Today's שיעור will be מסכת גיטין דף מ׳, but we will start on דף ל״ט עמוד ב׳, two lines from the bottom of the עמוד, the last two words of the line. We're still here in the middle of the סוגיא of עבד כנעני, different דינים concerning עבד כנעני, and different דינים concerning the שחרור, the freedom of an עבד כנעני. And the גמרא starts, אמר רב זירא, רב זירא said, אמר רב חנינא in the name of רב חנינא, אמר רב אשי in the name of רב אשי, אמר רבי in the name of רבי: עבד שנשא בת חורין בפני רבו, if an עבד כנעני married a regular Jewish woman in front of his master, יצא לחירות, he automatically goes out free. And as רש״י explains, because if his master wouldn't have freed him before, he wouldn't have allowed him to marry a בת חורין. And since he watched him marry the בת חורין, and didn't protest, that proves that he must have freed him before.

אמר ליה רבי יוחנן, so רבי יוחנן said to him, כל כך יש בידך? Do you have so much in your hands? In other words, did you really hear this in the name of רבי, when I heard a דין that just shows the opposite? ואני שונה, I learned, הכותב שטר אירוסין לשפחתו, if someone writes a שטר קידושין to his שפחה, because there are three ways a person is able to be מקדש a woman. One of the three ways is שטר. If he takes a little piece of paper and he writes on it, הרי את מקודשת לי בשטר זה, you should be מקודש to me with this שטר, that is a form of קידושין, and the woman becomes מקודשת to him. So if a person writes a שטר קידושין to his שפחה, he writes to her, you should be מקודש to me with this שטר, so רבי מאיר אומר, רבי מאיר says, מקודשת, that she is מקודשת. And the reason for that is because if he wouldn't have freed her, he definitely wouldn't have been מקדש her. Since she is a שפחה, you're not allowed to marry a שפחה. So since he is marrying her, that proves that he must have been משחרר her, he must have freed her before. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say, אינה מקודשת, that she is not מקודש. So we see here that the חכמים, who usually the הלכה is like the חכמים, hold that even if the master himself wrote a שטר קידושין to his שפחה, she is not משוחרר. So certainly the דין would be that if he just saw his עבד marry a בת חורין, he shouldn't be משוחרר. So how could you say in the name of רבי, that if a person sees his עבד marry a בת חורין, that proves that he was משחרר her, when the חכמים hold that even if he writes a שטר קידושין himself to his שפחה, that is no proof that he is משחרר her, and therefore she is not מקודשת? And the גמרא answers, כדאמר רבה בר רב שילא, that we can answer here the same way as רבה בר רב שילא answered concerning another קשיא. He answered, כשרבו הניח לו תפילין.

Later on in the גמרא, we have a סתירה. One place it says that if a master saw his עבד put on תפילין, that proves that he was משחרר him. In another place it says that it does not prove that he was משחרר him. So רבה בר רב שילא answered, that in the place where it says that it does prove that his master was משחרר him, is not when his master saw him put on תפילין, but when his master himself put the תפילין on him. The same way we could answer here, that when he said in the name of רבי, that if his master saw him marry a בת חורין, that proves that he was משחרר him, is not in a case where his master just saw him marry the בת חורין, but it's a case where his master himself married him off to a בת חורין. And that proves that he must have freed him, because everyone knows that it's an עבירה for an עבד to marry a בת חורין. So we don't assume that his master would have his עבד do an עבירה, and therefore we assume that definitely he was משחרר him before, and that's why he married him off later to a בת חורין. Then the גמרא asks a קשיא: ומי איכא מידי דלעבדיה לא מעביד ליה איסורא, that for his עבד he wouldn't do an איסור, an עבירה, ואיהו עביד איסורא, and he himself would do an עבירה? And before, רבי יוחנן quoted in the name of the חכמים that if the master himself writes a שטר קידושין to his שפחה, we do not assume that he was משחרר her before, even though it is an עבירה to marry a שפחה. So it comes out that in the case where he married off his עבד, we are so sure that he must have freed him before, because otherwise he wouldn't have his עבד do an עבירה. But in the case where he himself would be doing an עבירה, because he self is marrying the שפחה, there we don't say that this proves that probably he was משחרר her before. In other words, we do assume that he is going to do an עבירה. So the question is, where do we find such a thing that for his עבד we are sure he wouldn't do an עבירה, and for himself he would do an עבירה? אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק, so רב נחמן בר יצחק said, הכא במאי עסקינן, here it is talking in a case דאמר לה, he said to her, צאי בו והתקדשי בו. The case where רבי יוחנן brought the מחלוקת between רבי מאיר and the חכמים was not a case where he wrote a שטר קידושין to his שפחה and he wanted to marry her with this שטר קידושין, but he wrote to her, הרי את מקודשת לי, and he told her, "Go out and become מקודש with this שטר. Go and marry a בן חורין with this שטר, but not that he himself wanted to marry her with this שטר." So the שאלה is, רבי מאיר סבר, רבי מאיר holds יש בלשון הזה לשון שיחרור, that the לשון that he wrote to her, הרי את מקודשת, this is a לשון of שיחרור. This is also a לשון of freedom. So when he gave her that שטר and he told her, "Take this שטר and go marry with this שטר," so what he meant was that this שטר should be your שטר, שטר שיחרור. So רבי מאיר holds that the word מקודשת could mean a לשון שיחרור, because what he meant was, "Here, take this שטר and with this שטר you should be ראוי to become מקודש. This שטר should allow you to become מקודש." That's what he meant when he wrote הרי את מקודשת. In other words, he meant you should be free, and when she becomes free she could marry a בן חורין. So רבי מאיר holds that in this לשון there is a לשון of שיחרור. But רבנן סברי, רבנן hold, אין בלשון הזה לשון שיחרור, that in this לשון of קידושין there is no לשון שיחרור, and therefore we do not say that she is מקודשת to him. She's also not free, because this is not a לשון שיחרור.

אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, רבי יהושע בן לוי said, עבד שהניח תפילין בפני רבו, if an עבד put on תפילין in front of his master, יצא לחירות. He goes out free, because his master would not have allowed him to put on תפילין if he wouldn't have been משחרר him, because an עבד is פטור from putting on תפילין. The דין is that an עבד is מחוייב במצוות כאישה. He's מחוייב to do the same מצוות that a woman is obligated to do, and he's exempt from all the מצוות a woman is exempt. And the rule is that a woman is exempt from all the מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, all the positive מצוות that have a time limit. And amongst those is the מצוה of תפילין, that a woman is פטור from putting on תפילין, and so is an עבד פטור from putting on תפילין. So when the master saw his עבד put on תפילין, that proves that he probably freed him before, because if he wouldn't have freed him, he wouldn't have allowed him to put on תפילין. The גמרא asks a קשיא, מיתיבי, I'll ask you a קשיא, we learned, לוה הימנו רבו, if his master borrowed money from him, או שעשאו רבו אפוטרופוס, or if his master made him the manager, the guardian over his possessions, או שהניח תפילין בפני רבו, or if the עבד put on תפילין in front of his master, או שקרא שלשה פסוקים בבית הכנסת בפני רבו, or if the עבד read in the תורה three פסוקים in shul in front of his master, in all these cases הרי זה לא יצא לחירות. This all does not prove that he goes out free. Even though he did things that normally an עבד does not do, and he did them in front of his master, it still does not prove that his master must have freed him before. So this comes out a סתירה to what רבי יהושע בן לוי had said, because רבי יהושע בן לוי said that if an עבד puts on תפילין in front of his master, that is a proof that his master must have freed him, and in this ברייתא we see that if he puts on תפילין בפני רבו, the דין is לא יצא לחירות, he does not go out free.

אמר רבה בר רב שילא, so רבה בר רב שילא said, כשרבו הניח לו תפילין, that this is the case when his master put him on תפילין himself. When רבי יהושע בן לוי said that if an עבד puts on תפילין in front of his master, he goes out free, that is not just when his master saw him put on תפילין, but it's when his master himself put him on the תפילין. Then we say that probably he must have freed him before. And as תוספות explains, it is not because it is an עבירה, because the עבד, who's פטור from תפילין, would be making a ברכה on the תפילין, so it would be a ברכה לבטלה, because he is פטור from תפילין, so his ברכה would be a ברכה לבטלה. So תוספות says that it's not true, because we see that there are many מצוות עשה שהזמן גרמא, many מצוות which have a time limit, and women are פטור, and nevertheless, when they fulfill those מצוות, if they want to, they make a ברכה. So we see that when a woman, and the same would apply to an עבד, does a מצוה that she is פטור, or the עבד is פטור, they're allowed allowed to make a ברכה and it is not considered a ברכה לבטלה. So when the גמרא says here, that when the master put on תפילין on his עבד, that shows that he freed him, is not because we say otherwise he wouldn't have allowed him to make the ברכה because it's a ברכה לבטלה, it's not a ברכה לבטלה, but what the גמרא means is, as תוספות explains, because it's not common for an עבד to put on תפילין. And therefore we assume that if the master didn't free him before, he wouldn't have put on the תפילין because this is not a דבר הרגיל not a common thing. And therefore we say, if he did put on תפילין on his עבד, that probably יצא לחירות, probably he freed him before. Then the גמרא continues, כי

אתא רב דימי, when רב דימי came, אמר רבי יוחנן, he said in the name of רבי יוחנן, מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו, if someone said before his death, פלונית שפחתי אל ישתעבדו בה, that my שפחה, my female slave, so-and-so, do not have her work, do not allow her to continue working לאחר מותי, after I die, so the דין is that כופין את היורשים, the בית דין would force the יורשים וכותבין לה גט שחרור and they would have to write for her a גט שחרור and free her because of what the father said. אמרו לפניו רב אמי ורב אסי, so רב אמי and רב אסי said to him, רבי, אי אתה מודה, don't you admit שבניה עבדים, that her children are עבדים? In other words, when the father said that she should not work, this is not a form of שחרור. She didn't become a משוחררת, a בת חורין, she still remains a שפחה, and therefore, her children are definitely עבדים. All he said was that this שפחה should not work. So what we should tell the יורשים is that they're not allowed to have this שפחה work for them, but why should we force the יורשים to free her, and then they lose not only her work, but they also lose the עבדים? If they don't free her, then if she has any children, then they are עבדים and they belong to the master, to the יורשים. But if they free her, they give her a גט שחרור, then her children are בני חורין and they lose the children, too. So why should we force the יורשים to free her? All we should do is tell the יורשים, your father said not to work with her, so they shouldn't have her work, but still she should remain a שפחה. So the גמרא continues that כי אתא רב שמואל בר יהודה, when רב שמואל בר יהודה came, אמר רבי יוחנן, he gave over in the name of רבי יוחנן that what רבי יוחנן said was not as רב דימי had given it over, but it was a different statement that he said. He said like this: that מי שאמר בשעת מיתתו, someone said before he died, פלונית שפחתי, my שפחה, so-and-so, קורת רוח עשתה לי, she satisfied me, she gave me pleasure, יעשה לה קורת רוח. So what should be done to her? She should be satisfied, too. A pleasure should be done to her. So the דין is that כופין את היורשים, we force the יורשים ועושין לה קורת רוח, and they have to satisfy her. And as רש״י explains, they have to satisfy her till she says, "I am satisfied." And if she says, "I am not satisfied unless you will free me," so the דין is that they must free her. And the reason is, מאי טעמא, what is the reason? The גמרא says, מצוה לקיים דברי המת. It's a מצוה to fulfill the words of the deceased. And since he said make sure she is satisfied, so we have to listen to him and make sure she is satisfied even up to freeing her. So this is what רבי יוחנן said, not as רב דימי gave over in the name of רבי יוחנן that the case was that the man said before he died, "Do not have my שפחה work," and then we force the יורשים to free her. What he what he said was that "I want my שפחה to be satisfied," so that's when we force the יורשים to free her if she is not satisfied unless she gets freed. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר אמימר, אמימר says, המפקיר עבדו, if someone is מפקיר his עבד, gives up ownership over his עבד, אותו עבד אין לו תקנה, that עבד has no תקנה, there's nothing that could be done for that עבד, not even with a שטר שחרור. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? Because what could we do for him? גופיה לא קני ליה, the גוף of the עבד is not קנוי to the master, doesn't belong to the master anymore because the master gave up ownership. So the only thing that's left in this עבד, איסורא הוא דאיכא גביה, he only has an איסור by him, the only fact that he is still an עבד and he was not given a שטר שחרור. ואיסורא לא מצי מקני ליה, just איסור he cannot be מקנה to himself. So therefore, now he is in between: he is not an עבד because he was הפקר, he is not a בן חורין because he wasn't given a שטר שחרור. On the other hand, to give him a שטר שחרור now he can't either, because since there is only איסור left here, no קנין ממון, he doesn't belong to his master anymore, so the master is not able to give him a שטר שחרור. So therefore, a case like that, אין לו תקנה, he cannot marry a בת חורין because he's still a little bit an עבד, he cannot marry a שפחה because he is partially a בן חורין, and he has no תקנה, nothing could be done for him.

אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר, Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, how could you say that? והא אמר עולא אמר רבי יוחנן, didn't עולא say in the name of רבי יוחנן, ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רב, and רב חייא בר אבין said in the name of רב, that אחד זה ואחד זה, in both cases that we learned before, whether the master is מקדיש his עבד, gives it away for הקדש, or the master is מפקיר his עבד, יצא לחירות, he goes out free, וצריך גט שחרור, and he needs a גט שחרור. And what it seems to be saying is that when he gives him a שטר שחרור, then he would be 100% free and he would be allowed to marry a בת חורין. אמר ליה, so he said, no, what they meant was צריך, that he needs a שטר שחרור, but אין לו תקנה, there is no תקנה, nothing could be done for him. He still needs a שטר שחרור, but a שטר שחרור cannot be given to him because it would not help. So the way Ameimar learns פשט in what they said, that he goes out free and needs a שטר שחרור, not that he needs and could get, but he needs and it cannot be given to him, and therefore he remains the way he is all his life. איכא דאמרי, others said, אמר אמימר, Ameimar said a different thing: המפקיר עבדו, if someone is מפקיר his עבד, ומת, and the person who was מפקיר him, the master, died, then he said, אותו העבד אין לו תקנה. That עבד has no תקנה, nothing can be done for him. מאי טעמא, what is the reason? גופיה לא קני ליה. His גוף is not קנוי to his master, and therefore, when the master dies, the children of the master did not inherit it either, because the master didn't own it, and the children cannot inherit something that a master didn't own. So since the master gave up the ownership, so the children do not ירשן, do not inherit the ownership, the monetary part of the ownership. The only thing that was left between the עבד and his master, איסורא הוא דאיכא גביה. There's only a איסור, that על פי הלכה he's still an עבד and still an עבד of that master. So now, if the master wouldn't have died, according to this פשט, the master couldn't could have given him a שטר שחרור, even though all he has left is איסור, but if the master would give him a שטר שחרור, that would take care of the איסור too and he would become 100% free. But since the master died, so now what do we expect, that the יורשים, they should be the one to give the שטר שחרור? That cannot be, because איסורא לבריה לא מוריש. A person cannot make his children inherit an איסור. Children inherit ממון, things which have value, monetary value, but איסורים, that children do not inherit. So now that he died, his children did not inherit any connection to this עבד, because all that was left was the איסור. So now they cannot give him a שטר שחרור. So there is nobody else that can give him a שטר שחרור, so therefore, this עבד has no תקנה, there's nothing that can be done for him. He cannot marry a שפחה because his master was מפקיר him, he cannot marry a בת חורין because there's nobody that could give him a שטר שחרור, his master died, and the children do not inherit the איסור, and therefore אין לו תקנה. Then the גמרא continues, אמר ליה רב אשי לאמימר, Rav Ashi said to Ameimar, how could you say that דין? והא כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי יוחנן, but when רב דימי came, he gave over the דין in the name of רבי יוחנן, and this refers to the דין we mentioned before, that when רב דימי came, he gave over in the name of רבי יוחנן that if someone says before he dies that I don't want this שפחה of mine to work after I die, so what the בית דין would do is they would force the children to give her a גט שחרור. Isn't that a similar case to here? When the guy says before he dies, I don't want my שפחה to work, so that is giving up the monetary value of the עבד, of this שפחה, because when he says I don't want her to work, so it's like he is מפקיר her, it's equivalent to him being מפקיר her, to him giving up the ownership over the שפחה, because he said I don't want her to work. And nevertheless, the דין was that we force the children to give her a גט שחרור. So we see that even though the master died after he was מפקיר her, the children are still able to give her a גט שחרור. So how could you, Ameimar, say that if someone is מפקיר his עבד and he dies, that this עבד cannot have a תקנה because the children do not ירשן the איסור and they cannot give him a גט שחרור? So he answered him, דרב דימי טעותא היא, that the statement of רב דימי in the name of רבי יוחנן was a mistake, as we said before that רב אמי and רב אסי asked a קשיא on that statement, and therefore the גמרא טאקע changed the statement, so that shows that the statement was a mistake. So how could you ask me a קשיא from the statement of רב דימי when we said it was a mistake? אמר ליה, so he said to him, מאי טעותא, what is the mistake? The reason we said before it was a mistake is because דלא אמר בלשון שחרור, because we do not assume that when the master said, "I don't want her to work," means that he freed her, because he didn't use a לשון of שחרור, a לשון that implies that he is freeing her. הא אמר, but if he would have said a לשון בלשון שחרור, a לשון of freeing, הכי נמי, it would be true, we would accept רב דימי's statement. The reason why we asked a קשיא on רב דימי was, as the גמרא said before, that אי את מודה שבניה עבדים, that since her children are עבדים, in other words, she was not freed at all, so why should we force the children to free her? And that's why we said that רב דימי's statement was wrong. But if he would have used The father would have used a לשון of freedom, if he would have said clearly, "I am מייאש from my עבד," or "I am מפקיר my עבד," the truth would be we would accept רב דימי's statement, and we would force the children to free this עבד. So, if so, how could you say that if a person is מפקיר his עבד and then he dies, we cannot tell the children to give him a שטר שחרור, because the children do not ירשן the איסור, when over there it seems that the children could give a שטר שחרור? אמר ליה, so he answered, אנא כדרב שמואל בר יהודה סבירא לי. I hold like רב שמואל בר יהודה. When רב שמואל בר יהודה came, he gave over another statement in the name of רבי יוחנן, different than what רב דימי said. In other words, I hold that רב דימי's statement was never true, and not that the קשיא was on רב

דימי's statement because, as we said before, because why should we force the children, after all, she still is a שפחה? But I hold בכלל that רבי יוחנן never said that statement, that דין, that רב אמי and רב אסי never asked the קשיא of אי את מודה שבניה עבדים. I hold לכתחילה that רבי יוחנן only said the second case, like רב שמואל בר יהודה said, that if he says, "I want you to satisfy my שפחה," then we force him to free her if the only way she is satisfied is by freedom. So according to that, you have no קשיא on me. There is no statement of רבי יוחנן that says that if a person is מפקיר his עבד and dies, that the children could give a שטר שחרור. Then the גמרא continues, ההוא דסקרתא דעבדי, there was this whole city of עבדים דאיזדבנו לעכו"ם, that they were sold to גוים. כלו מרוותא בתראי, then the second masters, the גויישע masters, died. אתו לקמיה דרבינא, so they came to רבינא, they wanted רבינא to be מתיר them to marry a Jewish woman. Since their original Jewish masters sold them, so to if they freed them, and their גויישע masters now died, they came to רבינא that he should be מתיר them to marry בנות חורין, regular Jewish women. אמר להו, רבינא said to them, זילו, go, אהדרו, look, find, אבני מרוותייכו קמאי, the children of your original masters, ויכתבו לכו, and they should write for you גיטא דחירותא, a שטר שחרור. In other words, he told them that in order for you to be able to marry Jewish women, you still need a שטר שחרור. So therefore, go find the children of your original masters as יורשים, and let them write for you שטר שחרור.

אמרו ליה רבנן לרבינא, so the רבנן said to רבינא, והא אמר אמימר, but didn't אמימר say, המפקיר עבדו ומת, if someone is מפקיר his עבד and dies, אותו העבד אין לו תקנה, that עבד has no תקנה, in other words, a שטר שחרור wouldn't help, you can't give him a שטר שחרור, and this was the exact same case. The original masters sold them to the גוים, that's similar to being מפקיר, they gave up their ownership, but they weren't משחרר them. Now, you tell them that they should find the children of their original masters, and they should give them a גט שחרור. What did the children of the original masters ירשן? Only the איסור, and אמימר said in a case like this, the children cannot give a שטר שחרור. אמר להו, so he said to them, אנא כרב דימי סבירא לי. I hold like רב דימי. And what did רב דימי say? That in the case of a person who says that "I don't want my שפחה to work after I die," so we force the children to give her a שטר שחרור, and even though when he said "I don't want my שפחה to work," that is similar to giving up ownership, and nevertheless, if רב דימי said in the name of רבי יוחנן that the children could give her a גט שחרור, and that's the way I hold, and therefore I hold here too, that the children of their original masters could give these עבדים a שטר שחרור, and then they would be able to marry בנות חורין. אמרו ליה, so they said to him, והא דרב דימי טעותא היא, isn't רב דימי's statement a mistake, as we said before? אמר להו, he said to them, מאי טעותא, what is the mistake? What was the reason why we thought it was a mistake? Because דלא אמר בלשון שחרור, because when the father said, "I don't want her to be משועבד, I don't want her to work," that is not a לשון לשון of freedom. הא אמרה בלשון שחרור, but if he would have said it in a לשון which would show that he is משחרר her, הכא נמי would be true, we would accept רב דימי's statement, and we would force the children to give her a גט שחרור. So that shows that we do not פסקן like אמימר, because according to אמימר, in a case like that, even if the father would have used a לשון שחרור, still we couldn't have forced the children to give her a גט שחרור, because the children's שחרור would not help, according to אמימר. And since we say that the children's שחרור would help, the only reason we don't accept רב דימי's statement is because the father did not use a לשון שחרור, but otherwise we would accept the דין, that we tell the children, the יורשים, to give her a גט שחרור, so that shows that we don't פסקן like אמימר, and we פסקן that you could give over the איסור to the children, and the children's שחרור would help. And the גמרא says, והלכתא כרבינא. The הלכה is like רבינא, that in a case like that, the children could give a גט שחרור. Then the גמרא continues,

ההוא עבדא, there was this עבד, דבי תרי, he belonged to two people, two partners owned this עבד. קם חד מינייהו ושחרריה לפלגיה. So one of the two partners got up and he freed his half. אמר אידך, so the other partner said, השתא, now, שמעי בי רבנן, the רבנן are going to hear what happened, ומפסדי לי מינאי, they're going to make me lose this עבד. Because the דין is, as the משנה says later on דף מ״א, that if an עבד is a חצי עבד וחצי בן חורין, he's half עבד and half בן חורין, so since we have a problem here, that he cannot marry, not a בת חורין and not a שפחה, and the תורה wants everyone to marry, so therefore, what is the דין? כופין את רבו ועושה אותו בן חורין. We force his master and he has to turn him into a בן חורין, he has to give him a שטר שחרור. The only thing is, we force the עבד to write a שטר to his master that he owes him the money that he was worth. Since we forced the master to free him, so the master had a loss of the worth of a half of an עבד, so that money is owed to the master by the עבד himself who was freed. So therefore, the עבד writes a שטר, and he owes him that money. So this person here, when his partner freed his חלק, his part, so now the עבד that he owned was a half a עבד that belonged to him and half a בן חורין. So he said, "I'm sure when the חכמים will find out what happened, they're going to force me to be משחרר my part, and turn him into a בן חורין." So what did he do? אזל, he went, אקניה לבנו קטן. He was מקנה, he gave him away to his son who was still a קטן, who was still under בר מצוה. And the דין is that a child under בר מצוה can be קונה, can acquire objects. And a קטן cannot be forced by בית דין to do anything. So he thought he's going to give him away to his קטן, so now the קטן is the master, a קטן cannot be forced by בית דין, so בית דין cannot force him to free the עבד, and that's how he's not going to lose that עבד. שלחה רב יוסף בריה דרבא לקמיה דרב פפא. So רב יוסף בריה דרבא sent this שאלה to רב פפא asking him what could be done here.

שלח ליה, he sent him back, כאשר עשה כן יעשה לו, גמולו יושב לו בראשו, which means, "as he has done, so it should be done to him; his dealing shall return upon his own head." And this is based on a פסוק in עובדיה, this expression. But what he meant was that there is something that could be done to him, that we should get the עבד away from him. Because אנן קים לן בינוקא דמקרבא דעתיה לגבי זוזי. We know that a child is very fond of money, his mind is close to money. So what should we do? מוקמינן ליה אפוטרופא. Let's appoint a guardian to this קטן, since this קטן owns an עבד, owns property, so we, the בית דין, will appoint a guardian, an אפוטרופוס, to this עבד, ומקרקש ליה זוזי, and the עבד should rattle some coins in front of the קטן. And the קטן would definitely want the coins, so that's how the קטן would agree that his עבד should be freed for those few coins. וכתב ליה גיטא דחירותא אשמיה, and the אפוטרופוס, the guardian, will write a שטר שחרור for the עבד under the name of the קטן. And this is the only way it could be done. For the אפוטרופוס himself to write a שטר שחרור, he can't, as the גמרא says later on in דף מ״ב עמוד א׳, the אפוטרופוס has no right to do a thing like that. To force the קטן to write a שטר שחרור, we can't either. The only thing we could do is have the money rattled in front of the קטן, and the קטן would agree to give the שחרור, and then the אפוטרופוס would write a שטר שחרור for the קטן. Now, the question that one could ask: why appoint an אפוטרופוס to begin with? Why can't we do it directly with the קטן? Let the עבד rattle money in front of the קטן, and let the קטן then agree to be משחרר the עבד, and let somebody write a שטר שחרור under the name of the קטן? So רש״י explains, since the דין in this case is So a בית דין has to appoint an אפוטרופוס and he will evaluate the עבד, and he will say exactly how much the עבד is worth, and we would know how much money to write into that שטר, and that same אפוטרופוס would be the one to write the שטר שחרור for the עבד on the name of the קטן. Then the גמרא continues,

תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, האומר, if someone says עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין, that I made my עבד so-and-so a בן חורין, a free person, or he said a לשון עשוי בן חורין, my עבד so-and-so is made a בן חורין, or he says a לשון הרי הוא בן חורין, that he is a בן חורין, so in all these expressions the דין is הרי הוא בן חורין, that he is a בן חורין. But if he says אעשנו בן חורין, I will make him into a free person, so רבי אומר, רבי says קנה, he is קונה. In other words, that לשון is a לשון which is valid and he does become a בן חורין. וחכמים אומרים, but the חכמים say לא קנה, he is not קונה. Because when he said, "I will make him into a בן חורין," what he meant was not that he is a בן חורין now, not that I'm making him a בן חורין now, it is just like a promise or a statement that in the future I will make him a בן חורין, I will give him a שטר later on to make him a בן חורין. So in the meantime he's still not a בן חורין till he is משחרר him later. And the גמרא says אמר רבי יוחנן, but רבי יוחנן said, וכולן בשטר, that all these cases, when we said that these are expressions that are valid, it's only if it was written in a שטר. By just saying these words is not sufficient. If he writes this these expressions in a שטר, so then that שטר is a שטר שחרור. Then the גמרא continues, תנו רבנן, and the רבנן learned, האומר, if someone says נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני, I gave away my field so-and-so to a person so-and-so, or he said a לשון נתונה לפלוני, it is given away to Mr. So-and-so, or he says הרי היא שלו, it is his, so all these expressions are valid and הרי היא שלו, it is his. But if he says אתננה לפלוני, I will give it to somebody, to this and this person, so here רב מאיר, מאיר אומר, מאיר says, and according to the גירסא of the ב״ח, it's supposed to say רבי אומר, קנה, that he is קונה. But even when he says I will give it, that is a קנין in itself, that is a form of מתנה, a form of giving a present. But וחכמים אומרים, the חכמים say לא קנה, he is not קונה, and the same reason as before, because he does not say I am giving him this as a present, it's like a promise that he will give him later a present. So later on, he has to give it to him as a present if he wants to. But if he doesn't do it later, just from the statement that he said now, he is still not קונה that שדה. אמר רבי יוחנן, here too רבי יוחנן said, וכולן בשטר. But all these expressions that we said before that are valid, that if he uses those expressions, that person gets the field, it's only if it was written in a שטר. But if he just said it בעל פה, orally, that is not sufficient and the person is not קונה the שדה, the field. And as רש״י explains in both cases, in the case of the עבד and in the case of the שדה, that the reason why it has to be written in a שטר, but orally it would not be enough, is because a person cannot be קונה anything or קונה himself just by words of his master or words of the other person. It has to be through a קנין. In the case of עבד it could be through כסף if the עבד pays for his freedom, or if the עבד is קונה something of his master and through that, through the קנין חליפין he would be קונה himself, as the גמרא tells a story earlier of this person who threw a hat to his שפחה and said to her, "Be קונה my hat and through that be קונה yourself," that would be valid. Or another case, if a person before he died said that "I want to free my עבד," so that's an exception to the דין, that דברי שכיב מרע ככתובין וכמסורין דמו, that the words of a person who is dying is as if a קנין was made, and therefore that would be enough and the עבד would be free. But otherwise, just by saying to an עבד, "You are free," the עבד doesn't become free. And therefore, all those expressions that the גמרא says before that are valid to free the עבד, they must be written in a שטר. And the same thing with a שדה. A person cannot be קונה a שדה just by someone else saying, "I gave you the שדה as a present," there has to be some kind of קנין, and therefore the גמרא says if he writes it in a שטר, that שטר is the קנין, and therefore the person is קונה the field. But otherwise, just by saying it, he cannot be קונה. But רש״י brings that there were others that learned a different פשט in the גמרא. They learned that when the גמרא uses these expressions, it does not mean that these expressions have to be written in a שטר. If they are said orally, it is sufficient. But when the גמרא says דכולם בשטר, what it means is that in addition to him saying these expressions and being valid, and the עבד becomes free through these expressions, and the other person gets the field through these expressions, but in addition to that, the גמרא says the עבד must be given a שטר שחרור, and the person who gets the field must be given a שטר for the field. But רש״י says that that פשט is not understood, because ממילא by the case of the עבד we could maybe explain that when the master just uses an expression of חירות, maybe that is enough to show that he gives up his ownership over the עבד, and therefore the עבד goes out free, just the גמרא says he needs a שטר שחרור. But in the case of the שדה, where did we hear such a thing that a person says to somebody, "I am giving you the שדה," that that automatically should make the שדה become his? And even if we'll say that it becomes his for a different reason, because of the rule that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that when a person himself admits concerning monetary things that something is not his or that something belongs to someone else, we accept his words as strong as we would accept the words of a hundred witnesses. So in this case too, maybe when he says, "I gave this field away as a present to you," so just that הודאה, that admittance that he admits, shows that he gave it away, and we accept it, and it belongs to someone else. But that could only be said in the case where he said, "I gave it to you." But we also had a case where he said, "I will give you the field," and according to רבי מאיר or according to רבי, that is sufficient. Now how can that be sufficient? That is just a promise that he will give him the field. But it is not a הודאה, it's not an admittance that the field belongs to the other person. So how can there even be a סברא of רבי or of רבי מאיר that that should be sufficient, sufficient? Therefore רש״י says the פשט in the גמרא is not that orally it is enough, and the גמרא just says that you need a שטר in addition to the קנין that was made already by his oral statement. The פשט in the גמרא is וצריך שטר, that all the לשונות, the expressions that we said before are valid, are only valid if they are used in a שטר. By the case of עבד, in a שטר שחרור, and by the case of the שדה, in a שטר מתנה. Then the גמרא continues: תנו רבנן, the רבנן learned, האומר if someone says, עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין, that I made my עבד so-and-so into a בן חורין, והוא אומר and the עבד says, לא עשאני, he did not make me into a בן חורין, so we say, חיישינן, we suspect, שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר, maybe the master was מזכה the עבד with a שטר שחרור through someone else. Because the דין is that זוכין לאדם שלא בפניו. You could give somebody something which is for his benefit even not in front of him, even if he doesn't even know about it. Since it is a good thing for an עבד to be free, so therefore it's called a זכות. So you're allowed to free your עבד without even the עבד knowing about it. What you would have to do is, you would have to take the שטר שחרור, give it to somebody else, and tell that somebody else that he should be זוכה in that שטר שחרור for that עבד. And the moment that that person is זוכה, is קונה, acquires this שטר שחרור, it's as if that moment the עבד acquired the שטר שחרור, and from that moment on, the עבד becomes free. So that's what the גמרא says here: that if the עבד says he never made me into a בן חורין, so we don't accept the words of the עבד, we accept the words of his master, because it's possible that the עבד doesn't even know that his master made him into a בן חורין. Maybe he was מזכה him the שטר שחרור through someone else. But if the master says, כתבתי ונתתי לו, I wrote the שטר שחרור and I gave it to him, והוא אומר, and the עבד himself says, לא כתב לי, he didn't write for me, ולא נתן לי, he didn't give it to me, so here we say, הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that if a person himself admits, then it's as strong as a hundred witnesses. So if the עבד himself admits that he did not get a שטר שחרור, so we accept his words. And here we cannot say maybe the master was מזכה him a שטר through someone else, because the master said, "I gave it to him." And since he denies it, we accept the words of the עבד. Then the גמרא says: האומר נתתי שדה פלונית לפלוני, that I gave a certain field to a certain person, והוא אומר and that person says לא נתן לי, he didn't give it to me. חיישינן, we're afraid, שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר, we suspect it maybe he was מזכה him through someone else. The same as we said before, since it is a זכות, since it is for the benefit of a person to own a field, and the דין is זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, you're allowed to be מזכה something to somebody without him even knowing. So maybe the person that gave the field was מזכה this field to the other person through someone else and he doesn't even know about it. So therefore, when he denies that he got the field, we do not accept his words, because we say maybe he doesn't even know that he got this field. But if he says כתבתי ונתתי לו, I wrote the שטר and I gave the שטר to him, והוא אומר, and the other person says לא כתב ולא נתן לי, he never wrote a שטר and never gave me the שטר and the field, so here we say הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that when the person himself admits, it's like a hundred witnesses. So since he admits that he never got the field, and we can't suspect that maybe it was given to him without him knowing, so therefore we say that the field is not his. But one might ask right away, why do we say this rule of הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי concerning the receiver? Why don't we say it concerning the giver? We have two people here admitting. The giver admits that the field is not his, it was given away to the other person. The other person, the receiver, admits he never got it. So they're both admitting against owning the field. So why do we say הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי and we accept the admittance of the receiver, why don't we say the same thing the opposite, that since the giver admits that the field was given to the other person, let's accept his words and let's say it belongs to the other person, not to him? The תוספות explains because it is more possible that the giver is making a mistake than the receiver is making a mistake. If the receiver says, "I never received the field," then there is no way he made a mistake. If the guy says that "I gave it to you," and he says, "I never got it," so then there is no way he could make a mistake, so probably he is saying the truth. But the giver, it's possible that he made a mistake, because if he says, "I gave it to you," so maybe he gave it through somebody else and he thinks it came to the receiver and really it never came to him, or maybe some other way that the receiver never took it, but he thinks he gave it, so it's more possible that he made a mistake. And therefore But it's impossible that the receiver should make a mistake, so therefore we accept the words of the receiver and we say הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that when he admits that he never got the field, he is saying the truth and there is no mistake involved, and the field belongs to the other person. Then the

גמרא asks, מי אוכל פירות, who eats the פירות of this field when the giver says, "I gave it to you," and the receiver says, "I didn't take it, I didn't get it"? So רב חסדא אמר, נותן אוכל פירות. רב חסדא says the giver eats the פירות. Since we פסקן that we accept the words of the receiver that he never got it, so it is in the ownership of the giver, so he eats the פירות, he eats the fruit of that field. רבה אמר, רבה says, משלשין את הפירות. We put the פירות in the hands of a third party, and as רש״י says, we leave it there till יבא אליהו, which means we leave it there till we find out a hundred percent who is saying the truth. But the גמרא says, ולא פליגי, really there is no argument between רב חסדא and רבה. הא באבא, הא בברא. That when they say that it's given to the נותן is in the case of the father. Let's say that the person himself that was told that he was given the field, he denies it, so here we say definitely הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, that he is definitely saying the truth. Since he claims he never got it and we accept his words, so the field belongs to the giver, and the giver is the one that eats the פירות, because it's his field. But the other one who said that we leave the פירות in the hands of a third party is in a case where the one that denying it is not the person himself, but his son. A person says, "I gave the field to a certain person," and that other person is not living anymore, but his יורש, his son says that "My father never received it." So here we say maybe he's making a mistake. Maybe he doesn't know all the affairs of his father. So therefore, we cannot פסקן a hundred percent that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, and really it belongs to the נותן, to the giver, because maybe the son of the מקבל, of the taker, is making a mistake. So in a case like that we say that who eats the פירות? We don't know who's saying the truth, so the פירות is put into the hands of a third party. And באמת, the way תוספות explains, when the גמרא asks the שאלה, who eats the פירות, the גמרא did not really mean that there is a question who eats the פירות. Since the גמרא just פסקנד that הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי and we accept the words of the מקבל, of the receiver, that the field is not his, so the field definitely is the נותן's, the one that gave it. So what kind of שאלה does the גמרא have who eats the פירות? If the field belongs to the נותן, so he eats the פירות. Why should there even be a סברא that he shouldn't eat the פירות? So תוספות says the גמרא did not mean to ask it בלשון שאלה, even though that the way the גמרא expressed itself, but the גמרא really was just trying to explain that after we פסקן the דין, the גמרא explains, so who eats the פירות? So it depends: if the person himself denies it, then the נותן eats the פירות, but if he is not around and his child is the one that denies it, and we are not sure that he knows, and we cannot פסקן הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי, in a case like that, the פירות would be put in the hands of a third party, and when it's clarified, then it would be given to the one that really owns the field. Going back a little bit in this last סוגיא of the גמרא, where the גמרא said that if the master says, "I freed my עבד," and the עבד says that he didn't free me, so the גמרא says חיישינן שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר. We

suspect that maybe the master was מזכה a שטר שחרור to his עבד through somebody else. The way the גמרא uses the expression is חיישינן, we suspect maybe he gave him a שטר שחרור through somebody else. Usually, when we have a לשון חיישינן, that we suspect, it means we're not sure. So in a case like this, it would seem that the גמרא is saying that we suspect maybe he gave him a שטר שחרור through somebody else, but maybe not. So therefore, it would remain a ספק. We wouldn't be sure whether he really freed him or he didn't free him. But תוספות says it's not so. תוספות says that sometimes the word חיישינן means ודאי, and here, too, תוספות says, even though the גמרא uses the לשון חיישינן, we suspect maybe he gave him a שטר שחרור through somebody else, it is definite, and that's the way we accept it, and we פסקן that he is a hundred percent משוחרר, he's a hundred percent free. And the רא״ש brings even more ראיות than תוספות, and also says that even though the גמרא uses the לשון חיישינן, really it means that we are definite that he gave him a שטר שחרור על ידי אחר, and he is free. But the מהרש״א asks a קשיא on תוספות and on the רא״ש: why do we say that? What forces תוספות and the רא״ש to say that this גמרא doesn't mean it's a ספק, but means it's a ודאי? Maybe the פשט in the גמרא is that we suspect maybe he gave him a שטר שחרור through somebody else, and therefore we are not sure that he is not משוחרר. So the דין would be we'd have to go לחומרא: he would automatically become a חייב במצות, like a regular Jew, because maybe he did get a שטר שחרור. On the other hand, he wouldn't be able to marry a בת חורין because maybe he didn't get a שטר שחרור על ידי אחר, maybe his master is lying. What forced תוספות and the רא״ש to say that in this גמרא it means ודאי? And the קרני ראם brings right away on the מהרש״א from the רשב״א, that the רשב״א quotes a תוספתא, where in תוספתא the לשון is a little bit different. It says in תוספתא like this: האומר נתתי שדה לפלוני, a person says, "I gave a certain field to a certain person," והוא אומר, and the person who received the field says לא נתן לי, "He didn't give me," לא אמר כלום, the receiver didn't say anything, we do not accept his words, שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר, maybe the other person was מזכה him the field through somebody else. And here we see clearly that even though the תוספתא uses the לשון שמא זיכה לו על ידי אחר, maybe he was מזכה him through somebody else, nevertheless, the פסק in תוספתא is לא אמר כלום, that the words of the receiver are nothing, we don't accept it at all, that we say definitely that the receiver is not saying the truth, and he did get the field. Now, just like the תוספתא says it concerning the field, the same דין would apply concerning the עבד, because the two דינים go together. So in the case of the עבד would be the same, that if the עבד says that, "I was not freed," לא אמר כלום, he didn't say anything, which means that it is definite that he is a משוחרר, he is free. And that forces תוספות and the רא״ש to say that when the גמרא says חיישינן, maybe he was מזכה him על ידי אחר, it is not only a חשש, we only suspect it, but we accept it as a ודאי, as a definite thing, and he is definitely משוחרר. On the other hand, the קרני ראם brings that according to the ר״ן, we do not say that, because the ר״ן says clearly on this גמרא that when the גמרא says that we suspect maybe he was מזכה him a שטר שחרור through somebody else, so the ר״ן says therefore he is חייב במצות, he has to do all the מצות, but on the other hand, the ר״ן says, if he wants to marry a בת חורין, he would have to get a שטר שחרור. So we see that the ר״ן learns it's only a חשש that he got a שטר על ידי אחר, but it is not ודאי. And then, the

קרני ראם adds even more: there is this famous שיטה of the רי״ף, that when we say a כלל זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, that you could be מזכה somebody without him even knowing about it, so the רי״ף learns that it is only concerning חרטה, that it is valid enough that you can't change your mind, but it still does not take effect till actually it gets to that person. And that same thing would be by a שטר שחרור, that even though you're allowed to be מזכה a שטר שחרור for an עבד to somebody else, all it means is that the master cannot have חרטה after he gave the שטר שחרור to the other party, even before it got to the hands of the עבד. But the עבד is not משוחרר, doesn't become free, till after the גט reaches his hand. So in this case here, where the עבד claims that he definitely didn't get the שטר שחרור, and the גמרא says that we suspect that maybe he was מזכה him the שטר שחרור through somebody else, still he is definitely אסור to marry a בת חורין according to the רי״ף, because he is still not משוחרר, because the שטר never reached his hand. But anyway, the קנה דרא״ם says that many, many ראשונים argue on the שיטה of the רי״ף. Another interesting discussion here in the גמרא is concerning the earlier גמרא, where it says by the קטן, that that עבד that was a חצי עבד חצי בן חורין, and his master was afraid that the חכמים would force him to free him, so he was מקנה his עבד to his son, the קטן, and רב פפא פסקנט that they should appoint an אפוטרופוס for this קטן, and the עבד should rattle some money in front of the קטן, and the אפוטרופוס would write a שטר שחרור to the עבד על שמיה, on the name of the קטן. So concerning that piece of גמרא, there is a מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. The

way it seems from רש״י is that when the שטר שחרור would be written by the אפוטרופוס, it would be written on the name of the קטן. In other words, the קטן would be the one that would free this עבד. But since the קטן cannot be forced to do it, so the way that would be done is through the עבד enticing the קטן by rattling the money, but the אפוטרופוס would write the שטר on the name of the קטן. But רבינו שמואל, תוספות says, does not accept that פשט, because he says that מעשה קטן doesn't mean anything. A קטן cannot free an עבד. So how can the גמרא say here that the קטן's name would be on the שטר, in other words, the קטן would be the one to free the עבד? Just like we find by the case of a יבמה, that a קטן cannot divorce his יבמה, cannot give her a גט until he becomes a גדול, because the מעשה קטן, the actions of a קטן are not valid, the same here, the actions of this קטן to free the עבד would not be valid. So how can we say that the שטר שחרור would be written on the name of the קטן? And even though the גמרא does say that children from six and seven years old, their sale is valid, if it is concerning מטלטלין, concerning movable objects, so we see that a מעשה of a קטן is valid? So he says, that's only concerning monetary things, because the דין is that הפקר בית דין הפקר, that when it comes to monetary things, בית דין has the control over the money of a person, so if the בית דין decides that the sale of a קטן should be a sale, then it's valid. But when it comes to איסורין, to things which are more than just money, but questions of איסורין, here the מעשה of a קטן is not valid. So in the case of a שטר שחרור, which is not just a question of money, but it's a question of איסור too, so the מעשה of a קטן is nothing. So how can a קטן give a שטר שחרור? And therefore, he explains the פשט in the גמרא different: that the שטר שחרור was written on his name, meaning on the name of the אפוטרופוס. And even though we know that the דין is that the אפוטרופסין have no right to free an עבד, if a קטן owns property, and amongst his estate we also have עבדים, and there is an אפוטרופוס appointed to take care of the estate of the קטן, the אפוטרופוס has no right to free the עבדים, so how can we say here that the אפוטרופוס has a right to free the עבדים? So תוספות explains that in this case, since there was something wrong done here, the father was מקנה the עבד to the קטן שלא כהוגן, not properly, not the right way, so the חכמים were מפקיר the עבד, have the control over the עבד, and took away the עבד from this קטן, and they made it as if the עבד belongs to the אפוטרופוס, and in a case like that, the אפוטרופוס himself has a right to free the עבד. And we find another case similar to this, תוספות says, we find regarding the דין of תרומה ומעשר. The דין is that in order to take off תרומה, you must appoint a שליח, or you do it yourself or you appoint a שליח. But if there are קטנים that own תבואה, own grain, the אפוטרופסין cannot take off תרומה ומעשר, because we learn it out from a פסוק: אתם, the תורה says, you should do it yourself, and we learn out: אתם ולא אפוטרופסין, that a guardian of the קטן cannot take off תרומה or מעשר for the sake of the קטן. Nevertheless, the חכמים said that an אפוטרופוס should take off תרומה ומעשר. But the question is, how can an אפוטרופוס take off when the דין is that he's not allowed? And the answer is, because the חכמים saw that otherwise it would remain טבל, the grain, the תבואה, the crop would remain טבל without תרומה ומעשר, and you're not allowed to eat טבל. So what they said was that we are מפקיר the תבואה, we take away the ownership of the תבואה from the קטנים, and we give give it over to the אפוטרופוס, and it's as if the אפוטרופוס owns the תבואה, and therefore, the אפוטרופוס is allowed to take off תרומה ומעשר in order it shouldn't remain טבל. And the same thing here too: in order to be able to free this עבד, the חכמים קנסed this person who did this דבר שלא כהוגן, who did this wrong thing of giving it away to the קטן, and they, so to speak, took away the עבד from the ownership of the קטן, and they gave it over to the אפוטרופוס, so now the אפוטרופוס has the right to free this עבד. But if so, one might ask: so why do they have to go through the whole thing of having to rattle money in front of the קטן? They should have forgotten about the קטן, they should have just appointed an אפוטרופוס, and automatically the עבד is now owned by the אפוטרופוס, and the אפוטרופוס would free him. But because the קטן did not want the עבד to be freed, so the חכמים did not want to have the אפוטרופוס free the עבד against the will of the קטן. So therefore they said that they should rattle the money in front of the קטן, so the קטן would agree to this transaction, and then the אפוטרופוס would be the one to free the עבד on his name. But the

רבינו תם doesn't accept this פשט either. He says if the פשט here would be as a קנס, the גמרא should have said that since he did something wrong, therefore the חכמים קנסed him. So therefore the רבינו תם learns a different פשט. He says that the אפוטרופסין have no right to free the עבדים, but an אפוטרופוס has a right to sell the עבדים. And we said before that when you sell the עבד, that is a form of freedom. So what the אפוטרופוס did here was that he sold the עבד to himself, and that was a form of freeing the עבד. And באמת, they wouldn't need the whole thing of the rattling of the money in front of the קטן, because the אפוטרופוס has a right to sell the עבד himself. But because it would look like a joke that they would be freeing this עבד, and the קטן would be screaming, "I don't want to!", so therefore they wanted the קטן to agree to what the אפוטרופוס was doing. And if they wouldn't rattle the money, he would have listened to his father who kept on saying, "Don't allow them to free the עבד!" So they had to do something that the קטן should agree to what the חכמים wanted, that the אפוטרופוס should sell the עבד, which was a form of freedom. And באמת, according to the רבינו תם, he טאקע did not even need a גט שחרור, because when you sell the עבד and he buys his own freedom, he doesn't need a גט שחרור. It is only מדרבנן that they said that he needs a גט שחרור, because since this was a case where the father did not want to free the עבד, so the father would keep on saying that the עבד is still mine, and if he would meet the עבד in the street, he would claim, "You are my עבד!" In order to avoid that, the חכמים said, "Let him write a שטר שחרור," so the עבד would have a document to show that he is really freed. But באמת, he didn't even need a שטר שחרור, because the אפוטרופוס sold him to himself, and the אפוטרופוס has a right to do that.