Gittin

Or if you like I can say that it refers to the case where he borrowed on condition that he should pledge and he did not pledge. Our Rabbis taught: If [a heathen] seizes the slave [of a Jew] on account of money owing to him, or if he is taken by the sicaricon,  he does not become free [if he escapes]. Is this really the rule if he is seized on account of debt?  [If so,] it would seem to conflict with the following: 'If the king's officers seize the corn in a man's granary, if it is on account of a debt due from him he must give tithe for it,  but if it is on account of anparuth,  he is not under obligation to give tithe?' — There the case is different, because they confer some advantage on him.  Come and hear: 'Rab said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang  he becomes free [if he escapes]!' — There the reason is that he ought to have persuaded him to take something else, and he did not do so. The text above [stated]: 'Rab said that if a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free. What was he to do? — He should have persuaded him to take something else and he did not do so.' R. Jeremiah raised the question: Suppose he sold him for thirty days,  how do we decide? — Come and hear: Rab said, 'If a man sells his slave to a heathen parhang he becomes free'. — That refers to a heathen' parhang who is not likely to return. If he sells him [for all purposes] except for work,  how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for all purposes] save where a breach of the Jewish law is involved,  how [do we decide]? If he sells him [for work at all times] save on Sabbaths and festivals, how [do we decide]? If he sells him to a resident alien  or non-observant Israelite,  how [do we decide]? [If] to a Cuthean, how [do we decide]? — One of these questions at any rate may be definitely answered — A resident alien is on the same footing as a heathen. As for a Cuthean and a nonobservant Israelite, some say he is [on the same footing] as a heathen, and some [that he is on the same footing] as an Israelite. A question was asked of R. Ammi: If a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to procure his return through the agency either of an Israelite or Gentile court, is he at liberty to receive payment for him [if offered]? — Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zerika: Go outside and look through your notes.  He went out, looked, and found that it was taught: If a man sells his house [in the land of Israel] to a heathen, the money paid for it is forbidden. If, however, a heathen forcibly takes a house of an Israelite, and the latter is unable to recover it either in a heathen or a Jewish court, he may accept payment for it and he may make out a deed for it and present it in heathen courts,  since this is like rescuing [money] from their hands.  But perhaps this applies only to a house, because since [a man] cannot do without a house he will not be induced  to sell it, but since [a man] can do without a slave, shall we say that [if we make this rule] he may be induced to sell? — R. Ammi sent back answer; From me, Ammi son of Nathan, the rule is issued to all Israel that if a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to recover him either in a Jewish or a heathen court, [his master] is permitted to accept payment for him, and he may make out a deed and present it in heathen courts, because this is like rescuing [money] from their hands. R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he can be penalised [by having to ransom him for] as much as a hundred times his value. Is the expression 'a hundred' here used exactly or loosely? — Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as ten times its value.  Perhaps the rule for a slave is different, because every day he is kept away from religious observances. According: to another version R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he may be penalised by having to ransom him for as much as ten times his value. Is the expression 'ten' here used exactly or loosely? Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as a hundred times its value.  — The rule for a slave is different, because he is not restored to him. The reason then why in the case of an animal [the penalty is so high] is because it is returned to him. If so, the excess penalty should be the bare value of the animal?  — In fact the real reason is [that for a man to sell] a slave is unusual, and the Rabbis did not prescribe for unusual cases. R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Assi: If a man sells his slave and then dies, is there ground for penalising his son after him? It is true you can point [to the rule that] if a priest mutilates the ear of a firstling  and then dies, his son is penalised after him; but this may be because he has broken a rule based on the Torah, whereas here we are dealing with a rule of the Rabbis.