Gittin

— Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of R. Meir, who holds that when a man says a thing he must mean something by it  That this view is probably correct is shown by the succeeding clause: Similarly if a man sanctifies himself he maintains himself from his own labour, since he has sanctified only his money value. Now if you say that this follows R. Meir, there is no difficulty.  But if you say it follows the Rabbis,  we can indeed understand [the rule] in reference to the slave, because he has a purchase price, but has the man himself a purchase price? May we say that the same difference  is found between Tannaim [in the following passage]:  If a man sanctifies his slave, then making use of him does not constitute me'ilah [trespass].  Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: Use of his hair constitutes trespass.  Now is not the point at issue between the two authorities this, that one holds that the slave is sanctified and the other that he is not? — Do you really think so? Why then the expressions, 'constitutes trespass' and 'does not constitute trespass'? It should be, 'he is sanctified' and 'he is not sanctified'? No. Both hold that he is sanctified,  and the point at issue here is that the one puts him in the same class with fixed property and the other with movable property.  If that is so, while they differ with regard to his hair should they not differ with regard to his whole body? — The truth is, both hold that a slave is in the same category as fixed property, and they differ here in respect of his hair which is ready for cutting, the one holding that such hair is regarded as already cut, and the other that it is not. Shall we say that the difference between these Tannaim  is the same as the difference between these other Tannaim, as we have learnt: R. Meir says, There are certain things which both are and are not in the same category as fixed property,  but the Sages do not agree with him. For instance, if a man says, I entrusted to you ten vines laden with fruit, and the other says, There were only five, R. Meir requires him to take an oath,  but the Sages say that anything attached to the soil is in the same category as the soil.  And [commenting on this] R. Jose son of R. Haninah said that the practical difference between them arose in the case of grapes which were ripe for gathering, R. Meir holding that they were regarded as already gathered and the Rabbis that they were not so regarded? — You may even say that R. Meir [does not differ in the case of the hair]. For R. Meir would apply this principle  only to the case of grapes which would spoil by being left, but not to hair which improves the longer it is left. When R. Hiyya b. Joseph went up [to Palestine], he reported this dictum  of Rab to R. Johanan. Said the latter: Did Rab really say that? But did not R. Johanan himself say the same?  Has not 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but he requires a deed of emancipation? — What R. Johanan meant was, Did Rab really take the same view as I [take]? Others report that [R. Hiyya] did not give him the whole of Rab's statement,  and he said to him, And did not Rab say that he requires a deed of emancipation? In this R. Johanan would be consistent, since 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan, If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but he requires a deed of emancipation. The text above [stated]: 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan: If a man declares his slave common property, he becomes a free man, but requires a deed of emancipation.' R. Abba raised the following objection against 'Ulla: 'If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites seize  his property,  if there are slaves included in it, whether grown up or not grown up, they become their own masters as free men. Abba Saul. however, says that the grown-ups become their own masters as free men  but the minors become the property of whoever first seizes them.'  Now who has written a deed of emancipation for these?  — 'Ulla replied: This Rabbi seems to imagine that people do not study the law. But what after all is the reason [why the slaves require no deed of emancipation]? — R. Nahman replied: 'Ulla was of opinion that the slave of a proselyte comes under the same rule as his wife. Just as his wife is liberated  [after his death] without a Get, so his slave is liberated without a deed of emancipation. But if that is so, the same rule  should apply to an Israelite? — Scripture says, And ye shall make them (Canaanitish slaves) an inheritance for your children after you to hold for a possession.  If that is the case, then if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, the slave should also [not require a deed of emancipation].  How is it then that Amemar has said that if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave?  — [This saying] of Amemar is indeed a difficulty. R. Jacob b. Idi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah follows Abba Saul.  R. Zera asked R. Jacob b. Idi: