Gittin

was compelled by the Beth din to emancipate her, the reason being, as R. Nahman b. Isaac stated, that they used her for immoral purposes? — Can you compare the two cases? In this latter case, the woman [if not emancipated] is not qualified to marry either a slave or a free man;  in the other case, it is possible for the master to appoint her his slave, and he will look after her. The text above stated: Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: Whoever emancipates his heathen slave breaks a positive precept, since it is written, They shall be your bondmen for ever.  An objection was raised [against this from the following]: 'On one occasion R. Eliezer came into the synagogue and did not find [the quorum of] ten there, and he immediately emancipated his slave to make up the ten'? — Where a religious duty [has to be performed], the rule does not apply. Our Rabbis taught: 'They shall be your bondmen for ever': This is optional. Such is the opinion of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba, however, holds that it is an obligation. Now perhaps R. Eliezer held with the one who says that it is optional?  — Do not imagine such a thing, since it has been taught distinctly: R. Eliezer says that it is obligatory. Rabbah said: For these three offences men become impoverished: for emancipating their [heathen] slaves, for inspecting their property on Sabbath, and for taking their main Sabbath meal at the hour when the discourse is given in the Beth Hamidrash. For so R. Hiyya b. Abba related in the name of R. Johanan, that there were two families in Jerusalem, one of which used to take its main meal on Sabbath [at the hour of the discourse] and the other on the eve of Sabbath,  and both of them became extinct. Rabbah said in the name of Rab; If a man sanctifies his slave, he becomes a free man. What is the reason? Because he does not sanctify  his body,  nor does he say that he is sanctified in respect of his money value. What he must mean, therefore, is that he is to become a member of the 'holy people'.  R. Joseph, however, reported Rab as saying; If a man declares his slave common property he becomes a free man. The one who applies this rule where the slave is sanctified would apply it all the more where he is declared common property; but he who applies it where the slave is declared common property, would not necessarily apply it where he is sanctified, because the master may have been referring to his money value. The question was asked: [Does a slave who is thus liberated] require a deed of emancipation or not? — Come and hear: R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of Rab; Both the one and the other become free men, and they require deeds of emancipation. Rabbah said: I raise an objection against my own statement  from the following: 'If a man sanctifies his property and some slaves are included in it, the treasurers [of the Sanctuary] are not allowed to emancipate them,  but they must sell them to others,  and these others are allowed to emancipate them. Rabbi says: My view is that the slave can pay his own purchase price  and liberate hiniself,  because the treasurer in that case as it were sells him to himself'? — Do you seek to confute Rab from the Mishnah? Rab is himself [considered] a Tanna and is allowed to differ. Come and hear [an objection to Rabbah]: 'Notwithstanding no devoted thing … whether of man etc. [shall be redeemed];  these are his Canaanitish men-servants and maid-servants'?  — We are presuming in this case that he says, [I vow] their money value.  If that is so, cannot I say the same in the other case also? — If that were so, what of the words 'the treasurers are not allowed to liberate them'? Why are the treasurers mentioned?  And further: 'But they can sell them to others, and these others are allowed to liberate them.' Why are 'others' mentioned? And again: 'Rabbi says: My view is that he may pay his own purchase price and so liberate himself, because the treasurer in that case as it were sells him to himself.' Now if only his money value is devoted, what is the point of the words, 'because as it were he sells him to himself'? Come and hear: If a man sanctifies his slave, he [the slave] may go on supporting himself from his own labour, because only his money value has been sanctified!