## Kiddushin Daf 42b

###### Kiddushin 42b:1
[Kiddushin 42b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:1)

הָא – דִּטְעוֹ, הָא – דְּלָא טְעוֹ. אִי דְּלָא טְעוֹ, מַאי יְכוֹלִים לְמַחוֹת? יְכוֹלִים לְמַחוֹת בְּרוּחוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In **this** case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that their transaction is void, in accordance with the Rabbis, the court **erred** by one-sixth. But in **that** case, where Rav Naḥman ruled that the orphans cannot protest when they grow up, **they did not err** by one-sixth. The Gemara asks: **If** Rav Naḥman’s ruling that the orphans cannot protest is referring to a case **where they did not err** by one-sixth, **why** did Shmuel say that **they can** later **protest;** what is the nature of their protest? The Gemara answers: **They can protest with regard to** the **locations.** One of the orphans can contend that he prefers property in a different location than he was given.


###### Kiddushin 42b:2
[Kiddushin 42b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:2)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הָאַחִין שֶׁחָלְקוּ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּלָקוֹחוֹת. פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת – נִקְנֶה מִקָּח. יָתֵר עַל שְׁתוּת – בָּטֵל מִקָּח. שְׁתוּת – קָנָה, וּמַחְזִיר אוֹנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says:** With regard to **brothers who divided** property received as an inheritance, **they are** considered **like** they are **purchasers** from each other, and the *halakhot* of fraud are like those for regular transactions: If there was an error of **less than one-sixth** in the distribution, the **transaction is acquired,** i.e., valid. If it was **more than one-sixth,** the **transaction is void.** If the error was precisely **one-sixth,** it is **acquired, and** the one who received more than his fair share **must return** the amount of the **fraud.**


###### Kiddushin 42b:3
[Kiddushin 42b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:3)

אָמַר רָבָא: הָא דַּאֲמַרַן ״פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁתוּת – נִקְנֶה מִקָּח״ – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא שַׁוְּיֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ, אֲבָל שַׁוְּיֵהּ שָׁלִיחַ, אָמַר: לְתַקּוֹנֵי שַׁדַּרְתָּיךָ וְלָא לְעַוּוֹתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says: That which we said,** that with regard to **less than one-sixth** the **transaction** is valid and the item **is acquired, we said only** in a case **where** the brother receiving a smaller share **did not appoint an agent** to deal with the distribution on his behalf. **But if** the brother receiving a smaller share **appointed an agent,** this *halakha* does not apply, as the one who appointed the agent can **say: I sent you to** act for **my benefit and not to my detriment.** The agent’s right to act in this capacity did not extend to a case where it was to the detriment of the one who appointed him.


###### Kiddushin 42b:4
[Kiddushin 42b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:4)

וְהָא דַּאֲמַרַן ״יָתֵר מִשְּׁתוּת – בָּטֵל מִקָּח״ – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּלָא אָמַר (נִיפְלִיגַן) [נִפְלוֹג] בְּשׁוּמָא דְּבֵי דִינָא, אֲבָל אָמַר נִפְלוֹג בְּשׁוּמָא דְּבֵי דִינָא – מִכְרָן קַיָּים, דִּתְנַן: שׁוּם הַדַּיָּינִים שֶׁפִּיחֲתוּ שְׁתוּת אוֹ הוֹתִירוּ שְׁתוּת – מִכְרָן בָּטֵל. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: מִכְרָן קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And that which we said,** that if the brothers erred by **more than one-sixth** the **transaction is void, we said only when** the brother receiving a smaller share **did not say: Let us divide** the estate **by an appraisal of the court. But** if **he said: Let us divide** it **by an appraisal of the court, the transaction is valid, as we learned** in a mishna (*Ketubot* 99b): This is the *halakha* with regard to **the appraisal** of an article’s value in order to sell it, as done by **the judges:** In a case **where they decreased** the price by **one-sixth** of its market value **or added one-sixth** to its market value, **their sale is void. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Their sale is valid.**


###### Kiddushin 42b:5
[Kiddushin 42b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:5)

וְהָא דַּאֲמַרַן ״שְׁתוּת – קָנָה, וּמַחְזִיר אוֹנָאָה״ – לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּמִטַּלְטְלֵי, אֲבָל בִּמְקַרְקְעֵי – אֵין אוֹנָאָה לְקַרְקָעוֹת. וּבִמְקַרְקְעֵי לָא אֲמַרַן, אֶלָּא דִּפְלוּג בְּעִילּוּיָא, אֲבָל פְּלוּג בְּמִשְׁחֲתָא – לָא, כִּדְרַבָּה. דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִדָּה וְשֶׁבְּמִשְׁקָל וְשֶׁבְּמִנְיָן, אֲפִילּוּ פָּחוֹת מִכְּדֵי אוֹנָאָה – נָמֵי חוֹזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And that which we said,** that if the brothers erred by **one-sixth** the one receiving a larger share **acquired** it **and he must return** the amount of the **fraud, we said only with regard to movable property. But with regard to land,** the *halakha* is that **there is no fraud with regard to land. And with regard to land, we said** that the *halakha* of fraud does not apply **only when they divided** it **according to the value** of the land. **But** if **they divided** it **by measure** and erred in the measurement, we do **not** say that there is no fraud. This is in accordance **with** the statement **of Rabba, as Rabba said: Any matter that is according to measure, or according to weight, or according to number,** if it turned out to be in error, **even** if the error was **less than the amount** that constitutes **fraud,** it **is also returned.**


###### Kiddushin 42b:6
[Kiddushin 42b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:6)

וְהָא דִּתְנַן: הַשּׁוֹלֵחַ אֶת הַבְּעֵירָה בְּיַד חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם, וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. שִׁילַּח בְּיַד פִּיקֵּחַ – פִּיקֵּחַ חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss various aspects of agency. **And** there is a difficulty from **that which we learned** in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 59b): In the case of **one who sends** an item that causes **a fire in the hands of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor,** the one who sent it **is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven.** If **he sent** it **in the hands of** a halakhically **competent person,** only **the** halakhically **competent person is liable.**


###### Kiddushin 42b:7
[Kiddushin 42b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:7)

וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם דְּאֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה. דְּאָמְרִינַן: דִּבְרֵי הָרַב וְדִבְרֵי תַּלְמִיד – דִּבְרֵי מִי שׁוֹמְעִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But why** is the halakhically competent person liable? **Let us say** that the legal status of **a person’s agent is like** that of **himself.** The Gemara answers: **There** it **is different, as there is no agency for transgression, as we say:** When there is a conflict between **the words of the Master,** i.e., God, **and the words of** the **student,** i.e., a human being, **whose words** should be **listened to?** Consequently, the agent is considered to have acted of his own accord, and the one who sent him bears no responsibility.


###### Kiddushin 42b:8
[Kiddushin 42b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:8)

וְהָדְתַנְיָא: שָׁלִיחַ שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – שָׁלִיחַ מָעַל, עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ – בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מָעַל. כִּי עָשָׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת – בַּעַל הַבַּיִת מִיהָא מָעַל. אַמַּאי? נֵימָא: אֵין שָׁלִיחַ לִדְבַר עֲבֵירָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** there is a difficulty from **that which is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the *halakhot* of misuse of consecrated property: In the case of **an agent who did not perform his agency** but deviated from the instructions of the one who appointed him and made use of consecrated property, the **agent has misused** consecrated property and is liable to bring the guilt-offering for that sin. In the case of an agent who **performed his agency, the owner has misused** consecrated property and is liable to bring the offering. The Gemara asks: The *baraita* states that **when** the agent **performed the agency of the owner, the owner** has **in any event misused** consecrated property. **Why? Let us say** that **there is no agency for transgression.**


###### Kiddushin 42b:9
[Kiddushin 42b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:9)

שָׁאנֵי מְעִילָה, דְּיָלְפָא ״חֵטְא״ ״חֵטְא״ מִתְּרוּמָה: מָה תְּרוּמָה מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ – אַף מְעִילָה מְשַׁוֵּי שָׁלִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The case of **misuse** of consecrated property **is different, as** it **is derived** by means of a verbal analogy of **“sin”** in this case and **“sin” from *teruma*,** as the verse states: “And sin through error” (Leviticus 5:15), with regard to misuse of consecrated property, and it states: “Lest they bear sin for it” (Leviticus 22:9) with regard to *teruma*: **Just as** with ***teruma*** one can **appoint an agent, so too** with **misuse** of consecrated property one can **appoint an agent,** although the latter is a transgression.


###### Kiddushin 42b:10
[Kiddushin 42b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:10)

וְנֵילַף מִינַּהּ! מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי מְעִילָה וּשְׁלִיחוּת יָד שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד, וְכֹל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִים כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין. מְעִילָה – הָא דַּאֲמַרַן. שְׁלִיחוּת יָד מַאי הִיא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **And let us derive** a principle **from** misuse of consecrated property, that one can appoint an agent even to perform a transgression. The Gemara explains: This is not done **because misuse** of consecrated property **and misappropriation** of a deposit, i.e., a bailee using an item that was deposited with him, **are two verses that come as one,** i.e., they teach the same matter, that an agent can be appointed to perform a transgression. **And any two verses that come as one do not teach** their common aspect to apply to other cases. The Gemara clarifies this statement: The verse pertaining to **misuse** of consecrated property **is that which we said,** but **what is** the verse pertaining to **misappropriation?**


###### Kiddushin 42b:11
[Kiddushin 42b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:11)

דְּתַנְיָא: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לְחַיֵּיב עַל הַמַּחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁלַח בּוֹ יָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ וְגוֹ׳״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: The Torah uses the inclusive term “every” with regard to one suspected of misappropriating a deposit: **“For every matter of trespass”** (Exodus 22:8). **Beit Shammai say:** This inclusive term “every” serves **to render** one **liable for** speech and **thought,** i.e., intent to misappropriate, **like action. And Beit Hillel say: One is liable only if he** actually **misappropriates it, as** it **is stated: “Whether he has not put his hand** unto his neighbor’s goods” (Exodus 22:7).


###### Kiddushin 42b:12
[Kiddushin 42b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:12)

אָמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: וַהֲלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״! אָמְרוּ לָהֶם בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי: וַהֲלֹא נֶאֱמַר ״אִם לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ״! אָמְרוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לְבֵית הִלֵּל: אִם כֵּן, ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״ לְמָה לִי? שֶׁיָּכוֹל אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הוּא, אָמַר לְעַבְדּוֹ וְלִשְׁלוּחוֹ מִנַּיִן – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַל כׇּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: But isn’t it stated: “For every matter of trespass,”** which indicates that one is liable without actually misappropriating the deposit? **Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: But isn’t it stated: “Whether he has not put his hand unto his neighbor’s goods”? Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: If so,** if one is liable only for actual misappropriation, **why do I** need: **“For every matter of trespass”?** Beit Hillel replied: It is necessary, **as** one **might** have thought that **I have** derived liability **only** if **he** himself misappropriated it; **from where** do I derive that he is liable also if he **told his slave or his agent** to do so? **The verse states: “For every matter of trespass,”** to teach that the bailee is liable if one acting on his behalf misappropriates the deposit.


###### Kiddushin 42b:13
[Kiddushin 42b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/42b:13)

הָנִיחָא לְבֵית הִלֵּל. אֶלָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דְּמוֹקְמִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי קְרָא בְּמַחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains further: **This** answer, that misuse of consecrated property and misappropriation are two verses that come to teach the same matter, **works out well** according **to** the opinion of **Beit Hillel. But** according **to** the opinion of **Beit Shammai, who establish this verse** as rendering one liable **for thought like action** and do not learn from here that the bailee is liable if one acting on his behalf misappropriates the deposit,