Kiddushin

According to R. Simeon b. Eleazar,1 can a heathen slave appoint an agent to receive his deed of emancipation from his master:2 since he deduces ‘lah’, ‘lah’, from a [married] woman, he [the slave] is as a married woman:3 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, cannot4 appoint an agent either! After propounding, he solved it himself: We deduce ‘lah’, ‘lah’, from a [married] woman, [hence] he is as a married woman. If so, when R. Huna son of R. Joshua said: These priests are agents of the All-Merciful One, for should you think they are ours, is there aught which we ourselves may not do while they may do [it on our behalf]?5 — is there not? What of a slave, who cannot accept his deed of manumission himself, can yet appoint an agent? — But that [analogy] is fallacious: an Israelite has no connection with the laws of sacrifices at all;6 whereas a slave has a connection with deeds of manumission. For it was taught: It appears correct that a slave can accept his companion's deed from his companion's master, but not from his own.7 PROVIDING THAT THE MONEY IS FURNISHED BY OTHERS. Shall we say that they differ in this: R. Meir holds, A slave has no powers of acquisition distinct from his master, nor a wife distinct from her husband; whereas the Rabbis maintain, A slave can acquire independently of his master and a wife of her husband? — Said Rabbah in R. Shesheth's name: All hold that a slave cannot acquire independently of his master, nor a wife of her husband. But the circumstances are here that a stranger gave him8 a maneh, saying, ‘On condition that your master has no right to it.’ R. Meir maintains, When he says to him, ‘Acquire [it,]’ the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master; and when he says to him, ‘on condition [etc.],’ he says nothing.9 Whereas the Rabbis hold, Since he stipulates, ‘on condition,’ the stipulation is effective.10 But R. Eleazar said: In such a case all agree that the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master. But the circumstances are here that a stranger gave him a maneh, saying: ‘On condition that you obtain your freedom therewith.’ R. Meir holds that when he says to him, ‘Acquire [it],’ the slave acquires it and [ipso facto] his master; when he says: ‘on condition,’ he says nothing. Whereas the Rabbis maintain, He did not give possession of it [even] to him [the slave], since he said to him, ‘Only on condition that you gain your freedom therewith.’ Now, R. Meir is self contradictory, and the Rabbis likewise. For it was taught: however, may be only if the slave does not explicitly appoint him his agent, but if he does, he becomes legally as himself, and just as he himself cannot accept the deed, his agent cannot either. (ii) When another person accepts it on his behalf, must he be his agent, just as the person who accepts a woman's divorce on her behalf must be distinctly appointed by her for that purpose? If so, on the view that it is to the slave's advantage to be freed, the agency is tacitly assumed: while if we hold that it is to his disadvantage, he must be expressly appointed. Or possibly, he does not act in the character of an agent at all, since the slave himself could not have accepted it. In that case, not only is an express appointment unnecessary, but even if the slave actually protests against it, his protest is unavailing. God's? The practical difference is where an Israelite vows to derive no benefit from a certain priest: on the first alternative, the priest may not offer his sacrifices for him; on the second, he may.