he is emancipated. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Zeira: You possess such an extreme halakha, but I teach this halakha: With regard to one who writes a document of betrothal for his maidservant, stating: You are hereby betrothed to me, Rabbi Meir says: She is betrothed, and the Rabbis say: She is not betrothed, as even this, when he betroths her directly, does not serve as proof that he emancipates her.

The Gemara answers: Just as that which Rabba bar Rav Sheila says in a different context, that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi is referring to a case where a slave’s master placed phylacteries on him, here too, the context of Rabbi Zeira’s statement is not that of a slave who married a woman in his master’s presence but a case where the slave’s master himself provided a wife for him, as this is certainly proof that he had emancipated him.

The Gemara questions this answer: Is there anything like this, where for his slave he would not violate a prohibition, and by providing a wife for his slave he indicates that he must have emancipated the slave, but he himself might violate the prohibition, as he is suspected of marrying his maidservant without having freed her?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With what are we dealing here? This is a case where he said to the maidservant when he gave her the document of betrothal: Become emancipated with this and become betrothed to me with this. Rabbi Meir holds that this formulation written in the document of betrothal: You are hereby betrothed to me, contains a formulation of emancipation and therefore serves both as a bill of manumission and a document of betrothal. And the Rabbis hold: This formulation is not a formulation of emancipation. That is why the Rabbis hold she is not betrothed in this case. However, according to everyone, a master is not suspected of marrying his maidservant without first freeing her.

With regard to this issue, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: A slave who dons phylacteries in the presence of his master is emancipated, as this is unusual behavior for a slave because slaves are not obligated in this mitzva. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If a slave’s master borrowed money from him; or if his master appointed him as a steward over his possessions; or if the slave donned phylacteries in the presence of his master; or if he read three verses of the Torah reading in the synagogue in the presence of his master, although all of these activities are ordinarily performed only by freemen, this slave is not emancipated. This seems to contradict the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

Rabba bar Rav Sheila says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was referring to a case where the slave’s master placed phylacteries on him. In that case it is clear that the slave is donning phylacteries with the consent of his master, and a master would not place phylacteries on his slave unless he had already emancipated him.

§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of one who says at the moment of his death: With regard to so-and-so, my maidservant, my heirs should not treat her as a slave after my death, the court compels the heirs and they write for her a bill of manumission. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi said before him: My teacher, don’t you admit that her children are slaves? The master meant only that his heirs should not subjugate her excessively. He did not intend to free her, and her children remain slaves. Why, then, are the heirs compelled to free the maidservant?

When Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he reported a different version of what Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In a case of one who says at the moment of his death: So-and-so, my maidservant, gave me satisfaction and one should do for her something that gives her satisfaction, the court compels the heirs to give her satisfaction, and if she will be satisfied only by being emancipated, they must do so. What is the reason for this? It is a mitzva to fulfill the statement of the dead.

Ameimar says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave, there is no halakhic remedy for that slave, and he cannot marry a Jewish woman. What is the reason for this? The slave himself does not belong to his master. However, there is the prohibition against marrying a Jewish woman that remains in the master’s possession, and the master cannot transfer ownership of the prohibition to the slave, as this is not something that can be transferred. A bill of manumission is not effective in this case because the slave already does not belong to him.

Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But didn’t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says, and similarly Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin says that Rav says: Both in this case of one who betroths his slave, and in that case of one who renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is emancipated but nevertheless requires a bill of manumission? This demonstrates that when one renounces ownership of his slave, the slave is no longer in his possession but can still become a freeman upon receiving a bill of manumission. Ameimar said to him: They meant that he requires a bill of manumission to be considered a freeman and to marry a Jewish woman, but there is no remedy for him, as the master cannot issue one.

There are those who say a different version of this exchange: Ameimar says: With regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no halakhic remedy for that slave and he cannot marry a Jewish woman. What is the reason for this? The slave himself does not belong to his master; however, there is the prohibition against marrying a Jewish woman that remains in the master’s possession, and the master cannot bequeath the prohibition to his son. Rav Ashi said to Ameimar: But when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that if one says that his heirs should not treat his maidservant as a slave, the heirs are compelled to write a bill of manumission. This demonstrates that the heirs can write a bill of manumission although they do not own the maidservant.

Ameimar answered: The report of Rav Dimi quoting Rabbi Yoḥanan is erroneous, and Rabbi Yoḥanan never stated that halakha. He said to him: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi’s statement? The reason it is erroneous is that the master did not state this using a formulation of emancipation, but if he had stated this using a formulation of emancipation, then indeed they would be able to write for her a bill of manumission? Why then do you not concede to his opinion? He said to him: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, that Rabbi Yoḥanan was discussing a case where the master said that his heirs should give the maidservant satisfaction. Therefore, the master never stated that the heirs would not have ownership over the maidservant, only that they should fulfill his dying instruction to grant her satisfaction.

The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving a certain city [diskarta] of slaves that was sold to gentiles. When their final gentile masters died, the slaves came before Ravina and said that since they had no masters, they wanted to be considered full-fledged Jews. He said to them: Go and return to the children of your first masters and have them write for you bills of manumission so that you will be considered freemen in every respect. The Rabbis said to Ravina: But didn’t Ameimar say that with regard to one who renounces ownership of his slave and dies, there is no remedy for that slave? Similarly, if one sells his slave to a gentile, he no longer has the right to the slave’s labor and can no longer write a bill of manumission for him.

Ravina said to them: I hold in accordance with the report of Rav Dimi, who said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the heirs can give a bill of manumission. They, the Rabbis, said to him: That which Rav Dimi said is erroneous. He said to them: What is erroneous about Rav Dimi’s statement? The reason it is erroneous is that he did not state this using a formulation of emancipation, but if he had stated this using a formulation of emancipation, then indeed they would be able to write a bill of manumission. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Ravina, that the original masters can write a bill of manumission for the slaves.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who belonged to two partners. One of them arose and emancipated his half of the slave. The other master said: Now the rabbis of the local court will hear that my slave is half emancipated and they will cause me to lose him, i.e., they will force me to release him, as is stated in the mishna (41b) that the court forces a master to release his slave who has been half emancipated. He went and transferred ownership of the slave to his minor son, who could not be forced by the court to emancipate him, so that the slave would remain in his possession.

Rav Yosef, son of Rava, sent before Rav Pappa the question of what the halakha is in this circumstance. He sent to him a response that paraphrased biblical verses: As he has done, so shall it be done to him, his dealing shall return upon his own head (see Leviticus 24:19 and Obadiah 1:15). In other words, since the master acted deceitfully to circumvent the ruling of the Sages, one should deal with him deceitfully. We know that a child is attracted to money. We will appoint a steward for the child, who will clarify the slave’s market value,