Gittin 38a (לח.) — the Talmud in English

You

Israel]

buy from them

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

but they

the gentiles]

buy

one of]

from you

with ownership of his person!

And

so

they do not buy from one another,

a gentile does not acquire another gentile with ownership of his person.

Could it be that they do not buy

the gentiles

one another?

The Gemara interrupts Reish Lakish’s statement and challenges him: How could you have said

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

But this is indeed the truth, for

you said

in the preceding passage:

“They do not

the gentiles]

buy from one another

slaves.”

And we explain:

This is what he means

Reish Lakish:

But they

do not buy one another

a slave

for his person; could it be that they do not buy

the gentiles at all

one another

as slaves, and not even an acquisition

of the labor of their hands?

That is not so. Rather, certainly a gentile too acquires another gentile for the latter’s labor, because

you can derive this by means of a kal va-chomer:

For the

gentile

acquires the

Israelite

for his labor—as it is stated: “When the hand of a stranger and a resident with you attains wealth, and your brother becomes impoverished with him, and he is sold to the stranger residing with you, or to the offspring of the family of a stranger” [the members of the stranger’s family are gentiles]—

And if so—since he acquires an Israelite as a slave for his labor—

a

gentile acquiring a

gentile,

is it not all the more so that he acquires him for his labor?!

Therefore, the captor acquires the slave for his labor after his master has despaired of recovering him, and he then transfers the slave for his labor to the one who ransomed him from the captor. When the slave immersed for the sake of slavery, the redeemer acquires him even with regard to his person.

We nevertheless challenge this:

And say: This applies

only when a gentile acquires a gentile for his labor—specifically

with money,

as he acquires an Israelite, for that is what you derive the matter from!

But with an act of possession,

say that a gentile

does not

acquire a slave at all!? The captor did not acquire the slave with money from the Israelite; rather, the slave’s master despaired of him and renounced ownership of him. Therefore, the gentile must still perform an act of acquisition in order to acquire him, and he can acquire him only through ḥazaka, an act demonstrating ownership—for example, dressing the slave or putting shoes on him. Through such an act a Canaanite slave is acquired by an Israelite. But from where do we know that a gentile too acquires through ḥazaka? After all, with regard to real estate we do not find that a gentile acquires land through ḥazaka!?

Rav Pappa said:

A gentile too acquires land through ḥazaka, as is shown by the fact that

Ammon and Moab were purified through Sihon!

That is to say: Although Israel was commanded not to besiege Ammon and Moab, and was prohibited from conquering their land, nevertheless Israel conquered the lands of Ammon and Moab after Sihon had first conquered them. It follows that Sihon rendered these lands permissible for Israel.

Thus Sihon acquired these lands, even though he did not acquire them with money. Necessarily, then, he acquired them through ḥazaka. We have therefore learned that a gentile acquires a gentile’s land through ḥazaka; and just as he acquires land from a gentile through ḥazaka, so too he acquires a gentile slave whose master has despaired of him through an act of ḥazaka.

We nevertheless challenge this: Indeed,

we find

we find]

a gentile

who acquires

a gentile

through ḥazaka, as we derive from Sihon—but our Mishna also deals with a slave who circumcised and immersed in the presence of his first master, and is no longer a gentile. And a

gentile

who acquires

an Israelite

as a slave through ḥazaka,

from where do we know this?!

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,

and took a captive from him”! Since the verse calls it “his captive,” learn from this that the Canaanite acquired his captive through ḥazaka.

Rav Shaman bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

A slave

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

who

his master despaired of recovering, and

escaped from the prison

of the captors,

goes free!

His first master can no longer enslave him.

Moreover, the court compels his first master

to release him from the prohibition-based acquisition that he retains in him,

and to write him a bill of manumission

to permit him to marry an Israelite woman!

For although the monetary acquisition of the slavehood has lapsed on its own, the prohibition-based acquisition of slavehood still remains, 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 as a slave or as a free man—

he remains enslaved!

And Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Whenever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught

a ruling

in our Mishna, the halakha is in accordance with him!

Except for

three places, and these are they:

the guarantor and Sidon

and

the last proof!

Apart from these three places, Rabbi Yoḥanan ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel everywhere that his opinion is brought in the Mishna.

If so, this is difficult: How could Rabbi Yoḥanan say, “A slave who escaped from prison goes free”!? Did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel not say in our Mishna, “He remains enslaved” to the first master—and the same should apply to one who escaped, as will be explained!?

The Gemara explains its challenge:

Granted, according to Abaye

there is no difficulty, for

he establishes this

Mishna as saying that he remains enslaved to his first master

before despair, whereas this

statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan applies

after despair. In that case even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees that he goes free, since the first owners despaired of recovering him.

But according to Rava, who said:

Even

after despair

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

There is

a difficulty between the statement

of Rabbi Yoḥanan

regarding one who escaped and goes free,

and the other statement

of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that he ruled that the halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel!?

And we answer:

And we answer:

Rava could have said:

What is

the reason

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, “He remains enslaved”? It is

because

of what

Ḥizkiya said: “So that each and every person will not go and throw himself to the military forces and thereby free himself from his master”! This reason applies only to a slave who was redeemed from the captor.

But

But

one who escaped is different,

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

now, he has given his life over to death

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 military forces?!

Since there is no concern that he will throw himself into captivity in order to free himself from his master, there is no reason to leave him under his master’s enslavement, once the master has already despaired of him. Therefore, he goes free.

There was an incident involving

Mar Shmuel’s maidservant

who

was captured

Shmuel’s maidservant was taken captive], and

they redeemed her

Israelites

for the sake of a maidservant

they redeemed her as a maidservant],

and sent her to him

returning her to Shmuel].

The redeemers sent word to him,

saying: You may continue to enslave her, since

we hold in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

our view is like that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel]! In any event, a slave continues to be enslaved after his redemption.

And

the

alternative

even if]

you hold in accordance with the Sages—that if they redeemed him for the sake of freedom, he goes free—in any event she is still your maidservant, because

we redeemed her for the sake of

her being

your maidservant; we redeemed her for her

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 him this message because

they mistakenly thought

that it was

before despair,

and Shmuel had not yet despaired of his maidservant.

But

that is

not

the case; rather, it was

after despair! Since he had already despaired of her, she had gone free, and Shmuel could no longer enslave her.

The nature of slave ownership is divided into two matters:

a. Monetary ownership: the slave’s person becomes the property of his master with regard to the labor of his hands, and with regard to the principle, “Whatever a slave acquires, his master acquires.”

b. Prohibition-based ownership: Even after he circumcises and immerses, 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.

When a person gives his slave a bill of manumission, he removes both forms of ownership. However, when a person renounces ownership of his slave, the amoraim dispute whether a bill of manumission is still required to remove the prohibition-based ownership, or whether, once the monetary ownership has lapsed through the renunciation, the prohibition-based ownership likewise lapses automatically, as will be explained.

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

because it was after despair, as stated;

rather,

even

he did not require a bill of freedom

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 position

according to his approach],

as Shmuel said:

One who renounces ownership of his slave goes out

completely

to freedom and does not require a bill of manumission

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

it is stated: “

Every slave purchased for money

[“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 man’s slave

but not a woman’s slave!?

Rather,

the verse comes to teach us: specifically,

a slave over whom his master has monetary authority

monetary authority

over him [

a man's slave—he is

called "

a slave,"

and is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman; but

a slave over whom his master has no authority

he

is called "

a slave,"

and he is like a free-born Jew in every respect: he is permitted to marry a Jewish woman and is forbidden to marry a maidservant.

There was an incident involving

the maidservant of Rabbi Abba bar Zutra,

who

was taken captive [the maidservant of Rabbi Abba was taken captive],

and

a certain man from Tadmor ransomed her in order to marry her [a gentile from the city of Tadmor ransomed her in order to take her as a wife].

[a gentile from the city of Tarmod redeemed her with the intention of marrying her].

They sent word to him—

the people of that place brought the maidservant there—

to him [to Rabbi Abba bar Zutra]:

[to Rabbi Abba bar Zutra]:

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

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

And we raise a question:

What are the circumstances?

If they are able to ransom her [if the people of that 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 document of emancipation?!

They should ransom her on his behalf as a slave, and she will remain his maidservant.

And

if they are unable to ransom her—

because the captor is unwilling to agree to this—

when

Rabbi Abba

sends her a document of emancipation, what will that accomplish?!

What benefit will this document provide her as long as she remains with the captor?

We answer:

Actually,

the case is one in which

they are able to ransom her,

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

And once he sends her a document of emancipation,

and she becomes a full-fledged Jewish woman,

they will join together and ransom her [they will all join together and exert themselves to ransom her]!

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

And if you wish, say instead:

Actually,

the case is

one in which they are unable to ransom her

because of the captor’s refusal, as he wished to have relations with her,

but once he sends her a document of emancipation,

they will then be able to ransom her. For through this, the captor will learn that she had been a Jewish maidservant, and

she will become degraded 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 document of emancipation, the gentile will learn that she is a Jewish maidservant, she will become degraded in his eyes, and he will agree to sell her].

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

We challenge this: Why should she become degraded in his eyes when he discovers that she is a Jewish maidservant?

But

surely, on the contrary,

the Master said: They find [the gentiles]

[the gentiles]

the “animals” of Israel

for licentious relations

more desirable than their own wives

! And certainly Jewish maidservants are desirable to them.

We answer:

That statement applies—

that Jewish women are desirable to them—

in private.

But in public

they do not display this affection, because

they consider the matter degrading [they are ashamed of it].

There was an incident involving

a certain maidservant who was in Pumbedita, with whom people were engaging in forbidden relations [there was a maidservant in Pumbedita with whom people habitually engaged in licentious relations].

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

Abaye said: Had it not been for

this

that Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: "

Anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive mitzva"

of “You shall work them forever,”

I would have compelled her master, and

I would have

written her a document of emancipation [I would have compelled her master to write her a document of emancipation], so that she could marry a Jew and refrain from sin.

[I would have forced her master to write her an emancipation document], so that she could marry an Israelite and avoid engaging in prohibited intercourse.

But since Rabbi Yehuda said, “Anyone who emancipates his slave violates a positive mitzva,” I can no longer compel him to emancipate her.

Ravina said:

Every

case of this kind,

case,

Rabbi Yehuda concedes

that it is permitted to emancipate her.

Because

the emancipation is intended to prevent

a forbidden matter,

so that she will not engage in licentious relations with people. And whenever it is for the purpose of preventing a transgression, it is not forbidden to emancipate a slave.

We challenge:

But

if

Abaye

does not accept this, and holds that even

for the sake of preventing

the prevention of

a forbidden matter, he should not

emancipate her?!