Opinion: Rashi explains that Chazakah refers to acquiring a slave through making him perform a task that a slave would perform, such as getting his master dressed, putting on his shoes, or washing him, as stated in Kidushin (22b).

Question#1: This is difficult, as even a Jew does not acquire an Eved Ivri from another Jew unless it is with money or a document, as stated in Kidushin (14b). Certainly these are the only Kinyanim available to a Nochri as well (not Chazakah)!

Question#2: Additionally, it says there that we find a case of an Eved Ivri sold to a Nochri, as all the acquisitions of a Nochri are done with money. Rabeinu Tam explains that "all the acquisitions" means all of his acquisitions of an Eved Ivri. However, in general a Nochri acquires through pulling according to Rebbi Yochanan, who we rule like over the opinion of Reish Lakish.

Being that Rebbi Yochanan said that according to Torah law money acquires, if so a Nochri would acquire with pulling, as indicated in Bechoros (actually top of 13b).

Opinion: Rather, it must be that the Chazakah referred to here is capturing during war. This is how it is explained by the Rach (Rabeinu Chananel).

Explanation: Just as they captured their land by force, they also captured their bodies by force.

Question: Why does the Gemara have to tell us that Amon and Moav became "purified" through Sichon? If a Nochri can acquire a Jew, isn't it obvious he can acquire another Nochri?

Answer: We would not have learned from the Pasuk, "And he captured from him a prisoner," that a Kinyan occurred if not for the fact that they were "purified." This is why our Gemara quoted a different teaching from Reish Lakish earlier, as we would not have known this from the Pasuk alone. However, it must be brought to tell us that his body is not acquired (meaning the Nochri does not acquire his body). (Note: See Maharsha for further explanation of Tosfos.)

Question: This is difficult. Perhaps they knew that it was after Yiush, and they held like Rava's opinion quoted earlier!

Answer: According to what we explained earlier, that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel agrees (Note: according to Rava) to the Rabbanan that if he was redeemed as a slave he should go to his second master, this is understandable. If so, he was theirs, and it is illogical to say that they were coming to give him a gift.

Explanation: He (Shmuel) holds like Abaye. According to Rava, being that he said he should be a slave he would require a Get Shichrur (document freeing him from slavery).

Implied Question: Don't ask that if so, according to Shmuel why is a document required at all? He could just tell an Eved Kenani in front of two witnesses to leave, as asked in Kidushin (16a) regarding an Eved Ivri.

What did the Gemara answer there (why this is not actually feasible by an Eved Ivri)? It said that an Eved Ivri's body is acquired by the master. Even so, he should still be able to declare him ownerless. Even according to the opinion that an Eved Kenani requires a Get Shichrur, this is in order to permit him to marry a regular Jewess. However, an Eved Ivri does not need a special "permit" to marry a Jewess. The Gemara in Kidushin only says that this (freeing him orally) might be possible because we originally thought that an Eved Ivri's body is not acquired by the master.

This is why the Gemara there asks why a document is needed. The same terms written in the document, such as "Harei Atah Ben Chorin/l'Atzmecha," could instead be said. The Gemara answers, his body is acquired, and "Harei Atah l'Atzmecha," which is a term regarding Kinyan, does not help. Similarly, saying that he forfeits his servitude does not help. For these terms, one requires a document. However, declaring that he is ownerless which is essentially taking him out of his domain, should work according to Shmuel without a document. (Note: Why, then, does Shmuel imply that a document is always required, even if he were to make him ownerless?)

Implied Question: The Gemara (40a) later discusses someone who says when he dies, "Do not enslave Plonis, my maidservant." The Gemara concludes that if he says a terminology of "Shichrur" -- "freeing" we force the inheritors to write her a Get Shichrur. Similarly, the Yerushalmi states openly that if he says they should free her, they must. (Note: Why? Don't they sin by doing so, as they transgress this positive commandment?)

Answer: Being that the inheritors cannot enslave her due to the principle that it is a Mitzvah to uphold the word of the dead, we do not say about her the commandment of "Always enslave them." Just giving a Get Shichrur does not constitute transgressing this commandment.

Implied Question: We say later (41b) that we force the master of a half-slave to free him. (Note: How can we do this if it transgresses this positive commandment?)

Answer: This is done because there is a great (important) Mitzvah of "to populate it He created it," (having children) similar to our teaching here regarding a Mitzvah of the many (public).

Opinion: Rashi explains that the slave is not fit to be dedicated as a Korban or to the general Hekdesh fund. He also did not say "the value of my slave," indicating he did not intend to be Makdish his value (which would be fitting for the general Hekdesh fund).

This is unlike someone who dedicates an unclean animal to Hekdesh, as there is no logic to say that he means that he should be part of the holy nation. We therefore revert to the logic that he must have meant its value is dedicated, even though he didn't say it. He meant it is holy to be sold. However, being that holiness (being part of the Jewish holy nation) is applicable to this servant, we do not say that it is for value.

Question: Why doesn't Rashi also say that it cannot possibly mean that he is holy to be sold because it is a different type of thing (than an unkosher animal)?

Answer: This is as Rashi explains later that even if he explicitly says that his slave should be holy to be sold, he goes free. This is like someone who dedicates animals that can be brought as a Korban to the general Hekdesh fund. They become Korbanos (despite the dedication to the general fund).This is why it did not say that the Beraisa later which states that the caretaker's etc. (do not free the slaves) is discussing a case where he said that their value should be holy.

Question#1: However, this is difficult. If we compare this to dedicating animals that can be Korbanos to the general Hekdesh fund, we should say that even though the slave goes free, he needs redemption, and his value should go to Hekdesh. This is just like someone who dedicates animal that can be Korbanos to the general Hekdesh fund. When those animals are sold, the proceeds go to things for the Mizbe'ach, as stated in Menachos (101a). When they are redeemed, they are only redeemed for the Mizbe'ach (i.e. to be Korbanos), and the money is for the general Hekdesh fund. This is as stated in Temurah (6a) that even though doing so is a negative prohibition, what he has done is done.

However, our Gemara implies that his intent is to say that the slave should be part of the holy (Jewish) nation, and he does not give any money to Hekdesh. (Note: It would seem that money should have to be given to Hekdesh anyway, just as in the case of the animal which could be a Korban!)

Question#2: Additionally, what is the Gemara asking from "But all Cherem...?" There, when he said explicitly the term "Cherem," he could not have meant that he should be a holy nation.

Question#3: Additionally, when the Gemara answers that he said "for money," this means according to Rashi that he said that the value of his slave or maidservant should be upon him. If he was Makdish for their value, they should go out free. If so, why say "his" servants and maidservants? The same would be the law for those belonging to his friend (if he pledged their value)!

Question#4: Additionally, why single out Kenanim? The same would apply to his servants and maidservants who are Jewish!

Opinion#2: It appears that "his body is not holy" means to be forbidden from benefit, like an unkosher animal which one cannot use when it is Hekdesh. The same applies to land. If he uprooted a part of it, even if it was attached, it is forbidden. He did not say that he is dedicating its value, meaning that he did not say that its body should be holy to be sold for Hekdesh.

The Gemara now is asking a good question from the Pasuk, "All Cherem," as it refers to all Cherem that has Kedushah seize it. It therefore becomes forbidden from benefit, just like someone who makes other possessions of his Cherem. The Gemara answers that he said "for its value," meaning that they should be for selling, and not being Makdish as implied by the term "Cherem" (which means that the item itself is now holy). Now it is understandable that this specifically applies to one's Kenani servants and maidservants. (Note: Only they can even possibly be considered "Cherem" to others. One cannot proclaim that nobody can have benefit from their Eved Ivri.)

The Gemara asks, the other Beraisa could also be that he said "for their value!" It answers that if this is so, why are the caretakers involved? The person who made the dedication can redeem him, and he will be his (the caretaker is not needed to sell him back to him).

Observation: The Gemara similarly says later (52a) regarding orphans that their caretakers cannot free their servants (even if it pays for them to do so, see Rashi 52a DH "l'Hotzian"), but they can sell them to others.

Explanation: The reason it is forbidden for them to free them is because it appears as if they are cheapening their obligation to take care of the possessions of the orphans and Hekdesh. However, if they sell them, everyone knows that they are selling them for their fair value.