Gittin 43b — the Talmud in English

And I do not

say: Before she was freed, the kiddushin of the first man took effect in the half of her that was a free woman, and now that she was entirely freed and the second man betrothed her, the kiddushin of the second man took effect in the half of her that had been servitude; and if so, I

call her:

“the wife of two deceased men”

a woman upon whom there is the zikah of two deceased men, since by the force of both of them she comes to perform yibbum with Levi.

For

For whatever way you look at it,

whether you say that one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman has betrothed her, or whether you say that he has not betrothed her, this is not the wife of two deceased men:

If Reuben’s kiddushin is kiddushin,

that is, because one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman has betrothed her, then

Simon’s kiddushin is not

kiddushin, since she had already been betrothed to Reuben, and kiddushin does not take effect with a married woman, and she has upon her only the zikah of Reuben.

since she was already betrothed to Reuben, and a betrothal cannot take effect with the wife of another man; she is bound only by Reuben's levirate bond.

And if Simon’s kiddushin is kiddushin,

then

Reuben’s kiddushin is not kiddushin, that is: You cannot say that she was betrothed to Simon unless you say that she was not betrothed to Reuben, because one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman has not betrothed her.

meaning: You can say that she was betrothed to Shimon only if you say that she was not betrothed to Reuben, because one who betroths a woman who is half a maidservant and half a free woman has not betrothed her.

And if so, this is not the wife of two deceased men.

It was stated: A half-slave and half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuben, and was freed, and again was betrothed to Simon.

Rav Yosef bar Hama said that Rav Nahman said:

When she was freed,

the first man’s kiddushin lapsed.

But

Rav Zeira said

in the name of

Rav Nahman: The first man’s kiddushin became complete,

for until now it was not complete kiddushin, but kiddushin that obligates the one who has intercourse with her in an asham offering [for a half-slave and half-free woman is the “slave woman designated for a man,” concerning whom the Torah obligates the one who has intercourse with her in an asham offering alone], and now, once she was freed, the kiddushin became complete, and she is a fully married woman of the first man, and one who has intercourse with her is liable to death.

Rabbi Zeira said: The view in accordance with which I spoke

—in the name of Rav Nahman—

is more reasonable

that the first man's betrothal was completed, since

it is written

with regard to a maidservant designated to a man:

Rabbi Zeira said: According to my position

in the name of Rav Nahman—

it is reasonable

according to my method it is reasonable, that the first man’s kiddushin became complete, since

it is written

concerning a designated slave woman:

“They shall not be put to death—

the adulterer and the adulteress—

for she has not been freed.”

And it implies:

“If she has been freed”

after she was betrothed and subsequently committed adultery,

“they shall be put to death,”

because his kiddushin became complete.

Abaye said to him: And according to the school of Rabbi Ishmael’s tannai, who says:

“And she is a slave woman designated for a man,”

the verse speaks of a Canaanite slave woman betrothed to a Hebrew slave,

will you likewise

then

interpret what the Torah said, “They shall not be put to death, for she has not been freed,”

that if she has been freed

the slave woman after she had been designated for the Hebrew slave and committed adultery,

they shall be put to death,

the adulterer and the adulteress!?

And surely this is not so, for the kiddushin of a Canaanite slave woman has no substance, and it is impossible for it to become complete. Rather,

necessarily,

what do you have to say

according to Rabbi Ishmael, that “They shall not be put to death, for she has not been freed” does not mean that if she was freed after she was betrothed, then they shall be put to death, but

“she was freed and again was betrothed,”

that is: If she was freed before she was betrothed, then they shall be put to death. And if so, then according to the view that the verse speaks of a half-slave and half-free woman, you should likewise interpret it: “she was freed and again was betrothed,” and then they shall be put to death. But if she was freed and was not again betrothed, from where would you infer that the first man’s kiddushin should become complete?

There was an incident involving a certain woman who

was

half a maidservant and half a free woman, and they compelled her master and made her a free woman.

The Gemara discusses this:

In accordance with whose view?

According to whose view did they do this? One cannot compare a man who is half a slave and half a free man, whose master is compelled to free him because of the mitzva of procreation, as explained in our Mishna, to a woman, who is not obligated in the mitzva of procreation.

Did they act

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

Rav Huna bar Ketina said in the name of Rabbi Isaac:

There was an incident involving a certain woman, who

was

a half-slave and half-free woman, and they compelled her master and made her free.

The Gemara discussed:

According to whom?

According to whose view did they do this? For one cannot compare a half-slave and half-free man, whose master is compelled because of procreation, as is explained in our Mishna, with a woman, who is not obligated in procreation.

Was it

according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Beroka

that they did this,

who said: “Concerning both of them”

concerning Adam and Eve,

“He says”:

“And God blessed them and God said

to them:

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill

the earth and subdue it,” and this teaches that a woman too is commanded concerning procreation?

And therefore they compelled her master, since until he freed her, she could marry neither a slave nor a free man. He said

he explained: Rav Nahman bar Isaac said: No, they did not compel her master because of procreation, but because

a practice of promiscuity

they had adopted toward her, because she was not designated for one man, since they were all forbidden to her; and therefore they compelled her master, so that she could marry a man. Mishna: The Sages prohibited selling one’s Canaanite slave to a gentile, because he thereby deprives him of the mitzvot, since he cannot observe them in the house of his gentile master, for he is subjugated to his work, and if he sold him, the court imposes a penalty upon him to redeem him from the gentile. One who sells his slave to gentiles, and the slave fled from his master, or the court imposed a penalty upon him to redeem him from the gentile, and he redeemed him.

Or

who sold him in the Land of Israel, and even to an Israelite, in order to take him out

outside the Land of Israel.

In both this case and that case,

the slave

went out

free,

for the Sages penalized his master.

That is, when he sold him to a gentile, we penalize the seller, so that the slave goes out from him, even if afterward the slave fled to him or he redeemed him. And when he sold him outside the Land of Israel, we penalize the Israelite purchaser, so that the slave goes out from him without money and without price, and the seller does not return to him the money that he gave him for him.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

One who sells his slave to gentiles

he

goes free

when he fled from the gentile or when the Israelite redeemed him from the gentile, and he cannot enslave himself to him; and this is because the Sages penalized him.

And

nevertheless still

needs

the slave

a document of manumission from his first master

in order to remove his enslavement completely, for when he sold him to a gentile, he sold him only the product of his hands, whereas ownership of the body still remains in the possession of the first master; and because of the penalty of the Sages, the ownership of the body that he has in him did not lapse, and therefore the first one must free him.

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said:

When are these words said,

when

he did not write upon him —

the seller —

his ono

[he explains it and proceeds],

but if he wrote his ono upon him, this is his manumission.

And the Gemara explains:

What is “

his ono”?

Rav Sheshet said: That he wrote to him —

the master to the slave when he sold him to a gentile —

thus: “

When you flee from him

[from the gentile],

I have no dealings with you”.

The Sages taught: If

the master

borrowed against him

[against his slave]

from a gentile,

who enslaved him to himself on account of the debt that the Israelite owed the gentile,

once the gentile imposed his mark upon him

[he explains it and proceeds] and he fled from the gentile, he

goes free,

and his first master cannot enslave himself to him.

What is his mark?

Rav Huna bar Yehuda said: A neck-seal

[a seal of enslavement that they hang around their necks]; and once the gentile hangs this seal on the slave, it is like the Israelite sold him to the gentile, and afterward he cannot enslave himself to him, even if he flees from the gentile, or when he redeems him in accordance with the enactment of the Sages.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

against the interpretation of Rav Huna bar Yehuda, from that which was taught:

The sharecroppers

who received a field from a gentile to work it, on the condition that they divide the produce with the owner of the field, by half, or by a third, or by a quarter.

And the leaseholders,

who leased a field from a gentile to work it and take its produce, on the condition that they give the gentile a fixed amount of produce from the field, whether it produces much or whether it produces little.

And

also

the hereditary sharecroppers

who are fixed in sharecropping with the gentile, and their fathers were already sharecroppers with the fathers of the gentile who owns the field.

And a gentile who mortgaged his field to an Israelite

for a debt that the gentile owed the Israelite,

even though he imposed upon him

the gentile upon the Israelite

his mark.

This field is

exempt from the tithe,

like the field of a gentile; and we do not say that the Israelite is the owner of the field and that the Israelite is obligated to give a tithe from his share.

And if it enters your mind

that “his mark” means

a neck-seal —

is

a field a daughter of a neck-seal

[and does a field have a “neck-seal”]!?

Rather, said

Rav Sheshet

explained:

That which we said regarding a slave: “Once the gentile imposed his mark upon him,” this means

a time,

that they established a time at which the slave would become definitively the gentile’s, if the Israelite did not repay him by that time.

And likewise, “a gentile who mortgaged his field to an Israelite, even though he imposed his mark upon him,” means that a time was established for the field to become definitively in the possession of the Israelite.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty:

The time of the slave who became definitively the gentile’s, regarding which we say: This is the sale of a slave to a gentile, and he goes free,

for the slave, which became definitively owned by the gentile, and we say that this is considered a sale of a slave to a gentile and that he becomes free, is difficult

against the time

of the field that became definitively the Israelite’s, where, even though the time arrived at which the field must become definitively in the possession of the Israelite, we do not regard the field as sold to the Israelite so that it would become obligated in the tithe!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult:

For

this

regarding the slave, where we regard this as a sale, is in a case

where its time arrived

[the time established for its becoming definitive], and therefore it is a “sale.”

This

regarding the field, where we do not regard it as sold to the Israelite, is in a case

where its time had not arrived.

And we raise a difficulty:

But regarding the slave,

according to your words, we are dealing with a case

where its time arrived,

and is it really

necessary to say

that it is like a sale!?

Rather, both this

[a slave to a gentile]

and this

[a field to an Israelite]

are cases where its time had not arrived, and it is not difficult: This —

the slave to a gentile, regarding which we say that it is like a sale, even though the time had not arrived — is speaking of a case where he mortgaged the slave to him

with regard to the body

of the slave, so that the slave would belong entirely to the gentile if he did not repay him by a certain time; and the Sages penalized him by regarding it as a sale, even though its time had not yet arrived.

And this —

the field to an Israelite, which we do not regard as sold to the Israelite — is speaking of a case where the gentile mortgaged the field to the Israelite

with regard to its produce

alone, saying to him: Eat the produce of this field from the time that we established until I repay you your money; and since the Israelite has no ownership of the body in it, this is not an Israelite’s field, and it is exempt from the tithes.