## Gittin Daf 41b

###### Gittin 41b:1
[Gittin 41b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:1)

בַּת חוֹרִין אִי אֶפְשָׁר, שֶׁכְּבָר חֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד. יִבָּטֵל? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תוֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״! אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם – כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It is** also **not possible** for him to marry **a free woman, as he is still a half-slave.** If you say **he should be idle** and not marry, **but isn’t it** true that **the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited”** (Isaiah 45:18)? **Rather, for the betterment of the world his master is forced to make him a freeman, and** the slave **writes** a promissory **note** accepting his responsibility to pay **half his value** to his master. **And Beit Hillel** ultimately **retracted** their opinion, **to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai,** that a half-slave must be set free.


###### Gittin 41b:2
[Gittin 41b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: קָנָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught:** With regard to a master **who emancipates** only **half of his slave, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: He** has **acquired** himself, i.e., the transaction is complete and half of the slave is emancipated, **and the Rabbis say: He** has **not acquired** himself.


###### Gittin 41b:3
[Gittin 41b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:3)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּשְׁטָר – דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** Their **dispute** pertains only to a case where the master emancipated him **with a bill** of manumission, **as Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds:** In the context of a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave, the Torah writes that neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, though the man is liable to bring a guilt-offering. If the woman had been emancipated, she would be a regular married woman, and they would incur the death penalty for their act of intercourse. In describing the woman in that case, the Torah writes: **“And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her”** (Leviticus 19:20). This is referring to two methods of emancipating a slave: Redemption via money, in the phrase: “And not at all redeemed,” and emancipation via a bill of manumission, in the phrase: “Nor was freedom given her.”


###### Gittin 41b:4
[Gittin 41b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:4)

מַקִּישׁ שְׁטָר לְכֶסֶף, מָה כֶּסֶף – בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ, אַף שְׁטָר נָמֵי – בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse **juxtaposes** the freeing of a slave via **a bill** of manumission **to** the freeing of a slave via payment of **money,** to teach that **just as** with **money** the slave can free **either all of him or half of him,** for if he were to pay half of his value to the master he would be half-redeemed, **so too,** by receiving **a bill** of manumission **either all of him or half of him** can be emancipated.


###### Gittin 41b:5
[Gittin 41b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:5)

וְרַבָּנַן גָּמְרִי ״לָהּ״–״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה – מָה אִשָּׁה חֶצְיָהּ לֹא, אַף עֶבֶד נָמֵי חֶצְיוֹ לֹא; אֲבָל בְּכֶסֶף – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קָנָה, פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis derive** their opinion, that a slave cannot acquire half of his freedom via a bill of manumission, **from** a verbal analogy of the word **“her [*lah*]”** written here: “Nor was freedom given to her [*lah*]” (Leviticus 19:20), and the word **“her [*lah*]”** written with regard to a man who divorces **a woman:** “And he writes her [*lah*] a scroll of severance” (Deuteronomy 24:1). **Just as** in the case of **a woman,** one is **not** able to divorce **half of her** with a bill of divorce, **so too,** in the case of **a slave,** one is **not** able to emancipate **half of him** with a bill of manumission. **However, with regard to** a slave who frees himself by giving **money, everyone agrees that** the slave **acquires** half of himself, and a female slave would also be partially **redeemed but not** fully **redeemed.**


###### Gittin 41b:6
[Gittin 41b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:6)

לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: הֶקֵּישָׁא עֲדִיף, וּמָר סָבַר: גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה עֲדִיפָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say that they disagree about this: As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, **holds** that a derivation from **a juxtaposition is preferable,** and consequently he derives the *halakha* of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the *halakha* stated in the same verse concerning redemption via money. **And** one **Sage,** i.e., the Rabbis, **holds** that **a verbal analogy is preferable** and therefore derives the *halakha* of emancipation via a bill of manumission from the *halakha* of the divorce of a woman, where the verse employs an analogous term.


###### Gittin 41b:7
[Gittin 41b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:7)

לָא; דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה עֲדִיפָא, וְשָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאִשָּׁה שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ יוֹצְאָה בְּכֶסֶף, תֹּאמַר בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁיּוֹצֵא בְּכֶסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **No, everyone agrees** that generally **a verbal analogy is preferable, but it is different here because** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** by stating the following: **What** is unique **about a woman** is that she **cannot leave** a marriage **via money** at all, **shall you say** that one should compare her case **to** that of **a slave, who does leave** his servitude **via money?** Since there are differences between divorce and emancipation, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that it is preferable to derive the *halakha* from a juxtaposition.


###### Gittin 41b:8
[Gittin 41b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:8)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּכֶסֶף – דְּרַבִּי סָבַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״ – פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה; וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם; אֲבָל בִּשְׁטָר – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא קָנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yosef said:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis pertains only to a case where the slave was freed **via money, for Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **holds:** The *halakha* that a slave can be half-freed can be derived from the phrase: **“And not at all redeemed [*vehofde lo nifdata*]”** (Leviticus 19:20), indicating that she has been partially **redeemed but not** fully **redeemed. And the Rabbis hold: The Torah spoke in the language of people,** and the repetition of the verb in the verse is not to be used as a source for deriving a *halakha*. **However,** when the slave is half-emancipated **via a bill** of manumission, **everyone agrees that** the slave has **not acquired** himself and remains a full slave.


###### Gittin 41b:9
[Gittin 41b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:9)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ בִּשְׁטָר, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: קָנָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא קָנָה. תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** against Rav Yosef’s statement based on what was taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who emancipates half** of **his slave with a bill** of manumission, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: He** has **acquired** himself, **and the Rabbis say: He has not acquired** himself. The Gemara concludes: **The refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Yosef is a conclusive refutation.**


###### Gittin 41b:10
[Gittin 41b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:10)

(נֵימָא) בִּשְׁטָר הוּא דִּפְלִיגִי, אֲבָל בְּכֶסֶף לָא פְּלִיגִי; לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב יוֹסֵף בְּתַרְתֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: In this *baraita*, **they disagree** in a case where the slave is half-emancipated **via a bill** of manumission. **However, they do not** explicitly **disagree** in a case where the slave is half-redeemed **with money. Shall we say** that **this is a conclusive refutation** of the statement **of Rav Yosef with regard to two** aspects: First, as above, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that he is half-freed via a bill of manumission; second, according to his statement, the dispute pertains to redeeming with money, yet the *baraita* gives no indication that the Rabbis would hold that the slave can be half-redeemed with money?


###### Gittin 41b:11
[Gittin 41b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:11)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב יוֹסֵף: פְּלִיגִי בִּשְׁטָר, וְהוּא הַדִּין בְּכֶסֶף. וְהָא דְּקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּשְׁטָר – לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחוֹ דְּרַבִּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **Rav Yosef** could have **said to you:** They **disagree with regard to** emancipation **via a bill** of manumission, **and the same is true,** that they would disagree, with regard to redeeming **with money. And this, that they** explicitly **disagree with regard to** emancipation **via a bill** of manumission, is **to convey to you the far-reaching** nature of the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, that a slave can be half-freed even by receiving a bill of manumission.


###### Gittin 41b:12
[Gittin 41b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:12)

וְלִיפְלְגֻי בְּכֶסֶף, וּלְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּרַבָּנַן! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And let them disagree** with regard to redeeming **with money, and to convey to you the far-reaching nature of** the opinion of **the Rabbis,** that they hold he cannot be half-freed even through redeeming with money. The Gemara responds: It is **preferable to** the *tanna* to emphasize **the power of leniency,** and therefore the dispute is presented as it is.


###### Gittin 41b:13
[Gittin 41b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:13)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה״; יָכוֹל לַכֹּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״. אִי ״לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״, יָכוֹל לַכֹּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה״. הָא כֵּיצַד? פְּדוּיָה וְאֵינָהּ פְּדוּיָה; בְּכֶסֶף וּבְשָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof with regard to this discussion based on a *baraita*: The verse in Leviticus employs the double expression “*vehofde lo nifdata*,” literally: And redeemed not redeemed, in discussing the designated maidservant. The *baraita* analyzes this wording. If the verse had stated only **“and redeemed,”** one **might** have thought that the verse discusses a maidservant that is **entirely** redeemed. Therefore, **the verse states “not redeemed.” If** it had stated only **“not redeemed,”** one **might** have thought that it means **an entirely** unredeemed maidservant, i.e., a full maidservant. Therefore, **the verse states “and redeemed.” How** can **these** texts be reconciled? The verse is discussing a case where she is partially **redeemed but not** fully **redeemed.** This was accomplished **via money or an equivalent** value of **money.**


###### Gittin 41b:14
[Gittin 41b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:14)

וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ״, וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתוּת״ – מָה לְהַלָּן בִּשְׁטָר, אַף כָּאן בִּשְׁטָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues. **And I have** derived **only** that she can be partially redeemed **via money. From where** do I derive that she can also be emancipated **via a bill** of manumission? **The verse states: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her”** (Leviticus 19:20), **and later on,** in the case of divorce, **it states: “And he writes her a scroll of severance”** (Deuteronomy 24:1). **Just as later on** freedom is granted **via a bill** of divorce, **so too here,** a maidservant is freed **via a bill** of manumission.


###### Gittin 41b:15
[Gittin 41b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:15)

אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חֶצְיוֹ בְּכֶסֶף, אוֹ כּוּלּוֹ בִּשְׁטָר; חֶצְיוֹ בִּשְׁטָר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהׇפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה אוֹ חוּפְשָׁה לֹא נִתַּן לָהּ״ – מַקִּישׁ שְׁטָר לְכֶסֶף, מָה כֶּסֶף בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ, אַף שְׁטָר נָמֵי בֵּין כּוּלּוֹ בֵּין חֶצְיוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**I have** derived **only** that **half of** a slave can be redeemed **via money,** as detailed above, **or** that **all of him** can be emancipated **via a bill** of manumission. **From where** do I derive that **half of him** can be emancipated **via a bill** of manumission? **The verse states: “And not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given her,”** and thereby **juxtaposes a bill** of manumission **to money. Just as** a slave can be **either fully** redeemed **or** half-redeemed via **money, so too, he** can **be either fully** emancipated **or** half-emancipated via **a bill** of manumission. This marks the end of the *baraita*.


###### Gittin 41b:16
[Gittin 41b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:16)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף בָּתַר דְּאִיתּוֹתַב, הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא. אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה – רֵישָׁא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the *baraita* in light of the earlier opinions. **Granted, according to Rav Yosef after he was conclusively refuted,** who now holds that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree both with regard to money and a bill of manumission, in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, for half of the slave is freed, whether via money or a bill of manumission. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rabba,** that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagree only with regard to a bill of manumission, but everyone agrees that the slave can redeem half of himself with money, do **all agree** with the statement of **the first clause, but the last clause** is in accordance with the opinion of only **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi?


###### Gittin 41b:17
[Gittin 41b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:17)

אָמַר לָךְ רַבָּה: אִין, רֵישָׁא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי. רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: רַבִּי הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba** could have **said to you: Yes, all agree** with the statement of **the first clause, and the last clause** is in accordance with only **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **Rav Ashi said:** This *baraita* **is** entirely in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi.


###### Gittin 41b:18
[Gittin 41b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/41b:18)

אֶלָּא מַתְנִיתִין דְּקָתָנֵי: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין; בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּה – מוֹקֵים לַהּ בְּכֶסֶף, וְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל; אֶלָּא לְרַב יוֹסֵף – לֵימָא רַבִּי הִיא וְלָא רַבָּנַן?! אָמַר רָבִינָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** with regard to **the mishna that teaches:** In the case of **one who is a half-slave half-freeman, granted, according to** the opinion of **Rabba, he establishes** the mishna as referring to a case where the slave was half-redeemed **with money, and everyone agrees** that this is effective. **However, according to** the opinion of **Rav Yosef, shall we say** that the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of only **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **and not** in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis?** According to the opinion of Rav Yosef, the Rabbis hold that a slave cannot be half-free, regardless of whether he is freed via money or a bill of manumission. **Ravina said:**