Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Gimmel, Part 1
Introduction
R. Eliezer b. Ya akov said that one can separate terumah from produce that has not yet been harvested. The idea is that one can transfer ownership over something not yet in existence. Abaye lists other tannaim who hold this same position.
אמר אביי רבי אליעזר בן יעקב ורבי ורבי מאיר כולהו סבירא להו אדם מקנה דשלב"ל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב הא דאמרן רבי דתניא (דברים כג, טז) לא תסגיר עבד אל אדוניו רבי אומר בלוקח עבד על מנת לשחררו הכתוב מדבר
היכי דמי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כגון דכתב ליה לכשאקחך הרי עצמך קנוי לך מעכשיו
Abaye said: R. Eliezer b. Ya akov, Rabbi, and R. Meir, all hold that one may transfer the title for an object which has not come into the world.
R. Eliezer b. Ya akov, as stated.
Rabbi, for it was taught: You shall not deliver to his master a servant [who escaped] (Deuteronomy 23:16): Rabbi said: The verse refers to one who buys a slave on condition that he free him.
How so? R. Nahman b. Yitzhak: For example, he wrote for him, When I buy you, you will be to yourself from now.
The rabbis don t like the simple reading of the verse, which seems to prohibit one from returning runaway slaves. While our sympathies will of course lie with the simple reading of the verse, rabbis did not oppose slavery (I m not sure if anyone in the ancient world did). As such, it did not make sense to them that a slave could simply run away and thereby become free. Therefore, Rabbi limits the law to a particular type of slave. One that was bought under the condition that he be set free. But how does this happen? R. Nahman b. Yitzchak explains that the master wrote that when he buys the slave, the slave will be freed from this moment and on. Thus the slave can acquire himself even before the buyer buys him. This is considered a case of a person acquiring something not yet in the world.
רבי מאיר דתניא האומר לאשה הרי את מקודשת לי לאחר שאתגייר לאחר שתתגיירי לאחר שאשתחרר לאחר שתשתחררי לאחר שימות בעליך לאחר שתמות אחותיך לאחר שיחלוץ לך יבמיך אינה מקודשת רבי מאיר אומר מקודשת רבי יוחנן הסנדלר אומר אינה מקודשת רבי יהודה הנשיא אומר מקודשת ומה טעם אמרו אינה מקודשת משום איבה
R. Meir, as it was taught: If one says to a woman, Behold you are betrothed to me after I convert, or, after you convert, after I am freed, or after you are freed, after your husband dies, or, after your sister dies, after your yavam performs halitzah for you she is not betrothed. R. Meir said: She is betrothed.
R. Yohanan the sandal maker said: She is not betrothed.
R. Judah the Nasi said: [By rights] she is betrothed, yet why did they [the sages] say, she is not betrothed? Because of bad feeling.
In this case, a man makes a betrothal statement to a woman at a point at which the statement cannot be fulfilled one of them is not Jewish, one of them is not free, she is married, he is married to her sister, or she is subject to yibbum. In all of these cases, R. Meir says she will be betrothed when the event occurs. This is like a case of transferring title for something not yet in the world, because at this point she is not permitted to him.
R. Judah Hanasi theoretically allows such a statement to be effective, but says that the rabbis did not allow it because this would create enmity. Imagine how this would play out in family dynamics if he s married to her sister and he says Behold you are betrothed to me after your sister dies. Might make a good TV show.
ונחשוב נמי רבי יהודה הנשיא היינו רבי היינו ר’ יהודה הנשיא
Then let R. Judah HaNasi be counted too?
Rabbi and R. Judah HaNasi are identical.
Rabbi was already counted due to the previous source. Since Rabbi and R. Judah Hanasi are the same person, Abaye did not need to count him twice.
ונחשוב נמי רבי עקיבא דתניא קונם שאני עושה לפיך אין צריך להפר רבי עקיבא אומר יפר שמא תעדיף עליו יתר מן הראוי לו
And let R. Akiva be counted too? For we learned: [If a woman says to her husband,] Konam be what I make for your mouth, he need not annul it.
R. Akiva said: He should annul it, lest she do for him more than she is obliged to do for him!
In this mishnah from Ketubot, a woman takes a vow that anything she produces, meaning the profit of her work, should be forbidden to her husband. Such a statement is against the marriage contract, in which she is obliged to turn over her handiwork to him. Thus, the first opinion rules that the husband need not annul the vow. The vow has no validity to begin with. But R. Akiva allows the vow to stand, lest she produce for him more than she is obligated to do. This is a case of a person dedicating ( konam is a dedication statement) something that does not yet exist her handiwork has not yet been made. So why didn t Abaye include R. Akiva on the list.
האיתמר עלה אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע באומרת יקדשו ידי לעושיהם וידים איתנהו בעולם
Was it not stated on this, R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: When she said, Let my hands be sanctified to their Maker, and her hands are in existence?
R. Huna said on this mishnah that the woman did not dedicate her future earnings. A person cannot, in his opinion, dedicate something not yet in the world. Rather, she dedicated her hands, which are in the world. Anything they make will be forbidden to her husband (should this vow stand). Thus R. Akiva is not on Abaye s list.