(R. Zeira): If a slave married a Bas Yisrael in front of his master, he goes free.

Question (R. Yochanan): This is unlike Chachamim!

(Beraisa - R. Meir): If a man wrote a document of Kidushin to his Shifchah, she is Mekudeshes;

Chachamim say, she is not Mekudeshes.

Answer: Rabah bar Rav Shilo taught that if a master put Tefilin on his slave, the slave is free. Similarly, if the master himself married off the slave, he is free.

Question: It is absurd to say that (Chachamim hold that) a man would not cause his slave to sin (marry him off if he had not freed him), but he himself would sin (marry his Shifchah without freeing her)!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): The case is, he told her that the document of Kidushin should free her and be Mekadesh her to him.

R. Meir holds that 'you are Mekudeshes to me' is a valid expression of freedom. Chachamim disagree.

(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): A slave who dons Tefilin in front of his master goes free.

Question (Beraisa): If the master borrowed from his slave, or made the slave a guardian, or if the slave donned Tefilin in front of his master, or read three verses in the Beis ha'Keneses in front of his master, he does not go free.

Answer (Rabah bar Rav Shilo): He goes free if the master himself put Tefilin on the slave.

(Rav Dimi citing R. Yochanan): If a man said before he died that his heirs should not make his Shifchah work, we force them to free her.

Objection (R. Ami and R. Asi): (If she is not freed,) her children are slaves. Why must the heirs free her? (It suffices that they not make her work!)

(Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah citing R. Yochanan): If a man said before he died 'my Shifchah made me happy, my heirs should make her happy', we force them to make her happy. (If necessary, they free her.)

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: It is a Mitzvah to fulfill the request of the deceased.

Version #1 (Ameimar): If Reuven declared his slave to be Hefker, there is no solution (for the slave to become a Yisrael).

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Reuven does not (monetarily) own the slave, but regarding Isurim (i.e. the Isur to marry a Bas Yisrael), he is still considered Reuven's slave.

Reuven cannot transfer (to the slave) ownership regarding Isurim.

Question (Rav Ashi): Ula and R. Chiya bar Avin taught that he goes free, and needs a Get of freedom!

Answer (Ameimar): He needs one , but he cannot get one .

Version #2 (Ameimar): If Reuven was Mafkir his slave, and Reuven died, there is no solution.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: After making him Hefker, Reuven did not (monetarily) own him. Regarding Isurim, he was still considered Reuven's slave.

Reuven does not bequeath ownership regarding Isurim.

Question (Rav Ashi): Rav Dimi (above, (a)) taught that the heirs can free a slave, even if they did not inherit monetary ownership!

Answer (Ameimar): Rav Dimi is wrong. (He was refuted.)

Question (Rav Ashi): Rav Dimi was wrong because the father did not say that they should free her. If he explicitly said that she should go free, we would force the heirs to free her!

Answer (Ameimar): I hold that R. Yochanan never said (even your amended version of) what Rav Dimi said in his name. Rather, R. Yochanan taught like R. Shmuel bar Yehudah reported.

A city of (Kena'ani) slaves was sold to a Nochri. Their new masters died; they came before Ravina.

Ravina: Ask the children of your original owners to write for you Gitin of freedom.

Rabanan: This is like Ameimar's case, and he says that there is no solution for such slaves!

Ravina: I hold like Rav Dimi.

Rabanan: Rav Dimi was refuted!

Ravina: Rav Dimi was wrong because the father did not say that they should free her. If he explicitly said that she should go free, we would force the heirs to free her!

The Halachah follows Ravina.

Two partners had a slave; one freed his half. The other feared lest Chachamim find out and force him to free his half. (There was an enactment to free half-slaves to enable them to marry.) To prevent this, he transferred ownership of his slave to his son, who was a minor (and unable to free him).

Rav Papa: We do to him like he did. His scheme will backfire! Children love coins. Appoint a guardian, and tell him to get the child to agree to free the slave in exchange for some coins, and write a Get of freedom in the child's name.

(Beraisa): If a master said 'I made my slave a free man' or 'behold he is free', he is free;

Rebbi says, if he said 'I will free him', he acquires his freedom;

Chachamim say, he does not.

R. Yochanan: In all of these cases, these words were written in a document.

(Beraisa): If one said 'I gave my field to Ploni', 'it is given to Ploni' or 'behold, it is his', Ploni acquires it;

R. Meir says, if he said 'I will give it to Ploni', he acquires it;

Chachamim say, he does not.

R. Yochanan: In all of these cases, these words were written in a document.

(Beraisa): If Reuven said 'I freed Ploni, my slave', and Ploni denies this, we are concerned lest Reuven gave a Get of freedom to a third party to acquire on behalf of Ploni. (Therefore, Reuven must free him.)

If Reuven said: 'I wrote and gave a Get of freedom to Ploni, my slave', and Ploni denies this, Ploni's admission is like 100 witnesses that he is not free. (Reuven can say that he erred, and reclaim his slave.)

(Beraisa): If Reuven said 'I gave my field to Ploni', and Ploni denies this, we are concerned lest Reuven asked a third party to acquire on behalf of Ploni. (Ploni gets the field);

If Reuven said 'I wrote a document to give the field, and I gave the document to Ploni', and Ploni denies this, Ploni's admission is like 100 witnesses that he did not get it. (Reuven can say that he erred, and reclaim his field.)

Question: Who eats the Peros (produce, if Reuven does not retract)?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): Reuven eats them.

Answer #2 (Rabah): We store the Peros with a third party.

They do not argue. If Ploni is alive, since he admitted that it is not his, Reuven eats the Peros;

If Ploni is dead, Ploni's son could not make a meaningful admission, so the Peros are stored. (Perhaps witnesses will clarify the matter.)

(Mishnah): If Shimon lent to Reuven money, and Reuven made his slave Tavi an Apotiki (collateral, with a guarantee that the loan may be collected from Tavi's value) and he freed him, letter of the law, Tavi owes nothing to his master;

There is an enactment for Tikun ha'Olam. We force the master to write a Get of freedom, and Tavi writes a document obligating himself to pay his value to his master;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, only the one who freed him writes.

(Gemara) Question: Who freed him?

Answer #1 (Rav): Reuven freed him. Letter of the law, Tavi owes nothing to his second master (Shimon, who should have received him), due to Rava's law.

(Rava): The following uproot a lien:

The borrower made the collateral Hekdesh;

The collateral was Chametz, and Pesach came (so one may not benefit from the Chametz);

The collateral was a slave, and the borrower freed him.

We are concerned lest Shimon see Tavi and say 'you are my slave' (and people will say that Tavi is still a slave). Therefore, Chachamim enacted that Shimon write a Get of freedom, and Tavi owes his value to Shimon;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, the slave does not obligate himself to pay his value, rather Reuven pays (to Shimon).