Answer: Beraisa #3 is like R. Meir, who holds that one does not say empty words (to Hekdesh. Surely he intended to give something to Hekdesh. It is difficult to say that he meant his value, but we must say so.)

Support (Seifa of Beraisa #3): The same applies to one who was Makdish himself. He works and eats, for he was Makdish only his own value.

We understand this if the Beraisa is like R. Meir.

We can understand the Reisha like Chachamim, since a slave can be sold.

The Seifa cannot be like Chachamim. A free man cannot be sold (so it is unreasonable to say he meant his own value!)

Suggestion: Tana'im argue about Rabah's law.

(Beraisa): If one was Makdish his slave, Me'ilah does not apply (to one who benefits from the slave);

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, one who benefits from the hair transgresses Me'ilah.

Suggestion: R. Shimon holds that the slave becomes Hekdesh, and Chachamim disagree.

Rejection: If so, why do they argue about Me'ilah? They should argue explicitly about whether or not he is Hekdesh!

Rather, all agree that he becomes Hekdesh (to be sold).

Suggestion: They argue about the following. Chachamim consider a slave to be like land, so Me'ilah does not apply. R. Shimon holds he is not like land, so Me'ilah applies.

Rejection: If so, they should argue about the slave. Why do they argue about his hair?

Rather, all agree that slaves are like land. They argue about whether or not hair that is destined to be cut is considered as if it was cut;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel considers it as if it was cut. Chachamim do not.

Suggestion: They argue like the following Tana'im.

(Mishnah - R. Meir): Some things are like land, but are not treated like land. If Reuven claims 'I entrusted you to guard 10 trees laden with fruit'; and Shimon admits to five, Shimon must swear (like one who partially admits to a claim of Metaltelim (movable objects));

Chachamim say, whatever is connected to land is like land (so he does not swear).

(R. Yosi bar Chanina): They argue about grapes ready to be harvested. R. Meir considers them as if they were harvested, Chachamim do not.

Rejection: The Chachamim who say there is no Me'ilah in the hair could hold like R. Meir;

R. Meir considers only ripe grapes as if they were harvested, because they get worse if left attached. Hair improves if it is left to grow longer, so it is not considered to be cut.

R. Chiya bar Yosef told R. Yochanan about Rav's teaching and this discussion on it.

R. Yochanan: Did Rav really say this?

Question: R. Yochanan agrees!

(Ula citing R. Yochanan): If one was Mafkir his slave, he goes free and needs a Get of freedom.

Version #1 - Answer: R. Yochanan was surprised that Rav agrees with him.

Version #2 - Answer: R. Chiya bar Yosef did not finish giving Rav's opinion. R. Yochanan thought that Rav does not require a Get of freedom. (end of Version #2)

This is like Ula taught, that R. Yochanan requires a Get.

Question (R. Aba (against Ula) - Beraisa): If a convert died (without heirs), and Yisre'elim were taking his property (which became Hefker), if the convert owned adult or minor slaves, they go free;

Aba Sha'ul says, adults acquire themselves and become free. Minors become the slaves of whoever takes them.

This shows that a Get of freedom is not required!

Ula: One who asks such a question does not know how to learn.

Question: Why did Ula's say this?

Answer (Rav Nachman): Ula holds that a convert's slave is like his wife. Just like a convert's wife is permitted without a Get when he dies, also his slave.

Question: If so, we should say the same about a Yisrael's slave!

Answer: Slaves of a Yisrael pass to his heirs - "you will bequeath them to your children."

Question: If so, if a Yisrael was Mafkir his slave and died, the slave should not need a Get (since his heirs do not inherit him)!

(Ameimar): If one was Mafkir his slave and died, the slave can never become a full Yisrael.

Ameimar's teaching is difficult. (Presumably, he does not argue with his Rebbi, R. Yochanan!)

(R. Yakov bar Idi): R. Yehoshua ben Levi holds that the Halachah follows Aba Sha'ul.

Question (R. Zeira): Did R. Yehoshua ben Levi say this explicitly, or did you infer it from something else he said?

Question: What did R. Yehoshua ben Levi say, from which it could be inferred?

Answer: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rebbi says that if a master despairs of his slave, the only solution for the slave is through a Get.

R. Yochanan: Rebbi learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah." Just like a married woman is permitted (Rashi - only) through a Get, also a slave

Version #1 (Rashi) Inference: Rebbi equates similar cases. A married woman, who is not the Mamon (monetary property) of her husband, needs a Get, and also a slave who is not the Mamon of his master (i.e. an adult slave who acquired himself when the master was Mafkir him. A minor is always his master's Mamon. Even if the master was Mafkir him, he cannot acquire himself. He remains a full slave, and can marry a Shifchah.)

Version #2 (Tosfos) Inference: Just like a Get permits a married woman, who is not her husband's Mamon, also death of the master permits only a slave who is not the Mamon of his master (i.e. an adult). (end of Version #2)

Question: If R. Yakov bar Idi inferred from this teaching, why would R. Zeira disagree?

Answer: One could learn oppositely!

Version #1 (Rashi): An adult or minor wife needs a Get to be permitted. The same applies to a slave. (Even if one was Mafkir a minor slave, the slave needs a Get to marry, for he acquires his monetary freedom.)

Version #2 (Tosfos): Just like a Get permits a wife, whether she is an adult or a minor, also death of the master permits (frees) a slave, whether an adult or minor.) (end of Version #2)

Answer (R. Yakov bar Idi): I heard this explicitly.

(R. Chiya bar Aba): R. Yochanan holds that the Halachah does not follow Aba Sha'ul.

Question (R. Zeira): Did R. Yochanan say this explicitly, or did you infer it from something else he said?

Question: What did R. Yochanan say, from which it could be inferred?

Answer: R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rebbi says that if a master despairs of his slave, the only solution for the slave is through a Get. R. Yochanan said that Rebbi learns from a Gezeirah Shavah "Lah-Lah." Just like a married woman is permitted (Rashi - only) through a Get, also a slave.

Version #1 (Rashi): Only a Get permits an adult or minor wife. Also an adult or minor slave, after the master despaired, needs a Get to marry, for he acquired monetary freedom).

Version #2 (Tosfos): Just like a Get permits a wife, whether she is an adult or a minor, also death of the master permits (frees) a slave, whether an adult or minor.

Question: If R. Chiya bar Aba inferred from this teaching, why would R. Zeira disagree?

Answer: One could learn oppositely!

Version #1 (Rashi): A married woman is not her husband's Mamon, and she needs a Get. Also a slave who is not his master's Mamon needs a Get (i.e. an adult, who acquires himself when he was made Hefker. A minor slave remains a full slave, and can marry a Shifchah even without a Get.)

(Version #2 (Tosfos): Just like a Get permits a married woman, who is not her husband's Mamon. also death of the master permits only a slave who is not his master's Mamon (i.e. an adult slave who acquires himself). (end of Version #2)

Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba): I heard this explicitly.

(Rebbi): The only solution for the slave is through a Get.

Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi): The slave can pay his own redemption and go free, for this is like selling him to himself.

Answer: Rebbi said that the only solution is through a Get because a slave goes free only through redemption money or a Get; since the master despaired, redemption does not apply.

Rebbi teaches unlike the following opinion.

(Beraisa - R. Shimon) Suggestion: Perhaps money can free a slave, just like a Get!

Rejection: "She was not redeemed... " - the verse concludes "(because) her (Get of) freedom was not given", she is still a slave;

This shows that only a Get frees her.

(Rami bar Chama): The Halachah follows R. Shimon.

(Rav Yosef bar Chama): The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Like whom is the Halachah?

Answer #1 (Rava bar She'ilta): I say that it is unlike R. Shimon. Chachamim of Mechuza say in the name of Rav Nachman that it is like R. Shimon. I asked R. Chiya bar Aba from what ruling this was derived;

(R. Chiya bar Aba): The Shifchah of a Shechiv Mera bewailed 'how long will you work me like a slave?' He threw his hat to her and said 'acquire it and yourself with it.' Rav Nachman ruled that she acquired nothing.

An observer understood that this is because the Halachah follows R. Shimon.

This was wrong. She got nothing because the acquisition of Chalipin works only with the Kli of the buyer (receiver), not of the giver.

Answer #2 (Rav Shmuel bar Achitai): The Halachah follows R. Shimon.

Conclusion: This is wrong. The Halachah does not follow R. Shimon.