Imagine someone suggests a very unusual futures trade: he will pay a certain amount to the owner of the slave, betting that this slave will be gored by an ox. He will pay some amount now, and if this slave is indeed gored, then the penalty of thirty shekels, which the master would receive, will instead go to the trader. Is such a trade valid?
On the one hand, even Rabbi Meir, who validates buying next year's fruit of a tree, may disagree here: the tree is sure to bring fruit, but the slave might not be gored, and even if he is gored – there is a rule that if the owner of the ox admits his guilt, he does not pay the penalty.
On the other hand, even the Sages who disagree with Rabbi Meir and who invalidate the sale of the following year's fruit may say that the slave's future trade is valid: after all, the slave is here, and the ox is also here, but the fruit is not. The question remains unanswered.
Another question: Is this valid if a man who is half-slave and half-free betroths a woman? If a man betroths half of a woman, it is invalid because he left the other half free, and a wife needs to be acquired wholly. However, this slave does not leave out anything – so maybe this is valid. Consider an earlier rule of a half-slave who was gored and whose payment went to his heirs. If he has heirs, he must have a wife! So his betrothal must be valid!? – Not necessarily; maybe the teacher wanted to say, "Should go to his heirs, but he has none."
Incidentally, one who betroths a half-slave and half-free woman indeed acquires her as a wife because he wants the whole woman and does not leave any part of her.
Art: Unequal Marriage by Vasiliy Pukirev
No comments:
Post a Comment