Who Owns the Servant Sold With a Thirty Day Clause

It was taught: one who sells his slave to another and stipulates with him that the slave shall continue to serve him for thirty days. Rabbi Meir says: the first owner falls under the law of "a day or two" [exemption from execution if the slave dies], because the slave is under him; the second owner does not fall under the law of "a day or two," because the slave is not under him. He holds that acquisition of usufruct is like acquisition of the body itself. Rabbi Yehudah says: the second owner falls under the law of "a day or two," because the slave is his money; the first owner does not, because the slave is not his money. He holds that acquisition of usufruct is not like acquisition of the body. Rabbi Yose says: both fall under the law of "a day or two," this one because the slave is under him, and that one because the slave is his money. He is in doubt whether acquisition of usufruct is like acquisition of the body or not, and a doubt concerning capital cases is resolved leniently. Rabbi Elazar says: neither falls under the law of "a day or two," this one because the slave is not his money, and that one because the slave is not under him. What is Rabbi Elazar's reasoning? "For he is his money" means the money exclusively his. Who is the author of what the Rabbis taught: one who is half slave and half free, and likewise a slave belonging to two partners, do not go free on account of the loss of the tips of the limbs? In accordance with whom? In accordance with Rabbi Elazar. Did not Rabbi Elazar say "his money exclusively his"? Here too, his slave exclusively his.