Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) AN AGENT TO SIN

(a) Question: Why don't we learn from Me'ilah to other sins?
(b) Answer: Me'ilah and Shlichus Yad (unauthorized use of a deposit) are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other - therefore, we do not learn to other cases.

1. (Beraisa - Beis Shamai): "On any matter of negligence" - this makes a watchman obligated (to pay for any loss to the deposit) if he intended to use it.
2. Beis Hillel say, he is not obligated until he uses it - "If he did not send his hand".
3. Beis Shamai: How do you expound "On any Davar of negligence"?
4. Beis Hillel: One might have thought, the watchman is only obligated if he himself used the deposit - "On any Davar" teaches, even if he told another to use it, he becomes obligated.

(c) Question: This answer is according to Beis Hillel; why don't Beis Shamai learn to other sins?
(d) Answer: Me'ilah and selling or slaughtering a stolen animal are two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other - therefore, we do not learn to other cases.
(e) Question: From where do we learn that one can transgress selling or slaughtering a stolen animal through an agent?
(f) Answer #1: "He will slaughter or sell (the animal he stole)" - just as selling it involves another party, also slaughtering it (can).
(g) Answer #2 (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "(Slaughter) or (sell)" - this includes through an agent;
(h) Answer #3 (d'Vei Chizkiyah): "In place of" - this includes through an agent.
(i) Our answer is as the opinion that two verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, do not teach to other places.
(j) Question: According to the opinion that they do teach - how can we answer?
(k) Answer: By slaughtering Kodshim outside the Mikdash, it says "to that man" - not to his agent.

1. All other transgressions are learned from there.

(l) Question: Why learn from there that one is not liable for an agent's actions - learn from Me'ilah and Shelichus Yad (or selling or slaughtering a stolen animal) that one is liable!
(m) There is an extra verse by slaughtering outside - "That man will be cut off";

1. Since we already know that one is not liable for an agent's actions by slaughtering outside, this must come to teach about all other sins!

(n) Question: The opinion that we do not learn from 2 verses, one of which could have been learned from the other, does not need to learn this - what does he learn from the 2 verses "that man"?
(o) Answer: One teaches that if 2 people hold a knife together and slaughter (Kodshim outside, neither is Chayav Kares); the other exempts from Kares one who was forced, unintentionally sinned, or was mistaken.

1. The opinion that we learn from 2 verses (1 of which is extra) learns this from the extra letter Hei (in both words "Hahu");
2. The other opinion holds that we do not expound the extra letter Hei.

(a) (Beraisa): One who tells an agent to kill someone - the agent is liable, the sender is exempt;

1. Shamai says, the sender is liable - "You (David) killed (Uriyah) with the sword of Amon".

(b) Question: What is Shamai's reason?
(c) Answer #1: He holds that we learn from 2 verses (1 of which is extra), but he does not expound the extra letter Hei.
(d) Answer #2: He expounds the extra Hei; the sender is liable at the hands of Heaven.

1. Question: If so, the first Tana must hold that he is exempt at the hands of Heaven?!
2. Answer: Both agree, he is liable - Shamai holds he is liable to a greater degree.

(e) Answer #3: Shamai learns from the verse "You killed...." that one who makes an agent to murder is liable.

1. The other Tana explains "You killed him with the sword of Amon" - just as you will not be punished for the sword of Amon, you will not be punished for Uriyah.
2. Question: Why not?
3. Answer: He rebelled against the king (so he deserved to be killed) by saying "My master Yo'av..."

(f) (Rava): According to Answer #1 (Shamai holds that in general, one who sends an agent to sin is liable), Shamai would admit that one who sends an agent to have forbidden relations or to eat forbidden food, the sender is exempt, the agent is liable.

1. We never find that the one who benefits is exempt, and someone else is liable.

(a) [Version #1 (Rav): An agent can be a witness (on his mission).
(b) (d'Vei R. Shila): He cannot be a witness.
(c) Question: What is d'Vei R. Shila's reason?

1. Suggestion: The sender did not ask him to be a witness.
2. Rejection: If so, one who is Mekadesh a woman in front of 2 men and did not tell them to be witnesses, she should not be Mekudeshes!

(d) Answer: Rather, Rav holds that he can be a witness - an agent is a better witness;

1. d'Vei R. Shila holds, because Reuven's agent is as Reuven, he cannot be a witness regarding Reuven.

(e) Question (Beraisa - Beis Shamai): A man told 3 men: 'Mekadesh a woman to me' - 1 man is an agent, the other 2 are witnesses;

1. Beis Hillel say, all are agents, an agent cannot be a witness.
2. They only argue by 3 men - all would agree, if he told 2 men, they would only be agents!

(f) Answer: Rav holds as the following Tana.

1. (Beraisa - R. Noson): Beis Shamai say, an agent can be 1 of the 2 necessary witnesses (for Kidushin); Beis Hillel say, he cannot.

(g) Question: Does Rav hold as Beis Shamai?!
(h) Answer: Rav holds that the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai are switched.]
(i) [Version #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Rav holds, an agent cannot be a witness; d'Vei R. Shila says, he can be a witness.]
(j) The law is, an agent can be a witness.
(k) (Rava): A man told 2 men 'Mekadesh a woman to me' - they are agents and witnesses;

1. The same applies by divorce, and by monetary missions (e.g. agents to repay a loan).

(l) It is necessary to hear all 3 cases.

1. If we only heard by Kidushin - the agents are believed because they make her forbidden, but they would not be believed by divorce, perhaps (they were not agents,) they are lying because they want to marry her;
2. If we only heard by divorce - the agents are believed because they cannot both marry her (and 1 would not lie to help the other), but they would not be believed by monetary missions, perhaps they are lying to keep the money and split it.

(m) Question: What does Rava hold regarding repayment of loans?

1. Suggestion: He holds that if Reuven borrowed money in front of witnesses, he must repay in front of witnesses.
2. Rejection: If so, the agents profit by their testimony!

i. If they would say that they didn't give the money (to the lender), they would have to give the money back to the sender (the borrower).

(n) Answer: He holds that if Reuven borrowed money in front of witnesses, he need not repay in front of witnesses.

1. Since the agents would be believed to say that they returned the money to the sender, they do not profit by saying that they paid the lender.
2. But now that the oath of Heses was enacted (one must swear to deny a claim), the agents would profit if they testified (this would exempt them from swearing)!

i. Rather, the agents swear that they paid the lender, the lender swears that he was not paid, and the borrower must pay the lender.