Gittin 45a — the Talmud in English

The Gemara, the Talmudic discussion of the Mishna, explains the reason for Rav Anan's uncertainty:

1.

And Rav Anan had not heard the beraita

the tannaitic source that was not included in the Mishna was not known to him.

2.

And if the basis was Shmuel's statement,

why did Rav Anan not resolve his uncertainty from Shmuel's words, who said that the sale has no validity at all? Since, according to him, the sale has no validity, the money should be returned. The answer is:

From where

does it follow that according to Shmuel

the sale has no validity and the money is returned?

Perhaps the sale has no validity, but

if the

money is a gift,

because a person knows that a sale of land during the Jubilee year has no validity, and nevertheless deliberately gives the money as a gift.

Just as

this is comparable to

one who betroths his sister—

the betrothal does not take effect, since she is a woman with whom relations entail excision, and betrothal does not take effect in such a case—yet according to Shmuel the money is a gift.

For it was stated: One who betroths his sister,

and gives her money as part of the 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 attempted the betrothal, since 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 concerning a sale during the Jubilee year as well, Rav Anan was uncertain whether, even though the sale does not take effect, the buyer may have deliberately given the money as a gift.

He said

Abaye raised an objection

to Rav Yosef:

Why do you see fit to penalize the buyer

Why should the buyer be penalized for purchasing him? We say that the sale takes effect, and that the buyer is the one who sets him free by means of a bill of manumission; the purchase money is not returned, and the buyer suffers the loss!?

On the contrary,

let us penalize the seller

who sold him, and say: The sale has no validity at all, and the seller is the one who sets him free with a bill of manumission; the seller must return the money and the seller suffers the loss!?

He said to him

Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The reason that we penalize the buyer and not the seller is that

the mouse is not the thief; rather, the hole is the thief.

The meaning of the proverb is that when a mouse steals something and places it in a hole, if it did not have a hole in which to put its stolen goods, it would not steal. Therefore, the hole is called the thief.

Here too, if the seller had not found a buyer who would purchase him, he would not have sold him. It is therefore proper to penalize the buyer by making him lose his money.

He said to him

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

if there were no mouse, where would the hole come from?!

Here too, if the seller had not agreed to sell, how would the buyer have been able to purchase him? Therefore, we should penalize the seller!?

And we answer:

It is reasonable;

this reasoning is more compelling:

Where the prohibited matter is found, there we impose the penalty.

The prohibited matter is the slave, namely, at the buyer's location; therefore, the penalty is imposed there.

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

a slave fled from his master in outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael.

His master went after him,

and

he came before Rabbi Ami,

his master pursued him to Eretz Yisrael, and he 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 monetary value,

and you write him a bill of manumission,

and you write him a document setting him free.

And if not,

if you do not write him a bill of manumission,

I will take him from you,

I will take him from you even without a document. And all this is because of what

said.

Rabbi Ahi bar Rabbi Yoshiah.

For it was taught in a beraita:

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 will worship their gods, and it will be a snare for you.”

One might have thought that the verse is speaking of a gentile

from the seven nations

who accepted upon himself not to worship idols;

the verse is speaking

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

This cannot be said, since

the verse states: “

You shall not hand over a slave to his master, who has escaped to you from his master,”

and the verse is referring to this situation. The Torah says:

What is his remedy? “

With you

this is the following verse

he shall dwell in your midst

in the place that he chooses in one of your cities; wherever it is good for him, do not oppress him.”

And Rabbi Yashya found this difficult

with regard to the interpretation of “You shall not hand over a slave to his master”:

If so, that the verse is not speaking about 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 Yashya said: The verse is speaking about one who sells his slave to outside Eretz Yisrael—

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

it is speaking

of this case, and it teaches that the slave goes free.

And Rabbi Ahi ben Rabbi Yashya found this difficult:

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

this—“

who has escaped to you”!? It should have said, “

who has escaped from you”

as it should have said,

and its meaning would then be similar to the phrase, “whom God rescued from our father”!?

Rather, Rabbi Ahi ben Rabbi Yashya said: The verse is speaking about a slave who fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael,

and the verse—“You shall not hand over a slave to his master”—is speaking about this case.

Another beraita was taught:

It is written: “

You shall not hand over a slave to his master.”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking about one who purchases a slave with the intention of setting him free,

and the verse instructed the court to compel him not to subject the slave to labor.

What are the circumstances

of one who purchases a slave with the intention of setting him free?

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 hereby acquired by yourself from now.”

Rav Hisda had a slave who fled to Bei Kutai,

his slave fled to Kuta, in outside Eretz Yisrael, to the Kutim.

Rav Hisda sent to them

Rav Hisda sent to the Kutim:

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 hand over a slave to his master”!

He sent to them

Rav Hisda replied: 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 item of your brother

which he has lost and you have found; you may not hide yourself.” The slave too is included.

They again

sent to him

the Kutim sent to Rav Hisda:

And

nevertheless,

it is written: “

You shall not hand over a slave to his master.”

He sent to them

Rav Hisda replied:

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 ben Rabbi Yashya.

The Gemara asks:

And what is different, that he sent to them the explanation of Rabbi Ahi ben Rabbi Yashya

why did he send them this interpretation rather than Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi's interpretation, that the verse is speaking about one who purchases a slave with the intention of setting him free!?

And we answer:

Because the verses seemed to them

that is, the plain meaning of the verse supports Rabbi Ahi ben Rabbi Yashya's interpretation more strongly. The Kutim did not accept the Sages' interpretations, but only their own understanding of the verses, and they were more likely to accept Rabbi Ahi ben Rabbi Yashya's interpretation.

The Gemara further relates an incident involving

Abaye

who

lost a donkey among the Kutim,

a donkey of his 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 sign:

its belly is white

the donkey's belly is white.

They sent to him

:

Were it not for Nahmani

Abaye's name,

you

meaning: Were it not that we knew 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, since

are all donkeys' bellies not white

what sort of sign is that? Are the bellies of all donkeys not white!?

Mishna:

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

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

And captives are not assisted in escaping

from captivity,

for the betterment of the world,

and the Gemara explains this.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Captives are not assisted in escaping

for the sake of the captives' own welfare,

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:

Does

this “

for the betterment of the world,”

as we learned in the Mishna, mean

because of the financial pressure on the community

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

Or perhaps this “for the betterment of the world,”

means

so that they will not seize

more captives

and bring them more often,

so that the captors will not be encouraged to seize more captives, since high ransoms are paid for them?

Come and hear a proof

that the reason is the financial pressure on the community, from the fact that

Levi bar Darga

a person's name

redeemed his daughter for thirteen thousand gold dinars

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

This proves that when the ransom does not come from communal funds, there is no prohibition.

He said

Abaye rejected this:

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

how do we know that they agreed with what he did!?

Perhaps Levi acted without the approval of the Sages,

and it is indeed forbidden to 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 welfare of the captives:

The Gemara explains:

What difference is there between them,

between the Sages, who say that this should not be done for the betterment of the rest of the world, meaning the other captives, since, in order to prevent them from escaping, the captors would place them in chains, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that it is for the welfare of the other captives who were with the one who escaped, so that the captors would not torture them because their companion escaped?

There is a difference between them:

For example,

where there is only one

captive and no other captives are with him. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is no reason to prevent him from escaping, whereas according to the Sages, he should not be assisted in escaping for the sake of other captives.

The Gemara relates an incident connected with captivity:

Rav Naḥman's daughters were stirring a pot with their hands,

Rav Naḥman's daughters would stir a hot pot that was on the fire with their hands, and people thought that they were exceptionally righteous and that fire had no power over them.

Therefore,

this was difficult for Rav Ilai:

But

it is written [Ecclesiastes 7]: “

One man among a thousand I found

one who is righteous,

but among all these I did not find one woman,”

and here are Rav Naḥman's daughters, who are righteous!? This incident caused something to happen to them, this matter caused them to be taken captive, Rav Naḥman's daughters, who were married to men of Nehardea, Rav Naḥman's city, were taken captive, and he too was taken captive also together with them Rav Ilai was taken captive along with them, so that he would realize that they were not exceptionally righteous but were committing adultery while separated from their husbands. One day he was sitting beside him Rav Ilai while in captivity, and there was a certain man who knew the language of birds, one day, while a certain captive who knew the language of birds was sitting beside Rav Ilai— a raven came and called to him a raven came and called toward Rav Ilai. He said Rav Ilai asked him that man, What is it saying, the raven? He said to him the man replied, translating the raven's call: “ Ilai, flee for yourself; Ilai, flee for yourself!” Rav Ilai said that the raven is a liar, for that was its nature, as we saw when Noah sent it from the ark and it failed to carry out its mission. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Captives are not assisted in escaping for the sake of the captives' own welfare, 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: Does this “ for the betterment of the world,” as we learned in the Mishna, mean because of the financial pressure on the community so as not to place excessive financial pressure on the community? If so, this law applies only when they are redeemed from communal funds. But if a wealthy father or relative wishes to redeem him for more than his value, there is no prohibition. Or perhaps this “for the betterment of the world,” means so that they will not seize more captives and bring them more often, so that the captors will not be encouraged to seize more captives, since high ransoms are paid for them? Come and hear a proof that the reason is the financial pressure on the community, from the fact that Levi bar Darga a person's name redeemed his daughter for thirteen thousand gold dinars he redeemed his daughter from captivity for thirteen thousand gold dinars from his own money, even though this was more than her value. This proves that when the ransom does not come from communal funds, there is no prohibition. He said Abaye rejected this: Who can tell us that he acted with the approval of the Sages how do we know that they agreed with what he did!? Perhaps Levi acted without the approval of the Sages, and it is indeed forbidden to 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 welfare of the captives: The Gemara explains: What difference is there between them, between the Sages, who say that this should not be done for the betterment of the rest of the world, meaning the other captives, since, in order to prevent them from escaping, the captors would place them in chains, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that it is for the welfare of the other captives who were with the one who escaped, so that the captors would not torture them because their companion escaped? There is a difference between them: For example, where there is only one captive and no other captives are with him. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, there is no reason to prevent him from escaping, whereas according to the Sages, he should not be assisted in escaping for the sake of other captives. The Gemara relates an incident connected with captivity: Rav Naḥman's daughters were stirring a pot with their hands, Rav Naḥman's daughters would stir a hot pot that was on the fire with their hands, and people thought that they were exceptionally righteous and that fire had no power over them. Therefore, this was difficult for Rav Ilai: But it is written [Ecclesiastes 7]: “ One man among a thousand I found one who is righteous, but among all these I did not find one woman,”

and

here are Rav Naḥman's daughters,

who are righteous!?

This incident caused something to happen to them,

this matter caused

them to be taken captive,

Rav Naḥman's daughters, who were married to men of Nehardea, Rav Naḥman's city, were taken captive,

and he too was taken captive

also

together with them

Rav Ilai was taken captive along with them, so that he would realize that they were not exceptionally righteous but were committing adultery while separated from their husbands.

One day he was sitting beside him

Rav Ilai while in captivity, and

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

one day, while a certain captive who knew the language of birds was sitting beside Rav Ilai—

a raven came and called to him

a raven came and called toward Rav Ilai.

He said

Rav Ilai asked

him

that man,

What is it saying,

the raven?

He said to him

the man replied, translating the raven's call: “

Ilai, flee

for yourself;

Ilai, flee

for yourself!”

Rav Ilai said

that

the raven is a liar,

for that was its nature, as we saw when Noah sent it from the ark and it failed to carry out its mission.

And

if so

I do not rely on him [I do not rely on him to flee].

Meanwhile, a dove came and was calling [Meanwhile, a dove also came and was cooing].

Again

said

asked

him

Rav Ilish, to that man:

What is it saying,

the dove?

He said to him,

it too is calling: "

Ilish, flee! Ilish, flee!"

Rav Ilish

Rav Ilish said:

The Assembly of Israel is likened to a dove [The Assembly of Israel is compared to a dove], for the verse in the Song of Songs [5:2] calls it “my dove, my perfect one,” and if so

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 to me [It follows that a miracle will occur to me, and I will be able to flee].

Before he fled,

Rav Ilish

Rav Ilish said:

I will go and see the daughters of Rav Naḥman,

and

if they are standing by their faithfulness [I will go and see whether the daughters of Rav Naḥman are faithful to their husbands],

and if so

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

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

Rav Ilish

Rav Ilish said:

Women, everything that they have to relate, they relate to one another in the lavatory [Everything that they have to tell, they tell one another in the lavatory].

Rav Ilish went near the lavatory, and

heard them saying [and he heard the daughters of Rav Naḥman saying to one another]:

These are [These]

men, and

also

the men of Nehardea [These captors are like husbands to us, and those from Nehardea were our husbands], meaning: just as those in Nehardea were our husbands, so too the captors are our husbands in their place, and we no longer need the first ones.

Let us say to our captors [Let us say to our captors],

that they should distance us from here [that they should distance us from this place], in order that

people should not come and hear and redeem us [so that our husbands should not come and redeem us].

And since they did not remain in their righteousness,

Rav Ilish

Rav Ilish arose alone,

fled, he and that man [He and that man who understood the language of birds fled].

For him [For Rav Ilish]

a miracle occurred to him,

and

he crossed by ferry [a miracle occurred to him and he crossed the water passage], and they could no longer catch him,

and

whereas

they found that man and killed him [The captors found that man and killed him].

When they returned and came [When the daughters of Rav Naḥman returned from captivity],

Rav Ilish

Rav Ilish said: The daughters of Rav Naḥman were not righteous; rather,

they were stirring a pot with witchcraft [They were stirring a hot pot with their hands by means of witchcraft].

Mishna:

And

also

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

who seized them from Jews,

for more than their value.