## Gittin Daf 39a

###### Gittin 39a:1
[Gittin 39a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:1)

הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין אָדָם מוֹצִיא דְּבָרָיו לְבַטָּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir, who says: A person does not make a statement** of consecration **for naught.** If one declared an item consecrated, even if he did not use the correct formulation, his statement is interpreted in a manner to render it meaningful. Therefore, although the master did not say that the slave is consecrated with regard to his monetary value, his statement is interpreted in this way. However, Rav holds in accordance with the dissenting opinion of the Rabbis. In their opinion the slave is not consecrated.


###### Gittin 39a:2
[Gittin 39a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:2)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: וְכֵן הוּא, שֶׁהִקְדִּישׁ עַצְמוֹ – עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל, שֶׁלֹּא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶלָּא דָּמָיו. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר הִיא – שַׁפִּיר;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This too stands to reason, as it teaches in the latter clause** of the *baraita*: **And so too,** a freeman **who consecrated himself works and is sustained** from his labor, **as he consecrated only his monetary** value and he did not consecrate his body. **Granted, if you say** that this *baraita* **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** then the entire *baraita* works out **well.** According to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, even when he consecrated himself, his statement is interpreted so that it is referring to a type of consecration that is meaningful.


###### Gittin 39a:3
[Gittin 39a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:3)

אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ רַבָּנַן הִיא, בִּשְׁלָמָא עַבְדּוֹ – לִדְמֵי קָאֵי, אֶלָּא אִיהוּ – לִדְמֵי קָאֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, if you say** that **it is** the opinion of **the Rabbis, granted,** the first clause of the *baraita* that deals with one who consecrates **his slave** is understood, as **his slave exists** primarily **for monetary** value. It is logical that when the owner consecrates him he intends to consecrate his monetary value. **However,** in the case of the latter clause of the *baraita*, which is referring to one who consecrates himself, does **he exist for monetary** value? Therefore, the *baraita* must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.


###### Gittin 39a:4
[Gittin 39a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:4)

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי – הַמַּקְדִּישׁ עַבְדּוֹ, אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׂעָרוֹ. מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: קָדוֹשׁ; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא קָדוֹשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this dispute with regard to one who consecrates his slave is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*.** A *baraita* taught: With regard to **one who consecrates his slave,** if one then makes use of the slave, there **is no misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One misuses** property consecrated to the Temple if one makes use **of his hair. What, is it not that they disagree about this** issue, **as** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the slave is **consecrated,** and therefore the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property apply, **and** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that the slave is **not consecrated?**


###### Gittin 39a:5
[Gittin 39a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:5)

וְתִסְבְּרָא?! הַאי ״מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ״ וְ״אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ״?! הַאי ״קָדוֹשׁ״ וְ״אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how can **you understand** that to be their dispute? If that were the case, then **these** expressions of: **One misuses** property consecrated to the Temple, **and:** There **is no misuse** of property consecrated to the Temple, are not the correct expressions. **They should have** used **these** expressions, of: **Consecrated, and: Not consecrated,** if that were actually the subject of their dispute.


###### Gittin 39a:6
[Gittin 39a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:6)

אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא קָדוֹשׁ, וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי; וּמָר סָבַר: כְּמִטַּלְטְלִי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, everyone** agrees that the slave is **consecrated,** in opposition to the opinion of Rav. **And here they disagree about this, as** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **a slave** is **considered equivalent to land,** as slaves are compared to land in several areas of *halakha*. Just as the misuse of consecrated property does not apply in the case of land, so too, it does not apply to slaves. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that they are **considered equivalent to movable property,** and therefore the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property do apply to slaves.


###### Gittin 39a:7
[Gittin 39a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:7)

אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, לִיפַּלְגוּ בְּגוּפוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this explanation: **If that is so,** and they disagree with regard to whether a slave is equivalent to land or movable property, **instead of disagreeing with regard to** whether making use of the slave’s **hair** constitutes a misuse of consecrated property, **let them disagree with regard to** whether making use of the slave **himself** constitutes a misuse of consecrated property.


###### Gittin 39a:8
[Gittin 39a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:8)

אֶלָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא עַבְדָּא כִּמְקַרְקְעֵי דָּמֵי, וְהָכָא בִּשְׂעָרוֹ הָעוֹמֵד לִיגָּזֵז קָמִיפַּלְגִי – מָר סָבַר: כְּגָזוּז דָּמֵי; וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו כְּגָזוּז דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that **everyone** agrees that **a slave** is **considered equivalent to land,** and making use of the slave himself does not constitute a misuse of consecrated property. **And here they disagree with regard to his hair that is ready to be cut,** whether it is still considered a part of the slave. One **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that it **is considered as** if it were already **cut** and is no longer part of the slave. Since it is viewed as detached, it is subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property, like all movable property. **And** one **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that it **is not considered as** if it were already **cut.** Until it is cut, the hair is part of the slave, and, like all land, is not subject to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property.


###### Gittin 39a:9
[Gittin 39a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:9)

לֵימָא הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי? דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵם כַּקַּרְקַע וְאֵינָן כַּקַּרְקַע, וְאֵין חֲכָמִים מוֹדִים לוֹ. כֵּיצַד? ״עֶשֶׂר גְּפָנִים טְעוּנוֹת מָסַרְתִּי לָךְ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״אֵינָן אֶלָּא חָמֵשׁ״ – רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּיב; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל הַמְחוּבָּר לַקַּרְקַע הֲרֵי הוּא כַּקַּרְקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the opinions of **these *tanna’im* are parallel** to the opinions of **those *tanna’im*, as we learned** in a mishna (*Shevuot* 42b) that **Rabbi Meir says: There are** certain **things that are like land** with regard to their form **but are not** treated **like land** from a halakhic perspective, **but the Rabbis do not admit to him** that this is so. **How so?** If one makes the claim: **I gave you ten grapevines laden** with fruit to guard, **and the other one says: They are only five** vines, then **Rabbi Meir obligates** the defendant to take an oath, for one who makes a partial admission to a claim concerning movable property is obligated to take an oath that he is stating the truth. **And the Rabbis say:** The halakhic status of **anything** that is **attached to the ground is like the ground** itself, and therefore one does not take an oath in this case, as one does not take an oath if one makes a partial admission to a claim concerning land.


###### Gittin 39a:10
[Gittin 39a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:10)

וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: עֲנָבִים הָעוֹמְדוֹת לִיבָּצֵר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לָאו כִּבְצוּרוֹת דָּמְיָין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues the comparison: **And** with regard to this, **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** that the practical difference **between them** is not concerning all vines. It exists only in a case of **grapes that are ready to be harvested, as Rabbi Meir holds** that since they are ready to be harvested, **they are considered like** they are already **harvested,** and the defendant must take an oath, as he is denying a claim concerning movable property. **And the Rabbis hold** that **they are not considered like** they are already **harvested,** and they still have the status of land. This dispute seems to be identical to the dispute between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and the Rabbis.


###### Gittin 39a:11
[Gittin 39a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:11)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי מֵאִיר – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָתָם, אֶלָּא בַּעֲנָבִים – דְּכַמָּה דְּקָיְימָן מִיכְחָשׁ כְּחִישִׁי; אֲבָל הָכָא – כַּמָּה דְּקָאֵי אַשְׁבּוֹחֵי מַשְׁבַּח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: The dispute in the *baraita* with regard to a slave’s hair is not necessarily parallel to the dispute with regard to grapes. **Even** if **you say** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir,** that grapes that are about to be harvested are considered like they are already harvested, this does not dictate one’s opinion with regard to a slave’s hair that is ready to be cut. **Rabbi Meir states** his opinion **only there, with regard to grapes, since the longer they remain** on the vine after ripening the more they **become withered** and are ruined. Since they no longer benefit from their attachment to the ground, they are considered to be like movable property. **However, here,** with regard to hair, **the longer it remains** on the slave the more **it improves,** i.e., grows, and therefore it should not be considered as if it were already cut.


###### Gittin 39a:12
[Gittin 39a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:12)

כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לְהַאי שְׁמַעְתָּא דְרַב קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר רַב הָכִי? וְהוּא – לָא אָמַר הָכִי?! וְהָאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In connection with Rav’s statement that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, the Gemara recounts: **When Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef ascended** from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, **he stated this *halakha* of Rav,** that one who renounces ownership of his slave emancipates the slave, **before Rabbi Yoḥanan.** Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to him** in astonishment: Did **Rav** actually **say so?** This indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed with the statement of Rav, which leads the Gemara to ask: **But didn’t** Rabbi Yoḥanan himself **say so? But didn’t Ulla say** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to one **who renounces ownership of his slave,** the slave **is emancipated but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission.** Why then was Rabbi Yoḥanan so surprised by Rav’s statement?


###### Gittin 39a:13
[Gittin 39a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:13)

הָכִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ: אָמַר רַב כְּווֹתִי? וְאִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: לָא סַיְּימוּהָ קַמֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: וְלָא אָמַר רַב צָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר?! וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְטַעְמֵיהּ – דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan was not objecting to Rav’s opinion, but **this is what he said to him: Did Rav** actually **say in accordance with my** opinion? **And** alternatively, **there are** those **who say** that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef **did not conclude** Rav’s statement **before** Rabbi Yoḥanan by saying that nevertheless the slave requires a bill of manumission. Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** him: **And didn’t Rav say that** the slave **requires a bill of manumission? And Rabbi Yoḥanan** conforms **to his** standard line of **reasoning, as Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to one **who renounces ownership of his slave,** the slave **is emancipated but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission.**


###### Gittin 39a:14
[Gittin 39a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:14)

גּוּפָא – אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara discusses **the** matter **itself: Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** With regard to one **who renounces ownership of his slave,** the slave **is emancipated but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission** to be fully considered a freeman and to be able to marry a Jewish woman.


###### Gittin 39a:15
[Gittin 39a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְעוּלָּא: גֵּר שֶׁמֵּת וּבִזְבְּזוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נְכָסָיו, וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן עֲבָדִים – בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים וּבֵין קְטַנִּים, קָנוּ עַצְמָן בְּנֵי חוֹרִין. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלִים – קָנוּ עַצְמָן בְּנֵי חוֹרִין; קְטַנִּים – כׇּל הַמַּחְזִיק בָּהֶן, זָכָה בָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba raised an objection to Ulla** from a *baraita*: If **a convert died and Jews plundered his property,** as his possessions became ownerless property with his death because he had no heirs, **and among** his possessions **were slaves,** then, **whether** the slaves were **adults or minors, they acquire** ownership of **themselves** and become **freemen,** as they can acquire themselves from the ownerless property. **Abba Shaul says: Adult** slaves **acquire** ownership of **themselves** and become **freemen.** However, with regard to **minor** slaves, **anyone who takes possession of them acquires them.**


###### Gittin 39a:16
[Gittin 39a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:16)

וְכִי מִי כָּתַב גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר לְאֵלּוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This appears difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan, as one could ask: **But who wrote a bill of manumission for those** slaves who became free men? Their owner died without freeing them, and nevertheless they are emancipated. Therefore, the *baraita* demonstrates that when a slave becomes ownerless, he is emancipated entirely and does not require a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman.


###### Gittin 39a:17
[Gittin 39a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:17)

אָמַר: דָּמֵי הַאי מִדְּרַבָּנַן כִּדְלָא גָּמְרִי אִינָשֵׁי שְׁמַעְתָּא. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, קָסָבַר עוּלָּא: עַבְדּוֹ דְּגֵר כִּי אִשְׁתּוֹ – מָה אִשְׁתּוֹ מִשְׁתַּלַּחַת בְּלֹא גֵּט, אַף עֲבָדָיו מִשְׁתַּלְּחִים בְּלֹא גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla **said** in reply: **This** one **of the Rabbis,** Rabbi Abba, **is like a person who has not studied *halakha*.** He refused to address Rabbi Abba’s objection, as he did not think it was worthy of a response. The Gemara asks: **And what is the reason** that these slaves do not require a bill of manumission? **Rav Naḥman said** that **Ulla holds** as follows: **A slave of a convert is comparable to his wife** in this case. **Just as his wife is freed** by his death **without a bill of divorce,** and she is no longer considered married with regard to any *halakhot*, **so too, his slaves are freed without a bill** of manumission.


###### Gittin 39a:18
[Gittin 39a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:18)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָּה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this answer: **If so,** if a slave is comparable to a wife, then **even** the slave of **a Jew** that dies should be freed entirely **as well,** just as his wife is. Why should this *halakha* apply only to the slave of a convert? The Gemara answers: **The verse states** with regard to slaves: **“And you may make them an inheritance for your children after you, to hold for a possession”** (Leviticus 25:46). Therefore, slaves are not emancipated with the death of their owner, as the heirs have a right to the slaves. However, in the case of a convert who does not have heirs, the slaves are emancipated.


###### Gittin 39a:19
[Gittin 39a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:19)

אִי הָכִי, הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ וָמֵת – נָמֵי; אַלְּמָה אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: הַמַּפְקִיר עַבְדּוֹ וָמֵת – אוֹתוֹ הָעֶבֶד אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה? דְּאַמֵּימָר קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **If so,** then in a case of **one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies,** the slaves should not require a bill of manumission **as well,** as they are not part of the inheritance of the children. **Why** then **did Ameimar say** that with regard to **one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies,** there is **no remedy for that slave** and he cannot marry a Jewish woman, as there is no one to emancipate him? The Gemara states: This statement **of Ameimar** poses **a difficulty** to Rav Naḥman’s explanation of Ulla’s statement.


###### Gittin 39a:20
[Gittin 39a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/39a:20)

אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידֵּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אִידִי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi says** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Abba Shaul** with regard to a convert who died and left behind slaves. **Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi:**