The second view is that the slave should be required to work to earn his freedom. He is told: “Go, trade, and work; then pay over what you earn to your other masters until the amount is complete.” If his masters say, “We do not want him to be emancipated; rather, let him remain,” we say: “Whether you wish it or not, he must be required to work and compensate his masters in full.”

Third: ownership of a close blood relative (1). Its criterion is that one comes to own someone whom, were that person female, one would be forbidden by blood relation to marry. Thus, if he acquires ownership of his father, his father is emancipated as a consequence, even if he possesses no wealth besides his father’s value. Likewise, if he acquires ownership of his brother, his brother is emancipated; and his paternal aunt is likewise emancipated, because he cannot marry her. As for his cousin’s daughter, she is not emancipated, since he may lawfully marry her. If he acquires ownership of someone whom, were that person female, he would be forbidden to marry through suckling, that person is not emancipated. This is one of the rulings in which suckling differs from blood relation.

Fourth: mutilation. That is, a person mutilates his slave; if he does so, the slave is emancipated as a consequence (2). For example, a man may have a mature male slave and, fearing him in relation to his womenfolk, castrate him.