Gittin 44: Emancipating Slaves in Different Circumstances

Sometimes Gentiles would take slaves as payment for their debts.  Slaves might also be captured by a Sicarius, who would torture people and take their property.  The rabbis question whether or such a slave could be considered emancipated.  On the other hand, a slave might be sold to a government official as a bribe of sorts.  In this case, the slave might in fact be emancipated.  The rabbis then consider whether or not a slave might be emancipated in numerous circumstances.  Some of these cases explore time-limited purchases and differences between the halachot regarding sellers who are Gentiles or Jews.

The rabbis consider what should be done if a slave runs to serve with another army.  They also consider the differences between slaves and animal who have been purchased by someone other than the rightful master.  Captives must be redeemed, even at a greater cost than market value.  However, a slave or an animal do not necessarily have to be redeemed.  The rabbis also consider whether or not a master who dies passes on to his son the responsibility of redeeming a slave.

The Gemara describes other situations where the son of a man who has died is responsible (or not responsible) for his father's debts. Most of these examples include people who have transgressed a halacha and then died.  Their sons are then left with the possible penalties.  

Finally, the rabbis wonder whether or not slaves are emancipated when they are brought to other lands.  The Gemara considers differences between wives' and husbands' purchases.  As well, the rabbis note whether or not people who travel with their slaves intend to return.  Slaves cannot be forced to leave Eretz Yisrael, but if they choose to leave, they forfeit their right to emancipation.  If they choose to stay, they are emancipated.

How challenging to continually struggle with texts that normalize slavery.