Kiddushin

one [R. Judah] departed to death, and the other [the slave] departed [from his former master] to life.1 Others maintain, He was a minor, and this was not in accordance with Abba Saul. 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.2 Abba Saul said: Adults acquire their freedom, but as for minors, whoever takes possession of them [even afterwards] gains a title to them.3 AND REACQUIRES HIMSELF BY MONEY etc. . . . BY MONEY ONLY THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS, but not through his own. What are the circumstances? 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;4 and we learned: One may obtain a privilege for a person in his absence, but cannot so act to his disadvantage.5 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.6 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? 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 simultaneously7 — 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. Yet money is different: since he [the master] may acquire him [the slave] against his will, he can liberate him8 against his will. If so, the same applies to deed? — This deed is separate and that deed is separate.9 But here too, this money is separate and that money is separate?10 — The impress is nevertheless the same.11 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.12 THE SAGES MAINTAIN: BY MONEY THROUGH HIS OWN AGENCY. Only through his own agency, but not through the agency of others? 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. 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. — 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?13 And should you answer, what is the meaning of, THROUGH THE AGENCY OF OTHERS? 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.14 Thus there are three differing opinions in the matter.15 Rabbah said: What is R. Simeon b. Eleazar's reason? — He learns the meaning of ‘lah’ [to her] here from a [married] woman:16 just as a woman [is not freed] until she withdraws the divorce into a domain that is not his [her husband's],17 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: 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. with a heathen bondmaid: this too will now be forbidden. — These are the reasons given in Git.11b. acceptance would be just as though his master held it, and he would not be free. apply. is unnecessary. But deed is accepted by others on the slave's behalf; therefore his consent is required. 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. write (to) her (lah) a bill of divorcement; Deut. XXIV, 1.