Bava Kamma

After R. Nahman went out 'Ulla said to the audience: 'The statement made by R. Eleazar refers even to the case of heirs.' R. Nahman said: 'Ulla escaped my criticism'. A case of this kind arose in Nehardea and the judges of Nehardea  distrained [on slaves in the hands of heirs]. A further case took place in Pumbeditha and R. Hana b. Bizna distrained [on slaves in the hands of heirs]. But R. Nahman said to them: 'Go and withdraw [your judgments], otherwise I will distrain on your own homes [to reimburse the aggrieved heirs].'  Raba, however, said to R. Nahman: 'There is 'Ulla, there is R. Eleazar, there are the judges of Nehardea and there is R. Hana b. Bizna [who are all joining issue with you]; what authorities is the Master following?' — He said to him:  'I know of a Baraitha, for Abimi learned: "A prosbul  is effective only when there is realty  [belonging to the debtor] but not when he possesses slaves  only. Personalty is transferred along with realty  but not along with slaves."' May we not say that this problem is a point at issue between the following Tannaim? [For it was taught:] 'Where slaves and lands are sold, if possession is taken of the slaves no title is thereby acquired to the land, and similarly by taking possession of the lands no title is acquired to the slaves. In the case of lands and chattels, if possession is taken of the lands title is also acquired to the chattels,  but by taking possession of the chattels no title is acquired to the lands. In the case of slaves and chattels, if possession is taken of the slaves no title is thereby acquired to the chattels,  and similarly by taking possession of the chattels no title is acquired to the slaves. But [elsewhere] it has been taught: 'If possession is taken of the slaves the title is thereby acquired to the chattels.'  Now, is not this problem the point at issue: the latter Baraitha  maintains that slaves are considered realty [in the eye of the law], whereas the former Baraitha  is of the opinion that slaves are considered personalty? — R. Ika the son of R. Ammi, however, said: [Generally speaking] all [authorities] agree that slaves are considered realty. The [latter] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is effective, is certainly in agreement; the [former] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is ineffective, may maintain that the realty we require is such as shall resemble the fortified cities of Judah in being immovable. For we have learnt: 'Property which is not realty may be acquired incidentally with property which is realty  through the medium of either [purchase] money, bill of sale or taking possession.' [And it has been asked:]  What is the authority for this ruling? And Hezekiah thereupon said: Scripture states, And their father gave them great gifts of silver and of gold and of precious things with fortified cities in Judah.  [Alternatively] there are some who report: R. Ika the son of R. Ammi said: [Generally speaking] all [authorities] agree that slaves are considered personalty. The [former] Baraitha stating that the transfer [of the chattels] is ineffective is certainly in agreement; the [latter] Baraitha stating that the transfer of the chattels is effective deals with the case when the chattels [sold] were worn by the slave.  But even if they were worn by him, what does it matter? He is but property  in motion, and property in motion cannot be the means of conveying anything it carries. Moreover, even if you argue that the slave was then stationary, did not Raba say that whatsoever cannot be the means of conveying while in motion cannot be the means of conveying even while in the state of standing or sitting?  — This law applies to the case where the slave was put in stocks. But behold has it not been taught: 'If possession is taken of the land, title is thereby acquired also to the slaves'?  — There the slaves were gathered on the land.  This implies that the Baraitha which stated that the transfer of the slaves is ineffective,  deals with a case where the slaves were not gathered on the land. That is all very well according to the version that R. Ika the son of R. Ammi said that slaves are considered personalty; there is thus the stipulation that if they were gathered on the land, the transfer is effective, otherwise ineffective. But according to the version which reads that slaves are considered realty, why the stipulation that the slaves be gathered on the land?