Kiddushin 84

Chapter 84

א הא דטעו הא דלא טעו אי דלא טעו מאי יכולים למחות יכולים למחות ברוחות
1 In the one case, they [the judges] erred; in the other, they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [The guardians or the Beth din. v. p. 210, n. 7.]');"><sup>1</sup></span> did not err. If they did not err, against what can they [the orphans] protest? - They can protest against the sites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., he who received a field in the south may demand it in the north, because he possesses another one there from a different source.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אמר רב נחמן האחין שחלקו הרי הן כלקוחות פחות משתות נקנה מקח יתר על שתות בטל מקח שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה
2 R'Nahman said: When brothers divide, they rank as purchasers from each other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Had they ranked as heirs, the division would have to be exact to a farthing (Tosaf. Ri.) ]');"><sup>3</sup></span> [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 error<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'overreaching'.');"><sup>4</sup></span> is returnable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. B.M. 49b.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ג אמר רבא הא דאמרן פחות משתות נקנה מקח לא אמרן אלא דלא שויה שליח אבל שויה שליח אמר לתקוני שדרתיך ולא לעוותי
3 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To act at the division on his behalf, but acted himself. The reading in cur. edd. is 'if he did not appoint him an agent, 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.');"><sup>6</sup></span> but if he appointed an agent, he can plead, 'I sent you to benefit, not to injure me'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus he can repudiate him.');"><sup>7</sup></span> 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'but if he said, we will" etc.'');"=""><sup>8</sup></span>
ד והא דאמרן יתר משתות בטל מקח לא אמרן אלא דלא אמר ניפליגן בשומא דבי דינא אבל אמר נפלוג בשומא דבי דינא מכרן קיים דתנן שום הדיינים שפיחתו שתות או הותירו שתות מכרן בטל רשב"ג אומר מכרן קיים
4 the transaction is valid. For we learnt: If the judges' valuation was at one sixth too little or at one sixth too mu their sale is null. R'Simeon B'Gamaliel said: Their sale is valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba agrees with the latter, not as R. Nahman supra.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
ה והא דאמרן שתות קנה ומחזיר אונאה לא אמרן אלא במטלטלי אבל במקרקעי אין אונאה לקרקעות ובמקרקעי לא אמרן אלא דפלוג בעילויא אבל פלוג במשחתא לא כדרבה דאמר רבה כל דבר שבמדה ושבמשקל ושבמנין אפילו פחות מכדי אונאה נמי חוזר
5 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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All the land was valued, and then each took land to the value of his share. Thus one might have received a field twice as large as his brother's, the latter's being of choicer quality.');"><sup>10</sup></span> but not if the division was made by cord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by area, all the fields being of equal quality, and an error was made in measurement.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו והא דתנן השולח את הבעירה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים שילח ביד פיקח פיקח חייב
6 That is in accordance with Rabbah, who said,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In B.M. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., morally, though not legally.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
ז ואמאי נימא שלוחו של אדם כמותו שאני התם דאין שליח לדבר עבירה דאמרינן דברי הרב ודברי תלמיד דברי מי שומעים
7 But if he sends it by a normal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'sane'.');"><sup>14</sup></span> person, the latter is [legally] liable. Yet why so?
ח והדתניא שליח שלא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל עשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל כי עשה שליחותו דבעל הבית בעל הבית מיהא מעל אמאי נימא אין שליח לדבר עבירה
8 Let us say that a man's agent is as himself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the sender is liable.');"><sup>15</sup></span> - 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously the master's. Hence if A instructs B to do wrong, B acts of his own accord, for were he merely carrying out instructions, he would obey God's behests in preference.');"><sup>16</sup></span> Then when we learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cur. edd: When it was taught. But BAH points out that the quotation that follows is a Mishnah in Me'il. 20a.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ט שאני מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה מה תרומה משוי שליח אף מעילה משוי שליח
9 If the agent does not carry out his instructions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'did not do his sending'.');"><sup>18</sup></span> the agent is liable for trespass: he carries out his instructions, the sender<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the house owner'.');"><sup>19</sup></span> is liable for trespass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A has money of hekdesh (q.v. Glos.) in his possession, and thinking it is secular, instructs B to make a purchase 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.');"><sup>20</sup></span>
י ונילף מינה משום דהוי מעילה ושליחות יד שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין מעילה הא דאמרן שליחות יד מאי היא
10 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.
יא דתניא (שמות כב, ח) על כל דבר פשע בש"א לחייב על המחשבה כמעשה ובה"א אינו חייב עד שישלח בו יד שנאמר אם לא שלח ידו וגו'
11 - 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah, Lev. XXII, 9: They shall therefore keep my charge, lest they bear sin for it: trespass, v, 15: If any one 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.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Then let us learn [a general law] from it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that one can appoint an agent for wrongdoing, and be legally responsible, just as in the case of trespass.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - [We cannot,] Because trespass and mis - appropriation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the putting forth of the hand.' The language is based on Ex. XXII, 7, q.v.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יב אמרו ב"ש לב"ה והלא נאמר על כל דבר פשע אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש והלא נאמר (שמות כב, י) אם לא שלח ידו במלאכת רעהו אמרו ב"ש לב"ה א"כ על כל דבר פשע למה לי שיכול אין לי אלא הוא אמר לעבדו ולשלוחו מנין ת"ל על כל דבר פשע
12 are two verses with the same teaching,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both the principle of agency operates, though they are transgressions.');"><sup>24</sup></span> and such cannot illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 169, n. 7.');"><sup>25</sup></span> 'Trespass,' as stated.
יג הניחא לב"ה אלא לב"ש דמוקמי ליה להאי קרא במחשבה כמעשה
13 What is the reference to misappropriation? - For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For every word of trespass etc. Ibid. 7f.');"><sup>26</sup></span> 'For every word<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., translation; E.V.: 'matter'.');"><sup>27</sup></span> of trespass': Beth Shammai maintain: This is to intimate liability for [expressed] intention as for actual deed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage refers to a gratuitous bailee, who is not liable for theft unless he has previously misappropriated the deposit to his own use');"><sup>28</sup></span> 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 Be 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he becomes liable on account of their misappropriation.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Therefore it is said: 'For every word of trespass.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus here too the principle of agency operates, though misappropriation is obviously wrong.');"><sup>30</sup></span> Now, that is well according to Beth Hillel. But according to Beth Shammai who interpret this verse as [shewing] that intention is as deed,
Previous ChapterNext Chapter