Kiddushin 23B

לרבי שמעון בן אלעזר, עבד כנעני מהו שיעשה שליח לקבל גיטו מיד רבו? כיון דגמר ״לה״ ״לה״ מאשה, כאשה,

According to the opinion of R' Shimon ben Elazar, in the case of a Canaanite slave, what is the halakha with regard to the possibility that a slave can appoint an agent to accept his bill of manumission from the hand of his master? Does one say that since R' Shimon ben Elazar derives the verbal analogy of “lah” and “lah” from a woman, which teaches that a slave can be freed with a document, therefore, a slave is also like a woman in that he too can appoint an agent?

או דילמא אשה דאיהי מצי מקבלת גיטה ⁠– שליח נמי מצי משויא. עבד דאיהו לא מקבל גיטיה ⁠– שליח נמי לא מצי משוי. בתר דבעיא הדר פשטה: ״לה״ ״לה״ מאשה, כאשה.

Or perhaps, in the case of a woman, as she can accept her bill of divorce herself, she can also appoint an agent, whereas a slave is different, as he cannot accept his bill of manumission himself, and consequently he cannot appoint an agent either. After raising the dilemma, Rabba subsequently resolved it: Since R' Shimon ben Elazar derives the verbal analogy of “lah” and “lah” from a woman, a slave is also treated like a woman with regard to his ability to appoint an agent.

ואלא הא דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: הני כהני שלוחי דרחמנא נינהו. דאי סלקא דעתך שלוחי דידן נינהו, מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן עבדינן ואינהו מצי עבדי?

The Talmud comments: But consider that which Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says with regard to the service in the Temple: These priests are the agents of God, i.e., they perform the Temple service as the emissaries of God. As if it enters your mind that they are our agents, is there anything that we cannot do but agents can do on our behalf? Since it is prohibited for non-priests to serve in the Temple, priests cannot be considered the agents of the Jewish people.