Q&A: Rabbi Akiva Eger on the topic of agency
Rabbi Akiva Eger on the topic of agency
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi:
Today I studied Rabbi Akiva Eger on the Talmudic topic of agency, and I was left with a very great difficulty.
I looked through many later authorities (the Hazon Ish, Rav Shmuel, Devar Yaakov, and others—they all relate mainly to Birkat Shmuel and Rav Yosef Engel), and I did not find anyone who addresses this. I would be very grateful if the Rabbi would look into it and set it on the straight path with a wonderful explanation, in his holy manner:
And this is what he writes:
Rabbi Akiva Eger, tractate Kiddushin 43a
Tosafot, s.v. “that we do not find,” etc.: “However, Rabbi Isaac was uncertain in a case where one says to an agent, ‘Stretch out your hand.’” And it is difficult for me: why did Rabbi Isaac not resolve his doubt from this very difficulty? For if we say that the sender committed misuse, then we do in fact find a case where one person benefits and another becomes liable. And one can distinguish somewhat in this case. But conversely, it is difficult for me: if we really say that he did not commit misuse, why did Rava find this reasoning only as a novelty according to Shammai? He should have stated it as practical law, that even though in misuse of consecrated property there is agency for a transgression, nevertheless in a case where one says to his agent, ‘Stretch out your hand into the basket,’ he is exempt, since we do not find a case where one person benefits and another becomes liable. And this requires very great further investigation.”
Thank you very much, and happy Hanukkah
Answer
I don’t really have time right now to get into the matter. But offhand, I didn’t understand the difficulty. Tosafot is speaking about misuse of consecrated property done unintentionally, and in misuse of consecrated property, when the agent acted unintentionally, according to all opinions there is agency for a transgression. Besides that, in misuse of consecrated property there is agency for a transgression even when done intentionally, by explicit scriptural decree. If so, Tosafot’s doubts—whether the sender committed misuse when the benefit went to the agent—apply according to everyone. So what does Shammai have to do with this?
Still, I also didn’t understand in Tosafot why they framed their doubt specifically with an agent who acted unintentionally. In misuse of consecrated property there is agency for a transgression even with an agent who acted intentionally. And I thought that perhaps one should distinguish between someone who sends an agent to do something on his behalf (in which case, in misuse of consecrated property, there is agency for a transgression according to everyone), and someone who tells an agent to commit misuse (as in the case of Tosafot), where there is no agency for a transgression except according to Shammai.
And perhaps this is Rabbi Akiva Eger’s difficulty: Tosafot asked, as a matter of practical law (not only according to Shammai), why they did not establish the principle that “we do not find a case where one person benefits and another becomes liable” in a case of an agent who acted unintentionally, according to everyone. And to that Rabbi Akiva Eger says: why didn’t they say this only according to Shammai, in a case of an agent who acted intentionally? But in the unintentional case there really would be agency, and the sender would be liable even when the agent benefits.
But this can be rejected fairly easily, for what is the difference between this and that? If one says this according to Shammai, why should we not also say it as the actual Jewish law in a case of an agent who acted intentionally? There is no reason to assume that Shammai disagrees both about the principle that “we do not find a case where one person benefits and another becomes liable” and also about agency for a transgression.
In the end, all this still requires further investigation.
Discussion on Answer
I don’t understand Tosafot or Rabbi Akiva Eger, and I suggested an interpretation of their words. And in the end I noted that Rabbi Akiva Eger’s question (if I understood it correctly) can be answered fairly easily. But, as stated, all this was written offhand and not after careful study.
I didn’t understand.
The Rabbi
is asking an even stronger question than Rabbi Akiva Eger’s
???????!!!