Gittin 47 – What to leave in a will

If one sells himself and his children as slaves to idolaters, the community should redeem him. However, if he keeps doing this repeatedly, they refrain. After the father's death, the community should redeem his children. While the father was alive, he watched over them, but now they should not be taught the wrong way of life.

There was a village near the city of Lod whose residents were occasional cannibals. A man sold himself to them and asked Rabbi Ami to command the community to redeem him. Rabbi Ami quoted the above rule and said that it should apply, especially here, where the man's life was in danger. They told Rabbi Ami, “He eats forbidden foods!” He answered, “Maybe there was nothing else?” They told him, “No, he did it on purpose.” Rabbi Ami said to the man, “Sorry, they don't let me redeem you.”

Resh Lakish heard of this and sold himself to the people near Lod. As a last wish, he asked to be permitted to sit them down, tie them, and give them a light blow with his backpack. Inside the backpack was a stone, and in this way, he killed them.

Resh Lakish worked hard but spent his earnings liberally and kindheartedly. All he left as inheritance was a quart of safflower oil, but he was still upset, quoting, "They left their possessions to strangers." A man should not amass wealth and pass it to his descendants since they may be unworthy.

When a non-Jew buys land in Israel, does he own it ritually so that even tithes need not be given? Some say no, because “I (God) own the land.“ Others say yes, because it says, “Take tithe of your grain” (and not of grain owned by a non-Jew). Either way, the Sages established that the seller should keep buying the first fruit from this land and bringing it to the Temple. This was done to discourage such sales.

Art: The Money Lender by Dutch School

Gittin 46 - Divorce that cannot be undone

If one divorces his wife and states during his divorce that he is doing it because of the bad name that she got - he can never remarry her. Why? Should he later find out that she was maligned, he could say, "Had I only known this, I would have never divorced you - even if they paid me a lot of money!" Such words can make her Get invalid. Then she would still be considered married to him, and her children from the next husband would get the status of mamzerim. With the new rule, however, he understands that this divorce is final, and even if the accusations are false, he will not be able to return her. Thus, his actions show that he no longer loves her, and his claim, "Had I only known," is not to be believed.

If one divorces his wife because she is incapable of childbearing - and states so - he cannot remarry her. If she marries again and has children, he could claim, "Had I only known that you can have children, I would have never divorced you." This could invalidate her divorce and the legitimacy of his children.

 
Since this divorce is her fault, as it stands, she does not get the Ketubah payment. However, if she now marries, has children, and then asks for the Ketubah payment (claiming wrongful divorce), the husband can counterclaim and say, "Your silence is better than your words." That is, if you keep silent - well and good, but if you demand the Ketubah, I can say this, "Had I known that in the end, after my divorce, I will also have to pay the Ketubah, I would have never divorced you" - which leads to the same consequences.

Art: Allegory of the art of painting by Jan Vermeer

Gittin 45 - Ransoming hostages - how much to pay?

When bandits demand money to release hostages, they should not be given extraordinary amounts - for the benefit of society. Is the intent not to impoverish society, or is it to discourage future hostage-taking? A certain Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter for twelve thousand gold coins. Since he paid the money himself, society was not burdened. Does it not prove that the second reason - that the bandits should not take more Jews hostage in the future - does not apply? Said Abaye, "Who said that the Sages approved of his actions?" - Rather, this rule is intended to discourage future hostage-taking.

Another rule: not to help hostages escape but rather continue with the ransom negotiations. What is the reason here? Some say it is to prevent harsher treatment of future hostages, while others say it is to avoid the torture of the remaining ones. Why does the reason matter if the rule is not to help them escape? - It will make a difference in the case of a single captive: the first reason would still apply, but the second would not.

Likewise, the Torah scroll, tefillin, and mezuzah can only be bought from idolaters for reasonable amounts to benefit society. If one does not buy them, the sellers may destroy them in anger, but if he buys them for too much - they may continue stealing.

However, a question may be asked: perhaps they wrote the Torah, and if so, how can it be read in the synagogue? Rabbi Eliezer would say that anything an idolater does is for the sake of his idol - so this Torah scroll should be destroyed. Rav Hamnuna said that Torah scrolls written by non-Jews or anyone who is not proper to write them, such as a non-observant Jew, are invalid and should be buried. Our rule works according to the opinion that if the Torah is written correctly, anyone can write it - if only the leather was prepared for the sake of writing a Torah scroll on it.

Art: Two Bandits in the Hills by William Simpson

Gittin 44 – A flurry of unresolved questions about a slave

As we saw earlier, the life of a slave was quite privileged. In particular, on emancipation, he was to acquire the full status of a “Son of Israel,” and even as a slave, he was already observing mitzvot.

Therefore, if someone sold his slave to an idolater (who would likely stop the slave from observing the mitzvot), the slave became legally free – this was the decree of the Sages. They have also added that the previous owner had to write for the slave a Get of emancipation. A special case is when the master wrote for the slave a letter that said, “When you flee, I have no claims on you.” In this case, the Get would not be needed.

If one sold his slave (which normally involved a penalty on the master, in that the slave goes free), but he sold him only for thirty days, would the penalty still apply? What if he sold him on the condition that the slave does not do any work (but lives with a slave woman and helps her grow the children)? What if he sold him for work, but with the exception of Saturdays and Holidays? What if he sold the slave to a non-Jew who lives in Israel and observes the laws of Noah or to a non-observant Jew? Does the slave go free? We can at least resolve the last question: Noahide is considered an idolater for this. Some say that a non-observant Jew is the same as an idolater, and others say that he is not.

Consider a man from Babylon who marries a woman from Israel, and she comes to live with him, together with her slaves. Do we say that she brought slaves outside of Israel and must be penalized by freeing them, or do we say that now they are the husband's, and he should not free them? Here we get no answer.

Art: Talmudic Discussion by Mark Gertler

Gittin 43 – Betting on the life of a slave

Imagine someone suggests a very unusual futures trade: he will pay a certain amount to the owner of the slave, betting that this slave will be gored by an ox. He will pay some amount now, and if this slave is indeed gored, then the penalty of thirty shekels, which the master would receive, will instead go to the trader. Is such a trade valid?

On the one hand, even Rabbi Meir, who validates buying next year's fruit of a tree, may disagree here: the tree is sure to bring fruit, but the slave might not be gored, and even if he is gored – there is a rule that if the owner of the ox admits his guilt, he does not pay the penalty.

On the other hand, even the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir and who invalidate the sale of the following year's fruit may say that the slave's future trade is valid: after all, the slave is here, and the ox is also here, but the fruit is not. The question remains unanswered.

Another question: Is this valid if a man who is half-slave and half-free betroths a woman? If a man betroths half of a woman, it is invalid because he left the other half free, and a wife needs to be acquired wholly. However, this slave does not leave out anything – so maybe this is valid. Consider an earlier rule of a half-slave who was gored and whose payment went to his heirs. If he has heirs, he must have a wife! So his betrothal must be valid!? – Not necessarily; maybe the teacher wanted to say, "Should go to his heirs, but he has none."

Incidentally, one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman indeed acquires her as a wife because he wants the whole woman and does not leave any part of her.

 Art: Unequal Marriage by Vasiliy Pukirev

Gittin 42 – Vicissitudes of the slave of two masters

The Talmud discussed how one can become a slave of two masters, especially how he can be a slave of one master and, in part, a free man. Then it describes what else can happen to such a slave.

For example, if an ox gores this slave, who receives the damages payments? – The answer is that if the goring happened on the day when this slave was working for the master, then the payment goes to the master because it is his property that was damaged. If, however, this happened on the day when the slave was working for himself, then the payments go directly to him, for he is a free man at this time.

If so, do we have a basis to allow him to marry a slave woman on those days when he is working for his master and a free woman when he is working for himself? – No, this far we don't go: money can indeed be divided, but prohibitions that are intrinsic to him cannot be divided to change their nature from day to day.

Imagine that the ox does not just gore this slave but actually kills him. In this case, if the ox was habitually goring people, the owner of the ox pays a penalty of thirty shekels for his gross negligence. Who does the payment go to? – Half goes to the master (because the slave is one-half his), and the other half – to the heirs of the slave. But we expected it depends on which day he dies, just like above!? – Above, the slave was still alive and would eventually recompense both his master and himself, but here the total capital is so-to-say gone, so the two sides divide the recompense.

Art: Lawyer in his Study by Adriaen Jansz. Van Ostade

Gittin 41 - A slave of two masters

Imagine that someone makes his slave collateral for his loan so that if he does not repay, the lender acquires the slave. The master can still free the slave. However, the slave must write a promissory note for his value. To whom?

Some say that he writes it to the lender. In truth, the slave is free, but the Sages wanted to prevent a situation where the lender meets the former slave in the street and claims that this is his slave - implying that his children are children of a slave! Others say that the Sages force the lender to write a Get because he can sue the borrower for the value of the slave and get paid anyway.

If two people pull their money together and buy a slave, but then one makes his part of the slave free, then the slave works one day for the other owner and another day for himself. On Shabbat, he does not work. That is the opinion of Beit Hillel.

However, Beit Shammai argued: this slave could not marry a slave woman because he was part free. He cannot marry a free Jewish woman because he is part slave. Should he refrain from procreation altogether? But the earth "was not created to be empty, but to be populated." Therefore, Beit Shammai suggests that the second owner should be forced to free the slave and accept a note for half of his value from him. And Beit Hillel was convinced.

Art: The Jewish Wedding by Moritz Oppenheim

Gittin 40 - Signs of a free man

Rabbi Zeira said, "If you see a master who allows his slave to marry a Jewish woman, this is a sign that this master has previously freed his slave." Rabbi Yochanan was surprised: "Are you certain? I know that one who marries a slave woman - even that is not a clear sign that he freed her!" Rabbi Zeira explained, "I mean when we see that the master helps with the ceremony."

Likewise, if a slave dons tefillin in front of his master, this is not yet a definite sign, but if the master assists the slave in donning tefillin, this is a sure sign that he has previously freed the slave.

Rav Dimi traveled to Israel and brought back the following story. At the time of this death, a certain man said, "This woman slave revived my spirit. Therefore, you, my sons, should revive her spirit." Rabbi Yochanan wanted to say that she should go free. But Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi told him, "Maybe she indeed deserves freedom, but why do you force the heirs to also lose her children, who would be their slaves?" However, the story needed to be corrected. Really, the decision was to ask her what would revive her spirit - and if she insists on being free - so be it! And why is that? - Because it is a mitzvah to fulfill the words of the dead.

Earlier, we discussed that one who makes his slave ownerless only effects the first step to freedom. The slave still needs a Get. If now the master dies, the slave cannot rectify the situation since the master's heirs do not inherit the slave and, therefore, cannot free him. However, in many situations, Sages found a way to force the writing of a Get - because, without it, the slave could not get married.

Art: A Cairene Woman waited upon by a Galla Slave Girl by Emile Prisse d'Avennes

Gittin 39 – How can a slave free himself

Earlier, we discussed the life of a slave. There are two steps in his getting freedom: the master's ownership has to stop, and the slave needs to be legally freed in order to become a full-fledged Jew who can marry a Jewish woman.

Therefore, if a slave is declared "ownerless," this is only the first step; he needs to get a written bill of emancipation called Get. However, what about the rule that if a convert – who is like a new legal person, like a child born into the world, and who therefore does not have any legal inheritors – if this convert dies, then his slaves acquire themselves and are moreover become legally free, without a Get? – Death of the owner is different; this is similar to the death of a husband, which frees the wife without a Get.

Likewise, if a slave acquires himself with money, a Get is not required. But what about the following story: a man was dying, and his slave-woman screamed, "Until when will that person (meaning herself) be a slave!?" So he threw her his hat as if saying, "Just as the hat exchanges ownership, so you acquire yourself." They went to Rav Nachman to confirm, and he said, "The man has accomplished nothing." This seems to mean that even though she acquired herself, a formal Get was still required! – Well, that is how people understood it, but they were wrong.

In truth, the problem was that that hat he threw belonged to him. The acquisition that he intended, as any acquisition done by giving a token (like a kerchief) to another, requires that the object belongs to the buyer (her), not the seller (him). So the problem was that acquisition did not happen at all, but not that a Get was needed.

Art: Young Man in a Hat, by anonymous

Congratulations - completing Talmud Illuminated

Hello, friends,

those who started reading emails or blogs of Talmud Illuminated about seven and a half years ago have today come to complete the Talmud, by reading concise summaries and by enjoying and studying world's art.

Today we are starting on the next cycle, hopefully taking the learning to a higher level.

Best regards!

Gittin 38 - The escape of a slave

The life of a slave bought in Canaan is thus: he is offered to be circumcised and to remain a slave in a Jewish household. If he disagrees, he is to let go after a year. He has rights: if his master harms him by cutting off a limb, even by knocking out his tooth, he goes free. He has obligations: he has to observe most of the mitzvot.

What happens when this slave is captured by idolatrous robbers? Since the robbers will stop him from observing the mitzvot, one must repurchase this slave from the robbers. Does the slave then go free? - If the master still hopes to get the slave back, then if someone buys this slave to bring him back to the master, he remains the servant of his master. But if the one who redeems this slave wants him to go free, he indeed goes free. Why? - As far as the buyer is concerned - he redeemed the slave to freedom, so he cannot possibly become the new owner. Yet, the first master owns him!? - True, but he becomes free by the decree of the Sages: if the slave would go back to the master, then the freedom-loving redeemers would not have the motivation to redeem them.

This is the opinion of Rava. Abaye investigates what happens when the master loses hope of getting the slave back. The slave then should become free simply because the master, in his mind, does not own him. The Talmud describes when a slave who has become free needs an additional Get granting him freedom and other cases of redemption.

Art: The Idle Servant by Nicolaes Maes

Gittin 22 – Who can write the Get?

Everybody can write a Get (divorce document), even people usually not considered entirely responsible for their actions, such as a deaf-mute, deranged person, or anyone below bat/bar-mitzvah age. It goes without saying that a woman can write a Get, provided that she transfers its ownership to the husband, who can then give "his" Get to her. It is not the writing of the Get that matters; it is the signatures of the witnesses!

That rule sounds a bit strange: can we assume, for example, that a deranged person fulfills the requirement of writing a Get having in his mind that it is for a specific woman? – We have to say that someone who knows watches him and commands him what to do. What about the signatures of the witness? – We know that the law is like Rabbi Elazar, that it is the witnesses of giving the Get who matter!? – True, the rule assumes that the signing witnesses will be there for the continuation of the proceedings and will witness the giving of the Get as well, as is usually the case.

Another explanation is that this is a tongue-in-cheek rule. It emphasizes the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that only the signatures of witnesses matter – according to this, even a deranged person can write a Get.

Who can bring the Get if the husband can't come? Basically, anyone but here, the deranged person and the deaf-mute are excluded because they would have to testify that they saw the Get is written and signed. The Talmud goes into complications of someone under bar-mitzvah age when accepted the Get and started the journey, but then grew up, or someone who was normal became deranged on the way and possibly became lucid again.

Art: The Witness by John Wells-Smith

Gittin 21 – What to write the Get on?

Can one write a Get on a giant leaf growing on a tree, then tear it off and give it to his wife? – No! Since the Torah said, "And he will write for her a letter of divorce and give it," we understand that he must be able to give the Get immediately after writing. Here we have another action, tearing off, intervening between writing the Get and giving it; therefore, such Get is invalid. If he did, however, write on a leaf, tore it off, and gave it to his wife, he did not do things correctly, but the divorce is valid.

The last rule is in direct contradiction with the previous one! We just finished explaining why the Get is invalid, using the "He will write and give" - in one breath – and now we are saying that it is valid after all!?

The answer is that there are two components to the Get. The first is the "active" or "explicit," which effects the divorce. It gives the names of the husband and wife, the place, and the date. It also contains the key phrase, "You are free to marry anyone." This "active" part was initially left out on the leaf; only the secondary part was there. The active component was written in after the leaf was detached, so the Get was written correctly.

The explanation above may sound forced. Another explanation is that we are dealing with the opinion of Rabbi Meir that writing does not matter; only signing by the witnesses does, and it accomplishes the divorce. And they signed after the leaf was torn off the tree. This sounds more natural; why did they give the first explanation at all? – Because of the rule that in divorces, the law follows Rabbi Elazar, not Rabbi Meir, so they did not want to ascribe this rule to him.

Art: Walnut Tree in a Thomery Field by Alfred Sisley

Gittin 18 – How does the time in the Get help?

The Sages established that a divorce document (Get) needs to have the date of its writing in it. As we mentioned earlier, it could be to prevent the husband from covering up on the unfaithful wife or to prevent the husband from unfairly using his wife's property.

But consider the following scenario: a man fights with his wife, goes and asks a scribe to write a Get for her, but then carries it with him for a long time, hoping that the situation will improve, and nevertheless divorces later. This is valid, but the date in the Get will be incorrect. So what helps that the date is there? – People usually do not rush evil tidings, and one will not write a Get in advance.

But consider a standard case discussed on the first page: a messenger brings a Get from overseas. The date on it is undoubtedly way early compared to the giving of the Get! – In such cases, due to the court proceeding, it is well known when the divorce occurred, and all know that the date on the Get is incorrect.

The Talmud asks more questions about the date in the Get and concludes that it can be relied on in most cases and that the exceptions can be dealt with separately.

Art: The Argument by William Henry Knight