Gittin 40a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Hanina said that Rav Ashi said that Rabbi said: A slave who married a free woman -

who is forbidden to a slave -

in the presence of his master, ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

went out

the slave

to freedom!

For certainly the master freed him, for if not, he would not have allowed him to marry a free woman, who is forbidden to him.

And

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Do you possess so much

this—the method of Rabbi alone—is known to you,

and

if

I teach

that the Sages dispute him; as it was taught:

One who writes a betrothal document for his maidservant

the Canaanite one, and betroths her with it:

Rabbi Meir says:

Behold, she is

betrothed!

Because certainly he had already freed her, and she became fit for betrothal, for if not, he would not have betrothed her.

And the Sages say: She is not betrothed.

And the same is the law—in the view of the Sages—concerning a slave who married a free woman before his master: there is no proof at all of his release from his master’s silence, and it is not like Rabbi.

And the Gemara rejects that Rabbi’s words are subject to the aforementioned dispute of the tannaim, because Rabbi’s words do not concern a slave who married a free woman in the presence of his master, as it plainly appears, but rather

as

a kind of

as Rabba bar Rav Shila said

below, that the slave goes out to freedom

when his master

himself

placed tefillin on him—

Here too—

in Rabbi’s words—

as

for example,

when his master

himself

married off

his slave to

a woman who was free. And in this manner, even the Sages agree that the matter proves that he freed him, for if not, he would not have deliberately brought upon himself the prohibition of a slave with a Jewish woman.

free woman. In such a case, even the Rabbis agree that this proves that he had freed him, since otherwise he would not have deliberately caused him to violate the prohibition against a slave marrying a Jewish woman.

And we wonder: Surely the Sages certainly dispute even in this case, for according to them, even if he himself betroths his maidservant, there is no proof in this that he freed her—

And

is there such a thing, that he does not commit a prohibition for his slave, and he

himself

commits a prohibition [is it possible that a person does not commit a prohibition by marrying off his slave to a free woman, while he himself transgresses a prohibition and marries a maidservant]?! Is this not a kal va-chomer? If he would not bring his slave to a prohibition, all the more so he would not bring himself to a prohibition.

Rather,

Rather,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said

to explain in another manner that Rabbi’s words do not depend on the dispute of the tannaim, for

here—

in the dispute of Rabbi Meir and the Sages—

with what are we dealing?

For he says to her:

Take this document

and go out

with it to freedom,

and

also

be betrothed with it;

and if so, there is no contradiction between the words of the Sages and Rabbi, because in this manner one cannot prove from his actions that he had freed her beforehand, for we see that he wants to free her now with this document; and even according to Rabbi Meir, the reason is not that he must have freed her, but rather the explanation of their dispute is:

Rabbi Meir holds:

The betrothal document itself can also serve as a deed of release, because

there is in the wording

of this—

the wording “Behold, you are betrothed”—also

the wording of release!

And its meaning is: through the document, you shall become fit for betrothal, that is, free, and also be betrothed with it.

And the Rabbis hold: There is no wording of release in this wording! For this is only a betrothal document, and it cannot also serve for release.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said:

A slave who put on tefillin in the presence of his master went out to freedom,

because it is not the way of a slave to put on tefillin, for he is not obligated in them; and when he puts them on, he is conducting himself according to the practice of a free Israelite, and his master would not allow him to conduct himself thus unless he had indeed freed him, and he is a free man.

They raised an objection

against Rabbi Joshua ben Levi from this, as it was taught:

His master borrowed from him [from the slave]

from the slave

a loan,

money,

or his master appointed him an administrator

over his property,

or the slave put on

tefillin

in the presence of his master, or he read

the slave

three verses

in the Torah

in the synagogue in the presence of his master—

although all these things are the practice of a free man, and when he conducts himself thus in the presence of his master, it appears that he freed him—nevertheless,

this one did not go out to freedom.

In any event, it teaches: “He put on tefillin before his master, he did not go out to freedom,” and this is difficult for Rabbi Joshua ben Levi!?

Rabba bar Rav Shila

explained:

he said:

What Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, “he went out to freedom,” means

when his master put tefillin on him with his own hands; for in this manner it is certainly proved that he freed him, and it is not similar to a slave who put on tefillin himself, and his master saw and remained silent.

with his own hands. In that case, it certainly proves that he freed him; it is not comparable to a slave who put on phylacteries himself, and whose master saw him and remained silent.

When Rav Dimi came [when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel],

[when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael],

he said in the name of

Rabbi

Rabbi Yohanan:

One who said at the time of his death: “

My maidservant so-and-so, let my heirs not enslave her

after me

after my death,”

the heirs are compelled

after his death to free her,

and

they

write her a deed of release.

And because this wording contains the wording of abandonment, and the acquisition of the products of her labor is removed, they therefore compel them to free her in order also to remove from her the acquisition of the prohibition.

And Rav Dimi added and said:

And they said before him [before Rabbi Yohanan],

[to Rabbi Yoḥanan]:

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi: Rabbi!

But

do you not concede

that the sons of this maidservant are still

of this maidservant are still

slaves

they are?!

That is: “Let them not enslave her” is not wording of release and not wording of abandonment; rather, its meaning is that they should not burden her with labor, but her body is still acquired, and her offspring are slaves like her. If so, why should we compel the heirs to free her?! For even if they are commanded not to work her because of “the mitzva to fulfill the words of the deceased,” they can nevertheless work her offspring, since concerning this they were not commanded by their father; and if so, why should they free her?!

When Rav Samuel bar Judah came

from the Land of Israel,

he said:

The event did not happen thus, and Rabbi Yohanan never said this, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi said nothing before him; rather, this is what

Rabbi Yohanan said:

One who said at the time of his death: “

My maidservant so-and-so has given me satisfaction,

and therefore

satisfaction shall be given

also

to her”:

behold, after his death,

the heirs are compelled, and they give her satisfaction,

and if she has satisfaction only through release, they compel them to free her.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because we hold: “

It is a mitzva to fulfill

the

words of the deceased.”

Ameimar said:

One who abandons

his

slave, that slave

goes out to freedom and requires a deed of release in order to remove from him the acquisition of the prohibition,

and he has no remedy,

even if he gives him a deed of release.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that he has no remedy through his being given a deed of release?

Because

his body as a slave [the monetary acquisition in him] already no longer

of the slave [the monetary ownership in him] is no longer

belongs to him

to his master since he abandoned him, and only

the acquisition of the prohibition exists

for him

with him.

And a prohibition

alone

the master cannot

the master

transfer to him

to the slave.

He said

objecting

to Ameimar: But Ulla said that Rabbi Yohanan said, and

so said

Rav Hiyya bar Avin said Rav:

Both this one—one who consecrates his slave—

and

this one—one who abandons him—

who declares him ownerless

goes out to freedom and requires a deed of release

in order to permit him from the laws of the prohibition within him; and it implies that he can give him a deed of release, which is difficult according to you, since you say, “he has no remedy”!

He said to him

Ameimar: Rabbi Yohanan and Rav did not say that he can be freed by a deed, but rather that he

requires

a deed of release,

and

however

he has no remedy

through his being given a deed of release, for the reason that was explained.

There are those who say:

This is what

Ameimar said:

One who abandons

his

slave and

afterward

dies

the master,

that slave has no remedy!

But if he did not die, Ameimar concedes that his master has the power to free him.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that if his master dies he has no remedy?

Because

his body

already

does not belong to him

to his master through monetary acquisition after he abandoned him, but

a prohibition

alone

exists

for the master

with regard to the slave.

And he does not bequeath a prohibition to his son [a person does not bequeath an acquisition of prohibition alone to his son], and it follows that there is no one who can remove the prohibition from him.

[a person cannot bequeath a legal prohibition alone to his son]. Consequently, there is no one who can remove the prohibition from him.

He said

objecting

to Ameimar:

But when Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of

But when Rav Dimi came,

Rabbi Yohanan:

One who said at the time of his death, “My maidservant so-and-so, let them not enslave her after my death,” the heirs are compelled to write her a deed of release. It follows that they inherit even the acquisition of the prohibition that their father had in the slave, although his monetary acquisition had already lapsed, and they have the power to free her, unlike Ameimar.

Ameimar answered Rav Ashi:

The

words that

Rav Dimi

said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan

are an error!

For Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi already refuted him, as explained above.

He said

in wonder

to him,

Rav Ashi to Ameimar: But for

what

reason did they say it

is an error!? Surely this is only because

the father

he did not say it [he did not say it] to his heirs

[say it] to his heirs

in the wording of release,

but rather said, “Let them not enslave her,” whose meaning is only that they should not burden her.

Here,

if

he

said—the command to his sons—

in the wording of release, [for example, “Behold, she is a free woman”],

[for example, “Behold, she is a free woman,”]

so too,

the law would be with Rabbi Yohanan, and they would compel the heirs to free her. And Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi would not have challenged his words! It follows that even after his master died, there is a remedy for him through a deed.

He said to him

Ameimar:

I hold according to Rav Samuel bar Judah—

above—

I hold,

that Rabbi Yohanan never said it, and Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi never raised this difficulty before him, and you have no proof from their words at all.

There was an incident involving

a certain town of Israelite slaves

Israelite

that were sold to a gentile [there was a group of slaves whose Israelite master sold them to a gentile],

[the Israelite master sold a group of slaves to a gentile], and

all the later masters died [their last owners died, namely, the gentile who had acquired them].

[their last owners died, namely, the gentile who had purchased them].

They came

those slaves

before Ravina,

in order to permit them to marry Jewish women.

He said to them

Ravina:

Go, return to the heirs of the first masters, and let them write you deeds of freedom, [return to the heirs of your first master, who were Israelites, so that they will write you a deed of release].

[return to the heirs of your first master, who was an Israelite, so that they will write deeds of emancipation for you].

They said

in astonishment

to Ravina the Rabbis:

But Ameimar said: One who abandons his slave and dies, that slave has no remedy!?

Because he has no monetary acquisition in him, but only a prohibition, and a person does not bequeath a prohibition to his sons.

And those slaves as well, since their master sold them to a gentile, his monetary acquisition in them lapsed. For we hold [in the Mishna below, 43b]: one who sells his slave to a gentile, the slave goes out to freedom, and nothing remains to him in them except an acquisition of prohibition; and inheritance does not apply to them. How can the heirs give them a deed of release?!

He said

in answer

to them

Ravina to the Rabbis:

I

do not hold like Ameimar, but rather

I hold like Rav Dimi!

For he said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: If one abandoned his maidservant and died, the heirs are compelled to free her! It follows that inheritance applies to her, even though the monetary acquisition in her had already lapsed. Therefore, they have the power to release her with a deed, since they inherited the acquisition of the prohibition in her.

They said to him

the Rabbis to Ravina: The

matter that

said

Rav Dimi

is

an error!

For Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi already rejected it.

He said to them: For

what

reason

is it

an error? Surely it is only because

Surely it is only because

he did not say it in the wording of release, but rather said, “Let them not enslave her,” which has no meaning of release.

Here,

if

he said it in the wording of release, so too,

the heirs are compelled to free her, unlike Ameimar.

And we conclude:

And the halakha is like Ravina!

And if one abandoned his slave and died, the heirs have the power to release him with a deed and permit him to marry a Jewish woman, and they compel them to do so.

There was an incident involving

a certain slave who

was owned by

two

partners.

One of them arose and freed his half [one of the partners freed the half of the slave belonging to him], and from then on he was half slave and half free man.

[one of the partners freed the half of the slave that belonged to him], so that from then on he was half slave and half free man.

The other said [the second partner in the slave]: “

[the other partner in the slave]: “

Now the Rabbis will hear of it [now the Sages will hear about this], and compel me to free his other half,

[now the Sages will hear about it], and they will force me to free the other half,

and they will cause me to lose him [and they will make me lose the slave].”

[they will make me lose the slave].”

For we learned in the Mishna below, 41a: concerning one who is half slave and half free man, since he cannot marry a maidservant, for he is already half free, and he also cannot marry a free woman, for he is already half slave, the master is therefore compelled to free his slave so that he may marry a free woman and fulfill the obligation of procreation.

He went

that man,

and transferred

his share in the slave

to his minor son,

and by this prevented the court from compelling him to free the slave, for a minor is not fit to be compelled in court.

Rav Yosef son of Rava sent

this account of events,

to Rav Pappa.

Rav Pappa sent him:

Rav Pappa:

As the father did

the father—

so shall it be done to him; his recompense shall be returned upon his head!

And thus it was done:

we

indeed

know with regard to the child

[we recognize the minor],

that his mind is drawn toward money,

[he loves money].

We appoint

[we shall appoint]

a guardian for him.