Commentary for Kiddushin 46:1
לר' שמעון בן אלעזר עבד כנעני מהו שיעשה שליח לקבל גיטו מיד רבו כיון דגמר לה לה מאשה כאשה
According to R'Simeon B'Eleazar,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that a slave cannot receive his own deed.');"><sup>1</sup></span> can a heathen slave appoint an agent to receive his deed of emancipation from his master:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tosaf. gives two interpretations: (i) Obviously, as stated above, another person must accept it on his behalf. This, however, may be only if the slave does not explicitly appoint him his agent, but if he does, he becomes legally as himself, and just as he himself cannot accept the deed, his agent cannot either. (ii) When another person accepts it on his behalf, must he be his agent, just as the person who accepts a woman's divorce on her behalf must be distinctly appointed by her for that purpose? If so, on the view that it is to the slave's advantage to be freed, the agency is tacitly assumed: while if we hold that it is to his disadvantage, he must be expressly appointed. Or possibly, he does not act in the character of an agent at all, since the slave himself could not have accepted it. In that case, not only is an express appointment unnecessary, but even if the slave actually protests against it, his protest is unavailing.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Elsewhere R. Huna son of R. Joshua says that priests serving in the Temple are agents of God and not agents of the people whose sacrifices they are offering. They cannot be our agents because an agent should not be able to do something that the person sending him cannot do himself. But now we do have a case of an agent being able to do something that the person himself cannot do. A slave’s agent can accept the slave’s deed of manumission, whereas the slave himself cannot.
Thus we have a difficulty on R. Huna.
Thus we have a difficulty on R. Huna.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Elsewhere R. Huna son of R. Joshua says that priests serving in the Temple are agents of God and not agents of the people whose sacrifices they are offering. They cannot be our agents because an agent should not be able to do something that the person sending him cannot do himself. But now we do have a case of an agent being able to do something that the person himself cannot do. A slave’s agent can accept the slave’s deed of manumission, whereas the slave himself cannot.
Thus we have a difficulty on R. Huna.
Thus we have a difficulty on R. Huna.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud rejects the difficulty on R. Huna. An Israelite can never offer sacrifices himself. The laws of sacrificing in the Temple simply do not apply to him. However, a slave can accept a deed of manumission, just not his own. Thus these laws do apply to him, and therefore, he can appoint an agent to receive his own deed of manumission.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
The Talmud presents a possible explanation of the dispute in the mishnah. R. Meir would hold that a slave cannot acquire property independent of his master (nor a wife independent of her husband). The second the money goes into his hand, it belongs to his master. Therefore, the slave cannot give the money to free himself. The other rabbis say that a slave can acquire money separate from his master. So if others give him money to redeem himself, he can take the money and redeem himself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
According to Rabbah, in general everyone holds that anything a slave acquires, his master automatically acquires as well. The dispute in the mishnah is only in a case where someone gives the slave money on condition that the master not have any rights to it. R. Meir says that this condition does not work, whereas the rabbis hold that it does. Therefore, R. Meir holds that there is no way for the slave to buy his own freedom, whereas the rabbis would hold that as long as others gave him the money and said, “on condition that your master has no right to it,” the slave may use that money to free himself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
According to Rabbah, in general everyone holds that anything a slave acquires, his master automatically acquires as well. The dispute in the mishnah is only in a case where someone gives the slave money on condition that the master not have any rights to it. R. Meir says that this condition does not work, whereas the rabbis hold that it does. Therefore, R. Meir holds that there is no way for the slave to buy his own freedom, whereas the rabbis would hold that as long as others gave him the money and said, “on condition that your master has no right to it,” the slave may use that money to free himself.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Elazar says that the third party cannot really say “on condition that your master has no right to it.” All would agree that such a condition does not prevent the master from gaining rights to the money acquired by the slave. R. Meir and the rabbis rather disagree about a case where the third party says “on condition that with it you go free.” To R. Meir this still does not work and the master acquires it immediately. The other rabbis hold that this works because the third party did not transfer ownership of the maneh to the slave—he only gave it to the slave for the slave to free himself. Since the slave has not come into possession of the maneh, he is able to use it become emancipated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
R. Elazar says that the third party cannot really say “on condition that your master has no right to it.” All would agree that such a condition does not prevent the master from gaining rights to the money acquired by the slave. R. Meir and the rabbis rather disagree about a case where the third party says “on condition that with it you go free.” To R. Meir this still does not work and the master acquires it immediately. The other rabbis hold that this works because the third party did not transfer ownership of the maneh to the slave—he only gave it to the slave for the slave to free himself. Since the slave has not come into possession of the maneh, he is able to use it become emancipated.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Second tithe produce is usually redeemed, the money is brought to Jerusalem and used there to buy food products. The issue here is a woman redeeming her husband’s second tithe. When one redeems one’s own second tithe, one is liable to pay an added fifth. But when redeems someone else’s second tithe, one need not add the fifth.
According to the first opinion, that of the sages, the woman essentially is like her husband, and therefore she must add the fifth. According to R. Meir she need not add the extra fifth.
According to the first opinion, that of the sages, the woman essentially is like her husband, and therefore she must add the fifth. According to R. Meir she need not add the extra fifth.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy