## Gittin Daf 12a

###### Gittin 12a:1
[Gittin 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:1)

דִּלְמָא לָא הִיא; עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּמִיגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֵי מַפְקַר לְהוּ לְנִכְסֵיהּ, וְהָוֵי עָנִי וַחֲזֵי לֵיהּ – וּמִיגּוֹ דְּזָכֵי לֵיהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ זָכֵי לְחַבְרֵיהּ; אֲבָל הָכָא, לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Perhaps** that **is not so.** Perhaps this is not the point of dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. There are two ways to explain why this might not be the case. First, it is possible that **Rabbi Eliezer states his opinion only there,** when the person took possession of the *pe’a* despite not being eligible to collect it for himself, **since if** the one who collected the produce **desired, he** could **declare his property ownerless and become a poor person, and** then the produce would have been **fit for him** to retain for himself. **And since** he could have **acquired** the *pe’a* **for himself,** he can likewise **acquire** it **for another** as well. **However, here,** where he seizes property on behalf of a creditor, he cannot seize this property for himself. Consequently, Rabbi Eliezer does **not** rule that he can do so when it is against the interests of another person.


###### Gittin 12a:2
[Gittin 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:2)

וְעַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן הָתָם, אֶלָּא דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תְלַקֵּט לְעָנִי״ – לֹא תְלַקֵּט לוֹ לְעָנִי; אֲבָל הָכָא, לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Second, one can argue from the opposite perspective: **The Rabbis state** their opinion **only there,** that one cannot acquire on behalf of the poor person, **as it is written:** “The corner of your field you shall not reap and the gleaning of your harvest **you shall not gather; for the poor** you shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22), and the Sages expounded this verse by reading it as though there were no break in the middle: **You shall not gather for the poor,** i.e., the poor person must collect the produce for himself. **However, here,** where one seizes property on behalf of a creditor, this verse does not apply, and therefore the Rabbis did **not** rule that the action of the third party is ineffective. Consequently, it is possible that the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis is not with regard to the issue of whether one can seize property on behalf of a creditor in a case where it is to the detriment of others.


###### Gittin 12a:3
[Gittin 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:3)

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הַאי ״לֹא תְלַקֵּט״ – מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְהַזְהִיר לְעָנִי עַל שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Eliezer,** with regard to **this** verse: **“You shall not gather,” what does he do with it?** How does he interpret this phrase, from which the Rabbis derived that one may not collect *pe’a* on behalf of a poor person? The Gemara answers: **He requires it to warn a poor person with regard to his own** field, i.e., if a poor person had a field of his own he is not permitted to gather *pe’a* from it for himself, his poverty notwithstanding.


###### Gittin 12a:4
[Gittin 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:4)

שֶׁאִם יִרְצֶה שֶׁלֹּא לָזוּן כּוּ׳: שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ, יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד: ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **As, if** the master **wishes not to sustain** his slave he is allowed to act accordingly. The Gemara comments: **Conclude from** the mishna that **the master is** legally **able to say to** his **slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.**


###### Gittin 12a:5
[Gittin 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:5)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: This is not a conclusive proof, as **with what are we dealing here,** in the mishna? We are dealing with a case **where he said to** the slave: **Spend your earnings to sustain yourself.** In other words, I will not provide for you; rather, you must work and earn money for your sustenance on your own. However, this does not mean that a master can force his slave to work for him without providing him with sustenance.


###### Gittin 12a:6
[Gittin 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:6)

דִּכְווֹתַהּ גַּבֵּי אִשָּׁה – דַּאֲמַר לַהּ: ״צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ״?! אִשָּׁה אַמַּאי לָא? אִשָּׁה – בִּדְלָא סָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, **in the corresponding** situation in the mishna **with regard to a wife,** will one explain **that he** could have **said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself?** The mishna rules that one cannot exempt himself from his obligation to provide sustenance for his wife. In the case of **a wife, why** may he **not** do so? It is certainly permitted for a husband to stipulate with his wife that she will keep her earnings and not receive sustenance from him, yet it is clear in the mishna that there is a difference between a slave and a wife with regard to his ability to refuse to provide sustenance. The Gemara answers: The **wife** mentioned in the mishna is one whose earnings **are not sufficient** for her sustenance, and in that case the husband may not stipulate in this manner.


###### Gittin 12a:7
[Gittin 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:7)

עֶבֶד נָמֵי בִּדְלָא סָפֵיק! עַבְדָּא דִּנְהוֹם כְּרֵסֵיהּ לָא שָׁוֵיא, לְמָרֵיהּ וּלְמָרְתֵיהּ לְמַאי מִיתְבְּעֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the case of the **slave also** is referring to a situation where his earnings **are not sufficient** for his sustenance, and he is unable to sustain himself. Nevertheless, his master can refuse to sustain him. Therefore, one can conclude from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you. The Gemara explains: **A slave who is not worth the bread that he consumes, for what is he needed by his master or his mistress?** If the value of his labor does not even pay for the cost of his sustenance why is he needed at all? The mishna certainly does not refer to a case of this kind. By contrast, with regard to a wife, the marriage does not depend on her ability to provide for herself by means of her earnings. Consequently, one cannot prove from the mishna that a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.


###### Gittin 12a:8
[Gittin 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:8)

תָּא שְׁמַע: עֶבֶד שֶׁגָּלָה לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט אֵין רַבּוֹ חַיָּיב לְזוּנוֹ, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמַּעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו לְרַבּוֹ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ״! הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאָמַר לוֹ: ״צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests another proof: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Makkot* 2:8): With regard to **a slave who** unintentionally killed someone and **was exiled to** one of the **cities of refuge, his master is not required to sustain him. And not only that, but his earnings** in his city of refuge belong **to his master. Conclude from** the *baraita* that **a master can say to** his **slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you,** as in the case of a slave exiled to a city of refuge the master is entitled to his earnings despite not providing for him. The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** With a case **where** the master **said to him: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself.**


###### Gittin 12a:9
[Gittin 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:9)

אִי הָכִי, מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו אַמַּאי לְרַבּוֹ? לְהַעְדָּפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so,** if the master said this to the slave, then **why do his earnings** belong **to his master?** After all, his master stipulated that he should sustain himself. The Gemara answers: This *halakha* is referring **to** his **surplus** earnings, i.e., if the slave works and earns more than the cost of his sustenance, his surplus income belongs to the master.


###### Gittin 12a:10
[Gittin 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:10)

הַעֲדָפָה, פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּכִי לֵית לֵיהּ לָא יָהֵיב לֵיהּ, כִּי אִית לֵיהּ נָמֵי לָא לִישְׁקוֹל מִינֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** it **obvious** that any **surplus** belongs to the master, as he owns the slave? The Gemara answers: This ruling is necessary, **lest you say that since, when he does not** work enough the master does **not give him** all he needs to eat, then **when he has** a surplus from his work the master **should also not take it.** Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that despite this consideration the surplus belongs to the master.


###### Gittin 12a:11
[Gittin 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:11)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט? סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: ״וָחָי״ – עָבֵיד לֵיהּ חִיּוּתָא טְפֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what is different** with regard to a slave who was exiled **to** one of the **cities of refuge,** concerning whom the *baraita* was stated? According to this reasoning, the surplus should belong to the master no matter where the slave is located. The Gemara answers: It might **enter your mind to say** that as the verse states with regard to one who is exiled to a city of refuge: “And that fleeing to one of these cities **he might live”** (Deuteronomy 4:42), one should **act for him** so that he has **extra life,** i.e., in this specific case the slave should be allowed to retain any additional amount he earns. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that no special obligation of this kind applies even if the slave had been exiled to a city of refuge.


###### Gittin 12a:12
[Gittin 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:12)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: אֲבָל אִשָּׁה שֶׁגָּלְתָה לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט – בַּעְלָהּ חַיָּיב בִּמְזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ; מִכְּלָל דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ, דְּאִי אֲמַר לַהּ, בַּעְלַהּ אַמַּאי חַיָּיב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty: **But from** the fact **that the latter clause** of that *baraita* **teaches: However,** with regard to **a woman who was exiled to** one of the **cities of refuge, her husband is obligated in her sustenance, by inference** the *baraita* is dealing with a case **where he did not say to her:** Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, which is why he must sustain her. **As, if he said** this **to her, why is her husband obligated** to provide her with sustenance?


###### Gittin 12a:13
[Gittin 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:13)

וּמִדְּסֵיפָא דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי דְּלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And from** the fact **that the latter clause** of the *baraita* is speaking about a case **where he did not say** this **to her,** it may be inferred that the **first clause** is **also** dealing with a situation **where he did not say to** the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself. The two clauses of the *baraita* must be referring to similar cases or they would not be taught together.


###### Gittin 12a:14
[Gittin 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:14)

לְעוֹלָם דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ, וְאִשָּׁה בִּדְלָא סָפְקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this claim: **Actually,** the *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the master **said to** the slave: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and the husband issued a similar statement to his wife. However, in the case of **a woman** it is referring to a situation **when** her earnings are **not sufficient** for her sustenance.


###### Gittin 12a:15
[Gittin 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:15)

וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ ״צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ״ – רַשַּׁאי, מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְאִם מַסְפֶּקֶת, וְאָמַר לַהּ: ״צְאִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַיִךְ בִּמְזוֹנוֹתַיִךְ״ – רַשַּׁאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But from** the fact **that the last clause teaches: And if** the husband **said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, he is permitted** to act accordingly, **it may be inferred that the first** half of the last **clause** is referring to a case **where he did not say** this **to her.** The Gemara explains that **this is what** the *baraita* **is saying: And if** her earnings **suffice** to pay for her sustenance, **and he said to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, it is permitted** for him to say that.


###### Gittin 12a:16
[Gittin 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:16)

מַסְפֶּקֶת, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״כׇּל כְּבוּדָּה בַת מֶלֶךְ פְּנִימָה״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If the *baraita* is referring to a case where her earnings **suffice, what** is the purpose **of stating** this *halakha* with regard to one who was exiled to a city of refuge? The same *halakha* applies to all wives. The Gemara answers: It is necessary, **lest you say** that in light of the verse: **“All glorious is the king’s daughter within the palace”** (Psalms 45:14), from which it is derived that it is improper for a wife to spend too much time outside her home, this woman’s husband should be concerned that while his wife is in a city of refuge she should not work out of the home, but only in the home. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that there is no need to be concerned about this matter, and her husband may say to her: Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, even in a city of refuge.


###### Gittin 12a:17
[Gittin 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:17)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי – רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל הָעֶבֶד לוֹמַר לְרַבּוֹ בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת: ״אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי, אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת״. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: הָרְשׁוּת בְּיַד רַבּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to the question of whether a master can decide to cease providing sustenance for his slave while the slave continues to serve him, the Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this matter is the **subject of** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it was taught that **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A slave can say to his master in years of famine: Either sustain me** from your property **or emancipate me. And the Rabbis say: His master has permission to** retain his ownership over him without sustaining him.


###### Gittin 12a:18
[Gittin 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:18)

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: יָכוֹל, וּמָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** correct to say that **they disagree** about **this** issue, **that** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that a master **can** say to his slave that he should work for him and he will not sustain him. Consequently, he is not required to emancipate him even when he cannot provide for him. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the master **cannot** say this, and therefore he is required to free him.


###### Gittin 12a:19
[Gittin 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:19)

וְתִיסְבְּרָא?! הַאי ״אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת״?! ״אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ תֵּן לִי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי בְּפַרְנָסָתִי״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! וְעוֹד: מַאי שְׁנָא בִּשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **And can you understand** the dispute that way? If so, **this** expression: **Either sustain me or emancipate me,** is inaccurate, as the *baraita* **should have** said: **Either sustain me or give me my earnings for my sustenance. And furthermore,** if the dispute concerns this general issue, **what is different about years of famine?** The same dispute should apply in all years.


###### Gittin 12a:20
[Gittin 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:20)

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאָמַר לוֹ ״צֵא מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיךָ לִמְזוֹנוֹתֶיךָ״, וּבִשְׁנֵי בַצּוֹרֶת לָא סָפֵק;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with what are we dealing here?** This *baraita* is referring to a case where the master **said to** the slave: **Spend your earnings to sustain yourself, and** subsequently, **during years of famine,** the slave’s earnings do **not suffice** to provide himself with sustenance, as prices are higher than usual.


###### Gittin 12a:21
[Gittin 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:21)

רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: אוֹ פַּרְנְסֵנִי אוֹ הוֹצִיאֵנִי לְחֵירוּת, כִּי הֵיכִי דְּחָזוּ לִי אִינָשֵׁי וּמְרַחֲמִין עֲלַי. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מַאן דִּמְרַחֵם אַבְּנֵי חָרֵי, אַעֶבֶד נָמֵי רַחוֹמֵי מְרַחֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds** that in this case the slave can say to his master: **Either sustain me or emancipate me, so that people will see me** in my helpless state, **and they will have mercy on me** and provide me with charity. **And the Rabbis hold** that this is not a justification for emancipating a slave, as **those who have mercy on freemen will also have mercy on a slave.** Consequently, it is not necessary for the slave to be emancipated for him to receive help from generous people. According to this interpretation, the *baraita* has no bearing on the question as to whether a master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.


###### Gittin 12a:22
[Gittin 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:22)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַב: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ, אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד לֹוֶה וְאוֹכֵל, וְעוֹשֶׂה וּפוֹרֵעַ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, יָכוֹל הָרַב לוֹמַר לָעֶבֶד: ״עֲשֵׂה עִמִּי וְאֵינִי זָנָךְ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara offers another suggestion: **Come** and **hear** a proof from a statement **that Rav said:** In the case of **one who consecrates the hands of his slave,** so that all the work he does becomes Temple property, preventing the slave from working on his own behalf, then **that slave borrows and eats, and** afterward **performs** work **and repays** what he borrowed, as will be explained. **Conclude from** Rav’s statement that **the master is able to say to** his **slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you.** In this case the master has prevented his slave from working for himself, and yet he is not required to provide for him.


###### Gittin 12a:23
[Gittin 12a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/12a:23)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּמַעֲלֶה לוֹ מְזוֹנוֹת. אִי הָכִי, לְמַאי

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **With what are we dealing here?** This is referring to a case **where** the master **provides sustenance for him.** The Gemara raises a difficulty: **If so, for what** reason