The Gemora gives a reason why the principle is not responsible for his agents actions; as he should have rather listened to G-d than the disciple.
Now what if the agent is an atheist, or he hasn't learnt a certain law, would the agent still bare the responsibility of the sin, or would the sin then go to the principle.
Another question one could ask is if the agent is not held responsible for telling his agent to do something, how do we explain mass killing masterminds, who orchestrated death camps and torturing, but did not actually kill a single person with his own hands e.g Hitler...
Thank you for your time
Gavin Simpson, South Africa
(1) Rebbi Akiva Eiger makes this point in Bava Metzia 10b. He offers an alternate explanation, whereby there is no Din of Shelichus in an instance that the Shelichus involves transgressing a prohibition. This is because the source from which we learn Shelichus is talking about a case that does not involve transgressing a prohibition and therefore we cannot learn from there to a case which involves transgressing a prohibition. However, according to the understanding of the Sma (CM 182:2) Rebbi Akiva Eiger says that if the Shali'ach were a Mumar, we would have to say Yeish Shali'ach l'Dvar Aveirah.
The Shach (CM 348:6) points out that according to the conclusion of the Gemara we can learn Ein Shali'ach l'Dvar Aveirah from the rule of Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im K'Echad Ein m'Lamdin. If so this rule would apply even when we can assume that the Shali'ach will follow his instructions.
(2) Even if Ein Shali'ach l'Dvar Aveirah, the Gemara says in Kidushin 43a and Bava Kama 55b that this is only as far as being responsible in Beis Din, but this is not an exemption from responsibility in the eyes of heaven (CM Shach 32:3).
See Bereishis Rabah (34:14) that says that a Ben No'ach is resposible for actions done by his Shali'ach even in the hands of Beis Din.
Dov Freedman