The Gemara answers: According to one Master, Rabbi Shimon, this term serves to exclude money. According to the other Master, Rabbi Eliezer, it serves to exclude mules.

The Sages taught with regard to the verse: ''And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you'' (Deuteronomy 15:14). One might have thought that if the house is blessed due to him, then the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house is not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift. Therefore, the verse states: ''You shall grant severance [ha’anek ta’anik],'' with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift in any case. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: ''Of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you''? This teaches that all that one gives him as a severance gift should be in accordance with the blessing one possesses.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The meaning of the statements of the Torah is as they are written, i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if the house was blessed due to him, the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house was not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift at all. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: ''You shall grant severance [ha’anek ta’anik],'' with the doubled form of the verb? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel halakha.

§ The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son of his deceased master but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, but only the master. A pierced slave and a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said above: A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?

As the Sages taught, with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: ''And he shall serve you six years'' (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves you and not an heir, i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do you say: You and not an heir, or perhaps is it even: You and not a son? The Gemara answers: When it says: ''Six years he shall labor'' (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of a son is thereby stated. How then do I uphold the other verse: ''And he shall serve you six years''? The expression ''serve you'' emphasizes that he serves only you but he does not serve an heir other than a son.

The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to include the son who inherits a Hebrew slave and to exclude the brother from inheriting his brother’s slave? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. And similarly, he replaces his father with regard to an ancestral field (see Leviticus 27:16–21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.

The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? If there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason for this halakha is specifically that there is this refutation that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that without this consideration I would say that a brother is preferable to a son? But let me derive that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother from the fact that here, with regard to the preference of a son, there are two cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, and here, in the case of a brother, there is only one: Levirate marriage.

The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field too, the tanna derives the halakha from this same refutation. The tanna learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: Is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.

§ The baraita taught that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: ''And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise'' (Deuteronomy 15:17). The verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to a pierced slave: Just as a pierced slave serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: And does this verse: ''And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,'' come to teach this matter? The tanna requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: ''And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,'' is a command to grant her a severance gift.

Do you say that this comparison obligates one to grant a severance gift to a Hebrew maidservant, or is it teaching only that the halakha of piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: When it says with regard to piercing: ''But if the slave shall say'' (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, the halakha of piercing is thereby stated and accounted for.

How do I realize the meaning of the verse: ''And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise''? This obligates a master to grant a severance gift to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: If so, that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, let the verse write merely: To your maidservant likewise. What is the meaning of the additional phrase: ''You shall do''? Draw two conclusions from this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.

§ The baraita further teaches that a pierced Hebrew slave and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara explains: The halakha of a pierced slave is as it is written: ''And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever'' (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, but not the son or the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile? Ḥizkiyya says that the verse states with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: ''And he shall reckon with his purchaser'' (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser but not to the heirs of his purchaser.

Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits the property of his father, as it is stated with regard to one sold to a gentile: ''And he shall reckon with his purchaser,'' but not with his purchaser’s heirs. One can derive from here by inference that ordinarily a gentile has heirs. By contrast, by Torah law a convert does not inherit the property of his father or any other gentile, as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. Rather, a convert inherits the property of his father by rabbinic law.

As we learned in a mishna (Demai 6:10): With regard to a convert and a gentile who inherited property from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take money; you take wine used for a libation to idolatry and I will take produce. Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But once they have come into the convert’s possession, it is prohibited for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry.

And if it would enter your mind that a convert inherits property from his father by Torah law, it should be prohibited when these objects have not yet come into his possession as well, as when he takes money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, he takes an item that has been exchanged for objects of idol worship. Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well.

Rather, a convert inherits property from his father by rabbinic law, as this is a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his previous wayward path [suro]. The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father’s property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? He may do this when they inherited. But when the convert and the gentile formed a partnership, it is prohibited for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.

With regard to the same issue it is taught: By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not inherit property from his father who is a convert, nor does a convert inherit property from his father who is a convert. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 10:9): If one borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, he does not return it to the creditor’s sons, as they are not considered his heirs. And if he does return it, the Sages are not pleased with him.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Sages are pleased with him? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to a convert whose conception and birth were not in sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son.