## Gittin Daf 43b

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

וְאֵין אֲנִי קוֹרֵא בָּהּ אֵשֶׁת שְׁנֵי מֵתִים; מָה נַפְשָׁךְ, אִי קִדּוּשֵׁי דִּרְאוּבֵן קִדּוּשִׁין – קִדּוּשֵׁי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן לָאו קִדּוּשִׁין, וְאִי קִדּוּשֵׁי דְּשִׁמְעוֹן קִדּוּשִׁין – קִדּוּשֵׁי דִּרְאוּבֵן לָאו קִדּוּשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and I do not declare her to be the wife of two dead** men. The *halakha* is that a *yevama* whose requirement for levirate marriage results from marriage to two brothers does not enter into levirate marriage at all. Here, that *halakha* does not apply, as **whichever way you** look at it, she was not married to two brothers: **If Reuven’s betrothal** was a valid **betrothal,** then **Shimon’s betrothal** was **not** a valid **betrothal,** and she is only Reuven’s widow. **And if Shimon’s betrothal** was a valid **betrothal,** it could only be that **Reuven’s betrothal** was **not** a valid **betrothal.** Either way, she had been married to only one of the brothers, and therefore she enters into levirate marriage with the third.


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

אִיתְּמַר: חֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין שֶׁנִּתְקַדְּשָׁה לִרְאוּבֵן, וְנִשְׁתַּחְרְרָה, וְחָזְרָה וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה לְשִׁמְעוֹן, רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: פָּקְעוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי רִאשׁוֹן; רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: גָּמְרוּ קִדּוּשֵׁי רִאשׁוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated:** 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,** who in this case was not the brother of Reuven, then **Rav Yosef bar Ḥama** says that **Rav Naḥman says:** Through her emancipation the **first betrothal was** entirely **abrogated,** and the second betrothal takes effect. **Rabbi Zeira** says that **Rav Naḥman says:** The **first betrothal was completed.** Reuven’s betrothal took effect immediately once she was emancipated. Consequently, Shimon’s betrothal did not take effect at all.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּווֹתֵיהּ דִּידִי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יוּמְתוּ כִּי לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״ – הָא חוּפָּשָׁה, יוּמְתוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira says: It stands to reason in accordance with my** opinion, **as it is written** with regard to one who engages in sexual intercourse with a designated maidservant: **“They shall not be put to death, because she was not free”** (Leviticus 19:20), and one can infer: **But** if **she was free,** then **they will be put to death,** because she is a married woman. This teaches that her betrothal is complete once she is emancipated.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּלְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: בְּשִׁפְחָה כְּנַעֲנִית הַמְאוֹרֶסֶת לְעֶבֶד עִבְרִי; הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכִי חוּפָּשָׁה – יוּמְתוּ?! אֶלָּא מַאי אִית לָךְ לְמֵימַר – שֶׁחוּפְּשָׁה וְחָזְרָה וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה, הָכָא נָמֵי – שֶׁחוּפְּשָׁה וְחָזְרָה וְנִתְקַדְּשָׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: And according to the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who says:** It is referring **to a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave, so too,** will you say **that when she is free they are put to death?** Once she is free, her betrothal to a Hebrew slave certainly is abrogated. **Rather, what have you to say** in order to understand the inference from the verse according to Rabbi Yishmael? That is a case **where she was free, and she** then **went back and was betrothed. Here too,** even if the verse is discussing a half-maidservant half-free woman, they will be put to death only in a case **where she was free and she** then **went back and was betrothed,** but the emancipation itself does not complete her earlier betrothal.


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר קַטִּינָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאִשָּׁה אַחַת שֶׁחֶצְיָהּ שִׁפְחָה וְחֶצְיָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין, וְכָפוּ אֶת רַבָּהּ וַעֲשָׂאָהּ בַּת חוֹרִין. כְּמַאן? כְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָה, דְּאָמַר: עַל שְׁנֵיהֶם הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וַיְבָרֶךְ אוֹתָם אֱלֹהִים וַיֹּאמֶר וְגוֹ׳ פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ וְגוֹ׳״

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Huna bar Ketina says** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak says: An incident** occurred **involving one woman who was a half-maidservant half-free woman, and they forced her master** to emancipate her, **and he made her a free woman.** The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion is it? Is it **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, who says: For both** Adam and Eve the verse **states: “And God blessed them, and** God **said** to them: **Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish** the earth and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28), indicating that the mitzva to procreate is incumbent upon women as well, and therefore a half-maidservant half-free woman must be freed to enable her to procreate?


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא, מִנְהַג הֶפְקֵר נָהֲגוּ בָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: No,** it need not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka, as the reason that he was forced to emancipate her was because she was unable to marry, and other men **took liberties with her,** i.e., engaged in intercourse with her. Consequently, the court forced her master to emancipate her so that she could marry.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם אוֹ לְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ – יָצָא בֶּן חוֹרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In a case of **one who sells his slave to gentiles, or** even **to** a Jew **outside of Eretz** Yisrael, the slave **is emancipated.** Since the slave, who is partially obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, would be restricted in his ability to fulfill them in his new situation, either because he would be under the authority of a gentile or because he will no longer be in Eretz Yisrael, the Sages penalized his original owner that he should become a freeman, so that if he succeeds in escaping his new owner, he is a full-fledged freeman.


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

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמּוֹכֵר עַבְדּוֹ לַגּוֹיִם – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת, וְצָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר מֵרַבּוֹ רִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁלֹּא כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ, אֲבָל כָּתַב עָלָיו אוֹנוֹ – זֶהוּ שִׁחְרוּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** (*Tosefta*, *Avoda Zara* 3:16): In a case of **one who sells his slave to gentiles,** the slave **is emancipated, but** nevertheless **requires a bill of manumission from his first master. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement said? When** the master **did not write a document for him, but** if **he wrote a document for him,** then **this is his emancipation** and he does not require a bill of manumission.


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

מַאי ״אוֹנוֹ״? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי: לִכְשֶׁתִּבְרַח מִמֶּנּוּ, אֵין לִי עֵסֶק בָּךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What** is the nature of this **document? Rav Sheshet said: He writes to him like this: When you will escape from** the gentile, **I have no business with you.** Even though this is not an explicit bill of manumission, it is sufficient for him to be considered a freeman.


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

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: לָוָה עָלָיו מִן הַגּוֹי, כֵּיוָן שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ גּוֹי נִמוּסוֹ – יָצָא לְחֵירוּת. מַאי נִמוּסוֹ? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה: נַשְׁקִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught:** If **he borrows from a gentile on the basis of** the slave, i.e., using the slave as collateral so that the creditor can collect the slave in payment of the debt in the event that the debtor defaults, then **once** the **gentile behaves with** the slave according to **his law [*nimmuso*],** the slave **is emancipated,** just like a slave who is sold to a gentile. The Gemara asks: **What** is defined as: **His law?** The Gemara answers: **Rav Huna bar Yehuda said:** He places **a seal [*nashkei*]** upon him.


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

מֵתִיב רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: הָאֲרִיסִין, וְהַחֲכִירוֹת, וַאֲרִיסֵי בָּתֵּי אָבוֹת, וְגוֹי שֶׁמִּשְׁכֵּן שָׂדֵהוּ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל; אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁעָשָׂה לוֹ נִמוּסוֹ – פְּטוּרָה מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheshet raises an objection** to this based on a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 2:11): If there was a field owned by a gentile, but there were Jewish **sharecroppers, or** Jewish **tenant farmers, or** Jewish **family sharecroppers,** i.e., an entire family of sharecroppers who work a field generation after generation; **or** in the case of **a gentile who mortgaged his field to a Jew,** then **even though** the gentile **acted for** the Jew **based on his,** the Jew’s, **law,** the field is **exempt from tithes,** because the field belongs to a gentile. It is not considered as if it were transferred to the Jew.


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ נַשְׁקִי, שָׂדֶה בַּת נַשְׁקִי הִיא? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זְמַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** that the phrase: His law, means **a seal, is a field able to be sealed? Rather, Rav Sheshet says:** The expression: He acted for him based on his law, means **time.** In other words, a deadline was set and if the debt was not paid by the given date the slave would automatically be transferred to the possession of the gentile.


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

קַשְׁיָא זְמַן אַזְּמַן! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּמְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ, הָא דְּלָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If that is so, there is a **difficulty** with regard to the issue of **time** in the case of the slave **and** the issue of **time** in the case of the field. In the case of the slave the *halakha* is that after the set time, he leaves the debtor’s authority and is emancipated, while in the case of the field its produce does not become obligated to be tithed like the produce of a Jew’s field after that set time. The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** since the following distinction can be made: **This,** the case of the slave who is emancipated, is referring to **when his time** to be transferred **has arrived,** and **this,** the case of the field, is referring to where **its time** to be transferred **has not** yet **arrived.**


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

אֶלָּא גַּבֵּי עֶבֶד, דִּמְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ צְרִיכָא לְמֵימַר?! אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּלָא מְטָא זִמְנֵיהּ, וְלָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא לְגוּפָא, וְהָא לְפֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But with regard to a slave whose time to be transferred has arrived,** does it **need to be said** that he is emancipated? Isn’t it obvious that once he is transferred to the authority of the gentile, he is emancipated, just as in the case of a sale? **Rather,** the Gemara offers a different explanation: **This** case **and that** case are referring to **when his time** to be transferred **has not** yet **arrived, and** it is **not difficult: This,** the case of the slave who is emancipated, is with regard **to** the slave **himself,** as the slave himself is to be transferred to the gentile, **and that** case is with regard **to** the **produce.** In other words, the Jewish creditor has the rights to the produce of the field, but he does not take possession of the actual field. Therefore, it remains exempt from tithes.