Gittin, Daf Het, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud begins to discuss issues related to the manumission document of a slave, also called a get.

 

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן עֶבֶד שֶׁהֵבִיא גִּיטּוֹ וְכָתוּב בּוֹ עַצְמְךָ וּנְכָסַיי קְנוּיִין לָךְ עַצְמוֹ קָנָה נְכָסִים לֹא קָנָה

 

Our rabbis taught: A slave who brought his own get and it is written in it, You have acquired yourself and my property he has acquired himself but not the property.

 

This get, brought by the slave himself, is enough proof for the slave to go free. While he must make the declaration, he does not need to bring independent witnesses.

But he cannot take his master s property without witnesses.

 

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ כֹּל נְכָסַיי קְנוּיִין לָךְ מַהוּ

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁקָּנָה עַצְמוֹ קָנָה נְכָסִים

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בִּשְׁלָמָא עַצְמוֹ לִיקְנֵי מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגֵּט אִשָּׁה אֶלָּא נְכָסִים לָא לִיקְנֵי מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא

 

They asked the question: If it is written in it: You have acquired all my property what is the rule?

Abaye said: Since he acquires himself, he also acquires the property.

Rava said to him: It makes sense that he acquires himself, for this is like a woman s divorce document. But he should not be able to acquire the property as would be the case in upholding documents in general.

 

In this case, the get just said, You have acquired all of my property. Abaye says that since he acquires his own freedom, he also acquires his master s property. The two were included in one phrase and cannot be separated. But Rava protests why should we allow him to acquire his master s property. In general, we do require the signatures of witnesses to be confirmed whenever a document needs to be verified.

 

הֲדַר אָמַר אַבָּיֵי מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁלֹּא קָנָה נְכָסִים לֹא קָנָה עַצְמוֹ

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא בִּשְׁלָמָא נְכָסִים לָא לִיקְנֵי מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַקִּיּוּם שְׁטָרוֹת דְּעָלְמָא אֶלָּא עַצְמוֹ לִיקְנֵי מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגֵּט אִשָּׁה

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה עַצְמוֹ קָנָה נְכָסִים לֹא קָנָה

 

Abaye went back and said: Since he did not acquire the property, he has not acquired himself.

Rava said to him: It makes sense that he does not acquire the property, for this is like upholding documents in general. But he should be able to acquire himself as is the case in a woman s divorce.

Rather, Rava said: In both cases, he has acquired himself but he has not acquired the property.

 

Abaye now insists on consistency in the other direction. Since we have established that without verifying the signatures on the get he cannot take possession of the property, we must also hold that he does not acquire his own freedom.

But again Rava protests why should he not acquire his own freedom. After all, we allow women to bring their gittin and make the declaration. Why shouldn t a slave be allowed the same thing?

Rava answers by saying that indeed in both cases the slave acquires his freedom but not the property. The inconsistency does not seem to bother Rava rather what is important to him is that both halakhot make sense. A slave can acquire his freedom without verifying the get, but he cannot acquire his master s property without verification.