Dvar Hashem Me’Yerushalmi, Kesuvos 17b: אין שליח לדבר עבירה There is no agency for a sinful matter

Kesuvos – Daf 17b

Dvar Hashem Me’Yerushalmi, Kesuvos 17b:

אין שליח לדבר עבירה

There is no agency for a sinful matter

The Bavli in several places discusses the concept and application of ein shaliach l’dvar aveirah – there is no agency for a sinful matter. The Gemara in Kiddushin 42b explains it on the basis of a sevarah, a logical inference: divrei ha’rav v’divrei ha’talmid divrei me shom’im – if the directive of the master (the Torah, that forbade this act) and the directive of the student (the individual attempting to enlist the agent to perform the act) clash, whom should the prospective agent heed? Clearly he should heed the directive of the master! The Gemara there notes two exceptions to that rule (שליחות יד and מעילה). However, based on the principle that when two pesukim in different topics teach the same law, that law is only applicable to those two topics (שני כתובים הבאים כאחד אין מלמדין), we draw no inference from them to any other cases. The Gemara in Bava Metzia 10b gives examples in which divrei ha’rav v’divrei ha’talmid would not apply, in which cases we would therefore say that there could be agency for a sinful matter.

The Yerushalmi, however, in Kesuvos 17b actually derives ein shaliach l’dvar aveirah from a pasuk. The pasuk appears Vayikra 17:4 and states that when a person brings a korban outside the Beis HaMikdash, דם יחשב לאיש ההוא, it is not a valid offering, and it is considered as if he spilled the blood of the offering for naught, and he is liable to kareis. The Yerushalmi here focuses on the two words la’ish ha’hu – to that man, and not to those on whose half he acted as an agent in bringing the korban in the wrong place. On the basis of this derivation, the Yerushalmi rules that if Reuven directed Shimon to muzzle an ox while it was threshing, it is Shimon the shaliach, not Reuven the meshalei’ach, who transgresses and is liable for the sin of Lo Sachsom. There are many potential ramifications that may emerge from this little known and little mentioned Yerushalmi that derives ein shaliach l’dvar aveirah from Scripture, as opposed to from logical inference!

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer’s new Audio Shiurim on Tosefta Bava Kamma

Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer’s new Audio Shiurim on Tosefta Bava Kamma



Over the last few months Rabbi Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer started giving a new shiur on Tosefta Bava Kamma. So far the first 18 shiurim have commenced and their audio recordings have been posted on the Audio page.

Dvar Hashem Me'Yerushalmi Kesuvos – Daf 13a

Kesuvos – Daf 13a

Dvar Hashem Me’Yerushalmi, Kesuvos 13a

The Yerushalmi here cites the same story that appears in the Bavli,

Kesuvos 23. The daughters of Shmuel were taken captive by non-Jews

and brought to Teverya. The daughters knew that if their captors

presented them for ransom they would be assumed to have been raped

and rendered unsuitable to marry Kohanim. They therefore asked the

captors to wait outside while they presented themselves in the Beis

Medrash, where they stated that they had been taken captives but had

not been raped by their captors. They thus met the criterion of the

Mishnah there that states that if we only know women were taken

captives because they told us so, they are believed to qualify that

their captors had not raped them (“ha’peh she’asar hu ha’peh

she’hittir"). Only after Rabbi Chaninah pronounced them suitable to

marry Kohanim, did the captors enter and demand the ransom. Rabbi

Chaninah was impressed by the learning of the sisters, who knew how

they could remain suitable for Kohanim. He asked their relative

Shimon bar Ba to take charge of the sisters.

The story in the Bavli ends here. The Yerushalmi continues the story to a

tragic ending. Shimon bar Ba – who was himself a Kohen – married

first one of the sisters, who died, and then went on to marry the

second sister who died as well. The Gemara makes it clear that this

was not, chas v’shalom, because the sisters lied. They had been

truthful in stating that they had not been raped. The Gemara blames

their death on the sin of Chananiah the son of the brother of Rabbi

Yehoshua, who proclaimed a leap year in Chutz la’Aretz, flaunting

the law that such proclamations must be made in Eretz Yisroel (the

episode is related in the Bavli, Berachos 23a).

The question is why should the daughters of Shmuel be punished for

the sin of Chananiah the son of the brother of Rabbi Yehoshua? The

Korban Ha’Edah suggests that perhaps they were descendants of the

sinner. The Gilyon Ephraim notes that Shmuel had a great deal of

respect for Chananiah, and always ruled in accordance with

Chananiah’s positions. He speculates that Shmuel may have followed

Chananiah in the matter of the leap year, and that is why he was

punished through his daughters.

An Addendum

The Gilyon Ephraim and the Chasam Sofer both cite the Gra from Shnos

Eliyahu at the end of Berachos, who poses a brilliant suggestion as

to the link between Chananiah’s sin and the demise of Shmuel’s

daughters.

He begins by citing the famous Yerushalmi earlier in Kesuvos (4a)

that posits that when Beis Din proclaims a leap year, the very nature

of the world is impacted. The Gemara gives the following example: The

principle is that if a girl under the age of 3 is raped and loses her

virginity, she is nevertheless treated as a virgin because the

besulim regenerate. Once a girl reaches her third birthday, they no

longer regenerate, and a girl older than that who is raped is no

longer treated as a virgin. The Yerushalmi states that when Beis Din

add a month to the year, thus pushing off a girl’s third birthday

by 30 day, Heaven adjusts Nature and her besulim will regenerate for

a month longer, until her birthday according to the new calendar.

On this basis the Gra suggests that the daughters of Shmuel were

raped by their captors just after they turned 3 according to the

calendar that was in effect in Eretz Yisroel, but before their

birthday according to Chananiah’s calendar! For example, if their

birthday was on 7 Nissan, then that year their birthday would have

been on 7 Nissan in Eretz Yisroel, which would have been 7 Adar II in

Chutz la’Aretz! Let us say the girls had been raped on 21 Adar II

according to the calendar in Chutz la’Aretz. The daughters, having

come from Chutz la’Aretz, assumed that they had been raped before

their third birthday, and that therefore they would still be treated

as virgins and permitted to marry Shimon bar Ba. They did not know

that Chananiah’s additional month was null and void, and that

according to the actual calendar they had been raped on 21 Nissan and

were therefore more than three years old at the time! Thus, it was

not as a punishment for Chananiah’s sin that they died, but on

account of his sin that they suffered the consequences!  

SoMeHoW Frum : Agudah Activists Activate Archive - (JO) Articles Available!

SoMeHoW Frum : Agudah Activists Activate Archive - (JO) Articles Available!



The next best thing to bringing the JO back to life...

Purim 1980

בלילה לפני זה הגעתי לירושלים אחרי סעודת פורים בישיבת שעלבים, עדיין קצת שיכור. לא היו אוטובוסים, והלכתי ברגל עד הבית של דוד יוסף ודודה לאה ע"ה ברח' עזרת ישראל, ממש כמה מטרים מערבה ממקום הצילום. קשה להשיג תחושה רוחנית יותר עילאית מללכת קצת שיכור בפורים בחוצות השלוגות של ירושלים!