בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ אוֹ מִכְּלָלָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ? מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: אָמַר ״נִתְיָיאַשְׁתִּי מִפְּלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי״, מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר.

Did you hear it explicitly said by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you hear it by inference, i.e., did you infer it from some other statement of his? Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi asked him: What inference could I have drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha ? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

וַאֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? גָּמַר ״לָהּ״ ״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה, מָה אִשָּׁה בִּשְׁטָר, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי בִּשְׁטָר.

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of “to her [ lah ],” written with regard to a maidservant in the verse: “Nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of “for her [ lah ],” written with regard to a wife: “And he writes for her a bill of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:3). Just as a wife is released from her husband via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

וְקָא דָּיְיקַת מִינָּהּ: כְּאִשָּׁה, מָה אִשָּׁה אִיסּוּרָא וְלָא מָמוֹנָא, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי – אִיסּוּרָא וְלָא מָמוֹנָא.

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master’s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his master’s death from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond. Therefore, an adult slave, who can acquire ownership of himself, is freed entirely by means of the death of his master. However, in the case of a minor slave, who cannot acquire possession of his own person, the monetary bond remains, in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַדְּרַבָּה, דּוֹק מִינָּהּ לְאִידָךְ גִּיסָּא: מָה אִשָּׁה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי – בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.

Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi said to him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s statement, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by her husband’s death and requires no bill of divorce whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated when his master dies whether he is an adult or a minor, in opposition to the opinion of Abba Shaul. He said to him: I heard explicitly that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ אוֹ מִכְּלָלָא שְׁמִיעַ לָךְ? מַאי כְּלָלָא? דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אָמְרוּ לִפְנֵי רַבִּי: ״נִתְיָיאַשְׁתִּי מִפְּלוֹנִי עַבְדִּי״, מַהוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר.

And Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Did you hear it explicitly that Rabbi Yoḥanan said it, or did you hear it by inference? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked: What inference could have been drawn? Rabbi Zeira answered: For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha ? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

וַאֲמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי? גָּמַר ״לָהּ״ ״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה, מָה אִשָּׁה בִּשְׁטָר, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי בִּשְׁטָר.

The Gemara continues explaining the possible inference. And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this halakha by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of the words “to her,” written with regard to a maidservant, from the meaning of “for her,” written with regard to a wife. Just as a wife can leave her husband only via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

וְקָא דָּיְיקַת מִינָּהּ: כְּאִשָּׁה, מָה אִשָּׁה בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי – בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן.

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master’s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by her husband’s death whether she is an adult or a minor, so too, a slave is also emancipated whether he is an adult or a minor, and there is no distinction between a minor slave who receives a bill of manumission and a minor slave whose master dies.

וְאִי מִכְּלָלָא מַאי? אַדְּרַבָּה, דּוֹק מִינָּהּ לְהָךְ גִּיסָּא: מָה אִשָּׁה אִיסּוּרָא וְלָא מָמוֹנָא, אַף עֶבֶד נַמִי – אִיסּוּרָא וְלָא מָמוֹנָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked him: And if this was derived by inference, what of it? Rabbi Zeira said to him: If you derived this by inference, then, on the contrary, deduce from this to the other side and say as follows: Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition and not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his master’s death from a prohibition and not a monetary bond. He said to him: I heard this explicitly from Rabbi Yoḥanan.

אָמַר מָר: אָמַר לָהֶם, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה אֶלָּא בִּשְׁטָר. וְהָתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, אוֹמֵר אֲנִי: אַף הוּא נוֹתֵן דְּמֵי עַצְמוֹ וְיוֹצֵא, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְּמוֹכְרוֹ לוֹ!

§ In connection with the baraita cited above, the Gemara discusses the matter itself. The Master said above: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission. The Gemara challenges: But isn’t it taught in a baraita : Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that even the slave himself can give his own monetary value and is emancipated, due to the fact that it is as if the Temple treasurer sold him to himself. This demonstrates that a slave can be emancipated by paying money in addition to receiving a bill of manumission.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: אוֹ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ בִּשְׁטָר, וְהַאי – פָּקַע לֵיהּ כַּסְפֵּיהּ. וּלְאַפּוּקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא.

The Gemara answers: This is what he is saying: A slave can be emancipated either via money or via a bill of manumission. And with regard to this master, who despaired of recovering his slave, his monetary hold over this slave is abrogated, and he can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. And this statement, that generally a slave can be emancipated either via a bill of manumission or by paying money, serves to exclude the opinion of this tanna in the following baraita .

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא כֶּסֶף גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁשְּׁטָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהָפְדֵּה לֹא נִפְדָּתָה״,

As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: One might have thought that paying money completes the emancipation of a Hebrew maidservant, just as a bill of manumission completes her emancipation. The verse states, concerning a Jewish man who engages in sexual intercourse with a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave: “And whoever lies carnally with a woman that is a bondmaid designated for a man, and not at all redeemed, nor was freedom given to her; there shall be inquisition; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free” (Leviticus 19:20). In this case, neither the Jewish man nor the maidservant is liable to receive the death penalty, in contrast to a man who engages in sexual intercourse with a married woman.

אוֹרְעָה כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה כּוּלָּהּ לְ״לֹא חוּפָּשָׁה״, לוֹמַר לְךָ: שְׁטָר גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ, וְאֵין הַכֶּסֶף גּוֹמֵר בָּהּ.

The halakha of this entire portion of a maidservant who had been designated to cohabit with a Hebrew slave is linked to, i.e., dependent on, only the phrase “nor was freedom given her” by means of a bill of manumission. The reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not granted her freedom by means of a bill of manumission. If the halakha of this portion would be dependent upon the phrase “and not at all redeemed,” this would indicate that the reason she does not have the status of a free woman is that she was not redeemed with money. This is in order to say to you: A bill of manumission completes her emancipation entirely, and money does not complete her emancipation. According to Rabbi Shimon, a slave can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission but not by paying money.

אָמַר רָמִי בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְרַב יוֹסֵף בַּר חָמָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rami bar Ḥama says that Rav Naḥman says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. And Rav Yosef bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

אַשְׁכַּחֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא בַּר שְׁאֵילְתָא דַּהֲוָה קָאֵי אַפִּיתְחָא דְּבֵי תְּפִלָּה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הֲלָכָה אוֹ אֵין הֲלָכָה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנִי אוֹמֵר אֵין הֲלָכָה, וְרַבָּנַן דְּאָתוּ מִמְּחוֹזָא אָמְרִי: אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן הֲלָכָה,

The Gemara relates: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak found Rava bar She’eilta when he was standing at the entrance to a house of prayer. He said to him, with regard to this issue: Is the halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, or is the halakha not in accordance with his opinion? He said to him: I say that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion in this matter, and the Rabbis who came from Meḥoza say that Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

וְכִי אֲתַאי לְסוּרָא אַשְׁכַּחְתֵּיהּ לְרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין, אֲמַרִי לֵיהּ: אֵימָא לִי אִיזִי גּוּפָא דְּעוּבְדָא הֵיכִי הֲוָה, אֲמַר לִי: דְּהַהִיא אַמְתָא דַּהֲוָה מָרָהּ שְׁכִיב מְרַע, אָתְיָא בָּכְיָא קַמֵּיהּ, אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: עַד אֵימַת תִּשְׁתַּעְבֵּיד וְתֵיזִיל הַהִיא אִיתְּתָא? שְׁקַל כּוּמְתֵיהּ שְׁדָא בָּהּ, אֲמַר לָהּ: זִיל קְנֵי הָא וּקְנֵי נַפְשִׁיךְ. אָתוּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן, אֲמַר לְהוּ: לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם.

And when I came to Sura, I found Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin, and I said to him: Tell me, my friend [ izi ], the incident itself. What happened, and what exactly did Rav Naḥman say? He said to me that there was a certain maidservant whose master was on his deathbed. She came crying before him and said to him: Until when will that woman, i.e., I, continue to be subjugated? He took his hat [ kumtei ], threw it to her, and said to her: Go acquire this hat and thereby acquire yourself as a free woman. They came before Rav Naḥman for a ruling, and he said to them: He did nothing.

מַאן דַּחֲזָא, סָבַר: מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְלָא הִיא, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ כֵּלָיו שֶׁל מַקְנֶה.

One who saw this incident thought that he ruled in this manner because he holds that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that a maidservant can be emancipated only via a bill of manumission. But that is not so. Rather, it was because this was a legal act of acquisition formalizing the transfer of ownership the items of the one who transfers ownership, and this mode of acquisition takes effect only when the one who transfers ownership acquires an item belonging to the one to whom the ownership is being transferred. Since the item of the owner was used, the maidservant was not emancipated.

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אֲחִיתַּאי אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא סָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָשְׁיָאן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְלָא הִיא, אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.

Rav Shmuel bar Aḥittai says that Rav Hamnuna the Elder says that Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Ashyan says that Rav Huna says that Rav Hamnuna says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. The Gemara concludes: And that is not so, as the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר רַב אַשִׁי אָמַר רַבִּי: עֶבֶד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אֶת בַּת חוֹרִין בִּפְנֵי רַבּוֹ

Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Ḥanina says that Rav Ashi says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of a slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master,