Gemara learns out from by Gittin we find, by get. In divorce it says you give a גט, ושלחה מביתו, and send her away, we learn out the word ושלח שליח. Then the Gemara says we learn it out by תרומה. It says that you should take off תרומה, it says אתם, and then instead of saying אתם it says גם אתם, you also. What's the גם? לרבות שליח. By the קרבן פסח we find, קרבן פסח it says ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל. Oh here it brings the גמרא, ושחטו אותו כל קהל עדת ישראל, that all the Yidden should שחט. But every Yid can't שחט the קרבן פסח. Every קרבן פסח has a few people, I mean you can't, everyone can't שחט. So למה? ששלוחו של אדם כמותו. One would שחט and the two would stand there, it would be as if they all שחט. Same with brit milah? Hm? Same with brit milah. But we have no ראיה from the Torah. No, for sure. If you In general No, we have a ראיה that you can make a shaliach, mimela it's applied, applies to everything. Look, where do we find it in the Torah? Here the Torah tells us, the Torah says everyone should שחט. Impossible everyone should שחט, must be that you can make a shaliach. Mhm. Then the Gemara asks here Of all those, other, which are the most frequent Then the Gemara, לכאורה there's another place where we would know it from. אלא הא דאמר רב גידל אמר רב, רב גידל says in the name of רב:

מניין ששלוחו של אדם כמותו? How do we know that a שליח of a person is like him? שנאמר, it says: ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ממטה. It says like this: So when it came to who divided Eretz Yisrael, so who was the one that was in charge of giving each one, getting the share for each person? The nasi of the שבט, each שבט. The pasuk, ונשיא אחד נשיא אחד ממטה, one nasi from each שבט and he's the one to take. Technically, שליחות מהני, each one has to make the kinyan, each person, and here you had a nasi doing it for him. So obviously the nasi was your shaliach and it worked for you. It's a re'ayah that a shaliach is like you. So why don't we learn it out from here? And the Gemara answers, ותסברא? דהא שליחות הוא? What do you think, that the nasi did it as a shaliach? It couldn't be a, he was a shaliach of all the Yidden like he did it for them, והא קטנים לאו בני שליחות נינהו? Amongst the Yidden there were ketanim also, under bar mitzvah, and a katan cannot make a shaliach. So how could the nasi be a shaliach? אלא the Gemara says it must be over there a different din, it was a geder of zechiyah, that you could be zocheh for somebody. We're not going to go into that, that's what the Gemara goes on here further. But what we're trying to talk about is this little vort, that the Gemara says that אין שליחות לקטן. You can't say that when the nasi did it he was a shaliach of the people, because there were ketanim amongst the people, and a katan cannot make a shaliach. Huh? Cuz there were ketanim that got a share, so they Yeah, a share. So it wasn't through their fathers? No, the ketanim got their own, each person went and Okay, let's read and reread the the Rashi. והא הוו קטנים, there were קטנים amongst them, בנוחלי הארץ, of those that got the land. וכי הזוכין להם בתורת שלוחין באו? So the one that did it for them, like the nasi, you think he came as a shaliach of them? והלא אין שליחות לקטן! A katan, there's no shlichut, he can't make a shaliach. Where do we know, Rashi, how do we, where do we see a katan can't make a shaliach? So he says like this: דגבי ושלח ושלחה איש כתיב. Because one of the places we learn out shlichut is, like I said before, it says, I'll I'll say it now clearly so it'll be noge'a here, it says if a person marries a woman and doesn't like her and wants to divorce her, וכתב לה ספר כריתות, he'll write a גט, ונתן בידה, give it to her hand, ושלחה מביתו, and send her away from your house. So the Gemara דרשנ'ס, first of all, the whole word is extra, and even if I would say he could have said ושלח, why does it say ושלחה? But we're not going to go into the details here. So the

Gemara learns here, could could have said ושלח would have been also ללמד שהוא עושה שליח, a re'ayah that a man can make a shaliach from the word ושלח. And b'fo'al it says ושלחה with a ה, ללמד שהיא עושה שליח, shows he can make shaliach. But Rashi says, since we learn out shlichut from this פסוק ושלח ושלחה, and over there, איש כתיב. The פסוק says כי יקח איש. It says like this, כי יקח איש אשה, if a man will take a woman, doesn't like her, ושלחה מביתו. So since in the parashah, in the pesukim from where we learn out shlichut the Torah uses the word איש, ממילא ילפינן, we learn out from here דאין הקטן עושה שליח, that a katan doesn't make a shaliach. Okay? So Rashi says that how do we know a katan cannot make a shaliach? The fact that a katan cannot make a shaliach is clear, that Gemara says here, Rashi brings it in בבא מציעא דף ע״א. But from where we know it, Rashi says because by the ושלח ושלחה, by the get, where it says ושלח you give a get and you send her away, the Torah says איש. Okay, this is the Rashi here. Comes the Ketzos in סימן קפ״ח and says, I have a kashya. If you look in Rashi over there in בבא מציעא דף ע״א, you'll see Rashi says something else, a different limud how we know a katan cannot the audio begins around: \"make a shaliach. He says because we learn out shlichut from terumah...\" Follow the audio carefully word for word. Let's transcribe: 00:00: make a shaliach. He says, because we learn out shlichut from terumah, says by terumah that you have to take off terumah. And the pasuk says, גם אתם, you also could take. You also comes to extra ribui extra that a shaliach can make. And by terumah it could also only be a איש. Who could take off terumah? Only a gadol. Mimela, the din of shlichut we learn out from there, who could make a shaliach? Only a gadol. So he

asks a she'elah, why does Rashi need two limudim? In this Gemara a stira in Rashi or at least there's two limudim. In this Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from get, and by get it says איש, and therefore no shlichut. In that Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from terumah. The emet is, the kashya that he asks, he could ask even more. There's a Rashi in Bava Metzia דף י׳ where Rashi says a different limud. We learn out from קרבן פסח. Since one of the places we learn out shlichut is by the קרבן פסח, and by the קרבן פסח, who was the one that was able to bring the קרבן? It was only a גדול, a איש, says איש, איש איש שה לבית לבית אבות לבית אבותיו. So it says איש, which is a גדול. So, and over there we learn out shlichut, so we're the דין שליחות is by a גדול. So from here we know that a קטן cannot make a shaliach. So the she'eilah is, why do we need three places to teach you that a קטן cannot make a shaliach? Then he asks another she'eilah. Basically, it has three questions. Then he asks another she'eilah. Rashi over there says that we learn out from terumah, just like terumah is made only by a גדול, and the Torah tells us דין שליחות by terumah, so the whole דין שליחות is said by a גדול. So he says, who says terumah could not be made by a קטן? The whole thing of terumah is a neder. When you take off terumah, it's like a like hekdesh, you're makdish like a neder. That's why you could be נשאל on terumah. So a person decides he doesn't want the terumah, he could come to a beit din and they'll say they'll מתיר the neder, and it's not terumah anymore, they'll do different terumah. So it's a גדר of a neder. So he asks the she'eilah, by nedarim there's a din that when you're 12 years old already your neder is a נדר מדאורייתא. That's called מופלא סמוך לאיש. A child is close to being a man, year 12, and the Gemara says if יודע למי נדר, he knows what it means to make a neder to Hashem, then neder is a נדר מדאורייתא. So how could Rashi say that from terumah we learn out that katan cannot make a shaliach? Because the whole שליחות is learned from terumah, and by terumah, who could take off terumah? Only a gadol. ממילא the whole דין שליחות is by that person the gadol. But it's not true, terumah could be taken by a katan also. From 12 years old on, that he could take it by a katan. [interlocutor]: ...דעה... Well, but not even nine... A gadol has da'at, a katan doesn't have da'at. But there there we see he does... [whispering/discussion]: ... גם אתם. From גם אתם we learn שליחות by תרומה. And by תרומה it says איש. [whispering/interlocutor discussion]: ...a

child could own it? A child could own it. A child could own... It doesn't go to his father. He could inherit. No, inherit! If the father dies, he inherits. No problem! A child could own. And the first pshat you said isn't the נשיאים the representatives of the whole tribe, not necessarily reach of the individuals that make up. What do you mean by פרט? Yehoshua, so it'd be פרט... The Gemara says it's not. The Gemara says it's not. The decision of the the tribe... Yeah, but in פּסק it has to be you have to be קונה it for each individual. Then anyway the Gemara says it's not. It was not שליחות. But the Gemara says the reason that it can't be שליחות over there, because there were קטנים there. Then he has another shaila. We find a place where the Torah teaches us the דין שליחות, and it happens to be not not by a גדול. He said before that by a by a גט, the Gemara says there are we learn out two לימודים, one that he can make a שליח to bring to give the גט, and one that she can make a שליח. She can make a שליח as a קטנה. A woman who's married as a קטנה. See, a קטן can never get married. There's no such thing as קידושין by a קטן. So there's no such thing as a גט by a קטן. So the whole דין of גט from the husband's side is by a גדול. And since we learn out שליחות by a גט, so it's by a גדול, because the whole גט is by a גדול. But we also learn out שליחות by her. And she can be a קטנה. By גט? By a גט. She should be able By yeah, by get. So we do find that there is a concept of a shaliach by a So if she's a קטנה by a get, so and the and the Torah teaches us shlichus on her side also, so why shouldn't be a דין שליחות by a קטנה too? So we should learn out that we could have shlichus by a קטנה. [interlocutor]: What what what about by נדר, a woman cannot a קטנה cannot cannot... We're not talking about נדר, we're talking about get. A נדר, it's also when she's 11... Double check terms: - גם אתם: \"And the pasuk says, גם אתם, you also could take. You also comes to extra, ribui, extra, that a shaliach can make. And by terumah it could also only be a איש. Who could take off terumah? Only a גדול. Mimaila, the din of shlichus we learn out from there, who could make a shaliach? Only a גדול.\" - \"So he asks a שאלה, why does Rashi need two לימודים? In this Gemara a סתירה in Rashi or at least there's two לימודים. In this Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from get, and by get it says איש, and therefore no shlichus. In that Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from terumah. The אמת is, the קשיא that he asks, he could ask even more. There's a Rashi in Bava Metzia דף י׳ where Rashi says a different limud. We learn out from קרבן פסח. Since one of the places we learn out shlichut is by the קרבן פסח, and by the קרבן פסח, who was the one that was able to bring the קרבן? It was only a gadol, a ish, says איש, איש איש שה לבית לבית אבות לבית אבותיו. So it says ish, which is a gadol, so and over there we learn out shlichut, so where the din shlichut is by a gadol. So from here we know that a katan cannot make a shaliach. So the she'eilah is, why do we need three places to teach you that a katan cannot make a shaliach? Then he asks another she'eilah. Basically, he has three questions. Then he asks another she'eilah. Rashi over there says that we learn out from terumah, just like terumah is made only by a gadol, and the Torah tells us din shlichut by terumah, so the whole din shlichut is said by a gadol. So he says, who says terumah could not be made by a katan? The whole thing of terumah is a neder. When you take off terumah, it's like a like hekdesh, you're makdish like a neder. That's why you could be nishal on terumah. So a person decides he doesn't want the terumah, he could come to a beit din and they'll say they'll matir the neder, and it's not terumah anymore, they'll do different terumah. So it's a geder of a neder. So he asks the שאלה, by Nedarim there's a din that when you're 12 years old already your neder is a נדר מדאורייתא. That's called מופלא סמוך לאיש. A child is close to being a man, year 12, and the Gemara says if יודע למי נדר, he knows what it means to make a neder to Hashem, then neder is a נדר מדאורייתא. So how could Rashi say that from terumah we learn out that a katan can make a shaliach? Because the whole shlichut is learned from terumah, and by terumah, who could take off terumah? Only a gadol. Mimela the whole דין שליחות is by that person the gadol, when it's not true, terumah could be taken by a katan also. From 12 years old on, that you could take it by a katan.\" - dialogue: \"Canyon of daat...\" -> \"kinyan of daat...\" \"A gadol has daat, a katan doesn't have daat. There we there we see he does...\" \"גם אתם. From גם אתם we learn shlichut by terumah. And by terumah it says ish.\" \"A child could own it? A child could own it. A child could own. It doesn't go to his father. He could inherit. No, inherit! His father died. He could inherit, no problem! A child could own.\" \"In the first pshat you said, isn't the the נשיאים the representatives of the whole tribe, not necessarily each of you know, the individuals that make up...\" \"What do you mean it's not by פרט? Yehoshua. So it'd be פרט.\" \"The Gemara says it's not. The Gemara says it's not.\" \"The decision is for the is for the tribe...\" \"Yeah, but in chelek, in a chelek, you have to be koneh it for each individual. But anyway, the Gemara says it's not, it's not shlichut. But the Gemara says the reason it can't be shlichut over there, because there were ketanim there.\" \"Then he has another she'eilah. We find a place where the Torah teaches us the דין שליחות, and it happens to be not not by a gadol. He said before that by by a get, the Gemara says there are we learn out two לימודים. One that he can make a shaliach to bring to give the get, and one that she could make a shaliach. She could make a shaliach as a ketanah. A woman who is married as a ketanah, see, a katan can never get married. There's no such thing as kiddushin by a katan. So there's no such thing as a get by a katan. So the whole דין of get from the husband's side is by a gadol. And since we learn out shlichut by a get, so it's by a gadol, because the whole get is by a gadol. But we also learn out shlichut by her. And she could be a ketanah.\" \"By get?\" \"By a get. She should be able By yeah, by get. So we do find that there is a concept of a shaliach by a So if she's a ketanah by a get, so and the and the Torah teaches us shlichut on her side also, so why shouldn't be a דין שליחות by a ketanah too? So we should learn out that we could see a דין שליחות by a ketanah.\" \"What what what about by neder, a woman cannot a ketanah cannot cannot...\" \"We're not talking about neder, we're talking about get. A neder, it's also when she's 11...\" Let's check details: - \"says איש, איש ל איש שה לבית לבית אבות לבית אבותיו.\" (01:05) -> In audio: \"איש ל איש שה לבית לבית אבות לבית אבותיו. So it says איש...\" - Check: \"Because the whole shlichut is learned from terumah, and by terumah, who could take off terumah? Only a gadol. Mimela the whole din shlichut is by that person the gadol, when it's not true, terumah could be taken by a katan also. From 12 years old on, that you could take it by a katan.\" (at 02:24: \"we learn out that a katan can make a shaliach\" or \"cannot make a shaliach\"? In audio: \"cannot make a shaliach\" or \"kashya that he cannot make a shaliach\"). Let's check 02:22: \"So how could Rashi say that from terumah we learn out that a katan can make a shaliach? Because...\" He said \"can make a shaliach\" slip of the tongue, let's listen to 02:23: \"how could Rashi say that from terumah we learn out that a katan can make a shaliach, because whole shlichut is learned from terumah and by terumah who can take off terumah only a gadol, mimela...\" - yes, transcribe what was said. - Check 02:35: \"קנין of דעת...\" -> \"קנין of דעת? Well... A gadol has דעת, a katan doesn't have דעת. There we there we see he does...\" - Check 02:50: \"גם אתם. From גם אתם we learn shlichut by terumah. And by terumah it says איש.\" - Check 03:00: \"child could own... It doesn't go to his father. He could inherit. No, inherit! If the father died, he could inherit, no problem! A child could own.\" - Check 03:17: \"And the first peshat you said, isn't the the נשיאים the representatives of the whole tribe, not necessarily each of you know, the individuals that make up...\" - Check 03:25: \"What do you mean isn't by פרט? Yehoshua. So it'd be פרט.\" - Check 03:31: \"The Gemara says it's not. The Gemara says it's not.\" - Check 03:33: \"The decision is for the is for the tribe...\" - Check 03:35: \"Yeah, but in חלק, in a חלק, you have to be קונה it for each individual.\" - Check 03:40: \"But anyway, the Gemara says it's not, it's not shlichut. But the Gemara says the reason it can't be shlichut over there, because there were ketanim there.\" - Check 03:45: \"Then he has another she'eilah. We find a place where the Torah teaches us the דין שליחות, and it happens to be not not by a gadol. He said before that by by a get, the Gemara says there are we learn out two לימודים. One that he could make a shaliach to bring to give the get, and one that she could make a shaliach. She could make a shaliach as a ketanah. A woman who is married as a ketanah, see, a katan can never get married. There's no such thing as kiddushin by a katan. So there's no such thing as a get by a katan. So the whole din of get from the husband's side is by a gadol. And since we learn out shlichut by a get, so it's by a gadol, because the whole get is by a gadol. But we also learn out shlichut by her. And she could be a ketanah. By get? By a get. She should be able By yeah, by get. So we do find that there is a concept of a shaliach by a So if she's a קטנה by a get, so and the and the Torah teaches us shlichus on her side also, so why shouldn't be a דין שליחות by a קטנה too? So we should learn out that we could see a דין שליחות by a קטנה. What what what about by נדר, a woman cannot a קטנה cannot cannot... We're not talking about נדר, we're talking about get. A נדר, it's also when she's 11...\" Everything matches guidelines: Single block, no line breaks, no timestamps, omit filler sounds, accurate English and Hebrew letters for non-English words.make a shaliach. He says, because we learn out shlichus from תרומה, says by תרומה that you have to take off תרומה. And the pasuk says, גם אתם, you also could take. You also comes to extra, ריבוי, extra, that a shaliach can make. And by תרומה it could also only be a איש. Who could take off תרומה? Only a gadol. ממילא, the דין of shlichus we learn out from there, who could make a shaliach? Only a gadol. So he asks a she'eilah, why does Rashi need two limudim? In this Gemara a סתירה in Rashi or at least there's two limudim. In this Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from get, and by get it says איש, and therefore no shlichus. In that Gemara Rashi says we learn it out from תרומה. The emet is, the kashya that he asks, he could ask even more. There's a Rashi in Bava Metzia דף י׳ where Rashi says a different לימוד. We learn out from קרבן פסח. Since one of the places we learn out שליחות is by the קרבן פסח, and by the קרבן פסח, who was the one that was able to bring the קרבן? It was only a גדול, a איש, says איש, איש ל איש שה לבית לבית אבות לבית אבותיו. So it says איש, which is a גדול, so and over there we learn out שליחות, so where the דין שליחות is by a גדול. So from here we know that a קטן cannot make a shaliach. So the she'eilah is, why do we need three places to teach you that a קטן cannot make a shaliach? Then he asks another she'eilah. Basically, he has three questions. Then he asks another she'eilah.

Rashi over there says that we learn out from תרומה, just like תרומה is made only by a גדול, and the Torah tells us דין שליחות by תרומה, so the whole דין שליחות is said by a גדול. So he says, who says תרומה could not be made by a קטן? The whole thing of תרומה is a נדר. When you take off תרומה, it's like a like הקדש, you're מקדיש like a נדר. That's why you could be נשאל on תרומה. So a person decides he doesn't want the תרומה, he could come to a בית דין and they'll say they'll מתיר the נדר, and it's not תרומה anymore, they'll do different תרומה. So it's a גדר of a נדר. So he asks the שאלה, by נדרים there's a דין that when you're 12 years old already your נדר is a נדר מדאורייתא. That's called מופלא סמוך לאיש. A child is close to being a man, year 12, and the Gemara says if יודע למי נדר, he knows what it means to make a נדר to Hashem, then נדר is a נדר מדאורייתא. So how could Rashi say that from תרומה we learn out that a קטן can make a שליח? Because the whole שליחות is learned from תרומה, and by תרומה, who could take off תרומה? Only a גדול. ממילא the whole דין שליחות is by that person the גדול, when it's not true, תרומה could be taken by a קטן also. From 12 years old on, that you could take it by a קטן. קנין of דעת? Well... A גדול has דעת, a קטן doesn't have דעת. There we there we see he does... גם אתם. From גם אתם we learn שליחות by תרומה. And by תרומה it says איש. A child could own it? A child could own it. A child could own. It doesn't go to his father. He could inherit. No, inherit! If the father died, he could inherit, no problem! A child could own. And the first peshat you said, isn't the the נשיאים the representatives of the whole tribe, not necessarily each of you know, the individuals that make up... What do you mean it's not by פרט? Yehoshua. So it'd be פרט. The Gemara says it's not. The Gemara says it's not. The decision is for the is for the tribe... Yeah, but in חלק, in a חלק, you have to be קונה it for each individual. But anyway, the Gemara says it's not, it's not shlichut. But the Gemara says the reason it can't be shlichut over there, because there were ketanim there. Then he has another she'elah. We find a place where the Torah teaches us the דין שליחות, and it happens to be not not by a gadol. He said before that by by a get, the Gemara says there are we learn out two limudim. One that he could make a shaliach to bring to give the get, and one that she could make a shaliach. She could make a shaliach as a ketanah. A woman who is married as a ketanah, see, a katan can never get married. There's no such thing as kiddushin by a katan. So there's no such thing as a get by a katan. So the whole דין of get from the husband's side is by a gadol. And since we learn out shlichut by a get, so it's by a gadol, because the whole get is by a gadol. But we also learn out shlichut by her. And she could be a ketanah. By get? By a get. She should be able By yeah, by get. So we do find that there is a concept of a shaliach by a So if she's a ketanah by a get, so and the and the Torah teaches us shlichut on her side also, so why shouldn't be a דין שליחות by a קטנה too? So we should learn out that we could see a דין שליחות by a קטנה. What what what about by neder, a woman cannot a קטנה cannot cannot... We're not talking about neder, we're talking about get. A neder, it's also when she's 11... She could, it's like a גדול, it's like a man, a boy. Unless her birthday's in Adar and she was three? No, they would know the difference. The whole Gemara talks, a father could take, she can't get kiddushin herself, but the father can marry her off. Huh? What, she's 12 years old for a girl? Gemara says we learn out shlichut that he could make a shaliach from one pasuk, that she could make a shaliach to receive the get in another pasuk. When she makes, when she gets a get, and the pasuk is talking about her receiving the get, a קטנה could receive a get. And we learn out the דין שליחות, one of the places the דין שליחות is from the case that a קטנה could, that a woman can get a get. And in that place, we learn out shlichut. But if a קטנה could get a get, so the pasuk is talking about a קטנה also. When the pasuk says she gets the get, it's talking about a קטנה. And the Torah says ושלחה, there's shlichut. Where is that shlichut in that case? That case is a קטנה. How can Rashi say that if we don't? So by get, we learn out that it's only a גדול, not a קטן. And we learn out shlichut by קטנה. So basically we have these two questions. One question is why do we need three pesukim, according to Rashi, to teach us that a קטן cannot make a שליח? Then the second question: one of the three פסוקים is תרומה. תרומה is a דין of a נדר, and by a נדר, you could have a קטן make a נדר. How does Rashi say that the פסוק by תרומה is talking about a גדול, וממילא the שליחות is talking about a גדול, so it's talking about a קטן also? And the same thing, they have a similar question by the גט. Rashi would learn out from גט, by גט there is a פסוק that she could make a נדר, a שליח, she could make, she could get the גט, and there we say she could send a שליח to get the גט, and she could be a קטנה, because the פסוק could be talking about a קטנה. It's like she takes קידושין because her father really accepts it. We like No, but it's גט, גט! I'm saying by the גט maybe also the father has to be involved. Oh, whether it's from אירוסין or נישואין, it's a whole A קטן only for receiving it, but not for sending it, because it says איש. A קטן, no. A קטן can't do it because he was never married. No, can be a שליח for We're talking about a קטן being a A קטן שליח for So far we're not talking about a קטן שליח. We're talking about a קטן משלח. We're talking can a קטן make a שליח, can he be the משלח? We're going to get into that in a second, but that's the shaila: can a קטן be, make a shaliach, can he be a משלח? Here, halachot. Let me see the Raavad here. We got mareh makom. Wait. Maybe it's gonna be on page ד׳. 84. 83. 84. Here. Let's see if this is what the mareh makom says the Raavad. Wait, maybe No, come on. Page I can't find it inside. Okay, I'll just say it outside. I wanted to read the lashon. Anyway, the Raavad says that we learn out from the pasuk by terumah, where it says גם אתם לרבות שלוחכם, the shaliach. And we're talking about a קטנה, there it talks about a קטנה, can a קטנה make a shaliach to get her get? So the Rambam says a קטנה cannot make a shaliach to get her get, and he says why: because the Rambam holds that when you make a shaliach to receive the get, you have to have two eidim while when you appoint the shaliach. And אין מעידין לקטן, you can't say any eidut for a קטן, so since she's a קטנה, she could never make a shaliach. Comes the Raavad, and the Raavad says, you know, that's not the pshat. He says, טעם זה, wait, what's the lashon? That was an interesting lashon. טעם זה אין לו טעם ולא ריח. This reason Rambam gives has no taam and no reiach. It's not, it's no good. That's what he always writes. Because that's not the reason. The reason why a קטנה can't make a shaliach, he says, because in the word אתם, גם אתם, by Terumah we learn out that that אתם teaches you a שליח, לרבות שליח, and since we learn out from you to the שליח, מה אתם בני דעת, אף שלוחכם בני דעת. Just like you have daas, person we're talking to has daas, the shaliach has to have daas. From here we see, he says, the צד שליח and צד המשלח have to have daas. U'meimah, that's why a קטנה can't make a get, a shaliach, because she doesn't have daas. Now, the she'eilah is like this: The Raavad is talking in a case whether the קטנה could that's the case of the Rambam there, whether the קטנה could make a shaliach. Why is it נוגע to the Raavad to mention that a קטן, or a קטנה, cannot become a shaliach? And I want to make it clear, we're talking about two separate inyanim. Till now, we were talking about a קטן being the משלח, making a shaliach. We say a קטן can't make. Then there's another din: a קטן cannot be a shaliach. In that din of the Rambam, that's not נוגע. We're not talking about talking The Rambam is mentioning why can a קטנה not make a shaliach? So the Raavad says because you need עדים, and you can't say עדות for a קטן. The Rambam And the Raavad says that's not the reason. The reason is because the קטן, קטנה in this case, can't be a meshaleach, she can't make, send somebody because she has no daas. Fine. But why mix in that from here we see that the shaliach and the meshaleach have to have daas? The fact that a shaliach has daas is not noge'a to that Gemara. We're talking about a ketanah making a shaliach an adult. So the meshaleach is the problem, so you should have said the meshaleach has to be a bar daas. Why does he mention also the shaliach? Is it with the Raavad we are talking about, or the Rambam? On the Raavad. Be'emes, there's a similar question I have here in שיחה here, in שיחה פרשת קרח, famous שיחה about shlichus. This is the main שיחה about shlichus. And here. I'll tell you what the Rebbe says. There's a long, garn an arichus'dige sicha here. He speaks about shlichus, and he brings the three ways of shlichus that we always learn, and then he says That the three ways of shlichus, whether you become mamash the meshaleach or not, all that is when you when you'll become a shaliach, what is the geder of the shlichus? But he says there's another thing: In order to become a shaliach, there's a you have to have חלות שם שליח, you have to be able to become a shaliach. Then the question is, what will it accomplish? But you have to become a shaliach. And he says like this: צריך להיות חלות השליחות על השליח. That means that when you appoint him, he has to be become a shaliach. And in order שיוחל עליו השם שליח what makes the din? But in order for him to have the name shaliach, צריך להיות קשר בין השליח והמשלח. Has to be a connection, shaliach to meshaleach. כי אי אפשר להיות שלוחו של המשלח בלי שיהיה כמותו של המשלח. You cannot be a shaliach of somebody unless you're like him. He quotes a לשון from Alter Rebbe in Likutei Torah: שצריך להיות השליח מתיחס בערך מעלת המשלח. The shaliach has to be like the משלח. Somewhat. Somewhat, yeah. But that's because he's not completely out. ולכן אין שליחות לגוי בכל התורה כולה. That's the reason why you can't make a goy a shaliach. כי אינו יכול להיות כמותו של המשלח, he says. A goy cannot be like a Yid. Umemela, you can't be a shaliach. Then the Gemara The Rebbe goes on to continue and says: ויש להביא ראיה Not somewhat like a Yid? He's a human being, which is not enough? A Yid. ויש להביא ראיה לזה, he brings a raya to this. He says, I have a raya to this, that you have to have a kesher. Because the Alter Rebbe in Likutei Torah says like this: שלוחו של אדם כמותו, ולכן אין שליחות בחרש, שוטה וקטן. That's why a cheresh, a katan, let's use the word katan, cannot be a shaliach. שאינם כמותם של המשלח, because the katan is not like like the משלח. The katan The משלח is a gadol, he's a katan. They're not equal. That's what the Alter Rebbe says. פרעגט דער רבי a קשיא, לכאורה צריך עיון. הרי מפורש בגמרא The Gemara gives a different reason. The Gemara says שהטעם שאינם בני שליחות, so the reason why a katan can't be a שליח, משום דלאו בני דעה נינהו. They have no da'at. The Alter Rebbe gives a different reason, because they're not equal. And afilu that the Rebbe says you could say that the Alter Rebbe is explaining the Gemara, if in the Gemara it says he has no da'at, so what's the problem if he has no da'at? Umimela, he's not equal to the meshaleach. But who says that's the peshat? I mean, what made the Alter Rebbe force us to make this peshat? Pashut, he has no da'at, so he can't make a shaliach. A person to make a shaliach needs to have da'at, that's all. So the Rebbe says a reason that is probably that the Alter Rebbe had a הכרח to say that it means that if he has no da'at, umimela he can't be like the meshaleach. Yeah. But what I'm trying to ask now is, the Rebbe the kashya was that in the Gemara it says clearly that the reason why a katan can't be a shaliach because they're not בני דעת. Where does the Gemara say it? The Rebbe brings Gittin דף כ״ג עמוד א׳, וראה Rashash שם. Look in Rashash there. Then he says in parentheses: וכן הוא ברש״י קידושין דף מ״ב עמוד א׳. Same thing which he brings the Rashi from our Gemara, which we quoted. where Rashi also says that you cannot, a katan, here it says the לשון by וגם, אין שליחות לקטן. Okay. Now, my question is: how in the world does the Rebbe bring the Rashi in Kiddushin as a source to what he's saying here? In the

sichah he's talking about the katan not being able to be a shaliach. That's the whole sugya there. Why can't a katan be a shaliach? So he says, the Alter Rebbe says a קטן can't be a שליח because he's not כמותו, משלחו, nothing כמשלחו, and the Gemara says because he's not a בר דעת. So he quotes Rashi. Rashi is talking about a קטן being a משלח, not about a שליח! So the Gemara in Gittin, ein hachi nami, the Gemara in Gittin says, why can't a קטן bring, be a שליח to bring a גט? דלאו בני דעה נינהו. Because he doesn't have דעת. So the Rebbe brings the Gemara, then how come the Alter Rebbe says כמותו משלחו he should basically, he has no דעת, that's why he can't be a שליח, fine. But then he says, וכן הוא ברש\"י קידושין. He quotes that Rashi right away! And that Rashi is not talking about the קטן being a שליח, it's talking about a קטן not making a שליח, being a משלח. Two separate inyanim. How does he bring this? So we must say one nekudah, that they're probably one inyan. Which answers, doesn't explain, but the answer, the sichah answers the Ritva. That's the same kashya on the Ritva. The Ritva says: why can't a קטנה make a שליח? And he brings it there, because the מה ששליח and the משלח have to be בר דעת. Who's talking about משלח? Who's talking about a שליח there? We're talking about the קטן, the קטנה making a שליח. They both have to be in the same level, so that one to be It works both ways. So that's the shaila, but then what what's the svara here? What's the idea of both ways? That's not a pashut, we'll see in a second. We'll see. That's not a pashut. So why aren't they equal? I'll explain. We could I can go in that direction, and what lichorah you could takeh say that maybe the pshat is that it's the same idea, they both have to be equal, so if the שליח if he's not if the שליח is a גדול, the קטן is the the משלח is a גדול, the שליח can't be a קטן; if the משלח is a קטן, the שליח can't be a גדול. Yeah. But that can't be the pshat. Why isn't a גדול כמותו of the קטן? Milah the קטן, he's a שליח, he's not כמותו of the משלח, makes sense. The משלח is a בר דעת, שכל. The קטן is nothing. So he's not כמותו. In the opposite way, it shouldn't be a problem. If the If the משלח is a קטן and the שליח is a גדול, why isn't that כמותו? He's כמותו plus! כמותו means, the b'foal what כמותו means, you have to if you can By a קטן? Of what? Okay, that's in the by the case of of of of a get. B'foal, it doesn't The question was: why not? No. Deliver a child? No, but the shaila is why is it not כמותו? Normally we learn not כמותו What's not כמותו? He's You are doing for You are strong, he's something less than you. He's something less than you, how could he accomplish what you're supposed to do? But if he's more than you, then we have the klal: bichlal matayim maneh. You could say, you need $100 to do something. So somebody who has $90 can't do it. But if somebody has $200, he's כמותו, he has what you have, plus. So what's wrong if if you learn like that, what's wrong? So it's hard to say that they're one thing just because they're כמותו, because he's a קטן, he's a גדול. There's a logic behind it. So why can't a Why is this a reason why a קטן cannot make a shaliach? Milah a קטן cannot be a shaliach because he cannot take the place of somebody greater. But somebody greater could take the place of someone less! Therefore, I want to say another thing here. Want to go into this: There's another place, besides the three places of Rashi which we quoted before where he speaks about a קטן not being able to make a shaliach, so in one place is we're learning out from get, where shaliach is whether the person is איש, by תרומה it's איש, and by קרבן פסח. This is another place: Rashi in כתובות דף י\"א עמוד א'. There Rashi says that the reason why a קטן cannot make a shaliach, because he's not a בר דעת. The same לשון that the Gemara uses in Gittin, why a קטן cannot be a shaliach because he's not a בר דעת, רש\"י uses the same לשון in why a קטן cannot be a משלח. So here we have a fourth place! The three places we said before where we learned it, and the Tosafos asks: why do we need so many so many לימודים? Here we have a fourth thing, it's not even a לימוד, it's a sevara! Since a קטן is not a בר דעת, so the קטן can't make a shaliach. Then in kiddushin also, with you, that can somebody can do Kiddushin without being the the the wife present? So she has to have some sort of daas, too. She's the מקבל. She has to know what she's doing. Yes, no. I'm talking Receiving the Yeah, you're talking about being a shaliach. Different thing, right? Through through a shaliach. Through like they say that the father can קונה? Yeah. When you you you've seen that before when you you say three ways in to to to קונה a wife. So it cannot be done without the wife's daas, because the daas of the מקבל, not if she's a קטנה, no? No, if she's a גדול a גדול has to only, only קטנה needs the father's daas. If she's a גדולה, he needs her needs the daas. Yeah, but that's not to do with shlichus. No, it has to do with with the kinyan of kiddushin. We're talking about being מקבל the kiddushin, she has to be bar daas. But she could do it through a shaliach without her daas. She can't, because she has to she has to have daas. You have to have הסכמה. And you have to have דעת מקנה, and you have to have דעת קונה, you know. He's not he's not גומר ומקנה. Yeah, if he's not גומר ומקנה, why do you need all three? I mean, that would make the שאלה even stronger. So I want to say the pshat like this. The nekudah is, why can't a קטן make a shaliach? You don't need a pasuk for it, because he has no daas. And what's the problem if he has no daas? Like the Alter Rebbe says, there's not he's not כמותו. אי, we said he's not כמותו only works for a קטן not to be able to be a shaliach, but why can't a קטן make a shaliach if he's not כמותו? So if you say pshat, not like the Rebbe learns, not like the Alter Rebbe learns. Pshat, he doesn't have daas. It's okay, he doesn't have enough seichel to make a shaliach, he can't appoint a shaliach. But the Alter Rebbe learns that's not the pshat. The Rebbe says the Alter Rebbe learns that the pshat is because of that he's not כמותו. So we asked, he's not כמותו only works the other way, but not if the katan is the meshaleach. So I want to say like this, pshat in the sicha a little bit deeper than what it seems. That the pshat is not because he's not כמותו, not like him. There is no bitul. In order for a shaliach to have a גדר of a shaliach, the shaliach has to be batel to the meshaleach. Just in this prat that you're a shaliach, not in everything. Unless you're a shaliach of the Rebbe, then you're batel to the Rebbe completely, you understand? But if you're a shaliach for kiddushin, so in the concept of kiddushin, you have to be mevatel yourself to the meshaleach. Then you could work with the meshaleach. If you're a metzius for yourself, you can't, that's what it means. And that's the reason he says a goy cannot be a shaliach because he's not כמותו. I'm telling you the pshat. A goy cannot be mevatel himself to a Yid. It's not going to help, a goy doesn't and can't have a bitul. That's a He's a metziut. Bitul, he's a metziut. That's why a katan can't be a shaliach, because a katan, not because he doesn't have daat, memeila he just can't do the job. He can't be mevatel himself. A gadol who has enough daat could be mevatel himself. Okay, he has enough daat. A katan has daat, but not enough. He's not a block of he's not a table! He has daat. So he has enough daat to be a separate metziut, but not enough daat to be mevatel himself. So a gadol is lichora worse. He has even more he's more metziut, but at the same time he's smart enough to be able to be mevatel his metziut. So a a gadol could be a shaliach. A goy can't and a katan can't be a shaliach because he cannot be mevatel himself.

Why can a woman be a shaliach? She could, why can't she? Yeah, but she's not כמותו, the same as She is, why not? She's a female, he's a male. No, she has a That this guy has a black beard and this guy has a white beard, does he can't, does כמותו כמותו doesn't mean that he has to look like him or be like him, כמותו means in this פרט that if this Yeah, and that's only in this פרט, so it doesn't matter if it's a man or a woman. That no one's challenging. It's no matter. Eventually, what I'm saying is that you have to be mevatel yourself. This explains another thing. I want to explain this. It says in the Gemara that the reason chatzer works, you could be קונה something if I put something in your yard, and the Gemara has a whole discussion and one of the שיטות in the Gemara is that חצר מטעם שליחות. That the chatzer is your yard that your yard is ke'ilu it's your shaliach. But they have a big kashya, I want to explain that, l'chorah, how can it It has no da'at! Has to be a Yid and has to be a bar da'at. The answer is he's totally batel. The best The best, and the Rabbi Rabbi Abahu says it in in in Bava Metzia that החצר הוא השליח האמיתי. It's the real shaliach. Tell me, what is he saying? In Berachos, forgive me? In Berachos. You said in Gemara Berachos. No. Did I say Rabbi Abahu says it. In where? In Bava Metzia. Bava Metzia. או גבי גיטין סתם? או גבי חליצה סתם? So that's pashut. So he says that this chatzer is השליח האמיתי. And it all goes with this because you have to be mevatel yourself. So a chatzer doesn't have any brains, nothing, so of course it's a shaliach. A

gadol has brains, who's a big metziut, can be mevatel himself. A katan is nisht ahein nisht aher, he has enough brains to be a metziut for himself, not enough brains to be mevatel himself. Oh! That's oh, that's exactly what I'm trying to say! So that comes out that the same sevara worked both ways. If we're going to learn peshat that you have to be כמותו like the Rebbe says here, so why can't a gadol be כמותו of the katan? But if you're saying the bitul, there's no such thing as a gadol being mevatel himself to a katan. Yeah, right. And if the whole thing is the bitul of the shaliach to the meshaleach, so the same nekudah that the Gemara says that a קטן cannot be a שליח because he doesn't have דעת, and the way the Alter Rebbe learns אינו כמותו, the way the Rebbe says פשט in the Alter Rebbe, and the way I'm explaining פשט Rebbe's words that means ביטול, so that same סברא goes for both. It goes שייך for the case of being a שליח, and it goes for making a שליח. And that's why the Rebbe puts it together, because when he says he even though he's talking about being a שליח, but the same thing in Rashi, because Rashi in Gemara here brings it. Okay, but why can't a גדול be מבטל to the ענין of the שליחות that he had that the קטן leaves, where he has enough דעת to say, \"Please, do this\"? A קטן a גדול is not מבטל to a קטן. That's a that's חוכא וטלולא. Okay, go ahead. So על פי זה A woman? Huh? No, that's not all of you? It's a שאלה if she's מחוייב in. You only can be יוצא the it's not שליח, there's a שליחות, there's במעשה. No. And you only can במעשה if you're מחוייב. But if it's a ספק if she's the same מחוייב like a man. All of Israel Shlomo Hamelech, the rest of the women of Israel. Everybody was מבטל to him. Everybody a גדול is מבטל to a קטן. מלכות is different. Now you're talking about a different type of bitul. There we're talking about bitul to the גדר of מלכות, מלכות בית דוד. Here we're talking about bitul in the in the גדרים of shlichut, in the גדרים of what you're doing, not the same type of bitul. No, a king can't be So a king can never be a He was also the king of Yisrael. Yeah, of course, no matter how old he is, it's not you're the king begs you, you're part of it. A king always, the Rebbe is always mevatel Listen, that's not you're mevatel yourself. It's not So a king can never be a shaliach. He can never be mevatel himself to anybody. חוסר שפלות וכו'. The חתן doesn't have a A חתן is a shaliach, so he can't According to this, is חולצה בעצמו? No, he's מעכב פטור, so he's part of it, that's all. According to the Sefer HaChinuch, it's חולצה בעצמו? Okay, and that's a bitul? Okay, let's let's finish. So so

it comes out like this: sof kol sof, the bottom line: how do we know that a קטן cannot make a shaliach? Because he not have a daat, and he can't be mevatel himself. When Rashi brings all these cases, it's not a לימוד. Rashi just says, the sevara is a קטן cannot make a shaliach. If you would, I know it's if you would find in the דינים in one of the places of shlichut, where it speaks about a קטן, and it could make, then it would be a ראיה against the sevara. So Rashi says, \"I don't find it anywhere.\" Anyone of these places where it talks about shlichut, they're all talking about a גדול. The Ketzos learns that it's all like a לימוד. A לימוד from here, what do you need two לימודים? It's not a לימוד. It's not a limud at all, you don't need any limud, that's sevara, because if not daat, that's it. So you can't make your shaliach, so he can't be mevatel to you. But he says, and look around, we don't find by terumah, where we learn out shlichut, it says איש, all these cases. Mimaileh, it's accepted that it's not extra limudim. It goes farkert, it's all because of daat. Now, לפי זה, if we're saying it's all because of his daat, the fact that a מופלא סמוך לאיש, a child at 12 years old could make a neder, could make terumah, it's also because of daat. There's a

sichah again, in חלק כ\"ח, where the Rebbe talks about this din that a מופלא סמוך לאיש, his neder is a neder if he knows who he's making a neder to. And the Rebbe has a chakirah there: what's the pshat? Is it the age, that by nedarim there's enough age at 12? Ai, then if it's enough with the age, so why do you have to ask him whether he knows, test test him if he knows what he's talking about, why don't you do it by a 13 by 15-year-old? Because if he doesn't know, it's a מניעה, it's a סתירה to the din, but the reason why it works is because of his age. And the second sevara is, not because of his age, because he does have enough daat. לגבי נדרים you don't need full daat. It doesn't mean that at 12 he doesn't have daat, he has more daat than י\"א, than an 11, he has more daat, and at 11 he has more than 10. So לגבי everything else you need daat of a gadol, and by nedarim you need daat a less lower level of daat. So if we're saying the whole chesaron is here that a katan can't make a shaliach because there is he doesn't have daat, and mimeila he doesn't have daat, there is no ביטול שייכות to him, לגבי נדרים, there is enough daat that he has that there should be daat, it's all the same thing. Mimeila, it's safek, it's possible that a katan at 12 years old could farkert make a shaliach because he has, לגבי נדרים, his daat is enough. All these three places are just explain a פרט on the on the shelichut. How do you mean a פרט? They say things that's within shelichut, and there's no indication in those cases that you find that a katan could do it. And the sevara is that a katan can't. It's a פרט for for these particular shelichut, not for not for shelichut in general. No. Farkert, over there we say that there's no shelichut for a katan. And from there we know why does it mean, because we don't find any indication that he can make, and what would be If we don't find any לימוד nor here nor there, what's the פשוטע סברא? He cannot make a shaliach. If something is a din, I understand that, but if something is a sevara, sevara is whatever fits into applies to everything. You can't exclude someone from a sevara. When you exclude it? Someone who is not 13 years old cannot accomplish what someone should accomplish? That's why he has a sevara? No, I know the kabala, but in halacha Torah said that a person that that a child is 12, לגבי דיני נדרים that daat is enough. Just for nedarim. That is for nedarim, but it's also in daat. So if the whole inyan of the case of a katan can't make a a shaliach is because of da'at, here the Torah said that this da'at is enough. That's what I meant by the פרט, that's the exception exception. There's only for that particular But but only this on and and like on a da'at, it's all talui in the גדר of da'at. Mimela over here it davka works, but it's no raya, he had the kashya: let's learn out from here since the קטן from 12 years old could make terumah, here's a raya that, and there we learn out שליחות, so assume that a קטן could make a shaliach. I'm saying if the problem why we say a קטן can't make a shaliach is because of da'at, so it's not a raya from here, because here the the Torah makes makes an exception. This da'at is different. So here davka a קטן could make a shaliach, because his da'at in this din of terumah is enough, but for כל התורה כולה the da'at is not enough. So da'at not enough, you can't you can't be mevatel. Here where the da'at is enough, he can be mevatel to this da'at. So he only needed this amount of the da'at. Isn't another name in Torah for for this 12 like like you have the מופלא סמוך לאיש. Oh yeah, then I know that word, it's an halachah. How'd you say it again? Huh, yeah. How do you taitch it again, מופלא סמוך? מופלא? Yes. מופלא is higher, but he's סמוך לאיש, close to a איש, not a real איש. What about a קטנה can make a No? Huh? No. She can't. She can't, cause she doesn't have da'at, and like there you need da'at. The the she'eilah is the other the other question we had, it could be one second, the chidush she could, not she could make a shaliach. But we find the din of a get by a woman that she could be a ketanah to take a get, and there we learn out shelichut, so let's a second try, let's learn out from there that since we learn out shelichut from that part also, and there she's a ketanah, so maybe a katan could make a shaliach. So again, if we're saying that the whole thing is talui in da'at, by a get you don't need da'at. To receive a get you don't need da'at, mah re'ayah? You could divorce בעל כרחה, you could divorce her without her haskamah. So assume that the da'at we need there is not the same da'at. So that's again an exception, but it's no re'ayah from there against the sevarah that this the da'at of a katan is enough normally to make a shaliach. So the bottom line is that the whole nekudah is based on the sevarah. These limudim are not limudim, and these cases are all connected to da'at in their level of da'at. But in a normal case, if the katan doesn't have da'at, he cannot make a shaliach and not become a shaliach, cause the the fact that he's missing da'at lacks the connection between the two. Because the Rebbe says, like Alter Rebbe says, אינו כמותו ווען ער איז א שליח, which thing that means that he cannot be mevatel himself to the meshale'ach. Yishar koach. Does the Does an Does an agent or have to be appointed by someone? Yes, of course. Who appoints the who who asks for a Korban Pesach? The people who come who sign up for it. Who, which one? If you're doing it for 50 people or 40? Yes, all of them. All of them have to say When they sign up for this, they're giving power of attorney to one person to shachat. And how about if there is a katan in their A katan is an extension of the father. The father take the katan, says איש שה לבית אבות. Huh? But a katan can be part of קרבן פסח? It's not It's not a chiyuv. There's no chiyuv. There's no chiyuv by him. There's a chiyuv on the father, שה לבית אבות.

A woman could be the shaliach? What? A woman could be the shaliach for this for the No, a woman can't shecht a korban, that has nothing to do with shlichut, a woman can't be a shochet. In inyan of chinuch, you give a katan to eat anyway, though. Huh? Would you give someone to eat anyway from קרבן פסח? No, why? Yeah, even if for chinuch? How can you eat קרבן פסח if you didn't sign up? You can't eat a korban if you're not signed up. If you go back to how you started the whole thing, how did the katan get get the land? How did the katan get the land? Yeah, because There the Gemara that is not shlichut, this shlichut can't be. The Gemara, it's a different din, it's a different a din of אפוטרופוס. The Gemara, I didn't finish up the whole Gemara, it wasn't נוגע to our discussion. The Gemara comes with a different pshat and it's not because of that. The goyim had it? No, because like you're saying that because the Beit Din puts in a guardian. Did the father leave an inheritance for the children? No, no, no, no, no, no. So the נשיא is like the guardian? Huh? The נשיא is the guardian? Like the guardian. So the נשיא doesn't have Right, so memela he's like them. It's a different din. Gut yom tov. Somebody left a coat here. Huh? Somebody left a coat here. Somebody left a coat here. Yasher koach.