אָמַר רַבָּה מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֶׁשִּׁיחְרֵר חֶצְיוֹ וְהִנִּיחַ חֶצְיוֹ אֲבָל שִׁיחְרֵר חֶצְיוֹ וּמָכַר חֶצְיוֹ אוֹ נָתַן בְּמַתָּנָה חֶצְיוֹ כֵּיוָן דְּקָנָפֵיק מִינֵּיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל קָנָה
§ The Gemara discusses another dispute with regard to one who emancipates half of his slave. Rabba said: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis concerning whether the slave can be half-emancipated applies only when the master freed half of him and left the other half of him unaffected. However, if he freed half of him and sold the other half of him, or gave the other half of him as a gift to someone else, then, since the slave left him entirely, as the original master no longer owns any portion of the slave, everyone agrees that the slave has acquired half of his freedom.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי וּבְכוּלּוֹ לָא פְּלִיגִי וְהָתָנֵי חֲדָא הַכּוֹתֵב נְכָסָיו לִשְׁנֵי עֲבָדָיו קָנוּ וּמְשַׁחְרְרִין זֶה אֶת זֶה וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ הָאוֹמֵר כׇּל נְכָסַי נְתוּנִין לִפְלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי עֲבָדַיי אַף עַצְמָם לֹא קָנוּ
Abaye said to him: And do they not disagree with regard to a case where he is released entirely? But it is taught in one braisa: In the case of one who writes his property to his two slaves, i.e., gives it to them via a document, they acquired the property and they free each other, because each one has ownership over half of the other slave. [Gitting 42a]
הכותב נכסיו לשני עבדיו - שכתב שני שטרות כל נכסיו לזה וכל נכסיו לזה וזיכה לשליח אחד בבת אחת לשניהם דפלגי דלא קדם אחד לחבירו: [רש"י]
Why does he have to be מזכה a שליח?! Why not a case where he simply gives a shtar to each of them?
Asking for an אדון friend.
