Gittin, Daf Yod Aleph, Part 5

 

Introduction

The topic of this mishnah is a man who instructs a messenger to give a get to his wife, or a writ of emancipation to his slave, and then changes his mind or dies before the document is delivered.

 

מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר תֵּן גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי וּשְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי אִם רָצָה לַחֲזוֹר בִּשְׁנֵיהֶן יַחְזוֹר דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בְּגִיטֵּי נָשִׁים אֲבָל לֹא בְּשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים לְפִי שֶׁזָּכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו וְאֵין חָבִין לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו

שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת עַבְדּוֹ רַשַּׁאי וְשֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי

אָמַר לָהֶם וַהֲרֵי הוּא פּוֹסֵל אֶת עַבְדּוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא פּוֹסֵל אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ

אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָינוֹ

 

If a man says: Give this get to my wife or this writ of emancipation to my slave , if he wants he may change his mind on either document, the words of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages say: he may change his mind in the case of the get but not in the case of the writ of emancipation, since a benefit may be conferred on a person not in his presence but a disability may be imposed on him only in his presence; for if he does not want to maintain his slave he is permitted, but if he does not want to maintain his wife he is not permitted.

Rabbi Meir said to them: behold, he disqualifies his slave from eating terumah [by emancipating him] in the same way that he disqualifies his wife [by divorcing her]?

They said to him: [the slave is disqualified] because he is the priest s property.

 

According to Rabbi Meir, the husband may change his mind after instructing an agent to give a get to his wife or a writ of emancipation to his slave. The Sages disagree and say that he may change his mind only with regard to the get. He may not change his mind with regard to the freeing of the slave. The reason is that there is a principle that one may confer benefit on another person not in that person s presence, but one may not confer a disability on a person not in that person s presence. In our situation, the woman/slave is not in the husband/master s presence at the moment and that is why the husband is instructing a messenger. For the woman, divorce is a considerable disability for she loses her guaranteed source of income. Should the husband not want to provide maintenance for his wife (food, clothing etc.) he does not have the right to do so. He may not say to her, take whatever income you make and use it for your own maintenance. In contrast, the slave has no such guarantee. A master may say to his slave that he must provide his own maintenance. Note that a master may not tell his slave to work for the master and the master will not provide maintenance. The master may only stop providing maintenance, if he allows the slave to work for his own maintenance. Nevertheless, the slave s income is not guaranteed as is that of the wife, therefore it is a total disability for him not to be freed. Since this is so, the master may not retract freeing his slave once he has told a messenger to do so.

Rabbi Meir responds that in some ways freeing a slave is a disability and therefore, just as he can retract in divorcing his wife, so too he can retract in divorcing his slave. The disability for the slave is that if he was owned by a priest, he could eat terumah. Upon emancipation, he loses such a right.

The sages respond that the slave s eating terumah is not a benefit ; rather it is something he is allowed to do because the master owns him. Indeed, the priest could sell his slave to an Israelite and thereby disqualify him from eating terumah without freeing him. Therefore, loss of terumah is not truly a disability to the slave.