Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) [line 6] TIPESA D'DAMA NAFLAH LEI B'UDNEI - a drop of blood fell into his [inner] ear (and deafened him; thus, there must have been physical contact between the son's blow and his father's head)

2) [line 8] GILCHO - he shaved him
3) [line 8] GILCHO MEHADER HADAR, V'HAINU BA'AYAN - if he shaved him his hair will grow back, and this is our question!

4) [line 9] SACHO NASHA - he smeared him with Nasha, a medicinal salve made from the sap of a plant, which causes hair to fall out

5a) [line 10] D'IS LEI KARTUFNEI B'REISHEI - for he has lacerations on his head
b) [line 10] V'TZAVCHEI ME'HANHU KARTUFNEI - and he is in pain from these lacerations (infected by the salve)

6) [line 11] D'VA'AYA ASUYEI - it requires medical attention (healing)
7) [line 12] D'HAVAH MARKID BEI KUVEI - he used to dance in the stores (as a vocation)

8) [line 12] D'BA'YA MECHAVI GUNEI A'REISHA - and he needed to shake his head in various ways (as part of his dance)

9a) [line 17] SHEVES GEDOLAH - the value of his limb that was wounded (this is the same as the payment of Nezek)
b) [line 17] SHEVES KETANAH - the payment of Sheves the value of the wages that he could have earned

10) [line 19] EVED IVRI - a Jewish slave)
(a) There are two ways that a Jewish man can be bought as a slave by another Jew. Either he may sell himself because he is destitute, or he may be sold by Beis Din to pay back a theft. During his term as a slave, his master must support his family (Kidushin 22b). The master may not make his Eved Ivri do disgraceful work for him, nor may he treat him as one normally treats a slave. For example, if the master only has one pillow, he must give it to his Eved Ivri rather than keep it for himself (Kidushin 20a).
(b) If the slave was married before he was sold, the master has the right to give him a Nochri maidservant to bear him children who will become the slaves of the master (Shemos 21:4). (One who is not an Eved Ivri is forbidden to have relations with a maidservant.)
(c) An Eved Ivri is obligated to work for his master for only six years (Shemos 21:2) or until the Yovel year (see next entry), whichever comes first (Kidushin 14b, 16a). At any time during his term, he may go free if he or someone else pays his master the money remaining from the sum that the master paid for him, prorated to the amount of time that he worked. If at the termination of six years he expresses his desire to continue life as a slave, the master takes the slave to Beis Din, and stands the slave near a doorpost and pierces his right ear and the door with an awl. This is known as Retzi'ah, and an Eved Ivri upon whom this is performed is called a "Nirtza." A Nirtza slave must continue to serve his master until the Yovel year (ibid. 21:6) or until his master dies. Whenever an Eved Ivri goes free, under most circumstances his master must give him monetary gifts valued at 15, 30 or 50 Sela'im, according to the various opinions (Kidushin 17a). This is known as Ha'anakah (Devarim 15:14).

11) [line 24] PASKEI - he cut off
12a) [line 24] REISH UNEI - the tip of his ear
b) [line 25] REISH NECHIREI - the tip of his nose

13a) [line 29] V'CHULAN RO'IN OSAN... - when considering the status of a person with regard to paying him Boshes (compensation for the shame he experienced), we view everyone as if he was a normal person who lost his income and assets
b) [line 29] BENEI CHORIN SHE'YARDU MI'NICHSEIHEM - normal persons who lost their income and assets

14) [line 44] MECHAVARTA - it is clearly correct
15) [line 51] "...V'ARAV LO V'KAM ALAV..." - "[But if any man hates his neighbor,] and lies in wait for him, and rises up against him, [and strikes him mortally so that he dies, and flees to one of these cities...]" (Devarim 19:11)

16) [line 52] "...V'SHALCHAH YADAH V'HECHEZIKAH BI'MVUSHAV" - "[When men fight together, one with another, and the wife of one draws near to save her husband from the hand of him who strikes him,] and puts forth her hand, and grabs him by his private parts." (Devarim 25:11)

17) [last line] D'MIKALMU LEI U'MICHLAM - we embarrass him, and he is embarrassed (that is, when we remind him later about the incident, he experiences shame)

18a) [line 10] D'ASA ZIKA - a wind came
b) [line 10] KARCHINHU L'MANEI - it folded up his clothes (and exposed him)
c) [line 11] V'ASA HU, DALINHU TEFEI - and he came, and lifted it up more

19a) [line 16] KISUFA - shame, embarrassment
b) [line 18] ZILUSA - disgrace, mockery, lowering of stature

20a) [line 19] CHERESH - a deaf mute
b) [line 19] SHOTEH - (lit. a fool) a person who is mad or deranged
(a) A person is classified as a Shoteh if he regularly, because of madness, destroys or loses that which is given to him, sleeps in a cemetery, goes out alone at night or tears his clothes (Chagigah 3b). According to the RAMBAM (Hilchos Edus 9:9), a person is a Shoteh if he regularly exhibits any form of irrational behavior. (b) A Shoteh is exempt from performing Mitzvos, is not punished for his transgressions and is not liable for the damages that he causes. His purchases and sales are meaningless and are not binding.

21) [line 20] AA"B - IY AMART BISHLEMA (if you say, correctly, that...)
22) [line 21] AMRI, SHOTEH EIN LECHA BOSHES GEDOLAH MI'ZEH - we say, there is no greater shame than being a Shoteh

23) [line 33] MASNISIN D'LO K'REBBI YEHUDAH - our Mishnah is not following the view of Rebbi Yehudah. Our Mishnah states that a sleeping person who embarrassed someone else is exempt from paying Boshes, but it does not state that a blind person who embarrassed someone is exempt from paying Boshes. This implies that a blind person is *obligated* to pay Boshes, which is not the view of Rebbi Yehudah.

24) [line 34] SUMA EIN LO BOSHES - a blind person does not have to pay compensation of Boshes (if he shames someone else)

25) [line 34] CHAYAVEI GALUYOS (GALUS) - exile
(AREI MIKLAT - cities of refuge)
(a) A person who murders intentionally after having been previously warned is liable to the death penalty. A person who murders unintentionally is exempt from the death penalty, but is punished with Galus (banishment, exile).
(b) When it is proven that a person killed unintentionally, he is banished to one of the six Arei Miklat (cities of refuge) or one of the forty-two cities of the Leviyim. He must stay there and not leave the city or its Techum for any reason whatsoever until the death of the Kohen Gadol who served at the time that he was sentenced to banishment.
(c) If the unintentional murderer leaves his city of refuge, the Go'el ha'Dam (the closest relative of the murdered person) is permitted to avenge the death of his relative and kill the murderer.

26) [line 34] CHAYAVEI MALKUYOS (MALKUS) - see Background to Bava Kama 84:8

27) [line 35] CHAYAVEI MISOS BEIS DIN (ARBA MISOS BEIS DIN)
(a) Arba Misos Beis Din, the four death penalties administered by Beis Din, in their order of stringency are:

1. Sekilah (stoning)
2. Sereifah (burning with molten lead, which is poured down the throat)
3. Hereg (killing with a sword) (Sefer ha'Chinuch #50)
4. Chenek (strangulation) (Sefer ha'Chinuch #47)

28) [line 35] EDIM ZOMEMIN
(a) If two witnesses testify to a crime or an event and a later set of witnesses contradict their testimony by saying that the crime or event did not take place exactly as the first set of witnesses testified, all of the witnesses are termed Edim Mukchashim (contradictory witnesses), and Beis Din cannot use either testimony.
(b) If, however, two witnesses testify to a crime or an event and a later set of witnesses *disqualify* their testimony by saying that the first set of witnesses were with them in a different place at the time that the first set of witnesses claim that the act took place, the first witnesses are termed Edim Zomimin (conspiring witnesses). The Torah commands that the second set of witnesses be believed, rather than the first. In general, Edim Zomemim are punished with the punishment they tried to cause. (Devarim 19:16-21. See MISHNAH Makos 5a)

29) [line 36] "B'LO RE'OS" - "[Or with any stone with which one can kill,] if he did not see [and he felled it upon him and he died]..." (Bamidbar 35:23)

30) [line 38] "VA'ASHER YAVO ES RE'EHU VA'YA'AR LACHTOV ETZIM" - "And when a man goes into the wood with his neighbor to cut wood, [and his hand fetches a stroke with the ax to cut down the tree, and the head slips from the handle, and strikes (lit. finds) his neighbor, so that he dies; he shall flee to one of those cities, and live.]" (Devarim 19:5)

31) "BI'VLI DA'AS" - "[This is the matter of the murderer, who may flee there and live, when he strikes (and kills) his friend] without intent, [and he did not hate him from the days before.]" (Devarim 19:4)

32) [line 40] EIN MI'UT ACHAR MI'UT ELA L'RABOS
When a Mi'ut is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to *extend* the law, rather than limit it.
(a) This rule of Biblical interpretation interprets the occurrence of two Mi'utim (limiting words) regarding an identical point as *extending* the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include less items or to apply in less cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to *extend* the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.
(b) The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was *not* meant to limit the law to lesser items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing *only* the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should *not* learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" -- see Background to Kidushin 58:13 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et -- see Bava Kama 45:19.)
(c) In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Bava Kama 5:16) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Kama 25:1). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.

33) [line 41] PERAT L'MISKAVEN HU D'ASA - it (the verse of "bi'Vli Da'as") comes to exclude someone who did an intentional act [of killing]

Next daf