Hash-m punished the earth because it didn't listen. Why do Ravina and Rav Sama say a Chotzer is not liable and a Chotzer has no choice.
>>(f) Answer #1 (Ravina): Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah only when the Shali'ach is liable for transgressing. A Chatzer is not liable, so (it can be a Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah, and) the person is liable for what the Chatzer acquires.
>>How could Ravina say that A Chotzer is not liable; we see from Bereishis 3:17 that the ground was not only held liable , but was actually punished for what it did!
>>(g) Answer #2 (Rav Sama): Ein Shali'ach l'Devar Aveirah only when the Shali'ach can choose whether or not to comply. A Chatzer has no choice, so (it is a Shali'ach, and) the person is liable.
Obviously if the ground was punished because it DIDN'T do what Hash-m wanted it must be that it could have chosen to listen!
It seems to me and probably everyone would agree the words no choice and not liable are not realistic descriptions when applied to a field. Yet Ravina and Rav Sama use them. So I would like to ask on both Ravina and Rav Sama; how do we know if the Chatzer actually did what it was asked?! Perhaps the Chotzer wasn't koneh the object at all? (In Bereishis it became obvious that it didn't listen; but how do we know here whether it did or not?) And even if the Chotzer was Koneh; we are talking about the earth here and since we know that the earth has the nature of not listening even to HKB"H the whole reasoning behind Eyn Shliach Lidvar Aveira of Divrei HArav, Divrei HAtalmud does not apply here. And in such a case we say Yesh Shaliach Lidvar Aveira.
Should we just stick to our first answer of:
>>2. Answer: The doubled verb "Himatzei Simatzei" includes them.
Does any of this make sense or is it all nonsense?
Kol Tuv
Alex Lebovits, Toronto, Canada
The incident in Bereishis 3:17 deals with the Mal'ach or Sar in charge of growing the "Etz Pri," who did not do as instructed. It is not talking about the ground. Being that Hash-m wanted the growth to be done by a Mal'ach or Sar, and they "decided" it should not happen, He allowed it to remain this way. It is clear that if Hash-m indeed wanted the Etz to be an Etz Pri, it would have happened anyway (despite the Mal'ach's opinion).
All this has nothing to do with a Kinyan Chatzer, which is not dependent on the Mal'ach or Sar of the Chatzer, but rather the down-to-earth fact that a person's yard is considered his domain, and by extension he can use it to make a Kinyan. We really do not care what the Mal'ach of the Chatzer, which tells the blades of grass to grow, thinks about this Kinyan.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose