(Mishnah): A half-slave...

According to Rabah, the Mishnah can be like everyone. The slave was half-freed through money.

Question: According to Rav Yosef, must we say that the Mishnah is only like Rebbi?!

Answer (Ravina): The Mishnah can be like everyone. The slave belonged to partners, and one partner freed his half.

(Rabah): Rebbi and Chachamim argue only about when the master frees half and retains the other half;

If the master frees half and sells or gives the other half for a gift, since the slave totally leaves the master, all agree that this works.

Question (Abaye): They argue even if this case!

(Beraisa #1): If one wrote a document giving all his property to his two slaves, they acquire the property, and free each other;

(Beraisa #2): If one wrote a document saying 'all my property is given to my two slaves', they do not even acquire themselves.

Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like Rebbi, and Beraisa #2 is like Chachamim.

Answer: No, both are like Chachamim. In Beraisa #1, he gave to each slave a document giving all his property. In Beraisa #2, the document says that each slave receives half.

Question (Seifa of Beraisa #2): If he said half-half, they do not acquire.

Inference: In the Reisha, the document says that he gives all his property!

Answer #1: No, the Seifa explains the Reisha. They do not even acquire themselves if he said half-half.

Support: This must be correct. If in the Reisha, he gave all his property, and they do not acquire, there would be no need to teach the case of half-half!

Rejection: No. The Seifa is needed, lest we say that the case is that he said half-half, but had he said 'all', they would acquire.

Since the Seifa explicitly teaches about half-half, we infer that in the Reisha, he said all, and still, they do not acquire.

Answer #2: In Beraisa #1, he gave a document to each slave. In Beraisa #2, he gave one document to both of them.

Question: If he only wrote one document, why does the Beraisa say that he wrote half-half? Even if it said 'all', they would not acquire!

Indeed, the Beraisa means this!

If he only wrote one document, they do not acquire themselves. If he gave each a document, they acquire themselves;

If he wrote half-half, even if each got his own document, they do not acquire themselves.

Answer #3: (Each document says 'all'.) In Beraisa #1, he gave the documents simultaneously. In Beraisa #2, he gave them one after the other.

Objection: Granted, if he gave one after the other, the latter does not acquire. However, the first should acquire himself and the other slave!

This answer is rejected. We must answer like Answer #1 or Answer #2.

Answer #4 (Rav Ashi): In Beraisa #2, they do not acquire because the document calls them slaves. (This shows that he does not intend to free them.)

Objection (Rafram): Perhaps it means 'who used to be my slaves'!

(Mishnah): If Reuven wrote a document giving all his property to his slave, he goes free. If Reuven retained any land for himself, he does not go free;

R. Shimon says, he always goes free unless Reuven writes 'all my property is given to my slave except for one part in 10,000,'

Had he not retained something for himself, the slave would go free, even though the document calls him a slave.

We must say, it means 'who used to be my slave.' We can say the same in the Beraisa!

If an ox gored a half-slave on a day when he works for his master, the master receives damage payments. If it was on his own day (when the half-slave works for himself), he keeps the payments.

Question: If so, on his master's day he should be permitted to marry a slave, and on his own day, he should be permitted to marry a Bas Yisrael!

Answer: The division of the slave between the master and himself is only financial. It does not affect Isurim.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven's ox (a Mu'ad, an established gorer) killed a half-slave, Reuven pays half of the fine (for a slave killed by a Mu'ad) to the master, and half the Kofer (ransom for a free man killed by a Mu'ad) to the half-slave's heirs.

Why don't we say that if he was gored on the master's day, the master gets the full fine, and if it was on the slave's day, his heirs get the full Kofer!

Answer: The division of days applies only to the earnings. This case is different, for the principal (the slave) was consumed (died)!

Question: Above, we said that the one whose day it was receives payments for damage. In what case does damage not (at least partially) consume the principal?

Answer #1: His hand was gored. It dried up, but later it will fully heal.

Question: This is like Abaye, who says that a man who inflicts such a wound pays both Nezek (the decrease in the slave-market value of the victim) and Sheves (compensation for inability to work until he recovers).

Rava holds that he pays only Sheves. The owner of an animal that gored pays only Nezek. How can Rava answer?

Answer #2: The case is, a man wounded the half-slave.

Answer #3: Amora'im taught that the payment goes to the one whose day it was. Rava disagrees.

Question: If Shimon's slave (Tavi) is Me'ukav Get Shichrur (Shimon must free him), Shimon may not force him to work. If an animal gores Tavi, does Shimon receive the fine (that would be paid for a regular slave)?

"Thirty Shekalim will be paid to the master" - Shimon is not his master, so he doesn't get it;

Or, perhaps he is like a master, since he must give a Get?

Answer #1 (Beraisa): If Reuven's ox killed a half-slave, Reuven pays half of the fine to the master, and half the Kofer to the half-slave's heirs.

Suggestion: This Beraisa is like the latter Mishnah, which forces a master to free his half-slave.

Rejection: No, it is like the original Mishnah, which does not force him.

Answer #2 (Beraisa): If a master knocked out the tooth of his slave and blinded his eye, the slave goes free due to the tooth, and the master must pay him for his eye.

If the master of a slave (whom he must free) receives the fine if another man's ox gores the slave, it is illogical that the master would have to pay the slave if he himself hit him!

Rejection: The Beraisa is like the opinion that the slave goes free (due to the tooth) and does not need a Get of freedom.

(Beraisa - R. Yishmael, R. Eliezer and R. Akiva): If a master destroys any of the external limbs of his slave, the slave goes free, and needs a Get of freedom;

R. Meir and R. Tarfon say, he goes free and does not need a Get;

The arbitrators say, if a tooth or eye was knocked out, since the Torah said that he goes free, a Get is not needed. If any other limb was destroyed, he needs a Get, since he goes free due to a fine mid'Rabanan.

Question: This is not a fine mid'Rabanan. Chachamim expounded verses!

Answer: Rather, it is because it is a fine expounded by Chachamim.

Question: If a Kohen's slave is Me'ukav Get Shichrur, may the slave eat Terumah?

"The acquisition of his money may eat (Terumah)" - this slave is not the Kohen's property!

Or, since the Kohen must give him a Get, he is like his property!

Answer: Rav Mesharshiya taught that if the children of a Kohen's wife and her slave got mixed up, the children may eat Terumah, and they receive one share of Terumah at the granaries;

When they grow up, they free each other.

Rejection: That is no proof. There, they eat, because if we would find out which is the slave, he is truly the property of his master;

In our question, the master has no right to make the slave work!