Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHO CAN GIVE REASONS?

(a) Question: What is R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah's reason?
(b) Answer: "V'Ed Echad Lo Ya'aneh v'Nefesh Lamus" - he does not speak to kill, but he speaks for Zechus.
(c) Question: What is Chachamim's reason?
(d) Answer (Reish Lakish): It looks like he is Noge'a (partial, he wants to Mezakeh Ploni).
(e) Question: What do Chachamim expound from "Lamus"?
(f) Answer: It refers to one of the Talmidim:

1. (Beraisa): If one of the witnesses has a reason for Zechus, we do not listen - "Ed Echad Lo Ya'aneh v'Nefesh Lamus";
2. If one of the Talmidim has a reason for Chiyuv, we do not listen - "V'Ed Echad Lo Ya'aneh".

(a) (Mishnah): In capital cases, one who gave a reason...
(b) (Rav): This is only at the time of debating - but when they vote on the final verdict, one who gave a reason for Zechus can vote 'Chayav'.
(c) Question (Mishnah): The next day, they rise early; a Mezakeh says 'I was Mezakeh, I still am', a Mechayev says 'I was Mechayev, I still am';

1. One who gave a reason for Chiyuv can give a reason for Zechus, but one who gave a reason for Zechus cannot give a reason for Chiyuv.
2. The next day is when they give the final verdict!

(d) Answer: They also debate the next day - one cannot change from Zechus to Chiyuv at the time of debate.
(e) Question (Mishnah): They debate with each other until one of the Mechayvim agrees with the Mezakim.

1. According to Rav, it should say 'or until one of the Mezakim agrees with the Mechayvim'!

(f) Answer: Indeed, that is true - the Tana prefers to teach only the case in which the final verdict is Zechus.
(g) Question: R. Yosi bar Chanina taught, if one of the Talmidim was Mezakeh and he died, we count him as if he is still Mezakeh.

1. We should be concerned that he would have retracted to Mechayev!

(h) Answer: Since he did not retract in his life, we are not concerned for this.
(i) Question: But they sent from Eretz Yisrael that R. Yosi bar Chanina argues with Rav!
(j) Answer: No, they said that he does not argue with Rav.
(k) Question (Mishnah): One scribe stands to the right of the judges and writes the words of the Mezakim, one scribe stands to the left and writes the words of the Mechayvim.

1. We understand why we must write the words of the Mechayvim - perhaps a Mechayev will Mechayev for a different reason the next day, requiring Halanas Din (to postpone the verdict another day, to give him time to reconsider the new reason).
2. But why must we write the words of the Mezakim (we do not need Halanas Din for a new reason for Zechus)!
3. Suggestion: We must say, a judge cannot change from Zechus to Chiyuv (unless he originally erred in something the Tzedukim admit to, therefore, we write his words, lest tomorrow he will think to Mechayev, and will assume that he formerly erred in something the Tzedukim admit to)!

(l) Answer: No, we write the words of the Mezakim in order that two judges will not give the same reason on account of different verses (as we now explain).

1. Question (Rav Asi): If two judges give the same reason on account of different verses, what is the law?
2. Answer (R. Yochanan): They are only counted like one (because one of them is erring).

(m) Question: What is the source of this?
(n) Answer (Abaye): "Achas Diber Elokim Shtayim Zu Shamati"- one verse has many meanings, but one law is not learned from more than one verse.
(o) (Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): "Uch'Patish Yefotzetz Sela" - just as a hammer is broken by (R. Tam; Rashbam - breaks) a rock into many pieces, one verse has many meanings.

(a) Question: What is a case of a law learned from more than one verse (which indicates that one of the opinions is wrong)?
(b) Answer (Rav Zvid - Mishnah): The Mizbe'ach is Mekadesh what is fitting for it (as we now explain);

1. R. Yehoshua says, anything fit to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, once it is brought up the ramp, we do not take it down (even if it was Pasul and should not have been brought up) - "Ha'Olah Al Mokedah";

i. Just as an Olah is fit to be burned on the Mizbe'ach, if it is brought up, we do not take it down, also everything fit to be burned on the Mizbe'ach.

2. R. Gamliel says, anything fit for the Mizbe'ach, once it is brought up, we do not take it down - "Hi Ha'Olah Al Mokedah Al ha'Mizbe'ach";

i. Just as an Olah is fit for the Mizbe'ach, if it is brought up, we do not take it down, also everything fit for the Mizbe'ach.

3. Both Tana'im include Korbanos that became Pasul in the Mikdash - R. Yehoshua learns from "Mokedah", R. Gamliel learns from "Mizbe'ach".

(c) Rejection: But they argue in Halachah (not just how to expound)!

1. (End of the Mishnah): They only argue about the blood and the Nesachim: R. Gamliel says that they do not go down (for they go on the Mizbe'ach), R. Yehoshua says that they do (for they are not burned).

(d) Answer #2 (Rav Papa - Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "Kol ha'Noge'a ba'Mizbe'ach Yikdash" - one might have thought, whether or not it if fit;

1. "Kevasim" - just as lambs are fit, also anything fit (does not go down).
2. R. Akiva says "Olah" - just as an Olah is fit, also everything that is fit (does not go down).
3. Both Tana'im exclude Pesulim that were never fit - R. Yosi ha'Galili learns from "Kevasim", R. Akiva learns from "Olah"!

(e) Rejection: Rav Ada bar Ahavah taught, they argue about a Pasul Olas ha'Of: this is learned from "Kevasim", but it is included in "Olah".
(f) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Dam Yechashev...Dam Shafach" - this includes one who throws the blood (of a Korban outside the Mikdash, he is Chayav Kares just like one who slaughters);

1. R. Akiva says "O Zavach" includes one who throws.
2. They both include one who throws, R. Yishmael learns from "Dam Yechashev", R. Akiva learns from "O Zavach".

(g) Objection: R. Avahu taught, they argue about one who slaughtered and threw - R. Yishmael says, he brings only one Korban (if he was Shogeg, because throwing was learned from the same Kares as slaughtering), R. Akiva says he brings two Korbanos (we learned throwing from a different Kares written by offering outside the Mikdash).
(h) Defense (of Rav Ashi - Abaye): No, R. Akiva admits that he is liable only once because the same Lav forbids both - "Sham Ta'aleh Olasecha v'Sham Ta'aseh..."

(a) (Mishnah): Monetary cases must be started during the day...
(b) Question: What is the source (that they can finish at night)?
(c) Answer (R. Chiya bar Papa): "V'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es".
(d) Question: If so, it should be permitted to start at night!
(e) Answer: Rava teaches that this is not so.

1. Contradiction (Rava): It says "V'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es", it also says "B'Yom Hanchilo Es Banav"!
2. Answer (Rava): The case must be started during the day, it can finish at night.

(f) Our Mishnah is not like R. Meir.

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir) Question: "V'Al Pihem Yihyeh Kol Riv v'Chol Naga" - what is the connection between Dinim and Tzara'as?
2. Answer (R. Meir): The Torah equates them: just as the Kohen only looks at Tzara'as during the day ("Uv'Yom Hera'os") also Dinim must be judged during the day.

i. Also: just as a blind Kohen cannot rule about Tzara'as ("L'Chol Mar'e Einei ha'Kohen"), a blind person cannot judge Dinim.

3. We also learn from Dinim to Tzara'as: just as relatives cannot judge Dinim, they cannot rule about Tzara'as.
4. Suggestion: Just as three judges are required for Dinim, we should say that three Kohanim are required to rule about Tzara'as!

i. Support: If three judges are required to take money from a person, all the more so three are required to declare Tzara'as on his body!

5. Rejection: "V'Huva El Aharon ha'Kohen O El Echad" - even one Kohen can rule.

(g) A blind man used to judge in R. Yochanan's neighborhood; R. Yochanan did not say anything.
(h) Question: But R. Yochanan said that the Halachah follows an unauthored Mishnah!

1. (Mishnah): Anyone Kosher to judge is Kosher to testify; there is someone Kosher to testify who is disqualified from judging.
2. (R. Yochanan): Someone blind in one eye is Kosher to testify but disqualified from judging.

(i) Answer: R. Yochanan rules like a different unauthored Mishnah (i.e. ours).

1. (Mishnah): Monetary cases must be started during the day, they can finish at night (when people are like blind people, they cannot see).

(j) Question: Why does he rule like our unauthored Mishnah, not like the other?
(k) Answer #1: Our Mishnah is the opinion of many Chachamim (since it is never attributed to an individual, but the other Mishnah is like R. Meir (in the Beraisa above)).
(l) Answer #2: Our Mishnah teaches the law among other laws of Dinim.
(m) Question: How does R. Meir expound "V'Shaftu Es ha'Am b'Chol Es"?
(n) Answer (Rava): It permits judging on a cloudy day. (We would have thought that we cannot, because we cannot see Tzara'as then.)

1. (Mishnah): We do not look at Tzara'as early in the morning or late in the afternoon (when the sun is weak), in a house, or on a cloudy day, because a faint appearance will look strong;
2. We do not look at midday, because a strong appearance will look weak.

(o) Question: How does R. Meir expound "B'Yom Hanchilo"?
(p) Answer: He learns like Rabah bar Chinena.

1. (Rabah bar Chinena): "B'Yom Hanchilo Es Banav" - we bequeath by day, not at night.
2. Objection (Rav Nachman): If someone dies at night, his children will not inherit him?!
3. Suggestion (Rav Nachman): Perhaps your mean, we do not judge cases of inheritance at night.

i. (Beraisa): "L'Chukas Mishpat" - the end of the Parshah (of inheritance) is called Din.
ii. (Rav Yehudah): If three people went to visit a sick person (and he commanded how to bequeath his property, and then died), they may write his command, or they may execute it;
iii. If only two were present, they must write it, they may not execute it (they are not a Beis Din).
iv. (Rav Chisda): This is if they visited by day - if they visited at night, they must write it, they may not execute it, for they are witnesses, and they cannot become judges (even during the day)

4. Rabah bar Chinena: Yes, that is what I meant.