Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LAV HA'NITAK L'ASEH

(a) (Rabah bar bar Chanah citing R. Yochanan): If an Ase precedes (can be fulfilled even before transgressing) a Lav, we do not consider this a Lav she'Nitak l'Ase, one is lashed for the Lav.
(b) Rabanan (Rashi - to R. Yochanan; Ritva - to Rabah bar bar Chanah): Did you really say this?
(c) R. Yochanan (or Rabah bar bar Chanah): No.
(d) Rabah: He did say it, and our Mishnah supports it!

1. "Vi'Shalchu Min ha'Machaneh (an Ase, Teme'im must leave the Mikdash)...V'Lo Yetam'u Es Machaneihem (a Lav forbidding Teme'im in the Mikdash)";
2. (Mishnah): One who enters the Mikdash when Tamei (is lashed).

(e) Question: Why did he retract?
(f) Answer: Because a Me'anes (rapist) is not lashed.

1. (Beraisa): If a Yisrael raped a woman and divorced her, he remarries her, he is not lashed;
2. If a Kohen did so, he cannot remarry her, he is lashed.
3. A Yisrael is not lashed, even though the Ase precedes the Lav!

(g) (Ula): The Torah did not have to say "V'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding a rapist, we could have learned from Motzi Shem Ra:

1. Motzi Shem Ra did not do an action, yet he must marry her (if she wants) - all the more so, one who raped her!
2. Since we do not need "V'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" to teach that he must marry her, we use it to teach that if he divorces her he must remarry her.

(h) Objection: We cannot learn a rapist from Motzi Shem Ra - that is more stringent, he is lashed and pays!
(i) Correction: Rather, the Torah did not have to say "V'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding Motzi Shem Ra, we could have learned from a rapist:

1. A rapist is not lashed, yet he must marry her - all the more so, Motzi Shem Ra, who is lashed and pays!
2. Since we do not need "V'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" to teach that he must marry her, we use it to teach that if he divorces her he must remarry her.

(j) Objection: We cannot learn Motzi Shem Ra from - that is more stringent, he did an action!
(k) Correction: Rather, the Torah did not have to say "V'Lo Sihyeh l'Ishah" regarding Motzi Shem Ra, for he is already married to her;

1. We do not need it to teach that a rapist must marry her, so we use it to teach that if a rapist divorces her he must remarry her.

(l) Question: We should use it to teach that if Motzi Shem Ra divorces her he is not lashed (rather, he remarries her)!
(m) Answer: Indeed, that is true; we learn a rapist from Motzi Shem Ra.
(n) Objection: How do we learn?

1. We cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer or Mah Matzinu (precedent) - Motzi Shem Ra did not do an action (therefore, he is not lashed)!

(o) (Rava, and Ravin citing R. Yochanan): Rather, "Lo Yuchal Leshalchah Kol Yamav" - he is forever commanded to remarry her (if he will divorce her - this Ase is after he transgresses, therefore he is not lashed). (Ritva - this was R. Yochanan's reason all along; Rashi would say that after he retracted, he found a defense of his original teaching.)

1. Question (Rav Papa): (R. Yochanan says that one is lashed for a Lav preceded by an Ase) - this is unlike the Lav of muzzling (from which we learn lashes)!
2. Answer (Rava): It is no worse just because an Ase precedes the Lav!
3. Question (Rav Papa): If so, we should say the same about a Lav she'Nitak l'Ase!
4. Answer (Rava): There, the Ase comes to avert the lashes!

(a) Question: We understand according to the opinion (that lashes depend on) Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo (whether or not he made it impossible to fulfill the Ase) - as long as he can remarry her, he is not lashed;

1. But according to the opinion (that lashes depend on) Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo (whether or not he fulfilled the Ase), if he does not remarry her immediately, he is lashed!

(b) Answer: We are answering for R. Yochanan - he holds Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo (as seen from the following dialogue).
(c) A reciter of Beraisos: Any Lav that has (is Nitak to) an Ase, if (one transgressed and) fulfilled the Ase; he is not lashed; if he was Mevatel the Ase, he is lashed.
(d) R. Yochanan: That is inconsistent!

1. If you say 'If he fulfilled the Ase, he is not lashed', you must say 'if he did not fulfill it, he is lashed';
2. If you say 'If he was Mevatel the Ase, he is lashed'; you must say 'if he did not Mevatel it, he is not lashed'!
3. The correct text is 'If he was Mevatel the Ase, he is lashed; if not, he is not lashed.'

(e) (Reish Lakish): It depends on Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo.
(f) Question: What is the source of their argument?
(g) Answer: They argue whether or not doubtful warning is considered warning

1. R. Yochanan says that it is good warning - he holds Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo, the Lav is not 'complete' until he is Mevatel the Ase;

i. At the time he transgresses the Lav, we can only give doubtful warning (we do not know whether or not he will Mevatel the Ase - nevertheless, he is lashed);

2. Reish Lakish says that it is not proper warning - he holds Kiymo v'Lo Kiymo, one is lashed for the Lav itself (just he has the opportunity to exempt himself of lashes by fulfilling the Ase), he receives definite warning.