יט בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי אסי מכר עבדו ומת מהו שיקנסו את בנו אחריו אם תימצי לומר צרם אוזן בכור ומת קנסו בנו אחריו משום דאיסורא דאורייתא היא אבל הכא איסורא דרבנן
19 to sell it, but since [a man] can do without a slave, shall we say that [if we make this rule] he may be induced to sell? — R. Ammi sent back answer; From me, Ammi son of Nathan, the rule is issued to all Israel that if a slave throws himself into the hands of bandits and his master is unable to recover him either in a Jewish or a heathen court, [his master] is permitted to accept payment for him, and he may make out a deed and present it in heathen courts, because this is like rescuing [money] from their hands. R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he can be penalised [by having to ransom him for] as much as a hundred times his value. Is the expression 'a hundred' here used exactly or loosely? — Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as ten times its value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A.Z. 15. This shows that the 'hundred' mentioned in the case of a slave is a hyperbole. ');"><sup>18</sup></span> Perhaps the rule for a slave is different, because every day he is kept away from religious observances. According: to another version R. Joshua b. Levi said: If a man sells his slave to a heathen he may be penalised by having to ransom him for as much as ten times his value. Is the expression 'ten' here used exactly or loosely? Come and hear, since Resh Lakish has said: If a man sells an ox to a heathen, he can be penalised by having to ransom it for as much as a hundred times its value.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the same should apply to a slave. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> — The rule for a slave is different, because he is not restored to him. The reason then why in the case of an animal [the penalty is so high] is because it is returned to him. If so, the excess penalty should be the bare value of the animal?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because this is all the advantage that one who sells an ox has over one who sells a slave. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> — In fact the real reason is [that for a man to sell] a slave is unusual, and the Rabbis did not prescribe for unusual cases.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To impose a particularly heavy fine. ');"><sup>21</sup></span> R. Jeremiah enquired of R. Assi: If a man sells his slave and then dies, is there ground for penalising his son after him? It is true you can point [to the rule that] if a priest mutilates the ear of a firstling<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so disqualifies it for being brought as a sacrifice. and thus enables himself to consume it as common flesh. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> and then dies, his son is penalised after him; but this may be because he has broken a rule based on the Torah, whereas here we are dealing with a rule of the Rabbis.