers 21:1]: “And he fought against Israel,

и увёл из него

and took a captive from him”! Since he is called “his captive,” infer from it that the Canaanite acquired his captive through possession.

А поскольку этот плен назван его пленом, следует сделать вывод, что ханааней приобрёл захваченного им посредством владения.

Rav Shaman bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A slave

Canaanite belonging to an Israelite [who was captured by gentiles]

who

whose master despaired of him, and

escaped from the prison

of the captors,

has gone out to freedom!

And his first master can no longer enslave him.

Not only that, but they compel his first master

to release him from the ownership of prohibition that he has over him,

and he writes him a bill of emancipation

to permit him to an Israelite woman!

For although the monetary ownership of slavery has lapsed on its own, he still has upon him the ownership of prohibition of slavery, and he is forbidden to an Israelite woman until his master writes him a bill and permits him.

And we challenge this from what

we learned

in our Mishna:

A slave who was captured and whom they redeemed,

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In either case—

whether they redeemed him for the purpose of slavery or for the purpose of freedom—

he shall remain enslaved!

And Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught

a law

in our Mishna, the law follows him!

Except for

three places, and these are they:

the guarantor and Sidon

and

the final proof!

Apart from these three places, Rabbi Yohanan ruled that the law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel everywhere that his view was brought in the Mishna.

If so, there is a difficulty: How did Rabbi Yohanan say, “A slave who escaped from prison has gone out to freedom”!? But in our Mishna Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “He shall remain enslaved” to the first master, and the same applies to one who escaped, [as the Gemara explains below]!?

And the Gemara explains its question:

According to Abaye, it is well

there is no difficulty, for

he establishes this

Mishna as saying that he remains enslaved to his first master

before despair, while this

statement of Rabbi Yohanan is

after despair;

and in this even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that he has gone out to freedom, since the first owners despaired of him.

But according to Rava, who said:

Even

after despair

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “He shall remain enslaved to his first master”:

There is

a difficulty between the statement

of

Rabbi Yohanan concerning one who escaped and went out to freedom

and

the other statement

рабби

of Rabbi Yohanan that the law follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!?

And we answer:

Rava could say to you:

The

reason, what is it

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “He shall remain enslaved”? Is it not

because

of what

of what

Hezekiah said: “So that each and every one will not go and cast himself to the armies and thereby remove himself from his master”! And this reason applies only to a slave who was redeemed from the captor.

But

one who escaped is different,

for we are dealing with a slave for whom the captivity was so difficult that he was prepared to endanger his life in order to flee from it, and

now, he has given his life to death [he gives himself over to being killed if they catch him] in order to escape from the armies—can it be said of him that

he cast, cast himself [he would cast himself]

he exposes himself to being killed if they catch him] in order to flee from the military forces—can one say of him that he would

throw himself

throw himself]

to the armies?!

And since there is no concern that he will cast himself into captivity in order to free himself from his master, there is no reason to leave him under his master’s enslavement, since the master has already despaired of him; therefore he goes out to freedom.

An incident involving

the maidservant of Mar Shmuel

who

was captured [Shmuel’s maidservant was taken captive], and

Shmuel’s maidservant was taken captive], and

they redeemed her

Israelites

for the sake of a maidservant [they redeemed her for the purpose of slavery],

they redeemed her as a maidservant],

and sent her to him [and returned her to Shmuel].

returning her to Shmuel].

They sent to him

the redeemers, to Shmuel: You may continue to enslave her, since

we hold like Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel [our view follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]!

And in every case the slave continues to be enslaved after his redemption.

And

her,

alternatively [even if]

even if]

you hold like the Sages—that if they redeemed him for the purpose of freedom, he goes out to freedom—in any event she is still your maidservant, because

если её выкупили для свободы, она выходит на свободу, — всё же она по-прежнему твоя служанка, поскольку

we, for the purpose of

her being

a maidservant, redeemed her for her [we redeemed her for the purpose of your slavery]! And where they redeemed him for the purpose of slavery, even according to the Sages he continues to be enslaved to his first master.

for the sake of your maidservitude we redeemed her]! And when they redeemed him for the sake of slavery, even according to the Sages he continues to be enslaved to his first master.

And

they sent this to him because

they thought

mistakenly that

it was before despair,

and Shmuel had not yet despaired of his maidservant.

But

it

was

not so; rather,

it was after despair!

And since he had already despaired of her, she had gone out to freedom, and Shmuel could no longer enslave her.

The nature of slavery is divided into two matters: a. Monetary ownership, whereby the slave’s body becomes his master’s property, with regard to his labor and with regard to “whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires.”

b. Ownership of prohibition, for even after he circumcised and immersed, he nevertheless does not possess the complete sanctity of an Israelite. He is forbidden to an Israelite woman and permitted to a Canaanite maidservant. Likewise, a maidservant is forbidden to an Israelite man and permitted to a Canaanite slave.

And when a person gives his slave a bill of emancipation, he removes both ownerships; however, when a person renders his slave ownerless, the amoraim disagree whether he still requires a bill of emancipation in order to remove the ownership of prohibition, or perhaps once the monetary ownership has lapsed through the ownerless declaration, the ownership of prohibition also lapses automatically, as will be explained.

And as for Shmuel, it is unnecessary to say that he did not enslave her, because it was after despair, as stated,

As for Shmuel, it was not merely that he did not continue to enslave her,

because it was after despair, as stated;

but

even

he did not require a bill of freedom [Shmuel did not require her to receive a bill of emancipation from him] in order to permit her to a free man; and although the despair itself is effective only to remove the monetary ownership, nevertheless the ownership of prohibition lapses automatically!

Shmuel did not require her to receive a bill of manumission from him] in order to permit her to a free man. Although the despair itself is effective only to remove the monetary ownership, nevertheless the prohibition-based ownership lapses automatically!

And because

Shmuel follows his own reasoning [his position],

according to his approach],

for Shmuel said:

One who renders his slave ownerless has gone out

completely

to freedom, and does not require a bill of emancipation

to remove from him the ownership of prohibition and permit him to an Israelite woman; and the same applies to a maidservant, because

it is stated:

“And every male slave purchased for money” [“and you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it”]; did Scripture come—by saying “a male slave” and not saying “every slave purchased for money”—to say:

[“and you shall circumcise him; then he may eat of it”]. Does the verse really intend—by saying “a man’s slave” rather than “every slave purchased for money”—to say:

“a male slave”

but not a woman’s slave!?

Rather

the verse came to teach us: specifically,

a slave over whom his master has monetary ownership

in relation to him

is

[a slave belonging to a man], he is

called

“slave,”

and he is forbidden to an Israelite woman; but

a slave over whom his master has no ownership is not

he

called

“slave,”

and he is like a free Israelite in every respect, and he is permitted to an Israelite woman and forbidden to a maidservant.

An incident involving

the maidservant of Rabbi Abba bar Zutra

that

was captured

[Rabbi Abba’s maidservant was captured], and

a certain Tarmodaean ransomed her for the purpose of taking her as a wife

[a gentile from the city of Tarmod ransomed her in order to marry her].

They sent to him

— the people of the place brought the maidservant there —

to him

[to Rabbi Abba bar Zutra]:

If you wish to act properly, send her a deed of emancipation!

If you wish to act properly, send her a deed of emancipation.

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

If they can ransom her

[if the people of the place can ransom her] from that gentile, and he agrees that they should ransom her,

why do I need

Rabbi Abba to send her

a deed of emancipation?!

They should ransom her for him for the purpose of slavery, and she will remain his maidservant.

And

if they cannot ransom her

— for the captive-taker is not agreeable to this —

when Rabbi Abba sends her

a deed of emancipation,

what will it accomplish?!

And what will this deed accomplish for her as long as she is in the possession of the captive-taker?

And we answer:

In fact,

the matter is speaking of

a case in which they can ransom her,

for there was no impediment on the part of the captive-taker; rather, as long as she is a maidservant, they will not trouble themselves to ransom her.

And once he sends her a deed of emancipation,

and she becomes a complete Israelite woman,

they will join together with one another and ransom her

[they will all join together and make an effort to ransom her]!

And if you wish, say:

In fact,

the matter is speaking

of a case in which they cannot ransom her

because of the impediment caused by the captive-taker, who wanted her for sexual relations,

and once he sends her a deed of emancipation,

they will then be able to ransom her. For through this it will become known to the captive-taker that she had been an Israelite maidservant, and

she will become disgraced in his eyes, and he will sell her

[they could not ransom her because that gentile was not interested in giving her up for money; rather, through the deed of emancipation the gentile would learn that she was an Israelite maidservant, she would become despised in his eyes, and he would agree to sell her].

And we challenge this: Why should she become disgraced in his eyes when he discovers that she is an Israelite maidservant!?

And

indeed — on the contrary —

the Master said: They find pleasing

[to the gentiles]

the livestock of Israelites

for sexual relations,

more than their wives

themselves! And all the more so, Israelite maidservants are pleasing to them.

And we answer:

These words

— that those belonging to Israelites are pleasing to them —

apply in private.

But in public

they do not display this affection, because

the matter is disgraceful to them,

[they are ashamed of this]. An incident involving

a certain maidservant who was in Pumbedita, with whom people were committing a forbidden act

[there was a maidservant in Pumbedita with whom people engaged in sexual relations].

Abaye said: If not for

this

that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel

“Anyone who releases his slave violates a positive commandment,”

of “You shall work them forever,”

I would have compelled her master, and

I would have

written her a deed of emancipation

[I would have compelled her master to write her a deed of emancipation], so that she could marry an Israelite and refrain from a sinful act.

But since Rabbi Yehuda said, “Anyone who releases his slave violates a positive commandment,” I no longer have the power to compel him to release her.

Ravina said:

Every

such

case,

Rav Yehuda agrees

that it is permitted to release her.

Because

the emancipation is intended to prevent

a forbidden matter,

so that she will not engage in sexual relations with people! And anything done for the purpose of preventing a transgression is not prohibited when releasing a slave.

And we challenge this:

And

if

Abaye

does not hold this, and maintains that even

because of

preventing

a transgression, he may not

release her!?