Kiddushin — Daf 41b

פיחת עשרה או הוסיף עשרה תרומתו תרומה מנלן וכי תימא דיליף מגירושין מה לגירושין שכן ישנן חול אמר קרא אתם (במדבר יח, כח) גם אתם לרבות את השליח

ונכתוב רחמנא בתרומה וניתו הנך ונגמרו מיניה משום דאיכא למפרך שכן ישנה במחשבה

והא דתנן חבורה שאבד פסחה ואמרו לאחד צא ובקש ושחוט עלינו והלך ומצא ושחט והן לקחו ושחטו אם שלו נשחט ראשון הוא אוכל משלו והם אוכלים ושותים עמו

מנלן וכי תימא דיליף מהנך מה להנך שכן ישנן חול אצל קדשים

נפקא ליה מדרבי יהושע בן קרחה דא"ר יהושע בן קרחה מנין ששלוחו של אדם כמותו שנאמר (שמות יב, ו) ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל בין הערבים וכי כל הקהל כולן שוחטין והלא אינו שוחט אלא אחד אלא מכאן ששלוחו של אדם כמותו

נכתוב רחמנא בקדשים וניתי הנך וניגמרו מיניה משום דאיכא למפרך מה לקדשים שכן רוב מעשיהן ע"י שליח

חדא מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי הי תיתי

לא נכתוב רחמנא בקדשים ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן ישנן חול אצל קדשים לא נכתוב רחמנא בגירושין ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן ישנן במחשבה

אלא לא לכתוב רחמנא בתרומה ותיתי מהנך ה"נ

ואלא אתם גם אתם למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי ינאי דא"ר ינאי גם אתם מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם בני ברית

הא למה לי קרא מדרבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן נפקא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אין העבד נעשה שליח לקבל גט מיד בעלה של אשה לפי. שאינו בתורת גיטין וקידושין

איצטריך ס"ד אמינא עבד דלאו בר היתירא הוא כלל אבל עובד כוכבים הואיל ואיתיה בתרומה דנפשיה דתנן העובד כוכבים והכותי שתרמו תרומתן תרומה אימא שליח נמי עביד קמשמע לן

ולר' שמעון דפטר דתנן תרומת עובד כוכבים מדמעת וחייבין עליה חומש ור"ש פוטר אתם גם אתם למה לי

איצטריך סד"א הואיל ואמר מר אתם ולא אריסין אתם ולא שותפין אתם ולא אפוטרופוס אתם ולא התורם את שאינו שלו אימא אתם ולא שלוחכם נמי קמ"ל

הניחא לרבי יהושע בן קרחה אלא לרבי יונתן דמפיק ליה להאי קרא לדרשא אחרינא מנא לן דתניא רבי יונתן אומר מנין שכל ישראל כולן יוצאים

If he decreases by ten or increases it by ten,1 his separation is valid.2 How do we know this?3 And should you answer that it is derived from divorce, [I would rejoin:] as for divorce, that [may be] because it is a secular matter!4 — Scripture saith, [Thus] ye also [shall offer an heave-offering] [where] ‘ye’ [alone would have sufficed],5 to include an agent.6 But let Scripture write [it] in respect to terumah, and these [marriage and divorce] would come and be derived from it? — Because one can refute [the analogy], since it is possible by [mere] intention.7 Again, as to what we learnt: If a company lose their Paschal sacrifice8 and instruct one [of their number], ‘Go out, seek it, and slaughter it on our behalf; and he goes, finds, and slaughters it, while they [also] take [an animal] and slaughter [it]: if his is slaughtered first, he eats of his, and they eat9 with him.10 How do we know it?11 And should you answer that it is derived from these, [I would rejoin:] as for these, [that may be] because they rank as secular in relation to sacred animals!12 — It is learnt from R. Joshua b. Karhah[‘s dictum]. For R. Joshua b. Karhah said: How do we know that a man's agent is as himself? Because it is said, and the whole assembly of the congregation shall kill it [the Passover sacrifice] at even:13 does then the whole assembly really slaughter? surely, only one person slaughters [an animal]:14 hence it follows that a man's agent is as himself. Now, let the Divine Law write [the principle of agency] in respect to sacrifices, and these others can come and be derived from them? — Because it may be refuted: as for sacrifice, that is because most of their operations are through an agent.15 One cannot be derived from another: but let one be derived from two [others]?16 — Which can be thus derived? Should the Divine Law not state it of sacrifices, that it may be derived from these others? As for these, [it might be argued] that [sc. agency] is because they rank as secular in comparison with sacrifices. Should the Divine Law omit it in the case of divorce, that it may be derived from the others: as for these, that is because intention has force in their case.17 But let the Divine Law not write it of terumah, and it could be derived from the others!18 — That indeed is so. Then what is the purpose of ‘ye’, ‘ye also’?19 — It is needed for R. Jannai's dictum, viz., ‘Ye also’: just as ye are members of the covenant,20 so must your agents be members of the covenant. For this, what need have I of a verse? It may be derived from R. Hiyya b. Abba's dictum in R. Johanan's name! For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: A [heathen] slave cannot become an agent to receive a divorce from a woman's husband, because he himself is not subject to the law of marriage and divorce!21 — It is necessary. I might think that a slave [is ineligible], since he is not empowered to free [a married woman] at all.22 But a heathen, since he is qualified to [separate] terumah of his own [crops], as we learnt: If a heathen or Cuthean23 separates terumah, it is valid: I might think that he can also be appointed an agent [for a Jew]; hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now, according to R. Simeon who exempts [them],24 for we learnt: A heathen's terumah creates a [forbidden] mixture,25 and one is liable to an [additional] fifth on its account.26 But R. Simeon exempts [it]27 — what is the need of ye’, ye also’? — It is necessary: I might reason, Since a Master said: ‘Ye’, but not tenant-farmers;28 ‘ye,’ but not partners;29 ‘ye,’ but not guardians;30 ye,’ but not one who separates terumah upon what is not his,31 then I might also say, ye,’ but not your agents.32 Hence we are informed [that it is not so]. Now, that is well according to R. Joshua b. Karhah.33 But according to R. Nathan, who utilises this verse for a different exegesis, what can be said? For it was taught: R. Nathan said: How do we know that all Israel [may] fulfil their obligations34 rest. This is obviously a leniency, and it may be argued that that is why one can also appoint an agent. animal: unless one had thus ‘counted himself in’ before it was killed he could not eat thereof. on behalf of the Israelites who offered them. declaration. — Shebu. 26b. and the same applies to the others. divorce, since he cannot marry. repopulated by various peoples, some of whom came from Cuth and gave their name to the new settlers as a whole. These accepted a form of semi-Judaism. Their status in respect to Jewry fluctuated; at times they were accepted as Jews, at others they were rejected. Finally they were definitely excluded from the Jewish people. ranks as terumah, and is forbidden to an Israelite. all. landlord's share without his authority. one may not separate for what is not his. their owner.