Gittin 40b (מ:) — the Talmud in English

And he sent the slave to him,

and

the child would

rattle coins before him [

the slave would rattle a few coins before him] in order to entice him with these coins to emancipate him,

and he would write for him

the minor

a bill of emancipation in his name [

and the minor would write a bill of emancipation in the slave’s name].

The Sages taught:

One who says

to his slave [meaning: he writes it in a document, as the text proceeds]:

“I have made so-and-so, my slave, free.”

Or: “So-and-so, my slave,

is made free.”

Or: “

He is free”—

with any of these expressions,

he

the slave becomes

free!

For all of them are expressions of emancipation.

But if he wrote: “

I will make him free”:

Rabbi says: He acquires himself,

the slave, because this expression too implies that he is emancipating him now, through this emancipation that he is carrying out at this moment.

And the Sages say: He does not acquire himself,

the slave does not acquire himself, because this is not an expression of emancipation, but merely a promise that he will make him free in the future by means of another document, and he has not yet done so.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them,

all these expressions are effective only when they are written

in a document

of emancipation. By delivering a document in which one of these expressions is written, he goes free; but if he says one of these expressions to him orally, he does not go free.

Likewise,

the Sages taught

with regard to a deed of sale:

One who says

to the purchaser [meaning: he writes it in a document, as the text proceeds]:

“I have given this particular field to so-and-so.”

Or: “This particular field

is given to so-and-so.”

Or: “This particular field

is his”—

with each of these expressions,

the field

is acquired by him, and

it is his.

But if he said: “This particular field

I will give to so-and-so”:

Rabbi says: He acquires it,

because this expression too implies transfer of ownership: “Now, through this act, I am transferring it to him.”

And the Sages say: He does not acquire it,

because this is not an expression of transfer of ownership, but merely a promise that in the future he will acquire the field for him.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And all of them,

all these expressions are effective only when they are written

in a document

of acquisition; but through a mere oral statement, the field is not acquired.

The Sages taught:

One who says,

as an admission: “

I have made so-and-so, my slave, free

,” and he

the slave

says:

“He says: “

My master did not make me

free”—he is free.

And because

we are concerned:

Perhaps he vested him with

his bill of emancipation

through

another

person,

and the slave was unaware of it; and if the master did in fact vest the slave’s emancipation in him through another person, the slave is emancipated, because it is to the slave’s benefit to leave his master’s control and go free, and “one may acquire a benefit for a person in his absence.”

But if the master said: “

I wrote and gave him

a bill of divorce for the slave,”

and he

the slave

says: “He did not write me or give me

any bill at all”—he is not free.

The slave is believed in his statement despite the master’s denial, because “

the admission of a litigant is equivalent to the testimony of one hundred witnesses”!

A person is believed when his admission harms himself; and although the master admits that he emancipated him, he may retract his statement and say: “I mistakenly thought that he had received his bill from me, but in fact that did not happen.”

Likewise,

one who says: “

I have given this particular field to so-and-so,”

and he [

that same so-and-so]

says: “

He did not give me

this field ever”—that so-and-so acquires the field.

And because

we are concerned that perhaps he vested the field in him

through

another

person

,

for “one may acquire a benefit for a person in his absence,” and the recipient was unaware of it.

But if he said: “

I wrote and gave him

a deed of acquisition for the field,”

and he says: “

He did not write or give me

any document”—he does not acquire it.

Because “

the admission of a litigant”—

of the recipient—“

is equivalent to the testimony of one hundred witnesses”!

And once he admitted that he did not receive it, the giver may retract his statement and say: “I mistakenly thought that I had given it to him.”

The Gemara discusses the case in which the recipient’s admission stands against the giver’s admission:

Who

among them

eats

the

produce

of the land?

Rav Ḥisda says: The giver eats the produce,

because of the recipient’s admission.

And Rabba said: The produce is divided into thirds,

meaning: It is uncertain, and the produce is placed in the hands of a trustworthy third party until Elijah comes.

And we conclude:

And they do not disagree!

This

that Rav Ḥisda said, “The giver eats the produce,” is

in the case of the father!

That is, when the recipient is still alive and he is the one who admitted and said, “He did not give it to me.” Therefore, he is entirely believed and can never retract his admission.

And

this

that Rabba said, “The produce is divided into thirds,” is

in the case of the son [

the son of the deceased recipient of the gift]. The father did not admit, “I did not receive it”; rather, it was his son who admitted, “My father did not receive this gift.” In such a case, his admission has no greater force than the giver’s admission, since the son too may have been mistaken and unaware of the gift. Therefore, the produce is divided into thirds, lest witnesses come and testify that the field was given to his father without the son’s knowledge. One who borrows money from another may encumber one of his assets with a special lien, in such a manner that he writes to the lender, “From here you shall collect,” and this is called an apotiki [meaning: “Here it shall stand”; you shall stand upon this property and collect it for your debt]! There are two types of apotiki:

An ordinary apotiki, in which the borrower writes to the lender: “If I do not repay you from another source, this is available for you to collect.”

“An explicitly designated apotiki,” in which the borrower writes to the lender: “You shall have repayment only from this.” Some of the distinctions between them in law are explained in this discussion.

Mishna:

A slave whom his master designated as an apotiki for others—

who wrote to his creditor: “If I do not repay your debt with other property, collect it from the slave

” —

and

afterward

emancipated him:

The letter [

the essential point]

of the law

is:

the slave owes nothing.

However,

the Sages instituted

for the sake of the betterment of the world,

that they should

compel his master

to emancipate him,

and make him free!

And he writes a document for his value!

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He does not write; rather, he emancipates him!

And all the statements of the Mishna will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

A slave whom his master designated as an apotiki and emancipated him,

the essential point of the law is that the slave owes nothing. However, for the sake of the betterment of the world, they compel his master and make him free:

The Gemara cites the dispute between Rav and Ulla in explaining the Mishna:

Who freed him? –

Rav said: His

the

first

was the one who freed him!

And this is the explanation of the Mishna:

The strict law

is that

the slave owes nothing to his

the

second master,

that is, the slave is not obligated to serve his second master, since the first master freed him, and the creditor cannot collect the slave, as he does not belong to the borrower –

Moreover, the lien under which the slave was held by the creditor does not prevent his first master from freeing him,

as

stated by

Rava.

For Rava said:

these three things: a.

consecration.

b.

hametz.

c.

and emancipation –

remove [an item] from a lien,

as explained.

And this is what we learned in our Mishna: that according to the strict law, he is a free man and owes nothing. And the statement that we learned, “Rather, for the sake of the repair of the world, we compel his master to make him a free man and to write a document for his value,” is

only for the sake of the repair of the world.

For the Sages said that although he is not the creditor’s slave at all, and there is no need for a document of emancipation from him, nevertheless we compel him to write a document of emancipation, because we are concerned

lest the creditor find him

as a slave

in the marketplace,