Question: According to Rebbi Eliezer in Bava Kama (90a) he cannot free his portion of the slave, just as he cannot go free with (losing) a tooth or eye. This is because the Pasuk requires the slave be "His servant," meaning only his servant.

We say there that Ameimar, who says that a man and woman who sell their Nichsei mi'Lug did not do anything, follows Rebbi Eliezer's opinion. (Note: Rebbi Eliezer's opinion is based on his understanding that when the Torah uses one word that means "His __," such as "Avdo" -- "His servant" it means that it is only his. The Gemara understands that Ameimar's law was based on this type of derivation, meaning that he follows Rebbi Eliezer's style of interpreting such words in this fashion.)

The Gemara says there that a half slave and half free man or a slave belonging to two partners (Note: according to Rebbi Eliezer) does not go out if his limbs are cut off (by the master).

Answer: The partners referred to there are when one owns the body of the slave, and one owns the benefit from the slave. For example, if someone sold his servant to someone else, and he makes a condition that the servant will still serve him for thirty days, it is like the case of a man and woman (selling Nichsei mi'Lug).

However, when a person owns an entire half of the slave, including the body and its benefits, he can indeed free half of the slave.

Accordingly, the Beraisa regarding a half slave and half free man (not going out free if he has a limb cut off, implying that he still must serve as a slave) is according to the last Mishnah. (Note: This means that even though the last Mishnah says that Beis Hillel agreed that one must free a half slave and half free man, if the owning is not both in the body and the benefits, it cannot be done (according to Rebbi Eliezer).)

Question: Ameimar himself holds earlier according to one version of the Gemara that if someone declares his slave to be ownerless (Hefker), he can still fix his status by giving him a freedom document. (Note: If Ameimar holds like Rebbi Eliezer, how could he hold that this works when he no longer has full possession of the slave?)

Answer: A document certainly takes away the prohibition, as we said earlier that just as a woman has the prohibition and not money taken away with a Get etc. (39b).

Opinion#1: Rashi explains that he wrote in one document, "half of my possessions are to you," and he wrote the same in a document he gave to someone else. Even if he gave the two documents at once, they did not acquire their halves. Perhaps one half total was given to both of them together, and he left over the rest of his possessions.

Question#1: This is difficult according to Rabeinu Shmuel, as when the Gemara says, "all of my possessions," it implies that he is explaining in the document that the half that he gave to this person he did not give to the other. Rather, he gave all of his possessions to split between them.

Question#2: Additionally, being that the Gemara differentiates between a case where he wrote all of his possessions to two people and a case where he wrote half to each, the implication is that when he wrote all to each they have acquired all of his possessions. However, when he writes half, even if he explicitly writes that he is not giving the same half to each but rather is giving them all of his possessions to split, even so he does not acquire.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Shmuel understands that Rabah's opinion is based on his opinion in Kidushin (50b) and Eiruvin (50a) that whatever cannot be done one after the other, also cannot be done at one time. In this case he does not acquire after the other person, as he left over. It is unlike freeing half of his slave and selling half, as there it is valid for him to do this one step after the other, as long as he sells half of him first.

Question: There is slight difficulty with this explanation. If so, when he says the entire amount they should also not acquire at one time, as it is impossible for the second person to acquire all of his possessions after he has already given them to the first person. This is similar to being Mekadesh two sisters. Being that he cannot be Mekadesh one after the other, when he acquires both at the same time neither are acquired.

Rather, it is only possible to apply this rule of "whatever cannot work one after the other," when the first thing done holds back the second thing from taking effect. This is like the case of being Mekadesh two sisters, where the Kidushin of the first sister stops the second Kidushin from taking effect.

However, here the reason that the second person does not acquire after the first person is not because he is not fit to acquire. Rather, it is because the person who gave the money already took himself away from the possessions and has nothing left to give. This is like someone who writes that all of his possessions should be given to two people. He writes to each, "my possessions are given to you as a gift," and gives them the documents simultaneously. In such a case they acquire all of his possessions.

One cannot compare money that can be divided and can technically be split in half, like is said there regarding Ma'aser (see Kidushin top of 51a at length).

Implied Question: Here we cannot answer that the second part was written to shed light on the first part. (Note: Why not?)

Answer: It is obvious that in one document there is no difference between whether he said he is giving two halves or all.

Explanation: This is all according to the first Mishnah (in which Beis Hillel stated that a half free-man and half slave is owned one day by his master and one day by himself). According to the last Mishnah (in which Beis Hillel agreed to Beis Shamai that we force his master to set him free), he receives the benefits of his work. Later in the Gemara, this case is compared to someone whose freedom document was not yet given (although he had already been set free in a different way).

However, there is a difference according to the second Mishnah as well. The difference would be, for example, in a case where the slave belongs to orphans who are minors who cannot be forced (to set him free). Alternatively, there would be a difference regarding a half maidservant and half free-woman who had not been treated in a promiscuous fashion.

Question: There is a slight difficulty with this. Being that according to the last Mishnah he gets to keep the benefit of his work anyway, what did the person in the Gemara earlier (40a) gain by giving his half of his slave to his son (to avoid from having to set him free)? One his friend freed his half, the slave automatically acquired himself (i.e. the benefits of his work) and he is now someone who is simply being delayed from receiving a freedom document. The person cannot give his friend anything more than he owns in the slave, but not more than that. (Note: Accordingly, he really could not effectively give him anything.)

Answer: Perhaps the case was where he gave the slave to his son before his friend freed him, as he knew that his friend wanted to free his half of the slave.

Opinion#1: Some want to exempt a renter or borrower of a horse from his friend, even if it became damaged through negligence and missed many days of work. This is because it will end up being healed anyway. Just as we derive "a man with his friend," and not an ox with his friend (regarding unemployment), so too we should derive "a man with his friend," and not a man with an ox. (Note: Therefore, the person who was negligent should not have to pay for the days the horse cannot work.)

There is no reason to differentiate between an ox and a person who damages, as the Gemara asks in Bava Kama (4b), "Furthermore, a person who watches for free and a borrower...is a case of a person damaging an ox." (Note: This Gemara implies that Shomrim is on par with a person who damages, meaning that we indeed can derive "and not a man with an ox.")

Implied Question: The Gemara asks in Sanhedrin (84b) that if he made it weak with stones, he will not be liable? (Note: This implies that he is indeed liable even though he only made the animal weak!)

Answer: The Gemara there is talking about a weakness that will not get better.

Opinion#2: Rabeinu Chananel says that unemployment is only possible regarding a person. His unemployment is not included in damages, as just because he is missing work his value is not lessened drastically. However, the fact that an ox cannot currently work clearly impacts his value. Originally, when he becomes damaged, we evaluate how much less he can be sold for because of the damage (which includes devaluation because of unemployment).

Implied Question: The Gemara earlier did not want to establish the half fine to his master as being according to the last Mishnah (and in that way answer the question on Rava earlier on 42b). It could have said that the fine goes to his master while his work goes to himself. The Gemara that stated that if an ox gored him on the day when he had to work for his master the fine goes to the master is according to the first Mishnah, as we explained above. (Note: Why didn't the Gemara give this answer?)

Answer: This is in order that our question here (later in the Gemara) should not have already been answered.

Implied Question: He can keep the benefit of his work. (Note: Why, then, should the money for his injury go to his master?)

Answer: Being that a fine would go to his master, payment for his injury also goes to his master. This is as the rule goes: What does it matter if all of him was killed or part of him was killed? (Note: The payment goes to the same person, namely the master.)

Explanation: Rabeinu Tam explains that we suspect that he might find him in the marketplace and say to him that he is his servant. However, we are not worried about this regarding a case when he knocks out his tooth or eye, as this is a clear Pasuk in the Torah.

Observation: This question is not according to the Reish Lakish who says in Kerisus (24b) that we conclude according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a slave who has a delay in receiving his freedom document eats Terumah.

Alternatively, one can differentiate between a case of someone who has not been given a freedom document after having been made ownerless, that he can eat Terumah just as he is permitted to be with a Kenanis maidservant, as we explained earlier. Here we are discussing a half slave and half free man.

Implied Question: The Gemara in Kesuvos (13b) says regarding ten Kohanim who were together, and one of them went and had relations with a woman (it is unknown which one). The child is considered a Shetuki, and we "quiet" him from having a law of being a Kohen. This is due to the Pasuk, "And it will be for him and his sons after him," implying that Kohanim must be linked to their father in lineage. (Note: How, then, can this child mentioned in our Gemara eat Terumah?)

Answer#1: We say in Yevamos (100b) that this law that sons must trace their lineage to their father is Rabbinic in nature. The Rabbanan only decreed that it apply when the relations had (resulting in his birth) were promiscuous, not when the relations were had within the framework of marriage.

Answer#2: Alternatively, the case here is that after they were born they were mixed up.

Explanation: If he sells the future money from fines he will receive due to his slave, there is no question. Even according to Rebbi Meir there is no acquisition, as this is not expected to come, as stated in the Gemara (that this is a requirement for Rebbi Meir). Certainly according to the Rabbanan this is invalid.

Rather, the case is where he sold the slave for the purposes of receiving any fines resulting because of him. Perhaps even the Rabbanan will agree that the acquisition is valid, just as a person can sell a tree in order that the buyer will receive the future fruit. This is as we say, "the ox and slave are present!" Or perhaps we say that even Rebbi Meir will hold the acquisition is invalid. This is unlike the fruit of a tree, as the fruit go out from the body of the tree and are expected to come. However, a fine comes by itself and is unexpected.