Gittin 41a — the Talmud in English

And he said to him:

You are my slave:

and he would cast aspersions upon his sons, that his sons were the sons of a slave. Therefore they instituted that they compel the creditor, and he makes him a free man.

And this is what we learned: “And he writes a document for his value”; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “He writes nothing but [a document of] emancipation.” This is the explanation of the matter:

And he writes

the

slave

to the creditor

a document

of obligation

for his value,

but without the slave undertaking to him [payment of] his value, there is no obligation upon the creditor to write him a document of emancipation for free.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write

to him a document for his value;

rather, the emancipator

his first master

writes

to the creditor a document of obligation for the value of the slave, for he damaged his lien, since because he emancipated him, the creditor can no longer collect his debt from the slave.

And we explain:

Over what do they disagree

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages?

They disagree concerning one who damages another’s lien.

For one master

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

holds:

One who damages another’s lien

is liable,

and therefore the master is the one who writes to the creditor a debt document for his value, and the slave need not write him a debt document.

And the other

the first teacher

holds:

One who damages another’s lien

is exempt,

because he does not damage with his hands, but only causes a loss to the other, and indirect causation in torts is exempt; and therefore the slave is forced to write a document for his value so that he will give him a document of emancipation.

It was also stated

that this is what they disagreed about:

One who damages another’s lien—

we have arrived

at this

at the dispute of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages

in our Mishna.

Ulla said

to explain our Mishna differently from Rav: This is what we learned: “A slave whom his master made an apotiki and emancipated him”—

who emancipated him?—

his second master

the creditor emancipated him.

And this is the explanation of what we learned: By the letter of the law, the slave owes nothing, but for the sake of the betterment of the world they compel his master and he makes him a free man:

From the side of

the letter of the law

there is nothing in the creditor’s emancipation of him, for the slave is not acquired by the creditor, but is only subject to his lien,

and the slave is obligated in no mitzvot

more than an ordinary slave, for he is still a slave, and a slave is obligated only in the mitzvot in which a woman is obligated.

But for the sake of the betterment of the world

in the ways of Heaven,

for

already

a reputation has gone out concerning him

as a

free man,

therefore

they compel his master

the

first, and he makes him a free man.

And this is what we learned: “And he writes him a document for his value”; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “He writes nothing but [a document of] emancipation”—that is:

And he writes

the

slave

to his first master

a document

of debt

for

his value,

because since the slave benefited from the emancipation, he must pay him according to his benefit.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The slave

does not write

and undertake anything to his master, for what did he do to him? He was not the one who caused them to emancipate him.

Rather, the

the

emancipator

the creditor is the one who

writes

and undertakes to the master the value of the slave, because he caused him to lose the slave.

But he must pay him only the value of the slave that exceeds the debt; against the amount of the debt he does not pay, for the first one already owes him that amount on account of the loan.

And we explain:

Over what do they disagree?

Concerning damage that is not recognizable—

such as this, where through the creditor’s emancipation the master was required to emancipate him—

they disagree.

One master—

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

holds:

Even damage that is not recognizable

is called damage, and therefore the creditor is liable to pay the master the value of the slave, for he caused him to lose the slave by giving him a deed and causing his master to be required to emancipate him.

And the other—

the first teacher—

holds:

Damage that is not recognizable is not

called damage!

considered damage!

And we explain:

Ulla, for what reason did he not say like Rav,

to explain that his first master emancipated him, and they compel his second master to write him a document of emancipation?

Because

he would say to you

Ulla: Do you call the

second

the creditor

“his master”

?!

He is not his master at all, and how then did we learn: “They compel his master and he makes him a free man”?!

And Rav, for what reason did he not say like Ulla,

to explain that the creditor emancipated him, and they compel his master to emancipate him?

Because

he would say to you

Rav: Do you call the

second

the creditor

“the emancipator”

?!

There is nothing in his emancipation, for he is not his master.

It was stated: One who designates his field as an apotiki for others

It was stated: One who designates his field as security for others

It was stated: One who makes his field an apotiki for others

and a river washed it away,

Ami Shapir Na’eh

this was the appellation of this amora

said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

The creditor

does not collect from other assets,

because only this field was subjected to his lien, and if it was ruined, he lost his debt.

And Samuel’s father said:

Since this field was ruined,

the creditor collects

his debt

from other assets,

for the apotiki does not remove the lien from the other assets.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

And is it

because “

Ami Shapir Na’eh”

is

his name [whose meaning is, a handsome man] that he

says unattractive teachings

[unbecoming statements]?!

For what was taught here as a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Samuel’s father is an error. Rather, one master stated one matter and the other master stated one matter, and they do not disagree—and

translate his teaching

of Rabbi Yohanan as referring to an explicit apotiki,

for he said to him

the borrower: “

You shall have no repayment except from this one,”

for in this manner his lien on the other assets indeed lapsed, and since this field was washed away, he has nothing at all against him.

And Samuel’s father speaks of an ordinary apotiki: He said to him, “If I do not repay you from another place, you shall collect from this one,” for in such a case the other assets as well are included in the lien.

It was also taught so: One who makes his field an apotiki for another, and a river washed it away, he collects

his debt

from other assets,

and this is referring to an ordinary apotiki, like Samuel’s father.

But

if he said to

him: “

You shall have no repayment except from

this field

one”—

he does not collect from other assets.

And this is according to Rabbi Yohanan.

Another beraita: One who makes his field an apotiki

ordinary, which is not explicit,

for a creditor and for a woman’s marriage contract,

he is not obligated to make them collect specifically from this land; rather, if he wishes, he sells these [assets], and they

collect from other assets

that are free.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A creditor collects

indeed, he collects

from other assets,

meaning, he may sell the field and direct the creditor to other unencumbered assets.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A creditor collects

indeed, he collects

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A creditor collects

indeed, he collects

from other assets,

meaning: he may sell and direct him to other free assets. But a woman—

to whom he subjected a field as an apotiki for her marriage contract—

does not collect from other assets, meaning: the sale does not take effect at all, so that she would be directed to other free assets. For it is not the way of a woman to go around to courts! Meaning: She specifically placed the responsibility for her marriage contract upon this field and married on that condition, and she does not want an ordinary lien in which all his assets are responsible for her marriage contract, for then she would have to know which of the purchasers bought first and left free assets, and she would have to seize specifically from the last one. It would turn out that she would have to litigate in the courts with each one and one, and therefore the sale is void from the outset. Mishna: One who is half a slave and half a free man,

That is, she deliberately made this field responsible for her marriage contract and married on that condition. She does not want an ordinary lien in which all of her husband’s property is responsible for her marriage contract, because then she would have to determine which purchaser bought first and which left free property, and she would have to collect specifically from the last purchaser. As a result, she would have to litigate in court with each and every one of them. Therefore, the sale is invalid from the outset.

Mishna:

such as when he was the slave of two brothers who inherited him from their father, or of two partners,

and one [of them] emancipated his share.

This is

He must

work for his master one day

because of the half that belongs to his master,

and for himself

working for his master one day

because of his half that is acquired by his master,

and for himself,

meaning: and he does not work for his master

one day,

because half of him is not acquired by his master.

Beit Shammai say:

Indeed,

These are

the words of Beit Hillel.

But

Beit Shammai say:

Indeed

you have instituted a remedy for his master

in all his matters, for he has only a property-right in him,

but

you have not instituted a remedy for

the

slave

himself