Today's daf is sponsored by Gitta and David Neufeld in loving memory of Meir ben Aryeh Leib HaLevi, Marvin Stokar. "Although his title of Zaidy was an honorary one, he and (lehavdil bein chayim lechayim) Bubby Fran were - and continue to be - an important part of our family. His love of all learning and of Eretz Yisrael were surpassed only by his love and care for our dear Bubby Fran. May he continue to be a meilitz yosher for her and all of us!" Why do we say that a person who sends a messenger to commit a sin is not punished, but the messenger is? Even though there are some cases where the sender is liable, we do not build a paradigm from those cases to learn about all other commandments – why not? Shamai the elder has a different approach. There are three different interpretations explaining his opinion. Can a messenger also function as a witness in a case where he was also the messenger? Rav and Rabbi Shila disagree. What is at the root of their debate? A question is raised against Rav’s position from a Beit Shamai/Beit Hillel debate but is resolved. The ruling is that the messenger can function as a witness. Rav Nachman rules this way in marriage, divorce, and monetary law. Why did each need to be specified? Why was he not concerned in monetary law that the messenger is a party to the transaction? How did this change once the rabbis required a heiseit oath? Can a young woman (naara) accept a get for divorce or accept a marriage betrothal or only her father can? In what case is there a disagreement?