POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 43
KIDUSHIN 43 (28 Sivan) - dedicated to the memory of Hagaon Rav
Yisroel Zev [ben Avrohom Tzvi] Gustman ZT'L (author of
"Kuntresei Shi'urim" and renowned Dayan of pre-war Vilna) on
his Yahrzeit, by a student who merited to study under him.
1) AN AGENT TO SIN
(a) Question: Why don't we learn from Me'ilah to other sins?
2) AN AGENT FOR MURDER
(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
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
(c) Question: This answer is according to Beis Hillel; why
don't Beis Shamai learn to other sins?
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
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.
(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
(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
(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;
3) CAN AN AGENT BE A WITNESS?
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
(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?!
(e) Answer #3: Shamai learns from the verse "You killed...."
that one who makes an agent to murder is liable.
2. Answer: Both agree, he is liable - Shamai holds he
is liable to a greater degree.
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
(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.
2. Question: Why not?
3. Answer: He rebelled against the king (so he deserved
to be killed) by saying "My master Yo'av..."
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
(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
(d) Answer: Rather, Rav holds that he can be a witness - an
agent is a better 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!
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
1. Beis Hillel say, all are agents, an agent cannot be
(f) Answer: Rav holds as the following Tana.
2. They only argue by 3 men - all would agree, if he
told 2 men, they would only be agents!
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
(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
(m) Question: What does Rava hold regarding repayment of
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.
1. Suggestion: He holds that if Reuven borrowed money
in front of witnesses, he must repay in front of
(n) Answer: He holds that if Reuven borrowed money in front
of witnesses, he need not repay in front of witnesses.
2. Rejection: If so, the agents profit by their
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).
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
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.