Gittin, Daf Yod Bet, Part 1
Introduction
The mishnah seemed to say that a master can stop feeding his slave. Our sugya discusses whether this is true.
שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן כּוּ׳ שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ
That if he does not want to maintain [his slave, he may]. Learn from this that a master can say to his slave, Work for me and I will not provide for you.
The Talmud learns from the mishnah that a master can force his slave to work with him without feeding him. This seems absurd how can a master get away without feeding his slave?
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ
What are we dealing with her? When he says to him, Use the profit of your labor for your food.
The Talmud slightly tweaks what the master is allowed to say to his slave. The master can force the slave to work but he must allow the slave to use the profit of his labor to feed himself.
ודִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי אִשָּׁה דַּאֲמַר לַהּ צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ אִשָּׁה אַמַּאי לָא
But the same would have to apply to a wife, that he says to her, Use the profit of your labor for your food. But why does this not work for a wife?
The mishnah stated that a husband cannot get away without providing for his wife. But if this is the same situation as the slave, why can t a husband tell his wife that she must provide for herself with the profit of her labor?
אִשָּׁה בִּדְלָא סָפְקָא
עֶבֶד נָמֵי בִּדְלָא סָפֵיק
עַבְדָּא דִּנְהוֹם כְּרֵסֵיהּ לָא שָׁוֵיא לְמָרֵיהּ וּלְמָרְתֵיהּ לְמַאי מִיתְבְּעֵי
In the case of the wife, the [profit of her labor] was not sufficient.
Then the same should be true of a slave, that the profit was not sufficient!
A slave not worth the bread that he eats, to his master and mistress, what is he worth?
The Talmud resolves that the amount of money the woman earns is not sufficient to pay for her food and other needs. In such a case, the husband would have to add on from his own funds to provide for her.
But the same should be true for a slave!
The answer is that a slave who can t earn his keep is not worth anything to his master. Therefore, the mishnah cannot be addressing this situation. Thus in the end, the wife and slave are, to a certain extent equated. In neither case can a husband/master say Use your earnings for your own expenses if the earnings are not sufficient. It s just that in the case of a slave, this would not happen.
תָּא שְׁמַע עֶבֶד שֶׁגָּלָה לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט אֵין רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב לְזוּנוֹ וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו לְרַבּוֹ שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ
Come and learn: A slave who was exiled to a refuge city, his master is not liable to provide for him. And moreover, his earnings go to his master. Learn from this that the master can say to the slave, Work for me and I will not provide for you.
The Talmud quotes a baraita concerning a slave who accidentally committed murder. He must free to one of the cities of refuge. And when he does, his master need not feed him, and nevertheless, his earnings go to the master. This seems to prove that the master can get away without feeding his slave.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן דְּאָמַר לוֹ צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ
אִי הָכִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו אַמַּאי לְרַבּוֹ
לְהַעְדָּפָה
הַעֲדָפָה פְּשִׁיטָא מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לֵית לֵיהּ לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי לָא לִישְׁקוֹל מִינֵּיהּ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן
What are we dealing with here? When he says, Use the profit of your labor for your food.
If so, why does the master get his handiwork.
This refers to the extra [the amount beyond what he needs to live].
The extra this is obvious! What might you have said? Since if he does not work, the master won t give him [anything], when he does work, the master can t take anything. Therefore it teaches us [that he does].
The Talmud solves the problem the same way it did above the master told the slave to work for himself.
But this creates a new problem if the slave is working for himself, then how is the master getting the profit of his work. The Talmud explains that the master only would get the extra, the earnings above what the slave needs to maintain himself. We might have thought that the master does not get this, and that the relationship would be more equal. If the slave does not work, the master does not feed him, and if the master is not feeding the slave, the slave should get to keep his earnings. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the master always get the extra, even though he does not have to feed the slave.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא וָחָי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ חִיּוּתָא טְפֵי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן
And what is different about fleeing to the refuge cities? Let you would say, [And that fleeing to one of these cities] he might live (Deuteronomy 4:42) offer him sustenance. Therefore it teaches us that he need not.
The baraita had mentioned a slave fleeing to the refuge cities. But the Talmud thinks that a master can always tell a slave, Use the profit of your labor for your food. So why mention the refuge city?
The answer is that we might have thought that there is a special commandment to feed such a slave, since the Torah states, he might live. But this is rejected. The meaning of he might live is to avoid the blood avenger. Not that a master must feed a slave who is fleeing.