Kiddushin, Daf Mem Bet, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to discuss the source for a person s legal ability to appoint an agent.

 

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

 

Then that which R. Giddal said in the name of Rav: How do we know that a person s agent is as himself? As it is said, [And you shall take] one prince of every tribe [to divide the land for inheritance], (Numbers 34:18) let him derive agency from here?

 

Rav derives the institution of agency from another verse the verse where each prince is designated to allocate the land to the members of the tribe. But why doesn t he derive agency from the verse about slaughtering the pesah, or any of the other verses used above (such as the verse about designating terumah).

 

ותיסברא דהא שליחות הוא והא קטנים לאו בני שליחות נינהו

 

Is it reasonable that this [division of the land] was through agency! Behold minors are not subject to agency?

 

The Talmud questions whether agency can explain how the princes allocated the land. After all, they had to allocate portions to minors and minors cannot appoint agents. Thus this source does not seem to be a valid source of agency. The right of the princes to allocate the land must be understood in another way.

 

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

 

Rather [it must be understood] in accordance with Rava son of R. Huna. For Rava son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Giddal in the name of Rav: How do we know that a right can be conferred on a person in his absence? As it is said, And one prince of every tribe

 

The Talmud now offers another version of Rav s statement, which derives a different principle from the allocation of the land one can confer benefit on another person even in his absence.

 

ותיסברא זכות היא הא חובה נמי איכא דאיכא דניחא ליה בהר ולא ניחא ליה בבקעה ואיכא דניחא ליה בבקעה ולא ניחא ליה בהר

 

Now is that reasonable? Was this an advantage [to each]? Surely there is also a disadvantage, for some like the mountain but not the valley, and others like the valley but not the mountain?

 

The problem with deriving this principle is that in order to confer a benefit on someone without their presence what is being conferred needs to be a complete benefit without any disadvantage. It cannot have some aspects that are beneficial and some that are not. While every person does benefit from inheriting the land, people have different preferences as to which land one inherits. Thus the princes were in some sense disadvantaging those who inherited land.

 

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

 

Rather it must be understood in accordance with Rava son of R. Huna, for Rava son of R. Huna said in the name of R. Giddal in the name of Rav: How do we know that when [minor] orphans come to divide their father’s estate, the court appoints a guardian on their behalf, whether to their advantage or disadvantage? ( To their disadvantage ! Why? Rather, to their disadvantage, which will lead to an advantage?) Scripture says, And one prince of every tribe shall take.

 

Finally we learn a different principle from the verse about the allocation of the land. When a court allocates a father s estate for his minor children inheriting from him, the court can appoint a guardian on their behalf, even if there is a temporary disadvantage that will eventually lead to an advantage. This is essentially what Moses does in appointing the prines to allocate the land.

This brings this part of the discussion to the conclusion. We cannot use this verse to derive agency, but we have properly understood what principle is derived from this verse.