Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Gimmel, Part 6
Introduction
According to the sages, a slave can redeem himself by means of money that he himself gives the master, but the money must come from others. R. Meir says that the others must give the money.
ובלבד שיהא הכסף משל אחרים: נימא בהא קמיפלגי דר’ מאיר סבר אין קנין לעבד בלא רבו ואין קנין לאשה בלא בעלה ורבנן סברי יש קנין לעבד בלא רבו ויש קנין לאשה בלא בעלה
Providing that the money comes from others. Shall we say that they differ in this: R. Meir holds: A slave cannot acquire property independently of his master, nor a wife apart from her husband; whereas the Rabbis maintain, A slave can acquire independently of his master and a wife from her husband?
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.
אמר רבה אמר רב ששת דכולי עלמא אין קנין לעבד בלא רבו ואין קנין לאשה בלא בעלה והכא במאי עסקינן דאקני ליה אחר מנה ואמר ליה על מנת שאין לרבך רשות בו ר’ מאיר סבר כי אמר ליה קני קני עבד וקני רביה וכי אמר ליה על מנת לא כלום קאמר ליה ורבנן סברי כיון דאמר ליה על מנת אהני ליה תנאיה
Rabbah said in the name of R. Sheshet: All hold that a slave cannot acquire independently of his master, nor a wife of her husband. But what are we dealing with here? Where someone gave him a maneh, saying, On condition that your master has no right to it.
R. Meir holds: When he says to him, Acquire [it,] the slave acquires it and so does his master; and when he says to him, on condition [etc.], he says nothing.
Whereas the Rabbis hold: Since he says, on condition, the stipulation is effective.
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.
ור’ אלעזר אמר כל כי האי גוונא דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דקני עבד וקני רביה
והכא במאי עסקינן כגון דאקני ליה אחר מנה ואמר ליה על מנת שתצא בו לחירות ר"מ סבר כי אמר ליה קני קני עבד וקני רביה וכי אמר ליה על מנת לא כלום קאמר ליה
ורבנן סברי לדידיה נמי הא לא קא מקני ליה דהא לא אמר ליה אלא על מנת שתצא בו לחירות
R. Elazar said: In such a case all agree that the slave acquires it and his master acquires it as well.
What are we dealing with here? For instance a stranger gave him a maneh, saying: On condition that with it you go free.
R. Meir holds: When he says to him, Acquire [it,] the slave acquires it and so does his master; and when he says to him, on condition [etc.], he says nothing.
Whereas the Rabbis hold: He did not give transfer ownership of it [even] to him [the slave], since he said to him, On condition that with it you go free.
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.