1)

(a)According to Beis Shamai, who learns from "Al Kol Devar Pesha" that one is Chayav for Shelichus Yad even on the thought alone, there is no Shelichus by Shelichus Yad. Nevertheless, he cannot learn from Me'ilah that 'Yesh Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah' - because Me'ilah and Tevichah and Mechirah (the slaughtering or selling of a stolen animal, for which one pays four or five times, and by which there is Shelichus [as we are about to see]) are 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad'.

(b)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa learns Shelichus by Tevichah and Mechirah from the Pasuk "u'Tevacho O Mecharo" - by means of a Hekesh (the comparison of Tevichah to Mechirah, since the latter can only be performed through two people, the former can be performed through two people too).

(c)Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns the same thing from the word "O", and de'Bei Chizkiyah, from "Tachas ha'Shor, Tachas ha'Seh" - since one of them is superfluous, and we therefore use it to include a Shali'ach.

2)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk "Dam Yechashev la'Ish ha'Hu Dam Shafach" - "Hu" 've'Lo Shelucho' (that 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah') by Shechutei Chutz.

(b)We cannot then extend it to the entire Torah with a 'Mah Matzinu' - because against that, we have the two Pesukim (Me'ilah and Shelichus Yad according to Beis Hillel and Me'ilah and Tevichah and Mechirah according to Beis Shamai), which teach us 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah'.

(c)According to those who hold 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Melamdin, we finally learn 'Ein Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah' - from the Pasuk there "ve'Nichras ha'Ish ha'Hu me'Amav", which is not needed for itself (i.e. Shechutei Chutz, since we already know that from the previous Derashah), and which we therefore Darshen 'Im Eino Inyan' to cover the entire Torah.

3)

(a)According to those who hold 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin', the word "ha'Hu" is now superfluous on two occasions. One of them comes to teach us that if two people slaughter Shechutei Chutz simultneously, they are Patur from Kares; the other one - that "Hu" 've'Lo Ones ve'Lo Shogeg ve'Lo Mutah' (tricked).

(b)Those who hold 'Melamdin' learn these Dinim - from the extra 'Hey' in "Ha'hu").

(c)And those who learn 'Ein Melamdin' - do not consider the extra 'Hey' a Derashah.

4)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa holds that if Reuven murders at the instigation of Shimon, then it is Reuven, and not Shimon, who is Chayav. Shamai ha'Zaken quoting Chagai ha'Navi, says - that Shimon is Chayav.

(b)Shamai's ...

1. ... source - is the Pasuk in Shmuel "Oso Haragta be'Cherev Bnei Amon" (where the Navi blames David for the death of Uri'ah ha'Chiti as if he had killed him using the Amonites swords).

2. ... reason, based on the previous discussion is - that he holds 'Shnei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Melamdin', and does not Darshen the two times "ha'Hu".

(c)We refute the original alternative explanation that when Shamai says 'Chayav', he means be'Dinei Shamayim - since that would imply that according to Beis Hillel, he is not even Chayav be'Dinei Shamayim either (which, as we learned earlier, is not correct).

(d)As an alternative, we explain 'Ela Diyna Rabah ve'Diynah Zuta Ika Beinayhu', meaning that both according to Shamai and according to the Rabanan, the sender is punished be'Dinei Shamayim for his involvement. However - according to Shamai, he is heavily punished (as if he had actually killed him), whereas according to the Rabanan, he is only punished lightly for causing his death.

5)

(a)In a third alternative, Shamai may even hold 'Shnei Kesuvim ... Ein Melamdin'. However, the Torah clearly indicates by David ha'Melech, where it writes "Oso Haragta be'Cherev Bnei Amon", that 'Yesh Shali'ach li'Devar Aveirah'. The Rabanan interpret the Pasuk to mean - that just as David was not punishable for the sword of the Bnei Amon, so too, was he not punishable for the death of Uri'ah ha'Chiti.

(b)The reason for this is - because Uri'ah had contravened the laws of Kavod Malchus, and was Chayav Miysah anyway.

(c)Uri'ah ha'Chiti's sin in saying "va'Adoni Yo'av ve'Chol Avdei Adoni Al Pnei ha'Sadeh Chonim" was - that he should not have referred to Yo'av as 'Adoni' in the presence of the King (see also Tosfos DH 'Mo'reid').

(d)Rava comments, even assuming that Shamai holds 'Shnei Kesuvim ... Melamdim' and 'Hu, ha'Hu Lo Darish' - that if Reuven performs incest at the behest of Shimon, it is he who is Chayav and not Shimon, because nowhere do we find that one person benefits, and somebody else gets punished.

6)

(a)Rav permits a Shali'ach to double as a witness - irrespective of whether it is one Shali'ach who combines with a second witness, or whether it is two Sheluchim who double as witnesses.

(b)de'Bei Rebbi Shilo says - that a Shali'ach cannot double as a witness.

(c)We reject the suggestion that de'Bei Rebbi Shilo's reason is because the Meshale'ach did not appoint the Shali'ach as a witness - because there is no such Halachah that requires Edim who witness a transaction such as Kidushin to be designated.

(d)And the reason of ...

1. ... Rav is - because the Shelichus only serves to reinforce the witness' testimony when he later testifies.

2. ... de'Bei Rebbi Shilo is - because the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso' renders the Shali'ach like the Meshale'ach himself, and a person cannot testify about himself.

7)

(a)The Beraisa cites a case of someone who asked three people to betroth a woman on his behalf. According to Beis Shamai, one of them should perform the Shelichus. Beis Hillel say - that they are all Sheluchim, and a Shaliach cannot testify.

(b)We extrapolate from that, in a case where there are only two Sheluchim - even Beis Shamai will concede that neither of them can be a witness.

(c)The problem now is - that Rav (who holds 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed') holds neither like Beis Hillel nor like Beis Shamai.

8)

(a)We conclude that Rav holds like Rebbi Nasan in another Beraisa. According to Rebbi Nasan, Beis Shamai says 'Shali'ach ve'Ed', meaning - that the Shali'ach can combine with a witness (because 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed').

(b)Beis Hillel say - 'Shalia'ch u'Shnei Edim' (meaning that only three people can satisfy all the requirements of the Meshale'ach, but not two (because 'Ein Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed').

(c)To avoid having to establish Rav like Beis Shamai, we switch the opinions of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

(d)Rav Acha the son of Rava switches the opinions of Rav and de'Bei Rebbi Shilo. The final ruling is - 'Shali'ach Na'aseh Ed'.

9)

(a)Rava Amar Rav Nachman rules that if someone appoints two Sheluchim to act on his behalf, they can both double as witnesses - with regard to Kidushin, Gerushin and money-matters.

(b)Having taught us this in the case of ...

1. ... Kidushin, he nevertheless needs to repeat in by Gerushin - where we might suspect that one of the witnesses wants to marry the divorcee (whereas in the case of Kidushin, they do not stand to gain anything, in which case there is no reason to suspect them).

2. ... Gerushin, he nevertheless found it necessary to repeat it by money matters - because, whereas by Gerushin, we can hardly suspect them both of planning to marry the divorcee, by money-matters it is feasible that they are in collusion with the third party, and that they intend to split their ill-gotten gains.

(c)Rav Nachman must hold 'ha'Malveh Es Chaveiro be'Edim, Ein Tzarich le'Por'o be'Edim' - because otherwise, assuming that the debtor gave the money to the Sheluchim in front of witnesses, they are prejudiced, because unless they testify (and their testimony is believed) that they delivered the money to the creditor, the debtor will claim it back from them.

(d)Should they claim that they paid the creditor, they will be believed - with a 'Migo' that they could have claimed to have returned it to the debtor.

10)

(a)Chazal instituted a Shevu'as Hesses - obligating even someone who denies the claim completely (whom the Torah absolves without having to swear) to swear.

(b)This affects our case - inasmuch as if the Sheluchim testify that they paid the creditor the money, but the creditor denies having received it, the former will now have to swear that they paid the money to the creditor, the creditor will swear that he did not receive it, and (assuming that both do indeed swear), the debtor will be obligated to pay the creditor (again).

11)

(a)According to the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Gitin, both the Na'arah ha'Me'orasah and her father have the right to accept her Gerushin from the man who betrothed her. Rebbi Yehudah counters - that 'two hands cannot possess the right to acquire simultaneously'. Consequently, since the Torah handed this right to the Na'arah's father, it must have withdrawn it from her.

(b)A Na'arah or a Ketanah who is married is called a Yesomah be'Chayei ha'Av - and it is she who receives her Get, not her father (unless she appoints him as her Shali'ach).

(c)The Tana of the Mishnah also forbids a man to divorce his wife if she is unable to look after her Get. Rebbi Yitzchak extrapolates this from the Pasuk "ve'Shilchah mi'Beiso" - which implies that when she is sent away, she does not return.

(d)This applies - even if her father receives the Get.

12)

(a)Reish Lakish maintains that the Rabanan and Rebbi Yehudah repeat their Machlokes (as to whether a Na'arah can receive her own Get) by Kidushin. According to Rebbi Yochanan however - the Rabanan concede that with regard to Kidushin, only her father can receive it.

(b)Initially, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina explains the difference, according to Rebbi Yochanan - in that the Torah did not confine the rights of Gerushin to the father, because it brings her back into his domain; whereas regarding Kidushin, which takes her out of her father's domain, the Torah placed entirely in his jurisdiction.

(c)The Tana says that only the father can perform the Ma'amar (the Kidushin of a Yevamah) of a Ketanah min ha'Erusin. However - both the woman herself and the father, may do so if she is a Na'arah.

(d)We can infer from here - that the Rabanan did not change their opinion, even regarding there where she leaves her father's domain (as Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina suggested). Consequently, that cannot be the reason for their ruling by Kidushin.