Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 1.3

משנה: עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אַף בְּכֶסֶף עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ וּבִשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֶּסֶף מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים.

MISHNAH: A Canaanite slave is acquired by money, or contract, or possession. He gains his autonomy by money through a third party or a document by himself, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, by money also by himself or a document through a third party, if only the money comes from a third party.

הלכה: עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף כול׳. כְּתִיב וְהִתְנַחַלְתֶּם אוֹתָם לִבְנֵיכֶם אַחֲרֵיכֶם לָרֶשֶׁת אֲחוּזָּה. הִקִּישׁ עֲבָדִים לַאֲחוּזָּה. מָה אֲחוּזָּה נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. אַף עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי נִקְנֶה בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה.

HALAKHAH: “A Canaanite slave is acquired by money,” etc. It is written: “They shall be inherited by your children after you, to be possessed as inheritance” This brackets slaves with landed property. Since real estate can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession, so a Canaanite slave can be acquired by money, or contract, or possession.

מְנַיִין שֶׁאֲחוּזָּה נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר וּבַחֲזָקָה. שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם וְהָעֵד עֵדִים. וְחָתוֹם אֵילּוּ עֵידֵי שְׁטָר. וְהָעֵד עֵדִים אֵילּוּ עֵידֵי חֲזָקָה. אוֹ אֵינָן אֶלָּא אֵילּוּ עֵידֵי שְׁטָר. כְּבָר כָּתוּב וְכָתוֹב בַּסֵּפֶר וְחָתוֹם.

From where that landed property is bought by money, or contract, or possession? “Fields will be bought by money, writing on a scroll and signing, and testifying of witnesses.” “And signing”, these are the witnesses on the contract. “And testifying of witnesses,” these are the witnesses to possession. Or maybe these are only the witnesses on the contract? These are already written: “Writing on a scroll and signing.”

רִבִּי יָסָא בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי מָנָא רִבִּי תַנְחוּם רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֵין קַרְקַע נִקְנֶה בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. מַה טַעֲמָא. שָׂדוֹת בַּכֶּסֶף יִקְנוּ. וּפְלִיג עַל הַהִיא דְאָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. כָּל שְׁקָלִים שֶׁכְּתוּבִים בַּתּוֹרָה סְלָעִים וּבַנְּבִיאִים לִיטְרִין וּבַכְּתוּבִים קִינְטֵירִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּדָה בַּר פָּזִי. חוּץ מִשִּׁקְלֵי עֶפְרוֹן דְּהַוְיָין קִינְטֵירִין. מַה טַעֲמָא. בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא יַתְנֶנָּה לִי. וְלֹא דַמְיָיא. תַּמָּן כְּתִיב כֶּסֶף וְהָכָא כְּתִיב שְׁקָלִים. הָתִיבוּן. הֲרֵי הָאוֹנֵס הֲרֵי אֵין כָּתוּב בּוֹ אֶלָּא כֶּסֶף וְאַתְּ אָמַר שְׁקָלִים.

Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Mana; Rebbi Tanḥum, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Real estate cannot be bought for less than a peruṭah. What is the reason? “Fields will be bought by money.” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said: Any šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas, in the Prophets pounds340, and in the Hagiographs centenarii. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron, which were centenarii. What is the reason? “For full money he shall give it to me.” There is no comparison since here it is written “money” but there “šeqalim”. They objected, is there not the rapist, for whom “money” is written and you say “šeqalim”?

וּדְלֹא כְרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר. דְּרִבִּי לִעֶזֶר אָמַר. הִילֵּךְ קָנָה. דְּתַנֵּי. הִילֵּךְ בְּשָׂדֶה לְאוֹרְכָּהּ וּלְרָחְבָּהּ קָנָה עַד מָקוֹם שֶׁהִילֵּךְ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא קָנָה עַד שָׁעָה שֶׁיַּחֲזִיק. הַכֹּל מוֹדִין בְּמוֹכֵר שְׁבִיל לַחֲבֵירוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִילֵּךְ בּוֹ קְנָייוֹ. מַה טַעֲמָא. קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּאָרֶץ לְאוֹרְכָּהּ וּלְרָחְבָּהּ כִּי לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּהּ.

This does not follow Rebbi Eliezer, for Rebbi Eliezer said that walking acquires, as it was stated: If one walked across a field in length and breadth, he acquired up to the place he walked to, the words of Rebbi Eliezer. But the Sages say that he did not acquire up to the moment he acted in possession. Everybody agrees that if somebody sells a path to another, when the latter went, he acquired. What is the reason? “Arise, walk in the Land in length and breadth, for I shall give it to you.”

אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. עֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. כִּמְטַלְטְלִין. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. לֹא כְקַרְקָעוֹת וְלֹא כִמְטַלְטְלִין. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. עֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. חֶזְקַת בָּתִּים בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת מֶרְחַצִּיּוֹת וְשׁוֹבְכוֹת בֵּית הַבַּדִּים וּבֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין וַעֲבָדִים. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה. עֲבָדִים אֵינָן כִּמְטַלְטְלִין. דְּתַנֵּי. אֵי זוֹ הִיא חֶזְקַת עֲבָדִים. נָעַל לוֹ מִנְעֲלוֹ. וְהִתִּיר לוֹ מִנְעָלוֹ. נָטַל לְפָנָיו לְמֶרְחָץ. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר. אִם הִגְבִּיהוֹ הֲרֵי זוֹ חֲזָקָה. הִגְבִּיהַּ הוּא אֶת רַבּוֹ אֵין חֲזָקָה גְּדוֹלָה מִזּוֹ. מִילֵּיהוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין אָמְרִין. עֲבָדִים כִּמְטַלְטְלִין. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין. אֵין שִׁיעְבּוּד לְמַתָּנָה. אֵין גּוֹבִין מִן הָעֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא לְרִבִּי שַׁמַּי. מָאן אִינּוּן רַבָּנִין. אָמַר לֵיהּ. רִבִּי יִצְחָק וְרִבִּי אִימִּי. אַרְמָלְתָא תְּפָסָת אָמְתָא. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אָמַר. תְּפָסָת תְּפָסָת. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַפִּיק מִינָּהּ. דְּהִיא סָבְרָה דְהִיא דִידָּהּ וְלֵית הִיא דִּידָּהּ. וְלֹא בקַרְקָעוֹת. דְּתַנֵּי. קַרְקָעוֹת וַעֲבָדִים הֶחֱזִיק בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. עֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בַּקַּרְקָעוֹת הֶחֱזִיק בָּעֲבָדִים. דְּאָמַר רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הָיוּ לוֹ שְׁתֵּי שָׂדוֹת אַחַת בִּיהוּדָה וְאַחַת בַּגָּלִיל. הֶחֱזִיק בְּזוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה לִזְכוֹת בְּזוֹ שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל אוֹ בְּזוֹ שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל לִזְכוֹת בְּזוֹ שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה. קָנָה. לֹא במְטַלְטְלִין. אִם אוֹמֵר אַתְּ. עֲבָדִים כִּמְטַלְטְלִין. כֵּיוָן שֶׁהֶחֱזִיק בִּמְטַלְטְלִין הֶחֱזִיק בָּעֲבָדִים. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. שֶׁהַנְּכָסִין שֶׁאֵין לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת זוֹקְקִין אֶת הַנְּכָסִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן אֲחֵרָיוּת לִישָּׁבַע עֲלֵיהֶן.

A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate. A baraita states, the rules of movables. A baraita states, neither the rules of realestate nor the rules of movables. A Mishnah says that slaves follow the rules of real estate, as we have stated there: “Possession of houses, cisterns, ditches, and caves, bath houses, and dovecots, olive presses, and irrigated fields, and slaves.” A baraita states, slaves do not follow the rules of movables. As it is stated: What is possession of a slave? He tied his shoe for him, or untied his shoe, carried his things to the bath. Rebbi Simeon says, if he lifted him, that is possession. If he lifted his master, there is no stronger possession than this. A statement of the rabbis says that slaves follow the rules of movables. For Rebbi Yose said in the name of rabbis, there is no lien for a gift; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. A widow took a slave girl. The case came before Rebbi Isaac who said, what she took, she took. Rebbi Immi took her away, for she thought that she was hers but she was not hers. Not of real estate, as it was stated: Real estate and slaves; he took possession of the real estate. If you say that slaves follow the rules of real estate, when he took possession of the real estate he would have taken possession of the slaves, since Rebbi Yasa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he had two fields, one in Judea and one in Galilee. If he took possession of the one in Judea with intention to take possession also of that in Galilee, or of the one in Galilee with intention to take possession also of that in Judea, he acquired. Not of movables. If you say that slaves follow the rules of movables, when he took possession of the movables he would have taken possessionof the slaves, since we did state there: “For property that is not guaranteed will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.”

בַּכֶּסֶף. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר. מֵאַחֵר לְרַבּוֹ. הָא מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר לֹא. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אֲפִילוּ מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. מָהוּ מוֹצִיא. מֵרַבּוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי זְעִירָא. הֵילָךְ כֶּסֶף זֶה שֶׁתֵּצֵא שָׂדְךָ לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. יָצָאת. שֶׁתֵּצֵא שָׂדְךָ לְהֶבְקֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. לֹא יָצָאת. מַה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. זֶה זִיכֶּה לְבֶן דַּעַת וְזֶה לֹא זִיכֶּה לְבֶן דַּעַת. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה חֵרֵשׁ. אָמַר לֵיהּ אִישׁ. הַגַּע עַצְמָךְ שֶׁהָיָה קָטָן. אָמַר לֵיהּ דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַגְדִּיל. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹנָה. אַתְיָיא דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא כְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנֵּי. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אַף בִּשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים. לֹא עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. מָהוּ בִּשְׁטָר עַל יְדֵי אֲחֵרִים לֹא עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ. לֹא רַבּוֹ נוֹתֵן שְׁטָר לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁיֵּצֵא עַבְדּוֹ לְחֵירוּת. אוּף הָכָא רַבּוֹ נוֹתֵן כֶּסֶף לַאֲחֵרִים שֶׁתֵּצֵא שָׂדֵהוּ לְהֶבְקֵר.

“By money.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, from another person to his master, therefore not from his master to another person. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even from his master to another person. What brings this? From his master to himself. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Here you have money that your field shall be unencumbered.” He answered, it is unencumbered. “That it be ownerless”? He answered, it is not ownerless. What is the difference between the cases? Here he advantaged a thinking person, there he did not advantage any thinking person. Think of it, if he was deaf-mute? He said to him, “a man.” Think of it, if he was underage? He said to him, one usually grows up. Rebbi Jonah said, Rebbi Ze‘ira follows Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar, since Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Even with a contract through others, not by himself. Does not his master deliver a document to others that his slave regain his freedom? Here also, his master gives money to others that his field become ownerless.

אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אַתְיָיא כְּרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִין אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. אִית לוֹן בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁלְּשׁוּתָפוּת. אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. שֶׁהוּא כְּזָכָה מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמאֹלוֹ. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי שֶׁהוּא כְּזָכָה מִימִינוֹ לִשְׂמאֹלוֹ. אִית לֵיהּ בִּמְזַכֶּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִין בִּמְזַכֶּה לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. סָבְרִין רַבָּנִין. הָרָאוּי לִזְכוֹת עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ רָאוּי לִזְכוֹת עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְכוֹת עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְכוֹת עַל יְדֵי אַחֵר. רִבִּי אוֹמֵר. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֶינוֹ רָאוּי לִזְכוֹת עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ רָאוּי לִזְכוֹת לוֹ עַל יְדֵי אַחֵרִים.

Rebbi Abun said, it follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave. But do the rabbis not hold that a person can free half of his slave? They admit it for a slave held in partnership. But there is a difference for a slave who entirely belongs to him, for it is as if he gave something from his right into his left hand. Does Rebbi hold that it is not as if he gave something from his right into his left hand? He admits it if he gave to him through a third party. Do the rabbis not hold that he may give to him through a third party? The rabbis hold that one who can acquire by himself can acquire through a third party; one who cannot acquire by himself cannot acquire through a third party. Rebbi says, even though he cannot acquire by himself, he can acquire through third parties.

הִגְבִּיהַּ אֶת הַמְּצִיאָה וְאָמַר. עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאֶזְכֶּה בָהּ אֲנִי וְלֹא רַבִּי. עַל כּוֹרְחוֹ זָכָה הוּא וְרַבּוֹ אוֹ זָכָה הוּא וְלֹא רַבּוֹ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָיָיה מֵחַתְנוֹ וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לָתֵת לְבִתּוֹ מָעוֹת. אוֹמֵר לָהּ. הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵילּוּ נְתוּנִין לָךְ מַתָּנָה. וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעֲלֵיךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן אֶלָּא מַה שֶׁאַתְּ נוֹתֶנֶת לְפִיךְ. תַּנֵּי. וְלֹא לֵיךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מָאן תַּנָּא. וְלֹא לֵיךְ. רִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבִיד יַד עֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ. בְּמַתָּנָה כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא יַד הָאִשָּׁה כְּיַד בַּעֲלָהּ. בִּמְצִיאָה כְּרַבָּנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. שַׁנְיָיא הִיא. שֶׁהוּא כְּזָכָה מִדַּעַת אַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. וְלֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן הִיא. מָה אִם שֶׁהִיא כְּזָכָה מִדַּעַת אַחֵר אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. זָכָת הָאִשָּׁה זָכָה בַעֲלָהּ. כָּאן שֶׁהוּא כְּזָכָה מִדַּעַת עַצְמוֹ לֹא כָּל שֶׁכֵּן זָכָה הָעֶבֶד יִזְכֶּה רַבּוֹ.

If he picked up a find and said, for the purpose that I own it rather than my master. Does he and his master own it automatically or does he own it but not his master? Let us hear from the following: “If a person is by a vow prevented from benefitting his son-in-law but wants to give money to his daughter, he says to her: These coins are given to you as a gift on condition that your husband have no claim to them, except what you put into your mouth.” It was stated: “Neither do you”. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, who stated “neither do you”? Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of a slave the hand of his master. For a gift [we follow] Rebbi Meïr that the wife’s hand is her husband’s hand; for a find [do we follow] the rabbis? Rebbi Ze‘ira said before Rebbi Mana, is there not a difference, for he is as if he acquired by somebody else’s opinion? He said to him, is it not a case a fortiori? Since in her case, when she would acquire by somebody else’s opinion, you say that what a wife acquired, her husband acquired: here where he acquires by his own opinion, a fortiori what the slave acquired his master must acquire.

וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן. בְּרָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן חוֹזְרִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן מַרֵיָיה. מִפְּנֵי הַמַּחֲלוֹקֶת. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. צָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵין צָרִיךְ גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר.

Why did we not state: By important limbs that do not regenerate? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, because of the disagreement. Some Tannaīm state that he needs a bill of manumission; some Tannaīm state that he does not need a bill of manumission.

פְּשִׁיטָא שֶׁהָעֶבֶד מְקַבֵּל מַתָּנָה מֵאַחֵר לְאַחֵר. מֵאַחֵר לְרַבּוֹ. מֵרַבּוֹ לְעַצְמוֹ לֹא. מֵאַחֵר לְעַצְמוֹ מַחֲלוֹקֶת רִבִּי מֵאִיר וַחֲכָמִים. אוֹמֵר. הָא לָךְ כֶּסֶף זֶה שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְרַבָּךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן. זָכָה הָעֶבֶד זָכָה רַבּוֹ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. זָכָה הָעֶבֶד זָכָה רַבּוֹ. מַה צְרִיכָה לֵיהּ. מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעֶבֶד זָכָה מֵאַחֵר לְרַבּוֹ כָּךְ הוּא זוֹכֶה מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הַשּׁוֹאֵל אֶת הַפָּרָה וְשִׁילְּחָהּ לוֹ בְיַד עַבְדּוֹ בְּיַד בְּנוֹ בְּיַד שְׁלוּחוֹ. לֵית הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד זָכָה מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. תִּיפְתָּר בְּעֶבֶד עִבְרִי. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. תִּיפְתְּרִינֵיהּ בְּעֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי. תִּיפְתָּר בְּאוֹמֵר לוֹ. פְּתַח לָהּ וְהִיא בָאָה מֵאֵילֶיהָ. וְתַנִּינָן. הִנְהִיגָהּ הִמְשִׁיכָהּ קָרָא לָהּ וּבָאת אַחֲרוֹן מִתְחַיֵיב בָּהּ כְּשׁוֹאֵל. רִבִּי זְעִירָא שָׁמַע לָהּ מִן הָדָא. אֲבָל אֵינוֹ מְזַכֶּה לֹא עַל יְדֵי בְנוֹ וּבִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנִּים וְלֹא עַל יְדֵי עַבְדּוֹ וְשִׁפְחָתוֹ הַכְּנַעֲנִים מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיָּדָן כְּיָדוֹ. לֵית הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין הָעֶבֶד זוֹכֶה מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. תִּיפְתָּר כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד יַד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ. וְהָתַנֵּי. אִשְׁתּוֹ. דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבַד יַד הָאִשָּׁה כְיַד בַּעֲלָהּ. רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי פִינְחָס. תִּיפְתָּר כְּהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא דְתַנֵּי. אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינָהּ פּוֹדָה לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. הָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא דְּרִבִּי שִמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אִשְׁתּוֹ פוֹדָה לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. וְהָדֵין תַּנָּיָיא דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר עֲבִיד יַד הָעֶבֶד כְּיַד רַבּוֹ וְלֹא יַד הָאִשָּׁה כְיַד בַּעֲלָהּ.

It is obvious that a slave may accept a gift by one third party to another, by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself. From a third party to himself is in dispute between Rebbi Meïr and the Sages. If one said: Here [I am giving] you this money on condition that your master have no power over it, the slave acquired it and with him his master, the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the slave acquired it [but not] his master. What is the problem? From his master to a third party. Since the slave may receive from a third party for his master, may he receive from his master for a third party? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody borrowed a cow and [the lender] sent her to him through his slave, his son, or his agent.” Does this not mean that the slave is able to transfer rights from his master to a third party? Rebbi Eleazar said, explain it for a Hebrew slave. Rebbi Joḥanan said, you have to explain if for a Canaanite slave; explain it that he said, open [the gate] for her and she will come by herself, as we have stated: “If he led her, drew her to himself, called her and she followed him, he is responsible as a borrower.” Rebbi Zeïra understood it from here: “But he cannot make them acquire through his underage son or daughter or his Canaanite male or female slave, because their hand is not like his hand.” Does this not imply that a slave is not able to transfer rights from his master to another person? Explain it following Rebbi Meïr since Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master. But did we not state “his wife”? Rebbi Meïr holds that the hand of the wife is the hand of her husband! Rebbi Ḥananiah said in the name of Rebbi Phineas, explain it following the Tanna who stated: “His wife cannot redeem Second Tithe for him. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says in the name of Rebbi Meïr, his wife can redeem Second Tithe for him.” For that Tanna, Rebbi Meïr makes the hand of the slave the hand of his master but not the hand of the wife the hand of her husband!

רִבִּי זְעִירָא וְרִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה הָעֶבֶד בְּגֵט שִׁיחְרוּר שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ גֵּט שִׁיחְרוּר. וְאַל יִזְכֶּה בְּגֵט אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ גֵּט אִשָּׁה. אִין תֵּימַר. מַתְנִיתָא הִיא. הֲרֵי אַתְּ שִׁפְחָה וּוְלָדָךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין. אִם הָיְתָה עוֹבָרָה זָכָת לוֹ. עוֹבָרָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּאֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִיָיה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁ[יְּקַבֵּל] הָעֶבֶד גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר וְאַל יְקַבֵּל גֵּט כְּוָותִין. אִין תֵּימַר. מִשְׁנָה קוֹדֶמֶת. הֲרֵי אַתְּ שִׁפְחָה וּוְלָדָךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין. אִם הָיְתָה עוֹבָרָה זָכָת לוֹ. עוֹבְרָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּאֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ.

Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce since a bill of divorce does not apply to him. If you say, is that not a baraita? “Your are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is reasonable that a slave be able to accept a bill of manumission but he should not be able to accept a bill of his equal. If you say, the preceding baraita? “You are a slave but your child is free; if she was pregnant, she acquired for him.” They considered her fetus as one of her limbs.

פְּלָנִית שִׁפְחָתִי עוֹשֶׂה אֲנִי לָהּ כְּתָב שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּד. רִבִּי לָעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים אָעֲלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְשַׁעְבֵּד. בָּנֶיהָ מָה הֵם. עֲבָדִים. מַה שִׁיֵיר בָּהּ. מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ. רִבִּי אַבָּא וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָמְרִין. דְּרִבִּי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. כָּתַב כָּל נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדָיו כְּאַחַת. שְׁנֵיהֶן יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת וּשְׁנֵיהֶן צְרִיכִין לְשַׁחְרֵר זֶה אֶת זֶה. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם שְׁמוּאֵל רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דְּרִבִּי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא לְרִבִּי בָּא. לֵית הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד זָכָה מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ סְבַר. מִשֶּׁזָכוּ בִּנְּכָסִים יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. אֶלָּא כְּאַחַת עֲבָדִים וּנְכָסִים יָצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת.

“For my slave girl X I want a document that she should not be enslaved.” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said, he has no power to enslave. What are her children? Slaves. What did he retain for her? Her earnings. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Yose both said, this follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. If he wrote all his possessions jointly to two of his slaves, both are free and both have to free one another. Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: This follows Rebbi who said that a person frees half of his slave. Rebbi Ze‘ira said to Rebbi Abba: Does this not imply that one slave accepts from his master for another one? He answered, what do you think? Since they acquired the properties they went free? No, simultaneously slaves and properties went free.

הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּוְלָדָךְ עֶבֶד. וְולָדָהּ כְּיוֹצֵא בָהּ. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. כָּךְ פֵּירְשָׁהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָב הַמִּשְׁנָה. שְׁנֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֶן עֲבָדִים. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן נִיחָא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר מָה אִיכָּא מַחֲלוֹקֶת. אֶלָּא כֵּינִי. דְּבָרָיו קַיָימִין. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים. לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מָהוּ לֹא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. אָמַר רִבִּי לְעָזָר. כָּךְ פֵּירְשָׁהּ רִבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָה אֲבִי הַמִּשְׁנָה. שְׁנֵיהֶן בֶּן חוֹרִין. רִבִּי אִימִּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. שְׁנֵיהֶן עֲבָדִים. וּכְרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ.

“You are free but your child will be a slave,” her child is like her, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. According to Rebbi Joḥanan, it is understandable; there is a disagreement. What is the disagreement following Rebbi Eleazar? But it must be so: His words stand, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. But the Sages say, he did not do anything. What means “he did not do anything”? Rebbi Eleazar said, so did Rebbi Hoshaia, the father of the Mishnah, explain: Both are free. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both are slaves. Following Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave.