יח תיבעי לר"מ תיבעי לרבנן תיבעי לר"מ עד כאן לא קאמר ר"מ אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם אלא כגון פירות דקל דעבידי דאתו אבל הכא מי יימר דמינגח ואם תמצא לומר דמינגח ממאי דמשלם
18 — Perhaps this passage agrees with the authority who says that he does not need a deed of emancipation, since it has been taught: For all these [maimings]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis enumerated twenty-four maimings for the infliction of which by the master the slave obtained his freedom. V. Kid. 242, b. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> a slave is liberated; he requires, however, a deed of emancipation from his master. R. Meir says he does not require one; R. Eliezer says he does require one; R. Tarfon says he does not require one; R. Akiba says he does require one. Those who determine [the issue] in the presence of the Sages<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who precisely these were is not recorded. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> say: The opinion of R. Tarfon is to be preferred in the case of a tooth and an eye, because the Torah [itself] conferred on him [his freedom in this case];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 26, 27. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> but the opinion of R. Akiba in the case of the other members, because [the liberation] in that case is a fine imposed by the Sages [on the master]. A fine, you call it? They deduce it from the text of the Scripture!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kid. loc. cit. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> — Let us say, therefore, because it is a deduction of the Sages.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not on a par with an express statement of the Torah. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> The question was raised: If a [liberated] slave [of a priest] is still short of a deed of emancipation, may he eat <i>terumah</i> or not? The All-Merciful has laid down that [<i>terumah</i> may be eaten] by [one who is] the purchase of his [the priest's] money,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 11. ');"><sup>23</sup></span> and this one is no longer 'the purchase of his money'; or perhaps since he is short of a deed of emancipation do we still call him 'the purchase of his money'? — Come and hear: R. Mesharsheya has said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Or 'reported'. The passage quoted is actually a Mishnah. This is apparently another example of a ruling of a Tannaitic teaching reported by an Amora which found subsequently its way into the Mishnah, cf. Hoffmann, D. Die Erste Mishnah, pp. 156ff.] ');"><sup>24</sup></span> If the child of a priestess has become interchanged with the child of her female slave, both may eat <i>terumah</i><span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One as a priest and the other as the slave of a priest. ');"><sup>25</sup></span> and must take their portion together from the threshing floor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis ordained that a priest's slave should not collect the terumah from the threshing floor unless his master was with him, for fear that he might himself claim to be a priest. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> When the changelings grow up, they emancipate one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And yet until the deed of emancipation is given the one of them who was a slave could eat the terumah. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> Are these two cases parallel? In the latter case, should Elijah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who can ascertain the truth of matter. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> come and declare one of them to be a slave, we should call him 'the purchase of his money'; but in the other case he is not the 'purchase of his money' at all. The question was raised: If a man sells his slave in respect of the fine only,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he sells only his right to receive the thirty shekels, should the slave be gored to death. ');"><sup>29</sup></span> he sold or not sold? The question is pertinent whether we adopt the view of R. Meir or whether we adopt that of the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the question whether it is possible to transfer ownership of something that does not yet exist. ');"><sup>30</sup></span> It is a question for R. Meir, [since we may say that] when R. Meir laid down that a man can transfer something which does not yet exist,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that has not come into the world'. ');"><sup>31</sup></span> [he was thinking] for instance of the fruit of a date tree which is expected to come into existence later, but in this case who can tell if the slave will actually be gored? And even if he is gored, how can we tell that the owner of the ox will pay?