Commentary for Bava Metzia 142:14

רבינא אמר נהי דשליחות לנכרי לית ליה זכיה מדרבנן אית ליה מידי דהוי אקטן קטן לאו אף על גב דלית ליה שליחות

therefore it is taught otherwise. R. Ashi said: When do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only in reference to <i>terumah</i>;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. A Jew cannot appoint a heathen to separate his terumah for him. ');">¹³</span> but in all other Biblical matters the principle of agency holds good in the case of a heathen. This [distinction], however, of R. Ashi must be rejected.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] V. Supra, p. 47, n. 1. ');">¹⁴</span> For why does <i>terumah</i> differ, that [agency] is not [allowed to a heathen]? Because it is written, [<i>Thus</i>] <i>ye, ye also</i> [<i>shall offer an heave offering</i> etc.],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 28. It would have been sufficient to state, 'Thus ye shall offer etc.'; it is a general principle of exegesis that 'also' ([H]) denotes extension; hence 'ye also' implies that someone besides yourselves may separate your terumah. At the same time, since the extension is directly applied to 'ye', those whom it includes must be similar to 'ye'. ');">¹⁵</span> [teaching], just as ye are members of the Covenant, so also must your deputies be members of the Covenant! But [is not] the principle of agency, as applied to all Biblical matters, derived from <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Kid. 41b; hence just as a heathen cannot be deputed to separate terumah, so he is invalid in all other matters. ');">¹⁶</span> Hence R. Ashi's distinction is to be rejected. Others state: R. Ashi said: In what sense do we maintain that agency cannot be vested in a heathen, only that they cannot be agents for us; but we can be agents for them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence in the first clause under discussion the loan is permissible, if the second Jew was presented to the heathen, even if the money passed directly from one Jew to another. ');">¹⁷</span> But this [distinction] of R. Ashi is to be rejected. For why the difference, that they cannot be agents for us? Because it is written, 'Ye, ye also', which teaches the inclusion of your agents; just as 'ye' are members of the Covenant, so must your agents be members of the Covenant? But with reference to ourselves being agents to them, does not the same [exegesis] apply: by 'just as "ye" [who appoint agents],' members of Covenant are meant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the same exegesis which shows that the agents must be Jews, also shews that the principals must be Jews. ');">¹⁸</span> Hence R. Ashi's distinction is non-acceptable. Rabina said: Though a heathen has no power of agency, yet, by Rabbinical law, one can obtain possession on his behalf. For this is similar to a minor: surely, a minor, though excluded from the principle of agency,

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 142:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.