Study Kiddushin folio 42A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
בפסח אחד? שנאמר: ״ושחטו אתו 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?
with one Paschal offering? Although it is impossible for all of the Jewish people to each eat an olive-bulk from one offering, they nevertheless fulfill their obligation to sacrifice the Paschal offering by sacrificing one animal, as it is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel should slaughter it in the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). Is it so that the whole assembly slaughters it? But only one person from each group slaughters. Rather, it can be derived from here that all of the Jews can fulfill their obligations with one Paschal offering, despite the fact that not everyone will be able to eat from it. Since R' Yonatan derives from this verse that one offering suffices, from where does he derive the halakha of agency with regard to offerings?
The Talmud answers: He derives it from that very same verse, as it can be seen that one person slaughters the animal on behalf of the rest of the assembly. The Talmud rejects this: But perhaps it is different there, since the one slaughtering the animal has partnership with them in the offering. This does not prove that there is agency when the agent has no share in the offering.
אלא מהכא: ״ויקחו להם איש שה לבית אבת שה לבית״. ודילמא התם נמי, דאית ליה שותפות בגוייהו? אם כן תרי קראי למה לי? אם אינו ענין להיכא דשייך תניהו ענין להיכא דלא שייך.
Rather, he derives agency with regard to offerings from here: “And they should take to them every man a lamb, according to their fathers’ houses, a lamb for a household” (Exodus 12:3). This demonstrates that one person takes a lamb and slaughters it on behalf of the entire family. The Talmud asks: But perhaps there too there is agency since the one slaughtering the animal has partnership with them? The Talmud rejects this: If so, why do I need two verses to teach the same halakha? If the halakha stated in this verse is not applicable for where it belongs, i.e., with regard to an agent who is a partner in the offering, apply it to where it does not belong, so that even one who does not have a share in the offering can act as an agent.