Gittin 88

Chapter 88

א ואם תימצי לומר כוון מלאכתו במועד ומת לא קנסו בנו אחריו משום דלא עבד איסורא הכא מאי לדידיה קנסו רבנן והא ליתיה או דילמא לממוניה קנסו רבנן והא איתיה

1 If again you point [to the rule] that if a man prepares to do work during the half-festival<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Work, the neglect or postponement of which would involve definite loss, was allowed to be done on the intermediate days of Passover and Tabernacles. If, however, a man deliberately brought a piece of work before the festival into such a condition that it would be spoilt if not finished during the festival, he was not allowed to finish it. ');">1

ב אמר ליה תניתוה שדה שנתקווצה בשביעי' תזרע למוצאי שביעית נטייבה או נדיירה לא תזרע למוצאי שביעית

2 and then dies, his son is not penalised after him, the reason may be because he did not actually do anything forbidden. What do we say here?2

ג וא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא נקטינן הטיבה ומת בנו זורעה אלמא לדידי' קנסו רבנן לבריה לא קנסו רבנן

3 Did the Rabbis penalise only the man but he no longer exists, or did they penalise his money and this does exist?3

ד אמר אביי נקטינן טימא טהרות של חבירו ומת לא קנסו רבנן בנו אחריו מ"ט היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק וקנסא דרבנן היא לדידיה קנסוהו רבנן לבריה לא קא קנסו רבנן:

4 — He replied: [The answer is to be found in] what you have already learnt: 'If a field has been cleared of thorns in the seventh year it can be sown on the expiration of the seventh year. If it has been manured or if cattle have been turned out4

ה או לחוצה לארץ: תנו רבנן המוכר עבדו לחוצה לארץ יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור מרבו שני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר פעמי' יצא ופעמים לא יצא כיצד אמר פלוני עבדי מכרתיהו לפלוני אנטוכי לא יצא לאנטוכי שבאנטוכיא יצא

5 there in the seventh year, it must not be sown at the expiration of the seventh year';5

ו והא תניא מכרתיהו לאנטוכי יצא לאנטוכי השרוי בלוד לא יצא

6 and [commenting on this] R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: We lay down that if he manured it and then died, his son may sow it. From this [we may infer] that the Rabbis penalised him but not his son.

ז לא קשיא הא דאית ליה ביתא בארץ ישראל הא דאית ליה אושפיזא בארץ ישראל

7 Abaye said: We have it on tradition that if a man renders unclean stuff belonging to another which he desired to keep ritually clean, and then dies, [the Rabbis] have not penalised his son after him. What is the reason? Damage which is not perceptible6

ח בעי רבי ירמיה בן בבל שנשא אשה בארץ ישראל והכניסה לו עבדים ושפחות ודעתו לחזור מהו

8 is not legally counted as damage [according to the Torah], and the penalty for it is Rabbinical in origin, and the Rabbis penalised the man who does the damage, but they did not penalise his son.

ט תיבעי למ"ד הדין עמה תיבעי למ"ד הדין עמו

9 OR ABROAD. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man sells his slave abroad, he becomes free but he requires a deed of emancipation from his second master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Sometimes he becomes free and sometimes he does not become free. For instance, if the master says, I have sold my slave So-and-so to So-and-so an Antiochian, he does not become free.7

י תיבעי למאן דאמר הדין עמה כיון דהדין עמה כדידה דמו או דילמא כיון דמשעבדי ליה לפירא כדידיה דמו

10 If he says, To an Antiochian in Antioch, he does become free'. But has it not been taught: '[If a man says,] I have sold him to an Antiochian, he becomes free, but if he says, to an Antiochian living in Lydda,8

יא ותיבעי למאן דאמר הדין עמו כיון דהדין עמו כדידיה דמו או דלמא כיון דלא קני ליה לגופיה כדידה דמו תיקו:

11 he does not become free'? — There is no contradiction: in the one case we suppose he has a house in Eretz Israel, in the other that he has only a place of stay in Eretz Israel.9

יב אמר ר' אבהו שנה לי רבי יוחנן עבד שיצא אחר רבו לסוריא ומכרו שם רבו יצא לחירות והתני ר' חייא איבד את זכותו

12 R. Jeremiah put the question: If a Babylonian [Jew] marries a woman from Eretz Yisrael and she brings him in<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As that part of her dowry known as the 'property of the iron flock,' (Zon barzel, v. Glos) which the husband took over from her at a fixed valuation which was to be returned to her in case of his death or a divorce. ');">10

יג לא קשיא כאן שדעת רבו לחזור כאן שאין דעת רבו לחזור

13 male and female slaves and his intention is to return [to Babylon], what is the rule?11

יד והתניא יוצא העבד אחר רבו לסוריא יוצא לא סגי דלא נפיק והתנן ואין הכל מוציאין

14 We have to ask this whether we accept the view that the husband has the right, or whether we accept the view that the wife has the right.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In case if a divorce, there is a difference of opinion among the authorities whether she has the right to claim the return of the original property, or whether he has the right to make her the money payment stipulated, v. Yeb. 66b. ');">12

טו אלא יצא העבד אחר רבו לסוריא ומכרו רבו שם אם דעת רבו לחזור כופין אותו ואם אין דעת רבו לחזור אין כופין אותו

15 We have to ask it on the view that the wife has the right. Shall we say that since she has the right they are regarded as hers,13

טז אמר רב ענן שמעית מיניה דמר שמואל תרתי חדא הך ואידך דאיתמר המוכר שדהו בשנת היובל עצמה רב אמר מכורה ויוצאה ושמואל אמר אינה מכורה כל עיקר

16 or perhaps since they are made over to him as far as the increment14

יז בחדא הדרי זביני ובחדא לא הדרי זביני ולא ידענא הי מינייהו

17 is concerned they are regarded as his?15

יח אמר רב יוסף ניחזי אנן מדתני בברייתא המוכר עבדו לחו"ל יצא לחירות וצריך גט שחרור מרבו שני שמע מינה קנייה רבו שני ולא הדרי זביני וכי אמר שמואל התם אינה מכורה ומעות חוזרין

18 The question has equally to be asked on the view that the husband has the right. Seeing that he has the right, are they to be regarded as his, or since he does not acquire the body16 are they still regarded as hers? — This must stand over. R. Abbahu said: R. Johanan taught me, If a servant accompanies17 his master to Syria18 and his master sells him there, he becomes free. But R. Hiyya teaches that he loses his right?19 There is no contradiction: in the one case we presume that his master intended to return,20 in the other that he did not intend to return, as it has been taught: 'A slave must leave Eretz Israel with his master for Syria … Must leave, you say? Assuredly he need not leave, seeing that we have learnt, 'Not all may take out.'21 What [you mean is]: 'if a slave accompanies his master22 from Eretz Israel to Syria and his master sells him there, if it was his master's intention to return he is compelled to emancipate him,23 but if it was not his intention to return, he is not compelled.' R. 'Anan said: I was told by Mar Samuel two things, one in relation to this point,24 and one in relation to the statement, If a man sells his field in the Jubilee year, Rab says that it is sold but must be immediately returned,25 whereas Samuel says that it is not sold in the first instance. In one case [he said] the purchase money is returned and in the other case it is not returned,26 and I do not know which is which. Said R. Joseph: Let us see.27 Since it is stated in the Baraitha that if a man sells his slave abroad he becomes free and requires a deed of emancipation from his second master, we infer that the second master became his legal owner and that the purchase money is not to be returned,28 and therefore that when Samuel said in the other case [of the field] that the field is not sold in the first instance, the money is returned.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter