Gittin 42a — the Talmud in English

He said

he answered,

Ravina:

Our Mishna is dealing with

a slave

who was

owned by two partners

or by two brothers who inherited him from their father, and one released all his share that he had in him,

and it is the view of all

that this is so.

For although there is no release for half of a slave, this applies only because the master retained half of him; but whenever the master released everything that he had in him, even the Sages agree that he goes free, both through money and through a document.

Rabba said: The dispute—

between Rabbi and the Sages, who disputed whether a document is effective for half of a slave—exists only

in

such a case

where he released half of him and retained half of him;

in this case the Sages hold that he did not acquire, because we learn this from a woman; and in the case of a woman, he divorces all of her.

But if he released half of him and sold—

first or simultaneously—his

half, or

if he

gave as a gift

his

half,

even the Sages agree that the slave acquired his half—

Since the slave leaves him

the slave

entirely [since all of him leaves him],

[since he goes out from him entirely],

all agree that he acquired

the slave acquired half of himself through the document of release.

Abaye said to him: And

if it is

all of him,

that is, in the manner Rabba said, “that he leaves him entirely,”

the Sages do not dispute

that he is not released for half of himself!?

And was it not taught in one [beraita] [we learned in one beraita]:

[we learned in one beraita]:

One who writes

all

his property

as a gift

to his two slaves

simultaneously, they have

acquired

each one half of the property, including the slaves; and it follows that each slave owns half of himself, while his other half is owned by his fellow.

And

if they wished to go free, they

release one another

each one [releasing] the half of his fellow that is owned by him.

And another [beraita] was taught [we learned another beraita],

which contradicts the previous beraita:

One who says: All my property is given to so-and-so and so-and-so, my slaves, even

the

slaves themselves did not acquire.

And

is it not [the case] that the beraitot should be reconciled so that they do not contradict one another as follows:

[is this not how the baraitot must be reconciled so that they do not contradict one another]:

This—

the beraita in which we learned that they acquired—

is Rabbi,

who holds that it is possible to release half of a slave, and therefore half of each slave is released, while his other half is owned by his fellow.

Whereas

this—

the beraita in which we learned that even the slaves themselves did not acquire—

is the Rabbis,

who hold that a release is not effective for half of a slave.

And now it is difficult: If you say that when he transfers his other half to another, he can release his half even according to the Rabbis, then even according to the Rabbis they should have acquired, for the master sold the other half of each slave to the other slave.

And the Gemara resolves:

No,

not as you explained, but

both this and that—

the two beraitot—

are the Rabbis,

and the Gemara resolves the contradiction between the beraitot in three ways:

1.

This—

the beraita in which we learned that they acquired—

is where he said: “All of it”,

for he transferred all his property in each document; since he retained nothing, because he transferred the other half of the slave to his fellow, even the Sages agree that the release of half of him is effective.

Whereas

this—

the beraita in which we learned that they did not acquire even themselves—

is where he said “

half, half,”

meaning, he wrote in each document, “Half of my property is acquired by you,” and therefore they did not acquire.

And the reason is that it is not necessary [to say this] when he delivered the two documents one after the other, because at the time he delivered the document to one, he had not yet transferred his half to the other, and it follows that he retained [something]; rather, even if he delivered them to both simultaneously, there is retention here, because perhaps he did not transfer the other half of the slave to his fellow, but transferred to each one that same half; consequently, they did not acquire anything, since there is retention here.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the resolution:

But from the fact that the latter clause teaches [for from what we learned in the latter clause] of the beraita in which we learned “they did not acquire”: “

‘If he said, Half, half,

they did not acquire,’

meaning, even if he said “half, half,” they likewise did not acquire.

By implication,

necessarily,

the first clause

of that beraita deals with one who

said “

all of it”; how can we explain that this beraita deals with one who said “half, half,” and therefore they did not acquire!?

And we answer: The latter clause of that beraita does not come to add a law, but

it explains

the latter clause through the first clause, and this is what it says: This that we learned, “

even the slaves themselves did not acquire,”

how so? For example, where he said, “Half, half.”

The Gemara supports this explanation:

It is also reasonable

as we explained the beraita!

For if it enters your mind that the first clause is where he said “

all of it,”

and if so, the latter clause comes to add that even if he said “half, half,” they likewise did not acquire—and one cannot say this, because it is obvious:

Now,

if he

said “

all of it,” they

did not acquire,

if he

said “

half, half,”

is it necessary

for the tanna to teach us that they did not acquire!?

The Gemara rejects the support:

If because of this—

it is not so. If you come to say from this proof that the first clause of the beraita deals with one who said “half, half,” this cannot be said, for one can say: In truth, the latter clause does not explain the first clause; rather, the reason the

tanna taught the latter clause where he said “half, half,” although it is obvious, is

to reveal

the

first clause [to reveal to you the meaning of the first clause]:

[to reveal to you how the first clause is to be understood]:

Lest you say: The first clause is where he said “

half, half,”

but if he said “

all of it”—

they acquired.

Therefore

the tanna taught the latter clause where he said “

half, half,”

by implication, the first clause is where he said “

all of it,”

and even so they did not acquire.

And if you wish, say: It is not difficult!

This is another way to reconcile the contradiction between the beraitot:

2.

Here—

the second beraita, in which we learned that even the slaves themselves did not acquire—is where he wrote all his property for both of them

in one document,

for example, he wrote: “All my property belongs to so-and-so and so-and-so, my slaves”; and therefore they did not acquire, because two slaves cannot be released through one document of release.

Whereas

here—

the first beraita, in which we learned that they acquired—

is with two documents,

and even according to the Rabbis they acquired, because he retained nothing.

And it entered our minds that even according to this resolution, the latter clause comes to explain the first clause, which deals with one who said “half, half”; because otherwise, why does the latter clause need to say that if he said “half, half” it is ineffective, when this follows all the more so from the first clause, as the Gemara asked above? Therefore we ask:

If the second beraita deals

with one document, then

then

why specifically “

half, half,”

that they did not acquire, when

even if he

if he

said “

all of it,” they

likewise did not acquire!?

And we answer:

This too is what it says. The latter clause does not come to explain the first clause, and in the first clause we are dealing even with a case where he said “all of it.” And if it is difficult for you: Why does the latter clause need to teach that when he said “half, half” he did not acquire, when this follows all the more so from the first clause!?

It is not difficult, for this is the meaning of the beraita: One who says, “All my property is given to so-and-so and so-and-so, my slaves,”

even the slaves themselves did not acquire,

even if he said “all of it.”

When are these words said? With one document; but with two documents, they acquired.

And if he said “

half, half,”

even with two documents they likewise did not acquire.

And if you wish, say,

there is a third way to reconcile the contradiction between the beraitot, and

it is not difficult:

3.

Here—

the first beraita, in which we learned that they acquired—is where he delivered the two documents in which he transferred all his property to this one and all his property to that one

simultaneously,

and even according to the Rabbis they acquired, because he retained nothing.

Whereas

here—

the second beraita, in which we learned that even the slaves themselves did not acquire—is where he delivered the two documents

one after the other,

and therefore neither of them acquired, because he cannot transfer to this one what he has already transferred to that one.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this resolution:

Granted, the latter [the second]

[the second]

did not acquire, for the first acquired it [all the property was already acquired by the first].

[all the property was already acquired by the first slave].

But the first [the first one],

[the first slave],

should acquire himself and acquire his fellow [for himself],

[should acquire himself and his fellow]!?

since at the time he transferred all the property to him, he had not yet transferred anything to his fellow; if so, the first acquired all the property, including his fellow.

Rather, it is clear,

as is evident,

as we answered initially,

as one of the first two formulations stated above for resolving the beraita.

Rav Ashi said

to resolve the contradiction between the beraitot:

There it is different,

in the second beraita, and therefore they did not acquire, because

he calls him

in the document

“my slaves”; if so, it implies that he is not including release in the document, for he calls them “my slaves,” because he mistakenly thinks that it is possible to transfer property to slaves, and therefore they acquired nothing.

This indicates that the document does not include emancipation, since he calls them “my slaves”; he mistakenly thinks that it is possible to transfer property to slaves, and therefore they acquired nothing.

He said

he challenged

Rafram to Rav Ashi:

From where do you know that he mistakenly thinks that he can transfer property to his slaves!?

And

after all,

perhaps he said, “my slaves who already were”!?

Meaning: He does not intend that the property should be acquired by his slaves, but intends to transfer his property to those who were his slaves until the time of the transfer, but not afterward.

Did we not learn,

[and is it not the case that we learned]:

One who writes all his property to his slave, [the slave] goes free.

And if he

retains land

any amount,

which he did not transfer to his slave and did not specify which [piece], he

does not go free.

Since the slave acquired no land at all—for we must say concerning every piece of land, “Perhaps this is the one he retained”—it follows that all his words are not fulfilled, since they included the transfer of land, and it is absent. Therefore, the entire statement in the document is not fulfilled, and he acquired nothing.

Rabbi Shimon says: He is forever free

even if he retained land of any amount.

For according to Rabbi Shimon, “we divide the statement,” and although the statement is not fulfilled with regard to the land, it is fulfilled with regard to the other property.

Until he says: “

All my property is given to so-and-so, my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it,”

for then the slave does not acquire anything at all, because it can be explained that he retained the slave himself for himself; and although he is not one ten-thousandth, perhaps the master does not value his slave except as one ten-thousandth of his property.

In any event, we have learned from Rabbi Shimon’s words, who stated in his wording, “All my property is given to so-and-so, my slave, except, and so on”:

The reason

[is only]

because he said thus: “except for one ten-thousandth of it”; therefore the slave did not acquire.

“Except for one ten-thousandth of it”; therefore, the slave did not acquire anything.

If he did not say thus,

but simply wrote, “All my property is given to so-and-so, my slave,” then

he acquires

the slave.

But this is difficult:

why

does the slave acquire when he wrote in this wording,

for the master himself

calls him

“slave”,

and if so, he mistakenly thinks that one can give a gift to a slave, and he does not include release in the document!?

Rather,

necessarily, the wording “my slave” does not contradict release, for his intention is

“my slave who already was.”

Here too,

in the beraita in which he wrote “my slaves,” we must explain that his intention is:

“my slaves who already were.”

We learned in the Mishna: One who is half slave and half free person works for his master one day and for himself one day:

And now the Gemara discusses the other laws of the slave, what they are:

A. If

an ox gored

one who is half slave and half free person and injured him, the law is as follows: If the ox gored him on the

day

that is

his master’s,

the compensation for the injury is also

his master’s,

as with any other slave, whose injury payments belong to his master.

And if an ox gored him on the

day that is his own,

the payments are

his own.

And we challenge this:

But if that is so

we should also say: on the

day of his master he should marry

the slave

a bondwoman

according to the law of a slave who is permitted to a bondwoman.

Whereas on the

day that is his own, he should marry a free woman

according to the law of a free man who is permitted to a free woman⁉️

But it is necessarily not so, from what the School of Shammai said in our Mishna: “You have not rectified himself”—it follows that he cannot marry a woman at all.

And we answer:

We are not speaking of the prohibition

that one day should be assigned to this and one day to that; rather, only the monetary laws are divided, just as the labor is divided.

Ta shma,

to prove that it is not as we said, that payment for damage is divided, one day to this one and one day to that one:

From that which was taught in a beraita:

If [the ox] killed

the

one who is half slave and half free man;

the owner of the ox

gives:

Half the fine—

on account of the half of the slave in him—

to his master,

as with every other slave who was killed by his ox, for which he pays a fine of thirty shekels to his masters.