## Gittin Daf 43a

###### Gittin 43a:1
[Gittin 43a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:1)

דִּלְמָא מוֹדֶה וּמִיפְּטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Perhaps he will admit** his obligation **and become exempt** from his obligation to pay, for one who admits that he is required to pay a penalty before the court obligates him to pay it is exempt.


###### Gittin 43a:2
[Gittin 43a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:2)

וְתִבְּעֵי לְרַבָּנַן – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אֵין אָדָם מַקְנֶה דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לָעוֹלָם – אֶלָּא כְּגוֹן פֵּירוֹת דֶּקֶל, דְּהַשְׁתָּא מִיהָא לֵיתַנְהוּ; אֲבָל הָכָא – הָא קָאֵי שׁוֹר וְהָא קָאֵי עֶבֶד. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And you could raise this dilemma according to** the opinion of **the Rabbis** as well, as **the Rabbis state** that **a person cannot transfer ownership** of **an entity that has not yet come into the world only** in a case **such as the produce** of **a date palm, which now, at least, is not** in the world. **However, here,** the **ox is standing and** the **slave is standing,** and there is no need for any change in the reality. **What** is the *halakha* in this case?


###### Gittin 43a:3
[Gittin 43a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:3)

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא, תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וִילִיד בַּיִת״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? אִם קִנְיַן כֶּסֶף – אוֹכֵל, יְלִיד בַּיִת – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Abba said: Come** and **hear** a proof based on a halakhic exposition of the verse that details those who may partake of *teruma*. The verse states: “But if a priest buys any person, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and those who are born in his house, they may eat of his bread” (Leviticus 22:11), and the Sages expound as follows: **What** is the meaning when **the verse states: “And those who are born in his house”? If** a slave, who is **the purchase of** his **money,** may **partake** of *teruma*, then in the case of **those** slaves **who are born** to the priest **in his house,** is it **not all the more so** that they should be able to partake of *teruma*?


###### Gittin 43a:4
[Gittin 43a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:4)

אִילּוּ כֵּן, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: מָה קִנְיַן כֶּסֶף, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף – אוֹכֵל; אַף יְלִיד בַּיִת, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף – אוֹכֵל; וּמִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה כְּלוּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״יְלִיד בַּיִת״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **If so,** if the *halakha* that a born slave may partake of *teruma* is derived only due to this *a fortiori* inference, **I would have said: Just as** with regard to **the purchase of** his **money** it is only **one who has monetary value** that **partakes, so too,** with regard to **one born in** his **house,** only **one who has monetary value partakes. And from where** is it derived **that** the same *halakha* applies **when** a born slave **is not worth anything,** e.g., in the case of a newborn, who cannot perform any labor? **The verse states: “Those who are born in his house,” in any case,** regardless of their present monetary value.


###### Gittin 43a:5
[Gittin 43a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:5)

וַעֲדַיִין אֲנִי אוֹמֵר: יְלִיד בַּיִת, בֵּין שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף, בֵּין שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף – אוֹכֵל; קִנְיַן כֶּסֶף, יֵשׁ בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף – אוֹכֵל, אֵין בּוֹ שָׁוֶה כֶּסֶף – אֵינוֹ אוֹכֵל; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ״ – מָה יְלִיד בַּיִת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה כְּלוּם – אוֹכֵל; אַף קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה כְּלוּם – אוֹכֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **And I still say** that perhaps **one born in** the priest’s **house** may **partake** of *teruma* **whether he has monetary value** or **whether he does not have monetary value.** But with regard to a slave **purchased of** the priest’s **money,** when **he has monetary value, he** may **partake;** when **he does not have monetary value, he** may **not partake. The verse states: “The purchase of his money…and those who are born in his house,** they may eat of his bread” (Leviticus 22:11). The verse compares the two, indicating: **Just as one born in** the priest’s **house may partake** of *teruma* **although he is not worth anything, so too, the purchase of his money** may **partake** of *teruma* **although he is not worth anything.** In any event, it is clear from this *baraita* that it is possible for a slave to have no monetary value.


###### Gittin 43a:6
[Gittin 43a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:6)

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ, עֶבֶד שֶׁמְּכָרוֹ רַבּוֹ לִקְנָס – מָכוּר; מִי אִיכָּא עַבְדָּא דְּלָא מִזְדַּבַּן לִקְנָסָא?! אִין, אִיכָּא עֶבֶד טְרֵפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abba now states his proof. **And if it enters your mind** to say that **a slave whose master sold him** to another person only **with regard to** the **penalty is sold, is there a slave that cannot be sold with regard to the penalty?** Even if he cannot perform any labor, he still has value in that he can be sold with regard to the penalty. The Gemara answers: **Yes, there is** the case of **a slave who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [*tereifa*].** Since he will die from an injury that is already present, one would not be required to pay a penalty if one’s ox gored him.


###### Gittin 43a:7
[Gittin 43a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:7)

וְהָא חֲזֵי לְמֵיקַם קַמֵּיהּ! בִּמְנֻוּוֹל וּמוּכֵּה שְׁחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But isn’t** he **fit to stand before** his master in honor, even if he cannot perform any other service, so he has some value as a slave? The Gemara answers: This *baraita* is referring **to** a slave who is not only a *tereifa* and for whom there is no penalty, but is also **disgusting [*menuvval*] or afflicted with boils [*mukeh sheḥin*].** It would not be a display of honor for the slave to stand before the master, and therefore he is worthless. This question of the Gemara remains unresolved.


###### Gittin 43a:8
[Gittin 43a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ בַּת חוֹרִין, מַהוּ? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: ״בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁאָמַר לְבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל: ׳הִתְקַדְּשִׁי לְחֶצְיִי׳ – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת״ – דְּחַזְיָא לְכוּלֵּיהּ; הָא – לָא חַזְיָא לְכוּלֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: In the case of **one who is a half-slave half-freeman who betrothed a free woman, what is** the *halakha*? The Gemara discusses the elements of this question: **If you say** that this should be compared to **a Jewish man who said to a Jewish woman: Become betrothed to half of me,** and the *halakha* is that **she is betrothed,** this is **because she is fit to** marry **all of him.** However, in **this** case one could say that **she is not fit to** marry **all of him** because he is a half-slave, so it is not a valid betrothal.


###### Gittin 43a:9
[Gittin 43a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:9)

וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר: ״בֶּן יִשְׂרָאֵל הַמְקַדֵּשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת״ – דְּשִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ; וְהָא עֶבֶד – לֹא שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**However, if you say** that this should be compared to the case of **a Jewish man who betroths half a woman,** where the *halakha* is that **she is not betrothed** because **he left** a portion of the woman **out of his acquisition,** as betrothal acquires a complete woman and not half of a woman, **but this slave did not leave** any part of her **out of his acquisition,** as his Jewish half betrothed her fully. **What** is the *halakha* in this case?


###### Gittin 43a:10
[Gittin 43a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הֵמִית מִי שֶׁחֶצְיוֹ עֶבֶד וְחֶצְיוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין – נוֹתֵן חֲצִי קְנָס לְרַבּוֹ, וַחֲצִי כוֹפֶר לְיוֹרְשָׁיו. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ קִידּוּשָׁיו לָאו קִידּוּשִׁין, יוֹרְשִׁין מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof based on that which is taught in a *baraita*: If an ox **killed a half-slave half-freeman,** then the owner of the ox **gives half** of **a penalty,** i.e., fifteen shekels, **to his master and half** of **a ransom,** i.e., half of the value of the deceased, **to his heirs. And if you say** that **his betrothal is not** a valid **betrothal,** and the half-slave half-freeman may not marry a woman, then **from where does he have heirs?** It must be that he may betroth and marry a woman, and as a result he can have heirs.


###### Gittin 43a:11
[Gittin 43a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:11)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: כְּשֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ טְרֵפָה; וּמַאי ״יוֹרְשָׁיו״ – נַפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** This is referring to a case where the ox did not actually kill him. Rather, **it made him a *tereifa*,** and a *tereifa* is like a dead person. **And what** is the meaning of: **His heirs?** It means the half-slave half-freeman **himself.**


###### Gittin 43a:12
[Gittin 43a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:12)

אָמַר רָבָא, שְׁתֵּי תְּשׁוּבוֹת בַּדָּבָר: חֲדָא – דְּ״יוֹרְשָׁיו״ קָתָנֵי; וְעוֹד – כּוֹפֶר הוּא, וְאָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כּוֹפֶר אֵין מִשְׁתַּלֵּם אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מִיתָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: רָאוּי לִיטּוֹל, וְאֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said** that there are **two refutations of** your **statement: One** is **that it teaches: His heirs,** and it is not reasonable to say that this is referring to the victim himself. **And furthermore, it** is referring to **ransom** here, **and Reish Lakish says: Ransom is paid only after** the **death** of the victim but not while he is still alive, even if he is a *tereifa*. **Rather, Rava says:** When the *baraita* states that half of the ransom is given to his heirs, it means that **it is fitting** for heirs **to take** the ransom, **but he does not** actually **have** heirs.


###### Gittin 43a:13
[Gittin 43a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:13)

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמְקַדֵּשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, כָּךְ חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה – אֵין קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rava says: Just as** the *halakha* is **that** in the case of **one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too,** if there is **a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed,** then **her betrothal is not** a valid **betrothal.**


###### Gittin 43a:14
[Gittin 43a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:14)

דָּרֵשׁ רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמְקַדֵּשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, כָּךְ חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב חִסְדָּא: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ, הָכָא לֹא שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara says: **Rabba bar Rav Huna taught** this *halakha* in public: **Just as** the *halakha* is **that** in the case of **one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too,** if there is **a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed,** then **her betrothal is not** a valid **betrothal. Rav Ḥisda said to him** as a question: **Are** the cases **comparable? There,** where he betroths half a woman, **he leaves** a portion of the woman **out of his acquisition.** That is why the betrothal does not take effect. However, **here,** she was a half-maidservant half-free woman when he betrothed her, and **he did not leave** a portion of the woman **out of his acquisition,** so the betrothal should take effect.


###### Gittin 43a:15
[Gittin 43a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:15)

הֲדַר אוֹקֵים רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמוֹרָא עֲלֵיהּ, וּדְרַשׁ: ״וְהַמַּכְשֵׁלָה הַזֹּאת תַּחַת יָדֶיךָ״ – אֵין אָדָם עוֹמֵד עַל דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן נִכְשָׁל בָּהֶן; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ הַמְקַדֵּשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, אֲבָל חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה – קִדּוּשֶׁיהָ קִדּוּשִׁין. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ, הָכָא לֹא שִׁיֵּיר בְּקִנְיָנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Huna went back and placed an interpreter before him** so that he could tell the public that he had been wrong, **and he interpreted** a verse **homiletically.** The verse states: **“And let this stumbling-block be under your hand”** (Isaiah 3:6). **A person does not understand statements of Torah unless he stumbles in them.** Therefore, I retract my previous statement and say that **although** the Sages **said** that in the case of **one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, however,** if there was **a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed,** then **her betrothal is** a valid **betrothal. What is the reason** for the distinction? **There, he left** a portion of the woman **out of his acquisition; here, he did not leave** a portion of the woman **out of his acquisition.**


###### Gittin 43a:16
[Gittin 43a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:16)

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמְקַדֵּשׁ חֲצִי אִשָּׁה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, כָּךְ חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה – אֵין קִידּוּשֶׁיהָ קִידּוּשִׁין. וְאִם לְחָשְׁךָ אָדָם לוֹמַר: אֵיזוֹ הִיא שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה – זוֹ שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין הַמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי; אַלְמָא בַּת אִיתְּרוֹסֵי הִיא! אֱמוֹר לוֹ: כְּלָךְ אֵצֶל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, שֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר – בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית הַמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet said** in response to this: **Just as** the *halakha* is **that** in the case of **one who betroths half a woman, she is not betrothed, so too,** if there is **a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed,** then **her betrothal is not** a valid **betrothal. And if a person whispers to you [*leḥashekha*], saying,** based on what was taught in a *baraita*: **Who is** the **designated maidservant** mentioned in the Torah? **This is** a woman who is **a half-maidservant half-free woman who is betrothed to a Hebrew slave, apparently** indicating that **she can be betrothed,** then **say to him: Go to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yishmael, for he says** that this is not referring to a woman who is a half-slave, but rather **to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave.**


###### Gittin 43a:17
[Gittin 43a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:17)

וְשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית בַּת אִיתְּרוֹסֵי הִיא?! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר, מַאי ״מְאוֹרֶסֶת״ – מְיוּחֶדֶת; הָכָא נָמֵי, מַאי ״מְאוֹרֶסֶת״ – מְיוּחֶדֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheshet questions his own statement: **But can a Canaanite maidservant be betrothed? Rather, what have you to say: What** is the meaning of the word **betrothed** in the statement of Rabbi Yishmael? It means that **she is designated** for him, and it is not actual betrothal. **Here, also,** in the *baraita*, **what** does it mean that the Canaanite maidservant is **betrothed** to a Hebrew slave? It means that she is **designated** to cohabit with him, but they are not in fact betrothed.


###### Gittin 43a:18
[Gittin 43a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/43a:18)

אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה לִרְאוּבֵן, וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, וְחָזְרָה וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה לְשִׁמְעוֹן, וּמֵתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם – מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת לְלֵוִי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥisda says:** If there was **a half-maidservant half-free woman who was betrothed to Reuven, and** afterward **she was emancipated** entirely, **and she went back and was betrothed to Shimon** his brother, **and both** brothers **died** without children, then **she enters into levirate marriage with Levi,** the third brother, because she was considered to be the complete wife of only one of the brothers,