Gittin 39b — the Talmud in English

Did you hear it explicitly

[did you hear] from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that he ruled so,

or did you hear it by inference

[or perhaps you learned it for our matter from something else that he said elsewhere]?

Rabbi Jacob bar Idi asked:

What inference?

From what matter am I to learn what Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion is concerning this matter?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: I thought that you had learned so from this:

For Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: They said before Rabbi:

If the master said: “

I have despaired of so-and-so my slave” -

What is

the slave’s law? And this means that he renounced ownership of his slave, for “despair” is an expression of renunciation.

He said to them

Rabbi:

I say: he has no remedy

to marry a woman,

except by a document

of manumission.

The continuation of the report is explained according to the Rashba.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is Rabbi’s reason,

who required a document of manumission in order to permit him with an Israelite woman? And why do we not say: Since he acquired himself, the designation of slave has completely departed from him!? It is because

he derived

by a gezerah shavah

“to her”

“to her”

from a woman.

That is, the gezerah shavah from a woman, which teaches that a maidservant and a slave go out by a document of manumission, does not come only for this matter; rather, the Torah entirely compared a slave to a woman, and to teach:

Just as,

as

a woman

does not leave her husband and is not permitted to marry except

by a document

of severance and not by renunciation

; so too a slave

is not completely manumitted except by a

document

of manumission and not by renunciation.

Rabbi Zeira concluded his words:

And

I thought that you

were inferring from it

[that you learned from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s statement in the name of Rabbi]: Since Rabbi said that the Torah entirely compared a slave to a woman, if so one should learn that the slave’s law will be

like a woman’s

also in this matter:

Just as a woman

is not released by the husband’s death except from

the prohibition

of a married woman,

and not

from the law of

property,

for she is not the husband’s property.

So too,

a slave as well

is not released by the master’s death except from

the prohibition

alone,

and not

from the ownership of

property.

And if so, it is explained according to Abba Saul’s method. For according to the opinion of the Sages, even a minor slave who has no capacity to acquire himself goes out to freedom upon the master’s death; and necessarily this is because, according to them, the master’s death also removes the monetary ownership. But from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s statement in Rabbi’s name it is proven not so.

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Zeira:

And if I learned it by implication

Rabbi Jacob said to Rabbi Zeira:

And if by inference

from the aforementioned words of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi I learned that he holds that the halakha is like Abba Saul,

what

[and even if I indeed learned it from there, so what?] What difficulty do you have with this!?

He said to him

Rabbi Zeira answered Rabbi Jacob:

For if you heard explicitly from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi that the halakha is like Abba Saul, that would be fine; but from that statement there is no proof that he ruled so. Rather,

on the contrary, infer from it the opposite side,

that the halakha is like the Sages, for even a minor slave was compared to a woman, and he goes out upon the master’s death.

And this is how we shall expound it:

Just as a woman, whether an adult or a minor,

goes out upon her husband’s death without a document—

so too

a slave as well, whether

a

large

slave, who has the capacity to acquire himself and requires only release from the ownership of the prohibition,

or

a

minor

slave, who has no capacity to acquire himself at all and requires release so that others will not be able to acquire him, both go out upon the master’s death without a document of manumission.

He said

he answered

to him

Rabbi Jacob answered Rabbi Zeira’s question as to where he had learned this:

I heard it explicitly

from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who said so, and I did not learn it by inference.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

disagreed with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

The halakha is not like Abba Saul!

Rather, it is like the Sages who say: whether adults or minors, they acquire themselves as free people!

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly

from Rabbi Yoḥanan, who ruled so,

or by inference

from his words

did you hear

so?

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Zeira:

What inference

did Rabbi Yoḥanan say, from which I was to learn so?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: From this

that Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: They said before Rabbi,

the one who said,

“

I have despaired of so-and-so my slave; what is [his law]?”

He said to them

Rabbi:

I say, he has no remedy except by a document!

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is Rabbi’s reason? —

He derived

“to her”

“to her”

from a woman: just as a woman

does not go out through renunciation but

by a document, so too a slave

does not go out through renunciation completely but

by a document.

And Rabbi Zeira concluded:

And

I thought that you, Rabbi Hiyya,

were inferring from it,

since Rabbi Yoḥanan compared him to a woman; if so,

like a woman

he is entirely:

And

just as a woman, whether an adult

and

whether a minor,

is permitted by her husband’s death—

so too a slave, whether an adult

and

whether a minor,

goes out upon his master’s death! And this is like the Sages, that the slaves of a convert who died go out entirely to freedom.

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Zeira:

And if

this is indeed so, and

by inference

from this I learned Rabbi Yoḥanan’s method concerning this matter,

what

difficulty do you have with my conclusion?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you proved it from there, it is no proof.

For, on the contrary, infer from it the opposite side—

and like Abba Saul—and infer as follows...

Just as a woman

is permitted by her husband’s death only with regard to the law of

the prohibition and not property,

for she is not acquired to him through monetary ownership—

so too a slave,

who was compared to her,

as well,

is only an adult slave whom his master renounced or who died without heirs, and only ownership of

the prohibition, and not

ownership of

property, remains in him, because he has already acquired ownership of his own property.

But a minor slave, even after his master renounced him or died, still has in him monetary ownership of servitude, for he has no capacity to acquire himself; therefore he was not compared to a woman, and he does not go out upon his master’s death. And this is like Abba Saul.

He said

he answered

to him

Rabbi Hiyya answered Rabbi Zeira’s question:

I heard it explicitly

from Rabbi Yoḥanan that the halakha is like the Sages.

The Master said: He said to them

Rabbi:

I say,

a slave of whom his master despaired,

has no remedy

for marrying a woman,

except by a document!

And Rabbi’s reason was explained above: therefore we do not say that one who renounced ownership of his slave goes out to freedom and does not require a document of manumission, because the Torah entirely compared a slave to a woman; and just as a woman goes out only by a document, so too a slave does not go out completely to freedom through renunciation. If so, we should say: just as a woman does not go out through money, so too a slave does not go out through money;

And it was taught:

one who consecrated his property, and there were slaves among it—

Rabbi says: I say, he too

the slave himself,

gives

to the Temple treasury

the

value of himself, and goes out

to freedom,

because he

can acquire himself just as others can acquire him; and this is

like

one who

sells him

to the treasurer himself! This proves that according to Rabbi the slave goes out completely to manumission through the giving of money, and we do not entirely compare a slave to a woman, to say: just as a woman does not go out through money, so too a slave does not go out through money!?

And we answer:

This is what Rabbi said:

Either by money or by a document, and in this case his money has been removed from him.

That is: although a slave was compared to a woman, to teach that one who renounced ownership of his slave does not go out completely, nevertheless this does not come to exclude money, for money is different, since it was compared to a document in the verse’s statement: “And she shall be redeemed, she shall not be redeemed [with money], or freedom was not given to her [by a document].” And just as a document removes the slave both from the ownership of property in him and from the ownership of the prohibition in him, so too money takes him out completely. Consequently, in the case of one who renounced ownership of his slave, in which going out through money is inapplicable, since the monetary ownership in him has been removed, he has no remedy except by a document; but renunciation does not take him out completely, because he was compared to a woman.

Either by money or by a document; and in this case his monetary ownership has been removed.

And the Gemara further explains:

And the matter that Rabbi said in the above beraita, that the slave acquires himself through money in order to be completely manumitted and remove him from the prohibition, came

to exclude the view of this tan

[to exclude the method of the tan] who disagrees and says: the money is effective to remove from him the prohibition, but only the ownership of property.

For it was taught: Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva:

—to exclude the position of the tanna who disagrees and says: Money is effective only to remove the monetary ownership, but not to remove the prohibition.

Could it be that money completes her

in the case of a Canaanite maidservant, so that she would be completely manumitted and permitted to an Israelite through giving money to her master,

in the manner in which a document

of manumission

completes her

to permit her?

a. A Canaanite maidservant: betrothal does not take effect with her; and even if she married a Hebrew slave who is permitted with a maidservant, her betrothal has no effect, and one who has intercourse with her is exempt.

b. One who has intercourse with a woman who is half maidservant and half free woman, who became betrothed to a Hebrew slave: the Torah innovated that one who has intercourse with her is liable for a guilt-offering, but there is no death liability as with another married woman.

c. “Redemption” stated everywhere concerning a slave or maidservant means redemption with money, whereas “freedom” stated concerning a slave or maidservant means freedom by a document of manumission.

The verse teaches

in the section of the betrothed maidservant: “

And a man who lies with a woman with an emission of seed, and she is a maidservant designated [betrothed] to a man,

and she shall be redeemed, she shall not be redeemed

[for she was a maidservant whom they redeemed with money to one-half, and she is consequently half maidservant and half free woman], or freedom was not given to her [that is, no document of manumission was given to her at all], there shall be an inquiry; they shall not be put to death [the adulterer and the adulteress, as are others who have intercourse with a married woman], for she was not given freedom. And he [the adulterer] shall bring his guilt-offering to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, a guilt-offering ram.”

And we learn from the verse’s statement, “They shall not be put to death, for she was not given freedom,” meaning that no document of manumission was given to her, that

the entire passage was made dependent on

“

she was not given freedom”!

That is: since it was not said, “They shall not be put to death, for she was not redeemed [completely with money] and freedom was not given to her [by a document],” and the verse mentioned the reason for exemption from death only because freedom by a document was not given to her—

infer from it: the law depends only on the document, and even if she had been entirely redeemed with money, there would not have been a death law concerning her.

And

to tell you:

A document

of manumission

is what completes her

to take her out entirely both from servitude and from prohibition,

and

redemption

with money does not complete her

to remove her from the prohibition, so that betrothal will take effect with her.

Rami bar Ḥama said that Rav Naḥman said: The law follows Rabbi Shimon,

Rami bar Hama said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is like Rabbi Shimon,

that redemption with money does not complete the manumission of a slave or maidservant to remove them from the prohibition.

And Rav Yosef bar Hama said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The halakha is not like Rabbi Shimon,

rather, the halakha is like Rabbi, that redemption with money does complete the manumission of a slave or maidservant, like a document of manumission.

He encountered

[he found]

Rav Naḥman bar Isaac encountered Rabbah bar Sheila, who was standing at the entrance of the house of prayer

[when he was standing at the entrance of the synagogue].

He said

asked

him

Rav Naḥman bar Isaac asked Rabbah bar Sheila:

Is the halakha

like Rabbi Shimon, that money does not complete the manumission of a slave or maidservant,

or is the halakha not

like Rabbi Shimon?

He said to him

Rabbah bar Sheila:

I say, the halakha is not

like Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages who came from Meḥoza

[the sages who came from Meḥoza] disagreed with me and

said

that

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha

is like Rabbi Shimon!

And Rabbah bar Sheila added:

And when I came

I

to Sura,

I found Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin,

and

I said

[I said]

to him:

Tell me, please

[where],

the body of the incident—

the incident from which Rabbi Zeira proved that Rav Naḥman ruled that the halakha is like Rabbi Shimon, that a monetary acquisition does not complete her manumission—

how was it

this incident?!

And

he said to me

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin: This is how the incident occurred:

a. We learned in the Mishna in Kiddushin 22b: “A Canaanite slave is acquired through money, through a document, and through possession; and he acquires himself [from the master] through money given by others, and through a document.”

And in the Gemara there: “The tan taught: also through barter,” that is, the slave is acquired by the master and acquires himself through barter.

b. The acquisition of “barter” acquires everywhere, and is learned from the verse in the Scroll of Ruth: “And this was formerly done in Israel concerning redemption and exchange, to establish every matter: a man would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow.” And “shoe” is not specifically required; it is also called “the acquisition of a cloth,” because it is customary to perform it with a cloth, and in the incident in our sugya the acquisition was performed through a hat.

c. The amoraim disagreed in tractate Bava Metzia 47a concerning what the acquisition by exchange is, that is, who is the one who removes and gives:

Rav said: with the utensil of the buyer; Levi said: with the utensil of the seller. That is to say, according to Rav, the buyer gives his shoe to the seller, and through this the object is acquired by the buyer; and likewise, in the case of a slave, the slave who is the buyer gives his shoe to the master who is the seller, and through this the slave is acquired by himself. Whereas according to Levi, the seller—that is, the master—must give a shoe to the slave, and through the benefit that the seller derives from the buyer, who took a shoe from him, the object is thereby acquired by the buyer:

In our discussion it is explained that the law of acquisition by exchange is like the law of money, and according to the view that money completes the acquisition of a male or female slave, acquisition by exchange likewise completes it; whereas according to the view that money does not complete the acquisition, acquisition by exchange likewise does not complete it.

That certain maidservant, whose master was a dangerously ill man

there was a Canaanite maidservant, whose master was a dangerously ill man, and he was tending toward death,

came

that maidservant

and cried

to

before him

his maidservant came and cried before him, and

said to him:

Are you not tending toward death, and after your death I shall fall to your heirs, and shall continue to be enslaved to them

Until when will that woman remain enslaved and go on

she was referring to herself and said: Until when shall I remain enslaved

He took

the master

his hat,

and

threw it at her

he threw his hat toward her,

and said to her:

Go, acquire

this

and acquire

hat,

and acquire

through this

yourself

acquire this hat, and through it acquire yourself!

They came before Rav Naḥman,

and asked him: Did the maidservant become free through this act, or not?

He said to them: He did nothing at all,

for this act did not avail to take her out to freedom.

And Rabbah bar Shilat concluded:

Whoever saw

this act [whoever saw this act]

thought:

Since he threw his hat to her, this is an “acquisition by exchange” that should be effective like an acquisition through money,

and what Rav Naḥman said, “He did nothing at all,” means that the acquisition of the prohibition was not removed, and because

the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon

that through an acquisition with money the prohibition is not removed, and the same applies to acquisition by exchange; and from here they learned that Rav Naḥman holds that the halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

And

I—Rabbah bar Shilat—say:

No

so

is it,

but Rav Naḥman always admits that the halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon, and both money and acquisition by exchange complete the acquisition through them; and what he said, “He did nothing at all,” is

only because

the acquisition was not performed there according to its law,

for

behold,

it turned out to be

that hat

the utensil of the seller,

for it was performed with the master’s hat—

and therefore she did not acquire herself at all, because we rule that the halakha is according to Rav, who holds: acquisition by exchange is performed with the utensil of the buyer; and it follows that the acquisition was not performed according to its law, and therefore she acquired nothing at all.

Rav Shmuel bar Ahitai said: Rav Hamnuna the Elder said, Rav Yitzḥak bar Ashian said, Rav Huna said, Rav Hamnuna said: The halakha is according to Rabbi Shimon.

»

И не

так

это

обстоит,

галаха не соответствует мнению рабби Шимона.

Галаха соответствует мнению рабби: даже деньги полностью освобождают рабов, выводя их на полную свободу.