Kiddushin 23A

זה פירש למיתה, וזה פירש לחיים.

and this person, R' Yehuda from India, departed to death, and that individual, Mar Zutra, departed to life by receiving a slave.

ואיכא דאמרי קטן הוה, ודלא כאבא שאול, דתניא: גר שמת ובזבזו ישראל נכסיו, והיו בהן עבדים, בין גדולים בין קטנים ⁠– קנו עצמן בני חורין. אבא שאול אומר: גדולים ⁠– קנו עצמן בני חורין, קטנים ⁠– כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן.

And there are those who say that this slave was a minor, and Mar Zutra did not act in accordance with the opinion of Abba Shaul. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a convert who dies without heirs and Jews plundered his property, as it is considered ownerless, and among his possessions were slaves, then, whether the slaves were adults or minors, they acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen, as they can acquire themselves from the ownerless property. Abba Shaul says: Adult slaves acquire ownership of themselves and become freemen. But with regard to minor slaves, anyone who takes possession of them acquires them. According to the opinion of Abba Shaul, Mar Zutra did not have to hasten to acquire the slave during R' Yehuda’s lifetime before the slave would acquire himself. He could have waited until R' Yehuda died before acquiring the slave.

וקונה עצמו בכסף כו׳ בכסף על ידי אחרים. אין, אבל לא על ידי עצמו. במאי עסקינן? אילימא שלא מדעתו, מכדי שמענא ליה לרבי מאיר דאמר: חוב הוא לעבד שיצא מיד רבו לחירות. ותנינא: זכין לאדם שלא בפניו, ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו.

§ The Mishnah teaches that a slave can acquire himself by means of money, and R' Meir rules that this money must be given by others. The Talmud comments: This ruling indicates that with money given by others, yes, the slave can be freed in this manner, but not by giving money himself. The Talmud inquires: With what are we dealing? If we say that this is referring to emancipating the Canaanite slave without his consent, that creates a difficulty. After all, we have heard that R' Meir is the one who says: It is against the slave’s interest to leave his master’s authority for freedom, as he thereby loses out on certain benefits; and we learned in a baraita: One can act in a person’s interest in his absence, but one can act against a person’s interest only in his presence. How can one act against the slave’s interest and free him without his consent?