Kiddushin 41b (מא:) — the Talmud in English

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

reduced

from the owner’s grain heap

ten,

meaning that he separated one fortieth instead of one fiftieth,

or added

to the owner’s grain heap

ten,

meaning that he separated only one sixtieth, then

his teruma

the agent’s

is teruma, because he can say to the owner of the heap: “This is how I assessed you.”

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 grain heap appoints 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 might say that

agency in teruma is derived

for teruma

from divorce,

which was expanded to include agency through the expression “and he sends her”? This cannot be said, for it can be challenged:

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

that is, it is non-sacred; can you say the same 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.” It should have said: “So shall

you raise,”

you,

but it says

“you also”,

in order

to include the agent.

And we object:

And

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

let the Merciful One write

the law of agency only

with regard to teruma, and let these others come

—divorce and betrothal—

and be derived from it

[and be learned from teruma], and let the Torah not say “and he sends her” to include agency in divorce, from which betrothal is then derived through the juxtaposition “she leaves and becomes”! And we answer:

Because it can be challenged

[one can respond]: What is true of teruma

is that it can be

separated

through thought

alone.

The Gemara adds an explanation,

and this that we learned,

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

A group –

that had registered for a lamb as a Pesaḥ offering –

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

from among them:

Go and search

for the lost lamb,

and slaughter it on our behalf. 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 as his Pesaḥ offering],

and

also

they –

the other members of the group –

eat with him,

that is, from his Pesaḥ offering, whereas their offering is invalid, since the Pesaḥ offering had already been slaughtered on their behalf by their agent.

We have therefore learned that agency applies to the slaughter of offerings, and this

from where do we derive it?

And if you would say,

perhaps you would say:

that he derives

the law of agency for the slaughter of offerings

from these

these –

divorce, betrothal, and even teruma –

for they have the status of ordinary matters in relation to offerings,

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

And we explain: The law of agency in the slaughter of offerings

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

From where is it that a person’s agent is like himself,

because

it is stated

with regard to the Pesaḥ offering: “

And they shall slaughter it—the entire congregation of the assembly of Israel—in the afternoon.”

But does the entire congregation slaughter,

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

when surely only one slaughters it!?

Rather, from here: A person’s agent is like himself.

We have therefore learned agency with regard to the slaughter of offerings.

And we challenge this: Since we have learned the law of agency in the slaughter of offerings from “and they shall slaughter it,” then

let the Merciful One write

the law of agency only

with regard to offerings, and let us bring these

– divorce, betrothal, and teruma –

and derive them from it [

and learn them from offerings]!?

And we answer:

Because it could be refuted: What is distinctive about offerings? Most of their procedures are performed through an agent,

as all the service of offering them is performed by priests, who are agents.

We nevertheless challenge this: 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 slaughter of offerings? For although

one cannot be derived from one [

one cannot learn one from the other], as explained, nevertheless

one can be derived from two [

one can be learned from the two together by a common factor]. That is, let the Torah write the law of agency in two of these laws, and let the remaining one be learned from both of them together!?

The Gemara discusses the challenge:

Which one can be derived [

which one need the Torah not write, because it can be learned from the other two]!?

Let us say:

Let the Merciful One not write

agency

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

and let it be learned from divorce and teruma]. This can be refuted:

What is distinctive about these

– divorce and teruma –

that they have the status of ordinary matters in relation to 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 offerings]. This can be refuted:

What is distinctive about these

– teruma and offerings –

that they apply through thought,

for even one who consecrates an ox as a burnt offering through his thought has rendered it consecrated, even though he did not consecrate it verbally.

Rather,

the Gemara formulates the challenge as follows:

Let the Merciful One not write

agency

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

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

And because of this challenge, the Gemara retracts and says: No,

indeed so,

there is no need for a special inclusion to teach agency with regard to teruma, because it can be learned from divorce and offerings.

And if you would say:

But then “

you also

also you—for what 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

in accordance with Rabbi Yannai! For Rabbi Yannai said:

For this reason the Torah stated: “

also you,”

in order to teach:

Just as you are members of the covenant [

Israel],

so too your agents are members of the covenant,

excluding a gentile agent.

And we wonder:

This –

that a gentile cannot be an agent for teruma –

why do I need a verse

to teach it? Surely it can be derived logically,

from Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan!?

For Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

A slave cannot be an agent

for a woman

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

And from this we can learn that a gentile cannot be an agent for teruma, since he is not included in the laws of teruma; why, then, do I need the inclusion “also you” 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 a

slave

with regard to divorce,

who is not at all one capable of authorization, [

he is not at all within the sphere of the permitted status of divorce], since he cannot perform betrothal, in that case it is indeed logical that he cannot be an agent –

But a gentile –

although he is not obligated to separate teruma, nevertheless

since he does have a connection to his own teruma,

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 has a connection to teruma,

say: An agent can also act [

he can appoint an agent to separate his teruma], and likewise he can be appointed an agent by an Israelite to separate teruma from the Israelite’s produce.

Therefore

it teaches us

and

we nevertheless challenge this:

according to Rabbi Shimon, who exempts

one who inadvertently eats the teruma of a gentile from payment of the principal and an additional fifth, as is the law with one who eats the teruma of an Israelite, and

as we learned:

The teruma of a gentile renders other produce impure,

if this teruma fell into non-sacred produce, it forbids that produce when it is not present in a quantity subject to nullification, namely, one part in one hundred,

and one is liable for it

an additional

fifth,

as is the law with one who inadvertently eats teruma, who pays the principal and an additional fifth.

But Rabbi Shimon exempts –

if so, according to his opinion it is difficult: “

You also”

for what do I need it,

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 could be learned from divorce and offerings, because had Scripture not stated it,

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

a.

You

shall separate teruma from your produce,

but not

the

sharecroppers [

workers who receive half, a third, or a quarter of the produce as their wages] shall separate teruma from the portion of the owner of the grain heap, unless the owner of the grain heap appointed him as an agent.

b.

You

shall separate teruma,

but not partners,

that is, one partner cannot separate teruma from the portion of the other partner unless the other partner appointed him as an agent.

c.

You

shall separate teruma,

but not a trustee,

who may not separate teruma from the grain heap of orphans.

And why is all this so? Because

you

shall separate the teruma of the Lord, said the Merciful One,

but not one who separates teruma from that which is not his,

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

And if so,

say [

I would say] that the Torah came to exclude: “

You, but not your agents”

as well,

and we would not learn it from divorce and offerings –

therefore it teaches us

the verse “you also,” that agency applies to teruma.

Here the Gemara returns to what was stated above, that agency in the slaughter of offerings is learned, according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, from “and they shall slaughter it—the entire congregation of the assembly of the children of Israel—in the afternoon”; and it challenges:

This works out well according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,

for indeed agency in the slaughter of 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 derive

that agency applies to the slaughter of offerings!?

And

as it was taught

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