1)A SHALI'ACH TO SIN

(a)Answer #2: Me'ilah and selling or slaughtering a stolen animal are Shnei Kesuvim. Therefore, we do not learn to other cases.

1.Question: (If witnesses convict a Ganav (covert thief), he pays twice what he stole. If he stole a Seh (sheep or goat) or ox, and slaughtered or sold it, he pays four or five times its value.) What is the source to obligate a thief (four or five) through sale or slaughter of his Shali'ach?

2.Answer #1: "He will slaughter or sell (the animal he stole)" - just like selling it involves another party, also slaughtering it (can).

3.Answer #2 (Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "(Slaughter) or (sell)" includes through a Shali'ach;

4.Answer #3 (d'Vei Chizkiyah): "Tachas (in place of)" includes through a Shali'ach.

(b)Question: Answer (a) is like the opinion that Shnei Kesuvim do not teach to other places.

1.According to the opinion that they do teach, how can we answer?

(c)Answer: Regarding Shechutei Chutz (slaughtering Kodshim outside the Mikdash), it says "to that man", not to his Shali'ach.

1.We learn all other transgressions from here.

(d)Question: Why do we learn from there that one is not liable for a Shali'ach's Aveirah? We should learn from Me'ilah and Shelichus Yad (or selling or slaughtering a stolen animal) that one is liable!

(e)There is an extra verse regarding Shechutei Chutz - "that man will be get Kares";

1.Since we already know that one is not liable for a Shali'ach's Aveirah regarding Shechutei Chutz, this comes to teach about all other Aveiros!

(f)Question: The opinion that does not learn from Shnei Kesuvim does not need to learn this from here. What does he learn from the two verses "that man"?

(g)Answer: One exempts (from Kares) two people who hold a knife together and slaughter (Shechutei Chutz). The other exempts one who was forced, Shogeg, or was mistaken.

1.The opinion that learns from Shnei Kesuvim learns this from the extra letter Hei (each time it says "ha'Hu");

2.The other opinion does not expound the extra letter Hei.

2)A SHALI'ACH TO MURDER

(a)(Beraisa): If Levi made Shimon a Shali'ach to kill someone (and he did), Shimon is liable, and Levi is exempt;

(b)Shamai says, Levi is liable - "you (David) killed him (Uriyah) with the sword of Amon".

(c)Question: What is Shamai's reason?

(d)Answer #1: He holds that we learn from Shnei Kesuvim, but he does not expound the extra Hei.

(e)Answer #2: He expounds the extra Hei. The sender is liable b'Yedei Shamayim.

1.Question: Does the first Tana exempt b'Yedei Shamayim?!

2.Answer: Both agree that he is liable. Shamai obligates him to a greater degree.

(f)Answer #3: Shamai learns from "you killed...." that one who makes a Shali'ach to murder is liable.

1.The other Tana explains "you killed him with the sword of Amon" - just like you will not be punished for the sword of Amon, you will not be punished for Uriyah.

2.Question: What is the reason?

3.Answer: He rebelled against the king (so he deserved to be killed) by saying "my master Yo'av..." (Tosfos - he did not obey David's command to go home).

(g)(Rava): According to Answer #1 (Shamai holds that normally, one who sends a Shali'ach to sin is liable), Shamai would admit that if Levi sent Shimon to have forbidden Bi'ah or to eat forbidden food, Levi is exempt and Shimon is liable.

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

3)CAN A SHALI'ACH BE A WITNESS?

(a)Version #1 (Rav): A Shali'ach 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, if one was Mekadesh a woman in front of two men and did not tell them to be witnesses, she should not be Mekudeshes! (Surely, this is not so!)

(d)Answer: Rather, Rav holds that he can be a witness, for the testimony is better when a Shali'ach does the matter (R. Elazar Meir Horowitz - we just mean that it is no worse in this case);

1.D'Vei R. Shila holds that he cannot, for Reuven's Shali'ach is like Reuven (whatever he does is attributed to Reuven, so he may not testify about Reuven).

(e)Question (Beraisa - Beis Shamai): If a man told three men 'be Mekadesh a woman to me', one man is a Shali'ach, and the other two are witnesses;

1.Beis Hillel say, all are Sheluchim, and a Shali'ach cannot be a witness.

2.They argue only about three men (for it is possible to have a Shali'ach and two witnesses). All agree that if he told two men, they are only Sheluchim!

(f)Answer: Rav holds like the following Tana:

1.(Beraisa - R. Nasan): Beis Shamai say, a Shali'ach can be one of the two necessary witnesses (for Kidushin);

2.Beis Hillel say, he cannot.

(g)Question: Does Rav hold like Beis Shamai?!

(h)Answer: Rav switches the opinions of Beis Hillel and Beis Shamai.

(i)Version #2 (Rav Acha Brei d'Rava): Rav holds that a Shali'ach cannot be a witness. D'Vei R. Shila holds that he can be a witness.

(j)The Halachah is, a Shali'ach can be a witness.

(k)(Rava): If a man told two men 'be Mekadesh a woman to me', they are Sheluchim and witnesses;

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

43b----------------------------------------43b

(l)It is necessary to teach about all three cases.

1.Had we taught only about Kidushin, we would say that we believe the Sheluchim because they forbid her, but we would not believe them about divorce, lest (they were not Sheluchim, and) they lie because they want to marry her;

2.Had we taught only about divorce, we would say that we believe the Sheluchim because they cannot both marry her (and one would not lie to help the other), but we would not believe them to say that they gave the money to the lender, lest they lie to keep the money and split it.

(m)Question: What is Rava's opinion about repaying loans?

1.Suggestion: He holds that one who borrowed money in front of witnesses must repay in front of witnesses.

2.Rejection: If so, the Sheluchim profit from their testimony!

i.If they would say that they didn't give the money (to the lender), they would need to return the money to the borrower.

(n)Answer: He holds that one who borrowed money in front of witnesses need not repay in front of witnesses.

1.Since the Sheluchim 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.However, now that Shevu'as Heses was enacted (one who totally denies a claim must swear), the Sheluchim would profit if they testified (this would exempt them from swearing)!

(o)Rather, the Sheluchim swear that they paid the lender, the lender swears that he was not paid, and the borrower must pay the lender.

4)WHO RECEIVES KIDUSHIN AND THE GET?

(a)(Mishnah): A man can be Mekadesh his daughter...

(b)(Mishnah): One can divorce a Na'arah Arusah (during Erusin) by giving the Get to her or to her father;

(c)Rebbi Yehudah says, we never find that each of two people has jurisdiction over one person. Rather, only her father can receive it.

(d)Any girl who cannot (does not know to) guard her Get cannot be divorced.

(e)(Reish Lakish): Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah argue similarly about who can receive Kidushin for a Na'arah (only the father, or also herself);

(f)(R. Yochanan): They argue only about divorce. All agree that only her father can receive her Kidushin.

(g)(Rebbi Yosi bar Chanina): R. Yochanan explains Chachamim as follows. When a girl is divorced, she returns herself to her father's jurisdiction, so (also) she can receive her own Get;

1.When she becomes Mekudeshes, she extracts herself from her father's jurisdiction, so only he can receive her Kidushin.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF