Study Bava Batra folio 50B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שניהם ישנן בדין יום או יומים – זה מפני שהוא תחתיו, וזה מפני שהוא כספו – ומספקא ליה אי קנין פירות כקנין הגוף דמי, אי לאו כקנין הגוף דמי, וספק נפשות להקל.
both of them are included in the halakha of “a day or two days.” This first master is included because the slave is under his authority, and that second master is included because the slave is “his money.” The Talmud explains R' Yosei’s reasoning: And he is uncertain if ownership of the rights to use an item and the profits it engenders is like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the first master would be exempt, or if it is not like ownership of the item itself, in which case only the second master would be exempt. And where there is an uncertainty in a case of capital law, the ruling is to be lenient. Therefore, neither of them would receive court-imposed capital punishment in this case.
רבי אלעזר אומר: שניהם אינן בדין יום או יומים – זה לפי שאינו תחתיו, וזה לפי שאינו כספו.
The baraita continues: R' Elazar says that both of them are not included in the halakha of “a day or two days,” and both would receive court-imposed capital punishment. This second master is not included because the slave is not under his authority, and that first master is not included because the slave is not “his money.” R' Eliezer holds that one must both own the slave himself and enjoy the use of the slave to be included in the exemption.
ואמר רבא: מאי טעמא דרבי אלעזר? אמר קרא: ״לא יקם כי כספו הוא״ – כספו המיוחד לו.
The Talmud explains how Ameimar’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of R' Elazar. And Rava says: What is the reason for the opinion of R' Elazar? The verse states: “Notwithstanding if he continue a day or two days, he should not be punished; for he is his money” (Exodus 21:21), and he understands this to be referring to a slave that is “his money,” a slave that is unique to him, so this exemption does not apply to one who does not have total ownership of the slave. R' Elazar holds that one is considered to own an item only if he owns the item itself and also enjoys the use of it. This is the source of Ameimar’s statement that neither the husband nor the wife can sell usufruct property: The husband cannot sell it because he does not own it, and the wife cannot sell it because only the husband has the right to enjoy the profits.