Kiddushin

by a single paschal sacrifice?1 Because it is said: ‘and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it at even’: does then the whole assembly slaughter: surely, only one slaughters! But from this [it follows] that all Israel [may] fulfil their obligations by a single Paschal sacrifice. Then how does he know that an agent [may be appointed] for sacrifices? — From that itself.2 Yet perhaps it is different there, because he [the slaughterer] is a partner therein? — But [it is derived] from this: they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for an household.3 But perhaps there too [the reason is] that he has a share therein? — If so, what is the need of two verses? [Hence,] if it has no purpose where it is relevant, apply the matter to where it does not belong.4 But this [the latter verse quoted] is needed for R. Isaac's dictum. For R. Isaac said: A man [sc. an adult] can acquire5 [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire!6 — That is deduced from, according to every man's eating [ye shall make your count for the lamb].7 But that is still required for intimating that a paschal sacrifice may be slaughtered [even] for a single person!8 — He agrees with the view that the passover lamb may not be slaughtered for an individual. 9 Then when R. Giddal said in Rab's name, How do we know that a man's agent is as himself? Because it is written, [and ye shall take] one prince of every tribe [to divide the land for inheritance]:10 let him derive agency from this [former verse]? — Now, is it reasonable that this [division of the land] was on the principle of agency! Surely minors are not subject thereto?11 But [it must be interpreted] in accordance with Raba son of R. Huna. For Raba son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Giddal in Rab's name: How do we know that a right can be conferred upon a man in his absence? Because it is written, and one prince of every tribe [etc.].12 Now, is that logical? Was it [the division, altogether] advantageous [to each]? Surely it also involved disadvantages, for some like mountain land but not the plain, and others prefer the plain but not the mountain land?13 But it14 is in accordance with Raba son of R. Huna, who said in the name of R. Giddal in Rab's name: How do we know that when orphans [i.e., minors]15 come to divide their father's estate, Beth din appoints a guardian on their behalf, whether to their advantage or disadvantage? ([You say,] ‘To their disadvantage’! Why? — But [say thus:] to their [subsequent] disadvantage, but with the [original] intention that it shall be to their advantage.)16 — From the verse, [and ye shall take] one prince of every tribe.17 R. Nahman said in Samuel's name: When orphans come to divide their father's estate, Beth din appoints a guardian for them,18 and they select19 a fair portion for each [orphan]; yet when they grow up, they can protest against [the division of the guardian]. R. Nahman, stating his own opinions ruled: When they grow up they cannot protest, for if so, wherein lies the strength of Beth din's authority?20 Now, does then R. Nahman accept [this reasoning,] if so, wherein lies the strength of Beth din's authority? But we learnt: If the judges’ valuation was at one sixth too little or at one sixth too much,21 their sale is null. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Their sale is valid, [for] otherwise, wherein lies the strength of Beth din's authority? Whereon R. Huna b. Hinena said in R. Nahman's name: The halachah agrees with the Sages! — There is no difficulty: called eating. In his view, the actual eating of the sacrifice was unessential, the main thing being the sprinkling of the blood. both verses teach the principle of agency when the agent himself shares therein. Two verses being unnecessary, apply one to where the agent has no share at all in the matter of his agency. on behalf of others (Tosaf.)] agents. proceeding on this principle either. there would be no division of the estate, seeing that it would still have to be administered by a guardian. V. Maggid Mishneh a.l. and Tosaf. Ri.] providing that his intentions in the first place were good. displeased. i.e., the guardian.] absence, and erred in a sixth.