Gittin 45a (מה.) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara explains the reason for Rav Anan's uncertainty:

a.

And Rav Anan had not heard the beraita

[the beraita was not known to him].

b.

And if [you derive it] from Shmuel,

why did Rav Anan not resolve his uncertainty from Shmuel's statement that the sale is entirely invalid, and since according to him the sale is invalid, the money is returned? Because

from where

that according to Shmuel

the sale is invalid and the money is returned?

Perhaps the sale is invalid, but

if the

money is a gift,

because a person knows that a field sale does not take effect during the Jubilee, and nevertheless resolves to give his money as a gift,

just as is the case

[for this is similar]

to one who betroths his sister—

for the betrothal does not take effect, since she is one of the women with whom relations entail karet, with whom betrothal does not take effect—and according to Shmuel the money is a gift.

As it was stated: One who betroths his sister,

and gives her money for her betrothal:

Rav said:

Since a person knows that the betrothal does not take effect, the

money

of the betrothal

is returned

to the man who performed the betrothal, as he certainly gave it to her as a deposit.

And Shmuel said: The money is a gift,

because he certainly gave it as a gift and not as a deposit.

And also regarding a sale during the Jubilee, Rav Anan was uncertain, saying: Perhaps, although the sale does not take effect, he nevertheless resolves to give the money as a gift.

He said

[Abaye] challenged

Rav Yosef:

What have you seen that we penalize the buyer

[and why should the buyer be penalized] for purchasing it, so that we say that the sale takes effect, and the buyer is the one who emancipates him with a bill of emancipation, while the money of the sale is not returned and the buyer suffers the loss?!

On the contrary,

let us penalize the seller

who sold him, and say: The sale does not take effect at all, and the seller is the one who emancipates him with a bill of emancipation; the seller will return the money, and the seller will suffer the loss!

He said to him,

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The reason that we penalize the buyer rather than the seller is that

“it is not the mouse that is the thief, but the hole that is the thief,”

[the mouse is not the thief; rather, the hole into which it puts its theft is the thief]. This is a proverb: If a mouse steals and puts the stolen item in a hole, had it not had a hole in which to place its theft, it would not have stolen. Therefore, the hole is the thief.

Here too, had the seller not found a buyer who would purchase it, he would not have sold it; therefore it is fitting to penalize the buyer, so that he loses his money.

He said to him,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But, on the contrary, we should penalize the seller, because

“if not for the mouse, from where would the hole have come?”!

Here too, had the seller not agreed to sell, from where would the buyer have had the opportunity to purchase? Therefore, let us penalize the seller!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable—

this is the logical consideration:

Wherever the prohibition is found, there we impose the penalty;

the prohibition is found in the slave, that is, with the buyer, and there we impose the penalty.

There was a certain slave who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael,

[there was an incident involving a slave who fled from his master in the Diaspora to Eretz Yisrael].

His master went after him,

and

came before Rabbi Ami,

[his master pursued him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami]:

He said to him,

Rabbi Ami said to the slave's master:

Let him write you a document for his value,

[let the slave write you a document acknowledging a debt for his value],

and you write him a bill of emancipation

and you write him a bill of emancipation],

and if not

[if you do not write him a bill of emancipation],

I will remove him from your possession,

[I will remove him from you, even without a document], and all this is because of what

that

said

Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah.

The Rashba wrote: This does not mean that he will remove him from the master's possession entirely, since in Eretz Yisrael the master may still subject him to labor, and he may also sell him to others. The entire law is that he may not deliver him to his master in order to take him outside Eretz Yisrael. This is what Rabbi Ami said to him: If you do not come here, you may not subject him to labor, and consequently you will have neither his monetary value nor his labor. See, however, the comments of the glossator there, who notes that Maimonides does not appear to follow the Rashba's view, and that the master may neither subject him to labor nor sell him to others.

As it was taught:

It is written [Exodus 23:33]:

“They shall not dwell

[the seven nations that were in the Land when Israel entered it]

in your land, lest they cause you to sin against Me,”

for you would serve their gods, and it would become a snare for you.”

One might think that the verse speaks

of a gentile from the seven nations

who accepted upon himself not to worship idols;

the verse speaks

of such a person, and says: “They shall not dwell in your land.”

It is impossible to say this, for

the verse states:

“You shall not deliver a slave to his master, who has escaped to you from his master,”

and the verse is referring to this situation, and the Torah says:

“What is his remedy?”

“With you

[this is the adjacent verse]

he shall dwell

in your midst, in the place that he shall choose within one of your gates, where it is good for him; you shall not oppress him.”

And Rabbi Yoshiah found this difficult

regarding the interpretation of “You shall not deliver a slave to his master”:

If so, that the verse is not speaking of a slave who leaves his master,

this—

“from his master”?!

But

it should have said, “from his god,”

since the verse is not speaking about a slave fleeing from his master?!

Rather, Rabbi Yoshiah said: The verse, “You shall not deliver a slave to his master,”

“You shall not hand over a slave to his master”—

speaks

of one who sells his slave to outside Eretz Yisrael, and teaches that the slave goes free.

And Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah found this difficult:

If so, that the verse is speaking of one who sells his slave,

this “

who has escaped to you”! “

Who has escaped from you”

it should have said,

and its meaning would be like the expression, “whom God rescued from our father”?!

Rather, Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah said: The verse speaks of a slave who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael;

the verse, “You shall not deliver a slave to his master,” speaks of this case.

Another beraita was taught:

It is written:

“You shall not deliver a slave to his master.”

Rabbi says: The verse speaks of one who purchases a slave with the intention of emancipating him,

and the verse warns the court to compel him not to enslave him.

What are the circumstances

of one who purchases a slave with the intention of emancipating him?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: It is when he writes to him—

the master writes to the slave whom he is about to purchase—

as follows: “

When I purchase you, you are thereby acquired to yourself from now.”

a. Rashi wrote: “When he purchases him, he is freed retroactively,” [this wording requires study; see Rabbeinu Kreskas]. From here we say in Yevamot [93b] and Kiddushin [62b] that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds like Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a person can transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist. b. Tosafot wrote in Kiddushin 63a that even if he does not add “from now,” the slave will be free, because according to the one who says that a person can transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist, it is unnecessary to add “from now.” He adds “from now” so that even if the document is lost or torn before he purchases the slave, the release will still be effective, unlike where he does not say “from now.” retroactively,” [this wording requires study; see Rabbeinu Kreskas]. From here we say in Yevamot [93b] and Kiddushin [62b] that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds like Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a person can transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist. b. Tosafot wrote in Kiddushin 63a that even if he does not add “from now,” the slave will be free, because according to the one who says that a person can transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist, it is unnecessary to add “from now.” He adds “from now” so that even if the document is lost or torn before he purchases the slave, the release will still be effective, unlike where he does not say “from now.”

Rav Hisda's slave fled to the house of the Kutim

[Rav Hisda's slave fled to Kuta, outside Eretz Yisrael, to the Kutim],

he sent to them,

Rav Hisda

“Return him to me”

[return my slave to me]!

They sent to him,

the Kutim sent to Rav Hisda: But it is written,

“You shall not deliver a slave to his master”!

He sent to them,

Rav Hisda: But it is written: “[And you shall return it to him].

And so shall you do with his donkey, and so shall you do

with his garment, and so shall you do with every lost object of your brother,”

[and the slave is also included], “that is lost from him and you find it; you may not ignore it.”

They went back and

sent to him,

the Kutim sent to Rav Hisda:

But

in the end,

it is written:

“You shall not deliver a slave to his master.”

He sent to them,

Rav Hisda:

That verse concerns a slave who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ahi bar Yoshiah.

The Gemara asks:

And what is different, that he sent to them in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ahi bar Yoshiah

[why did he send them the interpretation of Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah], and not the interpretation of Rabbi, who says that the verse speaks of one who purchases a slave with the intention of emancipating him?!

And we answer:

Because the verses appear to them

to mean that the plain sense of the verse better supports the interpretation of Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah. The Kutim do not accept the Sages' interpretations, but only their understanding of the plain meaning of the verses, and they would be more likely to accept the interpretation of Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah.

The Gemara further relates an incident involving

Abaye,

who

lost a donkey among the Kutim

[his donkey was lost among the Kutim].

He sent to them,

Abaye sent to the Kutim:

“Send it to me”

[send the donkey to me]!

They sent to him,

the Kutim sent to Abaye:

“Send a distinguishing mark”

[send a sign that you know about the donkey]! And indeed,

he sent to them

a distinguishing mark:

“Its belly is white”

[the donkey's belly is white].

They sent to him,

the Kutim sent to him:

“Were it not that you are Nahmani”

[this was Abaye's name],

you,

meaning: Had we not known you to be pious and not to lie,

we would not have sent it to you

[we would not have sent the donkey to you], for

“are not the bellies of all donkeys white?”

[what kind of sign is that? Are not the bellies of all donkeys white]?!

Mishna:

Captives are not redeemed for more than their value, for the betterment of the world,

and the Gemara explains what form of betterment of the world is involved.

And captives are not assisted in escaping

from captivity,

for the betterment of the world;

the Gemara explains this.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Captives are not assisted in escaping

for the protection of the captives

themselves, and the Gemara explains this.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Captives are not redeemed for more than their value, for the betterment of the world:

They raised a dilemma before them:

Is

this “

for the betterment of the world”

that we learned in the Mishna

because of the pressure on the community

[so as not to place excessive pressure on the community]? If so, this law applies only when they are redeemed from communal funds. But if he has a wealthy father or relative who wishes to redeem him for more than his value, there is no problem with this.

Or perhaps this “

for the betterment of the world”

is because they should not be captured

[seated]

and brought more,

[so as not to cause the captors to capture more captives, since they are paid exorbitant sums for them]?

Come and hear that the reason is the pressure on the community, from the following incident:

the reason is the pressure on the community, as is evident from

Levi bar Darga

[a person's name], who

redeemed his daughter for thirteen thousand gold dinars

[he redeemed his daughter from captivity for thirteen thousand gold dinars] from his own money, although this was more than her value.

It is thus proven that if the redemption is not from communal funds, there is no problem with this.

He said,

Abaye rejected this:

Who can tell us that he acted with the consent of the Sages

[how do we know that the Sages agreed with what he did]?!

Perhaps Levi acted without the consent of the Sages,

and indeed one should not do so.

We learned in the Mishna:

And captives are not assisted in escaping for the betterment of the world; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: for the protection of the captives:

And the Gemara explains:

What is the difference between them,

between the Sages, who say that one should not do so for the betterment of the rest of the world, namely, other captives, since in order to prevent them from escaping the captors will place them in chains, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that it is for the protection of the other captives who were with the one who escaped, lest the captors torture them because their fellow escaped?

There is a difference between them:

for example,

when there is only one

captive and there are no other captives with him. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is no reason to prevent his escape, whereas according to the Sages one should not do so for the protection of other captives.

The Gemara relates an incident concerning captivity:

Rav Naḥman's daughters would stir a pot with their hands

[Rav Naḥman's daughters would stir a hot pot over the fire with their hands], and people thought that they were righteous women, and that fire did not affect them.

Therefore,

this was difficult for Rav Ilish:

But

it is written

[Ecclesiastes 7]:

“I found one man out of a thousand”

[who is righteous],

“but a woman among all these I did not find,”

and

here are Rav Naḥman's daughters,

[who are righteous women]?!

This matter caused them,

[caused this event], and

they were taken captive

[Rav Naḥman's daughters, who were married to men of Nehardea, Rav Naḥman's city], and

he too was taken captive,

also

with them

[Rav Ilish was captured together with them], so that he would realize that they were not righteous but were committing adultery beneath their husbands' authority.

One day he was sitting beside him,

Rav Ilish while in captivity,

[and there was] a certain man who knew the language of birds,

[one day, while Rav Ilish was sitting beside one of the captives, who knew the language of birds]:

A raven came and called to him

[a raven came and called out toward Rav Ilish].

He said,

Rav Ilish asked

him,

that man,

“What is it saying?”

the raven?

He said to him,

the man said, explaining that this is what it was saying in its language:

“Ilish, flee,

go;

Ilish, flee,

go!”

He said,

Rav Ilish:

“A raven is a liar”

[the raven is a liar], for this is its way, as we saw when Noah sent it from the Ark and it falsified its mission.

And

if so,

I do not rely on him [ לא סמיכנא עליו לברוחI do not rely on him to flee].

Meanwhile, a dove came and was calling [ בינתיים באה אף יונה והיתה הומהIn the meantime, even a dove came and was cooing].

Again

said

asked

him,

Rav Ilish asked that man:

What is she saying,

the dove?

He said to him,

she too is calling: "

Ilish, flee! Ilish, flee!"

Rav Ilish

said:

The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove [ כנסת ישראל ליונה היא משולהThe Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove],

as the verse in Song of Songs [5:2] calls it “My dove, my perfect one,” and if so,

infer from it: a miracle will occur for me [ משמע שיתרחש לי נס ואוכל לברוחIt follows that a miracle will occur for me and I will be able to flee].

Before he fled,

said

Rav Ilish:

I will go and see Rav Nahman’s daughters,

and

whether they are faithful [ אלך ואראה אם בנות רב נחמן נאמנות הן לבעליהןI will go and see whether Rav Nahman’s daughters are faithful to their husbands],

and if so,

I will bring them back

with me [I will return them with me to their home].

Rav Ilish

said:

Women tell one another everything they have to say in the bathroom, [ כל מה שיש להן לספר, בבית הכסא מספרות הן זו לזוWhatever they have to tell, they tell one another in the bathroom].

Rav Ilish went near the bathroom, and

heard them saying [ והיה שומע את בנות רב נחמן אומרות זו לזוand he heard Rav Nahman’s daughters saying to one another]:

These [ אלוthese]

men, and

also

the men of Nehardea, [ אלו השבאים כבעלים הם לנו, ואלו שבנהרדעא בעלינו היוThese captors are our husbands, and those in Nehardea were our husbands], כלומר: כשם שאותם שבנהרדעא היו בעלינו, אף השבאין בעלינו הם במקומם, ושוב אין אנו צריכות לראשוניםthat is: just as those in Nehardea were our husbands, so too are the captors our husbands in their place, and we no longer need the former ones.

Let us say to our captors [ הבה נאמר לשבאינוLet us say to our captors],

to take them far away from here [ שירחיקונו מן המקום הזהto take us far away from this place], כדיso that

people should not come, hear, and redeem us [ שלא יבואו בעלינו ויפדונוso that our husbands should not come and redeem us].

And since they did not remain righteous,

Rav Ilish

stood alone,

and he fled, together with that man [ ברח הוא ואותו אדם המבין בלשון העופותhe fled, together with that man who understood the language of birds].

For him [ לרב עילישfor Rav Ilish]

a miracle occurred,

and

he crossed by ferry [ התרחש לו נס ועבר את מעבר המיםa miracle occurred for him and he crossed the waterway], ולא יכלו להשיגו עודand they could no longer catch him,

whereas

if

the captors found that man, they killed him [ מצאו השבאים את אותו אדם, והרגוהוthe captors found that man and killed him].

When they returned [ כאשר חזרו בנות רב נחמן מן השביהwhen Rav Nahman’s daughters returned from captivity],

Rav Ilish

said: Rav Nahman’s daughters were not righteous; rather,

they were stirring a pot with witchcraft [ על ידי כשפים היו בוחשים קדירה חמה בידיהןby means of witchcraft they would stir a hot pot with their hands].

Mishna:

And

also

one may not purchase scrolls, tefillin, or mezuzot from gentiles

who seized them from Jews,

for more than their value.