Don't kill the shaliach!

Speak to the whole community of Israel and say that on the tenth of this month each of them shall take a lamb to a family, a lamb to a household... You shall keep watch over it until the fourteenth day of this month; and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites shall slaughter it at twilight.

"And the entire congregation of Israel shall slaughter it": Now do they all slaughter it? From here it is derived that one's shaliach is regarded as the sender himself.

One who prays and realizes that he erred in his prayer, it is a bad omen for him. And if he who erred is the communal prayer leader, it is a bad omen for those who sent him, because a one’s shaliach is like oneself. They said about Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa that he would pray on behalf of the sick and would say: This one shall live and this one shall die. When they said to him: From where do you know? He said to them: If my prayer is fluent in my mouth, I know that my prayer is accepted. And if not, I know that my prayer is rejected.

1. A non-Jew cannot become an agent for anything in the world, so too, a Jew cannot become an agent for a non-Jew for anything.

2. One can appoint anyone to be an agent: a man, a woman (even if she is married), even a male or female slave, since they all have da'at, intellectual capacity, and they are all obligated in a number of mitzvot, therefore they can become agents for financial transactions. But someone without communicable intellectual capacity, such as a deaf-dumb person, a mentally handicapped person or a child cannot become an agent.

Therefore one who sends their small child to the shop-owner with some coins, and they gave the coins and the owner poured out oil into a vessel - if the oil or the coins got lost, the shop-owner is obligated to pay, because the child was only sent with a message, but he should not have sent the goods with anyone who doesn't have intellectual capacity. And so with all such cases.

Rav Ashi said: When we say that the halakha is that there is no agency for a gentile, this matter applies concerning the separation of teruma, the portion of produce designated for a priest. But concerning the rest of the halakhot of the Torah, there is agency for a gentile.

The Gemara comments: And this opinion of Rav Ashi is an error!

In all cases, an agent is like oneself - except to perform a transgression, since we have a rule: there is no such thing as a shaliach in the case of a transgression. This is the case when they are obligated in the law, but if not, perhaps they are an agent even for a transgression.

One who says to their shaliach: "go and sell my property or objects or buy something for me", they do so and their acts are legally valid. In creating a shaliach, we don't require a kinyan, a transfer of property, and also no witnesses, rather just speech alone is enough. Witnesses are not required to create the status of shaliach, but can validate it if one of them denies what happened.

"In the case of one who sends an item that causes a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, the one who sent it is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.

If he sent it in the hands of a halakhically competent person, only the halakhically competent person is liable."

But why is the halakhically competent person liable? Let us say that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself.

There it is different, as there is no agency for transgression, as we say: When there is a conflict between the words of the Master, i.e., God, and the words of the student, i.e., a human being, whose words should be listened to?

The agent is not considered an agent for a transgression - it is as if he or she did the act intentionally themselves.

There is no agency for transgression, since one listens to the words of the Master and not to the disciples. The one who appointed the agent can say: I didn't believe he would listen to me, to do such a thing. But if the agent isn't obligated in the laws, this reason doesn't apply.

What is the difference between commandments such as separating challah and slaughtering an animal, for which an agent can be appointed, and all sorts of commandments such as tefillin, tzitzit, sukkah and lulav and eating matzah, for which no agency is possible? Maybe one could say that for the former, the commandment is in the object: the dough needs to be separated and the animal correctly slaughtered. The same applies to marriage betrothal and divorce and mezuza and tithes and sacrifices and building a fence around your roof. But tefillin and tzitzit etc., those commandments are different and don't allow agency.

One's agent is like oneself. This is because all the souls of Israel are one. Their root is from a source called "All is one, all is good." As it says in Exodus "All the soul coming from the house of Jacob was seventy soul", in the singular. Therefore one's agent really is like oneself. Therefore non-Jews are not able to be legal agents, their souls coming from another place.

This is as the Sages said: just as you are in the covenant, let your agents be in the covenant. This shows that agency depends on the covenant, which is based on faith in the oneness of God. So agency, which itself is oneness of souls, depends on the covenant of faith in oneness.

This also explains why a child can not be nor appoint an agent. The place of "All is one, all is good" is the perfection of the consciousness. It's connected to the prophecy "And on that day God will be One and God's name will be One," which is the revelation of consciousness. A child, whose consciousness is not yet complete, can't become an agent, since agency depends on oneness which depends on consciousness.

This also explains why there is no agency for transgression, since transgression (God forbid!) separates one from the source of oneness. Therefore transgression damages the unity upon which agency depends.