Gittin 23
דלמא לא היא עד כאן לא קאמר ר' אליעזר התם אלא דמיגו דאי בעי מפקר להו לנכסיה והוי עני וחזי ליה ומיגו דזכי ליה לנפשיה זכי לחבריה אבל הכא לא
Perhaps the two cases are not on all fours. R. Eliezer's reason there [for allowing the owner of the field to acquire on behalf of the poor man] may be only because if he desires he can declare his field public property and so become himself a poor man and entitled to [the gleanings], and since he can acquire it for himself [we concede that] he can acquire it for his fellow; whereas [this reasoning] does not apply to our present case. And the Rabbis' reason in the case of the poor man may be only that in the text it is written thou shalt not glean, for the poor man,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXIII, 22. [They join 'for the poor man' with 'Thou shalt not gleam on the principle of Siddur she-nehelak, mentioned in the Mishnah of H. Eliezer b. Jose the Galilean, that a context which has been disrupted by a disjunctive accent is reconnected for exegetical purposes.] ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ועד כאן לא קאמרי רבנן התם אלא דכתיב (ויקרא כג, כב) לא תלקט לעני לא תלקט לו לעני אבל הכא לא
'thou shalt not glean for the poor man', but here they would not [apply the same principle]. What lesson then does R. Eliezer derive from these words, 'thou shalt not glean, for the poor'? — He sees in them an admonition to a poor man [who himself owns a field] in regard to his own gleanings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He must leave gleanings in his own field. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ור"א האי לא תלקט מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה להזהיר לעני על שלו:
FOR IF HE CHOOSES NOT TO MAINTAIN HIS SLAVE, etc. We understand from this, [do we not,] that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not support you! — [No!] Here we deal with the case in which the master says: Keep what you can earn as the equivalent of your maintenance. Similarly in the case of the woman<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mentioned in our Mishnah. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
שאם ירצה שלא לזון כו': שמעת מינה יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך
we likewise must suppose that the husband says to her: Keep what you can earn as the equivalent of your maintenance. [But if this is so] why, in the case of the wife should he not [be permitted to refuse to maintain her]? — Because she cannot earn enough [for her keep]. But a slave too may not be able to earn enough for his keep? — If a slave's [work] is not worth the food he eats, what do his master and mistress want him for!
דכוותה גבי אשה דאמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך אשה אמאי לא אשה בדלא ספקה
his master is under no obligation to support him; and moreover whatever he earns belongs to his master. We understand from this, do we not, that a master can say to a slave, 'Work for me, but I will not support you'? — We are dealing here with the case in which the master said to him, 'You may keep what you earn as the equivalent of your maintenance'. In that case why does it say that what he earns belongs to the master? — This applies to what he earns over and above his keep. There is surely no need to tell us that? — [There is, because otherwise] you might think that, since the master does not give him anything when he does not earn, he should not take anything from him when he does earn; but now you know [that this is not so]. But why should this rule apply specially to cities of refuge? — I might think [that cities of refuge are an exception],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the rule that the master may take the slave's earnings. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
תא שמע עבד שגלה לערי מקלט אין רבו חייב לזונו ולא עוד אלא שמעשה ידיו לרבו ש"מ יכול הרב לומר לעבד עשה עמי ואיני זנך הכא במאי עסקינן דאמר לו צא מעשה ידיך למזונותיך
are interpreted to mean that] special provision must be made [for one who is exiled there]; but now I know [that they are no exception].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In respect of allowing the slave the excess of his earnings over and above his keep. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אי הכי מעשה ידיו אמאי לרבו להעדפה
But now look at the continuation [of the passage quoted]: But if a woman is exiled to a city of refuge, her husband is under obligation to maintain her. Obviously this speaks of a case where the husband did not say to her, ['You may keep your earnings etc.',] because if he did, why should he have to support her? And since that is the case here, then we presume that the first part of the passage also deals with the case in which the master did not say to the slave, ['Keep your earnings' etc.]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that a master can say to a slave 'work for me but I will not support you'. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
העדפה פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דכי לית ליה לא יהיב ליה כי אית ליה נמי לא לישקול מיניה קמ"ל
— No. [The cases considered are those in which the master or husband] did say so, and the reason In the case of the wife<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the husband has still to keep her. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ומ"ש לערי מקלט סד"א (דברים ד, מב) וחי עביד ליה חיותא טפי קמ"ל
is because she cannot keep herself. But look at the further continuation [of the passage]: If he says to her, I allow you to keep your earnings in place of your maintenance, he is within his rights. This shows, does it not, that the preceding clause deals with the case where he did not say so? — We interpret [the last clause] thus: If she can earn sufficient [for a living] and he said to her: Keep your earnings in place of your maintenance, he is within his rights. What is the point of bringing in the case where she can earn sufficient [for a living]? — You might think that even so she should not go about to earn a living because, as Scripture says, the honour of the king's daughter [i.e. the Jewish woman] lies it privacy;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ps. XLV, 14. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ומדסיפא דלא אמר לה רישא נמי דלא אמר ליה
May we say that the same difference of opinion is found between the Tannaim [mentioned in the following passage]? [For it was taught:] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: A slave can say to his master in a year of scarcity, 'Either maintain me or let me go free'; whereas the Sages say that the master can do as he pleases. Shall we say that the point at issue between them is this, that the one authority holds that a master can say to his slave, 'Work for me but I will not support you', and the other holds that he cannot? — Do you really think so? In that case why does it say, 'either maintain me or let me go free'? It should Say, 'either maintain me or let me keep my earnings in place of my maintenance'. And besides, why should the rule apply specially to years of scarcity? The fact is that the case put is one in which the master has said to the slave, 'Keep your earnings as the equivalent of your maintenance',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And both authorities hold that the master may not say, 'Work for me etc.' ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
לעולם דאמר ליה ואשה בדלא ספקה
and in a year of scarcity he cannot earn enough. [In that case] Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that the slave can say to the master, 'Either maintain me or let me go free, so that people may see me and have pity on me', whereas the Rabbis hold the view that those who pity free men pity also slaves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore there is no need to let him go free. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
והא מדקתני סיפא ואם אמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך רשאי מכלל דרישא דלא אמר לה ה"ק ואם מספקת ואמר לה צאי מעשה ידיך במזונותיך רשאי
Come and hear: Rab said: If a man dedicates to the Sanctuary<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sanctifies'; cf. Lev. XXVII. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
מספקת מאי למימרא מהו דתימא (תהלים מה, יד) כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה קמ"ל
the hands of his slave, that slave may borrow money, eat, work and repay [his loan with his earnings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. p. 44, nn. 1-2. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
לימא כתנאי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר יכול העבד לומר לרבו בשני בצורת או פרנסני או הוציאני לחירות וחכמים אומרים הרשות ביד רבו
We may conclude from this, [may we not,] that the master can say to the slave, 'Work for me, but I will not maintain you'? — [No.] The case contemplated here is one in which the master provides the slave with his keep. If so, why