Kiddushin, Daf Mem Aleph, Part 6

 

Introduction

The Talmud continues to discuss whether the Torah could have skipped teaching that agency was effective in one of the cases (marriage, divorce, terumah and sacrifice) and we could have derived that case from the others.

 

אלא לא לכתוב רחמנא בתרומה ותיתי מהנך

ה"נ ואלא אתם גם אתם למה לי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי ינאי דא"ר ינאי גם אתם מה אתם בני ברית אף שלוחכם בני ברית

 

But let the Torah not write it of terumah, and it could be derived from the others!

That indeed is so. Then what is the purpose of you, also you ?

It is needed for that which R. Yannai said, for R. Yannai said, Also you : just as you are members of the covenant, so must your agents be members of the covenant.

 

The Talmud now admits the Torah need not have written agency in connection with terumah and we could have derived it from marriage and sacrifices together. But now we have a new issue what do we do with the superfluous words also you ?

These words are used by R. Yannai to teach that just as you are members of the covenant, i.e. Jews, so too your agent must be a Jew.

 

הא למה לי קרא מדרבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן נפקא דא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן אין העבד נעשה שליח לקבל גט מיד בעלה של אשה לפי. שאינו בתורת גיטין וקידושין

 

For this, why do I need a verse? It may be derived from the statement of R. Hiyya b. Abba in the name of R. Yohanan! For R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Yohanan: A slave cannot become an agent to receive a divorce from a woman s husband, because he himself is not subject to the law of marriage and divorce!

 

Why would I need a verse to teach that an agent must be Jewish? This law can be derived from logic and by extension from the laws of receiving a divorce document. A slave cannot receive the document because he is not subject to the laws of marriage and divorce.

 

איצטריך ס"ד אמינא עבד דלאו בר היתירא הוא כלל אבל עובד כוכבים הואיל ואיתיה בתרומה דנפשיה דתנן העובד כוכבים והכותי שתרמו תרומתן תרומה אימא שליח נמי עביד קמשמע לן

 

It is necessary, lest I would have said that a slave [cannot serve as an agent], since he is not permitted [to marry].

But a non-Jew, since he is qualified to [separate] terumah from his own [produce], as we learned: If a non-Jew or Samaritan separates terumah, it is valid: I might think that he can also be appointed an agent [for a Jew]; hence it teaches us [otherwise].

 

Indeed, we do need the verse to teach us that a non-Jew cannot serve as an agent for terumah. We might have thought that since a non-Jew can separate terumah from his own produce (i.e. the terumah is considered terumah, even though he was not obligated to do so) he can also serve as an agent for a Jew. Therefore the verse teaches us that he cannot. The non-Jew is different from a slave vis a vis marriage, since a slave cannot marry a Jew at all.

 

ולר’ שמעון דפטר דתנן תרומת עובד כוכבים מדמעת וחייבין עליה חומש ור"ש פוטר אתם גם אתם למה לי איצטריך

Now, according to R. Shimon who exempts [them], as we have taught: The terumah of a non-Jew creates a [forbidden] mixture, and one is liable to an [additional] fifth on its account.

But R. Shimon exempts [it], you also you why do I need it?

 

R. Shimon rules that if a non-Jew separates terumah, it does not count as terumah. His opinion is found in a mishnah about forbidden mixtures. If a non-Jew cannot separate terumah, then why do we need a verse to teach us that he cannot serve as an agent? The non-Jew would be the same as the slave anyone who cannot perform the action himself cannot be an agent for others.

 

סד"א הואיל ואמר מר אתם ולא אריסין אתם ולא שותפין אתם ולא אפוטרופוס אתם ולא התורם את שאינו שלו אימא אתם ולא שלוחכם נמי קמ"ל

 

[It is necessary]: Lest I would say that since the Master said: You, but not share-croppers; You but not partners; You but not guardians; You but not one who separates terumah from what is not his, then I might also say, You but not your agents. Hence he teaches us [that it is not so].

 

We need the words also you to teach that an agent can separate terumah if appointed by the owner of the crops for otherwise I might have read the word you as also excluding an agent, just as it excludes many other categories from separating terumah (a sharecropper, a partner, a guardian, or anyone separating terumah from produce not his own).

Thus in the end we have solved why we need the midrash on the words also you even though we might think that we could have derived this law from other fields of halakhah.