Gittin 81

ויאמר לו עבדי אתה כופין את רבו שני ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב עבד שטר על דמיו רשב"ג אומר אין העבד כותב אלא משחרר כותב

and say to him 'you are my slave,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so defame his children. ');">¹</span>

במאי קא מיפלגי במזיק שיעבודו של חבירו קא מיפלגי דמר סבר חייב ומ"ס פטור

his second master is compelled to emancipate him, the slave giving him a bond for his purchase price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To compensate him for the loss of his security. ');">²</span>

איתמר נמי המזיק שיעבודו של חבירו באנו למחלוקת רבן שמעון ב"ג ורבנן

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that it is not the slave but the one who emancipates him who has to give a bond. In regard to what point do the two authorities join issue? — In regard to the person who injures an object pledged as security to another, one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon. ');">³</span>

עולא אמר מי שיחררו רבו שני שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום במצות אלא מפני תיקון העולם שהרי יצא עליו שם בן חורין כופין את רבו ראשון ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על דמיו רשב"ג אומר אינו כותב אלא משחרר כותב

holding that he is liable [to make it good] and the other that he is not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 33b. ');">⁴</span>

במאי קמיפלגי בהיזק שאינו ניכר קמיפלגי מ"ס שמיה היזק ומר סבר לא שמיה היזק

It has also been stated [elsewhere]: On the question of the man who injures an object which has been pledged as security to another, we find a difference of opinion between R. Simeon b. Gamaliel and the Rabbis.

עולא מ"ט לא אמר כרב אמר לך שני רבו קרית ליה

'Ulla explains [as follows]: Who emancipates him? His second master. In strict justice the slave is still not liable for the performance of religious precepts [incumbent on free men only]. To prevent abuses,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., lest he should marry a Jewess while in this state. ');">⁵</span>

ורב מ"ט לא אמר כעולא אמר לך שני משחרר קרית ליה

however — since he has been reported to be free — his first master is compelled to liberate him, and he [the servant] gives him a bond for his purchase price.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In so far as this is in excess of the debt. ');">⁶</span>

איתמר העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחרים ושטפה נהר אמי שפיר נאה א"ר יוחנן אינו גובה משאר נכסים ואבוה דשמואל אמר גובה משאר נכסים

R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says that he does not give the bond, but the one who emancipates him gives the bond. On what point do the two authorities join issue? — On the question of damage which is not recognisable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here, the emancipation of the slave, v. infra 53a. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק משום דאמי שפיר נאה הוא אומר שמעתא דלא שפירן תתרגם שמעתיה דא"ל לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו

the one<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Simeon. ');">⁸</span>

תניא נמי הכי העושה שדהו אפותיקי לאחר ושטפה נהר גובה משאר נכסים ואם אמר לו לא יהא לך פרעון אלא מזו אינו גובה משאר נכסים

holding [that in the eye of the law] this is genuine damage and the other that it is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the second has to give no bond, but the slave must do so in return for the benefit he has received in being emancipated. ');">⁹</span>

תניא אידך העושה שדהו אפותיקי לבע"ח ולכתובת אשה גובין משאר נכסים רשב"ג אומר בעל חוב גובה משאר נכסים אשה אינה גובה משאר נכסים שאין דרכה של אשה לחזר על בתי דינין:

Why did not 'Ulla accept the explanation of Rab? — He will say to you, Can you call the second his master?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah says, 'His master is compelled'. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין עובד את רבו יום אחד ואת עצמו יום אחד דברי ב"ה ב"ש אומרים תקנתם את רבו ואת עצמו לא תקנתם לישא שפחה אי אפשר שכבר חציו בן חורין

Why did not Rab adopt the explanation of 'Ulla? — He will say to you, Do you call the second the one who emancipates him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he was not his master, how could he be said to emancipate him? ');">¹¹</span> It has been stated: If a man makes a field of his security [for a debt] to another, and it is flooded by a river, Ammi Shapir Na'eh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So called on account of his beauty (v. n. 7) Rash. Nid. 19b. ');">¹²</span> says in the name of R. Johanan that he cannot recover his debt from the remaining property of the debtor. The father of Samuel, however, says that he can recover from the remainder of his property. Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Because he is Ammi Shapir Na'eh he makes pronouncements which are not commendable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A play on the word shapir, which means 'beautiful', 'commendable', as also does na'eh. ');">¹³</span> But we must explain his reported ruling to refer to the case where the debtor has said to the creditor: 'You shall not be able to recover save from this'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this reason he cannot recover from any other property. ');">¹⁴</span> It has been taught to the same effect: If a man makes a field of his security for a debt to another and it is flooded by a river, [the creditor] may recover from the remainder of his property. If, however, he said to him, 'You shall not be able to recover save from this', he cannot recover from the remainder of his property. Another [Baraitha] taught: If a man makes his field security for a debt to his creditor or for a woman's <i>kethubah</i>, they may recover from the remainder of his property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the debtor can sell this field and let the creditors recover from the rest of his property. ');">¹⁵</span> R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, however, says that [while] a creditor may so recover a woman cannot recover from the remainder, because it is not seemly for a woman to keep on coming to court.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And for this reason the husband specially made this field responsible, so that she should not have to go to law with the purchasers of his other fields, not knowing which had bought first and which last. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF FREE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Explained in the Gemara; v. n. 9 and p. 178, n. 9. ');">¹⁷</span> WORKS FOR HIS MASTER AND FOR HIMSELF ALTERNATE DAYS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'serves his master one day and himself one day'. ');">¹⁸</span> THIS WAS THE RULING OF BETH HILLEL. BETH SHAMMAI SAID: YOU HAVE MADE MATTERS RIGHT FOR THE MASTER BUT NOT FOR THE SLAVE. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MARRY A FEMALE SLAVE BECAUSE HE IS ALREADY HALF FREE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so an Israelite. ');">¹⁹</span>