Gittin 39B

בפירוש שמיע לך, או מכללא שמיע לך? מאי כללא? דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי, אמרו לפני רבי: אמר ״נתייאשתי מפלוני עבדי״, מהו? אמר להם: אומר אני, אין לו תקנה אלא בשטר.

Did you hear it explicitly said by R' Yehoshua ben Levi, or did you hear it by inference, i.e., did you infer it from some other statement of his? R' Ya’akov bar Idi asked him: What inference could I have drawn? R' Zeira answered: As R' Yehoshua ben Levi says that they said before R' Yehuda HaNasi: If one says: I have despaired of recovering so-and-so, my slave, what is the halakha? He said to them: I say that his slave has no remedy other than via a bill of manumission.

ואמר רבי יוחנן: מאי טעמא דרבי? גמר ״לה״–״לה״ מאשה ⁠– מה אשה בשטר, אף עבד נמי בשטר.

The Talmud continues explaining the possible inference. And R' Yoḥanan said: What is the reasoning of R' Yehuda HaNasi? He derived this by means of a verbal analogy, understanding the meaning of “to her [lah],” written with regard to a female slave in the verse: “Nor was freedom given to her” (Leviticus 19:20), from the meaning of “for her [lah],” written with regard to a wife: “And he writes for her a bill of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:3). Just as a wife is released from her husband via a bill of divorce, so too, a slave is also emancipated only via a bill of manumission.

וקא דייקת מינה, כאשה ⁠– מה אשה איסורא ולא ממונא, אף עבד נמי איסורא ולא ממונא.

You heard this statement and deduced from this comparison that with regard to his master’s death, a slave is comparable to a wife. Just as a wife is released by the death of her husband from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond, so too, a slave is also emancipated by his master’s death from a prohibition but not from a monetary bond. Therefore, an adult slave, who can acquire ownership of himself, is freed entirely by means of the death of his master. However, in the case of a minor slave, who cannot acquire possession of his own person, the monetary bond remains, in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul.