Gittin 40bגיטין מ׳ ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Gittin 40b'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
40bמ׳ ב

ומקרקיש ליה זוזי וכתב ליה גיטא דחירותא על שמיה

and the slave should jingle the dinars before him. The child will want the money and he will decide to emancipate him, and they should write him a bill of emancipation in his name.

ת"ר האומר עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין עשוי בן חורין הרי הוא בן חורין הרי הוא בן חורין

§ The Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I made so-and-so my slave a freeman, or: My slave was made a freeman, or: Behold he is a freeman, in all of these cases he is a freeman as a result.

אעשנו בן חורין רבי אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה א"ר יוחנן וכולן בשטר:

If he says: I will make him a freeman, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The slave has acquired himself, and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired himself. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: And all of these halakhot apply only when the formulation was written in a document that was transferred to the slave. A verbal statement alone is not effective in emancipating the slave.

ת"ר האומר נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני נתונה לפלוני הרי היא שלו הרי היא שלו אתננה לפלוני ר"מ אומר קנה וחכ"א לא קנה א"ר יוחנן וכולן בשטר

Similarly, the Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I gave such and such a field to so-and-so as a gift; or: This field is given to so-and-so; or: Behold it is his, in all of these cases it belongs to the recipient. If he says: I will give it to so-and-so, then Rabbi Meir says: That person has acquired the field. And the Rabbis say: He has not acquired it. With regard to this, Rabbi Yoḥanan also says: And all of these halakhot apply only when the formulation was written in a document that was transferred to the recipient. A verbal statement alone is not effective in transferring the field.

ת"ר האומר עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין והוא אומר לא עשאני חיישינן שמא זיכה לו ע"י אחר כתבתי ונתתי לו והוא אומר לא כתב לי ולא נתן לי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי

The Sages taught that with regard to one who says: I made so-and-so my slave a freeman, and the slave says: He did not make me a freeman, then we are concerned that perhaps the master transferred the slave’s emancipation to him through another person without the slave being aware of this, and the slave is assumed to be emancipated. However, if the master said: I wrote and I gave to him a bill of manumission, and the slave says: He did not write it for me and he did not give me a bill of manumission, then he remains a slave, as the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to the testimony of one hundred witnesses. Just as the testimony of witnesses is deemed credible by the court, so is the admission of a litigant deemed credible.

האומר נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני והוא אומר לא נתן לי חיישינן שמא זיכה לו ע"י אחר כתבתי ונתתי לו והוא אומר לא כתב ולא נתן לי הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי

Similarly, with regard to one who says: I gave such and such a field to so-and-so, and the supposed recipient says: He did not give me it, then we are concerned that perhaps he transferred the field to him through another person without the recipient being aware of this, and the field becomes his. However, if one says: I wrote and gave to him a document stating that I am giving him the field, and the supposed recipient says: He did not write it and did not give me a document stating that he is giving me the field, then he does not take possession of the field, as the legal status of the admission of a litigant is similar to the testimony of one hundred witnesses.

מי אוכל פירות רב חסדא אמר נותן אוכל פירות ורבה אמר משלשין את הפירות

The Gemara asks: In this case, where the original owner states that he gave the field to his friend, and the supposed recipient states that he did not receive it, who consumes the produce of the field? Rav Ḥisda says: The giver consumes the produce, as the field remains in his possession, and Rabba says: The produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

ולא פליגי הא באבא הא בברא:

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree. Rather, they are referring to different cases: This case pertains to the father, the one who is the supposed recipient of the field. As long as he is alive and states that he did not receive the field, the produce is consumed by the original owner. That case pertains to the son of the supposed recipient of the field, who claims that his father did not receive it. Since it is possible that the father received it without the son’s knowledge, the produce is deposited with a third party until it can be determined who the rightful owner is.

מתני׳ עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי לאחרים ושיחררו שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום אלא מפני תיקון העולם כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין וכותב שטר על דמיו רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אינו כותב אלא משחרר:

MISHNA: In the case of a slave whose master set him aside as designated repayment [apoteiki] of a debt to other people from whom he borrowed money, and afterward he emancipated him, then according to the letter of the law the slave bears no responsibility for the debt. However, for the betterment of the world, his master is forced to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a promissory note for his value to pay the debt to the creditor. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: He does not write a promissory note; he only emancipates the slave.

גמ׳ עבד שעשאו רבו אפותיקי ושיחררו: מי שחררו אמר רב רבו ראשון שורת הדין אין העבד חייב כלום לרבו שני

GEMARA: The mishna taught the case of a slave whose master set him aside as designated repayment of a debt to other people and afterward emancipated him. The Gemara clarifies: Who emancipated him? Rav said: His first master emancipated him, and the mishna is teaching as follows: According to the letter of the law, the slave is not obligated to serve his second master at all.

כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שיעבוד אלא מפני תיקון העולם שמא ימצאנו בשוק

Why does he not have to serve the second master? This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava, as Rava says: Consecration of an item to the Temple, becoming subject to the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon an item. Therefore, in the case of the mishna, the slave should be a freeman after his master emancipates him, and the creditor may not take possession of him. However, for the betterment of the world, lest the creditor will find the slave in the market