## Gittin Daf 13a

###### Gittin 13a:1
[Gittin 13a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:1)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And Rabbi Meir further said to the Rabbis: **And what** would **be if** there was the **slave of a priest, who fled** from his master, **or** the **wife of a priest who rebelled against her husband,** are **they not** permitted to **partake of *teruma*,** although not the *teruma* belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of *teruma*. **But this** slave who was emancipated **may not partake** of *teruma* at all, even *teruma* that belongs to other priests. Evidently, emancipation is to his detriment.


###### Gittin 13a:2
[Gittin 13a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:2)

שַׁפִּיר קָאָמַר לְהוּ! אָמַר רָבָא: הַיְינוּ דְּקָא מַהְדְּרִי לֵיהּ בְּמַתְנִיתִין: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא קִנְיָנוֹ. דְּאִי בָּעֵי, שָׁקֵיל אַרְבָּעָה זוּזֵי מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל וּפָסֵיל לֵיהּ כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, then Rabbi Meir **is saying** and responding **well** to the Rabbis. How do the Rabbis counter his claim? **Rava said: This is what** they **answered** and said **to him in the mishna:** The master can disqualify his slave from partaking of *teruma* in any event, **because he is his** master’s **acquisition.** The implication of this statement is the following: **As, if** the master **desires** to disqualify his slave from partaking of *teruma* after he has fled, he can **take four dinars from** any **Israelite** in exchange for the slave, **and he** thereby **disqualifies** him from partaking of *teruma* **anywhere that he is** located.


###### Gittin 13a:3
[Gittin 13a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:3)

וּלְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – תִּינַח עֶבֶד כֹּהֵן, עֶבֶד יִשְׂרָאֵל מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּפְסִידוֹ מִשִּׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** his explanation **works out well** with regard to the **slave of a priest** whose emancipation causes him to be disqualified from partaking of *teruma*, and therefore it is possible to argue that his emancipation is to his detriment. However with regard to the **slave of an Israelite, what can be said? Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak says:** Emancipation is even to the detriment of a slave of an Israelite, **because** by freeing him his master **causes him to lose** the option **of** engaging in sexual intercourse with **a Canaanite maidservant.** Until this point it was permitted for him to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, but once he is emancipated these women are forbidden to him.


###### Gittin 13a:4
[Gittin 13a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:4)

אַדְּרַבָּה, הֲרֵי הוּא מַתִּירוֹ בְּבַת חוֹרִין! עַבְדָּא בְּהֶפְקֵירָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ – זִילָא לֵיהּ, שְׁכִיחָא לֵיהּ, פְּרִיצָה לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **On the contrary,** by emancipating him the master renders it **permitted for him** to engage in sexual intercourse **with a free woman.** The Gemara answers: In the case of **a slave,** a life **of licentiousness is preferable for him.** Therefore, he would rather have the right to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant, as **she is lowly to him, she is available for him, she is unrestricted for him.** None of these descriptions apply to a Jewish woman, and therefore he loses out on the benefit he could have received from being permitted to engage in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant. Consequently, Rabbi Meir maintains that his emancipation is to his detriment.


###### Gittin 13a:5
[Gittin 13a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר ״תְּנוּ גֵּט זֶה לְאִשְׁתִּי, שְׁטַר שִׁחְרוּר זֶה לְעַבְדִּי״, וּמֵת – לֹא יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה. ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי״, וּמֵת – יִתְּנוּ לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who says: Give this bill of divorce to my wife,** or: Give **this bill of manumission to my slave, and** then he **dies, one does not give it after** his **death.** The reason for this is that bills of divorce and manumission must be transferred by the husband or the master. Once he has died the document can no longer be given, and the agency he appointed for this purpose is likewise canceled. However, if he said: **Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and** then he **died, one does give** the recipient the money **after** his **death.**


###### Gittin 13a:6
[Gittin 13a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר מָרְתָּא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְרַב: וְהוּא שֶׁצְּבוּרִין וּמוּנָּחִין בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And this** ruling, that one gives the one hundred dinars after the death of the owner, is the *halakha* only **when** those dinars **are piled up and placed in a corner** at the time of the command.


###### Gittin 13a:7
[Gittin 13a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:7)

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּבָרִיא, כִּי צְבוּרִין מַאי הָוֵי? הָא לָא מְשַׁךְ! וְאֶלָּא בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, מַאי אִירְיָא צְבוּרִין? כִּי אֵין צְבוּרִין נָמֵי, דְּהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּדִבְרֵי שְׁכִיב מְרַע – כִּכְתוּבִים וְכִמְסוּרִין דָּמוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that we are dealing **with a healthy person** who instructs others to give one hundred dinars, then **when they are piled, what of it?** After all, the recipient **did not pull** the money, and one must perform an act of acquisition to take possession of movable property. **Rather,** say that we are dealing **with** a person **on his deathbed,** in which case verbal instructions suffice. However, if that is so, **why** does this *halakha* apply **specifically** when the money is **piled?** The same should be the case **when** the coins are **not piled as well, as we maintain** that **the statement of** a person **on his deathbed** who distributes his property **is considered as though it were written and delivered.** If so, no other act of acquisition should be necessary.


###### Gittin 13a:8
[Gittin 13a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:8)

אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: לְעוֹלָם בְּבָרִיא, וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב – דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, תְּנֵהוּ לוֹ לִפְלוֹנִי״, בְּמַעֲמַד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן – קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Zevid says: Actually,** the mishna is dealing **with a healthy person, and** this ruling is **in accordance with** that which **Rav Huna** says that **Rav says. As Rav Huna says** that **Rav says:** With regard to one who says to another: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession; give it to so-and-so,** if this occurred **in the presence of** all **three** parties, that third person has **acquired** it. This type of acquisition applies only to money that is similar to a deposit, e.g., piled money.


###### Gittin 13a:9
[Gittin 13a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:9)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם בִּשְׁכִיב מְרַע, וּכְאִידַּךְ דְּרַב – דְּאָמַר רַב: שְׁכִיב מְרַע שֶׁאָמַר ״תְּנוּ מָנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי מִנְּכָסַי״; ״מָנֶה זֶה״ – נוֹתְנִין, ״מָנֶה״ סְתָם – אֵין נוֹתְנִין,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said: Actually,** the mishna is dealing **with** a person **on his deathbed, and it is in accordance with another** ruling **of Rav, as Rav says:** With regard to a person **on his deathbed who said: Give one hundred dinars to so-and-so from my property,** the *halakha* depends on his precise wording. If he said: Give him **this one hundred dinars,** where the money is in a particular place, **one gives** the money to him. However, if he merely said: **One hundred dinars, without specification, one does not give** it to him.


###### Gittin 13a:10
[Gittin 13a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:10)

חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא מָנֶה קָבוּר קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Why does one not give the one hundred dinars if he did not add further specification? **We are concerned** that **perhaps he spoke** about **a buried one hundred dinars.** In other words, he might have been referring to a specific one hundred dinars whose location is unknown, and he did not intend to give him any other money. For this reason, Rav explains that the mishna is referring to money piled up in a designated place, which the one who gives the instruction is referring to explicitly.


###### Gittin 13a:11
[Gittin 13a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/13a:11)

וְהִלְכְתָא: לִקְבוּרָה לָא חָיְישִׁינַן. רַב פָּפָּא מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָמַר כְּרַב זְבִיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And the *halakha*** is that **we are not concerned about a buried** sum of one hundred dinars, i.e., the *halakha* is not in accordance with the opinion of Rav. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** that **Rav Pappa did not say** an explanation that is **in accordance with** that of **Rav Zevid** with regard to Rav’s statement?