Kiddushin 45

זה פירש למיתה וזה פירש לחיים

one [R'Judah] departed to death, and the other [the slave] departed [from his former master] to life.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with the death of R. Judah he automatically passed into Mar Zutra's possession.');">¹</span> Others maintain, He was a minor, and this was not in accordance with Abba Saul.

ואיכא דאמרי קטן הוה ודלא כאבא שאול דתניא גר שמת ובזבזו ישראל נכסיו והיו בהן עבדים בין גדולים בין קטנים קנו עצמן בני חורין אבא שאול אומר גדולים קנו עצמן בני חורין קטנים כל המחזיק בהן זכה בהן:

For it was taught: If a proselyte dies [without heirs] and Israelites take possession of his property, which includes slaves, whether adults or minors, they gain their liberty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been for a moment without a master, they remain permanently free.');">²</span> Abba Saul said: Adults acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them [even afterwards] gains a title to them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence Mar Zutra's care that they should be in his service at the actual moment of death does not agree with Abba Saul's view. So Rashi, on the basis of the reading in current edition. Alfasi, Asheri, and R. Tam read: and this was (even) in accordance with Abba Saul. Though they could not gain their liberty, he put them into his service lest another take possession of them.');">³</span>

וקונה את עצמו בכסף כו': בכסף ע"י אחרים אין אבל לא על ידי עצמו במאי עסקינן אילימא שלא מדעתו מכדי שמענא ליה לר' מאיר דאמר חוב הוא לעבד שיצא מיד רבו לחירות ותנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו

AND REACQUIRES HIMSELF BY MONEY etc. BY MONEY ONLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS, but not through his own. What are the circumstances?

אלא פשיטא מדעתו והא קמשמע לן על ידי אחרים אין על ידי עצמו לא אלמא אין קנין לעבד בלא רבו

Shall we say, without his [the slave's] knowledge? Then consider: we know that R'Meir maintains, It is to a slave's disadvantage to leave his master for freedom;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For as the slave of a priest he may eat terumah, which is now forbidden him. Again, as a slave he is permitted to live with a heathen bondmaid: this too will now be forbidden. - These are the reasons given in Git.11b.');">⁴</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא בשטר על ידי עצמו על ידי עצמו אין על ידי אחרים לא ואי מדעתו על ידי אחרים אמאי לא

and we learned: One may obtain a privilege for a person in his absence, but cannot so act to his disadvantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such an action being invalid.');">⁵</span> Hence it obviously means with his knowledge [consent], and we are informed this: only through the agency of others [can he be emancipated thus,] but not through his own, thus proving that a slave has no rights of acquisition apart from his master.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As explained in the note on the Mishnah, q.v.');">⁶</span>

וכי תימא מאי ע"י עצמו אף ע"י עצמו והא קמ"ל דגיטו וידו באים כאחד והא לא תני הכי דתניא בשטר ע"י עצמו ולא ע"י אחרים דברי ר"מ

If so, cite the second clause: BY DEED THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY: only through his own agency, but not through that of others. But if with his consent, why not through the agency of others?

אמר אביי לעולם שלא מדעתו ושאני כסף הואיל וקני ליה בעל כורחיה מקני ליה בעל כורחיה

And should you answer, what is meant by THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY? Through his own agency too, and we are thus informed that his deed [of emancipation] and his hand [i.e., the right to acquire for himself] come simultaneously<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the very moment of taking the deed he is free, and hence can accept it on his own behalf. Otherwise, his acceptance would be just as though his master held it, and he would not be free.');">⁷</span>

אי הכי שטר נמי האי שטרא לחוד והאי שטרא לחוד

- But it was not taught so? For it was taught: By deed through his own agency, but not that of others: this is R'Meir's view? - Said Abaye: After all, [it means] without his knowledge.

הכא נמי האי כספא לחוד והאי כספא לחוד טיבעא מיהא חד הוא

Yet money is different: since he [the master] may acquire him [the slave] against his will, he can liberate him<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'give him possession' - of himself.');">⁸</span> against his will.

רבא אמר כסף קבלת רבו גרמה לו שטר קבלת אחרים גרמה לו:

If so, the same applies to deed? - This deed is separate and that deed is separate.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wording of the two deeds, purchase and manumission, are different: consequently the same reasoning does not apply.');">⁹</span> But here too, this money is separate and that money is separate?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Being given for different purposes.');">¹⁰</span>

וחכמים אומרים בכסף ע"י עצמו: בכסף ע"י עצמו אין ע"י אחרים לא אמאי נהי נמי דשלא מדעתו מכדי שמענא להו לרבנן דאמרי זכות הוא שיצא מתחת יד רבו לחירות ותנינא זכין לאדם שלא בפניו ואין חבין לו אלא בפניו

- The impress is nevertheless the same.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is nothing in the coins themselves to shew their different purposes.');">¹¹</span> Raba said: In the case of money, its receipt by the master effects it [his liberation]: but as for deed, its receipt by others effects it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of money the master accepts it on his own behalf, not on that of the slave's; therefore the latter's consent is unnecessary. But deed is accepted by others on the slave's behalf; therefore his consent is required.');">¹²</span>

וכ"ת מאי ע"י עצמו אף ע"י עצמו וקמ"ל דיש קנין לעבד בלא רבו א"ה אימא סיפא בשטר ע"י אחרים ולא על ידי עצמו והא קיימא לן דגיטו וידו באין כאחד

THE SAGES MAINTAIN: BY MONEY THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY. Only through his own agency, but not through the agency of others?

וכי תימא מאי ע"י אחרים אף ע"י אחרים והא קמ"ל דזכות הוא לעבד שיצא מיד רבו לחירות אי הכי נערבינהו וניתנינהו בכסף ובשטר בין ע"י אחרים בין על ידי עצמו

Why? Granted that it is without his knowledge, yet consider: we know that the Rabbis hold that it is to his advantage to go out from his master's authority to liberty, and we learnt You may obtain a privilege for a person in his absence, but can act to his disadvantage only in his presence.

אלא בכסף בין ע"י אחרים בין ע"י עצמו בשטר ע"י אחרים ולא ע"י עצמו ור"ש בן אלעזר הוא דתניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אף בשטר על ידי אחרים ולא ע"י עצמו ושלש מחלוקות בדבר

And should you answer, what is meant by THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY? Through his own agency too, and we are thus informed that a slave has rights of acquisition independently of his master.

אמר רבה מ"ט דר' שמעון בן אלעזר גמר לה לה מאשה מה אשה עד שיוציא גט לרשות שאינה שלו אף עבד נמי עד שיוציא גט לרשות שאינה שלו

- If so, cite the second clause: BY DEED, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS, [implying] but not through his own: but it is an establish - ed law that his deed and hand come simultaneously?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 111, n. 1.');">¹³</span> And should you answer, what is the meaning of, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS?

בעי רבה

Through the agency of others too, and we are thus informed that it is to the slave's advantage to leave his master for freedom: if so, they should be combined and taught together: By money and by deed through the agency of others or his own? - But [it means this:] By money, both through the agency of others and his own; by deed, through the agency of others but not his own, and it agrees with R'Simeon B'Eleazar. For it was taught: R'Simeon B'Eleazar said: By deed too only through the agency of others, but not his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not hold that the deed and his rights of acquisition come simultaneously.');">¹⁴</span> Thus there are three differing opinions in the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (i) R. Meir: By money, through the agency of others, even without his knowledge, but not through his own; and by deed through his own agency but not of others. (ii) R. Simeon b. Eleazar: Both by money and deed, through the agency of others but not his own. (iii) The Rabbis in our Mishnah: Both by money and deed, through the agency of others and his own. Hence both are not combined because the second clause is not the Rabbis' statement but R. Simeon b. Eleazar's.');">¹⁵</span> Rabbah said: What is R'Simeon B'Eleazar's reason? - He learns the meaning of 'lah' [to her] here from a [married] woman:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here: a bondmaid . . whose freedom was not given (to) her (lah) - Lev. XIX, 20; a married woman; then he shall write (to) her (lah) a bill of divorcement; Deut. XXIV, 1.');">¹⁶</span> just as a woman [is not freed] until she withdraws the divorce into a domain that is not his [her husband's],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As it is written, and give it in her hand (ibid.) , and she does not belong bodily to her husband.');">¹⁷</span> so a slave too [is not freed] until he withdraws his deed [of emancipation] into a domain that is not his [the master's]. Rabbah propounded: