Kiddushin, Daf Mem Bet, Part 1

 

Introduction

On the previous daf, R. Yehoshua b. Korha stated that we can derive the rule of agency from Exodus 12:6 that states that all of Israel shall slaughter the pesah sacrifice. Since it is obviously impossible for every Israelite to slaughter the pesah, the verse must be referring to an agent who performs the sacrifice on behalf of others. But other rabbis use this verse for other purposes. So for these rabbis, how do they derive agency?

 

הניחא לרבי יהושע בן קרחה אלא לרבי יונתן דמפיק ליה להאי קרא לדרשא אחרינא מנא לן דתניא רבי יונתן אומר מנין שכל ישראל כולן יוצאים 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

מיניה. ודילמא שאני התם דאית ליה שותפות בגוייהו

 

Now, that goes well according to R. Yehoshua b. Korhah. But according to R. Yonatan, who uses this verse for a different derashah, from where do we [derive agency]? For it was taught: R. Yonatan said: How do we know that all Israel [may] fulfill their obligation with a single pesah sacrifice? Because it is said: And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at dusk (Exodus 12:6): Does the whole assembly slaughter: surely, only one slaughters! Rather from here [it follows] that all Israel [may] fulfill their obligation by a single pesah sacrifice. Then how does he know that an agent [may be appointed] for sacrifices?

From that itself.

Yet perhaps it is different there, because he [the slaughterer] has a partnership in it?

 

R. Yonatan uses the verse to teach that theoretically one pesah sacrifice would be sufficient for all of Israel to fulfill their obligation. Since he uses the verse for another derashah, how does he derive the notion of agency? From that same verse if there is only one sacrifice, then obviously only one person is slaughtering on behalf of everyone.

The Talmud, however, notes that this is problematic. In this case, the slaughterer is also fulfilling his mitzvah to offer the sacrifice. But how do we know that one can appoint an agent to offer a sacrifice on one s behalf when the agent is not obligated to offer that same sacrifice?

 

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

 

Rather [it is derived] from this: They shall take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers houses, a lamb for each household (Exodus 12:3).

But perhaps there too [the reason is] that he has a partnership in it?

If so, what is the need of two verses? [Hence,] if it has no purpose where it does belong, teach the matter to where it does not belong.

 

Exodus 12:3 again clearly implies that one person performs an action on behalf of others this time it refers to setting aside the pesach sacrifice. But again, this might not be sufficient to prove agency in cases where the agent is not part of the mitzvah.

The Talmud now resolves the problem by pointing out that we have two verses that teach the same thing. Since we don t need to learn this twice, we can apply this teaching to a case where it does not belong, meaning an agent who does not have a partnership in the sacrifice.

האי מיבעי ליה לכדרבי יצחק דא"ר יצחק איש זוכה ולא הקטן זוכה

ההוא (שמות יב, ד) מאיש לפי אכלו נפקא

 

But this verse is needed for R. Yitzchak. For R. Yitzchak said: An adult can acquire [on behalf of others], but a minor cannot acquire!

That is deduced from, According to every man’s eating [you shall make your count for the lamb] (Exodus 12:4).

 

The Talmud argues that that verse is needed for another purpose for R. Yitzchak s derashah that an adult can acquire, in this case the sheep, on behalf of others but that a minor does not have such legal ability. If the verse is needed for that derashah, it is not available to teach agency.

The Talmud locates another use of the word man in the same context. This frees up the earlier verse.

 

ואכתי מיבעי ליה דשוחטין את הפסח על היחיד

סבר לה כמ"ד אין שוחטין את הפסח על היחיד

 

But that is still required to teach that a pesach sacrifice may be slaughtered [even] for a single person!

He holds according to the opinion that the pesach may not be slaughtered for an individual.

 

The word man in this last verse (Exodus 12:4) is needed for another derashah that the pesah may be slaughtered even if only one person is going to eat it.

This is resolved by reference to a dispute Rabbi Yonatan, who learns agency from the second verse, would hold that the pesah may not be slaughtered for an individual. This frees up the earlier verse to derive agency even when the agent is not participating in the mitzvah.