Gittin 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

Did you hear this explicitly

[i.e., did you hear from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that he ruled accordingly

, or did you hear it by inference

[i.e., or perhaps you learned the matter under discussion from something else he said on another occasion]?

Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked

What inference?

From which matter am I to learn Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s view concerning this matter?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: I thought that you had learned this by inference, from this

that Rabbi Yehoshua 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 status? This refers to one who renounces ownership of his slave, as “despair” is an expression of renunciation of ownership.

Rabbi said to them

Rabbi:

I say: He has no remedy

for marrying a Jewish woman,

except by means of a document

of manumission.

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

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

who required a document of manumission in order to permit the slave to a Jewish woman? Why do we not say that once he has acquired himself, the designation “slave” has been entirely removed from him ? This is because he

derives

by means of a gzera shava,

“her”

“her”

from a woman.

That is: The gzera shava from a woman, which teaches that a slave woman and a slave go free by means of a document of manumission, does not come only for that matter. Rather, the Torah entirely juxtaposed a slave with a woman, to teach:

Just as,

in the same way as

a woman

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

by means of a document

of severance and not through renunciation of ownership

; so too a slave

is not completely emancipated except by means of a

document

of manumission and not through renunciation of ownership.

Rabbi Zeira concluded his argument:

And

I thought that you

were inferring from this

[that you had learned from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement in the name of Rabbi Yohanan]: Since Rabbi said that the Torah entirely juxtaposed a slave with a woman, it follows that one may learn that the slave’s law is

like that of a woman

in this respect as well:

Just as a woman

is released by the death of her husband only from

the prohibition

of a married woman,

and not

from a

monetary

law, for she is not her husband’s monetary property,

so too

a slave

is removed by the death of his master only from

the prohibition

alone,

and not

from the

monetary

ownership.

And if so, this is clearly in accordance with Abba Shaul’s view. For according to the Sages, even a minor slave who has no legal capacity to acquire himself goes free upon the death of his master. Necessarily, this is because in their view the master’s death removes even the monetary ownership. Yet from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement in Rabbi’s name, the opposite is proven.

Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Zeira:

And if I learned by inference

from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement that he holds that the halakha follows Abba Shaul,

what

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

?

He said

to him, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yaakov:

If you heard explicitly from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi that the halakha follows Abba Shaul, then it is fine. But from that statement there is no proof that he ruled accordingly. Rather,

on the contrary, infer from it the opposite:

that the halakha follows the Sages, who say that even a minor slave is juxtaposed with a woman, and he goes free upon the death of his master.

And this is how we should expound it:

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

goes free upon her husband’s death without a divorce document—

so too

a slave, whether

a

large

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

or

a

minor

slave who has no legal capacity whatsoever to acquire himself and requires release so that others can no longer acquire him: both go free upon the master’s death without a document of manumission.

He said

he replied

to him, Rabbi Yaakov said to Rabbi Zeira, concerning his question: From where had he learned this?

Rabbi Yaakov to Rabbi Zeira concerning his question: From where had he learned this?

I heard it explicitly

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

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba

disagreed with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

The halakha does not follow Abba Shaul!

Rather, it follows the Sages, who say: Both adults and minors acquire themselves as free people!

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

from Rabbi Yohanan that he ruled accordingly,

or by inference

from his words

did you hear

this?

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Zeira:

What inference?

What did Rabbi Yohanan say from which I was to learn this?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: From this

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

concerning one who said,

“

I have despaired of so-and-so, my slave. What is his status?”

Rabbi said to them

Rabbi:

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

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

He derives “

her” “

her”

from a woman. Just as a woman

does not go free through renunciation of ownership, but

only by means of a document; so too a slave

does not go completely free through renunciation of ownership, but

only by means of a document.

Rabbi Zeira concluded:

And

I thought that you, Rabbi Hiyya,

were inferring from this,

since Rabbi Yohanan juxtaposed him with a woman, that

like a woman

he is entirely:

And

just as a woman, whether an adult

or

whether a minor,

is permitted by her husband’s death—

so too a slave, whether an adult

or

whether a minor,

goes free upon his master’s death! This is in accordance with the Sages, who say that the slaves of a convert who died go completely free.

Rabbi Hiyya said to Rav Zeira:

And if

this is indeed so, and

by inference

from this I learned Rabbi Yohanan’s position on this matter,

what

difficulty do you have with my conclusion?

Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you proved it from there, that is not a proof.

On the contrary, infer from it the opposite—

in accordance with Abba Shaul. And this is how you should infer:

Just as a woman

is released by her husband’s death only from a law of

prohibition and not from monetary ownership,

for she is not acquired by him through monetary ownership—

so too a slave,

who was juxtaposed with her,

also

refers only to an adult slave whom his master renounced or who died without heirs, so that only the

prohibitive

ownership, and

not the monetary

ownership, remains in him, since he has already acquired ownership of himself in monetary matters.

But a minor slave, even after his master renounced him or died, still retains the monetary ownership of servitude, for he has no legal capacity to acquire himself. Therefore, he was not juxtaposed with a woman and does not go free upon his master’s death. This is in accordance with Abba Shaul.

He said

he replied

to him, Rabbi Hiyya said to Rabbi Zeira concerning his question:

Rabbi Ḥiyya to Rabbi Zeira concerning his question:

I heard it explicitly

from Rabbi Yohanan that the halakha follows the Sages.

The Master said: Rabbi said to them

Rabbi:

I say,

a slave of whom his master has despaired,

has no remedy

for marrying a woman

except by means of a document!

Rabbi’s reason was explained above: We therefore do not say that one who renounces ownership of his slave causes him to go free and that he does not require a document of manumission, because the Torah entirely juxtaposed a slave with a woman. Just as a woman goes free only by means of a document, so too a slave does not go completely free through renunciation of ownership. If so, we should say: Just as a woman does not go free through money, so too a slave does not go free through money;

But it was taught in a beraita:

One who consecrates 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 free,

from slavery,

because he

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

like

one who

sells him

to himself, with the Temple treasurer acting as the seller!

It is thus proven that according to Rabbi, a slave goes completely free through the payment of money. We do not entirely juxtapose a slave with a woman to say: Just as a woman does not go free through money, so too a slave does not go free through money

!? And we answer:

This is what Rabbi said

Rabbi:

Either by money or by a document, and in this case his monetary ownership is removed by the money.

That is: Although a slave was juxtaposed with a woman to teach that one who renounces ownership of his slave does not cause him to go completely free, nevertheless this does not exclude money, for money is different, since it was juxtaposed with a document in the verse: “And she shall be redeemed, she shall not be redeemed [with money], or freedom shall not be given to her [by a document].” Just as a document removes from the slave both the monetary ownership vested in him and the prohibitive ownership vested in him, so too money releases him completely. Consequently, in the case of one who renounces ownership of his slave, where release through money is not applicable, since the monetary ownership vested in him has been removed, he has no remedy except by means of a document. Renunciation of ownership, however, does not release him completely, because he was juxtaposed with a woman.

The Gemara further explains:

And

the statement that Rabbi made in the above beraita, that the slave acquires himself with money in order to go completely free and remove him from the prohibition, comes

to exclude the view of this tanna

[to exclude the position of the tanna] who disagrees and says: Money is effective to remove only the monetary ownership from him, but not the prohibitive ownership.

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

One might have thought that money completes her

in the case of a Canaanite slave woman, so that she would become completely emancipated and be permitted to an Israelite through the payment of money to her master,

just as a document

of manumission

completes her

and permits her?

a. A Canaanite slave woman cannot receive kiddushin, and even if she marries a Hebrew slave who is permitted to a slave woman, her kiddushin has no effect, and one who engages in intercourse with her is exempt.

b. One who engages in intercourse with a woman who is half slave and half free woman and who was betrothed to a Hebrew slave: the Torah newly established that he is liable to a guilt-offering, but he is not liable to death as in the case of another married woman.

c. “Redemption,” wherever it is stated concerning a slave or slave woman, means redemption with money, whereas “freedom” stated concerning a slave or slave woman means freedom by means of a document of manumission.

The verse states

in the passage concerning a betrothed slave woman:

“And a man who lies with a woman with an emission of semen, and she is a slave woman betrothed to a man,

and she shall be redeemed, she shall not be redeemed

[meaning that she was a slave woman whom they redeemed with money for half her value, and she is therefore half slave and half free woman], or freedom was not given to her [meaning: 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 engage in intercourse with a married woman], because freedom was not given to her. 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 because freedom was not given to her,” meaning that a document of manumission was not given to her, that

the entire passage was made dependent upon “

freedom was not given to her”!

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

infer from this: The law depends solely on the document, and even if she had been completely redeemed with money, the law of death would not apply to her.

And

to tell you:

A document

of manumission is what

completes her

and releases her entirely, both from servitude and from prohibition,

but

redemption

with money does not complete her

by removing her from the prohibition, so that kiddushin can take effect with her.

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

who says that redemption with money does not complete the emancipation of a slave or slave woman by removing them from the prohibition.

And Rav Yosef bar Ḥama said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The halakha does not follow Rabbi Shimon,

but the halakha follows Rabbi, who says that redemption with money does complete the emancipation of a slave or slave woman, like a document of manumission.

He encountered

[he found]

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

[as he was standing at the entrance to the synagogue].

He said

he asked

him

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rabbah bar Sheila:

Is the halakha

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who says that money does not complete the emancipation of a slave or slave woman,

or is the halakha not

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon?

He said to him

Rabbah bar Sheila:

I say that the halakha does not

follow Rabbi Shimon.

And the Sages who came from Meḥoza

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

said

that

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

follows Rabbi Shimon!

Rabbah bar Sheila added:

And when I came

I

to Sura

[when I came to Sura],

I encountered Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin,

and

I said

[I said]

to him:

Tell me, please

[where],

the actual incident

—the incident from which Rabbi Zeira proved that Rav Naḥman ruled that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon, who says that monetary acquisition does not complete her emancipation—

how did it happen

this incident?

And

he said to me

Rabbi Hiyya bar Avin: This is what happened:

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

And in the Gemara there: “It was taught: Also through exchange,” meaning that the slave is acquired by the master and acquires himself through exchange.

b. The mode of acquisition called “exchange” effects acquisition everywhere, and is derived from the verse in the Book of Ruth: “Now this was formerly done in Israel concerning redemption and exchange, to ratify every matter: a man would remove his shoe and give it to his fellow.” “Shoe” is not meant literally; this mode is also called acquisition by means of a cloth, because it is customary to perform it with a cloth. In the incident in our passage, the acquisition was effected by means of a hat.

»