Kiddushin

let us learn from it?1 — Because trespass and killing and selling are two verses with the same teaching, and such do not illumine others. ‘Trespass,’ as said. 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.,]:2 just as selling is done through another,3 so may the killing be [done] by another.4 The School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘or’ extends the law to an agent.5 [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:6 ‘that [man’, who slaughtered without], but not his agent. Now, we have found this of [sacrifices] slaughtered without: how do we know it of the whole Torah?7 — It is derived from [sacrifices] slaughtered without. Instead of learning from [sacrifices] slaughtered without, let us learn from these others?8 — The Divine Law reiterated, and that man shall be cut off: since it is irrelevant for its own subject, 9 apply its teaching to the rest of the Torah.10 But he who maintains that two verses with the same purpose do not teach,11 how does he interpret the [limiting demonstrative] ‘that’ written twice?12 — One is to exclude the case of two men who hold the knife and slaughter [the sacrifice without].13 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.14 And the other?15 — That follows from ha-hu, where hu would suffice.16 And the other?17 — He does not admit the exegesis of ha-hu [as opposed to] hu.18 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:19 His sender is liable, for it is said, thou hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.20 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.21 Alternatively, he accepts that exegesis;22 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!23 — But they differ in respect to a greater or a lesser penalty.24 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’.25 And the other?26 — 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?]27 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’,28 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;29 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’? 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.30 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. 31 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. 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,32 but as for two, all agree that they cannot [be witnesses]!33 — 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?34 — Reverse it.35 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.36 It is likewise so in respect to divorce; 37 misappropriation, as above. form is used in this verse. In his opinion, hu alone would suffice, and the addition of ha indicates further limitation. 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.] as the actual murderer and liable to the severest penalty. his behalf, B can carry out his instructions and simultaneously be a witness to the act. divorce.