Study Kiddushin folio 43A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
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: ״וטבחו או מכרו״ – מה מכירה על ידי אחר, אף טביחה על ידי אחר.
let us derive a principle from misuse of consecrated property, that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression. The Talmud answers: This is not done, because misuse of consecrated property and the slaughter or sale of a stolen cow or sheep are two verses that come as one, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Talmud clarifies: The verse pertaining to misuse of consecrated property is that which we said, but what is the verse with regard to slaughter or sale? The verse states: “And he slaughters it or sells it” (Exodus 21:37), juxtaposing selling to slaughtering: Just as a sale is necessarily performed by means of another, since every transaction involves two parties, so too slaughter can likewise be performed by means of another, and the thief is liable even if the act of slaughtering is performed by his agent.
דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא: ״או״ – לרבות את השליח. דבי חזקיה תנא: ״תחת״ – לרבות את השליח.
The Talmud quotes two other explanations. The school of R' Yishmael taught that the word “or” in the verse “and he slaughters it or sells it,” serves to include an agent. The school of Ḥizkiyya taught: When the verse states with regard to sale or slaughter: “He should pay 5 oxen for an ox, and 4 sheep for a sheep” (Exodus 21:37), repetition of the word “for” is superfluous and serves to include an agent. It teaches that the one who appointed the agent is liable for the action of the agent.
הניחא למאן דאמר שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין. אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין, מאי איכא למימר? גלי רחמנא בשחוטי חוץ, ״דם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך״ – הוא ולא שלוחו.
The Talmud asks: This works out well according to the one who said that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent that applies to other cases, but according to the one who said that two verses do teach a precedent, what can be said? Why not derive from the case of misuse of consecrated property and that of slaughter or sale that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression? The Talmud answers: God reveals in the Torah that an agent cannot be appointed to perform a transgression in the case of an offering slaughtered outside the Temple, as it states: “It should be considered blood for that [hahu] man; he has spilled blood” (Leviticus 17:4). The emphasis of “that man” teaches that he is liable for his actions, but he is not liable for the actions of his agent.