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 slave328Any Gentile slave is called “Canaanite” since Canaan was called “a slave of slaves to his fellow men” (Genesis.9.25">Gen. 9:25). is acquired by money, or contract, or possession329A slave who becomes ownerless by the death of his intestate owner who dies without heirs can be acquired by anybody who makes him perform a slave’s duties for himself. Also, a person who claims to have bought a slave from another party will have his ownership confirmed by the court if he can show three years of uncontested ownership. Cf. Ketubot 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.3">Ketubot 5:5, Note 100.. He gains his autonomy by money through a third party330R. Meïr holds that any property of the slave’s is his master’s. If the slave receives monies from other people on condition that they not be his master’s property, the condition is not operative. The slave cannot buy his freedom with his master’s money. or a document by himself331By manumission, the slave (who had been circumcized as a Jew’s slave) becomes a full Jew. As such, he is permitted to marry a Jewish partner but is prohibited promiscuity. R. Meïr holds that people prefer promiscuity to the discipline of marriage; for him, manumission has detrimental aspects. Since nobody can legally act to another person’s detriment without that person’s authorization, a third party cannot accept a document of manumission without the slave’s authorization., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, by money also by himself332If a slave receives money on condition that it not be his master’s, the condition is valid. The slave may use that money to buy his freedom. or a document through a third party333They hold that the prohibition of promiscuity is a small price to pay for freedom and the possibility of marriage. Since a person can legally act to another person’s benefit without that person’s authorization, a third party can accept a document of manumission without the slave’s authorization., 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 written334Leviticus.25.46">Lev. 25:46, speaking of Gentile slaves. The same argument in the Kiddushin.22b">Babli, 22b, Bekhorot.13a">Bekhorot 13a; Sifra Behar Parašah 6(4).: “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. 335Cf. Kiddushin.26a">Babli 26a.
A parallel text for this and the following paragraphs is in Halakhah 5 (Note 479); variants are noted there. 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.336Jeremiah.32.44">Jer. 32:44. A prophetic text cannot really serve as legal source but it can demonstrate practice. Since the speaker in this verse is God, the practice is accepted by Heaven.” “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 דְּהַוְייָן קִינְטֵירִין. מַה טַעֲמָא. בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא יַתְנֶנָּה לִי. וְלֹא דַמְייָא. 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 Mana337R. Mana I.; 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 money338Anything less than the smallest coin is not money..” This disagrees with what Rebbi Ḥanina said339Bekhorot.50a">Babli Bekhorot 50a. There, the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is ascribed to R. Ḥanina. In Gen.rabba58(9), the statement of R. Jehudah bar Pazi is in the name of R. Yudan.: Any šeqalim mentioned in the Torah are tetradrachmas122Mishnah ‘Arakhin 7:1. If somebody dedicates his field to the Temple, Scripture prescribes that he redeem it proportional to the numbers of years to the next Jubilee. The full rate, for the entire 49 yars of a Jubilee cycle, is 50 šeqel for a field on which a ḥomer (or kur, 30 se’ah) of barley can be sown (75’000 square cubits). Talmudic theory identifies the biblical šeqel with the Roman tetradrachma, which is slightly more than the standard šeqel documented from First Kingdom times, 11.4 g. Since in the vernacular the zūz, the Babylonian half-šeqel, was identified with the Roman denarius, the “sheqel” was identified as two denar. This gave rise to the theory that the biblical “holy šeqel”, which simply was “the king’s weight” and still the Tyrian šeqel in Roman times, was twice the profane šeqel. The rate to be paid for the standard field per year therefore was 50/49 = 1 1/49 tetradrachma. The rate stated in the Mishnah is 1 1/48 tetradrachma. The small difference, 1/48 - 1/49 is qolbon (κόλλυβος, Latin collybus,collubus, “exchange of coins; rate of exchange”), the small coin paid as agio to the money-changer to convert the sum into actual coin. The Mishnah shows that a dupondius was 1/48 of a tetradrachma or half an obolus., in the Prophets pounds340A Roman libra, Greek λίτρα, of 96 denarii or 24 tetradrachmas., and in the Hagiographs centenarii341A noun, meaning “100 pieces” formed in vulgar Latin from the classical adjective centenarius, “consisting of a hundred”, in this case 100 librae. The same meaning, 100 lb., is found in Middle High German zëntenaere,zëntner.. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, except for the šeqalim paid to Ephron342Paid by Abraham for the Makhpela cave, Genesis.23.9">Gen. 23:9., 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 rapist343Deut. 23:29; the extra fine the rapist of a virgin pays is “50 silver pieces”; cf. Ketubot 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.3.1.1">Ketubot 3:1, Note 1., 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: 344Babli Baba batra 100a. One assumes either that the field is ownerless or that the acquirer has a claim of possession that would give him squatter’s rights; cf. Ketubot 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.3">Ketubot 5:5, Note 100.
In R. Eliezer’s opinion, the rules of acquisition of a Canaanite slave are not identical with those for real estate; he will reject deriving legal rules from a verse in the Prophets. 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 possession345He performed some agricultural work on the property.. 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.346Genesis.13.17">Gen. 13:17.”
אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. עֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. כִּמְטַלְטְלִין. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. לֹא כְקַרְקָעוֹת וְלֹא כִמְטַלְטְלִין. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. עֲבָדִים כְּקַרְקָעוֹת. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. חֶזְקַת בָּתִּים בּוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת מֶרְחַצִּיּוֹת וְשׁוֹבְכוֹת בֵּית הַבַּדִּים וּבֵית הַשְּׁלָחִין וַעֲבָדִים. אִית מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. 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 אָֽמְרִין. 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. אַרְמָֽלְתָא תְּפָסָת אָֽמְתָא. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִצְחָק. אָמַר. תְּפָסָת תְּפָסָת. רִבִּי אִימִּי מַפִּיק מִינָּהּ. דְּהִיא סָֽבְרָה 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 there347Bava Batra 3:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Bava_Batra.3.1.1">Mishnah Baba batra 3:1. The Mishnah discusses how to establish title in the absence of a deed.: “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 slave30,His proof that arguments de minore ad majus are inappropriate here is explained at length in Ketubot 5:4:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.4.3">Ketubot5:5, Note 100.
As a legal term, חֲזָקָה may have two very different meanings. What seems to be intended here is that ownerless property can be acquired by active actual possession (i. e., possession combined with use.) The idea seems to be that a woman, performing a wife’s duty in a man’s house, by this act should become his wife. The comparison is to a slave woman who belonged to a proselyte who failed to start a Jewish family and dies without heirs. Any Jew who gets hold of her and lets her perform a servile job for himself has acquired her in law.
A second meaning of חֲזָקָה is “permanence of the status quo ante,” cf. Giṭṭin 3:3, Notes 81,89; Nazir 9:2:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nazir.9.2.8">Nazir 9:2, Note 90. This meaning is referred to, somewhat incongruously, in the verse quoted at the end; property is inherited by the permanence of the state of “belonging to”.
A subcategory of “permanence of the status quo ante” is the validation of squatter’s rights after three years of undisturbed possession, if accompanied by a claim of rightful acquisition.348Babli 22b; Tosephta 1:5. Movables are acquired by actually taking them. Similarly, ownerless slaves are acquired by having them carry the new master's property.? 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 gift349This statement has no connection with the remainder of the text. If real estate is sold, the seller accepts responsibility to indemnify the buyer if the latter should lose the real estate because of foreclosure of a pre-existing lien, whether or not this is spelled out in the sale contract. For a gift of real estate, the donor accepts responsibility only if this is so stated in the deed. In the Babli, Baba batra 128a, this is a matter in dispute; the ultimate authority Rav Naḥman agrees with the ruling of the Yerushalmi.; one does not collect from slaves as from real estate350While slaves can be given in chattel mortgage, they are not subject to blanket liens which cover all the debtor’s real estate. In particular, at places where a woman’s ketubah is a lien only on her husband’s real estate, the ketubah cannot be collected by the widow or divorcee by taking slave girls from the estate.. Rebbi Mana asked Rebbi Shammai, who are those rabbis? He told him, Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Immi. 351Ketubot 9:3:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.9.3.3">Ketubot 9:3, Notes 111–112. 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 slaves352Like Ptolemaic and Roman laws, rabbinic civil law is based on the distinction between ownership and possession. Paying for an acquisition conveys ownership but the transfer of property rights and liabilities requires an act of possession (cf. Kiddushin 1:4:2-14" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.4.2-14">Halakhot 4,5). Taking possession by use (cf. Kiddushin 1:1:9" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.9">Note 30) of a piece of real estate establishes possession of all real estate and movables included in one sale contract. Similarly, movables are taken into possession by moving one piece; this simultaneously gives possession of all items included in the sale. Since taking possession of slaves is by individual action only, in this respect they follow neither the rules of real estate nor those of movables. Taking possession of slaves does not induce possession of either real estate or movables covered by the same sales contract; Babli Baba qama 12a.; 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 acquired353. 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 guaranteed354I. e., movables which have no title guarantee. will cause guaranteed properties to be objects of swearing about them.355Kiddushin 1:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.5.1">Mishnah 1:5; Šebuot 6:5. Property claims about real estate and slaves, in contrast to movables, cannot be adjudicated by having the parties swear about ownership and responsibility.”
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 שָֽׂדְךָ לְחֵירוּת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. יָצָאת. שֶׁתֵּצֵא שָֽׂדְךָ 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. אַתְייָא 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.356Here starts the discussion of the manumission of a slave according to R. Meïr.” Rebbi Jeremiah said, from another person to his master, therefore not from his master to another person357A third party gives money to the master to buy the slave’s freedom. This works even if the transaction is purely symbolic and only a peruṭah changes hands. But the master cannot give a peruṭah to a third person as a symbol of the slave’s manumission.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, even from his master to another person. What brings this? From his master to himself358The result of the transaction between master and third party is the freedom of the ostensibly uninvolved slave.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Ze‘ira: “Here you have money that your field shall be unencumbered359A third party can give money to a creditor to satisfy the mortgage on a field since even R. Meïr will agree that a person can legally act to another person’s benefit without that person’s authorization.
Some commentators are emending “field” to “slave” in the entire paragraph..” He answered, it is unencumbered. “That it be ownerless360A person gives money to the owner of a piece of real estate for the latter to renounce his ownership. It is clear that if the former owner renounces his ownership by explicit declaration, the land becomes ownerless. Here the money is given without the owner’s saying a word.”? He answered, it is not ownerless361The action is not valid in law.. 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 he362The beneficiary of a sane person’s action. was deaf-mute363Who is unable to act in law; cf. Ketubot 1:2:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.1.2.5">Ketubot 1:2 Note 134, Yevamot 14:1:2-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.14.1.2-5">Yebamot 14:1.? He said to him, “a man.364In Leviticus.25.17">Lev. 25:17, the word “man” is used to describe the agent in a real estate transaction. The deaf-mute is a man even if he is unable to act in law.” Think of it, if he362The beneficiary of a sane person’s action. was underage? He said to him, one usually grows up365Only a minority of children die before reaching puberty. (The Babli would reject this argument since it insists that R. Meïr requires rules also to be valid for a minority. For the rabbis who dispute R. Meïr’s position, a minor can acquire but not renounce ownership; Sukkah.46b">Sukkah 46b.). 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 himself366He disagrees with the Mishnah. Since R. Meïr states that the hand of the slave is the hand of his master (see below and Ketubot 6:1:3" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.6.1.3">Ketubot 6:1, Note 10), a document delivered by the master to the slave is a document delivered by the master to himself and cannot have any validity. The bill of manumission must be delivered through the agency of a third person whose acceptance of the bill sets the slave free. The Tanna of the Mishnah holds that “he receives simultaneously his hand and his freedom.” The Kiddushin.24a">Babli, 24a, reports a similar opinion of R. Simeon bar Eleazar in the name of R. Meïr regarding a wife’s ability to contract without her husband.. 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 ownerless367This justifies R. Ze‘ira’s earlier remark that a slave can be manumitted by his master’s giving a coin to a third party..
אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. אַתְייָא כְּרִבִּי. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. וְלֵית לְרַבָּנִין אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. אִית לוֹן בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁלְּשׁוּתָפוּת. אֲבָל בְּעֶבֶד שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ שַׁנְייָא 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. סָֽבְרִין 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, it368The statement of R. Simeon ben Eleazar that R. Meïr requires the intervention of a third party in the manumission of a slave by document. follows Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave369Gittin.23b">Babli Giṭṭin 23b, Gittin.41b">41b; in Temurah.25b">Temurah 25b ascribed to R. Meïr. It is clear that “half of his slave” means “any part of his slave.” Why would anybody want to partially emancipate his slave? By Gittin 4:5:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.5.1">Mishnah Giṭṭin 4:5, the master is then forced to emancipate the slave completely and the slave has to write an IOU for the part of him that was not manumitted. If the slave is not worth his upkeep, the slave has no interest in being freed but his master is interested in getting rid of him and even having the chance of collecting some money from the IOU. (In Roman law, partial emancipation is accepted by Ulpian I 18 but rejected by most other earlier authorities. The Mishnaic law also appears in Egyptian sources and is incorporated in Justinian’s Code; cf. R. Taubenschlag, The Law of Greco-Roman Egypt in the Light of the Papyri, New York 1944, p. 75.). But do the rabbis not hold that a person can free half of his slave? They admit it for a slave held in partnership370Since the partial owner eliminates all of his ownership in the slave.. 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 hand371Since for R. Meïr the slave’s hand is his master’s 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 הֲנָייָה 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. שַׁנְייָא 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 he372The slave picks up something that was lost in the public domain and, therefore, is ownerless. By the act of lifting, the finder acquires as property (Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ 1:1.) picked up a find and said, for the purpose that I own it rather than my master. Does he and his master own it automatically373Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ 1:5 gives the master ownership of the finds of his Cannanite slave. The question is whether this is always the case automatically or whether it is only the default option, valid unless the slave stipulates that it be his own property before he picks up the object. The question has to be asked for the anonymous majority who hold that a third party may give something to a slave on condition that his master have no part in it. or does he own it but not his master? Let us hear from the following374Mishnah and Halakhah Nedarim11:5 (נ), Kiddushin 1:1:18" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.1.18">Notes 69–70.: “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 you375Everything remains the father’s property until the food is eaten. But for the rabbis, a wife can acquire independent from her husband; Kiddushin.23b">Babli 23b.”. 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 hand376Since the Mishnah is formulated anonymously, it represents practice.; for a find [do we follow] the rabbis? Rebbi Ze‘ira377The name probably should be “Ezra”. said before Rebbi Mana, is there not a difference, for he is as if he acquired by somebody else’s opinion378If the person who lost the article realizes his loss and gives up hope of recovery, he implicitly agrees to transfer his property rights to the finder.? He said to him, is it not a case a fortiori? Since in her case, when she would acquire by somebody else’s opinion379A conscious transfer of property by the father., 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 מַרֵייָה. 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 regenerate380Exodus.21.26-27">Ex. 21:26–27 prescribes that a slave who lost an eye or a permanent tooth by his master’s action must be given his freedom. “Tooth and eye” is generalized as “permanenent deficiency involving a visible essential limb.” (Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 9).? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, because of the disagreement. Some Tannaīm381R. Ismael in Gittin.42b">Babli Giṭṭin 42b, R. Eliezer in Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin9; an anonymous Tanna in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, p. 177. For this Tanna, the freedom of the injured slave is “freedom by document”, covered by the Mishnah. The omission in the Mishnah is an implicit indication that practice requires a bill of manumission. state that he needs a bill of manumission; some Tannaīm state that he does not need a bill of manumission382R. Meïr in Gittin.42b">Babli Giṭṭin 42b; cf. Gittin 4:4:5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Gittin.4.4.5">Giṭṭin 4:4, Note 100..
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 אָֽמְרָה 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 מִתְחַייֵב 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 אָֽמְרָה 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 תַּנָּייָא דְתַנֵּי. אִשְׁתּוֹ אֵינָהּ פּוֹדָה לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. הָדֵין תַּנָּייָא דְּרִבִּי שִמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אִשְׁתּוֹ פוֹדָה לוֹ מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁינִי. וְהָדֵין תַּנָּייָא 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 another383Since gifts can be given without the recipient’s knowledge, the master A could accept B’s gift to C without asking C. Therefore, the slave can do the same in his master’s stead., by a third party to his master, [but] not from his master to himself384A direct gift from the master to his slave is “a gift from the master’s right to his left hand” (Note 371).. 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]385Word missing in ms., corrected in editio princeps. his master386Quoted but in the end rejected in the Babli, 23b. The only gift which the Babli removes from the master is one given to the slave for the purpose of buying the latter’s freedom. Since the slave did not acquire the money, his master has no claim.. 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 following387Mishnah Baba meṣia‘ 8:4. The borrower of livestock is responsible if the animal is injured or dies while in his custody (Ex. 22:13). The responsibility of the borrower starts at the moment when he takes control of the animal. As long as the animal is driven by the owner’s slave, it is in the owner’s hand and the borrower is not responsible. But (as stated in the part of the Mishnah not quoted here) if the borrower said, send it to me through your slave and something happens on the way, the borrower is responsible.: 388The text from here to the end of the paragraph is from Ma‘aśer Šeni 4:4 (מ, Notes 91–97), Erubin 7, ע.“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 חִייָה 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 הָֽיְתָה עוֹבָרָה זָכָת לוֹ. עוֹבָרָה עָשׂוּ אוֹתוֹ כְּאֶחָד מֵאֵיבָרֶיהָ. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר חִייָה בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. נִרְאִין דְּבָרִים שֶׁ[יְּקַבֵּל] הָעֶבֶד גֵּט שִׁחְרוּר וְאַל יְקַבֵּל גֵּט כְּװָתִין. אִין תֵּימַר. מִשְׁנָה קוֹדֶמֶת. הֲרֵי אַתְּ שִׁפְחָה וּוְלָדָךְ בֶּן חוֹרִין. אִם הָֽיְתָה 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 manumission391The bill of manumission of another owner’s slave, even following R. Meïr. Gittin.23b">Babli Giṭṭin 23b. since a bill of manumission applies to him. But he should not be able to accept a bill of divorce392Giṭṭin 2:6, Notes 129,130; Kiddushin.23b">Babli 23b. 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 limbs393As explained below, this rule follows Rebbi who permits partial manumission, but R. Joḥanan claims that his statement is accepted by everybody. Therefore, the baraita is no support for the first statement of R. Joḥanan; Gittin.23b">Babli Giṭṭin 23b, Temurah.25a">Temurah 25a.. Rebbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan394He presents an alternate version of what R. Joḥanan said.: 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 equal395A slave cannot accept the bill of manumission of a fellow slave of the same master since his hand is his master’s hand. It is necessary to emphasize that the slave can validly receive only the bill of another master’s slave.. 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 לָֽעְזָר וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יָקִים אָעֲלוֹן עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אָמַר. לֹא הַכֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ לְשַׁעְבֵּד. בָּנֶיהָ מָה הֵם. עֲבָדִים. מַה שִׁייֵר בָּהּ. מַעֲשֵׂה יָדֶיהָ. רִבִּי אַבָּא וְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. דְּרִבִּי הִיא. דְּרִבִּי אָמַר. אָדָם מְשַׁחְרֵר חֲצִי עַבְדּוֹ. כָּתַב כָּל־נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדָיו כְּאַחַת. שְׁנֵיהֶן יָֽצְאוּ 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 אָֽמְרָה שֶׁהָעֶבֶד זָכָה מֵרַבּוֹ לְאַחֵר. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אַתְּ סְבַר. מִשֶּׁזָכוּ בִּנְּכָסִים יָֽצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. אֶלָּא כְּאַחַת עֲבָדִים וּנְכָסִים יָֽצְאוּ לְחֵירוּת. “For my slave girl X I want a document that she should not be enslaved.396A man writes in his will that the girl who cared for him cannot be used for servile tasks by his heirs. The heirs have to support her but cannot require any work from her. (The Gittin.40a">Babli, Giṭṭin40a, disagrees and holds that the slave girl must be freed by the heirs. Only if the testator said that “she should be treated well”, she remains a slave but cannot be forced to do any work she dislikes.)” Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon ben Yaqim brought a case before Rebbi Joḥanan. He said, he397The heir. has no power to enslave. What are her children398Born after her original master’s death. The Babli, loc.cit., agrees.? Slaves. What did he retain for her? Her earnings399She pockets all she earns while being supported by the heir.. 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 another400Gittin.42a">Babli Giṭṭin 42a, which notes that if the properties were not given jointly but half to one and half to the other, they would remain slaves and get nothing since they could not 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 one401If the two slaves have to free one another, it seems to imply that by accepting the will each of them was instrumental in freeing half of the other. This would contradict the earlier statement that a slave cannot be part of the manumission of another slave of the same master.? He answered, what do you think? Since they acquired the properties they went free? No, simultaneously slaves and properties went free402The argument proposed in the previous Note is impossible since a half-free slave is unable to act in law. As the Babli formulates it, “his bill of manumission and his hand are simultaneous.” The baraita can only be satisfactorily explained following the rabbis who oppose R. Meïr and hold that a slave can accept his own bill since by the bill he is able to act in law..
הֲרֵי אַתְּ בַּת חוֹרִין וּוְלָדָךְ עֶבֶד. ווְלָדָהּ 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 קַייָמִין. 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 child403The unborn child. will be a slave,” her child is like her404In this version (the only one quoted in the Temurah.25b">Babli, Temurah 25b), R. Yose the Galilean disagrees with Rebbi and holds that a slave partially freed is totally freed. He also holds that the fetus is part of the mother; the opposing view, that a fetus has a life of its own, is only found in the Babli (loc.cit. Note 393)., 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 Mishnah405He reputedly was one of the first collectors of the Tosephta, illustrating 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 so406Corrected version of the baraita.: His words stand, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean407As mentioned at the end of the paragraph, he follows Rebbi and admits freeing a slave limb by limb.. 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 slaves408Following the Sages who admit partial manumission only in the case of a slave jointly owned by several persons, Kiddushin 1:3:8" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.1.3.8">Note 370.. Following Rebbi, since Rebbi said that a person can free half of his slave407As mentioned at the end of the paragraph, he follows Rebbi and admits freeing a slave limb by limb..