Kiddushin 83

Chapter 83

א בפסח אחד שנא' (שמות יב, ו) ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל בין הערבים וכי כל הקהל כולם שוחטים והלא אינו שוחט אלא אחד אלא מכאן שכל ישראל יוצאים בפסח אחד שליח בקדשים מנא ליה
1 by a single paschal sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though each receives an infinitesimal portion thereof, less than the size of an olive, which is the minimum that is called eating. In his view, the actual eating of the sacrifice was unessential, the main thing being the sprinkling of the blood.');"><sup>1</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact remains that one slaughtered for all.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב מיניה ודילמא שאני התם דאית ליה שותפות בגוייהו
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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 3 thus one was to 'take', i.e., slaughter, on behalf of a whole household.');"><sup>3</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a principle of Talmudic exegesis: if a teaching is unnecessary in its place, apply it elsewhere. Thus here too, 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.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא מהכא (שמות יב, ג) ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבות שה לבית ודילמא התם נמי דאית ליה שותפות בגוייהו א"כ תרי קראי למה לי אם אינו ענין להיכא דשייך תניהו ענין להיכא דלא שייך
3 But this [the latter verse quoted] is needed for R'Isaac's dictum. For R'Isaac said: A man [sc. an adult] can acquire<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A Paschal lamb.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Although the minor himself has to to be counted in for the partaking of the Paschal lamb, he cannot acquire a share on behalf of others');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק דא"ר יצחק איש זוכה ולא הקטן זוכה ההוא (שמות יב, ד) מאיש לפי אכלו נפקא
4 - That is deduced from, according to every man's eating [ye shall make your count for the lamb].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 4.');"><sup>7</sup></span> But that is still required for intimating that a paschal sacrifice may be slaughtered [even] for a single person!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deducted from 'manðs', singular.');"><sup>8</sup></span> - He agrees with the view that the passover lamb may not be slaughtered for an individual.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 91b.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה ואכתי מיבעי ליה דשוחטין את הפסח על היחיד סבר לה כמ"ד אין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד
5 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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXIV, 18: each prince acted as agent for the whole tribe.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And among those who received a portion in Palestine were minors; this proves that the princes were not acting as agents.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו ואלא הא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב מנין ששלוחו של אדם כמותו שנאמר (במדבר לד, יח) ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ממטה תיפוק ליה שליחות מהכא ותיסברא דהא שליחות הוא והא קטנים לאו בני שליחות נינהו
6 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.].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By their division they conferred rights of ownership, though the recipients (i.e., the individuals) were not present.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז אלא כי הא דרבא בר רב הונא דאמר רבא בר רב הונא אמר רב גידל אמר רב מנין שזכין לאדם שלא בפניו שנאמר ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ותיסברא זכות היא הא חובה נמי איכא דאיכא דניחא ליה בהר ולא ניחא ליה בבקעה ואיכא דניחא ליה בבקעה ולא ניחא ליה בהר
7 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And one cannot act disadvantageously on another's behalf without his authorisation. Hence the princes were not proceeding on this principle either.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ח ואלא כדרבא בר רב הונא דאמר רבא בר רב הונא אמר רב גידל א"ר מנין ליתומים שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהן שבית דין מעמידין להם אפוטרופוס לחוב ולזכות לחוב אמאי אלא לחוב ע"מ לזכות ת"ל ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ממטה תקחו
8 But it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The interpretation of the verse . . one prince', etc.');"><sup>14</sup></span> 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]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [According to Maim. Yad, Nahaloth, X, 4. there were also some adults among them, for had they all been orphans, 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.]');"><sup>15</sup></span> come to divide their father's estate, Beth din appoints a guardian on their behalf, whether to their advantage or disadvantage? (
ט א"ר נחמן אמר שמואל יתומים שבאו לחלוק בנכסי אביהם בית דין מעמידים להם אפוטרופוס ובוררים להם חלק יפה ואם הגדילו יכולים למחות ורב נחמן דידיה אמר אם הגדילו אינם יכולים למחות דא"כ מה כח בית דין יפה
9 [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).<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., this guardian acts in their behalf at law, and his acts are valid even if they subsequently tend to their loss, providing that his intentions in the first place were good.');"><sup>16</sup></span> - From the verse, [and ye shall take] one prince of every tribe.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who were to divide the land as fairly as possible, their actions being valid even if certain individuals were displeased.');"><sup>17</sup></span> R'Nahman said in Samuel's name: When orphans come to divide their father's estate, Beth din appoints a guardian for them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Wilna Gaon: for the minors; cf. n. 3.]');"><sup>18</sup></span>
י ומי אית ליה לרב נחמן אם כן מה כח בית דין יפה והתנן שום הדיינים שפיחתו שתות או הותירו שתות מכרן בטל רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר מכרן קיים (ואמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל) א"כ מה כח ב"ד יפה ואמר רב הונא בר חיננא אמר רב נחמן הלכה כדברי חכמים
10 and they select<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Apparently the Beth din, cf. Maim. loc. cit. In the parallel passage Yeb. 67b, however, the reading is 'he selects' i.e., the guardian.]');"><sup>19</sup></span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A guardian might just as well be appointed by a private individual, if the former's action can be overthrown.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
יא לא קשיא
11 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The judges made a valuation of a debtor's property, sold it and assigned the proceeds to the creditor in the former's absence, and erred in a sixth.');"><sup>21</sup></span> 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:
Previous ChapterNext Chapter