(Ula, after Rav Nachman left): Really, R. Elazar said that we collect slaves even from orphans.

Rav Nachman: Ula evaded me (he feared lest I challenge him).

Cases occurred in which the judges of Nehardai collected slaves from orphans, and R. Chana bar Bizna did so in Pumbedisa.

Rav Nachman (to the creditor): Return the slaves. If not, I will collect from your house!

Question (Rava): R. Elazar, Ula, the judges of Nehardai and R. Chana bar Bizna all say that we collect. On whom do you rely to oppose this?

Rav Nachman: I rely on a Beraisa:

(Avimi - Beraisa): Pruzbul (a document handing over loans to Beis Din, so they will not be cancelled in Shemitah) takes effect on (is valid only if the lender has) land. It does not take effect on slaves;

Metaltelim (movable objects) can be acquired Agav (along with an acquisition of) land, but not with an acquisition of slaves.

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about whether or not slaves are like land.

(Beraisa #1): Shimon was buying slaves and land. If he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he did not acquire the land. If he did a Chazakah to acquire the land, he does not acquire the slaves.

If he was buying land and Metaltelim, if he did a Chazakah to acquire the land, he did acquired the Metaltelim. If he made a Kinyan on the Metaltelim, he did not acquire the land.

If he was buying slaves and Metaltelim, if he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he did not acquire the Metaltelim. If he made a Kinyan on the Metaltelim, he did not acquire the slaves.

(Beraisa #2): If he did a Chazakah to acquire the slaves, he acquires the Metaltelim.

Suggestion: Tana #1 (of Beraisa #1) holds that slaves are like Metaltelim. Tana #2 holds that they are like land.

Version #1 - Rejection (Rav Ika brei d'Rav Ami): All agree that slaves are like land;

The first Tana holds that Metaltelim are acquired only with land like "fortified cities in Yehudah" (the source for acquisition Agav land), i.e. stationary land.

(Mishnah): Property without Achrayus (a lender cannot collect it from one who bought the property from the borrower, i.e. Metaltelim) is acquired with property with Achrayus (land), through money, a document or Chazakah.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Chizkiyah): "He gave them... gold, silver and choice gifts with fortified cities in Yehudah".

Version #2 - Rejection (Rav Ika brei d'Rav Ami): All agree that slaves are like Metaltelim;

Tana #2 said that Metaltelim are acquired with slaves. He refers to the clothes that the slave is wearing.

Question: Why does it help if he is wearing them? A slave is like a moving Chatzer (yard), which does not acquire Metaltelim inside it!

Suggestion: Perhaps the Beraisa discusses when the slave is standing still.

Rejection: Rava taught that anything that does not acquire when it moves, does not acquire when it stands still.

Answer: If the slave is tied up (he cannot move), what he is wearing is acquired with him.

Question (Beraisa #3): A Chazakah to acquire the land also acquires the slaves!

Answer: That is when the slaves are standing in the land.

(Inference): If so, Beraisa #1 says that they are not acquired even when standing in the land!

Question: This is like Version #1, that slaves are like Metaltelim. Metaltelim are acquired with land only if they are on that land'

According to Version #2, slaves are like land. What difference does it make whether or not they are in the land?

(Shmuel): If Reuven was buying lands in different places, he makes a Chazakah on one and acquires them all.

Counter-question: According to Version #1, slaves are like Metaltelim. What difference does it make whether or not they are in the land? We hold that Metaltelim are acquired with land even if they are not on that land!

Answer: You must say that Metaltelim that move are unlike Metaltelim that do not move.

Answer: We can likewise say that land that moves is unlike land that does not move!

Slaves are land that moves. Shmuel discusses (regular) land. All land is connected.

(Mishnah): Property to which Me'ilah does not apply.

(Inference): Me'ilah does not apply to them, but they are Kodshim!

Question: Who is the Tana of the Mishnah?

Answer (R. Yochanan): The Mishnah discusses Kodshei Kalim. It is like R. Yosi ha'Glili, who says that they are the property of their owner.

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Gelili): "He transgressed in Hash-m (and denied his fellowman)" includes Kodshei Kalim, which (pertain to Hash-m and) are (also) a person's property.

(Mishnah): If one was Mekadesh with his portion of Kodshim, whether Kodshei Kodoshim or Kodshei Kalim, the Kidushin is invalid.

Suggestion: This Mishnah is unlike R. Yosi ha'Glili!

Rejection: It can even be like R. Yosi ha'Glili. He said that Kodshei Kalim are the property of the owners only in the life of the animal;

After slaughter, he agrees that they are considered Hash-m's, just we are allowed to eat them.

Question: Does R. Yosi ha'Glili really hold that Kodshei Kalim are the property of the owners in the life of the animal?!

(Mishnah): An unblemished Bechor (male firstborn animal) may be sold when alive. If it is blemished, it may be sold alive or slaughtered; he (the Kohen) may use it to be Mekadesh a woman.

(Rav Nachman): This is only nowadays. Since it cannot be offered, Kohanim own it;

When the Mikdash stands, Kohanim do not own it.

Question (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Glili): "He transgressed in Hash-m" includes Kodshei Kalim, which are a person's property.

Answer (Ravina): The Beraisa discusses a Bechor in Chutz la'Aretz, according to R. Shimon;

He holds that if they were brought to the Mikdash unblemished, they are offered. L'Chatchilah, we do not bring them.

(Summation of question): If R. Yosi ha'Glili says that they are a person's money while they are alive, Ravina should rather have answered that the Beraisa is like R. Yosi ha'Glili!

Answer: Gifts to the Kohen are unlike other Kodshei Kalim. They are Hash-m's (just the Kohen is allowed to eat them).