A Person's Agent Is Like the Person Who Sent Him

"Let them take for themselves" (Exodus 12:3). But did all of them take it? Rather, this teaches that a person's agent is like the person himself. It was taught: "And he sends [her] away" (Deuteronomy 24:1) teaches that he may appoint an agent; "and she is sent away" teaches that she may appoint an agent; "and he sends and she is sent" teaches that the agent may appoint an agent. We have found this regarding divorce; from where do we know it for betrothal? And if you say it is derived from divorce—what is distinctive about divorce is that it can be done against her will. Scripture says, "and she departs and becomes [another man's]"; it likens becoming a wife to departing: just as departing makes an agent valid, so too becoming a wife makes an agent valid. And as for what we learned, that one who says to his agent, "Go out and set aside heave-offering," sets it aside according to the householder's intention—from where do we know it? And if you say it is derived from divorce, what is distinctive about divorce is that it is a secular matter; would you say the same of heave-offering, which is holy? Scripture says, "you"; "so also you" (Numbers 18:28)—to include your agent. Then let the Merciful One write it regarding heave-offering, and let these other cases come and be derived from it. Because there is a refutation: what is distinctive about heave-offering is that it can be done by mere thought. And as for what we learned, that a group whose Passover lamb was lost and that said to one member, "Go out, seek, and slaughter on our behalf," and he went and found and slaughtered—he eats and they eat with him: from where do we know it? And if you say it is derived from those cases, what is distinctive about them is that they are secular relative to consecrated things. It is derived from Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah, who said: From where do we know that a person's agent is like the person himself? As it is said, "And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it" (Exodus 12:6). Did the whole assembly slaughter it? Surely only one slaughters! Rather, from here we learn that a person's agent is like the person himself. And let these come and be derived from it. Because there is a refutation: what is distinctive about consecrated things is that most of their actions are performed by an agent. So why does Scripture need to write "you, so also you" regarding heave-offering? It is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yannai: just as you are members of the covenant, so too your agent must be a member of the covenant. And it was necessary, for you might have thought: since a gentile or a Samaritan who sets aside heave-offering—his heave-offering is valid, say that he may also act as an agent. According to Rabbi Shimon, who exempts—as we learned, the heave-offering of a gentile renders a mixture forbidden and one is liable for an added fifth on it, but Rabbi Shimon exempts—why do I need "you, so also you"? It was necessary: you might have thought, since the Master said "you" and not sharecroppers, "you" and not partners, "you" and not guardians, "you" and not one who sets aside what is not his, say also "you" and not your agent; Scripture teaches us otherwise. This works well for Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah. But according to Rabbi Yonatan, who said: From where do we know that all Israel can fulfill their obligation with a single Passover lamb? As it is said, "And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it"—from where does he derive agency? And if you say, let us learn from it—perhaps that case is different, since each has a partnership in it. Rather, from here: "Let them take for themselves a man a lamb for a father's house" (Exodus 12:3). But there too each has a partnership in it. If so, why do I need two verses? If it is not needed for the case where it applies, apply it to the case where it does not apply. This verse is needed for the teaching of Rabbi Yitzchak: an adult acquires but a minor does not acquire. That is derived from "a man according to his eating." And still it is needed: one may slaughter the Passover for a single individual; he holds like the one who says one does not slaughter the Passover for a single individual.