Gittin 82

Chapter 82

א בת חורין אי אפשר שכבר חציו עבד יבטל והלא לא נברא העולם אלא לפריה ורביה שנאמר (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על חצי דמיו וחזרו ב"ה להורות כדברי ב"ש:

1 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MARRY A FREE WOMAN BECAUSE HE IS HALF A SLAVE.1

ב <big>גמ׳</big> ת"ר המשחרר חצי עבדו רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה

2 SHALL HE THEN REMAIN UNMARRIED?2

ג אמר רבה מחלוקת בשטר דרבי סבר (ויקרא יט, כ) והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה

3 BUT WAS NOT THE WORLD ONLY MADE TO BE POPULATED, AS IT SAYS, HE CREATED IT NOT A WASTE, HE FORMED IT TO BE INHABITED?3

ד מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו

4 TO PREVENT ABUSES,4

ה ורבנן גמרי לה לה מאשה מה אשה חציה לא אף עבד נמי חציו לא אבל בכסף דברי הכל קנה פדויה ואינה פדויה

5 THEREFORE, HIS MASTER IS COMPELLED TO LIBERATE HIM AND HE GIVES HIM A BOND FOR HALF HIS PURCHASE PRICE. BETH HILLEL THEREUPON RETRACTED [THEIR OPINION AND] RULED LIKE BETH SHAMMAI.

ו לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר הקישא עדיפא ומר סבר גז"ש עדיפא

6 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If a man emancipates half his slave,5

ז לא דכולי עלמא גזירה שוה עדיפא ושאני הכא דאיכא למיפרך מה לאשה שכן אינה יוצאה בכסף תאמר בעבד שיוצא בכסף

7 Rabbi says that the latter becomes his own master to that extent, and the Rabbis say that he does not. Rabbah says: The dispute [between them relates only to the case] where [the master has made out] a deed of emancipation. Rabbi holds, [since it says] And she be not at all redeemed nor freedom given her,6

ח ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת בכסף דרבי סבר והפדה לא נפדתה פדויה ואינה פדויה ורבנן סברי דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם אבל בשטר דברי הכל לא קנה

8 we apply the same rule to a deed as to money.7

ט מיתיבי המשחרר חצי עבדו בשטר רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה תיובתא דרב יוסף תיובתא

9 Just as with money the slave can acquire either the half or the whole of himself,8

י (נימא) בשטר הוא דפליגי אבל בכסף לא פליגי לימא תיהוי תיובתא דרב יוסף בתרתי

10 so with a deed, he can acquire either the half or the whole of himself. The Rabbis, however, base their ruling on the occurrence of the word 'to her' [in connection both with a female slave] and with a [divorced] wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nor freedom given to her (lah) (Lev. XIX, 20), and And he write for her (lah) (Deut. XXIV, 1). The inference is drawn on the strength of the hermeneutical rule called gezerah shawah (v. Glos.). ');">9

יא אמר לך רב יוסף פליגי בשטר וה"ה בכסף והא דקא מיפלגי בשטר להודיעך כחו דרבי

11 Just as a wife cannot be divorced by halves, so a slave cannot acquire himself by halves. With money, however, both agree that he can so acquire himself. May we say that the point at issue between them [Rabbi and the Rabbis] is this, that [where a ruling may be based either on an analogy or a gezerah shawah]10

יב וליפלגי בכסף ולהודיעך כחן דרבנן כח דהיתירא עדיף ליה

12 one holds that preference is to be given to the analogy and the latter to the gezerah shawah? — No; both agree that preference is to be given to the gezerah shawah,11

יג ת"ש והפדה יכול לכל ת"ל לא נפדתה אי לא נפדתה יכול לכל ת"ל והפדה הא כיצד פדויה ואינה פדויה בכסף ובשוה כסף

13 but there is a special reason [for not doing so here, because the validity of the gezerah shawah] may be questioned thus: [This rule12

יד ואין לי אלא בכסף בשטר מנין ת"ל והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה ולהלן הוא אומר (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה ספר כריתות מה להלן בשטר אף כאן בשטר

14 may well apply to] a woman since she cannot be liberated by money, but how infer from her to a slave who is liberated by money?

טו אין לי אלא חציו בכסף או כולו בשטר חציו בשטר מנין ת"ל והפדה לא נפדתה או חופשה לא נתן לה מקיש שטר לכסף מה כסף בין כולו בין חציו אף שטר נמי בין כולו בין חציו

15 R. Joseph said that [the dispute between Rabbi and the Rabbis is where] the half-emancipation is made for money payment. Rabbi holds that the words 'redeeming she is not redeemed' indicate that she is [half] redeemed but not [wholly] redeemed, whereas the Rabbis hold that the Torah was here using an ordinary form of speech.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'speaking in the language of human beings.' i.e., using the words 'redeemed she was not redeemed,' to mean simply, 'she was not at all redeemed,' so that we cannot learn from these words that half-emancipation can be obtained by money payment. ');">13

טז בשלמא לרב יוסף בתר דאיתותב הא מני רבי היא אלא לרבה רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי

16 Where, however, [the half-emancipation is made by] a deed, both [according to R. Joseph] agree that the slave does not acquire [that half of himself].

יז אמר לך רבה אין רישא דברי הכל וסיפא רבי רב אשי אמר רבי היא

17 An objection was raised [from the following]: if a man emancipates half his slave with a deed, Rabbi says that the slave acquires that half of himself, while the Rabbis say that he does not acquire it. Is not this a refutation of R. Joseph? — It is. [And I infer from this Baraitha] that Rabbi and the Rabbis differ only where the emancipation is effected by a deed, but where it is effected by money payment they do not differ; in which case there will be a double refutation of R. Joseph?14

יח אלא מתניתין דקתני מי שחציו עבד וחציו בן חורין בשלמא לרבה מוקים לה בכסף ודברי הכל אלא לרב יוסף לימא רבי היא ולא רבנן אמר רבינא

18 — R. Joseph may reply: [What the Baraitha shows is] that they differ in regard to a deed, and this applies also to money payment; and the reason why their difference is mentioned only in regard to a deed is to show to what lengths Rabbi is prepared to go.15 But why should not their difference be mentioned with reference to money payment to show to what lengths the Rabbis are prepared to go?16 — It prefers [to note] the strength [of this conviction] where it leads to a permission.17 Come and hear: 'And redeemed': I might take this to mean 'entirely [redeemed]', therefore it says, 'she was not redeemed'. If 'she was not redeemed,' I might think it means 'not at all'? Therefore it says, 'And redeemed'. How then do we explain? She is redeemed and yet not redeemed, with money or with the equivalent of money. I only know so far that this is the case18 with money [payment]; how do know that it is so with a deed? It says, 'And redeemed she was not redeemed, nor was her freedom given to her,' and in another place it says, And he shall write for her a bill of divorcement.19 Just as there the woman is liberated by a deed, so here. I only know so far that a half-emancipation [can be effected] by money or a full one20 by a deed. How do I know that a half-emancipation [can be effected] by a deed? It says, 'And redeemed she be not redeemed or her freedom be not given to her.' The deed is here put on the same footing as money payment, [whence I conclude that] just as with money either a half or a full emancipation [can be effected], so with a deed. Now there is no difficulty here if we accept the view of R. Joseph after he was refuted:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after the first half of his statement, that Rabbi dues nut admit half emancipation with a deed, had been refuted, but he had defended the other half, that the Rabbis did not admit it for money. ');">21 this [Baraitha] agrees with Rabbi.22 But on the view of Rabbah23 we must say that the first half24 agrees with all and the second25 only with Rabbi?26 — To which Rabbah replies: That is so: the first half agrees with all and the second is according to Rabbi [only]. R. Ashi said: It follows Rabbi [throughout].27 But then, what of the Mishnah, which says, ONE WHO IS HALF A SLAVE AND HALF FREE? This presents no difficulty on the view of Rabbah, because he can suppose it to refer to [one who has been emancipated] by money payment, and it represents the view of all, but on the view of R. Joseph28 are we to say that it represents the view of Rabbi and not of the Rabbis? — Rabina replied:

Previous Chapter Next Chapter