Kiddushin

his words are null.1 If he says to his female slave, ‘Thou art permitted to all men,’ his words are [likewise] null.2 [But] what if he says to his wife, ‘Behold, thou art for thyself,’ do we say, he meant it in respect of labour; or perhaps he meant it absolutely?3 — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Come and hear: For we learnt: The essential part of a deed of manumission is, ‘Behold, thou art a free man,’ ‘Behold, thou art for thyself.’ Now if a heathen4 slave, whose body belongs to him [his master], yet when he says to him, ‘Behold, thou art for thyself,’ he means it absolutely; how much more so in the case of a wife, who does not belong bodily to him. Rabina asked R. Ashi: What if he says to his slave, ‘I have no concern with you’? Do we say, he means, ‘I have absolutely no concern with you;’5 or perhaps he says it to him in reference to work? — R. Nahman observed to R. Ashi-others state, R. Huna of Hoza'ah6 to R. Ashi: Come and hear: If one sells his [heathen] slave to a heathen, he is emancipated,7 and requires a deed of manumission from his first master.8 Said R. Simeon b. R. Gamaliel: When does this hold good? If he [the vendor] did not make out for him an oni;9 but if he did, that is his [deed of] emancipation.10 What is meant by ‘oni’? — Said R. Shesheth: If he wrote for him, ‘When you escape from him [the heathen buyer], I have no concern with you.’11 Abaye said: If a man betroths [a woman] with a debt,12 she is not betrothed;13 with the benefit of a debt,14 she is betrothed; yet this may not be done, as it constitutes an evasion of usury.15 This ‘benefit of a debt,’ how is it meant? Shall we say, that he fixed [the interest] as a loan, he having said, [I am lending you] four [zuz] for five.16 — but that is real usury!17 Moreover, it is, in point of fact, a debt!18 — This holds good only if he extended the term [for repayment].19 Raba said: [If he says,] ‘Take this maneh20 on condition that you return it to me,’ — in respect to purchase, he acquires no title;21 in the case of a woman,22 she is not betrothed; in the matter of a redemption of the firstborn,23 the firstborn is not redeemed: in respect of terumah,24 he fulfils the duty of ‘giving’, yet it is forbidden to act thus, as it looks like a priest who assists in the threshing floor.25 What is Raba's opinion: if he holds that a gift on condition that it be returned is a valid gift, then even the others too [are valid]; whilst if he holds that it is not a valid gift, then even in the case of terumah it is not [valid]? Furthermore, It was Raba who ruled: A gift on condition that it is returned is valid. For Raba said: [If one says to another,] ‘Here you have this citron, on condition that you return it to me,’ if [the other] takes and [then] returns it, he fulfils his duty; if not, he does not fulfil [it]!26 — But said R. Ashi: in the case of all it [the conditional gift] is valid, with the exception in that of a woman, because a woman cannot be acquired by barter.27 R. Huna Mar, son of R. Nehemiah, said to R. Ashi: We teach in Raba's name even as you [have stated]. Raba said: [If a woman says,] ‘Give a maneh to So-and-so, incumbent on women. The master who sold him to a Gentile, thus freeing him from that obligation, was punished by being forced to buy him back, even at a greatly enhanced price, and the slave then became free. passed into her possession before then. given money to a third party, or to myself, to persuade me to this extension; hence by this extension I, on my own accord, am saving you this expenditure and thus confer a financial benefit upon you here and now, and by that benefit I betroth you.’ Similarly, if he remits the entire debt and says to her, ‘I betroth you by the benefit that has now accrued to you by this remission,’ his declaration is valid. But when he betroths her with money owing, he is offering a past benefit, hence the betrothal is invalid. R. Tam: If a woman owes money, and a third party gives the creditor a sum of money for an extension, and betroths her with that benefit which he has conferred upon her, for which he has actually given something. priest should not receive terumah. Now, if a priest accepts terumah on this condition, he offers an inducement to the Israelite to give it to him in the future too, and therefore Raba forbade the practice, though valid if done. goodly trees (interpreted by the Rabbis as referring to the citron), branches of palm trees etc. The Rabbis ruled that this ‘taking’ requires one's own fruit, and to this Raba alludes. If the recipient carries out the stipulation, it was his for the period of ‘taking’, and so he fulfils his duty; otherwise, it was not his even then, and his duty is not fulfilled. Thus Raba holds a conditional gift valid. looks like barter.