Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Bet, Part Three

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to deal with who accepts the money and document when a Canaanite slave goes free.

 

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 sages say: by money through his own agency.

By money through his own agency, but not through the agency of others?

Why not? Granted that it is without his knowledge, but we know that the rabbis hold that it is to his advantage to go out from his master’s authority to freedom, and we learned: One may cause merit to a person not in his presence, but one may not cause to disadvantage to a person except in his presence.

 

According to the rabbis, a Canaanite slave can buy his own freedom but others cannot buy his freedom. But why not? After all, even if this is done without his knowledge, the rabbis still hold that it is to the slave s advantage to go free, and one can cause an advantage to a person without his knowledge. So why can t they accept the money to set him free?

 

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

 

And should you say, what does it mean through his own agency? Even through his own agency, and it teaches us that his document [of emancipation] and his hand [i.e., the right to acquire things for himself] come simultaneously.

If so, what about the second clause: by document, through the agency of others, [implying] but not through his own: but we hold that his document and hand come simultaneously?

 

We might have thought, as we tried to propose in yesterday s section, that when it says that he may free himself it means even through his own agency, and then say that what this teaches us is that his right to acquire money and his freedom come simultaneously. Thus he can acquire the money to use to buy himself free. But the problem is that the end of this clause in the mishnah teaches that when it comes to the document, the slave can become free by a document accepted by others, but not by one that he himself accepts. The problem is that we hold that his freedom and his ability to accept a document also come simultaneously. This means that he should be able to accept his own deed of emancipation.

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

 

And should you say, what is the meaning of, through the agency of others? Even through the agency of others too, and it thus teaches us 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 document through the agency of others or his own?

 

If we try to solve this last problem by positing that the slave can be redeemed even when others accept the document on his behalf, and also when he accepts the document, and that this mishnah teaches that it is to the slave s advantage to go free (and thus others can receive his document), then we encounter the problem that both clauses say the same thing. So why teach them as independent clauses?

 

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

 

Rather [it means this:] By money, both through the agency of others and through his own agency; by document, through the agency of others but not his own, and it is the opinion of R. Shimon b. Elazar. For it was taught: R. Shimon ben Elazar said: Even by document only through the agency of others, but not his own.

 

The Talmud resolves that according to this line, if he is being redeemed by money, then he or others may do the redeeming. But if he is redeeming himself by document, others can receive the document, but he may not. This line accords with R. Shimon b. Elazar who would hold that his freedom and his ability do not come simultaneously.

 

ושלש מחלוקות בדבר

 

Thus there are three differing opinions in the matter.

 

There are now three opinions.

 

	Money	Document
R. Meir	By others, but not himself.	By himself, but not through others
R. Shimon b. Elazar	By others, not by himself	By others, not by himself
Rabbis in the mishnah	Either	Either