Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the first Lashon, Resh Lakish assumed that the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yihyeh Ason, Anosh Ye'anesh" meant literally 'Ason'.
What did he infer from there to create a Kashya against Rebbi Yochanan (who holds Chayvei Misos Shogegin and Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Chayavin')?

(b) How does Rebbi Yochanan explain the Pasuk?

(c) In the second Lashon, it was Rebbi Yochanan who queried Resh Lakish. What did he ask him?

(d) What did Resh Lakish answer?

(a) What does Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah learn from the Hekesh "Makeh Adam u'Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah"?

(b) What Kashya does this pose on Rebbi Yochanan's previous statement (regarding Chayvei Misos Shogegin ... ')?

(c) So we are forced to retract from part of Rebbi Ychanan's statement.
In which case does Rebbi Yochanan now agree with Resh Lakish, and in which case does he still argue with him?

4)

(a) According to Rava.`Resh Lakish learns it from "Makeh" "Makeh". Why can he not be referring to the Pasuk "u'Makeh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, u'Makeh Adam Yumas" (Emor)?

(b) So Rava explained to Rav Papa that he is referring to the Pasuk in Emor "Makeh Nefesh Beheimah Yeshalmenah, Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" ... "ve'Ish Ki Yiten Mum ba'Amiso Ka'asher Asah Kein Ye'aseh Lo".
What does Rava then mean by "Makeh" "Makeh" (seeing as "Makeh is not mentioned in the second Pasuk)?

(c) But how can Resh Lakish then derive 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin P'turin' from Chayvei Misah, when the second Pasuk is talking about Mamon and not Chayvei Malkos?

(d) In that case, how can he learn from this Pasuk that Chayvei Malkos Shogegin is Patur from paying, seeing as there is no obligation to pay?

5)

(a) Rav Chiya asked Rava how he knew that the Pasuk "Makeh Adam u'Makeh Beheimah ... " refers to when the accident took place a weekday, perhaps it took place on a Shabbos.
So what if it did?

(b) Rava answered by proving from "Makeh Adam Yumas" that the Pasuk must be speaking when he was warned.
What was his proof?

(c) How does that answer Rav Chiya's query?

(a) Resh Lakish and Rabah established our Mishnah (of 'Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh Lahen K'nas') like Rebbi Meir (who holds 'Lokeh u'Meshalem'). According to Resh Lakish ('based on his interpretation of the Beraisa of 'Ganav ve'Tavach be'Shabos') there is no problem with the fact that the Tana omits the case of Bito, whereas according to Rabah there is.
Why is that?

(b) Neither can he establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah, because, according to him, the Tana should have omitted Achoso (even if he does hold 'Lokeh u'Meshalem').
Why is that?

(c) We suggest that perhaps Rabah will establish the Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak.
How would that resolve the Kashya?

(d) On what grounds do we reject this answer? Which case in our Mishnah should nevertheless not have been included?

8)

(a) Rebbi Nechunyah ben ha'Kanah, who exempts Chayvei Kares from paying because they are Chayav Kareis, would also omit Achoso from our Mishnah. According to Rebbi Yochanan, who holds 'Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Chayavin', the author of our Mishnah (which includes Achoso) could even be the Rabbanan of Rebbi Meir, and the Tana will speak when the rapist was not warned. According to Resh Lakish (who holds Chayvei Malkos Shogegin, Peturin), which two Tana'im would include Achoso among those who are obligated to pay K'nas?

(b) Why could Rebbi Yitzchak nevertheless not be the author of our Mishnah?

(c) Who could then be the author of the Mishnah in Shavu'os 'Hidlik Gadish be'Yom ha'Kipurim, Chayav', according to Resh Lakish?

(a) The Beraisa writes 'Arayos u'Sh'niyos la'Arayos Ein Lahen K'nas'.
Why can we not explain Arayos and Sh'niyos literally?

(b) So we interpret Arayos to mean Chayvei Misos Beis-Din, and Sh'niyos, Chayvei K'riysos.
What can we infer from this? Why would the author then have to be Shimon ha'Teimani?

(c) In the second Lashon, we interpret Arayos as Chayvei Misos Beis-Din and Chayvei K'riysos, and Sh'niy'os, as Chayvei La'avin.
Who would then be the author of the Beraisa.

Next daf