Gittin 86

Chapter 86

א ואין אני קורא בה אשת שני מתים מה נפשך אי קדושי דראובן קדושין קדושי דשמעון לאו קדושין ואי קדושי דשמעון קדושין קדושי דראובן לאו קדושין
1 , and we do not place her in the category of the widow of two husbands.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Yeb. 31b, if a woman's husband dies without issue and his brother makes formal declaration betrothing her but dies before marrying her, a second brother may not marry her but must give her halizah. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב איתמר חציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין שנתקדשה לראובן ונשתחררה וחזרה ונתקדשה לשמעון רב יוסף בר חמא אמר ר"נ פקעו קדושי ראשון ר' זירא אמר רב נחמן גמרו קדושי ראשון
2 For whichever way you take it, if the affiancing of Reuben was effective then the affiancing of Simeon was not effective, and if the affiancing of Simeon was effective then the affiancing of Reuben was not effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If we suppose that a woman half slave and half free can be affianced, she was affianced to Reuben, and could not afterwards be affianced to Simeon. If again we suppose that such a woman cannot be affianced, she was not affianced to Reuben at all and therefore could be affianced to Simeon. In either case she was only affianced to one. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג א"ר זירא כוותיה דידי מסתברא דכתיב (ויקרא יט, כ) לא יומתו כי לא חופשה הא חופשה יומתו
3 It has been stated: If [a woman] who is half slave and half free was affianced to Reuben and then emancipated and became affianced to Simeon, R. Joseph said in the name of R. Nahman that [by means of the emancipation] the affiancing of the first is nullified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if we regard it as effective, because the emancipation makes her as it were a new creature. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד א"ל אביי ולתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל דאמר בשפחה כנענית המאורסת לעבד עברי הכי נמי דכי חופשה יומתו אלא מאי אית לך למימר שחופשה וחזרה ונתקדשה הכא נמי שחופשה וחזרה ונתקדשה
4 whereas R. Zera said in the name of R. Nahman that it was consummated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that if a man now has intercourse with her he is punishable with death and is not merely condemned to bring a guilt-offering, as laid down in Lev. XIX, 21. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה אמר רב הונא בר קטינא א"ר יצחק מעשה באשה אחת שחציה שפחה וחציה בת חורין וכפו את רבה ועשאה בת חורין כמאן כר' יוחנן בן ברוקה דאמר על שניהם הוא אומר (בראשית א, כח) ויברך אותם אלהים ויאמר וגו' פרו ורבו ומלאו וגו'
5 Said R. Zera: My view is the more probable since it is written, They shall not be put to death for she us not freed;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לא מנהג הפקר נהגו בה:
6 which implies that if she has been freed they are to be put to death. Said Abaye to him: And on the view of the Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael who said that [the verse speaks] of a Canaanitish bondwoman who is affianced to a Hebrew slave, are we to say that in this case also if she has been freed they are to be put to death?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This cannot be, seeing that, as a bondwoman, she was never properly affianced. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים או לחוצה לארץ יצא בן חורין:
7 What of course you have to assume in that case is that after she was freed she became affianced again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And then you can infer from the text that if she was freed they are to be put to death (if she thereafter commits adultery). ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר המוכר עבדו לעובדי כוכבים יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור מרבו ראשון אמר רשב"ג בד"א שלא כתב עליו אונו אבל כתב עליו אונו זהו שחרורו
8 Here too then we speak of a case where she was freed and became affianced again.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is the betrothal of the second which is effective and not of the first. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ט מאי אונו אמר רב ששת דכתב ליה הכי לכשתברח ממנו אין לי עסק בך:
9 R. Huna b. Kattina said: There was an actual case of a woman who was half slave and half free whose master they compelled to liberate her. Whose authority did they follow? — That of R. Johanan b. Baroka, who said: In reference to both of them [man and woman] the verse says. And God blessed then and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. I, 28. This shows that marriage is as much incumbent on the woman as on the man. ');"><sup>9</sup></span>
י ת"ר לוה עליו מן העובד כוכבים כיון שעשה לו עובד כוכבים נמוסו יצא לחירות מאי נמוסו אמר רב הונא בר יהודה נשקי
10 — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: This is not so; [the reason was that] they used her for immoral purposes.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 382. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יא מתיב רב ששת האריסין והחכירות ואריסי בתי אבות ועובד כוכבים שמשכן שדהו לישראל אע"פ שעשה לו נמוסו פטורה מן המעשר
11 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SELLS HIS SLAVE TO A HEATHEN OR OUTSIDE THE LAND [OF ISRAEL] HE GAINS HIS FREEDOM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he escapes from his new master or if his first master is ordered by the Beth din to redeem him. V. infra. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יב ואי ס"ד נשקי שדה בת נשקי היא אלא א"ר ששת זמן
12 <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis have taught: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he gains his freedom, but he [still] requires a deed of emancipation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In order to marry an Israelitish woman. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
יג קשיא זמן אזמן ל"ק הא דמטא זמניה הא דלא מטא זמניה
13 from his first master. Said Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel: This is the rule if he did not make out a deed of oni.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prob. [G] 'sale'. ');"><sup>13</sup></span>
יד אלא גבי עבד דמטא זמניה צריכא למימר אלא אידי ואידי דלא מטא זמניה ול"ק הא לגופא והא לפירא
14 If, however, he made out a deed of oni for him, this constitutes his emancipation. What is meant by oni? — R. Shesheth said: If he writes in it to this effect, viz., 'If you run away from him, I have no claim on you.' Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man borrows money from a heathen giving his slave as pledge, so soon as the heathen has fixed' to him his nimus, he gains his freedom [if he escapes]. What is meant by 'his nimus'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prob. [G] lit., 'law', 'custom', i.e., what the law or custom requires. v. Jast. [Buchler REJ, XLVIII, p. 32ff., brilliantly connects the words with the [G] = 'enjoyment of possession', an act conferring 'ownership'.] ');"><sup>14</sup></span> — R. Huna b. Judah said: It means, his collar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hung round the neck of a slave to show to whom he belongs. Al. 'bracelet', 'seal'. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> R. Shesheth raised an objection [against this explanation from the following]: Metayers,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., Israelites who lease land in Eretz Israel from heathens for a fixed proportion of the produce. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> tenants,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who lease land for a fixed payment in kind. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> and hereditary metayers, and a heathen who has mortgaged his field to an Israelite, even though he did fix to him a nimus, are not liable to tithe.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because in each case the land still belongs to the heathen proprietor, and this action does not signify Jewish ownership. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> If now you assume that nimus means a chain, can a chain be applied to a field? No, said R. Shesheth; what it means is a time limit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the time within which the heathen should have paid his debt. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> Then the time limit has two opposite effects?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'there is a contradiction from " time"="" to="" "time"'.="" in="" the="" case="" of="" field="" expiry="" time="" does="" not="" remove="" it="" from="" ownership="" first="" proprietor,="" slave="" does.="" ');"=""><sup>20</sup></span> — There is no contradiction; in the one case [of the slave] we suppose the period to have terminated, in the other not. In the case of a slave whose period has expired do we need to be told [that he gains his freedom]? — No. Both refer to the case where the period has not expired, and still there is no contradiction, [since in] the one case the body [is transferred and in] the other only the increment.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of the slave the body itself is sold at the expiry of the time (if the debt is not paid), and since the master transgressed a regulation of the Sages by selling his slave to a heathen they penalised him by cancelling his ownership even before the expiry of the time. But the field itself is not sold (to the Israelite) if the loan is not repaid at the expiry of the time, only the increment, and therefore it does not become liable to tithe. ');"><sup>21</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter