Yevamot

he is permitted to marry her forthwith. Raba said: What is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason?  — Because it is written, Every man's slave that is bought for money;  [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman?  But [this is the implication]: The slave  of a man may be forcibly circumcised but no son of a man  may be forcibly circumcised. And the Rabbis?  — 'Ulla replied: As you, admittedly, may not by force circumcise the son of a man  so you may not forcibly circumcise the slave of a man. But, surely, there is the Scriptural text, Every man's slave!  — That text is required for a deduction made by Samuel. For Samuel stated: If a man declared his slave to be ownerless that slave acquires thereby his freedom and requires no deed of emancipation; for it is stated in Scripture. Every man's slave that is bought for money,  [could it mean] the slave of a man and not the slave of a woman?  But [the meaning is that] a slave who is under his master's control is a proper  slave but he who is not under his master's control is not a proper  slave. R. Papa demurred: It might be suggested that the Rabbis were heard  in respect of a woman of goodly form  only,  because she  is under no obligation to observe the commandments; but that in respect of a slave,  who is under the obligation of observing commandments, even the Rabbis agree!  For it was indeed taught. 'Both a proselyte and a slave bought from an idolater must make  a declaration of acceptance'.  Thus it follows  that a slave bought from an Israelite need not make a declaration of acceptance.  Now, whose view is this? If that of R. Simeon b. Eleazar, he, surely, had stated that even a slave bought from an idolater need make no declaration of acceptance!  Consequently it must be the view of the Rabbis; and so it may be inferred that only a slave bought from an idolater is required to make a declaration of acceptance  but a slave bought from an Israelite is not required to make a declaration of acceptance.  But then the contradiction from the statement 'The same law applies to a proselyte and to an emancipated slave'  remains! — That  was taught only with reference to the ablution. Our Rabbis taught: And she shall shave her head, and do  her nails,  R. Eliezer said, 'She shall cut them'.  R. Akiba said, 'She shall let them grow'. R. Eliezer said:  An act  was mentioned in respect of the head, and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails;  as the former signifies removal, so does the latter also signify removal. R. Akiba said:  An act  was mentioned in respect of the head and an act was mentioned in respect of the nails;  as disfigurement is the purpose of the former so is disfigurement the purpose of the latter. The following, however, supports the view of R. Eliezer: And Mephibosheth the son of Saul came down to meet the king, and he had neither dressed his feet, nor had he done  'his beard;  by 'doing'  removal was meant. Our Rabbis taught: And bewail her father aid her mother;