does he find it necessary to borrow and eat? After all, his master provides for him. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, let the Temple treasurer say to him: Until now it was enough for you without a surplus; now too it should be enough for you without a surplus. Why do you seek more now? Consequently, the consecration should apply to this surplus as well. The Gemara answers: It is preferable to the Temple treasury itself that he work and eat more, so that the value of its slave will be enhanced when he consumes this extra amount, as he will become stronger.

§ It was stated that the slave borrows and eats and afterward performs work and repays the loan. The Gemara asks: But his work immediately becomes consecrated, as his hands have been consecrated. How, then, can he repay this loan? The Gemara answers: The slave performs work of less than the value of one peruta. Anything worth less than one peruta does not become consecrated. Therefore he can collect these small sums and repay his debt little by little.

The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that Rav is referring to a case where the master provides sustenance for him. As Rav says: With regard to one who consecrates the hands of his slave, that slave works and eats, as, if the slave does not work for himself, who will work and provide for him? This ruling indicates that Rav maintains that consecration does not apply to the slave’s hands.

The Gemara explains: Granted, if you say that this earlier halakha that Rav said, that the slave borrows and repays, refers to a situation where his master provides sustenance for him, and this is because in general he cannot say to him: Work for me but I will not sustain you, and this second halakha is referring to a case where his master does not provide him with sustenance, and therefore he cannot consecrate the slave’s hands, it is well, as there is no contradiction between the two statements of Rav.

However, if you say that this first halakha is also speaking of a case where his master does not provide sustenance for him, and the consecration is effective because he can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, then what is the meaning of the statement: As, if the slave does not work for himself who will work for him? Let whoever desires work for him, i.e., the slave will be compelled to sustain himself from charity, but this is not the master’s concern.

Rather, must one not conclude from here that Rav holds that a master cannot say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed conclude from here that this is the case.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another source concerning the same dilemma, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who severs the hand of another’s slave must give compensation for his loss of livelihood, i.e., compensation for the slave’s inability to work as a result of his injury, and the slave’s medical costs to his master. And that slave, who can no longer work, is sustained from charity. Conclude from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that the master is able to say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you, as otherwise the master would not receive compensation for his time in the form of payment for the slave’s earnings while the slave lives off of charity.

The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? This is referring to a case where his master provides sustenance for him. The Gemara asks: If so, why is he sustained from charity? He already has sustenance. The Gemara answers: This is referring to surplus food, i.e., additional food that the slave wants to eat.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, the phrase: Sustained from charity, is imprecise, as it indicates that he is provided only with enough for his basic needs. It should have said: He earns a living from charity. Rather, must one not conclude from his statement that Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the master can say to his slave: Work for me but I will not sustain you? The Gemara comments: Indeed, conclude from his statement that this is the case.

The Gemara discusses the aforementioned halakha. The Master says earlier: He must give compensation for the slave’s loss of livelihood and his medical costs to his master. The Gemara comments: With regard to compensation for loss of livelihood, it is obvious that this is the halakha, as the master incurs the loss when his slave does not work, and therefore it was necessary for the Sages to mention only that the compensation for his medical costs goes to his master.

The Gemara comments: Why is the payment for his medical costs given to his master? Shouldn’t the compensation for his medical costs belong to him, as he needs to be healed with it? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where doctors estimated that the blow or wound would heal in five days and they made a strong medicine for him, and he was healed in three days instead of five. Lest you say: Since the pain suffered by the slave by taking the strong medicine that caused a decrease in the costs of healing was his, the money should belong to him, Rabbi Yoḥanan therefore teaches us that this is not the case, as even this money belongs to the master, not the slave.

§ With regard to the discussion in the mishna between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 1:5) that Rabbi Elazar said: We said to Meir: But isn’t it in the interest of a slave to leave his master to freedom? He said to us: It is to his detriment, as if he were the slave of a priest, then by emancipating him the master thereby disqualifies him from partaking of teruma. We said to him: But what would be if the master wishes not to sustain him and not to provide him with a living? He is permitted to do so. Therefore, the slave does not lose out when he is emancipated, as he was not guaranteed sustenance in any event.

Rabbi Meir said to us: Even if the master is not obligated to provide for him, it is still permitted for the slave to partake of teruma. The proof for this is the following case: And what would be if there were the slave of a priest, who fled from his master, or in the case of the wife of a priest, who rebelled against her husband, i.e., she refused to fulfill her obligations as a married woman? Are they not permitted to partake of teruma, although not the teruma belonging to the master or husband? They are permitted to partake of teruma. But this slave who was emancipated may not partake of teruma at all, even teruma that belongs to other priests. But in any event, in the case of a woman, a bill of divorce is to her detriment, as it disqualifies her from partaking of teruma and causes her to lose her sustenance.

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What did the Rabbis say to Rabbi Meir, and what did he respond to them? In other words, the two sides do not appear to be discussing the same issue, as the Rabbis refer to sustenance while Rabbi Meir talks about teruma. The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Meir is saying to them: You have answered me about sustenance, that the master is not required to provide for his slave. However, what will you answer me about teruma?

And if you were to say that the acceptance of the document by the agent is not to the slave’s detriment, as in any event if the master desires, he can throw the bill of manumission within four cubits of the slave and thereby disqualify him from partaking of teruma; the slave can prevent this from occurring by leaving his master, and escaping and going out to the world. If he acts in this manner his master will be unable to emancipate him, and he can continue partaking of teruma.