Kiddushin 85

Chapter 85

א נילף מיניה משום דהוה מעילה טביחה ומכירה שני כתובים הבאים כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין מעילה הא דאמרן טביחה ומכירה מאי היא אמר קרא (שמות כא, לז) וטבחו או מכרו מה מכירה ע"י אחר אף טביחה על ידי אחר
1 let us learn from it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. trespass, as above.');"><sup>1</sup></span> - Because trespass and killing and selling are two verses with the same teaching, and such do not illumine others.' Trespass,' as said.
ב דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא או לרבות את השליח דבי חזקיה תנא תחת לרבות את השליח
2 What is the reference to 'killing and selling'? - Scripture saith, [If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep,] and kill it, or sell it; [he shall pay five oxen for an ox etc. ,]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXI, 37 (E.V. XXII, 1) .');"><sup>2</sup></span> just as selling is done through another,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There must be another person, viz. the buyer.');"><sup>3</sup></span> so may the killing be [done] by another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if the thief does not personally kill it, but instructs another, he is liable.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג הניחא למ"ד שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר גלי רחמנא בשחוטי חוץ (ויקרא יז, ד) דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך הוא ולא שלוחו
3 The School of R'Ishmael taught: 'or' extends the law to an agent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in preceding note. - Hence on both exegeses, we have two verses with the same purpose.');"><sup>5</sup></span> [Again,] that is well on the view that two verses with the same purpose cannot teach [concerning others]; but on the view that they can, what may be said? - The Divine Law revealed [the matter] in reference to [sacrifices] slaughtered without [the tabernacle]: blood shall be imputed unto that man: he hath shed blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');"><sup>6</sup></span> 'that [man', who slaughtered without], but not his agent.
ד אשכחן גבי שחוטי חוץ בכל התורה מנלן דיליף משחוטי חוץ
4 Now, we have found this of [sacrifices] slaughtered without: how do we know it of the whole Torah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That one cannot be an agent to violate a law of the Torah.');"><sup>7</sup></span> - It is derived from [sacrifices] slaughtered without. Instead of learning from [sacrifices] slaughtered without, let us learn from these others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. trespass and killing and selling, that agency does operate.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה אדיליף משחוטי חוץ ניליף מהנך הדר כתב רחמנא (ויקרא יז, ד) ונכרת האיש ההוא אם אינו ענין לגופו תנהו ענין לכל התורה כולה
5 - The Divine Law reiterated, and that man shall be cut off: since it is irrelevant for its own subject,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the emphasis on that man as excluding an agent is unnecessary, as it is intimated in the first half of the verse.');"><sup>9</sup></span> apply its teaching to the rest of the Torah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 209, n. 3.');"><sup>10</sup></span> But he who maintains that two verses with the same purpose do not teach,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that non-agency for wrongdoing follows from the fact that the principle does operate in the case of trespass and misappropriation, as above.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ו ולמ"ד שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדים הני ההוא ההוא מאי דריש בהו חד למעוטי שנים שאוחזים בסכין ושוחטים וחד הוא ולא אנוס הוא ולא שוגג הוא ולא מוטעה
6 how does he interpret the [limiting demonstrative] 'that' written twice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For these are now unnecessary.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - One is to exclude the case of two men who hold the knife and slaughter [the sacrifice without].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Implied by the sing., 'that man'.');"><sup>13</sup></span> The other: 'that [man],' but not one who is compelled; 'that [man],' but not one in ignorance; 'that [man],' but not one led into error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'That man' denotes that he is fully aware of the forbidden nature of his action and does it of his own free will.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
ז ואידך מהוא ההוא ואידך הוא ההוא לא דריש
7 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who holds that the limitation excludes an agent; how does he know these?');"><sup>15</sup></span> - That follows from ha-hu, where hu would suffice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hu is either a pronoun = he, or demonstrative, = that. Ha-hu is hu written with the addition of the def. art., which form is used in this verse. In his opinion, hu alone would suffice, and the addition of ha indicates further limitation.');"><sup>16</sup></span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he utilise the additional def. art?');"><sup>17</sup></span>
ח והא דתני האומר לשלוחו צא הרוג את הנפש הוא חייב ושולחיו פטור שמאי הזקן אומר משום חגי הנביא שולחיו חייב שנא' (שמואל ב יב, ט) אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון
8 - He does not admit the exegesis of ha-hu [as opposed to] hu.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No particular emphasis is implied therein.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Now, when it was taught: If he says to his agent, 'Go forth and slay a soul,' the latter is liable, and his sender is exempt. Shammai the Elder said on the authority of Haggai the prophet:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An indication that the view expressed is very ancient.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
ט מאי טעמיה דשמאי הזקן קסבר שני כתובים הבאים כאחד מלמדין והוא ההוא לא דריש ואיבעית אימא לעולם דריש ומאי חייב חייב בדיני שמים
9 His sender is liable, for it is said, thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' II Sam. XII, 9: the reference is to David, who encompassed the death of Uriah the Hittite through the Ammonites, for which the prophet Nathan held him personally responsible. Weiss, Dor. I, p. 150 deduces from the story in Josephus. Ant. XIV, 9, concerning Herod's trial, when the Sanhedrin would have had him executed because he ordered the execution of certain freebooters, though he certainly did not carry them out in person, that Shammai's view was thus based on ancient practice. It is doubtful, however, whether this proves anything. Such an execution, had it taken place, would have been for State reasons, which override the letter of the law. In the same way those who counselled Alexander Jannai to massacre eight hundred of his former opponents were subsequently executed too. [V. Zeitlin. JQR (N.S.) VIII, p. 150, for an ingenious suggestion that this statement is to be attributed to Shemaiah who figured in Herod's trial instead of Shammai.]');"><sup>20</sup></span> What is Shammai the Elder's reason? - He holds that two verses with the same purpose throw light [on others], and he rejects the exegesis of ha-hu [as opposed to] hu.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the principle of agency operates even for wrongdoing.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Alternatively, he accepts that exegesis;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that there is no agency for wrongdoing.');"><sup>22</sup></span>
י מכלל דת"ק סבר אפילו מדיני שמים נמי פטור אלא דינא רבה ודינא זוטא איכא בינייהו
10 and what is meant by liable? He is liable by the laws of Heaven. Hence it follows that the first Tanna holds him exempt even by the law of Heaven!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');"><sup>23</sup></span>
יא ואיבעית אימא שאני התם דגלי רחמנא אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון
11 - But they differ in respect to a greater or a lesser penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna holds the sender liable to a lesser penalty only, as an indirect cause, whereas Shammai regards him as the actual murderer and liable to the severest penalty.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Another alternative: there it is different, because the Divine Law revealed it [thus:] 'and thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But elsewhere there is no agency for transgression.');"><sup>25</sup></span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first Tanna: how does he explain the implication of the verse?');"><sup>26</sup></span>
יב ואידך הרי לך כחרב בני עמון מה חרב בני עמון אין אתה נענש עליו אף אוריה החתי אי אתה נענש עליו מאי טעמא מורד במלכות הוה דקאמר ליה (שמואל ב יא, יא) ואדוני יואב וכל עבדי אדוני על פני השדה חונים
12 - It counts to you as 'the sword of the children of Ammon: you cannot be punished for the sword of the children of Ammon, so will you not be punished for [the death of] Uriah the Hittite. What is the reason? He was a rebel against sovereignty, for he said to him [David], and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field,' [shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? ]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XI, 11; thus he disobeyed David's orders, v. 8.');"><sup>27</sup></span>
יג אמר רבא את"ל סבר שמאי שני כתובים הבאים כאחד מלמדין והוא ההוא לא דריש מודה באומר לשלוחו צא בעול את הערוה ואכול את החלב שהוא חייב ושולחיו פטור שלא מצינו בכל התורה כולה זה נהנה וזה מתחייב
13 Raba said: Should you say that Shammai holds that two verses with the same purpose illumine [others], and that he does not admit the exegesis of hu, ha-hu: [yet] he agrees that if one says to his agent, 'Go forth and have incestuous Intercourse, [or] 'eat heleb',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>28</sup></span> the latter is liable and his sender exempt, because we never find in the whole Torah that while one derives pleasure [from wrongdoing] another is liable. It has been stated: Rab said: An agent can be a witness;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If A instructs B to betroth a woman on his behalf, for which two witnesses are required, or to repay a debt to C on his behalf, B can carry out his instructions and simultaneously be a witness to the act.');"><sup>29</sup></span>
יד איתמר רב אמר שליח נעשה עד דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד מ"ט דבי רבי שילא אילימא משום דלא א"ל הוי לי עד אלא מעתה קידש אשה בפני שנים ולא אמר להם אתם עדיי ה"נ דלא הוו קידושי
14 the school of R'Shila maintained: An agent cannot become a witness. What is the reason of the school of R'Shila? Shall we say, because he does not [explicitly] instruct him, 'Be a witness for me'?
טו אלא רב אמר שליח נעשה עד אלומי קא מאלימנא למילתיה דבי רבי שילא אמרי אין שליח נעשה עד כיון דאמר מר שלוחו של אדם כמותו הוה ליה כגופיה
15 If so, if he betroths a woman in the presence of two, and does not instruct them, 'You are my witnesses', is the betrothal really invalid? - But [the reasons are these:] Rab said: An agent can be a witness,for he [the principal] [thereby] strengthens the matter.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By appointing the agent a witness too.');"><sup>30</sup></span> Whereas the school of R'Shila maintained: An agent cannot become a witness; since a Master said: 'A man's agent is as himself,' he ranks as his own person.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the principal obviously cannot attest his own act.');"><sup>31</sup></span> An objection is raised: If one says to three, 'Go forth and betroth the woman on my behalf,' one is an agent and the other two are witnesses: that is the view of Beth Shammai.
טז מיתיבי אמר לשלשה צאו וקדשו לי האשה אחד שליח ושנים עדים דברי ב"ש וב"ה אומרים כולם שלוחין הן ואין שליח נעשה עד עד כאן לא פליגי אלא בשלשה אבל בשנים דברי הכל לא
16 But Beth Hillel rule: They are all his agents, and an agent cannot be a witness. Thus, their disagreement is only in respect of three,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who can be divided in the manner suggested by Beth Shammai.');"><sup>32</sup></span> but as for two, all agree that they cannot [be witnesses]!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which contradicts Rab.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יז הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא רבי נתן אומר בית שמאי אומרים שליח ועד אחד וב"ה אומרים שליח ושני עדים ורב כבית שמאי איפוך ורב אחא בריה דרבא מתני איפכא רב אמר אין שליח נעשה עד דבי ר' שילא אמרי שליח נעשה עד והילכתא שליח נעשה עד
17 - He [Rab] holds with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R'Nathan said: Beth Shammai maintains: An agent and one witness [can attest an action]; but Beth Hillel rule: An agent and two witnesses [are required]. Does then Rab rule according to Beth Shammai?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not, it being a principle that the halachah always agrees with Beth Hillel.');"><sup>34</sup></span>
יח אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן אמר לשנים צאו וקדשו לי את האשה הן הן שלוחיו הן הן עדיו וכן בגירושין
18 - Reverse it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Applying Beth Shammai's view to Beth Hillel.');"><sup>35</sup></span> R'Aha son of Raba taught it reversed: Rab said: An agent cannot be a witness; the school of R'Shila ruled: An agent can be a witness. And the law is that an agent can be a witness. Raba said in R'Nahman's name: If one says to two, 'Go forth and betroth a woman for me,' they are both his agents and his witnesses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In accordance with the law just stated.');"><sup>36</sup></span> It is likewise so in respect to divorce;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a man instructs two persons to divorce his wife on his behalf, they act both as agents and as witnesses to the divorce.');"><sup>37</sup></span>