Gittin — Daf 8b

כקונה בפרוארי ירושלים חייבת במעשר ובשביעית כא"י קסבר כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש

והרוצה ליכנס לה בטהרה נכנס והאמרת עפרה טמא בשידה תיבה ומגדל

דתניא הנכנס לארץ העמים בשידה תיבה ומגדל רבי מטמא רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מטהר ואפי' רבי לא קא מטמא אלא בארץ העמים דגזרו על גושה ועל אוירה אבל סוריא על גושה גזרו על אוירה לא גזרו

והקונה שדה בסוריא כקונה בפרוארי ירושלים למאי הילכתא אמר רב ששת לומר שכותבין עליו אונו ואפילו בשבת

בשבת ס"ד כדאמר רבא אומר לעובד כוכבים ועושה ה"נ אומר לעובד כוכבים ועושה ואע"ג דאמירה לעובד כוכבים שבות משום ישוב א"י לא גזור רבנן:

ת"ר עבד שהביא גיטו וכתוב בו עצמך ונכסיי קנויין לך עצמו קנה נכסים לא קנה:

איבעיא להו כל נכסיי קנויין לך מהו אמר אביי מתוך שקנה עצמו קנה נכסים

א"ל רבא בשלמא עצמו ליקני מידי דהוה אגט אשה אלא נכסים לא ליקני מידי דהוה אקיום שטרות דעלמא

הדר אמר אביי מתוך שלא קנה נכסים לא קנה עצמו א"ל רבא בשלמא נכסים לא ליקני מידי דהוה אקיום שטרות דעלמא אלא עצמו ליקני מידי דהוה אגט אשה

אלא אמר רבא אחד זה ואחד זה עצמו קנה נכסים לא קנה א"ל רב אדא בר מתנה לרבא כמאן כר"ש דאמר פלגינן דיבורא

דתנן הכותב כל נכסיו לעבדו יצא בן חורין שייר קרקע כל שהוא לא יצא בן חורין ר"ש אומר

is like one bought on the outskirts of Jerusalem.' [Our authority says that Syria] 'is subject to the obligations of tithe and Sabbatical year': [obviously] he is of opinion that the conquest of an individual  is a valid conquest.  [He further says that] 'it is permissible to enter Syria in a state of ritual purity.' How can this be, seeing that you say that its earth is unclean? — What is meant is that he may enter it in a box, chest, or portable turret, as has been taught: If one enters the land of the Gentiles in a box, chest, or portable turret, Rabbi declares him to be unclean, but R. Jose son of R. Judah does not. And even Rabbi makes this rule only for the land of the Gentiles, the soil and the air of which were proclaimed unclean by the Rabbis, but in regard to Syria they proclaimed only the soil unclean but not the air. [Our authority further says that] 'a field bought in Syria is like one bought on the outskirts of Jerusalem'. What rule of conduct can be based on this? — R. Shesheth Says: It means that a contract for selling it [to a Jew] can be drawn up even on Sabbath. What? On Sabbath? — You know the dictum of Raba, 'He tells a non-Jew to do it.' So here, he tells a non-Jew to draw up the contract. And although there is a Rabbinical prohibition  against telling a non-Jew to do things on Sabbath [which we may not do ourselves], where it was a question of furthering the [Jewish] settlement of Eretz Israel the Rabbis did not apply the prohibition. Our Rabbis have taught: If a slave brings before the Beth din his deed of manumission  in which is written, 'Your own person and my property are made over to you', he becomes [ipso facto] his own master  but not owner of the property. The question was propounded: [Suppose the document ran:] 'All my property is made over to you',  what is the ruling? — Abaye said: Since the document makes him his own master, it makes him owner of the property also.  Said Raba to him: I agree that he becomes his own master, because [in respect of himself his document] is on a par with the Get of a wife. But he must not become owner of the property, because [in respect of the property his Get] requires confirmation like any other document. Abaye then corrected himself and said: Since he does not become by means of his document the owner of the property, he does not become his own master either. Said Raba to him: I agree that he should not become owner of the property, because in respect of the property [his document] requires confirmation like any other document; but he should become his own master, because [in respect of himself, his document] is on a par with the Get of a wife. The fact of the matter is, continued Raba, that both with the one [wording] and the other, he becomes his own master but not owner of the property. Said R. Abba b. Mattena to Raba: This ruling accords with the principle laid down by R. Simeon, that a single statement may receive two diverse applications, for we have learnt: If a man assigns all his property to his slave, the latter becomes ipso facto free, but if he excepted a piece of land, however small, he does not become free.  R. Simeon, however, holds