Parallel
יבמות 48:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
he is permitted to marry her forthwith. Raba said: What is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason? — Because it is written, Every man's slave that is bought for money; [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman? But [this is the implication]: The slave of a man may be forcibly circumcised but no son of a man may be forcibly circumcised. And the Rabbis? — 'Ulla replied: As you, admittedly, may not by force circumcise the son of a man so you may not forcibly circumcise the slave of a man. But, surely, there is the Scriptural text, Every man's slave! — That text is required for a deduction made by Samuel. For Samuel stated: If a man declared his slave to be ownerless that slave acquires thereby his freedom and requires no deed of emancipation; for it is stated in Scripture. Every man's slave that is bought for money, [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman? But [the meaning is that] a slave who is under his master's control is a proper slave but he who is not under his master's control is not a proper slave. R. Papa demurred: It might be suggested that the Rabbis were heard in respect of a woman of goodly form only, because she is under no obligation to observe the commandments; but that in respect of a slave, who is under the obligation of observing commandments, even the Rabbis agree! For it was indeed taught. 'Both a proselyte and a slave bought from an idolater must make a declaration of acceptance'. Thus it follows that a slave bought from an Israelite need not make a declaration of acceptance. Now, whose view is this? If that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, he, surely, had stated that even a slave bought from an idolater need make no declaration of acceptance! Consequently it must be the view of the Rabbis; and so it may be inferred that only a slave bought from an idolater is required to make a declaration of acceptance but a slave bought from an Israelite is not required to make a declaration of acceptance. But then the contradiction from the statement 'The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emancipated slave' remains! — That was taught only with reference to the ablution. Our Rabbis taught: And she shall shave her head, and do her nails, R. Eliezer said, 'She shall cut them'. R. Akiba said, 'She shall let them grow'. R. Eliezer said: An act was mentioned in respect of the head, and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails; as the former signifies removal, so does the latter also signify removal. R. Akiba said: An act was mentioned in respect of the head and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails; as disfigurement is the purpose of the former so is disfigurement the purpose of the latter. The following, however, supports the view of R. Eliezer: And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor had he done 'his beard; by 'doing' removal was meant. Our Rabbis taught: And bewail her father aid her mother;
—