משנה: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין. אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת שְׁבוּיִים. וְאֵין לוֹקְחִין סְפָרִים תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת מִן הַגּוֹיִים יוֹתֵר עַל כְּדֵי דְמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. MISHNAH: If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles or outside the Land, the slave gains his freedom147Since a slave is required to obey all of the biblical prohibitions imposed on Jews, a sale to a Gentile is equivalent to the slave’s removal from Jewish practice. Also, there are more commandments to be observed in the Land than abroad. In both cases, it is a rabbinic decree that the master has to buy the slave back and then formally manumit him. (In Sifry Deut. 259, this is connected to Deut. 23:16–17.). One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate148If the kidnap victims were sold as slaves on the open market. If it were known that Jews be ready to ransom their co-religionists for any price, no Jew would be safe from kidnapping. because of the public good. One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good; Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims149The majority holds that one never tries to free kidnap victims without paying because then the robbers would put their next victims in chains and otherwise mistreat them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that one may not try to steal the kidnap victims if one cannot free all of them in the hand of a group of kidnappers, because those left behind then would be mistreated. He does not fear an adverse reaction in a larger context.. One does not buy Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot from Gentiles for more than their worth because of the public good150Gentiles should not get the impression that stealing Jewish cult objects might be a particularly profitable business..
הלכה: הַמּוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם כול׳. לְגוֹי אֲפִילוּ בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. מִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. רַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו וְהַשֵּׁינִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ אֲפִילוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל. נֵימַר. אִם יָדַע רַבּוֹ הַשֵּׁנִי שְׁנֵיהֶן נוֹתְנִין אֶת דָּמָיו. וְאִם לָאו הָרִאשׁוֹן נוֹתֵן דָּמָיו וְהַשֵּׁנִי מְשַׁחְרְרוֹ. אֲנִי פְלוֹנִי בֶּן פְּלוֹנִי מוֹכֵר אֶת עַבְדִּי פְלוֹנִי אַנְטִיוֹכֶי. יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. מִשֶּׁהוּא בְלוֹד לֹא יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. תַּנֵּי. יוֹצֵא עֶבֶד עִם רַבּוֹ בְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. לְפִיכָךְ אִם מְכָרוֹ לְשָׁם מָכוּר. בָּא מֲחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ עַל מְנָת לַחֲזוֹר כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְמָחָר לַחֲזוֹר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁלֹּא לַחֲזוֹר אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לַחֲזוֹר. בָּרַח מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ רַשַׁאי לְהַחֲזִירוֹ. בָּרַח מֵאֶרֶץ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ. רִבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חִייָה רֹבָא אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה אָמַר. מוּתָּר. רִבִּי מָרִינוֹס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה רַבָּה אָמַר. אָסוּר. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. לֹא פְלִיגִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּלָמוּד לִבְרוֹחַ לְשָׁם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אָסוּר. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ לָמוּד לִבְרוֹחַ לְשָׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר מוּתָּר. בְּיָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ מִשָּׁם. וּמָאן דְּאָמַר אָסוּר. בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַהֲבִיאוֹ מִשָּׁם. HALAKHAH: “If somebody sells his slave to Gentiles,” etc. To a Gentile even in the Land. Who frees him? His original owner pays for him and the second frees him151This sentence and the next should be switched since if the slave was sold to a Gentile it is obvious that the Jewish owner has to manumit the slave; Mishnah 1:5 states that the manumission of a Jewish slave by the rules of a Gentile court is invalid. The original text probably was close to Tosephta ‘Avodah Zarah 3:18: “If somebody sells his slave to a place outside the Land he gains his freedom and the second master has to write him the bill of manumission.” The Babli, 44b, infers from the Tosephta that the sale in itself is valid, otherwise the buyer would not have the power to manumit the slave.. “Or outside the Land,” even to a Jew. Let us say that if the second owner knew152That the sale was illegal by rabbinic rules., both of them split the price153The seller has to repay only half the sale price.; otherwise the first pays for him and the second frees him. “I X ben Y sold my slave Z to Antiochia”, he gains his freedom. But if he is in Lydda, he did not gain his freedom154This is much clearer in the Tosephta, loc. cit., in the name of Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel: “ ‘I X ben Y sold my slave to Antiochia’, he gains his freedom; ‘to Z the Antiochian who dwells in Lydda’ he does not gain his freedom.” This is qualified in the Babli, 44b, by the statement that the Antiochian has to own an apartment in Lydda.. It was stated: A slave goes outside the Land with his master155In the Tosephta and the Babli, this is restricted to Syria. There is no indication in the Yerushalmi of any restriction on a person to take his slave with him on a trip as a valet.. Therefore, if he sold him there, he is sold156Since the slave was legally taken on the trip. The sale is only illegal if contracted in the Land.. If he157If a diaspora Jew comes to the Land for a visit, his slave cannot refuse to return with him. But if he came to immigrate, the slave acquires the rights of residence. A slightly garbled version is in the Tosephta. came from outside the Land to the Land with the intention to return, one forces him to return. With the intention not to return, one does not force him to return. If he fled from outside the Land to the Land, he158The owner of the slave can take him back. (Deut. 23:16,17 refers to the slave of a Gentile owner. may return him. If he fled from the Land to outside the Land, Rebbi Joshia in the name of the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya said, it is permigtted159To forcibly return the slave to the Land.. The great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is permitted. Rebbi Marinos, the son of the great Rebbi Hoshaia said, it is forbidden160The question arises how the son can disagree with his father.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he is used to flee there. But he who says, it is forbidden, if he is not used to flee there. Rebbi Yose said, they do not disagree. He who says, it is permitted, if he can return him from there; but he who says, it is forbidden, if he cannot return him from there161In that case, the slave gained his freedom when the owner gave up hope to recover him; cf. Note 88..
נִיתְנֵי. וְאִם הִתְנָה עִמּוֹ מוּתָּר. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּגְדוֹלִים. בִּקְטַנִּים. נִיתְנֵי עִם רַבְּהוֹן. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּשֶׁהָיָה רַבּוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל. הָיָה רַבּוֹ גּוֹי. רִבִּי טֶבֶלָא זְבִין עַבְדֵּיהּ וּמַתְנֵי עִם רַבְּהוֹן. רִבִּי יִצְחָק דַּהֲבָן הֲווֹן לֵיהּ עַבְדֵּיהּ עָֽרְקִין לִבְנוֹתְהוֹן. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי אִימִּי וְהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ. אוֹנִי אָסוּר. אַנְטִרִיס שָׁרֵי. אפָּרָכוֹרֵים צְרִיכָה. אַמְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָדָא עָֽרְקַת לְקִלִּיסִייָא. אָתָא שָׁאַל לְרִבִּי מָנָא וְהוֹרֵי לֵיהּ כְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אוֹנִי אָסוּר. אַנְטִרִיס שָׁרֵי. אפָּרָכוֹרֵים צְרִיכָה. There could be terms162If the slave was bought on condition that he could be resold outside the Land, the deal might be valid.. If he entered into terms with him163If the condition was stipulated with the slave, it is valid., it is permitted. That means, with adults. With minors, the terms can be with their masters. That is, if the master was a Jew. If he was Gentile? Rebbi Tevele sold his slave and entered into terms with his master164This could even be a sale within the Land to a Gentile if the buyer guaranteed that the slave could continue following Jewish law, keeping the Sabbath and eating kosher.. Rebbi Isaac the goldsmith had slaves who fled to Bnoton165Name of an unidentified place, probably a corruption. As a noun, the word means “their daughters”.. He came and asked166When the slaves were caught outside the Land, he asked how he could dispose of them there within the rules. The explanation of this passage follows J. N. Epstein, Tarbiz 8 (1937) 316–318, with a note by I. Ostersetzer, Tarbiz 9 (1938) 395–397. Rebbi Immi who instructed him that a sales contract167Greek ὠνή “sales contract, purchase”. The outright sale of the slave outside the Land is forbidden. is forbidden, a loan for use168Greek ἀντίχρησις “loan for use,” reading אנטיכריס for אנטריס, which is possible in such a heavily Babylonized text. An antichretic loan is a loan in which the creditor obtains the use of the mortgaged object, and the rental fee, instead of being paid to the borrower, is used to amortize the loan (cf. Taubenschlag, Note 104, p. 218, on antichretic loans of slaves.) Since the slave remains the property of the owner, there is no sale. J. N. Epstein points out that R. Immi in Baba Meṣi‘a 5:3 (10b l.20) explicitly states that antichretic mortgages are valid and do not violate interest prohibitions. (In an earlier article, Epstein had read ἀντίδοσις “exchange”.) is permitted, a cession169Greek παραχώρησις “cession, surrender, assignment.” Rabbinic law accepts the division between possession (possessio) and ownership (dominium) found in Ptolemaic and Roman law. Parachoresis means handing over the pledge (in this case, the slave) by the debtor to the creditor for possession to be turned into ownership if the debtor fails to repay the loan. It is now stated that the sale of the slave in form of a fictitious chattel mortgage (when the owner of the slave has no intention to repay the sum he received) is of questionable character; it would be valid if the owner had the intention of repaying the loan and taking back his slave since, as antichresis shows, the (temporary) transfer of possessions without transfer of ownership is perfectly legal. Cf. Taubenschlag, pp. 172,316. (In an earlier article, Epstein had read ἐπίχειρον “wages, pay of manual labor”.) is questionable. The slave girl of Rebbi Abba bar Ada fled to Cilicia. He came and asked Rebbi Mana, who instructed him following Rebbi Immi: a sales contract is forbidden, a loan for use is permitted, a cession is questionable.
אֵין פּוֹדִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין יוֹתֵר מִדְּמֵיהֶן מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשְּׁבוּיִין. דְּלָא יְהַוּוֹן קְטָרִינוֹן. וְאֵין מַבְרִיחִין אֶת הַשְּׁבוּיִין מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. “One does not ransom kidnap victims for more than the going rate148If the kidnap victims were sold as slaves on the open market. If it were known that Jews be ready to ransom their co-religionists for any price, no Jew would be safe from kidnapping. because of the public good. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, because of the welfare of the kidnap victims.” That they should not be put in chains149The majority holds that one never tries to free kidnap victims without paying because then the robbers would put their next victims in chains and otherwise mistreat them. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel holds that one may not try to steal the kidnap victims if one cannot free all of them in the hand of a group of kidnappers, because those left behind then would be mistreated. He does not fear an adverse reaction in a larger context.. “One does not smuggle kidnap victims out because of the public good.”
תַּנֵּי. גּוֹי מוֹכֵר סְפָרִים תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת אָסוּר לִיקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. וְהָא תַנֵּי. מַעֲשֶׂה בְגוֹי אֶחָד בְּצַיְדָּן שֶׁהָיָה מוֹכֵר תְּפִילִין וּמְזוּזוֹת. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים וְאָֽמְרוּ. מוּתָּר לִיקַּח מִמֶּנּוּ. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נָתָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲמָא בַּר חֲנִינָה. בְּגוֹי שֶׁחָזַר לְסוּרוֹ הֲוָה. It was stated: “It is prohibited to buy from a Gentile who sells Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot170Since probably he is a fence. Babylonian sources in theory (Babli 45b, Tosephta Avodah Zarah 3:6) permit to buy from the Gentile if the writing follows all established rules, in practice disapprove, 45b..” But was it not stated171Babli 45b, Tosephta Avodah Zarah 3:7. This Tosephta is a polemic against the Yerushalmi baraita.: “It happened that a Gentile in Sidon sold phylacteries and mezuzot. The case came before the Sages who said that it was permitted to buy from him.” That one was a Gentile who reverted to his error172He was a proselyte who had learned to write Jewish sacred texts. Since the status of being Jewish cannot be lost, when he reverted to Gentile ways he remained a Jew. Therefore, he is entitled to write these texts; he is not a fence. The Babli has the same explanation, 45b..