Gittin, Daf Tet, Part 1

 

Introduction

This sugya continues the discussion of a slave who delivers a document of manumission in which is written, You have acquired all my property. According to Rava, the slave acquires himself, i.e. he goes free. But he does not acquire the rest of his master s property.

 

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה לְרָבָא כְּמַאן כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר פָּלְגִינַן דִּיבּוּרָא דִּתְנַן הַכּוֹתֵב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין שִׁיֵּיר קַרְקַע כָּל שֶׁהוּא לֹא יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר לְעוֹלָם הוּא בֶּן חוֹרִין עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר כֹּל נְכָסַיי נְתוּנִין לִפְלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵרִיבּוֹא שֶׁבָּהֶן

 

Rav Ada bar Matana said to Rava: According to whom? According to R. Shimon who said that we can split someone s words, as it was taught: One who assigns in writing his possessions to his slave, [the slave] thereby goes free. If he reserved for himself any land, however small, he does not become free. Rabbi Shimon says: he always becomes free, unless [the master] says: Behold, all my goods are given to so-and-so my slave, with the exception of one ten-thousandth part of them.

 

Rav Ada bar Matana points out that according to Rava we can split up the master s words the slave goes free, but the rest of the property does not go to the slave. This accords with Rabbi Shimon (in Mishnah Peah 3:8). If the master reserves land for himself, we can assume, according to R. Shimon that if the master states that he is retaining some land for himself, we don t assume that this land includes the slave. The slave does not go free only if the master does not specify which piece of his property he is retaining (see my commentary on this mishnah).

 

וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקִּילֵּס רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֶת רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר דְּתַנְיָא כְּשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה שְׂפָתַיִם יִשָּׁק מֵשִׁיב דְּבָרִים נְכוֹחִים

 

But did not Rav Yosef bar Minyomi say in the name of Rav Nachman: Even though R. Yose praised R. Shimon, the halakhah follows Rabbi Meir, as it was taught: When they stated these matters in front of Rabbi Yose, he stated about them the following verse, He kisses the lips that give the right answer (Proverbs 24:26).

 

The problem with Rava s statement is that the halakhah does not follow R. Shimon, it follows R. Meir (the anonymous opinion). Rabbi Yose praised R. Shimon but the halakhah does not accord with him.

 

וּמִי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן הָכִי וְהָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁכָּתַב כׇּל נְכָסָיו לְעַבְדּוֹ וְעָמַד חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד חוֹזֵר בַּנְּכָסִים מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע הוּא וְאֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר בָּעֶבֶד שֶׁהֲרֵי יָצָא עָלָיו שֵׁם בֶּן חוֹרִין

But did Rav Nachman say this: Did not Rav Yosef bar Minyomi say in the name of Rav Nachman: A dying person who assigned all of his property to his slave, and then recovered, can change his mind about the property but not about the slave: He can change his mind about the property because this is the gift of a dying person. But he cannot change his mind about the slave, because the slave has already been known as a free person.

 

The Talmud now cites a contradictory statement by Rav Nachman, one in which we do allow for the splitting of words accepting one half of a person s statement, but not the other half. The statement refers to a dying person who gives all his property to his slave. In such a case, if the dying person recovers, he can take his property back. This is always the rule with regard to a gift made by a dying person. However, the slave, once known as a free person, cannot go back to being a slave.

 

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם דְּלָאו כְּרוּת גִּיטָּא הוּא

 

Rather, Rav Ashi said: The reason there is that this is not a document that fully severs the relationship with the slave.

 

Rav Ashi offers a resolution to this last difficulty. When Rav Nachman stated that the halakhah was like R. Meir, it was not because he holds that we cannot divide a person s words. It is because that statement did not definitively sever the relationship with the slave, since the master retained some property and that property may include the slave.

To summarize, Rava can hold like R. Meir if the master retains some property and we are not sure if he really freed his slave, the slave remains a slave. This is not a severance of the relationship. But if the master writes, All of my property is given to you the slave goes free because we know he meant to free his slave. The slave does not get the property because we need to affirm the signatures on the document.