Gittin, Daf Yod Bet, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud discusses R. Yohanan s statement from above: One who cuts off the hand of his fellow s slave he must give the master the payments for his cessation of his work and healing

 

אֲמַר מָר נוֹתֵן שִׁבְתּוֹ וּרְפוּאָתוֹ לְרַבּוֹ שִׁבְתּוֹ פְּשִׁיטָא

רְפוּאָתוֹ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ

 

The master said: he must give the master the payments for his cessation of his work and healing:

The cessation of his work this is obvious!

It was necessary to teach because of the cost of his healing.

 

Obviously, the payments for the cessation of work go to the master. When a slave is injured and cannot work it is the master who suffers the loss. The main point of the statement was to teach that the cost of healing goes to the master. This is not so obvious.

 

רְפוּאָתוֹ דִּידֵיהּ הִיא דְּבָעֵי אִיתַּסּוֹיֵי בֵּהּ

לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאַמְדוּהּ לְחַמְשָׁא יוֹמֵי וַעֲבַדוּ לֵיהּ סַמָּא חָרִיפָא וְאִתַּסִּי בִּתְלָתָא יוֹמֵי מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא צַעֲרָא דִּידֵיהּ הוּא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן

 

The cost of his healing should go to the slave himself, for he needs it to heal himself.

It was only necessary in the case where they estimated he would be sick for five days, but they gave him a strong drug and he healed in three days. What might you have said? It was his pain. Therefore, it teaches us that this goes to the master.

 

The money for healing should go to the slave, since he will need it to pay for his own healing. So what does R. Yohanan mean when he says that the money goes to the master? The answer is that R. Yohanan was referring to a situation where the slave got back to work faster by taking a strong drug that would heal him faster but at the same time cause him pain. One might have thought that this savings goes to the slave. After all, he is the one who suffered. But R. Yohanan rules that it goes to the master who gets his slave back a few days early.

 

תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַרְנוּ לוֹ לְמֵאִיר וַהֲלֹא זְכוּת הוּא לָעֶבֶד שֶׁיּוֹצֵא מִתַּחַת יְדֵי רַבּוֹ לְחֵירוּת

אָמַר לָנוּ חוֹב הוּא לוֹ שֶׁאִם הָיָה עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן פּוֹסְלוֹ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה אָמַרְנוּ לוֹ וַהֲלֹא מָה אִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לְזוּנוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לְפַרְנְסוֹ רַשַּׁאי אָמַר לָנוּ וּמָה אִילּוּ עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּרַח וְאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּרְדָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ הֲלֹא אוֹכְלִין בִּתְרוּמָה וְזֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל אֲבָל אִשָּׁה חוֹב הוּא לָהּ שֶׁכֵּן פֹּסְלָהּ מִן הַתְּרוּמָה וּמַפְסִידָהּ מִן הַמְּזוֹנוֹת

 

It was taught in a baraita: R. Elazar said: We said to Meir: Behold it is advantageous to a slave that he leaves his master and goes free.

He said to us: It is a disadvantage to him, for if he was a slave to a priest, he can no longer eat terumah.

We said back to him: But if the master does not want to feed him and sustain him, he may.

He said back to us: When it comes to the slave of a priest who ran away or the wife of a priest who rebelled against her husband, do they not eat terumah. But this one cannot. However, it is a detriment to a wife for it causes her to lose her right to terumah and sustenance.

 

The rabbis in the mishnah argued with R. Meir whether a master who writes a manumission document for his slave can change his mind. R. Meir says he can, but the rabbis say he cannot because revoking the get would be to the slave s detriment.

The baraita contains a continuation of the argument.

The rabbis argue that it is advantageous for a slave to go free. This would seem to be an obvious truth. But R. Meir argues back that when the slave goes free, he can no longer eat terumah. The sages push back again the master does not need to feed his slave anyways. So don t tell us that he loses terumah; he does not really have any solid rights to being fed.

Finally, R. Meir points out that going free is a loss of the ability to eat terumah even for a slave who is not being fed by his master, by the slave s choice for he ran away. Such a slave can eat terumah because he still belongs to his master. But divorce is detrimental to the wife for she loses her right to terumah and she is no longer sustained by her husband.

The exchanges at the end of this baraita are not entirely clear. They will be clarified in next week s daf. So stay tuned!