Kiddushin 42a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yonatan says: From where [do we know] that all Israel all of them emerge ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

with one

Passover offering alone, even though there is not an olive-bulk for each and every one? — Because

it is stated: “

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

but does the entire congregation all slaughter, when in fact only one slaughters?

Rather, from here [we learn] that all Israel emerge with one Passover offering.

And if so, this is difficult:

From where does he derive that an agent applies to sacred matters?

And we answer:

From it!

From this very verse, “And they shall slaughter it,” one can learn that agency applies to the slaughter of sacred offerings, for this Passover offering, which all Israel brought, is not slaughtered by all of them; rather, one slaughters it as the agent of all of them. Thus, agency applies to the slaughter of sacred offerings. The Gemara rejects this inference:

Perhaps

there it is different—

in the Passover offering of all Israel—

for he has

an agent

a partnership among them [

he is a partner with the senders in that Passover offering], and therefore he becomes an agent for all of them. But as for an agent who is not a partner, from where [do we know] that he becomes an agent for the slaughter of sacred offerings!?

Rather,

According to Rabbi Yonatan,

from here

agency in sacred matters is learned: It is stated regarding the Passover offering: “

And they shall take for themselves, each man, a lamb for the fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household.”

You have thus learned from the wording of the verse, “And they shall take for themselves, each man,” that one man takes for the entire family; agency therefore applies to sacred matters. The Gemara raises an objection:

But perhaps there too

he becomes an agent because

he has a partnership among them,

since he takes for himself and for those who sent him in partnership!?

The Gemara explains:

If so—

The Gemara explains:

If so—that he becomes an agent only because he has a partnership—

why do I need two verses [“And they shall slaughter it” and “And they shall take for themselves, each man, a lamb for the fathers’ houses”]

!?

That is, if the verse “And they shall take for themselves” came only to teach agency when he has a partnership, we have already learned this from “And they shall slaughter it.” Necessarily,

if it does not—the verse “And they shall take for themselves”

—

have an application to where it applies, namely, where the agent has a partnership in the matter,

the agent is also relevant to the matter, meaning that he has a partnership,

give it an application—the verse “And they shall take for themselves”—to teach agency

let the verse “and they shall take for themselves” teach agency

where it does not apply, where the agent has no partnership.

the agent is not relevant to the matter, because he has no partnership.

And still we ask: This

verse “And they shall take for themselves” is not superfluous, so that we could say, “if it has no application”; for

verse, “and they shall take for themselves,” is not superfluous, so that we could say, “if it is not relevant here.” For

it is needed

for this verse

for that of Rabbi Yitzhak!?

For Rabbi Yitzhak said:

The verse said “And they shall take for themselves, each man” in order to teach:

A man [

an adult]

acquires

the Passover offering for all of them,

but a minor does not acquire

the Passover offering for all of them. And it is still difficult: From where do we know agency in sacred matters!? If it is from this very verse, he has a partnership among them, and it is not superfluous to learn from it through “if it has no application.”

And we answer: “and they shall take for themselves, each man” is indeed superfluous, because

And we answer: “And they shall take for themselves, each man” is indeed superfluous, for

that—the law of Rabbi Yitzhak—

from “

Each man according to his eating shall you count yourselves

on the lamb” is

derived, since the verse says “a man” and not a minor. And still the verse “And they shall take for themselves, each man” is superfluous, to teach that agency applies to sacred matters even when he has no partnership among them.

from the verse stating “man,” but not a minor. The verse “and they shall take for themselves, each man” is still superfluous, and therefore it teaches that agency applies to sacrificial offerings even when the agent has no partnership in the offering.

And still

it is difficult: This

is needed for the verse “Each man according to his eating shall you count yourselves,” in order to teach

for the verse “each man according to his eating shall you register yourselves” to teach

that they slaughter the Passover offering for an individual, who has no group with him. If so, the verse “And they shall take for themselves, each man” is not superfluous, since it comes to teach that a minor does not acquire; and it is still difficult according to Rabbi Yonatan [who does not learn from “And they shall slaughter it”]: From where does agency in sacred matters come!?

who has no group with him. If so, the verse “and they shall take for themselves, each man” is not superfluous, since it teaches that a minor cannot acquire the offering. The difficulty therefore still applies to Rabbi Yonatan, who does not derive agency from “and they shall slaughter it”: From where does he derive agency with regard to sacrificial offerings!?

And we answer:

He holds—

Rabbi Yonatan—

like the one who says [Rabbi Yehuda]:

Rabbi Yehuda:

They do not slaughter the Passover offering for an individual.

If so, “Each man according to his eating shall you count yourselves” is superfluous, to teach that a minor does not acquire, and “And they shall take for themselves, each man” is superfluous, to teach that agency applies to sacred matters; for if it has no application to an agent who is a partner, give it an application to an agent who is not a partner.

And we ask:

But then, concerning that which Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: From where [do we know] that a person’s agent is like him, as it is stated

in the division of the land: “

And one prince, one prince from each tribe

you shall take to inherit the land”—

why does he need to learn the law of agency from that verse?

Let him derive agency from here,

from everything brought in our discussion!?

And we answer by way of astonishment:

And can you understand it so?

Do you really think

that this—

the division of the land through the princes—

is agency? But there were minors among those who inherited the land,

But there were minors among those who inherited the Land, and

and minors are not capable of agency,

so how can you say that the princes conferred the benefit upon them by the law of agency!?

Rather, certainly the verse “And one prince” does not come to teach the law of agency, but to teach

it is certainly the case that the verse “and one leader” does not come to teach the law of agency. Rather, it teaches

that which is like the statement of Rava bar Rav Huna

in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav!

For Rava bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav:

From where [do we know] that one may acquire something for a person without his presence [

without his knowledge],

as it is stated: “

And one prince, one prince

from each tribe you shall take to inherit the land,” and minors were there, and minors are considered as absent.

The Gemara still asks:

And we still ask:

And can you understand it so? Do you think that inheriting the land

is a benefit, so that you learn from there that “one may acquire for a person without his presence”—

but

there is also an obligation

there as well

in inheriting the land through the princes,

for

there

there is among those who inherited the land

among those who inherited the Land some

one who prefers a portion

in the mountain,

but does not prefer a portion

in the valley,

and there is [

and there are some]

who prefer the valley but do not prefer the mountain. Thus, the princes’ inheritance of the land was an obligation for them.

And

therefore we explain:

Rather, the verse “And one prince” does not come only to teach that “one may acquire for a person without his presence,” but to teach that one may acquire for minors even an obligation that comes on account of a benefit, such as the division of the land, which in its essence is a benefit for them, yet an obligation also results from it, since there is one who prefers the mountain and one who prefers the valley,

the verse “and one leader” does not come only to teach that one may acquire a benefit for a person without that person’s presence. It teaches that one may acquire a benefit for minors even when a disadvantage is included because of the benefit, such as the division of the Land, which is fundamentally a benefit for them but also entails a disadvantage, since some prefer the mountain region and others prefer the valley region.

and as

the statement of

Rava bar Rav Huna,

in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav,

said

further,

Rava bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Giddel in the name of Rav:

From where [do we know] that for orphans who came to divide their father’s estate, the court appoints for them

for the minors among them

a guardian for liability and for benefit—

And the Gemara asks: Why

should we appoint for orphans a guardian for liability!?

we appoint a guardian to represent a disadvantage for the orphans?

Rather, this is what Rav said: From where [do we know] that for orphans one appoints a guardian

this is what Rav said: From where is it derived that when a court appoints a guardian for orphans, it appoints one

for liability in order to obtain a benefit—that is, if there is a legal claim against the orphans, we appoint a guardian for them who will litigate on their behalf; and even if ultimately he loses the case, nevertheless, what they did, they did?

that is, if there is a lawsuit involving the orphans, we appoint a guardian to litigate on their behalf, and even if he ultimately loses the case, nevertheless, the legal action he undertook is valid?

The verse states: “

And one prince, one prince from each tribe you shall take

to inherit the land,” and there too there is both liability and benefit, since there is one who prefers the mountain and one who prefers the valley.

The Gemara discussion that dealt with the laws of agency moves from one matter to another on account of the laws mentioned in it, and it returns to the laws of agency on the next page, where it discusses the law of an agent for a transgression.

Rav Nahman said in the name of Shmuel:

Orphans who came

to divide their father’s estate, the court appoints for them—

for each of the minor orphans among them—

a guardian, and they choose for them

the guardians, each for the orphan of whom he is the guardian,

a favorable portion.

And when they grow up,

the orphans

can

themselves

protest

and annul the division.

And Rav Nahman himself—

not in the name of his teacher Shmuel—

said: If they grow up, they cannot protest, for if so—

that they can protest—

what power does the court possess!?

And we ask:

Does Rav Nahman hold [

do you perhaps mean that he holds]:

What power does the court possess!?

But we learned: The appraisal [

the collection of the borrower’s property for the lender is called an “appraisal”]

of the judges, who

when they appraised the property that they collected for the lender,

reduced

from its value

a sixth [

or more], and the borrower suffered a loss,

or increased by a sixth [

or more] over the value of the property, and the lender suffered a loss, then

their sale is void; but if they erred by less than a sixth in either direction, their appraisal stands.

But if they erred by less than one-sixth in either direction, their valuation stands.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

Even if they erred by a sixth or more in either direction,

their sale stands, for

because

if so—

according to the view that says their sale is void—

what power does the court possess!?

And

yet

Rav Huna bar Hinena said in the name of Rav Nahman: The halakha is according to the words of the Sages,

who do not hold: “If so, what power does the court possess?” And this is difficult from Rav Nahman’s own statement, who said: “If so, what power does the court possess”!?

And we answer:

It is not difficult