קידושין דף מ\"ג עמוד א', hemshech to the sugya of shlichus. The whole Gemara here is the sugya of making a shaliach, of שלוחו של אדם כמותו. A shaliach of a person is like the person himself, and therefore the Mishnah says האיש מקדש בו ובשלוחו, you can מקדש an אשה either by yourself or sending a shaliach because when you send a shaliach and the shaliach does the kiddushin for you, it works for you. Then the Gemara comes here and says אין שליח לדבר עבירה. But if you send a shaliach to do an aveirah, for instance, you send a shaliach to steal for you, the shlichus doesn't work, and the shaliach is chayav, the shaliach is responsible. The Gemara gives the reason why, because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? There's the words of the master, the Eibershter, the words of a תלמיד, who do you have to listen to? The Eibershter says, \"Don't do it.\" This other guy, the משלח, says, \"Do it.\" So you don't have to, you can't listen to him, you've got to listen to the Eibershter. And ממילא, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Comes the Gemara in דף מ\"ג and says like this: tanya, we learned a beraita, האומר לשלוחו צא והרוג את הנפש, you send a shaliach, tell a shaliach, \"Go kill somebody,\" הוא חייב ושולחיו פטור. So the shaliach is patur. No, the משלח. Yeah, the, no, the משלח, no, הוא חייב, the shaliach who went to do it is chayav ושולחיו, the one that sent him, is patur. That's the first opinion. Like we said before, אין שליח לדבר עבירה, the shaliach is chayav, not the meshaleach, not the one that sends. שמאי הזקן אומר משום חגי הנביא: Shammai Hazaken, not just Beis Shammai, Shammai Hazaken, Shammai himself said in the name of חגי הנביא, שולחיו חייב, that the one that sent him is chayav. Shen'emar, he quotes a pasuk, it says, \"אותו הרגת בחרב בני עמון,\" that Natan Hanavi told David Hamelech when he held, sorry, when he held, when he sent Uriah, he took away Uriah's wife Bat Sheva and he sent Uriah to war in order to get killed, so the navi was giving him mussar and said to him, \"You killed this guy.\" What do you mean he killed? He didn't, he didn't kill him, he had him killed. So we see from here that the pasuk, he says, \"I heard בשם Haggai Hanavi that when you send somebody to kill, the meshaleach is chayav, the one that sends him is chayav.\" And the Gemara here has, hold on, my only, and the Gemara here has three pshatim, three pshatim in what Shammai Hazaken meant. One pshat is that Shammai Hazaken holds יש שליח לדבר עבירה. Yes, there is a shaliach, just like there's a shaliach when you send to mekadesh an isha, you send a shaliach to take off terumah for you and all these dinim, יש שליח לדבר עבירה, if you send a shaliach to do an aveirah, the meshaleach is chayav, there is a דין שליחות, meshaleach is chayav.

Then there is another opinion in the Gemara that Shammai never meant it, when he said chayav, he meant in בית דין של מעלה. That means you did something wrong and the Aibershter will punish you, but you're not chayav down here, it's not so. The meshaleach is chayav, that the Aibershter will punish him, but down here the shaliach is chayav. What about the murderer? The murderer? That's what we're talking about, the murderer is the shaliach. No, the meshaleach. Not the murderer is the shaliach. The murderer is the shaliach. So according to the first peshat in the Gemara, Shammai held that the meshaleach is chayav, not the murderer, but the one that sent him. According to the second peshat, Shammai agrees that אין שליח לדבר עבירה and the shaliach is chayav. When he said the meshaleach is chayav, he meant in בית דין של מעלה, דיני שמים. Then there's a third peshat that Shammai Hazaken holds באמת אין שליח לדבר עבירה. If you send to do an aveirah you're not, there's an exception in murder. If you send to kill somebody, because the pasuk which talks about murder, שפיכות דמים, there there is a din the meshaleach is chayav. Now according to the first sevara that Shammai Hazaken is of the opinion that יש שליח לדבר עבירה, so the she'eilah is like this: what does Shammai Hazaken do with the sevara we said before? Okay, he has a re'ayah from a pasuk, but the truth is this pasuk really is not such a re'ayah, it's a Tanach. The Gemara gives other sevarot where he gets it from, he has pesukim or a proof where he gets it from, but besides the source of where he darshens it from, there has to be a seichel behind it also. So before, we gave a sevara why אין שליח לדבר עבירה, because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? Because the master tells you and the student tells you, you have to listen to the Eibershter. So what does Shammai Hazaken do to that sevara? So how could Shammai Hazaken say יש שליח לדבר עבירה according to the first peshat in the Gemara that he actually holds יש שליח לדבר עבירה? But the emet is to answer that she'eilah, we have to go back to what we said that the Gemara before says אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Normally, we hold, everyone holds, that's how we pasken, אין שליח לדבר עבירה. And the reason is because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? The words of the Rav and talmid, who do you listen to? We're so used to this phrase that it goes, flows so good, why אין שליח לדבר עבירה, why No shaliach because דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, מי שומעין. You start thinking about it, doesn't make any sense. What what does דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, מי שומעין mean? Is that that the words of the Rav, the Eibershter, the words of the talmid, who do you listen to? You listen to the Eibershter. But this guy did not listen to the Eibershter! So why is there no shlichut? Why is that, how is this a reason why there's no din shlichut? What means? We're saying, all we're saying is דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, the Eibershter says one thing and the person asked you to do something else, you shouldn't have listened to him! You're right, I shouldn't have listened, the guy shouldn't have listened, but he did listen to him! And since there's a din shlichut, so yeah, so there should be a shaliach on an aveirah! How does these words דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, מי שומעין answer the question? A mitzvah through an aveirah. You cannot do a mitzvah through an aveirah. What kind of mitzvah? What kind of mitzvah? What kind of mitzvah? It's a mitzvah. No mitzvah here! A guy sends a guy to do an aveirah. And since the Torah said that there's a דין שלוחו של אדם כמותו, why shouldn't it be by an aveirah also? If you send someone to do an aveirah, why can't the שלוחו של אדם כמותו, so when he did it because you sent him, you should be chayav like every shlichut? אלא what are you saying? You shouldn't have listened to him! So he shouldn't, you're right, he shouldn't, but he did! So it was clear from the beginning that you couldn't Oh, I see. What? That you shouldn't have done it? Yeah, so you shouldn't... So so it's not a shlichut Why not? You're saying, but you're not saying the whole ענין. Because shlichut is something that comes from the Rav. No, no, you're Because shlichut is it's made up something from Hashem. So then it's not that the same person that's telling you you're allowed to Yeah. that makes this institution of shlichut, Yeah. is also telling you, Don't do it. not don't do it, you can't do something that would make this shlichut not happen. Why not? Because you're creating something that's against... I mean against Wait, and if you're doing something else you're also doing against the אייבערשטער! You're doing an aveirah! That's separate. You're doing Yeah. is is one thing. But here you're doing against But the Torah the voice that says So you can make shlichut happen. You can't be a shaliach. Why not? Because the whole shlichut came from from came from Everybody, everything came from the אייבערשטער! Every mitzvah came from the אייבערשטער, the aveirah came from... So that's fine. You can go against it, but here Here also! but you can't have a benefit Where what Where did it say that? You're gaining a benefit of an order that comes from No, where did it say that? In the Torah, the Gemara before had a whole אריכות, where do we know the whole din of shlichut? And we find pesukim. So they're all that, right, it was a פרשה, so we have a פרשה, so where did the Torah say that by an aveirah not? Did the Torah say that? The Torah said that the אייבערשטער instituted a din that if you ask somebody to do something for you, so when he does it, it's like you did it. שלוחו של אדם כמותו. In today's criminal law, today if the hitman is hired, the משלח goes goes to jail. Also, yeah. But that's not, but what's the question? That's what I want to say, what is the What is the peshat in the in the sevara? Where the Gemara says that the reason why if you if you send a shaliach to do an aveirah, the shaliach is chayav, not the משלח, even though bifshat us there is a דין שליחות. And the reason is because you shouldn't have listened to the guy. But the משלח himself knows it's wrong, also. Yeah, that he knows it's wrong. And he was it, so it's not a... No, the guy sending, he can do anything. Look, kid, he's lesser of the guy. But the shaliach should not have listened to the משלח. So mimela, so the shaliach shouldn't listen. You're right, the shaliach shouldn't listen. But the Torah said that if you send a shaliach, the shaliach, what he does, you the משלח gets punished or the משלח whatever it is, the משלח is responsible as if as if he did it. So the mefarshim all talk about it. The mefarshim speak about who made a shlichus? Yeah. He's telling him you don't have to you're not allowed to listen to him. And so, what's the nafka mina? So you're not allowed to listen, but there's a דין שליחות. So the shlichus falls off. Why it falls off? Because you cannot you cannot listen to him. If somebody tells... So you can't and therefore because you cannot listen it falls off? If somebody tells me to take this sweater off... No, but wait, the sevara... So everything, but if you do an aveirah you go against the Aibershter. But if the Aibershter instituted the din of shlichus, that means as a klal, not by aveirah, not by a mitzvah, as a klal that if you send a shaliach, the Torah says, we learn out from pesukim, that the shaliach is whatever he does is as if as if you did it. That's all. When an aveirah when you do something, Yeah. between you and Hashem. And this is also... No, here there's a construct. What's the nafka mina that he told you? But because that's the you're relying on that bond between you and the Aibershter, between the Aibershter and man, So in all the dinim of the Aibershter, in קידושין the Aibershter made... You're right, but you're not destroying any bonds between the Aibershter and and and human beings if it relies on us listening to him. You're just destroying your connection... I'll tell you in a word. The Aibershter made a metziut that when you send somebody, the metziut is that you did it. Right. But there's no metziut to live and breathe... You're tall, but this and this the Eibershter, the Torah made this. But the Eibershter said that this is the din. So it has limitations. Well, who made up? You've got to find the limitations! You have to find, we have to find a reason for it! Anyway, that's what, the sevara says

The Sema in Shulchan Aruch says that there is a sevara, it means like this: Because you're not allowed to listen to him, the meshaleach understood that you're probably not going to listen to him. So he never meant to make you a shaliach, that's what it is. Since דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין, since you really shouldn't listen to him, so when the guy sent you as a shaliach, he meant a joke. It's not we assume, the pashta is that he didn't mean it. That's more reasonable than saying Yeah, this is that's the din. It's the, there is a din It's a joke. He told you, but we know for sure he wasn't joking. So one second, one second. Lefi zeh this fits to what the Rema says in Shulchan Aruch. What happens? The Rema says in Shulchan Aruch that what happens if the guy is a mumar, the guy you're sending is a freier guy, you send him to to to to and he's a he is avaryan himself? Then יש שליח לדבר עבירה. Yeah, the Rema paskent יש שליח לדבר עבירה, the meshaleach is chayav. So he says because if Because yeah, mimeila the meshaleach can't answer See, so then not not No, he can't say that I assumed that he wouldn't do it, mimeila. Because, I mean, yeah, I assumed he wouldn't do it, this is a guy that does it. What you're never seeing What person can say, \"I never I didn't assume he's going to do something wrong?\" Yeah, that's right, any time the pshat doesn't mean that he has to say it. It's the pshat כש כש pshat is when a person asks someone to do an aveira, you don't assume, we assume that the guy never meant it. Why would you assume the guy would never do an aveira? I know what you're saying, the halacha assumed, but the Gemara assumed the Gemara assumed, yeah. The Gemara assumes that a regular person Yes, the Gemara assumes a regular person from would not listen. That's crazy. Yeah, and mimeila when you Then there's a sevara the same sevara, but a different way, but the same idea. Not that we assumed that the meshaleach never meant it, we say the shaliach did not do it as a shlichut. Because you're not allowed to listen to it, the Eibershter said don't do it, and this guy asked you to do it, you have to listen to who? To the Eibershter. So, look in look in your head. Since you have to listen to the Eibershter, in an aveirah a person, if he did it, would not do it because that guy asked me. And I'm I did that for my own reasons. So for whatever his own reason, yes. Because ein Because I listened to the Eibershter, so. אין אדם אין אדם חוטא ולא לו. A person does not, eh, do an aveirah for somebody else. That's a klal. You can ask a kushya on that too. You see people The Gemara says as a כלל אין אדם חוטא ולא לו. The person doesn't an aveirah, he doesn't do an aveirah for somebody else. If you're doing aveirot, for yourself. So this guy is not going to do an aveirah because that guy asked him. Because if you're going to be listening to anybody, not because you're going to gain from it for you, because you want to do it, you'll listen to the Eibershter. And if he does do it? Huh? And if he does? A siman you decided yourself to go against. Because it's not because he asked you, a siman you don't care yourself and you want to do it yourself. But if you're going to say it's shelichut, why the only reason I did it because of him? You say the only reason is because of him, we'll tell you that's not true, because if you're going to listen, you ain't going to listen to him. אלא מאי, you don't care yourself and you want to do it. So in the same sentence you're saying he's not doing it because he's a law-abiding, Eibershter-listening person, you're saying he's not an Eibershter-listening person. Not that, no, no. He did it therefore for himself, for his own reasons. Right, that yeah, but I tried that. So we're going to say The Gemara is person over here is not over here. A person who does does not want to listen to the Eibershter, right, is only if he will do it himself. He will not do it because someone else asked him. Even a freier yid will not do it because someone else asked him. He'll do it, why? Because he doesn't care. Oh, so he doesn't care, but not because that guy. And that's what the Gemara means. דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין? If you're going to be shome'a, if you're not going to do it for yourself, you're going to be do it because someone else, you want to listen to somebody, you're going to go and listen to the guy doing an aveirah? You listen to the Eibershter. אלא מאי, you're not listening to anybody. You don't care, you want to do it. You want to do it, so what kind of shelichut is it? So whatever way we're going to learn these two ways, that that's the peshat, so we could say that Shammai Hazaken, he argues on this sevara. Maybe he holds like you hold, and he says it's another sevara, and therefore we don't hold If you send somebody to kill, you go to jail. You're an accessory. Yeah, not על פי הלכה. According to Shammai Hazaken, yeah. Yeah. Shammai Hazaken says יש שליח לדבר עבירה. Who is going to go to jail? The guy who the guy who sent. And only by murder. And only in, yeah. The first No, that's the first peshat. There are three peshatim in the Gemara. The first peshat is that by every aveirah, but he he gave an example of killing. So you can learn like this, you can say that this is the machloket here. The Gemara of course says אין שליח לדבר עבירה. Why? דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין, which means not kifshuto, because you shouldn't listen to him. So I shouldn't listen, a big deal, I did, and I did it because the guy asked me, I don't care. So the answer is, or because like the Sema says or the other pshat, the modern pshatim, that this is because of this sevara that you didn't, or the meshaleach we assumed the meshaleach never meant to send him, he meant it as a joke, or the shaliach never meant to do it as a shaliach, he meant to do it on his own, and mimailei it's and and and Shammai Hazaken holds, no! That we don't accept that, we don't assume that, and when he did it, mistama he did it as a shaliach, and therefore this. But what I want to say, this is bifshitut how you would learn, והסתפקו המפרשים learn pshat in why Shammai Hazaken doesn't care about the סברא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין. Well, let me go and say it differently, and say another sevara, another pshat in דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין, and then we'll see what is sevara of Shammai Hazaken and how it fits with the whole shita of Shammai. And

this is based on a she'eilah that I have based on a biur that the Rebbe has here in Parashat Yitro. Let's go through the biur for a second, and then we'll see vayter. There's a sichah, the sichah talks about מחשבה, דיבור, ומעשה. חלק י\"א, פרשת יתרו. Machshavah, he says machshavah is far from maaseh, but dibbur is very close to maaseh. This he speaks in in Tanya, but he says, to bring a halachah, pshat haGemara, which will bring out this point that dibbur maaseh is close to dibbur, and they're connected, while machshavah is already a separate, that's already something else. He quotes a Gemara here. It says in the Gemara, I'll read the Gemara here: איתמר, חסמה בקול. One of the לאווין we have is לא תחסום שור בדישו. You're not allowed to muzzle up the ox while it's threshing, it's working. If a person does it, he is עובר a לאו. What do you get when you עובר a לאו? You get מלקות. What happens if חסמה בקול? He didn't actually muzzle her up. Rashi says a פשט, כשרואה ששח לאכול, when the בהמה was working and bent down, every time it bent down to eat, הוי גוער בו, he started screaming and didn't let it eat, so he did the same thing as you do. So the Gemara says: רבי יוחנן אמר: חייב, you're חייב מלקות. And the שאלה is, why you're חייב מלקות, you didn't do a מעשה? There's a כלל: you're only חייב מלקות for a לאו שיש בו מעשה. A לאו that you עובר on a לא תעשה which has an action. But a לאו שאין בו מעשה, you're not עובר. This is a לאו שאין בו מעשה. If you if you closed it, you did a מעשה, but if you're just screaming, so you you spoke, you screamed, but you didn't do anything, why is why you're חייב? And the Gemara says: עקימת פיו, עקימת פיו הוי מעשה. Moving your mouth is called a מעשה. And in fact Rashi says: הוי ליה לאו שיש בו מעשה. So it's a לאו that has a מעשה. If he would speak quietly and explain to the cow not to eat... That's not a מעשה. But screaming is a מעשה? עקימת פיו הוי מעשה. Frekt Tosafos: תימה, דבפרק ג' דשבועות אמר רבי יוחנן, and Rabbi Yochanan says like this: אימר היה רבי יוסי הגלילי, כל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו. Here is the כלל: a לאו שאין בו מעשה you don't get malkot. Chutz, there's exceptions: מנשבע, ומימר, ומקלל חבירו בשם. When you swear false, you get punished, אה it's a לאו שאין, all you did was you spoke; מימר - תמורה, when it says you're not allowed to exchange a קרבן for another בהמה, if you do it, you're עובר on a לאו and you get malkot; ומקלל חבירו בשם, you curse another Yid using Hashem's Name, you get malkot... You get malkot even though, so he says an exception to the rule, even though it's a לאו שאין בו מעשה, which normally a לאו שאין בו מעשה you don't get malkot, in this case you do. Fregt Tosafot a kashya: who said that? Rabbi Yochanan! That these are three exceptions. Why is it called an exceptions? רבי יוחנן גופיה קאמר הכא עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה! Rabbi Yochanan here said that you moving your mouth is called a ma'aseh, so over there, it's not an exception! When you swear false, you moved your mouth, you did a ma'aseh, so it's a ma'aseh, why does it say... ואם כן נשבע אמאי נחשב לאו שאין בו מעשה, why does it say a לאו שאין בו מעשה? It's a לאו שיש בו מעשה. ויש לומר, he says, Tosafot gives a new peshat: דלא קאמר רבי יוחנן עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה אלא הכא. It doesn't mean every time you speak and you say something, that's called a ma'aseh. Here, in this case of the חסימה, it's called a ma'aseh. Why? משום דבדיבוריה קעביד מעשה, because his dibbur caused a מעשה, שילך ולא שיוכל לאכול, the בהמה is continuing to work without being able to eat, so it's a ma'aseh that came through your dibbur. So because your dibbur caused a ma'aseh, that's why we consider this dibbur a maaseh, not because normally dibbur is a maaseh. That's Tosafos here. So first of all, of course the Rabbi asked a shaila, but the Gemara doesn't How could Tosafos say that when the Gemara doesn't give that reason? The Gemara says, what's the reason? עקימת פיו הוי מעשה. Movement of his lips are a maaseh. Here it's just a new pshat, because what he did made a maaseh. Okay. Then he brings further Tosafos, where it speaks about עדים זוממין. When you מזים the עדים, when you find them to be liars because they said that we saw something at a place, other עדים come and say עמנו הייתם, you were with us, עדים זוממין, so there the Gemara Sanhedrin asks, by עדים זוממין, the Gemara Gemara says, it's not called a maaseh. The Gemara says there in Sanhedrin. So the Gemara asks, why is it not called a maaseh? Here Rabbi Yochanan says that עקימת, this is called a maaseh, speaking. And the Gemara answers, he answers, שאני עדים, עדים זוממים, ישנם בראייה. So the way Rashi explains, the Gemara means that עדים זוממים, there is not even dibbur there. Not that they spoke false, but the main thing is because they said they saw something, and it's not dibbur. It's only ראייה, and that's not called a maaseh. And the Rabbi asks a shaila, the עדים זוממים, what they did also caused a maaseh. Because of what the עדים said, it caused that בית דין פסקנד on this and this person that he's chayav. So why by עדים זוממים we the the fact that they came and they saw, they claimed they saw something, and it made a maaseh happen, we don't call it a maaseh? And here it is called a maaseh. In both cases it didn't a maaseh happened, and in both cases he didn't do it. Anyway, I'm just I'm trying to go short.

The bottom line the Rebbe says like this: Look at this: אין כוונת התוספות שיהא אדם נענש על מעשה שנעשה על ידי אחרים. There's no such thing, Tosafos has never meant because the behemah did a maaseh, you're chayav. You're not chayav for someone else's maaseh, for something else, there's no she'eilah. You caused it after, ועל כן אין עונשין מלקות אלא אם כן האדם עשה איזה מעשה שלו, you do a maaseh. So he didn't do a maaseh. What does Tosafos mean klal? That because he didn't do a maaseh. אלא כוונתו של Tosafos, the pshat in Tosafos is like this: כשאדם פועל מעשה בדיבורו, if you cause your dibbur causes a מעשה, מכיוון שהמעשה בא רק על ידי הדיבור של האדם, the maaseh came through your דיבור, הרי זה המשך הדיבור. The maaseh is a continuation of your dibbur. חלק ממנו. שהרי בא מכח הדיבור, the great thing came from your dibbur. ולכן אין זה דיבור לבד. The dibbur is not called a dibbur. And when the Gemara say, when Tosafos says, יש בו מעשה, יש בו בדיבור עצמו מעשה. Your דיבור כאילו there's a maaseh is a continuation of your dibbur because your dibbur made it happen. So that only is done when your dibbur makes it happen. But if your machshavah makes it happen, which is the case of עדים זוממים is machshavah, then we don't say it. That's what he says. וזה לא שייך על דיבור. ראייה, which is seeing, is only מחשבה. אבל מעשה שנגרם על ידי מחשבה, שהיא רוחנית, אין המעשה המשך של המחשבה. ושייך לה. כי הוא נפרד לגמרי. Totally, completely separate. So the מעשה that comes through דיבור, that's considered that your דיבור did the מעשה. מעשה comes from מחשבה, your מחשבה didn't do a מעשה. ולכן בעדים זוממים, שישנם בראייה, אף שעל ידי זה נתעבד המעשה, even though the מעשה was done, אי אפשר לו להצטרף לראייה שיהא נחשב מעשה. You can't say the ראייה that they saw, which is מחשבה, is considered that made the מעשה. So from this, I just want to bring out that דיבור and מעשה, you could be מצטרף, they go together. So if your דיבור made a מעשה, you are חייב over there as if what you did was a מעשה. So it's not because עקימת שפתיו הוי מעשה means that moving the lips itself is a מעשה. You're moving the lips that causes a מעשה is called a מעשה. But if it's מחשבה that causes a מעשה, it's not called a מעשה. But למעשה ממש we see from there clearly, according to Rabbi Yochanan, that if, according to the way Tosafos learns, that when you have דיבור and your דיבור brings on a מעשה, it's considered that you did the מעשה. So לפי זה, according to this ביאור here, we have a שאלה: Why does the Gemara need a ראיה by שליחות? Because why, the Gemara asks you: How do we know that שלוחו של אדם כמותו? The Gemara brings all kinds of פסוקים and ראיות. I have a very simple, בריסקר שאלה: Why did the guy do it? Because you told him, so your דיבור made him do the מעשה, and we're saying here that if your דיבור brings on a מעשה, it's considered that you did the מעשה, so you שליח יש לו שליחות! Why does the Gemara have to go the whole סוגיא with the whole עמוד here and the two two עמודים: Where, which פסוק do we know it in שליחות? According to this סברא, any דיבור that makes, the דיבור makes the מעשה happen, it's a מעשה, that's called that you did the מעשה! So who's חייב? The משלח! Just like over here, the בהמה did a מעשה and the person who screamed, who spoke, is חייב, is חייב מלקות! Why? Because that מעשה is we consider that he did it. So by every שליח is like that. Unless Is there a difference between active and passive, meaning you're getting somebody to refrain from doing something? No, no. We're talking both times to to do. Both times to do. In the In the case No, here also the מעשה is the the דישה, the fact that it's threshing with not being able to eat. The actual עבירה is not even the putting on the thing. עבירה is if you put the thing and then you do the מעשה, in a regular case. So here also, he's making the בהמה work without being able to eat. Ah, so you're making him work. Yeah. So the so the שאלה is: So why do we need a פסוק for שליחות? I have another שאלה further: Then why אין שליח לדבר עבירה? Here it's also an עבירה! It's an עבירה and we say that what the what the מעשה that is being done through your דיבור as if you did it. So every time you send somebody, you tell somebody, \"Please do this מעשה for me,\" and he goes and does it, so that מעשה should be מצטרף to what you did, to what you said, and that's considered if you did it, so יש שליח לדבר עבירה. The answer is is a very pashut answer. Isn't it the meaning of the shaliach? It's the same thing. You tell him the shaliach do it, and you, because you told him to do it, he went and did it. So that is his He's his first cause. Oh, come on. The answer is because here it's a beheima. Right. Here it's a beheima. By a beheima, the beheima has no bechira, the beheima doesn't understand, the beheima does what you make. So, if you speak to her, if you do something, you speak and the beheima, because of that, does it, then we consider what the beheima did is considered that you did it. Can you say that by a human being who were emotional abuse perverted so much that even let's say a person would act in a certain way because Yeah, that's a lawyer's trick. That's an ones. Yeah, but that's that's an ones. That goes in the point of ones of being forced of something. He pushes him to the aveira, he's also a beheima. He pushes him to the aveira, he's also a beheima. Yet, they have these Pavlov's dog with kids, they teach You have an attack, you have an attack dog and you and you send the dog to kill somebody, who's guilty? The owner, no? Because It's that no, that's also you're exposing it's a something the owner is inherently dangerous. It's a grama. It's a grama. What about they have they have things where they do with human beings, they took Pavlov's dog and all these things where they program you? So then it's an ones. It's a different story. It's not, it's an ones. You're forcing somebody. That's forced. Force with you can act with a gun and you can force them other way. That's not it. Right. Vulnerable people will abuse to certain things, no one would Listen, but that's what the verb which is, is abuse. Yelling at him so much so that they're afraid from doing something out of fear. Okay, this We're getting off the We're getting off the system of of learning Gemara. We're getting off to different style of talk. It reminds me, I once, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky was here. A while back he used to come to yeshiva. So I once, he asked me, \"What are we holding?\" It was a place in middle of Shevat, I think. So I said, \"We're holding דף י׳.\" So he says to me, \"ihr... Chassidishe yeshivos, I thought you learn faster. By us,\" he says, \"we krechzt zich un m'krechzt, we learn the whole year, you learn nine blat and... I thought chassidishe yeshivos they go faster.\" Then I asked him, \"When you were a bachur, how many did you learn?\" He says, \"zman from Pesach from Sukkos to Pesach, 50 blat Gemara בעיון we learned. 60 blat Gemara.\" So I asked, \"So what's takke the reason? How come people stopped, had to go krechzen on this?\" That's, \"I'll tell you what I think.\" I don't know, I I argued with him, I don't know if it's the real, but I'll tell you what he said the reason he gave me. So he says to me like this: \"Here in America and bichlal now, people learn secular studies. There's a different style of like sec in understanding secular studies and everythings. And everything, you know, has to make sense in a certain certain way. And the kop got used to it, and that's how we start thinking. The main in Gemara there are certain ways you learn, which are certain things you take for granted, there are certain styles, and when you learn, but if you got used to the other style,\" he says, \"so now all the sevarot that come up over there, so you can't go further, because I have this kashya, and I have that kashya, and I have to think. So all these questions, it's a different style. So now you can't go further, because you don't understand, you can't go further. So you קרעכצט זיך און מ'קוועטש זיך און מ'קוועטש זיך, but of all these none of these things weren't there. You learned as a certain style the Gemara has, certain things takeh you take for granted, אזוי איז עס, and that's it. Anyway, so we're getting a little off the style here.\" Unchecked, negative sechel which tells Negative sechel is a is a different sechel. It's a different style of sechel. It's being sensitive. Sensitively analyzing. So. So the difference is, by a behemah, your dibbur made the behemah do a maaseh. Because the behemah has no bechirah. Yeah, no bechirah, no I don't know bechirah, from Torah bechirah, I mean there's not no it can't do whatever, mah she'ein kein by a person, not. Mimela, so therefore we cannot learn out shlichut from there. Now that the Gemara has learned out shlichut from a pasuk, so you know what the peshat is? What the Gemara didn't mean that we have a new concept of shlichut, like you learn always פשט פשט, על פי שכל there's no makes no sense shlichut. I'm supposed to mekadesh the ishah, you did it, so it's as if I did it. What kind of sechel is it? The best re'ayah, the Gemara, when it starts off the sugya of shlichut, the Gemara asks: שליחות מנלן? In other words, the Gemara says, \"I don't understand, where does shlichut come from?\" Because על פי שכל it makes no sense. So when we say that we have a pasuk, by gerushin and whatever, ושלח ושלחה, so normally you learn the תורה איז מחדש a chidush, something, it's... so the Torah, it's outlandish, but that's what the Torah says. I'm trying to say, no. Be'emet, there is a sevara why sheliachut should work. Why? Because if my dibbur made you do something, ella mai, that the sevara itself will never work enough, because after all, you have have choice, so because I asked you to do doesn't mean anything. Comes the pasuk and tells you that the sevara that we have by a behemah, der chiddush, der chiddush of the Torah is it works by a person also. So, even though it's a chiddush, because על פי שכל we wouldn't do it, but it's not a chiddush with something new that makes no sense לכתחילה, because there is a logic that my dibbur, based on what the Rebbi says here, there is a logic in this idea that my dibbur makes the ma'aseh, I am chayav. Ella mai? This is only logically 100% by a behemah, not by a person. Comes the Torah, and the Torah says that even by a human being it's also like that, that the Torah is mechadesh, which is a chiddush of the Torah, because על פי שכל, since he has his own free choice, לאו דווקא עס נוגע, but the Torah is mechadesh that din. So, לפי זה, when the Torah is mechadesh that din, the Gemara says, when is that din said? When it's not an aveirah. That's the teitch דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? In other words, like this: בעצם, it shouldn't work, sheliachut. By aveirah. No, בעצם על פי שכל, the fact that it shouldn't work, the Torah is mechadesh that it works. So, the fact that the Torah is mechadesh that it works is only if it's not against the Oibershter. But this, cuz the whole thing is a chiddush that what? That there is a a kesher, like he says here. There's a kesher between the maaseh and my dibbur, your maaseh and my dibbur. But when is there a kesher? When there's nothing wrong in your maaseh doing. And even then, the Torah is mechadesh that my dibbur makes your maaseh, it works even by human being. But when there is an עבירה, דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? So there, the Gemara before holds, there we don't say it. There we don't say that my dibbur is connected to your maaseh. Because what I'm trying to say is that when the Torah is מחדש דין שליחות, the Torah is telling you that this sevara that it says here, it's not a new דין שליחות that has nothing to do with this. The דין שליחות has to do with the fact that my dibbur makes you do a maaseh, and that's what this שליחות is. Ela mai, we need a pasuk to tell you that it works by a person. But the bottom line, there is a connection. There's a connection. Just why, cuz you need Hashem, you need what Hashem said, you need Hashem to put the puzzle together. You need Hashem to His chiddush. Right. That's That's what you're asking. You cancel out Hashem, you lose the chiddush. It's It's It's like we're saying it again. No, it's not only because big. It's different because if an idea is Hashem to put the Normally Normally, the pshat is you could you're could, but agav it's a חידוש גופא, because be'emet, since you could not listen to me, not like a בהמה, it doesn't work. And here, takeh, not only you could not listen to me, you should not listen to me. And therefore, by an aveirah And therefore you should not listen to me, umemeila there is no kesher between. So it comes out from here that the whole bottom line of שליחות is it's a new pshat in shlichus. Not like normally you learn shlichus, that's a chiddush that the Torah is mechadesh that I said and you did for me, I'm chayav, whatever way this chiddush is, it's a much shvachere chiddush. The chiddush is not so big. We always try to do that, to make anytime you're able to say that the chiddush is less. The chiddush is cuz be'emet there is a sevara to say without the pasuk, get it? Ela mai, there's a problem. The problem is you're a human being and not, so the Torah said, the problem we don't mind. But wherever there's an issur, so then the problem stays and therefore it doesn't work. So mimela we could see why Shammai Hazaken doesn't agree. Cuz Shammai Hazaken says, I understand. We're trying to be mechaleik between that the Torah is mechadesh the chiddush, but by an aveirah, the gap is there and there's no connection. And he says, who says so? As long as I am telling you to do something and my dibbur makes you do, and even though you're a human being, the Torah was mechadesh that it works by a person also. So, he says, who says that because you're not allowed to do it that it doesn't work? In other words, since the whole thing is that it's connected, so it works. So he doesn't have a gap, you need Hashem. Right. Right, he doesn't doesn't need that, he says. So mimela, by an aveirah it also It's a chiddush of the Torah. The chiddush of the Oibershter, the chiddush of the Torah. But he says where Why would we have to say that because there's an aveirah here, we do not connect my dibbur to your ma'aseh? If the Torah connected my dibbur to your ma'aseh. The truth like again, without the Torah, it's also connected. The problem is you're a human being. So it's a shvachkeit in the connection, but by the Torah, the connection is there. So if the Torah says the connection is there, so it's there by an aveirah also. It's a two-way street. Cuz Shamai Hazaken Huh? if you can come to do a teshuvah because of the aveirah, that means there must have been some connection to begin with? Okay. But this is this is only בפה, דיבור. Not בכתיבה, not ב No, בכתיבה also, like כתב כשלוחו. You could hire a contractor to Yeah, that's what someone else to do it. Even that contractor, you pay him, right? Yeah, if you write somebody a note, so You take that guy to go to kill somebody. Tell somebody go kill that guy, he's going to go kill that guy. No, but this Still there, no, still shelichut. But still the shaliach? Why, does he get paid to do the job? He's like He gets paid to do this job, so who דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד, דברי מי שומעין? But how can you say that, which is only by machshavah, by dibbur? Strange. You're memaneh, you're making him a shaliach. How are How are they a shaliach? You have to do something either way. Why do you? Minui. So what what if you appoint appoint a messenger? That's then have to give a dibbur. No, but that's also by dibbur. You have to know You have to clarify. You have to express it. Right. Can't you think about it?

Lefi zeh, you could say like this, that this that that Shamai holds that יש שליח לדבר עבירה, fits to Shamai, Beit Shamai's general approach to everything. We know that it says in many sefarim, the Rebbe also talks about a lot, that what's the usually machloket between Shamai Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel, was based on b'koach. B'koach u'voal. Yeah, yeah. The the famous example, the always the classic example Chanukah, Shamai says you start off with eight day, eight candles, seven, this, and כנגד ימים הנכנסים, how many days will come, and Shamai Hillel says 1, 2, 3 כנגד ימים היוצאים. So, they all say what is the machloket? Beit Shamai holds you go after b'koach. Something that's potential, that's more important than the b'voal. Mimela, first day of Chanukah potentially you have eight days. Second day you have potential seven days. And Beit Hillel says you go after b'voal. So, I would say Shamai has often says when you speak, in your words is b'koach, if I tell you you should go and do a ma'aseh, so b'koach in my dibbur is already the ma'aseh that you did. So mimela, since the bekoach according to Beit Shammai is the ikar, that's why I'm chayav. Now, but this could only be said only if we fit together what we said before. We said before that whole inyan of shelichut is that we connect my dibur with your ma'aseh. So if I connect my dibur with your ma'aseh, mimela my dibur is bekoach of your ma'aseh. If we wouldn't say that sevara, and we don't have such a thing as my dibur is connected to your ma'aseh, then how is my dibur bekoach בכח of what's going to happen by you? You understand? But what if he didn't do the ma'aseh? No, he didn't, the other guy didn't. The shaliach didn't do, the shaliach. Oh, oh, oh, dos zogt gut. Afragen. Wait. One second. If the according according to what I'm saying now, he's right. What happens if the shaliach doesn't do it? So you say bekoach, Beit Shammai holds even if never came into bepo'al? The truth is like this. If he never did it, then it's not even bekoach. The bekoach is only whatever he said, and then the guy did, retroactive then it's bekoach.

The best dugma we find for this is the famous thing with the lighting the candles with the with the Nimukei Yosef. Rabbi Yochanan says, אשו משום חציו. Rabbi Yochanan says that if you start The din is in the Gemara you start a fire, and it goes and burns kotzim for hours, and burns down something, you're chayav for everything. But you didn't do it. Guy started in his house started a fire, then it went. Why is he chayav for everything? So he says, just like you shoot an arrow. Guy sits here and shoots an arrow, and it kills over there or hits over there, he says, \"I'm not I didn't do anything over there. I did here. I I pulled the the string here. What's the גיה over there?\" Ela mai? It's chayav. The same thing is with a fire. You start a fire here, and you don't do anything to stop it, and it goes, you're chayav for everything. Comes the Nimukei Yosef and he asks a kushya, so lefi zeh it comes out that why are you chayav? Because if I start a fire here, whatever continues happening, I'm doing. So that's why I'm chayav. Because it continues in an hour from now, I I already went to sleep, but since I started it and it's continuing, I did it. Then the kushya is, based on that Friday, how can you light candles? What's that now? Huh? One second. His kushya is, you have to light candles, because as it's burning into Shabbos, you are lighting the candles! You are making the fire burn. You are not allowed to make a fire burn on Shabbos. So he says after, the pshat is the opposite. The pshat is not that whatever happens later you are doing, funk farkert, whatever happens later is included in what you did! In what you did in the beginning, everything that happens is included. That's what That's what the Nimukei Yosef says. Comes the Ketzos, says that Tosafos argues on this. That means you're lighting Shabbos, you're lighting candles on Shabbos when you first did it, because you Yeah, you did it on Friday, though. So everything that's happening on Shabbos is already done on Friday, and on Friday, you're allowed to. Farkert, the hava amina of him was that it's happening later. Comes the Ketzos. The Ketzos says that Tosafos argues on this sevara. Why? Because we have a Tosafos, there's a a famous Tosafos in Bava Kama, it says if someone threw down a כלי מראש הגג, someone took someone else's כלי and threw it down from the roof, and it was going to fall, and someone else came, and no, and and someone else, no no, if you you you threw down the כלי מראש הגג, and someone else broke it before it fell, Right. Shot it. Yeah. So the Gemara says, the second guy who did it is patur, the first guy who threw it is chayav. Why? Because the guy who broke it, mana tevira tavar, he broke a broken כלי, because it couldn't have been anything else. Then Tosafos says, sevara peshuta lechaleik, It's a very simple sevara to make a חילוק between that and זורק What happens another case? Similar case. There's a כלי laying on the floor, and I shoot an arrow at the כלי, or I throw a rock at the כלי, but before it reached it, someone else broke it. So he says, then there, the guy who broke it is chayav. And Tosafos says it's a sevara peshuta lechaleik. It is. So the Rogatchover said, once I heard to somebody who heard a shiur from the Rogatchover, the Rogatchover said, זה הלשון, מיר פלאצט די קאפ, איך פארשטיי נישט דעם חילוק, און תוספות זאגט ס'איז אזא יא, סברא פשוטה לחלק. He said, מיר פלאצט די קאפ, my head is busting from trying to understand the difference. Anyway, but לפועל Tosafos says that if you throw an arrow, and then someone else broke it, we don't say he broke a broken כלי, he's chayav. Now according to the Nimukei Yosef, the Nimukei Yosef says that when something happens later, we say everything was included in the beginning, and there he's talking about shooting an arrow on something, so Tosafot argues, he says, because according to the Nimukei Yosef, even when you shoot a rock at something, we say and then later it broke, it's all included in the beginning. So who did it in the beginning? The guy who threw the the rock. So according to the Nimukei Yosef who says by frying in the candle that it's all included in the beginning, so here it should be included in what you did. You threw the the the the rock, so the breaking is included, so it's a broken כלי, broke already. So the Ketzot says that it's a machloket between Tosafot and the Nimukei Yosef. But many אחרונים argue on the Ketzot. They say, what's the machloket? There's a difference. By the case of Tosafot, you never broke it, you never broke it! When you throw something and you actually break it, so then we say retroactive, this breaking is included in the beginning. But if l'poal you never broke it, so he says that's not called b'koach, because it's only when does the potential, טענה, come to play? Right. When it breaks, then we say that it's all included. But if l'poal someone else broke it, so it's no potential. So here we see that even when we're talking about b'koach, when is the b'koach? Only if it actually happens. So therefore... Right. Right. That's that's the pshat. That's the pshat. That's only not in a case like this. There is a b'koach without l'poal, because the whole, many times מחלוקת בשאר וכולי בכח is also without l'poal. But here the b'koach of breaking, when it didn't break, so then it's a סתירה. Yeah, it can never break, so there's no b'koach. The whole b'koach is the fact that you broke it later is b'koach before. So what am I trying to bring out here? So it comes out like this. That b'emet the b'koach of you telling a שליח to do something, is the b'koach of it's going to happen to the guy. So then you ask a good שאלה, אבער אז if the שליח didn't do it, like it's like over here, if it never broke, it's not called b'koach. So the שליח didn't do it, it's not b'koach. But if the שליח did do it, it works back, backwards to the person. So it comes out that when it works back to the person, so it's included b'koach in what the first person did. So שמאי בכלל goes with the shita that you follow b'koach. So if you look at the b'koach, so who's חייב? The משלח. So even by an עבירה. I, but this itself would not be enough. Because after all, when do we say the b'koach works if it's in the same person? Here it's, how could you say the bekoach in my words will work in the מעשה that someone else did? The bekoach is on my own deed. That's why we had to come onto this whole vort that דיבור and מעשה go together. And the Torah is mechadesh the דין שליחות and even though this sevara that the דיבור makes the מעשה into one is only by a בהמה, comes the דין, pasuk by שליחות and tells you this happened by פרשת נשא. Now that we have this sevara, so now that the two people become like one, the Torah is mechadesh that my דיבור and your מעשה work together, so now what I did is bekoach. So that's what Shammai Hazaken says, that by every case of שליחות, even by an עבירה, יש שליח לדבר עבירה. Why? Because Beis Shammai holds you follow the bekoach, and Beis Shammai says the Torah was mechadesh, like we're saying here, that my דיבור and your מעשה are connected. Even though normally it would be only by a בהמה, the special pasuk connects it. The moment you say the special pasuk connects it, meimila, my דיבור is a bekoach of your מעשה. And if you did the, the שליח did the מעשה, ממילא I'm chayav. So just like in the case of חוסם פי פרה בדישה, there we don't need a pasuk for it, there because it's a בהמה, so my דיבור is a, פועל. Here, the pasuk tells you even by a person, and the moment the pasuk tells you by a person, it's b'koach, my b'koach, and Beit Shammai holds b'koach works. Now I just want to say just in in in two words now, another נקודה בהמשך to this. When we say that the Torah was mechadesh, the way I'm learning pshat, it's a it's a it's a different pshat, not normal pshat, that the reason of שליחות בכלל is because be'emet it's because my dibbur makes your ma'aseh and there's a connection of dibbur and ma'aseh, and even though you're not a, not a בהמה, you're a person, the Torah is mechadesh... חדש. When you say that the Torah is mechadesh this, there's always two ways to learn. The Torah is mechadesh that לפועל, even though you're a person, my dibbur and your ma'aseh go together, or you could be'emet learn differently: The Torah is mechadesh that אף על פי that you're a person, וממילא there is no connection between my dibbur and your ma'aseh, you're still chayav. What will come out a difference? I'll tell you what the difference will be. No, it's a side, I want to get a difference.

We learned once before, last two weeks ago, there's a machloket whether זכייה מטעם שליחות or not. There's a din: זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. That if you are זוכה something for me, so one sevara is that the reason it works is because you're my shaliach. זכייה, you're זוכה for me, that means that כאילו I made you the shaliach. And the other sevara is: No, there's a special din, זכייה, you're זוכה, nothing to do with שליחות. So this this could be talui in this: If we learn the pshat of שליחות is because my דיבור makes your מעשה, and your מעשה becomes part of my דיבור, so the only way שליחות works if I speak to you, like I told you, you went before, if I make you the שליח. So making the שליח, that makes sense. I said, דיבור is close to מעשה. Your מעשה worked out because of my דיבור, and the Torah is mechadesh that my דיבור and your מעשה go one, u'memela what you did goes back to me, and I'm chayav. But if you hold So u'memela you if you hold like that, you can't say זכייה מטעם שליחות, because זכייה, you are my שליח, but I never made you. You're זוכה for me, the Torah says as if you're my שליח. But if the whole מציאות of שליח is not because the Torah is mechadesh that another person can be my שליח, the Torah is mechadesh that my דיבור makes your מעשה together with me. So if זכייה has no דיבור, so how could it be? But if you hold that that's not the pshat, the Torah is not mechadesh, and the Torah says that אף על פי you're a person and it doesn't work, the Torah is mechadesh it works. So there's a new din that there's you're my shaliach, it works. So it has nothing to do with my dibur. So why can't zechiyah be the same way? Zechiyah means I never made you the shaliach, but the Torah said that you're a shaliach. So could be that a machloket whether זכייה מטעם שליחות in Rashi and Tosafot and Ramban and all these and the rishonim could depend how you learn shlichut. If you learn shlichut is because with the dibur that I'm saying is connected, then zechiyah cannot be מטעם שליחות, because you're missing the dibur, and the whole shlichut is because my dibur makes it. But if you say there's a special דין שליחות, then why can't be You're my shaliach even though I didn't make you, the Torah said you could still be my shaliach, and that holds zechiyah is מטעם שליחות. Unless you could still say that Or you could say that it's not a special over there, but over here, it is still a special chidush of zechiyah. You could still say that even if you hold dibur is a connection, it's the סברא אף על פי. You're right. But you could still say Yes, I don't know why you need a special pasuk. In fact, you need a special pasuk. Shenaki, that's a siman that it's a special din. But you do, a special pasuk tells you that. Yeah, but that's not Rabbi, but that's not because of the sevara, it's because like, oh no, dibur. Yeah, just could be the difference. Just like leave, why can't we cook before Shabbos? To let it cook on Shabbos? We could. No, our backs to not have to serve on Shabbos. No, has to be cooked before Shabbos. No, because it's the Rabbanan, the kefida, you might שמא יחתה, you might... You can't start it raw. If it's mamash raw, you could, but there's something to do You're allowed to, it's a דין דאורייתא, you're allowed to... The Rabbanan two-thirds? One-third, whatever. And I learned that it has to be cooked before Shabbos. Mid'Oraita, you're allowed to put something on the fire anytime you want on Friday, and it could go on burning the whole Shabbos, no problem. Rabbanan said we're afraid that if you're going to do that, you'll see on Shabbos, you might pump the fire, you might... Stir the coals. Stir the coals, yeah. And we said therefore, either it should be partially cooked, or you should put on a blech. So be'emet me'ikar hadin, if you put a blech, it doesn't even have to be partially cooked. But what we do, we do both. We make sure it's cooked and But it's all for the Rabbanan, it's a gezeirah. But mitzad hadin of d'Oraita, sure, you're allowed to put on the fire and leave it. It's not the most important. No, no, I... Okay, okay, forget it. Why is a שליח...? Guy, yeah, he didn't want to cook. Why was a שליח...? That this whole דין doesn't fit with that, not at all. So why would the Beit Yosef say it's... I have to go back two years. Here, in New York? When is he starting again? Because maybe he was chayav... because he was a melech, what goes with a melech. He has a wedding next week. Umimeila that's not eingeshtelt at all. He was a... Because there's no דין in שליחות of a melech. A melech can tell you to do, so you have to do an aveirah, so he was... A melech doesn't have to do it, somebody else can send him. Umimeila if you're not chayav... if you did על פי מלך, the melech is allowed to kill somebody also? Yeah. No, he says you're chayav... Who asked why about Shoftim? All right, so we'll see you tomorrow. Yeah, see you tomorrow. All right, maybe. Yeah.