Talmud sur Guittin 4:4

עֶבֶד שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּה וּפְדָאוּהוּ, אִם לְשׁוּם עֶבֶד, יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. אִם לְשׁוּם בֶּן חוֹרִין, לֹא יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בֵּין כָּךְ וּבֵין כָּךְ יִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. עֶבֶד שֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ רַבּוֹ אַפּוֹתִיקִי לַאֲחֵרִים וְשִׁחְרְרוֹ, שׁוּרַת הַדִּין, אֵין הָעֶבֶד חַיָּב כְּלוּם. אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם, כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב שְׁטָר עַל דָּמָיו. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ כוֹתֵב אֶלָּא מְשַׁחְרֵר:

Si un esclave (cananéen) était fait prisonnier et racheté [par d'autres Israélites après que son maître eut désespéré de son retour] —si (il a été racheté) pour la servitude, il sert [le second maître]; si pour la liberté, il ne sert [ni le premier ni le second. Pas le second, car il l'a racheté pour la liberté. Pas le premier, [de peur qu'ils ne le rachètent]. R. Shimon n. Gamliel dit: Dans les deux cas, il sert [son premier maître, de peur que chaque esclave ne se fasse capturer par des brigands pour échapper à son maître.] Si un maître faisait de son esclave un apotiki [po tehei kai ("Ici il restera" ), c'est-à-dire, de ceci (l'esclave) tu recouvreras ta dette, et non d'ailleurs)], et il [son premier maître] l'a libéré, la justice dicte que l'esclave ne doit rien [au second, pour la manumission de son premier maître dissout sa servitude]; mais à cause de "l'intérêt général" [de peur que le second ne le trouve sur le marché et ne lui dise: "Tu es mon esclave", jetant le discrédit sur ses enfants], son maître [le second] est obligé de le libérer et il [ l'emprunteur] lui écrit (le second) un acte de dette pour sa valeur [c'est-à-dire pour sa valeur marchande (en tant qu'esclave); pas pour le montant de la dette si la dette était supérieure à sa valeur.] R. Shimon b. Gamliel dit: Il [l'esclave] ne lui fait pas de facture, car il ne lui doit rien. Mais son premier maître, qui «a endommagé» ce qui lui était dû, doit lui payer sa valeur. Car celui qui endommage ce qui est dû à un autre est responsable. (La halakha est conforme à R. Shimon b. Gamliel)], mais il (le second) le libère.

Jerusalem Talmud Yevamot

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, there is disagreement about mortmain slaves. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁶Tosaphot in Giṭṭin 41a, s. v. אשה, are of the opinion that the Babli concurs.. Rebbi Eleazar said to him, they are eating heave by his power and you say so? He answered, do not paraphernalia slaves also eat by his power, and one says that if he sold them, they are not sold¹⁷If the wife is not from a priestly family, then her slaves can eat only because he made her his wife. He cannot sell them since nobody can sell what is not his; Tosephta 9:1.. From your own they¹⁸The developers of rabbinic doctrine. gave to you. It would be logical that one¹⁹A paraphernalia slave who is not property of a Cohen. should not eat heave. But they said that he eats²⁰As if he were the property of a Cohen., and they said, if he sold them, they are not sold. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Josiah. A baraita supports one and another baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Paraphernalia slaves are freed on account of “tooth and eye”²¹If a slave loses a body part through his owner’s fault, he gains his freedom (Ex. 21:26). Paraphernalia slaves are property of the wife but not the husband. This part of the baraita is quoted in the Babli. Baba Qama 89a. from the wife but not the husband. Mortmain slaves²²This baraita holds that they are the husband’s property; therefore, he must have the absolute power to sell them, against R. Joḥanan. are freed by “tooth and eye” from the husband but not the wife. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? They are quick to manumit²³The Babli agrees without a dissenting opinion., as we have stated²⁴Quoted as tannaitic text also in Giṭṭin 4:4 (fol. 45b), as amoraic in the Babli, Baba Qama 11b. 33b; Baba Meṣi‘a 44b.: If somebody mortgages²⁵Greek ὑποθήκη “mortgage”. a slave and later sold him, he is not sold²⁶The creditor can foreclose on the slave in the hands of the buyer.; if he freed him, he is freed²⁷The creditor has to sue the borrower for damages; he cannot put his hand on the ex-slave.. A baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: Neither mortmain slaves nor paraphernalia slaves are under the rules of “one or two days”²⁸Ex. 21:20. The exemption for the owner who hits his slave which provided that he is not prosecutable if the slave survives for two days is not available to either wife or husband. This baraita defines “owner” as a person who has both the right to and disposition of his property.
This text is also in the Babli Baba Qama 89b. and are freed by “tooth or eye” from neither the husband nor the wife. Where do they disagree? When he sold them forever or sold them for some time²⁹“Selling temporarily” is not selling the property but leasing the use of the property for a limited period.? If you say that he sold them permanently rather than temporarily, does everybody agree that they are sold? If you say that he sold them temporarily rather than permanently, does everybody agree that they are not sold? Let us hear from the following: ³⁰Ševi‘it 10:1 (Notes 22–24), in a slightly different version Babli Giṭṭin41a. If somebody mortgages his field to his wife for her ketubah or to a creditor for his claim and then sells it, it is sold and the buyer should beware for himself³¹The buyer has to insure himself against the possibility that the creditor or the wife at the dissolution of her marriage will foreclose the property and he will have to sue the seller for restitution of the sale price.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, for the ketubah of the wife it is not sold since it is unthinkable that a woman³²Without a male protector. Then the law has to protect her. should run around at courts of law. They said, Rebbi Eleazar parallels the rabbis, Rebbi Joḥanan Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel³³Since the wife has a lien on the mortmain slaves, the husband cannot alienate them without her consent, just as he cannot alienate real estate put up as collateral for her ketubah.
Rosh (R. Asher ben Ieḥiel) in his commentary on this Yerushalmi (Yebamot 7 #1) holds that the husband is prevented even from leasing the property without his wife’s consent. Rif (R. Isaac Fasi), Giṭṭin #472 holds that the husband may not sell but may lease for a limited time.. That means, we deal with a temporary sale. But if he sold permanently, everybody agrees that they are not sold.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Jerusalem Talmud Bava Kamma

HALAKHAH: “This is more severe regarding a human than an ox,” etc. “A person who hits his father or mother,” etc. It was stated⁴³A similar statement is in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Neziqin 9.: If the witnesses said, we testify that X blinded both of his eyes simultanously, or that he knocked out two of his teeth simultaneously, he does not have to pay anything. One after the other, he gains his freedom by the first and he pays him damages for the second⁴⁴Ex. 21:26–27 states that a slave gains his freedom if his master blinds him or knocks out one of his teeth. If the master injures the slave repeatedly, the slave gains his freedom by the first injury and, therefore, can claim full payment for the second as a free Jew (Babli Giṭṭin 42b). But if a double injury was inflicted in one blow, the slave was not free and has no claim beyond his automatic freedom.. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This implies that one estimates embarrassment for slaves⁴⁵Since there is no exception made for shame in the previous statement.
The statement is difficult to understand since at the moment of the second injury the slave already is a free Jew rather than a slave. As R. Eliahu Fulda points out, it also is superfluous since R. Joḥanan always follows the anonymous Mishnah as practice. Since the Yerushalmi is so elliptic, it may not be excluded that it follows the Babli (Giṭṭin 42b) in holding that the slave is automatically free only for eye and tooth which are mentioned in the verse, but for other injuries for which the court will force the slave’s freedom a bill of manumission would be required. Then R. Abbahu’s statement becomes relevant for the case of a slave in his period between servitude and freedom.. ⁴⁶A text similar to the remainder of this paragraph is in Ketubot 5:5, Notes 120–130. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If a person dedicates his earnings, he dedicates everything⁴⁷Everything he earns automatically is Temple property; he cannot take anything to feed himself but has to beg his sustenance from others. Tosephta ‘Arakhin 3:8 does not support this statement.. If he dedicates the earnings of his slave, he⁴⁸The slave can support himself from his own earnings; only the excess becomes Temple property; Tosephta ‘Arakhin 3:8, Babli Giṭṭin 12a. can take from there his upkeep and the remainder is dedicated. Here you say, the remainder is dedicated, but there you say, everything is holy. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support free people than slaves⁴⁹Slaves would not be able to feed themselves from alms.. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan say: If somebody cuts off the hands of somebody else’s slave, his master collects damages, suffering, medical costs, loss of earnings, and embarrassment, and that one should be supported by welfare⁵⁰Babli Giṭṭin 12b.. Rebbi Aḥa said, Jews are more obligated to support amputated slaves than unimpaired ones. But did not Rebbi Joḥanan also give to his slave when he ate meat? Give also to his slave when he drank wine? And recited for himself the verse⁵¹Job 31:15.: “Did not His maker make me in the womb”? They said, there a rule of law, here a rule of mercy.

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Verset précédent Chapitre complet Verset suivant