Or if you like I can say that it refers to the case where he borrowed on condition that he should pledge and he did not pledge.1
Our Rabbis taught: If [a heathen] seizes the slave [of a Jew] on account of money owing to him, or if he is taken by the sicaricon,2 he does not become free [if he escapes]. Is this really the rule if he is seized on account of debt?3 [If so,] it would seem to conflict with the following: 'If the king's officers seize the corn in a man's granary, if it is on account of a debt due from him he must give tithe for it,4 but if it is on account of anparuth,5 he is not under obligation to give tithe?' — There the case is different, because they confer some advantage on him.6 Come and hear: 'Rab said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang7 he becomes free [if he escapes]!' — There the reason is that he ought to have persuaded him to take something else, and he did not do so.
The text above [stated]: 'Rab said that if a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free. What was he to do? — He should have persuaded him to take something else and he did not do so.' R. Jeremiah raised the question: Suppose he sold him for thirty days,8 how do we decide? — Come and hear: Rab said, 'If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free'. — That refers to a heathen' parhang who is not likely to return. If he sells him [for all purposes] except for work,9 how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for all purposes] save where a breach of the Jewish law is involved,10 how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for work at all times] save on Sabbaths and festivals, how [do we decide]? If he sells him to a resident alien11 or non-observant Israelite,12 how [do we decide]? [If] to a Cuthean, how [do we decide]? — One of these questions at any rate may be definitely answered — A resident alien is on the same footing as a heathen. As for a Cuthean and a nonobservant Israelite, some say he is [on the same footing] as a heathen, and some [that he is on the same footing] as an Israelite.13
A question was asked of R. Ammi: If a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to procure his return through the agency either of an Israelite or Gentile court, is he at liberty to receive payment for him [if offered]? — Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zerika: Go outside and look through your notes.14 He went out, looked, and found that it was taught: If a man sells his house [in the land of Israel] to a heathen, the money paid for it is forbidden. If, however, a heathen forcibly takes a house of an Israelite, and the latter is unable to recover it either in a heathen or a Jewish court, he may accept payment for it and he may make out a deed for it and present it in heathen courts,15 since this is like rescuing [money] from their hands.16 But perhaps this applies only to a house, because since [a man] cannot do without a house he will not be induced17 to sell it, but since [a man] can do without a slave, shall we say that [if we make this rule] he may be induced to sell? — R. Ammi sent back answer; From me, Ammi son of Nathan, the rule is issued to all Israel that if a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to recover him either in a Jewish or a heathen court, [his master] is permitted to accept payment for him, and he may make out a deed and present it in heathen courts, because this is like rescuing [money] from their hands.
R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he can be penalised [by having to ransom him for] as much as a hundred times his value. Is the expression 'a hundred' here used exactly or loosely? — Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as ten times its value.18 Perhaps the rule for a slave is different, because every day he is kept away from religious observances. According: to another version R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he may be penalised by having to ransom him for as much as ten times his value. Is the expression 'ten' here used exactly or loosely? Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as a hundred times its value.19 — The rule for a slave is different, because he is not restored to him. The reason then why in the case of an animal [the penalty is so high] is because it is returned to him. If so, the excess penalty should be the bare value of the animal?20 — In fact the real reason is [that for a man to sell] a slave is unusual, and the Rabbis did not prescribe for unusual cases.21
R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Assi: If a man sells his slave and then dies, is there ground for penalising his son after him? It is true you can point [to the rule that] if a priest mutilates the ear of a firstling22 and then dies, his son is penalised after him; but this may be because he has broken a rule based on the Torah, whereas here we are dealing with a rule of the Rabbis.
If again you point [to the rule] that if a man prepares to do work during the half-festival1 and then dies, his son is not penalised after him, the reason may be because he did not actually do anything forbidden. What do we say here?2 Did the Rabbis penalise only the man but he no longer exists, or did they penalise his money and this does exist?3 — He replied: [The answer is to be found in] what you have already learnt: 'If a field has been cleared of thorns in the seventh year it can be sown on the expiration of the seventh year. If it has been manured or if cattle have been turned out4 there in the seventh year, it must not be sown at the expiration of the seventh year';5 and [commenting on this] R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: We lay down that if he manured it and then died, his son may sow it. From this [we may infer] that the Rabbis penalised him but not his son.
Abaye said: We have it on tradition that if a man renders unclean stuff belonging to another which he desired to keep ritually clean, and then dies, [the Rabbis] have not penalised his son after him. What is the reason? Damage which is not perceptible6 is not legally counted as damage [according to the Torah], and the penalty for it is Rabbinical in origin, and the Rabbis penalised the man who does the damage, but they did not penalise his son.
OR ABROAD. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a man sells his slave abroad, he becomes free but he requires a deed of emancipation from his second master. Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Sometimes he becomes free and sometimes he does not become free. For instance, if the master says, I have sold my slave So-and-so to So-and-so an Antiochian, he does not become free.7 If he says, To an Antiochian in Antioch, he does become free'. But has it not been taught: '[If a man says,] I have sold him to an Antiochian, he becomes free, but if he says, to an Antiochian living in Lydda,8 he does not become free'? — There is no contradiction: in the one case we suppose he has a house in Eretz Israel, in the other that he has only a place of stay in Eretz Israel.9
R. Jeremiah put the question: If a Babylonian [Jew] marries a woman from Eretz Yisrael and she brings him in10 male and female slaves and his intention is to return [to Babylon], what is the rule?11 We have to ask this whether we accept the view that the husband has the right, or whether we accept the view that the wife has the right.12 We have to ask it on the view that the wife has the right. Shall we say that since she has the right they are regarded as hers,13 or perhaps since they are made over to him as far as the increment14 is concerned they are regarded as his?15 The question has equally to be asked on the view that the husband has the right. Seeing that he has the right, are they to be regarded as his, or since he does not acquire the body16 are they still regarded as hers? — This must stand over.
R. Abbahu said: R. Johanan taught me, If a servant accompanies17 his master to Syria18 and his master sells him there, he becomes free. But R. Hiyya teaches that he loses his right?19 There is no contradiction: in the one case we presume that his master intended to return,20 in the other that he did not intend to return, as it has been taught: 'A slave must leave Eretz Israel with his master for Syria … Must leave, you say? Assuredly he need not leave, seeing that we have learnt, 'Not all may take out.'21 What [you mean is]: 'if a slave accompanies his master22 from Eretz Israel to Syria and his master sells him there, if it was his master's intention to return he is compelled to emancipate him,23 but if it was not his intention to return, he is not compelled.'
R. 'Anan said: I was told by Mar Samuel two things, one in relation to this point,24 and one in relation to the statement, If a man sells his field in the Jubilee year, Rab says that it is sold but must be immediately returned,25 whereas Samuel says that it is not sold in the first instance. In one case [he said] the purchase money is returned and in the other case it is not returned,26 and I do not know which is which. Said R. Joseph: Let us see.27 Since it is stated in the Baraitha that if a man sells his slave abroad he becomes free and requires a deed of emancipation from his second master, we infer that the second master became his legal owner and that the purchase money is not to be returned,28 and therefore that when Samuel said in the other case [of the field] that the field is not sold in the first instance, the money is returned.
- To Next Folio -