Gittin 41a (מא.) — the Talmud in English

And he said to him:

“You are my slave,”

thereby casting aspersions on his sons, as though his sons were the sons of a slave. Therefore, they enacted for the betterment of society that the creditor be compelled to emancipate him and make him a free man.

And this is the meaning of what we learned in the Mishna: “And he writes a document for his value”; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “He writes only a document of emancipation.” This is the explanation of the matter:

And he writes

the

slave

for the creditor

a document

of obligation

for his value,

but unless the slave obligates himself to him for his value, the creditor cannot be compelled to write him a document of emancipation free of charge.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The slave does not write

him a document for his value,

but the emancipator

[his first master]

writes

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

And we explain:

In what do

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Sages

disagree?

They disagree concerning

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

holds:

one who damages another’s lien

is liable,

and therefore the master writes the creditor a promissory note for the slave’s value, and the slave need not write him a promissory note.

And the other

the first tanna

holds:

one who damages another’s lien

is exempt,

because he does not cause the damage directly, but merely causes his fellow a loss, and one who causes damage indirectly is exempt in cases of torts; therefore, the slave is compelled to write a document for his value so that the creditor will give him a document of emancipation.

It was also stated

that this is the subject of their disagreement:

one who damages another’s lien—

we have arrived

at this matter

at the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis

in our Mishna.

Ulla said

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

who emancipated him?

His second master

[the creditor] emancipated him.

And this is the explanation of what we learned: According to the letter of the law, the slave owes nothing; rather, for the betterment of society, his master is compelled to emancipate him and make him a free man:

According to

the letter of the law,

the creditor’s emancipation accomplishes nothing, since the slave is not acquired by the creditor but is merely subject to his lien,

and the slave is not obligated in mitzvot

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

But for the betterment of society

in the ways of Heaven,

since

he has already

acquired the reputation

of a

free man,

therefore

his master is compelled

the

first one, and he makes him a free man.

And this is the meaning of what we learned: “And he writes him a document for his value”; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: “He writes only a document of emancipation.” This means:

And he writes

the

slave

for his first master

a document

of debt

for

his value,

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

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

The slave

does not write

anything or obligate himself to his master, since what did he do to him? He did not cause his emancipation.

Rather,

the

emancipator

[the creditor] is the one who

writes

and obligates himself to pay the master the slave’s value, because he caused the master to lose the slave.

However, he must pay him only the amount by which the slave’s value exceeds the debt; he does not pay against the amount of the debt, since the first master already owed him that amount for the loan.

And we explain:

In what do they disagree?

Concerning damage that is not discernible—

such as this case, in which the creditor’s emancipation caused the master to be required to emancipate him—

they disagree.

One—

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

holds:

Even damage that is not discernible

is considered damage; therefore, the creditor must pay the master the slave’s value, since he caused the master to lose the slave by giving him a bill of emancipation and causing his master to be required to emancipate him.

And the other—

the first tanna—

holds:

Damage that is not discernible

is not

considered damage!

And we explain:

Ulla, why did he not say as Rav,

to explain that the first master emancipated him, and the second master is compelled 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, so how can we have learned: “His master is compelled and makes him a free man”?!

And Rav, why did he not say as Ulla,

to explain that the creditor emancipated him, and his master is compelled to emancipate him?

Because

Rav would say to you: “Do you call the

second

[the creditor]

“

the emancipator

?!

His emancipation accomplishes nothing, since he is not his master.

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

[for his creditors]

and a river washes it away,

so that the field is no longer fit for anything and the creditor can no longer collect from it:

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 once it was ruined, he lost his debt.

And Shmuel’s father said:

Since this field was ruined,

the creditor collects

his debt

from other assets,

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Is it

because

“Ami Shapir Na’eh”

is

his name [which means “a handsome man”] that

he says unattractive teachings

[unfitting statements]?!

The fact that a dispute between Rabbi Yohanan and Shmuel’s father was taught in this matter is an error. Rather, one master stated one matter and the other master stated another matter, and they do not disagree—and

translate his teaching

of Rabbi Yohanan as referring to an explicit apotiki,

where he said to him

the borrower:

“You will have no repayment except from this one,”

for in such a case the lien on the other assets indeed lapses, and since this field was washed away, he has no claim against him at all.

And Shmuel’s father is speaking of an ordinary, unexplicit apotiki, where he said to him: “If I do not repay you from another place, you will collect from this one,” for in such a case the other assets are also included in the lien.

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

his debt

from other assets,

and this is referring to an ordinary, unexplicit apotiki, in accordance with Shmuel’s father.

But

if he said to

him:

“You will have no repayment except from

this

field,”—

he does not collect from other assets.

And this accords with Rabbi Yohanan.

It was taught in another baraita: One who designates his field as an apotiki

ordinary and unexplicit,

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

is not obligated to give them this particular land specifically; rather, if he wishes, he may sell these assets, and they

collect from other assets

that are unencumbered.

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.

But

a woman—

to whom a field was subjected as a lien for her marriage contract—

does not collect from other assets,

meaning, the sale is not valid at all, so that she would be directed to other unencumbered assets.

For it is not the way of a woman to go around to courts!

Meaning: She specifically placed responsibility for her marriage contract upon this field and married on that condition. She does not want an ordinary lien, in which all his assets are responsible for her marriage contract, because then she would have to determine which purchasers bought first and left unencumbered assets, and she would have to collect specifically from the last one. Thus, she would have to litigate in the courts with each and every one, and therefore the sale is invalid from the outset.

Mishna:

One who is half slave and half free man,

such as one who was the slave of two brothers who inherited him from their father, or of two partners, and one of them emancipated his share.

He

works for his master one day

because of the half belonging to his master,

and for himself

meaning, he does not work for his master

one day,

because that half does not belong to his master.

These are

the words of Beit Hillel.

But

Beit Shammai say:

Indeed,

you have enacted a remedy for his master

in all his matters, since he has in him only a monetary interest,

but

you have not remedied

the

slave

himself

in all his matters.

For you remedied only the monetary matter concerning him, but did not remedy his situation with regard to procreation, since:

to marry a slave woman

[as is the law for a slave, who is permitted to marry a slave woman]

is impossible

for him, since he

is already half free,

and a free man is prohibited from marrying a slave woman.