Gittin, Daf Yod Bet, Part 5

 

Introduction

The Talmud discusses Rav s statement: One who dedicates the earnings of his slave, the slave must borrow money and eat and then earn money and pay back the debt.

 

עוֹשֶׂה וּפוֹרֵעַ קַמָּא קַמָּא קָדֵישׁ לֵיהּ בְּפָחוֹת פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה

 

He earns and then pays it back: But each piece of work he does is consecrated!

He does his work each time less than the value of a perutah.

 

The work of the slave has been dedicated to the Temple by his master. So how can he use his earnings to pay back his debts. His earnings belong to the Temple.

The Talmud explains that each time he works and then pays back his debt, it is less than the value of a perutah. Such a small amount is not covered by the dedication and therefore he can use these funds to pay his debt back, albeit very slowly.

 

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּאָמַר רַב הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל דְּאִי לָא עַבְדָּא מַאן פָּלַח לֵיהּ

אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא הָךְ בְּמַעֲלֶה וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל וְהָא בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה שַׁפִּיר

 

It is also reasonable [that Rav said was referring to a case where the master was providing sustenance for the slave] for Rav said: One who dedicates the handiwork of his slave, the slave can continue to work and use the proceeds for his food. For if he does not work, who will feed him.

It makes sense if you say this refers to a case where the master is providing for him, and in general the master cannot say, Use the proceeds of your work to provide for yourself and this refers to a case where he is not providing for him.

 

The Talmud now tries to prove that the first statement of Rav (see intro) refers to a case where the master was providing for the slave. This is because Rav also said that if one dedicates his slave s handiwork, the slave can continue to work and feed himself (the second statement). We would now have a solution for the difference between the two statements. In statement one (intro) the master was providing for his slave. Therefore, the dedication works. In statement two (here) the master was not providing for his slave. Therefore the dedication does not work.

 

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ הָךְ בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה וְיָכוֹל דְּאִי לָא עַבְדָּא מַאן פָּלַח לֵיהּ מַאן דְּבָעֵי נִיפְלְחֵיהּ

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ

 

But if this (first statement) refers to a case where the master is not providing for him [and it teaches] that a master can say to his slave [ Use the proceeds of your work to provide for yourself ], [the statement] For if he does not work, who will feed him anyone who wants can feed him.

Rather learn from this that a master cannot [make such a statement] to his slave. Learn from this.

 

If both statements refer to a case where the master is not providing for him because the master can tell the slave to provide for himself, then why should we worry in this particular case that he does not have enough to eat? This would be the same as any case the master can always cut off his slave. Thus, it makes more sense to say that the master cannot tell the slave to work for himself.

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַקּוֹטֵעַ יַד עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ נוֹתֵן שִׁבְתּוֹ וּרְפוּאָתוֹ לְרַבּוֹ וְאוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד נִיזּוֹן מִן הַצְּדָקָה שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ

 

Come and learn: That R. Yohanan said: One who cuts off the hand of his fellow s slave he must give the master the payments for his cessation of work and healing. And the slave should be fed from charity.

Learn from this that the master can tell the slave, Work for me and I am not providing for you.

 

R. Yohanan rules that if one injures a slave, he gives the payment for loss of work and healing to the master. While the slave is healing, he will have to be provided for by tzedakah. This would seem to imply that a master does not have an absolute obligation to feed his slave.

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן בְּמַעֲלֶה לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת

אִי הָכִי אַמַּאי נִיזּוֹן מִן הַצְּדָקָה

לְהַעְדָּפָה

אִי הָכִי נִיזּוֹן מִתְפַּרְנֵס מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ יָכוֹל שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ

 

What are we dealing with here? When the master is providing sustenance for him.

If so, why is he fed from charity? For the surplus.

If so, instead of teaching fed it should have said, he earns a living.

Rather learn from this that the master can [make such a statement] learn from this.

 

The Talmud resolves the difficulty by saying that the master in this scenario is providing for his slave. But it is difficult to read this into R. Yohanan s statement. First of all, if the master is providing for the slave, then why does the slave need to be fed from charity. And if the master is providing a base income, and charity is providing the extra, then the slave is not being fed from charity, he is earning a living which implies beyond base income.

The Talmud now finally gives up. The master can abandon feeding his slave and still expect the slave to work for him. Yes, the Talmud comes to a cruel conclusion.