Kiddushin 41b — the Talmud in English

And if the agent did not know the owner’s mindset, and

deducted

from the owner’s heap

ten,

that is: he separated one fortieth instead of one fiftieth,

or added

to the owner’s heap

ten,

that is: he separated only one sixtieth, then

his teruma

of the agent

is teruma, because he can say to the owner of the heap: “I assessed you as being this way.”

is valid, because he can say to the owner of the grain heap: “I assessed you as being like this.”

Thus we have learned that the owner of the heap makes an agent to separate teruma, and this

from where do we derive it [

from where is it learned]?

And if you would say,

perhaps you will say

it is learned

agency in teruma

from divorce,

which was extended by “and he sends her” to agency? This cannot be said, for it can be refuted:

What is true of divorce is that it is non-sacred,

that is: it is non-sacred; can you say this of teruma, which is sacred?

And we explain: agency in teruma is learned from what

the verse says: “So shall you also raise the teruma of the Lord,” and it should have said: “So shall

you raise,”

you,

but it said

“also you,”

in order

to include the agent.

And we raise an objection:

And

since we learned agency in teruma from “also you,” then

let the Merciful One write

the law of agency only

in teruma, and let these

— divorce and betrothal —

be derived from it [

and be learned from teruma], and the Torah need not say “and he sends her” to include agency in divorce, with betrothal learned from it through the comparison “she leaves and becomes”!? And we answer:

because it can be refuted [

there is an objection]: What is true of teruma

is that it exists

for its separation

through thought

alone.

The Gemara adds to explain,

and this that we learned that a person makes an agent for the slaughtering of sacred offerings, as we learned in tractate Pesachim:

that a person appoints an agent to slaughter offerings, as we learned in tractate Pesaḥim:

A group—

that had registered for a lamb for the Paschal offering—

whose Paschal offering was lost, and they said to one of them

from their number:

Go out and search for

the lost lamb,

and slaughter it for us; and he went and found

the lamb

and slaughtered it, and

also

they—

the other members of the group—

took

another lamb

and slaughtered it

for themselves, this is their law:

If his was slaughtered first,

then

he eats from his own [

from the lamb that he slaughtered for his Paschal offering],

and

also

they—

the other members of the group—

eat with him,

that is, from his Paschal offering, whereas theirs is invalid, for the Paschal offering had already been slaughtered on their behalf by their agent.

We have thus learned that there is agency for the slaughtering of sacred offerings, and this

from where do we know it?

А если ты скажешь,

And should you say,

that he derives

the law of agency for the slaughtering of sacred offerings

from these [

from these, namely, divorce, betrothal, and teruma]?

This cannot be said, for one may answer:

What is true of these—

divorce, betrothal, and even teruma—

for they are ordinary in relation to sacred offerings,

that is, in comparison with sacred offerings, these important matters are considered ordinary, and one cannot derive the law for sacred offerings even from teruma.

And we explain: the law of agency in the slaughtering of sacred offerings

is derived from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha! For Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha said:

From where is it [known] that a person’s agent is like him,

because

it is stated

concerning the Paschal offering: “

And they shall slaughter it, the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel, between the evenings”;

do all the members of the congregation slaughter,

until Scripture says: “And they shall slaughter it, the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel,”

yet does not only one slaughter!?

Rather, from here: a person’s agent is like him.

We have thus learned agency with regard to the slaughtering of sacred offerings.

And we object: since we learned the law of agency in the slaughtering of sacred offerings from “and they shall slaughter it,” then

let the Merciful One write

the law of agency only

with regard to sacred offerings, and let us bring these—

divorce, betrothal, and teruma—

and derive them from it [

and let them be learned from sacred offerings]!?

And we answer:

because there is room to refute: What is true of sacred offerings, for most of their procedures are performed by an agent,

all their sacrificial service being performed by priests who are agents.

And we still object: Why did Scripture need to write the law of agency both with regard to divorce and betrothal, and with regard to teruma, and with regard to the slaughtering of sacred offerings!? For although

one cannot be derived from one [

one cannot be learned from the other], as was explained, nevertheless

one can be derived from two [

one can be learned from the two together by a common denominator], that is, let the Torah write the law of agency with regard to two of these laws, and let the remaining one be learned from both of them together!?

And the Gemara conducts a give-and-take in explaining the objection:

which one can be derived [

which one should the Torah not write, and we will learn it from the other two]!?

Let us say:

let the Merciful One not write

agency

with regard to sacred offerings, and let it be derived from these [

and let it be learned from divorce and teruma]. One may answer:

What is true of these—

divorce and teruma—

for they are ordinary in relation to sacred offerings.

Let us say:

let the Merciful One not write

agency

with regard to divorce, and let

divorce and betrothal

be derived from these [

from teruma and sacred offerings]. One may answer:

What is true of these—

teruma and sacred offerings—

for they exist through thought,

for even one who designates an ox as a burnt offering in his thought, it becomes sacred, although he did not designate it through speech.

Rather,

the Gemara explains the objection:

let the Merciful One not write

agency

with regard to teruma, and let it be derived from these [

from divorce and sacred offerings], and why did the Torah need to write “also you” to include an agent for teruma!?

And because of this objection the Gemara retracts and says: It is true,

indeed so, that no special inclusion is needed to teach agency with regard to teruma, since it can be learned from divorce and sacred offerings.

And if you will say:

“And then

rather, ‘

you also’

why do I need it!?”

since the Torah did not need to teach us agency with regard to teruma.

The answer is:

it is needed—for “

you also” —

to

teach

as Rabbi Yannai! For Rabbi Yannai said:

for this reason the Torah said: “

also you,”

in order to teach:

just as you are members of the covenant [

Israel],

so too your agents are members of the covenant,

to exclude a gentile agent.

And we are astonished:

this—

that a gentile does not become an agent for teruma—

why do I need a verse

to teach it, when it can be learned logically,

from Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan!?

For Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

A slave does not become an agent

of a woman

to receive a bill of divorce from the husband of the woman, because he is not included in the law of bills of divorce and betrothal!?

And from this we can learn that a gentile does not become an agent for teruma, since he is not included in the law of teruma; why then do I need the inclusion of “also you” in order to teach this law!?

And we answer: nevertheless,

it was necessary

for Scripture to exclude a gentile agent from the separation of teruma, because

it might enter your mind to say:

Only an

slave

with regard to divorce,

who is not at all one capable of permission, [

he is not at all within the sphere of divorce’s permission], since he has no betrothal; in this, indeed, it is logical that he does not become an agent—

but a gentile—

although he is not obligated in the separation of teruma, nevertheless

since he is included in teruma concerning his own produce,

that is, he can separate teruma from his own produce, and

as we learned: A gentile and a Samaritan who separated teruma

from their own produce,

their teruma is teruma—

And if so, since a gentile too has relevance to teruma,

say: an agent can also perform it [

he can appoint an agent for separating his teruma], and he can likewise become an agent for an Israelite to separate teruma from the Israelite’s grain heap.

Therefore

it teaches us

the verse “you also,” that a gentile neither appoints nor becomes an agent for the separation of teruma.

And

we still object:

according to Rabbi Shimon, who exempts

one who unwittingly eats teruma belonging to a gentile from payment of the principal and the fifth, as he would be liable for eating teruma belonging to an Israelite, and

as we learned:

Teruma of a gentile renders [produce] mixed,

if this teruma fell into ordinary produce, it forbids the ordinary produce when it does not contain the measure required for nullification, which is one in one hundred,

and they are liable for it

an additional

fifth,

as in the case of one who unwittingly eats teruma, who pays the principal and the fifth.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts—

if so, according to his method there is a difficulty: “‘

you also’

why do I need it,” since it is not needed for the essential law of agency, for this can be learned from divorce and sacred offerings, and it is not needed even to teach us that a gentile does not become an agent to separate teruma, since this can be learned logically, because a gentile has no relevance to teruma at all, and anyone who is not included in the law of teruma does not become an agent for teruma!?

since it is not needed for the basic law of agency, as that can be learned from divorce and offerings, and it is not needed to teach us that a gentile cannot be an agent to separate teruma either, since this can be learned logically, because teruma has no application to a gentile at all, and anyone who is not included in the laws of teruma cannot be an agent for teruma!?

And we answer:

it was necessary, “‘you also’”—to include agency with regard to teruma, and although it can be learned from divorce and sacred offerings, for if Scripture had not written it,

it might enter your mind to say: since the Master said:

“So shall you also raise the teruma of the Lord”; and we learned:

a.

You

shall raise teruma from your grain heaps,

but not

the

sharecroppers [

laborers who take as their wage one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce] shall raise teruma from the portion of the owner of the grain heap, unless the owner of the grain heap made him an agent.

b.

You

shall raise teruma,

but not partners,

that is, one of the partners cannot raise teruma from the portion of the other partner unless the other partner made him an agent.

c.

You

shall raise teruma,

but not a guardian

shall raise teruma from the grain heap of orphans.

And why all this? Because “

you

shall raise, raise the teruma of the Lord,” said the Merciful One,

and not one who raises teruma from that which is not his,

and all these raise teruma from a grain heap that is not theirs—

and all these separate teruma from a grain heap that is not theirs –

And if so,

say [

I would say] that Scripture came to exclude: “

you, but not your agents”

also, and we would not learn it from divorce and sacred offerings—

therefore

it teaches us

the verse “you also,” that there is agency with regard to teruma.

Here the Gemara returns to what was said above, that agency in the slaughtering of sacred offerings is learned according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha from “and they shall slaughter it, the entire congregation of the assembly of the children of Israel, between the evenings”; and we object:

This works well according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korha,

for indeed agency in the slaughtering of sacred offerings can be learned from “and they shall slaughter it”—

But according to Rabbi Yonatan, who derives this verse for another exposition [

who learns another law from “and they shall slaughter it”],

from where do we know

that there is agency in the slaughtering of sacred offerings!?

And

as it was taught

that according to Rabbi Yonatan the verse “and they shall slaughter it” comes to teach another law:

that according to Rabbi Yonatan, the verse “and they shall slaughter it” comes to teach another law: