Previous daf

1)

(a) Initially, we suggest that Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Ula (who holds 'Mamona Meshalem, Milka Lo Laki'), because 'Im Kein, Batalta "Ervas Achoscha Lo Segaleh".
What is meant by that?

(b) How do we refute that suggestion (from Chovel ba'Chaveiro and from Eidim Zomemin)?

(c) How do we then fulfill the La'av of ...

1. ... "Lo Yosif ... Pen Yosif"?
2. ... "ve'Hayah Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha"?
3. ... "Ervas Achoscha Lo Segaleh"?

(d) A stroke that does not cause damage that is worth a P'rutah (for which one will receive Malkos, even according to Ula) incorporates all five things that one normally has to pay.
How is it possible for such a stroke not to cause shame to the value of a P'rutah?

(a) We conclude that Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Ula, because he learns from Ula's Pasuk ("Tachas Asher Inah") like Abaye will learn after him (in connection with the fifty Shekalim of K'nas).
What does Abaye learn from there?

(b) What does Ula learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Nasan ha'Ish *ha'Shochev Imah* la'Avi ha'Na'arah Chamishim Kesef"?

(a) According to Rebbi Elazar, Eidim Zomemin do not need a Pasuk ("Yad be'Yad") to teach us that they pay and do not receive Malkos, because it is a S'vara.
Which S'vara?

(b) Rava bears this out, because 'when would they have been warned?' Why could they not have been warned ...

1. ... an hour or two earlier?
2. ... just before they testified (like one usually does)?
3. ... just after they testified?

(c) Abaye asks on Rava that it would be possible to warn them immediately after they have testified.
What would be the use of such a belated warning?

(d) Rav Acha Brei de'Rav Idi asks that one could even warn them an hour or two earlier. What would be the use of such an early warning?

5)

(a) From where do we learn that Eidim Zomemin who testify that a Kohen is the son of a Gerushah or a Chalutzah receives Malkos?

(b) Why do we not apply "Ka'asher Zamam"?

(c) How do we know that even *they* are punished without warning?

(a) Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi learns that Chovel ba'Chaveiro pays (rather than receive Malkos) from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Chi Yinatzu Anashim, ve'Nagfu Ishah Harah ve'Yatz'u Yeladehah".
What does Rebbi Elazar mean when he says 'be'Mitzvos she'be'Misah ha'Kasuv Medaber'?

(b) From where does he extrapolate this?

(c) But why should he receive the death penalty, when he did not intend to kill *the woman*?

(d) And how can he be sentenced to *Malkos*, when the culprit was only warned for *Misah*?

7)

(a) Besides querying Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi's principle 'Musrah le'Davar Chamur Musrah le'Davar Kal', Rav Ashi also queries his contention that Misah is more stringent. Perhaps Malkos is more stringent, he asks (and it is obvious that 'Musrah le'Davar Kal, Lo Havi Musrah le'Davar Chamur'). What is the basis of this seemingly strange Kashya?

(b) Rav Sama B'rei de'Rav Asi (or B'rei de'Rav Ashi) rejects this theory however.
Why is there no proof from Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah that Malkos is more stringent than Misah?

(c) What does Rav Ya'akov from Nahar Pakud ask on Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi from the opinion of Rebbi (who holds 'Niskaven Laharog es Zeh ve'Harag es Zeh Eino Neherag')?

(a) Still based on Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi's principle ('Musrah le'Davar Chamur ... '), he proves in the name of Rava that Chovel ba'Chaveiro pays rather than receives Malkos, from the Pasuk "Im Yakum ve'His'halech ba'Chutz al Mish'anto ... ".
How do we know that the Torah speaks when there was a warning?

(b) What does Rava now try to prove from there?

(c) Rav Ashi asks the same Kashyos as he asked above on Rav Shisha B'rei de'Rav Idi. Rav Mari adds a Kashya: How do we know, he asks, that the Torah is speaking about Misah, when there must have been a warning?
What is the alternative?

(a) Resh Lakish reconciles our Mishnah (which obligates the rapist to pay K'nas), with the Mishnah in Makos (which sentences him to Malkos), by establishing our Mishnah like Rebbi Meir.
What does Rebbi Meir say?

(b) The problem with this however is, that the Tana omits the case of 'Bito' (for whom one receives Misah at the hands of Beis-Din).
What makes us think that Rebbi Meir even holds 'Meis u'Meshalem' (and not just 'Lokeh u'Meshalem')? What does he say about 'Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabbos, Ganav ve'Tavach la'Avodas Kochavim'?

(c) We refute this proof (that Rebbi Meir holds even 'Meis u'Meshalem') however, by citing those who quote Rebbi Yochanan.
How does Rebbi Yochanan interpret the case of 'Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabbos, Ganav ve'Tavach la'Avodas Kochavim'?

(d) What would Rebbi Meir hold if the thief himself who Shechted the animal?

(a) What is the problem with obligating the thief to pay four or five times, when it his Sh'li'ach who Shechted it?

(a) What does Rava learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "u'T'vacho O Mecharo"?

(c) What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the word "O", and Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah from "*Tachas* ha'Shor"?

(d) Mar Zutra queried this however. How can we obligate him to pay for what his Sh'li'ach did, when he would not have been Chayav had he done it himself?
How do we answer Mar Zutra's Kashya?

Next daf