Amud 42a

תוס' ד"ה ודילמא

And perhaps there it is different, for he has a partnership therein - ודילמא שאני התם דאית ליה שותפות בגוייהו

Summary: We find שליחות even when לית ליה שותפות בגויה in the case of the עבד with the גדי and the טלה. The question of ודילמא does not apply to ריב"ק since he maintains אכילת פסחים is מעכב, and therefore many פסחים are bought and if one is שוחט all of them there is no שותפות בגויה in the others.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה איש

A man acquires but a minor does not acquire - איש זוכה ואין קטן זוכה

Summary: It is necessary for the פסוק to teach us that a קטן cannot be זוכה (for others) by a קרבן פסח, since a קרבן פסח is unusual that someone can be זוכה for the קטן.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה אלא

But rather to harm; provided their intention is beneficial - אלא לחוב על מנת לזכות

Summary: אפוטרופסין may litigate when the יתומים are the claimants (and the decision is binding) but not when they are the respondents.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה יתומים

Orphans that came - יתומים שבאו

Summary: We appoint an אפוטרופוס to divide the estate of minor יתומים, only if they are all in favor; except in the case of חלוקת הארץ (where it was ע"פ הדיבור ואו"ת) and in a case where it is beneficial for the יתומים to have the division done now (as in the case of עבדים). Alternately if none of the יתומים protests (even if they are יונקי שדים or עוברים) we assign an אפוטרופוס even if there is no explicit consent.

[View / Print]

תוס' ד"ה ובוררין

And they choose for them a nice portion - ובוררין להם חלק יפה

Summary: Initially the ר"י maintained that the אפוטרופוס has the power just as if the adult brothers themselves would divide, therefore there is no need for assessments or גורל and it can be done even by items which would normally require גוא"א. However the ר"ת maintains that שומת בי"ד and גורל are required and they cannot divide items of גוא"א. The ר"י ultimately agreed with the ר"ת.

[View / Print]