Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 5

Introduction

Rabbah continues to discuss the opinion of R. Shimon b. Elazar who holds that a Caananite slave cannot receive his own deed of emancipation.

בעי רבה לר’ שמעון בן אלעזר עבד כנעני מהו שיעשה שליח לקבל גיטו מיד רבו כיון דגמר לה לה מאשה כאשה או דילמא אשה דאיהי מצי מקבלת גיטה שליח נמי מצי משויא עבד דאיהו לא מקבל גיטיה שליח נמי לא מצי משוי

בתר דבעיא הדר פשטא לה לה מאשה כאשה

Rabbah asked: According to R. Shimon b. Elazar, can a Canaanite slave appoint an agent to receive his deed of emancipation from his master: since he deduces lah lah from a woman [being divorced], he [the slave] is like woman: or perhaps, a woman, who can accept the divorce herself, can also appoint an agent; whereas a slave, who cannot accept his deed of emancipation himself, cannot appoint an agent either?

After asking it, he solved it himself: We derive lah, lah, from a woman being divorced, [hence] he is like a woman.

In yesterday s section we saw that R. Shimon b. Elazar derives the laws of a slave going free from the case of a woman being divorced. So now we have to ask whether a slave, like a woman being a divorced, can appoint an agent to receive his deed of emancipation.

Rabbah asks the question, and then answers it himself. Like a woman, he can.

ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע הני כהני שלוחי דרחמנא נינהו דאי סלקא דעתך שלוחי דידן נינהו מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן עבדינן ואינהו מצי עבדי

ולא והא עבדא דאיהו לא מצי מקבל גיטיה ושליח מצי משוי

If so, when R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: These priests are agents of God, for should you think they are our agents, is there anything which we ourselves may not do while they may do [it on our behalf]?

But is there not? Behold there is a slave, who cannot accept his deed of manumission himself, can yet appoint an agent?

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.

ולא היא ישראל לא שייכי בתורת קרבנות כלל עבד שייך בגיטין דתניא נראין הדברים שהעבד מקבל גיטו של חבירו מיד רבו של חבירו אבל לא מיד רבו שלו:

But that analogy does not stand: an Israelite has no connection with the laws of sacrifices at all; whereas a slave has a connection with deeds of manumission. For it was taught: It seems correct that a slave can accept his fellow s deed from his fellow s master, but not from his own master.

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.