Gittin 78

Chapter 78

א בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך מאי כללא דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אמרו לפני רבי אמר נתייאשתי מפלוני עבדי מהו אמר להם אומר אני אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר

1 Did you actually hear this [from R. Joshua], or do you infer it [from something he said]? — Infer it from what? [he replied]. — From the following statement of R. Joshua b. Levi: 'They put the following question to Rabbi: If a man says, I give up hope of recovering my slave So-and-so,1

ב ואמר רבי יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי גמר לה לה מאשה מה אשה בשטר אף עבד נמי בשטר

2 what [is the status of the latter]? Rabbi said to them, In my view he has no remedy2

ג וקא דייקת מינה כאשה מה אשה איסורא ולא ממונא אף עבד נמי איסורא ולא ממונא

3 save through a deed [of emancipation].' Referring to this R. Johanan said: What was Rabbi's reason? He laid stress on the occurrence of the word 'to her' [in the Scripture] in connection both with a slave and a wife,3

ד ואי מכללא מאי א"ל אדרב' דוק מינה לאידך גיסא מה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה אף עבד נמי בין גדול בין קטן אמר ליה בפירוש שמיע לי

4 and drew the lesson that just as a woman requires a document [a Get] [to enable her to marry],4

ה ורבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כאבא שאול אמר ליה ר' זירא לר' חייא בר אבא בפירוש שמיע לך או מכללא שמיע לך מאי כללא דאמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אמרו לפני רבי נתייאשתי מפלוני עבדי מהו אמר להם אומר אני אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר

5 so does a slave [who has been declared public property]. Now, [continued R. Zera] I assume that you draw [from Rabbi's statement the inference that] just as the woman [is released (by the deed) from] a ritual prohibition5

ו ואמר ר' יוחנן מאי טעמא דרבי גמר לה לה מאשה מה אשה בשטר אף עבד נמי בשטר

6 and not a monetary obligation, so the slave [is one who is released from] a ritual prohibition and not [from] a monetary obligation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence Rabbi must have been speaking of grown-up slaves who can acquire their own persons (v. supra) and, as soon as they are declared common property by the owner, cease to be his possession. In their case, the deed affects only a prohibition in that it permits them to marry a Jewess. In the case of minors, however, upon whose persons the owner still retains his claim even after having declared them common property, the deed affects money matters, and to such a deed Rabbi was not referring, it not being like that of the woman. Consequently the prohibition of marrying does not apply to children. ');">6

ז וקא דייקת מינה כאשה מה אשה בין גדולה בין קטנה אף עבד נמי בין גדול בין קטן

7 [R. Jacob replied:] Suppose I have only made an inference, what [difference does it make]? — He replied: On the contrary, you can draw just the opposite inference: Just as the woman can be either a grown-up or a child, so the slave7

ח ואי מכללא מאי אדרבה דוק מינה להך גיסא מה אשה איסורא ולא ממונא אף עבד נמי איסורה ולא ממונא אמר ליה בפירוש שמיע לי

8 can be either a grown-up or a child. [R. Jacob then] said to him: I heard it distinctly [from R. Joshua b. Levi].

ט אמר מר אמר להם אומר אני אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר והתניא רבי אומר אומר אני אף הוא נותן דמי עצמו ויוצא מפני שהוא כמוכרו לו

9 R. Hiyya b. Abba, however, said in the name of R. Johanan that the halachah does not follow Abba Saul. Said R. Zera to R. Hiyya b. Abba: Did you actually hear this [from R. Johanan], or do you infer it [from something you heard]? — Infer it from what? [he said.] — From the following statement of R. Joshua b. Levi: 'The following question was put to Rabbi: If a man says, I give up hope of recovering my slave So-and-so, what [is the status of the latter]? Rabbi said to them: In my view he has no remedy save through a deed of emancipation. Referring to this R. Johanan said: What was Rabbi's reason? He laid stress on the occurrence in the Scripture of the words 'to her' in connection [both with a slave] and with a wife, drawing the lesson that just as a [divorced] wife requires a document [to enable her to marry], so does a slave [who has been declared public property].' Now [continued R. Zera], I assume that you draw from Rabbi's statement the inference that just as the wife may be either grown-up or not grown-up, so the slave may be either grown-up or not grown-up. [R. Hiyya replied:] Suppose I have only made an inference, what [difference does it make]? — He replied: On the contrary, you can draw just the opposite inference: just as the woman is [released from] a ritual prohibition and not a monetary obligation, so the slave is one who is [released from] a ritual prohibition and not a monetary obligation. R. Hiyya then said: I heard it distinctly [from R. Johanan].

י הכי קאמר או בכסף או בשטר והאי פקע ליה כספיה ולאפוקי מהאי תנא

10 The Master said: '[Rabbi] said to them, In my view he has no remedy save through a deed of emancipation.' But has it not been taught: 'Rabbi says, The slave can also offer his own purchase price and so liberate himself, because the treasurer [of the sanctuary] as it were sells him to himself'?8

יא דתניא ר' שמעון אומר משום רבי עקיבא יכול יהא כסף גומר בה כדרך ששטר גומר בה ת"ל (ויקרא יט, כ) והפדה לא נפדתה

11 — What he meant was this: [A liberated slave can become enabled to marry] either by ransoming himself or by obtaining a deed of emancipation; and in this case9

יב אורעה כל הפרשה כולה ללא חופשה לומר לך שטר גומר בה ואין הכסף גומר בה

12 the ownership has ceased.10

יג אמר רמי בר חמא א"ר נחמן הלכה כר' שמעון ורב יוסף בר חמא א"ר יוחנן אין הלכה כר' שמעון

13 Rabbi thus rejects the view of the following Tanna. It has been taught, namely: R. Simeon says in the name of R. Akiba, May we presume that money payment completes her emancipation in the same way as a deed completes her emancipation?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to a female slave who is half emancipated and betrothed to a Hebrew slave. The question under discussion is, if some other person has intercourse with her after she has been redeemed by a money payment but before she has received a deed of emancipation, is he to suffer the death penalty for having violated a free woman who is betrothed, or is he merely to bring a guilt-offering in accordance with the rule laid down in Lev. XIX, 20. ');">11

יד אשכחיה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרבא בר שאילתא דהוה קאי אפיתחא דבי תפלה א"ל הלכה או אין הלכה א"ל אני אומר אין הלכה ורבנן דאתו ממחוזא אמרי אמר רבי זירא משמיה דרב נחמן הלכה

14 [This cannot be,] since it says, and she be not at all redeemed.12

טו וכי אתאי לסורא אשכחתיה לר' חייא בר אבין אמרי ליה אימא לי איזי גופא דעובדא היכי הוה אמר לי דההיא אמתא דהוה מרה שכיב מרע אתיא בכיא קמיה אמרה ליה עד אימת תשתעביד ותיזיל ההיא איתתא שקל כומתיה שדא בה אמר לה... זיל קני הא וקני נפשיך אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו לא עשה ולא כלום

15 The keywords of the whole section13

טז מאן דחזא סבר משום דהלכה כר' שמעון ולא היא אלא משום דהוה ליה כליו של מקנה

16 are because she was not free.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse runs: And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid betrothed to a husband, and not at all redeemed nor freedom given her, they shall be punished, they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. The words 'not at all redeemed' (lit., 'redeemed she was not redeemed') are interpreted to mean, 'she was redeemed and yet not redeemed,' i.e., redeemed with money but not with a document. ');">14

יז אמר רב שמואל בר אחיתאי אמר רב המנונא סבא אמר ר' יצחק בר אשיאן אמר רב הונא אמר רב המנונא הלכה כר' שמעון ולא היא אין הלכה כר' שמעון

17 This shows that a document completes her emancipation, but not a money payment.15

יח אמר ר' זירא אמר ר' חנינא אמר רב אשי אמר רבי עבד שנשא את בת חורין בפני רבו

18 Rami b. Hama said in the name of R. Nahman that the halachah [in this matter] follows R. Simeon, and R. Joseph b. Hama said in the name of R. Johanan that the halachah does not follow R. Simeon. R. Nahman b. Isaac once came across Raba b. She'ilta as he was standing at the entrance of the synagogue, and said to him, Does the halachah follow R. Simeon or does it not? — He replied, I say that it does not, but the Rabbis who have come from Mahuza report that R. Zera said in the name of R. Nahman that it does. When I was in Sura I came across R. Hiyya b. Abin and said to him, Tell me now what were the essential facts of the case.16 He said to me: There was a certain female slave whose master was at the point of death. So she came crying to him and saying, How long am I to go on being a slave? He thereupon took his cap and threw it to her saying, Go and acquire this and acquire yourself with it.17 The case was brought before R. Nahman and he said, His action was null and void. Those who were present thought that R. Nahman's reason for his decision was that the halachah follows R. Simeon,18 but this is not correct; his reason was that the man used an article belonging to the transferor.19 R. Samuel b. Ahithai said in the name of R. Hamnuna the Elder, who said it in the name of R. Isaac b. Ashian who said it in the name of R. Huna who said it in the name of R. Hamnuna: The halachah follows R. Simeon. This, however, is not correct; the halachah does not follow R. Simeon. R. Zera said in the name of R. Hanina who said it in the name of R. Ashi;20 Rabbi said, If a slave marries a free woman in the presence of his master,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter