Kiddushin

In the one case, they [the judges] erred; in the other, they1 did not err. If they did not err, against what can they [the orphans] protest? — They can protest against the sites. 2 R. Nahman said: When brothers divide, they rank as purchasers from each other:3 [for an error of] less than a sixth, the transaction is valid; exceeding a sixth, it is null; [exactly] one sixth, it is valid, but the amount of error4 is returnable.5 Said Raba: When you say that [for an error of] less than a sixth the transaction is valid, that is only if one did not appoint an agent;6 but if he appointed an agent, he can plead, ‘I sent you to benefit, not to injure me’.7 And when you say, exceeding a sixth, the transaction is null, that is only if one did not say: ‘We will divide according to Beth din's valuation’; but if this was stipulated,8 the transaction is valid. For we learnt: If the judges’ valuation was at one sixth too little or at one sixth too much, their sale is null. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Their sale is valid.9 And when you say: ‘one-sixth, it is valid, but the amount of error is returnable’, that holds good only of movables, but as for real estate, the law of overreaching does not apply to land. Again, this was said of real estate only if the division was by valuation,10 but not if the division was made by cord.11 That is in accordance with Rabbah, who said,12 Everything which [shews an error] in measure, weight or number, even if less than the standard of overreaching, is returnable. Now, when we learnt: He who sends forth a conflagration by a deaf-mute, idiot, or minor, is not liable [for the damage caused] by law of man, yet liable by the law of Heaven.13 But if he sends it by a normal14 person, the latter is [legally] liable. Yet why so? Let us say that a man's agent is as himself.15 — There it is different, for there is no agent for wrongdoing, for we reason: [When] the words of the master and the words of the pupil [are in conflict], whose are obeyed?16 Then when we learnt:17 If the agent does not carry out his instructions,18 the agent is liable for trespass: if he carries out his instructions, the sender19 is liable for trespass.20 Thus, at least, if he carries out the sender's instructions, the latter is liable for trespass. Yet why? Let us say: There is no agent for wrongdoing. — A trespass-offering is different, because the meaning of ‘sin’ is derived from terumah: just as an agent can be appointed for [separating] terumah, so can one be appointed in respect of trespass.21 Then let us learn [a general law] from it?22 — [We cannot,] Because trespass and mis — appropriation23 are two verses with the same teaching,24 and such cannot illumine [other cases].25 ‘Trespass,’ as stated. What is the reference to misappropriation? — For it was taught:26 ‘For every word27 of trespass’: Beth Shammai maintain: This is to intimate liability for [expressed] intention as for actual deed.28 But Beth Hillel rule: He is not responsible unless he actually misappropriates it, for it is said, [‘to see] whether he have not put his hand,’ etc. Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel, But it is said: ‘For every word of trespass’! Beth Hillel retorted to Beth Shammai: But is it not said: ‘to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods?’ Said Beth Shammai to Beth Hillel: If so, what is the purpose of, ‘for every word of trespass?’ For I might think, I know it only of himself [the bailee]; how do I know it if he instructs his slave or agent?29 Therefore it is said: ‘For every word of trespass.’30 Now, that is well according to Beth Hillel. But according to Beth Shammai who interpret this verse as [shewing] that intention is as deed, different source. but if he appointed him an agent’ etc. This might mean that one brother appointed the other to act on his behalf. Asheri, however, omits the pronominal suffix. twice as large as his brother's, the latter's being of choicer quality. out instructions, he would obey God's behests in preference. therewith. If B buys what he was told, A is liable; if he buys something else, he himself is liable, since he was not acting on A's behalf. — For converting sacred property to secular use-technically called withdrawing it from the ownership of hekdesh-one is liable to a trespass-offering. commit a trespass, and sin unwittingly in the holy things of the Lord. The employment of ‘sin’ in both cases intimates that the principle of agency operates for the latter as for the former. hand unto his neighbour's goods. For every word of trespass etc. Ibid. 7f. deposit to his own use (‘put his hand,’ etc.,), in which case he becomes responsible for every mishap. Beth Shammai maintains that ‘for every word’ teaches that even if he merely says that he will put it to his own use he is liable.