how can the gemara say that by "nasi echad" it cant be talking about shaliach because we know that a katan cant apoint a shaliach, we see in tosafos that by korban pesach that a katan can have a shaliach go for him? and if you wrre to say it was zechiyah there you would not be able to learn shlichus! (and if you hold that zechiya is part of shlichus then for sure you have a problem either way you go)???
i would apreciate and ansewr but what i wanna say is that you have to say by korban peasach it is shlichus and not zechiyah. because zechiya only works acrding to the Ran for a katan by chilukas haaretz not any where else and we see acording to the ran that zechiya is not part of shlichus. so only in a case of korban pesach it should work becasue we have a speacial pasuk of "vayikach seh labes avos" which tells us you can have a shaliach for a katan in this situation.
Is this logic right? is this a valid question? if not i would apreciate a response
sammy schnitzer, newyork,usa
I don't think it is clear that Tosfos is saying that a Katan's participation in Korban Pesach is due to Shelichus. Tosfos (DH "Ish Zocheh") merely states that he can be considered a "Manuy" on a Korban Pesach, and we therefore might think he can be "Zocheh" for others as well. Although Shitas Tosfos is generally known to be that Zechiyah is mi'Ta'am Shelichus, the Sha'ar ha'Melech and others understand in Tosfos that it is possible to have Zechiyah without Shelichus as well (which is how they understand Tosfos' position regarding Korban Pesach, see footnote 101 in Ritva Mossad ha'Rav Kook on our Gemara). However, many Rishonim who don't learn Zechiyah mi'Tam Shelichus have no problem saying that Korban Pesach is definitely not mi'Tam Shelichus (Ritva and others).
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose