Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS THE AREV A PARTY TO THE CASE?

(a) Ila'a and Tuvya were relatives of the Arev (cosigner) of a loan.
(b) (Rav Papa): Since they are not relatives of the lender or borrower, they may testify about the loan.
(c) Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If the borrower cannot pay, the lender collects from the Arev (therefore, they are relatives of a party in the case, they cannot testify).

(a) (Mishnah): If Beis Din sentenced Ploni to die and he fled, and he came before the same Beis Din again, the verdict stands, we do not judge him again.
(b) If two witnesses testify in any Beis Din that Ploni was sentenced in Almoni's Beis Din, based on testimony of Reuven and Moshe, we kill him.
(c) Sanhedriyos in Chutz la'Aretz are also authorized to execute people.
(d) A Sanhedrin that kills one person in seven years is called brutal;
(e) R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, once in 70 years.
(f) R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say, had we sat on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been killed;
(g) R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, that is improper, people would not fear Beis Din and murders would increase!
(h) (Gemara) Inference: In front of the same Beis Din again, the verdict stands - but if he came before a different Beis Din again, we judge him again;

1. Contradiction (the next clause): If two witnesses testify in any Beis Din that Ploni was sentenced in Almoni's Beis Din, based on testimony of Reuven and Moshe, we kill him.

(i) Resolution (Abaye): In Chutz la'Aretz the verdict stands, in Eretz Yisrael it does not.

1. (Beraisa - R. Dostai): If Ploni was sentenced in Eretz Yisrael and fled to Chutz la'Aretz, the verdict stands;
2. If he was sentenced in Chutz la'Aretz and fled to Eretz Yisrael, we judge him again, perhaps the merit of Eretz Yisrael will help find a reason to acquit him.

(j) (Mishnah): Sanhedriyos in Chutz la'Aretz are also authorized to execute people.
(k) Question: What is the source of this?
(l) Answer: "L'Chukas Mishpat l'Doroseichem (b'Chol Moshvoseichem)".
(m) Question: If so, what do we learn from "B'Chol She'arecha"?
(n) Answer: In She'arecha (Eretz Yisrael) we establish Sanhedriyos in every Pelech (group of cities) and in every city, in Chutz la'Aretz we establish a Sanhedrin in every Pelech, not in every city.

(a) (Mishnah): A Sanhedrin that kills...(R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, once in 70 years).
(b) Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Azaryah mean, even once in 70 years is brutal, or, this is a proper frequency?
(c) This question is unsettled.
(d) (Mishnah - R. Tarfon and R. Akiva): Had we sat...
(e) Question: How would they exempt everyone?
(f) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): They would ask the witnesses 'Did you check (after the murder) if the victim was Treifah (apart from the murder) or not?'
(g) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the witnesses said that he was not Treifah, they would ask 'Perhaps there was a hole where the murderer inserted the knife!' (Ramban - this means, perhaps there was a hole which you could have seen if you lifted up his clothing before the stabbing, surely they do not refer to an internal hole which witnesses could never know about. R. Tam - if they do not know, the testimony is invalid; Tosfos - if they do not know, the testimony is valid - they would ask a barrage of questions, almost certainly the witnesses would contradict each other about something, invalidating the testimony.)
(h) Question: In a case of Arayos, what would they ask?
(i) Answer (Abaye and Rava): They would ask if they explicitly saw the contact of the genitals (witnesses would never look so closely).
(j) Question: What do Chachamim (who argue with R. Tarfon and R. Akiva) consider sufficient testimony of relations?
(k) Answer: As Shmuel said - if they acted (lied together) like adulterers.

4) WHO GOES TO GALUS

(a) One who killed b'Shogeg goes to Galus in the following cases:

1. He was pushing a Ma'agilah (a block or roller) to plaster the roof, it fell from his hands and killed someone (Rashi - the mortar is thickest in the middle of the roof, so he was pushing it down a slight incline);
2. He was lowering a barrel, it fell from his hands and killed someone;
3. He was going down a ladder, he fell and killed someone.

(b) He does not he goes to Galus if he killed when:

1. He was pulling a Ma'agilah back to himself, and it fell;
2. He was raising a barrel, the rope snapped, the barrel fell;

3. He was ascending a ladder, he fell.

(c) The general rule is:

1. Anything done Derech Yeridah (in a downward motion), if he killed he goes to Galus; 2. Anything not done Derech Yeridah, he does not go to Galus.

(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
(e) Answer (Shmuel): "Va'Yipol Alav va'Yamos" - he only he goes to Galus if the accident happened (when he was engaging in a downward motion,) the way things fall.
(f) (Beraisa): "Bi'Shgagah" - this excludes Mezid; "Bi'Vli Da'as" - this excludes one who intended.
(g) Objection: If he was Mezid, obviously he does not go to Galus, he is killed (Tosfos - by Beis Din - a different verse teaches about Mezid without warning; Ritva - even if he is not killed, even if he was Karov l'Mezid, surely he does not go to Galus!
(h) Answer (Rava): It means, this excludes Omer Mutar (he thought that murder is permitted)
(i) Question (Abaye): Omer Mutar is Ones!
(j) Answer (Rava): I say that it is close to Mezid.
(k) (Beraisa): "Bi'Vli Da'as" - this excludes one who intended.
(l) Objection: If he intended, he is killed, obviously he does not goes to Galus!
(m) Answer (Rabah): It excludes one who intended to kill an animal, a Nochri or a Nefel, and killed a viable Yisrael.
(n) (Beraisa): "V'Im b'Fesa" - this excludes one who (was carrying a knife and) killed when he turned a corner (he did not see the victim in time); "B'Lo Eivah" - this excludes if he hated the victim;

1. "Hadafo" - his body pushed him; "O Hishlich Alav" - this includes Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah (an upward motion).
2. "B'Lo Tzediyah" - this excludes one who intended to throw in one direction, and it went in another direction;
3. "Va'Asher Lo Tzadah" - this excludes one who intended to throw two Amos, and it went four Amos.
4. "Va'Asher Yavo Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - Galus only applies when the killer and victim both were allowed to be there, like in a forest.

(a) Question (R. Avahu): If he was ascending a ladder and the rung fell and *it* killed someone, what is the law?

1. Is this considered Aliyah (because he was ascending), or Yeridah (when he steps on a rung, it sags a bit)?

(b) Answer (R. Yochanan): This is Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah (the Beraisa says, he goes to Galus for this).
(c) Question (Mishnah): The general rule is: anything done Derech Yeridah, he goes to Galus; anything not Derech Yeridah, he does not go to Galus.

1. Question: What does the latter clause come to include?
2. Answer #1: It includes R. Avahu's case!
3. Counter-question: What does 'Anything done Derech Yeridah' come to include?
4. Answer: You must say, it includes someone chopping meat (Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah, as we will explain);

(d) Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 1): Likewise, the latter clause includes someone chopping (Aliyah for the sake of Yeridah, he does not goes to Galus).
(e) A butcher was chopping meat, and he killed:

1. (Beraisa #1): If this was while he was swinging in front (of himself), he is liable (goes to Galus), in back he is exempt;
2. (Beraisa #2): In front, he is exempt, in back he is liable;
3. (Beraisa #3): Whether in front or in back, he is liable;
4. (Beraisa #4): Whether in front or in back, he is exempt.
5. Version #1 (Rashi) Resolution: Wherever it says that he is liable, the case is, he was swinging down; wherever it says that he is exempt, he was swinging up. (E.g. Beraisa #1 obligates in front - he was swinging down; it exempts in back - he was swinging up (even though this was for the sake of Yeridah, to chop down strongly in front).)
6. Version #2 (Rambam): If he killed while swinging back, he is exempt; if he killed while swinging forward, he goes to Galus. (E.g. Beraisa #1 obligates in front - the end of a forward swing; it exempts in back - the end of a backward swing.)

(f) Suggestion: Tana'im argue about R. Avahu's case.

1. (Beraisa #1): A man was ascending a ladder, the rung fell - he is liable.
2. (Beraisa #2): He is exempt.
3. Suggestion: The first Tana considers this Yeridah, the second Tana considers it Aliyah!

(g) Rejection #1: No, both consider it Aliyah (Tosfos - both discuss a strong rung that does not sag, it is pure Aliyah);

1. Beraisa #1 obligates for damages (if the victim did not die), Beraisa #2 exempts from Galus.

(h) Version #1 (our text) Rejection #2: Both Beraisos discuss Galus - Beraisa #1 is when the rung was wormy (therefore, it sags down we he steps on it, this is considered Yeridah), Beraisa #2 is when the rung was strong.
(i) Version #2 (Rambam's text) Rejection #2: Both Beraisos discuss damages - Beraisa #1 is when the rung was weak or not taut, Beraisa #2 is when it was strong, it fell because it became wormy (this is Ones).
(j) Rejection #3: In both Beraisos it was not wormy - Beraisa #1 is when the rung was loose (it sags), Beraisa #2 is when it was taut.

(a) (Mishnah - Rebbi): (Reuven was chopping;) if the blade slipped off the wood, and killed, Reuven does not go to Galus;

1. Chachamim say, he goes to Galus;

(b) Rebbi says, if a piece of the wood he was chopping flew off and killed, he goes to Galus;

1. Chachamim say, he does not go to Galus.

(c) (Gemara - Beraisa - Rebbi (to Chachamim)): It does not say 'V'Nashal ha'Barzel *me'Etzo* (*its* wood, i.e. the handle)', rather, "Min ha'Etz" (the wood, i.e. what he was chopping)!

1. Also - it says 'Ha'Etz" twice - just as the first time it refers to the wood he was chopping, also the second time!

(d) (R. Chiya bar Aba): Both learn from the verse "'V'Nashal ha'Barzel Min ha'Etz" - Rebbi holds, Yesh Em l'Masores (we expound the way a verse is written. Rashi - V'Nashal is written without an Aleph, so) we can read "V'Nishal" (the ax *caused* (a piece of) wood to come off);

1. Chachamim hold, Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound the way we read (pronounce) a verse -) we read it "V'Nashal" (the wood itself came off).

(e) Question: But Rebbi (normally) holds Yesh Em l'Mikra!

1. (Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef): The following Tana'im all hold Yesh Em l'Masores: Rebbi, R. Yehudah ben Ro'atz, Beis Shamai, R. Shimon and R. Akiva.

(f) Answer: That is why Rebbi also learned from the Gezerah Shavah "Ha'Etz-Ha'Etz".