Gittin 47a — the Talmud in English

Redeem me

[from them]!

For

he said

that man to Rabbi Ami: Even though I sold myself, you should redeem me, for

we learned

in our Mishna:

One who sells himself and his sons to gentiles—they do not redeem him, but they redeem the sons

after their father's death—

And the reason that they redeem them is

because of corruption

[so that they should not become assimilated among the gentiles]—

And

if so,

all the more so here

that you should redeem me,

for

there

is danger of death

[the danger of death].

The Sages said to Rabbi Ami:

We do not have to redeem him, because

this Israelite is an apostate, for they saw him eating carcasses and animals with torn limbs

[for people saw him eating carcasses and animals with torn limbs], and if so, he is an apostate regarding one matter, and we do not redeem him.

Rabbi Ami said to them

the Sages:

Say that he eats out of appetite

[perhaps he eats out of appetite], meaning: when he has no permitted food, he eats forbidden food, and if so, he is an apostate out of appetite, and we do have to redeem him!?

The Sages said to him

Rabbi Ami:

But sometimes there is forbidden and permitted food before him, and he leaves the permitted and eats the forbidden

[for at times they saw that forbidden and permitted food was placed before him, and he ate the forbidden], and if so, he is an apostate “to provoke,” and an apostate to provoke—even regarding only one mitzva—is forbidden to redeem.

When Rabbi Ami heard this,

he said to him

When Rabbi Ami heard this,

Rabbi Ami said to that man:

Go; they do not let me redeem you

[go, they do not allow me to redeem you].

Reish Lakish

sold himself to the Ludaei

[he sold himself to that nation that eats human beings], and

took with him a sack and a ball

[and took with him a tied sack containing a round piece of stone or lead].

For

Reish Lakish said:

It is known

[it is known],

that on the last day, whatever they ask of them he does for them, so that he will forgive them for his blood

[on the last day, before they kill their victim, they do everything he wishes, so that by this he will forgive them for his blood], and then I shall do with these people whatever I shall do.

The last day

[on the last day]

they said to him

[the Ludaei to Reish Lakish]:

What would please you

[what is your final wish]?

He said to them

Reish Lakish to the Ludaei:

I want to bind you and seat you, and strike each one of you with a sack

and a half

[I want to seat you and bind you, and give each one a sack and a half], that is, one and a half blows with this sack.

They thought that this was not so terrible, and therefore agreed to his request.

And indeed,

he bound them and seated them

[he bound them and seated them], and

each one of them, when he struck him with one sack, his soul departed

[each one of them, upon receiving only one blow from the sack containing the stone, his soul departed], for Reish Lakish was exceedingly strong, and with one blow he killed them.

He gnashed his teeth at him,

one of them gnashed his teeth.

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

Are you laughing at me

[are you making fun of me]!?

You still have remaining with me half a sack

[you still have with me another half-blow of the sack that you have not yet received].

And thus

he killed them

Reish Lakish,

all of them.

Reish Lakish went out

and

came

[Reish Lakish went out of captivity and came], and

sat eating and drinking

[he sat, ate, and drank], meaning: all his life, whatever he earned, he did not economize to set anything aside for the next day.

His daughter said to him: Do you not need something to recline upon

[his daughter said to him: Do you not need a pillow or cushion to sleep upon]?

He said to her

Reish Lakish:

My daughter! My belly is my cushion

[my belly and the fat in my intestines serve me as a pillow and cushion].

When his soul came to rest

[when Reish Lakish’s soul inclined toward death], he

did not leave

anything

except a kav of saffron

[he had nothing to leave behind except a kav of saffron].

And regarding that kav of saffron that he left behind,

Reish Lakish recited

about

himself

[Reish Lakish recited about himself]: “

And they leave their wealth to others.”

Mishna:

One who sells his field to a gentile,

he

purchases

from the gentile the first fruits that grew in his field, even at a high price,

and brings from him

the Israelite

first fruits

to Jerusalem—

because of the betterment of the world,

so that Israelites will refrain from selling the fields of the Land of Israel to gentiles, and will not violate the prohibition of “You shall not show them favor,” which includes: “You shall not give them a holding in the land”; and even if they sell to a gentile, they will trouble themselves to redeem the field from the gentile.

Gemara:

Rabba said: Even though a gentile does not have acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of tithe.

That is, his acquisition is not effective to remove the sanctity of the land with regard to the law of tithe,

as it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold permanently,

for the land is Mine,”

for the land is Mine,”

to teach:

the sanctity of the land is Mine,

and the gentile does not have the power to remove it.

The practical consequence of the fact that the land was not removed from the obligation of tithe is that if an Israelite returned and bought the produce from him before the gentile finished smoothing it, and it was found that the smoothing was performed by an Israelite, it is obligated in tithing, even though the produce grew in a gentile’s land.

But a gentile does have acquisition in

fields of

the Land of Israel,

and he has the right

to dig in it pits, ditches, and caves.

As it is stated: “

As it is stated: “

The heavens are the heavens of the Lord,

but the earth He gave to human beings,”

and it implies that it is theirs for all their needs: if they wish, they sow; if they wish, they dig in it pits, ditches, and caves.

And Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a gentile does have acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of tithe, as it is stated: “The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the first shearing of your flock shall you give him [to the koen].” And we learn from what Scripture said

“The first of your grain, your wine, and your oil, and the first shearing of your flock you shall give him [the koen].” And we learn from the fact that the verse says

“your grain”

and did not say “the first of grain,” that only grain grown in an Israelite’s land is obligated,

but not the grain of a gentile.

But a gentile does not have acquisition in the Land of Israel to dig in it pits, ditches, and caves.

And because

it is stated:

[our books’ version]: “The

earth

and all that fills it belong to Him,”

[the version of the early authorities: “For the earth is Mine”].

And we explain:

With regard to what do they disagree,

Rabba and Rabbi Elazar; that is, what is the basis of their dispute?

?

—Rabbi Elazar—

holds:

“Your grain” comes to teach:

“Your grain, but not the grain of a gentile,”

that if the produce grew in land belonging to a gentile, the produce is exempt from tithes.

And the other—

Rabba—

holds: “Your grain” comes to teach:

“Your smoothing,”

the smoothing of your grain

[the term for smoothing produce]

and not the smoothing of a gentile.

That is: The Torah does not come to exempt produce growing in a gentile’s land, but to exempt produce that a gentile smoothed and that belonged to him at the time of smoothing [which is the completion of the work for purposes of tithe], even if it grew in an Israelite’s land.

But produce that grew in the Land of Israel, in land acquired by a gentile, and the Israelite took it from him before smoothing, and the Israelite smoothed it, the produce is not exempt from tithe, because a gentile does not have acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of tithe.

Rabba said: From where do I say it

that a gentile does not have acquisition in the Land of Israel to remove [produce] from the obligation of tithe? From this

that we learned:

The gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of a gentile,

these are

obligated in tithe, unless he declared them ownerless,

and he explains it further.

Но

And what are the circumstances,

in what manner is the Mishna speaking?

If you say

it is referring to the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner

of

an

Israelite’s field, and he gathered them

the

gentile

from an Israelite’s field; and in this we learned that they are obligated in tithe if the Israelite bought them from him and smoothed them, unless the Israelite declared them ownerless before the gentile gathered them, for ownerlessness exempts them from tithe?

This cannot be said: for if so, how did we learn:

“

unless he declared them ownerless”

?

Rather, is it not

concerning the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner

of

a

gentile’s field,

that although he is not obligated to leave gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner, nevertheless he left them as an Israelite does,

and an Israelite gathered them

from his field.

And concerning this we learned that they are not exempt from tithe like the gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner of an Israelite, because the designation of gleanings, the forgotten sheaf, and the corner did not take effect upon them to exempt them from tithe, until the gentile declares them ownerless as ownerless property.

And if so, it is proven:

The reason is that he declared them ownerless

the gentile declared them ownerless; then the Israelite is exempt from tithing them, because ownerless property is exempt from tithe

; but if he did not declare them ownerless,

the gentile did not declare them ownerless,

the Israelite is obligated

to tithe them, even though they came from a gentile’s field.

Thus we learned that a gentile has no acquisition in Eretz Yisrael to exempt from tithes.

And the Gemara rejects the necessity from this Mishna, in order to reconcile the view of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rabba:

No

not as Rabba explained the Mishna; rather,

always

this Mishna deals with leket, shikheha, and peah

belonging to an Israelite, and a gentile gathered them; and as for what you said:

how do we recite: “unless the Israelite declared [them] ownerless,”

they are ownerless and remain so!?

He says to you: That declaration of ownerlessness, on account of the fruits being leket, shikheha, and peah, is not effective to exempt them from tithes, for

although they were declared ownerless with regard to an Israelite

[even though the fruits had been declared ownerless for an Israelite],

were they declared ownerless with regard to a gentile

[and were they also declared ownerless for a gentile]!?

Therefore, it is only ownerlessness that applies equally to an Israelite and a gentile that exempts them from tithes; and this is what we recite: unless the Israelite first declared them ownerless.

Ta shma

that a gentile has an acquisition in Eretz Yisrael to exempt from tithes:

From that which was taught in a baraita:

An Israelite who purchased a field

that was sown

from a gentile before it had brought forth

its produce

a third

and the field remained in the possession of the Israelite until after the produce had brought forth a third [which is the measure that determines the matter of tithes]—

and he then sold it back to him

the Israelite to the gentile

after it had brought forth a third,

that field

is obligated in tithes

[if it reached the stage of being smoothed in the possession of the Israelite, since the gentile sold it back to the Israelite before the smoothing], since

it had already become obligated

in tithes when it brought forth a third in the possession of the Israelite.

It follows: if

it became obligated

the field in the possession of the Israelite,

it is indeed

obligated in tithes even though it was subsequently sold to a gentile!

But if

it did not become obligated

the field in tithes in the possession of the Israelite, but the field belonged to the gentile at the time it brought forth a third,

it will not

the field become obligated in tithes, [even if at the time of smoothing it belonged to an Israelite, who had bought it back from the gentile].

Thus we learned that a gentile has an acquisition in Eretz Yisrael to exempt from tithes; and this is difficult for Rabba, who does not hold this way!?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With Syria

[it is Aram-Zobah], which David conquered and added to Eretz Yisrael.

And the tan-nai of the baraita holds:

the tan-nai of the baraita:

“A conquest by an individual,”

like the conquest of Syria, which David conquered, when all Israel were not together, as they were in the conquest of Joshua, for they were all together and conquered it for the sake of all Israel before the division, whereas David conquered it only for his own needs—

a conquest of this kind

is not called a conquest

by Torah law.

Therefore, although the Sages obligated it there in tithes, nevertheless they obligated only a field belonging to an Israelite, and not a field belonging to a gentile.

Ta shma

that a gentile has an acquisition in Eretz Yisrael to exempt from tithes:

An Israelite and a gentile who purchased a field as partners.