Gittin 47a (מז.) — the Talmud in English

Redeem me

free 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 is not redeemed, but the sons are redeemed

after their father’s death—

And the reason they are redeemed is

because of the possibility of moral corruption

so that they should not assimilate among the gentiles]—

And

if so,

all the more so here,

you should redeem me,

as

there

is a danger of death

the danger of death].

The Sages said to Rabbi Ami:

We should not redeem him, because

this Israelite is an apostate, as they have seen him eating neveilot and tereifot

[for people saw him eating neveilot and tereifot]. And if so, he is an apostate with regard to one matter, and we do not redeem him.

Rabbi Ami said to them

the Sages:

Perhaps he eats them out of appetite

[perhaps he eats them out of appetite]; that is to say, when he has no permitted food, he eats prohibited food. If so, he is an apostate out of appetite, and we should redeem him!?

The Sages said to him

Rabbi Ami:

But there were times when both prohibited and permitted food were before him, and he left the permitted food and ate the prohibited food

[and indeed, at times they saw that prohibited and permitted food had been placed before him, and he ate the prohibited food]. If so, he is an apostate defiantly, and one who is an apostate defiantly even with regard to a single mitzva may not be redeemed.

When Rabbi Ami heard this,

he said to him

the man:

Go; they are not letting me redeem you

[go, they are preventing me from redeeming you].

Reish Lakish

sold himself to the cannibals

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

he took a sack and a stone with him

[he took with him a tied sack containing a round stone or a lump of lead].

For

Reish Lakish said

:

It is known

[it is known] that

on the final day, they do whatever he requests of them, so that he will forgive them for his blood

[on the last day, before they kill their victim, they fulfill all his wishes, so that he will thereby forgive them for his blood], and then I will do with these men whatever I wish.

On the final day,

[on the last day],

they said to him

[the cannibals said to Reish Lakish]:

What would you like

[what is your final wish]?

He said to them

Reish Lakish said to the cannibals:

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

and a half

[my wish is to seat you, bind you, and give each one a sack and a half]; that is, one blow and another half-blow with this sack.

They thought that this was not such a frightening request, and therefore agreed to it.

Indeed,

he bound them and seated them

[he bound and seated them], and

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

[each one of them, upon receiving even a single blow from the sack containing the stone, had his soul depart], for Reish Lakish was extraordinarily strong, and he killed them with a single blow.

One of them gnashed his teeth,

and one of them gnashed his teeth.

He said to him

Reish Lakish said:

Are you laughing at me

[are you making fun of me]!?

You still owe me half a sack

[you still have half a sack-blow remaining that you have not yet received].

And so

he killed them

Reish Lakish killed

all of them.

Reish Lakish left

and

came

[Reish Lakish left captivity and came], and

sat eating and drinking

[he sat, ate, and drank]; that is to say, throughout his life, whatever he earned, he did not economize in order to save it for the following day.

His daughter said to him: Do you not need something on which to lie

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

He said to her

Reish Lakish said:

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

left

nothing

except a kav of saffron

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

And concerning that kav of saffron that he left behind,

Reish Lakish recited

about himself

[Reish Lakish recited concerning himself]: “

And they leave their wealth to others.”

Mishna:

One who sells his field to a gentile,

he

buys

from the gentile the first fruits that grew in his field, even at an expensive price,

and he 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 thereby transgress the prohibition “You shall not show them favor,” which includes: “You shall not give them a permanent foothold in the land”; and even if they sell a field to a gentile, they will exert themselves to redeem the field from the gentile and buy it back.

Gemara:

Rabba said: Even though a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does not remove the obligation of tithes.

That is, his acquisition is not effective to remove the sanctity of the Land with regard to the law of tithes.

As it is stated: “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 a gentile cannot remove it from that status.

But a gentile does have an acquisition in

the fields of the Land of Israel,

and he has the right

to dig pits, ditches, and caves in it.

As it is stated: “

The heavens are the heavens of the Lord, and

the earth He gave

to human beings,”

indicating that it belongs to them for all their needs: if they wish, they plant; if they wish, they dig pits, ditches, and caves in it.

And Rabbi Elazar says: Even though a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does remove the obligation of tithes, as it is stated:

“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 does not say “the first of the grain” that only grain growing in land belonging to an Israelite is obligated,

but not the grain of a gentile.

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

And this is because

it is stated:

[our editions read]: “

The Lord’s

is the earth

and all that fills it”], [the version of the Rishonim: “For the land 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?

One

—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”

[this is the term for smoothing grain]

but not the smoothing of a gentile.

That is, the Torah does not come to exempt produce growing in a gentile’s land. Rather, it exempts produce that a gentile smoothed and that belonged to him at the time of smoothing, 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 an Israelite purchased it from him before smoothing and smoothed it himself, is not exempt from tithes, because a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does not remove it from the obligation of tithes.

Rabba said: From where do I derive this

that a gentile’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does not remove it from the obligation of tithes? From the following:

as we learned:

The gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a of a gentile

are

obligated in tithes, unless he declares them ownerless,

and the Gemara proceeds to explain this.

What are the circumstances

of the Mishna; in what situation is it speaking?

If you say

that it is speaking of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a

of

an

Israelite, and a gentile gathered them

from

his

field belonging to an Israelite; and this is what we learned: that they are obligated in tithes if an Israelite purchases them from the gentile and smooths them, unless the Israelite had declared them ownerless before the gentile gathered them, since ownerless produce is exempt from tithes?

This cannot be said, for if so, how can we have learned:

“Unless he declares them ownerless”!?

They are already ownerless and remain so

[they have already been declared ownerless and remain so], since the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a of an Israelite are ownerless

; rather, is it not

speaking of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a

of

a

gentile,

who, although he is not obligated to leave gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a, nevertheless left them as an Israelite would,

and an Israelite gathered them

from his field?

And this is what we learned: that they are not exempt from tithes like the gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a of an Israelite, because the designation of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a does not apply to them so as to exempt them from tithes, until the gentile declares them ownerless as an act of renunciation of ownership.

And if so, it is proven:

The reason is that he declared them ownerless,

the gentile; then the Israelite is exempt from tithing them, because ownerless produce is exempt from tithes

; but if he did not declare them ownerless,

the gentile,

the Israelite is obligated

to tithe them, even though they came from the field of a gentile.

For we have learned that a gentile’s ownership of land in Eretz Yisrael does not exempt its produce from tithes.

The Gemara rejects the necessity of deriving this from that Mishna, in order to reconcile the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who disagrees with Rabba:

No

not as Rabba interpreted the Mishna; rather,

always

this Mishna is dealing with gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner belonging to a Jew,

and a gentile gathered them; and as for what you said:

how could we have learned: “unless the Jew declared them ownerless,”

they are already ownerless!?

He can say to you: That declaration of ownerlessness, on account of the fact that the produce consists of gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner, does not suffice to exempt it from tithes, because

although they were declared ownerless with regard to Jews

even though the produce was ownerless with regard to Jews,

were they declared ownerless with regard to a gentile as well

were they, too, ownerless with regard to a gentile!?

Therefore, only a declaration of ownerlessness made with regard to both a Jew and a gentile exempts them from tithes; and this is what we learned: “unless the Jew first declared them ownerless.”

Ta shma

that a gentile’s ownership of land in Eretz Yisrael does exempt its produce from tithes:

From that which was taught:

A Jew who purchased a field

that was sown

from a gentile before it had produced

its crops

a third

and the field remained in the Jew’s possession until after the crops had produced a third [which is the determining measure with regard to tithes]—

and he then sold it back to him

the Jew sold it back to the gentile

after it had produced a third

this field is

liable for tithes

[if its produce was fully processed while in the Jew’s possession, as the gentile subsequently sold it back to a Jew before the completion of processing], since

it had already become liable

for tithes when it produced a third while in the Jew’s possession.

It follows that if

it became liable

for tithes while in the Jew’s possession,

it is not

indeed liable for tithes even though it was subsequently sold to a gentile!

But if

it did not become liable

for tithes while in the Jew’s possession, but the field belonged to the gentile at the time it produced a third,

it will not

become liable for tithes [even if it belonged to a Jew at the time of the completion of processing, after he had repurchased it from the gentile].

We have therefore learned that a gentile’s ownership of land in Eretz Yisrael does exempt its produce from tithes; and this is difficult for Rabba, who does not hold so!?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With Syria

[which is Aram Tzova], which David conquered and added to Eretz Yisrael.

And he holds

that the tanna of the beraita holds:

“an individual conquest,”

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

a conquest of this kind

is not considered a conquest

by Torah law.

Therefore, although the Sages made produce there liable for tithes, they nevertheless imposed this liability only on a Jew’s field, and not on a gentile’s field.

Ta shma

that a gentile’s ownership of land in Eretz Yisrael does exempt its produce from tithes:

A Jew and a gentile who purchased a field in partnership.