Gittin

The Mishnah [according to R. Joseph] is speaking of a slave belonging to two partners. Rabbah says: The dispute [between Rabbi and the Rabbis] concerns the case where [the master] liberates the half of the slave and keeps the other half, but if he liberates one half and sells the other half or makes a gift of it to someone  since, the slave emerges completely from his ownership, both Rabbi and the Rabbis would agree that he acquires [the half of himself]. Said Abaye to him: And do they not differ even [where the master parts] with the whole? Has not one [authority] taught: 'If a man assigns in writing his property to two of his slaves,  they acquire ownership and emancipate one another,'  while it has been taught by another, If a man says, 'All my property is made over to my slaves So-and-so and So-and-so', they do not acquire ownership even of themselves? Now are we not to say that the one [authority]  concurs with Rabbi and the other with the Rabbis? — No; both concur with the Rabbis, [only] the one [refers to the case] where [the man] assigned the whole [of his property to both slaves],  while the other [refers to the case] where he says half [to one and] half [to the other].  But the second clause goes on: 'If he says, half [to one] and half [to the other] they do not acquire ownership.' Does not this show that the first clause refers to the case where he says 'the whole'? — This second clause explains the first, [thus:] 'They do not acquire ownership even of themselves. When is this so? If, for instance, he says, half [to one] and half [to the other].' This supposition is reasonable, since if we assume the first clause [to refer to the case] where he says 'the whole', seeing that where he says 'the whole they do not acquire ownership, is it necessary [to tell us that they do not do so] where he says 'half and half'? — This is not a conclusive argument. [It may be that] the second clause was put in to make clear [the reference in] the first: lest you might think that the first clause [refers to] where he said half [to one] and half [to the other], leaving us to infer that where he said 'the whole' they acquire ownership, he adds in the second clause, 'where he says half and half,' which shows that the first clause [speaks of the case] where he says 'the whole,' and even so they do not acquire ownership. Or if you like I can say that there is no contradiction, as the one authority is speaking of one document  and the other of two documents. [If he is speaking of] one document, what is the point of 'half [to one] and half [to the other]'? Even if he said, '[Let each take] the whole,' they do not acquire ownership?  — This in fact is what he does say, [as what he means is:] 'They do not acquire even themselves. When do we say this? [When he makes out] only one deed. If, however, [he makes out] two deeds, they do acquire ownership. And if he says half [to one] and half [to the other], even with two deeds they do not acquire ownership.'  If you like again I can say that there is no contradiction; in the one case [the two deeds] are given at one and the same time, in the other case one after the other.  [If that is so], I can understand why the second does not acquire ownership, because the first has already become his owner; but why does not the first acquire both himself and the other? No; the best [solutions are] those which were given first. R. Ashi said:  The case is different there, because he calls them 'my slaves'.  Said Rafram to R. Ashi: perhaps he means, 'who were my slaves'? Have we not learnt: If a man assigns in writing all his property to his slave, the latter becomes free; if he excepts a piece of land however small, he does not become free.  R. Simeon says: He becomes free in all cases unless the master says, 'The whole of my property is assigned to my slave So-and-so except one ten-thousandth part thereof'?  Now the reason for this is that he added these words, otherwise he would be free.  But [it may be asked], why, seeing that he calls him 'my slave'? Obviously he means, 'who was hitherto my slave'; so here he means, 'who were hitherto my slaves'. [If a slave who is half-emancipated] is gored by an ox, if it is on a day on which he belongs to the master, the [compensation  goes] to the master, if on the day when be belongs to himself, it goes to himself. If that is so, then on his master's day he should be allowed to marry a slave-woman and on his own day a free woman? — We do not apply this principle where a religious prohibition is involved. Come and hear: If [an ox] kills one who is half a slave and half free, the owner gives half the fine  to his master