## Kiddushin Daf 23b

###### Kiddushin 23b:1
[Kiddushin 23b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:1)

לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר, עֶבֶד כְּנַעֲנִי מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְקַבֵּל גִּיטּוֹ מִיָּד רַבּוֹ? כֵּיוָן דְּגָמַר ״לָהּ״ ״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה, כְּאִשָּׁה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**According to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar,** in the case of **a Canaanite slave, what is** the *halakha* with regard to the possibility **that** a slave **can appoint an agent to accept his bill** of manumission **from the hand of his master?** Does one say that **since** Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar **derives** the verbal analogy of **“*lah*”** and **“*lah*” from a woman,** which teaches that a slave can be freed with a document, therefore, a slave is also **like a woman** in that he too can appoint an agent?


###### Kiddushin 23b:2
[Kiddushin 23b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:2)

אוֹ דִילְמָא אִשָּׁה דְּאִיהִי מָצֵי מְקַבֶּלֶת גִּיטָּהּ – שָׁלִיחַ נָמֵי מָצֵי מְשַׁוְּיָא. עֶבֶד דְּאִיהוּ לָא מְקַבֵּל גִּיטֵּיהּ – שָׁלִיחַ נָמֵי לָא מָצֵי מְשַׁוֵּי. בָּתַר דְּבַעְיָא הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ: ״לָהּ״ ״לָהּ״ מֵאִשָּׁה, כְּאִשָּׁה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps,** in the case of **a woman, as she can accept her bill of divorce** herself, **she can also appoint an agent,** whereas **a slave** is different, **as he cannot accept his bill** of manumission himself, and consequently **he cannot appoint an agent either. After raising the dilemma,** Rabba **subsequently resolved it:** Since Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar derives the verbal analogy of **“*lah*”** and **“*lah*” from a woman,** a slave is also treated **like a woman** with regard to his ability to appoint an agent.


###### Kiddushin 23b:3
[Kiddushin 23b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:3)

וְאֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי שְׁלוּחֵי דְרַחֲמָנָא נִינְהוּ. דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ שְׁלוּחֵי דִידַן נִינְהוּ, מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דַּאֲנַן לָא מָצֵינַן עָבְדִינַן וְאִינְהוּ מָצֵי עָבְדִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But** consider **that which Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says** with regard to the service in the Temple: **These priests are the agents of the Merciful One,** i.e., they perform the Temple service as the emissaries of God. **As if it enters your mind** that **they are our agents, is there anything that we cannot do but** agents **can do** on our behalf? Since it is prohibited for non-priests to serve in the Temple, priests cannot be considered the agents of the Jewish people.


###### Kiddushin 23b:4
[Kiddushin 23b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:4)

וְלָא?! וְהָא עַבְדָּא, דְּאִיהוּ לָא מָצֵי מְקַבֵּל גִּיטֵּיהּ וּשְׁלִיחַ מָצֵי מְשַׁוֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This statement leads to the following question: **But** is it **not** true that an agent can be appointed to perform a task that cannot be done by the one who sent him? **But** according to Rava’s conclusion there is the case of **a slave, who is unable to accept his bill** of manumission **himself, and** yet **he can appoint an agent** to receive it for him.


###### Kiddushin 23b:5
[Kiddushin 23b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:5)

וְלָא הִיא, יִשְׂרָאֵל לָא שָׁיְכִי בְּתוֹרַת קׇרְבָּנוֹת כְּלָל, עֶבֶד שָׁיֵיךְ בְּגִיטִּין. דְּתַנְיָא: נִרְאִין הַדְּבָרִים שֶׁהָעֶבֶד מְקַבֵּל גִּיטּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ מִיַּד רַבּוֹ שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, אֲבָל לֹא מִיַּד רַבּוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: **And** that **is not so.** The difference between the cases is that **an Israelite is not involved in the *halakhot* of offerings at all,** as a non-priest is never permitted to sacrifice offerings. By contrast, **a slave is** somewhat **involved in bills** of manumission, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **It seems that a slave can accept the bill** of manumission **of another** slave **from the hand of the master of** that **other** slave. **But** he **cannot** accept a bill of manumission **from the hand of his own master,** who wishes to free another of his slaves. In this case there is no acquisition, as the document has not left the master’s property, as anything given to a slave is considered the property of his master. With regard to the issue at hand, since a slave can accept a bill of manumission, at least on behalf of another slave, the *halakhot* of these documents are relevant to him, and therefore he can appoint an agent to receive his bill of manumission.


###### Kiddushin 23b:6
[Kiddushin 23b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:6)

וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא הַכֶּסֶף מִשֶּׁל אֲחֵרִים. נֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי: דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: אֵין קִנְיָן לְעֶבֶד בְּלֹא רַבּוֹ, וְאֵין קִנְיָן לְאִשָּׁה בְּלֹא בַּעְלָהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: יֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְעֶבֶד בְּלֹא רַבּוֹ, וְיֵשׁ קִנְיָן לְאִשָּׁה בְּלֹא בַּעְלָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that according to Rabbi Meir the slave can be freed by means of money given by others, while the Rabbis hold that he can be freed by means of money given by himself, **provided that the money** he gives **belongs to others.** The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say** that **they disagree with regard to this** principle, and **that Rabbi Meir maintains: There is no acquisition for a slave without his master,** i.e., a slave has no personal property and therefore his master immediately owns whatever the slave acquires, which means a slave cannot receive his redemption money himself. **And** similarly **there is no acquisition for a woman without her husband. And the Rabbis maintain: There is acquisition for a slave without his master, and there is acquisition for a woman without her husband.**


###### Kiddushin 23b:7
[Kiddushin 23b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:7)

אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא אֵין קִנְיָן לְעֶבֶד בְּלֹא רַבּוֹ, וְאֵין קִנְיָן לְאִשָּׁה בְּלֹא בַּעְלָהּ. וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, דְּאַקְנִי לֵיהּ אַחֵר מָנֶה, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לְרַבָּךְ רְשׁוּת בּוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said** that **Rav Sheshet said: Everyone agrees** that **there is no acquisition for a slave without his master, and there is no acquisition for a woman without her husband, and** so, **with what are we dealing here?** This is a unique case in **which another** individual **transferred one hundred dinars to** a slave **and said to him:** I am giving this to you **on the condition that your master has no rights to it.**


###### Kiddushin 23b:8
[Kiddushin 23b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:8)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כִּי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״קְנִי״ – קָנֵי עֶבֶד וְקָנֵי רַבֵּיהּ. וְכִי אָמַר לֵיהּ ״עַל מְנָת״ – לֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ ״עַל מְנָת״ – אַהֲנִי לֵיהּ תְּנָאֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies the two opinions according to this explanation. **Rabbi Meir maintains** that **when** this third party **said to** the Canaanite slave: **Acquire** the money, the **slave acquires** it and **his master** immediately **acquires** it. **And when he said to him: On the condition** that your master has no rights to it, **he has said nothing to him,** i.e., his condition is ineffective. **And the Rabbis maintain** that **since he said to him: On the condition, his condition is effective** and the master does not acquire the money. Therefore, the slave owns this money, with which he can redeem himself.


###### Kiddushin 23b:9
[Kiddushin 23b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:9)

וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר: כֹּל כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּקָנֵי עֶבֶד וְקָנֵי רַבֵּיהּ, וְהָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דְּאַקְנִי לֵיהּ אַחֵר מָנֶה וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּצֵא בּוֹ לְחֵירוּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Elazar said:** In **a case like this, everyone agrees that** the **slave acquires** the money, **and his master** automatically **acquires** that which was acquired by the slave. **And with what are we dealing here,** in the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Meir? This is referring to a case **where another** person **transferred one hundred dinars to him and said to him: On the condition that you are emancipated with it.**


###### Kiddushin 23b:10
[Kiddushin 23b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:10)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר סָבַר: כִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״קְנִי״ – קָנֵי עֶבֶד וְקָנֵי רַבֵּיהּ. וְכִי אֲמַר לֵיהּ ״עַל מְנָת״ – לֹא כְּלוּם קָאָמַר לֵיהּ. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: לְדִידֵיהּ נָמֵי הָא לָא קָא מַקְנֵי לֵיהּ, דְּהָא לָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֶלָּא ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֵּצֵא בּוֹ לְחֵירוּת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the dispute according to this interpretation. **Rabbi Meir maintains** that **when he said to him: Acquire** the money, the **slave acquires** it, **and his master** immediately **acquires** the one hundred dinars from him. **And when he said to him: On the condition, he has said nothing to him. And the Rabbis maintain: He** does **not transfer** the money **to** the slave himself, **as he said to him only: On the condition that you are emancipated with it.** In other words, he gave it to the slave only for him to hand over the money to his master for his emancipation. His condition is valid and the slave is emancipated.


###### Kiddushin 23b:11
[Kiddushin 23b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/23b:11)

וּרְמִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וּרְמִי דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between one statement **of Rabbi Meir and** a second statement **of Rabbi Meir, and** it **raises a contradiction between** one statement of **the Rabbis** and a second statement of **the Rabbis. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: