מתני׳ וְתוֹרֵם אֶת תְּרוּמָתוֹ וּמַעַשְׂרוֹתָיו לְדַעְתּוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין, קִינֵּי זָבוֹת, קִינֵּי יוֹלְדוֹת, חַטָּאוֹת וַאֲשָׁמוֹת. וּמְלַמְּדוֹ מִדְרָשׁ, הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת, אֲבָל לֹא יְלַמְּדֶנּוּ מִקְרָא. אֲבָל מְלַמֵּד הוּא אֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנוֹתָיו מִקְרָא.

The mishna proceeds to list other tasks that one may perform for someone who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from him. And he separates his teruma and his tithes, provided that it is with the knowledge and consent of the owner of the produce. And he sacrifices for him the bird nests, i.e., pairs of birds, pigeons and turtledoves, of zavin (see Leviticus 15:13–15); the bird nests of zavot (see Leviticus 15:28–30); the bird nests of women after childbirth (see Leviticus 12:6–8); sin-offerings; and guilt-offerings. And he teaches him midrash, halakhot , and aggadot , but he may not teach him Bible. However, he may teach his sons and daughters Bible.

גמ׳ אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: הָנֵי כָּהֲנֵי, שְׁלוּחֵי דִּידָן הָווּ אוֹ שְׁלוּחֵי דִּשְׁמַיָּא? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינָּהּ – לְמוּדָּר הֲנָאָה. אִי אָמְרַתְּ דִּשְׁלוּחֵי דִּידָן הָווּ – הָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ, וְאָסוּר. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁלוּחֵי דִּשְׁמַיָּא – שָׁרֵי. מַאי?

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Are these priests our agents or agents of Heaven when they perform the Temple service? The Gemara elaborates: What is the practical difference whether they are our agents or God’s agents? The Gemara answers: The difference is with regard to one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from another. If you say that the priests are our agents, don’t the priests provide benefit for the one and therefore, sacrificing that person’s offering is prohibited? And if you say that they are agents of Heaven, it is permitted. What is the status of priests?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: מַקְרִיב עָלָיו קִינֵּי זָבִין כו'. אִי אָמְרַתְּ שְׁלוּחֵי דִּידָן – קָא מְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ!

Come and hear proof to resolve the dilemma, as we learned in the mishna: And he sacrifices for him the bird nests of zavin , etc. The Gemara infers: If you say that the priests are our agents, the priests would thereby provide benefit to one for whom benefit from them is forbidden. Based on the ruling in the mishna, apparently, priests are agents of Heaven.

וְלִיטַעֲמִיךְ, לִיתְנֵי: מַקְרִיב עָלָיו קָרְבָּנוֹת! אֶלָּא, מְחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה שָׁאנֵי. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל צְרִיכִין דַּעַת, חוּץ מִמְּחוּסְּרֵי כַּפָּרָה, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָדָם מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל בָּנָיו וְעַל בְּנוֹתָיו הַקְּטַנִּים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַזָּב״ – בֵּין גָּדוֹל בֵּין קָטָן.

The Gemara rejects the proof: And according to your reasoning, that the mishna holds that priests are agents of Heaven, let the mishna teach in general: He sacrifices for him offerings. Why did the mishna list these particular offerings? Rather, perforce, offerings brought by those lacking atonement are different from other offerings, as Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Everyone who brings an offering requires knowledge and intent in order to bring the offering, except for those lacking atonement, who bring the offering in order to complete their purification. This can be proven from the fact that a person brings a purification offering for his minor sons and daughters, although they lack halakhic intelligence, as it is stated: “This is the law of the zav ” (Leviticus 15:32). This apparently superfluous verse comes to teach that the halakhot of the zav apply to both an adult and a minor.

אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת״ וגו' – בֵּין קְטַנָּה וּבֵין גְּדוֹלָה, קְטַנָּה בַּת לֵידָה הִיא?! וְהָא תָּנֵי רַב בֵּיבָי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב נַחְמָן: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת בְּמוֹךְ: קְטַנָּה, וּמְעוּבֶּרֶת, וּמֵנִיקָה. קְטַנָּה – שֶׁמָּא תִּתְעַבֵּר וְתָמוּת!

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, with regard to that which is written: “This is the law of a woman after childbirth” (Leviticus 12:7), would he interpret that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both an adult and a minor? Is a minor capable of giving birth? But didn’t Rav Beivai teach a baraita before Rav Naḥman: It is permitted for three women to engage in intercourse with a contraceptive resorbent: A minor, and a pregnant woman, and a nursing woman; a minor may do so lest she conceive and die. Apparently, a minor is incapable of giving birth, as she would die first.

הַהִיא ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הַיֹּלֶדֶת״ – בֵּין פִּקַּחַת בֵּין שׁוֹטָה, שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מֵבִיא קָרְבָּן עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ שׁוֹטָה,

The Gemara explains: That verse: “This is the law of a woman after childbirth,” does not come to include a minor. Rather, it comes to teach that the halakhot of a woman after childbirth apply to both a halakhically competent woman and a woman who is an imbecile, as a man brings an offering for his wife who is an imbecile.

כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם מֵבִיא קָרְבַּן עָשִׁיר עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְכָל קָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁחַיֶּיבֶת.

This halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A man brings the offering of a wealthy person for his wife, as well as all offerings that she is obligated to bring. A wealthy woman after childbirth brings a lamb as a burnt-offering and a dove or turtledove as a sin-offering. A poor woman brings two turtledoves or two pigeons, one as a burnt-offering and one as a sin-offering. Even if the woman is poor, and based on her usufruct property, she would bring the offering of the poor; if her husband is wealthy, he brings the offering of a wealthy person on her behalf. And he must bring on her behalf all the offerings for which she is obligated.

שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לָהּ: וְאַחֲרָיוּת דְּאִית לֵיךְ עָלַי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא.

The fact that he is obligated to bring a wealthy person’s offering on her behalf is due to the fact that this is what he writes in her marriage contract: And responsibility to pay any financial obligations that you have incurred before this moment is incumbent upon me. Offerings that she is obligated to bring are included in those obligations, irrespective of her degree of halakhic competence. The offering of a woman after childbirth is one of the offerings brought by those lacking atonement. Therefore, even if priests are our agents, they may sacrifice the offering on behalf of the woman; since they may do so without her knowledge and intent, no agency is required. Therefore, there is no proof from the mishna that priests are agents of Heaven.