let us derive a principle from misuse of consecrated property, that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression. The Gemara 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 Gemara 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.

The Gemara quotes two other explanations. The school of Rabbi 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 shall pay five oxen for an ox, and four 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.

The Gemara 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 Gemara answers: The Merciful One 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 shall 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.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that an agent cannot be appointed to perform a transgression with regard to the prohibition of offerings slaughtered outside. From where do we derive that this halakha applies to the entire Torah? The Gemara answers: It is derived as a principle from the case of offerings slaughtered outside, by means of analogy.

The Gemara asks: But before deriving that an agent cannot be appointed to perform a transgression from the case of offerings slaughtered outside, let us derive the halakha from these other cases, i.e., misuse of consecrated property and slaughter or sale, where the halakha is that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression. The Gemara answers: The Merciful One again writes in that same verse in connection to the prohibition of slaughtering offerings outside the Temple: “And that [hahu] man shall be cut off from among his people” (Leviticus 17:4). If the halakha derived from the emphasis of the word hahu written in this part of the verse is not needed for this matter itself, since the verse already taught that he is liable only for his own act and not for that of his agent, apply it to the matter of the entire Torah, so that one is held liable only for one’s own actions and not for those of an agent.

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent, and there is no reason to learn from the misuse of consecrated property and slaughter or sale that one can appoint an agent to perform a transgression, what does he interpret those terms: “That man” and: “That man” to be teaching? Since he does not need to counter a derivation from the two verses, he should not require them to teach that one cannot appoint an agent to perform a transgression. The Gemara answers: One of them serves to exclude from liability the case of two who hold a knife and slaughter an offering outside together. And the other one emphasizes: “That man” is liable, but not one who is compelled to slaughter the animal; “that man” is liable, but not one who does so unwittingly; and “that man” is liable, and not one who was mistaken, e.g., one who did not know that the animal was an offering. In order to be liable one must have acted with full awareness and completely willingly.

The Gemara asks: And how does the other opinion, i.e., the one who holds that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, which derives from the word “that [hahu]” that an agent cannot be appointed to perform a transgression, derive these halakhot? The Gemara answers: He derives them from the fact that the pronoun “hahu” is composed of two parts, the article ha, meaning: The, and the pronoun hu, meaning: He. He derives halakhot both from “hu” and from the additional article in “hahu.” Therefore, he is able to derive both the principle that an agent cannot be appointed to perform a transgression and the halakhot of two that slaughter and one who acts without full awareness. And the other opinion, i.e., the one who holds that two verses that come as one do not teach a precedent, which derives these halakhot from the entire word “hahu,” does not interpret the variation from “hu” to “hahu.” He holds that one cannot derive separate halakhot from each part of this word.

The Gemara questions the statement that there is no agency for transgressions: But there is that which is taught in a baraita: One who says to his agent: Go kill a person, he, the killer, is liable if he kills, and the one who appointed him is exempt. Shammai the Elder says in the name of Haggai the prophet: The one who appointed him is liable, as it stated with regard to David, who directed Joab to kill Uriah: “Him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon” (II Samuel 12:9). David was held responsible for the death of Uriah.

The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Shammai the Elder? How can he say that there is agency for transgression? The Gemara answers: He holds that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and therefore he learns from the two cases of misuse of consecrated property and slaughter or sale that there is agency for transgression. And as for the derivation from one who slaughters an offering outside the Temple, which teaches that there is no agent for transgression, Shammai does not interpret the variation from “hu” to “hahu.” And if you wish, say instead: Actually it is possible that he does interpret the variation, and he agrees that there is no agent for transgression. And what is the meaning of Shammai’s statement that the one who appoints him is liable? It means he is liable according to the laws of Heaven, although he cannot be punished by a human court.

The Gemara asks: By inference, does this mean that the first tanna holds that he is exempt even according to the laws of Heaven? The one who appointed him must bear some responsibility. Rather, the first tanna also agrees that the one who appointed the killer is liable according to the laws of Heaven, and the difference between them pertains to a great judgment and a small judgment. According to Shammai, his liability is great, to the extent that Heaven considers him fully responsible, whereas the first tanna holds that his liability is of a lesser degree.

And if you wish, say instead: Everyone agrees that there is no agent for transgression. Nevertheless, Shammai holds that there, with regard to killing, it is different, since the Merciful One reveals: “Him you have slain with the sword of the children of Ammon,” explicitly rendering David accountable for this transgression and indicating that killing is different from all other transgressions.

And the other opinion, i.e., the first tanna, who holds that the one who appoints the killer is exempt, explains the verse as follows: Behold this killing is for you like the sword of Ammon. Just as you are not punished for those killed by the sword of Ammon in the course of the war, so too you are not punished for the death of Uriah the Hittite, not even according to the laws of Heaven. What is the reason for this? Uriah was a rebel against the monarchy and was consequently liable to the death penalty, as he said to King David: “And my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open field” (II Samuel 11:11). By referring to Joab as his lord in front of the king, he indicated that he answered to Joab rather than to the king, which is tantamount to rebellion.

Rava said: If you say that Shammai holds that two verses that come as one do teach a precedent, and he does not interpret the variation from “hu” to “hahu,” the combination of which would result in him holding that there is agency for transgression in all cases, even he concedes with regard to one who says to his agent: Go and engage in sexual intercourse with a forbidden relative, or: Go and eat forbidden fat, that the agent is liable and the one who appointed him is exempt, as we have not found in the entire Torah a case where this person physically benefits from the transgression but that one becomes liable.

§ It was stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the following issue: Rav says: An agent can become a witness. If one was appointed as an agent to perform a certain task, he can then serve as a witness that the action was performed. In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: An agent cannot become a witness. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of the school of Rabbi Sheila? If we say it is because the one who appointed him did not say to the agent: Be a witness for me, and appointed him only as an agent; if that is so, if one betrothed a woman in the presence of two people and did not say to them: You are my witnesses, so too would they hold that it is not a betrothal? It is not necessary to explicitly appoint witnesses.

Rather, the dispute is as follows. Rav says: An agent can become a witness, since we strengthen his words of testimony because he attests to a matter of which he is certain, as he is the one that performed the action. In the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: An agent cannot become a witness. Since the Master said that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself, the agent is considered like the one who appointed him himself. Just as one cannot testify with regard to a matter that concerns himself, the same applies to one’s agent.

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita to the statement of Rav: If one said to three people: Go out and betroth the woman for me, then one of them is the agent for the betrothal and two of them serve as witnesses; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: They are all potential agents, and as an agent cannot become a witness none of them can be witnesses. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree only with regard to a case where one said this to three people. But with regard to two people, all agree that agents are not able to serve as witnesses.

The Gemara answers: It was he, Rav, who said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of that tanna, i.e., the version of Beit Shammai as presented by Rabbi Natan. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Beit Shammai say that the agent and one witness are sufficient to carry out the agency and testify, and Beit Hillel say: The agent and two witnesses are needed. The Gemara questions this explanation: And would Rav rule in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai? The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions, so that it is Beit Hillel who said that the agent and one witness suffice. And Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, taught the dispute of the amora’im in the opposite manner. Rav says: An agent cannot become a witness, and in the school of Rabbi Sheila they say: An agent can become a witness. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that an agent can become a witness.

Rava says that Rav Naḥman says: It follows that if one said to two people: Go and betroth the woman for me, the very same people who are his agents for the betrothal are his witnesses. And a similar halakha is true with regard to divorce: If a man sent a bill of divorce to his wife with two people, they serve both as agents of delivery and as witnesses to the divorce.