טז שלחה רב יוסף בריה דרבא לקמיה דרב פפא שלח ליה כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו גמולו ישיב לו בראשו אנן קים לן בינוקא דמקרבא דעתיה לגבי זוזי מוקמינן ליה אפוטרופוס
16 and this he cannot transfer to him. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But has not 'Ulla said in the name of R. Johanan and R. Hiyya b. Abin in the name of Rab, In either case<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether sanctified or declared common property. V. supra 38b, 39a. ');"><sup>14</sup></span> he becomes a free man and requires a deed of emancipation? — He replied: He requires one, but nothing can be done for him. According to another version, Amemar said: If a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave. Why so? Because he no longer owns his body, but he is still bound by the prohibition, and this he cannot bequeath to his son. Said R. Ashi to Amemar: But when R. Dimi came he reported a ruling of R. Johanan [which conflicts with this]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that the heirs can be compelled to write a deed of emancipation, though they could claim to no ownership of the body of the slave in view of the father's instructions. V. supra. ');"><sup>15</sup></span> — R. Dimi's statement was erroneous.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As shown by R. Ammi and R. Assi supra. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> Where, he rejoined, was the error? That the man did not say distinctly that the slave should be emancipated? But if he had done so, then they would have had to write her a deed of emancipation, [would they not]? — Said Amemar: I hold with R. Samuel b. Judah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to whose version of R. Johanan's ruling, the heirs can use their own judgment. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> A certain settlement of slaves was sold [by their Jewish masters] to heathens. When the second masters died, they applied to Rabina,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To make them eligible for marrying Jewesses. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> and he said to them, Go and find the sons of your first masters, and they will write you out deeds of emancipation. The Rabbis expostulated with Rabina, saying, Has not Amemar laid down that if a man declares his slave common property and then dies, nothing can be done for the slave? — He replied: I adopt the view of R. Dimi. But, they said to him, R. Dimi's statement was erroneous! — He replied: What was the mistake? That the man did not say distinctly that the slave should be emancipated. But if he had said so, the heirs would have had to emancipate her, [would they not]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so here, though the first masters declared them free as far as they were concerned, the heirs can nevertheless write them a deed of emancipation. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> The law is as stated by Rabina. A certain slave was owned by two men [in partnership], and one of them emancipated his half. The other thereupon thought to himself: If the Rabbis hear of this, they will force me to give him up.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'cause me to lose him', i.e., to allow him to purchase the other half of himself from me. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> So he went and transferred him to his son who was still under age. R. Joseph the son of Raba submitted the case to R. Papa. He sent him back answer: As he has done so it shall be done to him; his dealing shall return upon his own head.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obad. I, 15. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> We all know that a child is fond of<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'is attracted to'. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> money. We shall therefore appoint for him a guardian,