is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts [parvarei] of Jerusalem. The Gemara clarifies: The tanna who says Syria is obligated in tithe and the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael holds that the conquest of an individual is called a conquest. Once Syria was conquered by King David, who is considered an individual in this regard, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael applied to it and its residents became obligated in the mitzvot of Eretz Yisrael.

The baraita teaches: And one who wishes to enter it and remain in a state of ritual purity may so enter. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you say that its soil is ritually impure? How then is it possible for one to enter it in a state of ritual purity? The Gemara answers: The baraita means that one enters it in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. In this case he remains pure, as he did not come into contact with the ground itself.

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside of Eretz Yisrael, in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one who did not touch the ground itself impure only in the land of the nations, concerning which they decreed impurity upon both its clumps of soil and upon its air. However, with regard to Syria, everyone agrees that they decreed impurity upon its clumps of soil, but they did not decree impurity upon its air. Therefore, it is possible to enter Syria and remain in a state of ritual purity if one does not touch the ground itself.

The baraita further teaches: And one who purchases a field in Syria is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: With regard to which halakha was this stated? What practical ruling is taught by this statement? Rav Sheshet says: This serves to say that one writes a bill of sale [ono] for this purchase, and one may write a bill of sale even on Shabbat.

The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. The Gemara explains: This is as Rava says with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile that he should do it, and he does so. Here too, it is referring to a situation where one tells a gentile that he should write a bill of sale, and he does so. And even though the halakha generally is that telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic decree, since the Sages prohibited instructing a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

§ The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who brought his bill of manumission to a court, and it is written in it: You and my property are transferred to you, he acquires himself via this document, and he is emancipated. However, he does not acquire the property unless the document is confirmed in court through its witnesses, like other documents.

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the bill of manumission stated: All of my property is transferred to you, what is the halakha? Abaye said: Since he acquired himself as a freeman, as he is included in the property mentioned in the document, he acquires the rest of the property as well.

Rava said to Abaye: Granted, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who is divorced when she brings the document herself. However, he should not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents. If someone brings a typical document that deals with monetary matters that has not been ratified, the court will not rely on that document. So too here, as the bill of manumission, which includes a transfer of property, has not been ratified, he should not acquire the property.

After hearing Rava’s objection, Abaye then said the opposite: Since he did not acquire the property, he does not acquire himself either. Rava said to him: Granted, he does not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents; however, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who can bring her own bill of divorce and testify about it.

Rather, Rava says: With regard to both this and that, both in the case when the bill of manumission states: You and my property, and when it says: All of my property, he acquires himself but he does not acquire the property. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion do you say this? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that we divide the statement. In other words, even if there is only one document or a single testimony, containing one general statement, it can be divided so that the court accepts it in part and rejects the rest.

As we learned in a mishna (Pe’a 3:8): One who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself even any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: