Gittin - Daf 42
- שיחרר חציו ומכר חציו
The previous Daf presented a machlokes Tannaim if one can free half his slave. Rabbah says the machlokes only applies when he retains the second half, אבל שיחרר חציו ומכר חציו – but if he freed half and sold his other half, או נתן במתנה חציו – or gifted his other half, כיון דקנפיק מיניה כוליה דברי הכל קנה – since he entirely leaves [his ownership], everyone agrees he acquires his half-freedom. Abaye challenged this assertion from two contradictory Baraisos. One says: הכותב נכסיו לשני עבדיו – One who writes his possessions over to his two slaves, קנו ומשחררין זה את זה – they each acquire half the possessions, and free each other (since each owns half of the other). A second Baraisa teaches that the slaves do not even acquire themselves. It seems that this reflects the earlier machlokes Tannaim, even though the second half of each slave was gifted to the other!? The Gemara answers that the Baraisos are discussing different cases: הא דאמר כולו – This first Baraisa, which taught the slaves do acquire themselves, is where he said each slave acquires all his property and did not retain any part of either slave. הא דאמר חצי חצי – This second Baraisa is where said he gives half to each slave, so even if he gave to both simultaneously, he may have intended to give the same half to each slave, leaving each one’s second half for himself.
- Compensation for a half-slave who is damaged or killed
The Gemara says: נגחו שור – If an ox gores [a half-slave], יום של רבו לרבו – if he was gored on a day that his work belongs to his master, damages are paid to his master. יום של עצמו לעצמו – If he was gored on a day that his work belongs to himself, the damages are paid to himself. Still, he cannot marry a slave woman on “his master’s day” and a free woman on “his day,” because איסורא לא קאמרינן – we cannot say his status changes daily regarding prohibition. Only monetary arrangements can be divided this way. This ruling is challenged from a Baraisa which teaches that if a half-slave is killed by an animal, its owner pays half kenas (thirty shekel for a killed slave) to his master, and half כופר (atonement money for a killed free man) to his heirs. We see that the payment is split evenly, and not given according to the day of occurrence!? The Gemara answers: שאני הכא דקא כליא קרנא – here where the half-slave was killed is different because the principal was destroyed. Since the loss is permanent, the payment is given to both parties. The above arrangement of damage payments is where his damages will heal, and the loss is not permanent. The Gemara discusses this point further.
- If a slave awaiting a גט שחרור is eligible for קנס of slaves, and if he may eat terumah
The Gemara asks: מעוכב גט שחרור – A slave who has been freed but needs a גט שחרור, יש לו קנס או אין לו קנס – does he have the law of kenas that if he is killed by someone’s animal, the owner pays the master thirty shekel, or not? Do we say that since the passuk says the money is given "לאדוניו" – to his master, and this master, who has no monetary ownership, is not a true “master,” or do we say that since he still requires a גט שחרור, he is still called his “master”? Similarly, the Gemara asks: מעוכב גט שחרור אוכל בתרומה או אינו אוכל – A slave of a Kohen awaiting a גט שחרור, can he eat terumah or not? Do we say that terumah is only permitted to a slave who is "קנין כספו" – the acquisition of his money, and this freed slave is no longer his acquisition, or do we say that since he requires a גט שחרור, he is still considered his acquisition? Proofs are suggested for both questions but are deflected.
