Gittin, Daf Yod Gimmel, Part 1

 

Introduction

Today s section begins to clarify the baraita, particularly the last section. To ease reference, I am copying it again here, and assigning it lines:

 

1)     R. Elazar said: We said to Meir: Behold it is advantageous to a slave that he leaves his master and goes free.

2)     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.

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

4)     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.

מַאי קָאָמְרוּ לֵיהּ וּמַאי קָא מַהְדַּר לְהוּ

הָכִי קָאָמַר לְהוּ הֲשַׁבְתּוּנִי עַל הַמְּזוֹנוֹת מַה תְּשִׁיבוּנִי עַל הַתְּרוּמָה

וְכִי תֵּימְרוּ אִי בָּעֵי זָרֵיק לֵיהּ גִּיטָּא וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ שָׁבֵיק לֵיהּ וְעָרֵיק וְאָזֵיל לְעָלְמָא

What did they say to him and what did he respond to them?

This is what he said to them: You refuted me with regard to feeding him, but what can you respond to me about terumah? And if you say if the master wants he can throw a get at the slave, [I would respond] he can leave him and run away somewhere else.

 

The Talmud is explaining section four, R. Meir s rebuttal against the sages. The sages hold it is an advantage to a slave to be freed, and in section three they point out that the master does not have to feed his slave. This rebuts R. Meir s argument that the slave loses his rights to sustenance, but it does not rebut his argument that the slave loses the right to eat terumah. And if the rabbis were to claim that the master could always just throw a get at the slave and free him and thereby disqualify him from terumah, a slave can actually prevent this by running away.

 

וּמָה אִילּוּ עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן שֶׁבָּרַח וְאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁמָּרְדָה עַל בַּעְלָהּ הֲלֹא אוֹכְלִים בִּתְרוּמָה וְזֶה אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל

 

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.

 

Now we understand R. Meir s words in the baraita. A slave or wife can run away from their master or husband and thereby avoid being freed or divorced and the entailing loss of the ability to eat terumah. But if someone else can accept a get on behalf of the slave, without the slave s consent, then a slave cannot avoid being freed. In other words, a master can force a slave to lose his right to eat terumah.

 

שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לְהוּ

אָמַר רָבָא הַיְינוּ דְּקָא מַהְדְּרִי לֵיהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי שָׁקֵיל אַרְבָּעָה זוּזֵי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ

 

He responded well to them!

Rava said: That is what they respond to him in the mishnah Because he is his acquisition , that is to say he can take four dinars from an Israelite and disqualify him wherever he is.

 

Rava locates the rabbis response to R. Meir in the mishnah. A master can disqualify his slave even if the slave runs away by selling him to an Israelite. Once owned by an Israelite, the slave cannot eat terumah. Therefore, the freeing of a slave is an advantage to the slave, for it does not take away any right the master could not have taken away anyways.

 

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר תִּינַח עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר

אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידוֹ מִשִּׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית

אַדְּרַבָּה הֲרֵי הוּא מַתִּירוֹ בְּבַת חוֹרִין עַבְדָּא בְּהֶפְקֵירָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ זִילָא לֵיהּ שְׁכִיחָא לֵיהּ פְּרִיצָה לֵיהּ

 

And to R. Meir, his explanation works for a priest s slave, but what can he say about an Israelite s slave?

R. Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak said: Because he causes him to lose [the right to be with] a Canaanite slave.

On the contrary, freeing him allows him to marry a free woman!

A slave enjoys a life of licentiousness, she is lowly to him, she is available to him, she is loose with him.

 

Rabbi Meir s words made sense with regard to a slave owned by a priest. Such a slave can eat terumah. But an Israelite s slave has no such right. So why is it at all a disadvantage for him to be freed?

The answer is that he loses the right to stay married to a Canaanite slave. And if you were to argue that by being freed he gains the right to marry a free woman, the rabbis imagine that the slave prefers the licentious company of female slaves.