Previous daf

1)

(a) Everyone agrees that someone who rapes a Nidah is Chayav to pay K'nas. It is obvious that one may retain a Nidah to whom he is betrothed or married. Kidushin - is effective on a Nidah.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah who includes Chayvei Kareis in K'nas, does not hold like Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah, who says - that just like someone who burns someone's haystack on Shabbos, is Patur from paying because he is Chayav Misas Beis-Din, so too, is he Patur for doing on so on Yom Kipur, because he is Chayav Kareis.

(c) Abaye gives Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah's source as the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Ason" "Ason". We initially explain "ve'Karahu Ason" that Ya'akov said to his sons with regard to Binyamin - to mean through exposure to heat or cold (which we attribute to the Hand of Hashem).

(d) We initially answer Rav Ada bar Ahavah's Kashya as to how we know that Ya'akov was referring to heat and cold (which we think are 'bi'Y'dei Shamayim'), and not to lions and robbers - by explaining that Ya'akov was surely expressing concern over all dangers that might befall Binyamin, including those that were 'bi'Y'dei Shamayim'.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Tzinim Pachim be'Derech Ikeish, Shomer Nafsho Yirchak Meihem" - that heat and cold are in the hands of the person himself, and that they are sometimes the result of one's own carelessnes.

(b) We query the contention that (lions and) robbers are in the hands of man - from a statement by Rav Yosef and by Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa which includes lions and robbers among the Divine punishments (as we shall now see).

(c) Rav Yosef and Rebbi Chiya quoting a Beraisa say - that even though the four deaths of Beis-Din are no longer practiced by Beis-Din, those who are guilty of one of them, still receives the equivalent punishment at the Hand of Hashem.

3)

(a) Nowadays, one of the punishments that replace ...

1. ... stoning, is falling from a roof - the second punishment is being bowled over and killed by a wild animal?
2. ... burning (death by boiling lead poured down one's throat) is falling into a fire - the second, bitten by a snake.
3. ... killing by the sword is execution (at the hand of the ruling power) - the second, falling prey to armed robbers.
4. ... strangulation, is drowning - the second, croup (choking).

(b) We now answer the dual Kashyos that we asked earlier regarding the contention that illnesses that result from cold and heat are considered bi'Y'dei Shamayim, and (lions and) robbers, bi'Y'dei Adam - by inverting them: it is lions and robbers that are bi'Y'dei Shamayim, and heat and cold, bi'Y'dei Adam.

(a) Rava bases Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah's Din on the Pasuk "ve'Im Ha'aleim Ya'alimu Am ha'Aretz es Eineihem min ha'Ish ha'Hu ... ve'Hichrati Oso" - which compares punishments at the Hand of Hashem to those at the hand of Beis-Din (to exempt from any monetary obligations that ensue from the same action).

(b) The difference between Abaye and Rava's sources for Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah is with regard to a Zar who eats Terumah - since he is *Chayav Misah bi'Y'dei Shamayim* (and therefore Patur from paying from the D'rashah of "Ason", but *not Kareis* (like someone who worships Molech, and is therefore Chayav to pay).

(a) According to Rav Chisda, someone who steals Cheilev and eats it (even according to Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah) - is Chayav to pay, because his obligation to pay (which fall due the moment he steals it) preceded the Chiyuv Misah (which comes only after he has eaten it).

(b) This poses a Kashya on Abaye in the previous question, who exempts a Zar who eats Terumah from paying, according to Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah. Why do we not say there too - that his obligation to pay preceded his Chiyuv Kareis (for the same reason)?

(c) We refute the answer that Abaye is speaking when the Zar's friend stuck the Terumah into his mouth - because there too, he acquires the food as soon as he chews it, whereas the Chiyuv Kareis comes only after he has swallowed it.

(d) We try to answer that Kashya - by establishing the case when his friend actually stuck the food right into the back of his throat, where we think that the Kinyan and the Isur Misah would have occurred simultaneously.

(a) We also refute that answer, on the grounds that there too - if he is able to return the food, he should return it, failing which, he will be Chayav for destroying Terumah, whereas the Chiyuv Misah comes only after he swallows it. If, on the other hand, he is unable to return it, why should he be Chayav Misah, seeing as he is an O'nes?

(b) We ultimately answer that Abaye and Rava are speaking when he is able to return the Terumah 'al-Yedei ha'D'chak' - meaning that the food is no longer fit to return to the owner, in which case he will not be Chayav for having stolen it; and the Chiyuv Misah and the obligation to pay for having benefitted from the Terumah after swallowing it come simultaneously.

(a) Rav Papa avoids having to say that his friend pushed the food right to into the back of his throat - by changing the case from solid food to liquid (which becomes disgusting and 'unreturnable' the moment it is placed into his mouth.

(b) Rav Ashi avoids the problem of theft altogether, by establishing the case when the Zar ate his own Terumah - and tore someone else's clothes at the same time. Rav Ashi holds that even though the Misah and the damage are unrelated ('Misah la'Zeh u'Mamon la'Zeh'), we still apply the principle of 'Kam Lei bi'de'Rabah Minei' (the punishment for the larger crime exempts the recipient from being punished for the lesser one).