And he is permitted to marry her immediately afterward, without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah. The fact that the Rabbis do not suggest this course of action is evidently because they hold that even if she were to be rendered a slave and then immersed for the sake of emancipation, she would become Jewish only if she also accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. Rav Sheshet assumes that the Rabbis would similarly rule that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

Rava said: What is the rationale for Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar’s opinion? As it is written with regard to the Paschal lamb: “Every slave of a man that is bought for money, when you have circumcised him, then he may eat of it” (Exodus 12:44). Could the use of the phrase “slave of a man,” rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man’s slave but not a woman’s slave? Certainly not; rather, the phrase “slave of a man” means that the slave himself is a man, i.e., an adult, and teaches that a slave who is a man you may circumcise against his will, and there is no need for him to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but you may not circumcise a gentile’s son who is a man, i.e., an adult who is not a slave, against his will.

The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis counter this argument? Ulla said that the Rabbis reason that just as you may not circumcise a son who is a man against his will, so too, you may not circumcise a slave who is a man against his will. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “Every slave of a man”? The Gemara explains: The Rabbis require that verse for that which Shmuel said.

As Shmuel said: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated, and he does not even require a bill of emancipation, as it is stated: “But every slave of a man that is bought for money.” Could the use of the phrase “slave of a man,” rather than just: Slave, possibly indicate that the verse applies only to a man’s slave but not a woman’s slave? Certainly not; rather, the use of the phrase indicates that only a slave whose master has possession of him, and can rightfully be described as: a slave of a man, is called a slave, but a slave whose master does not have possession of him is not called a slave, and therefore he is considered a freeman and does not require a bill of emancipation.

Rav Pappa strongly objects to Rav Sheshet’s claim that the Rabbis of the baraita would hold that a regular slave who was immersed for the sake of emancipation becomes Jewish only if he also accepts upon himself the yoke of mitzvot: Say that you heard that the Rabbis insist on the acceptance of the yoke of mitzvot with regard to the case of a beautiful female prisoner of war, who was not involved in any mitzvot before being emancipated; however, with regard to a slave, who was initially involved in mitzvot before his emancipation, since as a slave he was obligated to observe certain mitzvot, perhaps even the Rabbis would agree that there is no need for the slave to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

As it is taught in a baraita: Both in the case of a convert and in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile whom he is now emancipating, the convert and the slave need to accept upon themselves the yoke of mitzvot in order to become Jewish. The Gemara infers: The baraita states the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot only in the case where one purchases a slave from a gentile, but if one purchases a slave from a Jew, then the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, since he was involved in mitzvot before his emancipation.

In accordance with whose opinion is this taught? If one suggests that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that is incorrect because didn’t he say that also in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot? Rather, must it not be in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? And so, conclude from this baraita that in the case of one who purchases a slave from a gentile, the slave needs to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot, but in the case of one who purchases a slave from a Jew, the slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot.

The Gemara asks: But if so, it is difficult to understand the meaning of the baraita cited above: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. That phrase appears to refer to the need for both a convert and an emancipated slave to accept the yoke of mitzvot, which is mentioned in the baraita beforehand. The Gemara explains: When that clause is taught, it is taught only with regard to the matter of immersion, which is mentioned immediately beforehand, but not with regard to the need to accept the yoke of mitzvot that is mentioned prior to that.

§ Having cited it above, the Gemara focuses on the case of the beautiful female prisoner of war: The Sages taught: The verse states: “And she shall shave her head and do her nails” (Deuteronomy 21:12). The phrase “do her nails” is ambiguous. Rabbi Eliezer says: It means she cuts her nails. Rabbi Akiva says: It means she grows them.

Each tanna explains the basis of his opinion: Rabbi Eliezer said: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires its removal, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires their removal. Rabbi Akiva says: An act of doing is stated with regard to the head, that she should shave it, and an act of doing is stated with regard to the nails; just as there, with regard to the hair on her head, the Torah requires that she do something that makes her repulsive, so too, here, with regard to her nails, the Torah requires she do something that makes her repulsive, i.e., allowing them to grow.

And a proof for the statement of Rabbi Eliezer may be adduced from the verse that states: “And Mephibosheth, the son of Saul, came down to meet the king; and he had neither done his feet nor done his mustache” (II Samuel 19:25). What is the meaning of doing in that context? Clearly it means the removal of his toenails and his mustache.

The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And she shall bewail her father and her mother a month of days and after that you may come to her” (Deuteronomy 21:13).