- Shammai Hazaken holds a sender responsible for murder, but not for relations or eating
Although the Gemara established that there is no shelichus for aveiros, Shammai Hazaken appears to disagree, because he quotes Chaggai Hanavi that one who instructs someone to murder is liable, as Dovid was told: "אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון" – you have killed [Uriah] with the sword of the Ammonim. Three interpretations are given for his opinion: (1) He holds shelichus is effective even for aveiros and disagrees with the sources indicating otherwise. (2) He holds the sender is only liable בדיני שמים – by the laws of Heaven but is not punished by Beis Din (although the Tanna Kamma agrees that a sender is responsible in Heavenly Court, they dispute the extent of liability). (3) He only holds a sender liable for the aveirah of murder, based on the above passuk. Rava comments that even if Shammai holds a sender is generally liable for aveiros, he would agree if someone instructed another to have forbidden relations or eat forbidden food, that the shaliach is liable, and not the sender: שלא מצינו בכל התורה כולה זה נהנה וזה מתחייב – because we never found in the entire Torah a circumstance that one benefits and another is liable.
- Machlokes if שליח נעשה עד
Rav says: שליח נעשה עד – a shaliach for a transaction can also be a witness to that transaction, but the academy of Rebbe Shila said he cannot. Rav holds: אלומי קא מאלימנא למילתיה – it strengthens the testimony of the matter where the witness is the shaliach himself. The academy of Rebbe Shila holds that since שלוחו של אדם כמותו – a shaliach of a person is like himself, הוה ליה כגופיה – [the shaliach] is therefore like himself and cannot bear testimony. In another version, these opinions are reversed, and the Gemara says the halachah is a shaliach can be a witness. Rav Nachman says sheluchim can be witnesses for kiddushin, divorce, and when making a monetary payment.
- Machlokes about a נערה מאורסה accepting her kiddushin
Tannaim dispute who can accept the get of a naarah who is an arusah. The Tanna Kamma says: היא ואביה מקבלין את גיטה – She or her father can accept her get, but Rebbe Yehudah says: אין שתי ידים זוכות כאחד – two hands cannot have ability to acquire at once, and only the father can accept it. Reish Lakish says the same machlokes applies to whether a naarah can accept her own kiddushin in addition to her father. Rebbe Yochanan says: מחלוקת לגירושין – the machlokes only concerns divorce, אבל לקידושין דברי הכל אביה ולא היא – but for kiddushin, all agree her father can accept kiddushin, but she cannot.
The Gemara explains that whereas divorce brings her back into the father’s domain, and either he or his daughter can accept the get, marriage, which removes her from her father’s domain, the father has exclusive control of the process. Although this explanation is rejected, it is reinstated on the next Daf.
