Gittin, Daf Yod Bet, Part 3

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss whether a master can decide not to provide sustenance to his slave.

 

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל הָעֶבֶד לוֹמַר לְרַבּוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד רַבּוֹ

מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמָר סָבַר יָכוֹל וּמָר סָבַר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל

 

Shall we say that this is a tannaitic dispute: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: A slave can say to his master during times of famine either provide for me or set me free. But the sages say: His master has permission.

Are they not disputing the following: One master (the sages) says he can and the other master (R. Shimon b. Gamaliel) says he cannot.

 

The Talmud suggests that Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel and the rabbis disagree over whether a master can tell his slave that he will not provide for him and still force the slave work. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says he cannot and the rabbis say he can.

 

וְתִיסְבְּרָא הַאי אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ תֵּן לִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי בְּפַרְנָסָתִי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

וְעוֹד מַאי שְׁנָא בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת

 

Do you really think this? Instead of saying either provide for me or set me free it should have stated, either provide for me or give me my earnings.

And furthermore, what is different about it being a time of famine?

 

The Talmud raises two difficulties against this interpretation of the baraita. First of all, the slave should have told the master that the other the option was keeping his earnings, not setting him free.

Second of all, the baraita seems to have referred specifically to a time of famine. But according to this framing, the baraita refers to any time.

 

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן דְּאָמַר לוֹ צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ וּבִשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת לָא סָפֵק

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת כִּי הֵיכִי דְּחָזוּ לִי אִינָשֵׁי וּמְרַחֲמִין עֲלַי וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי מַאן דִּמְרַחֵם אַבְּנֵי חָרֵי אַעֶבֶד נָמֵי רַחוֹמֵי מְרַחֵם

 

Rather what are we dealing with here? When he says to him, Let your earnings go towards your sustenance and it refers to a time of famine.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel holds: Either provide for me or let me go free, so that others will see me and have mercy on me. The rabbis hold, those who have mercy on free people will also have mercy on a slave.

 

The Talmud now offers a different explanation for the dispute. The time is indeed a time of famine. The master tells his slave that he wants the slave to provide for himself. This is probably due to the fact that there is a famine and the master cannot afford to feed his slave. According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel the slave can, under such circumstances, demand his freedom. The slave believes that people will be more likely to support him if he is free. The rabbis disagree and think that people are just as likely to support slaves as they are free people. So the slave cannot demand his freedom.