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