Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHEN IS ONE CHAYAV SEKILAH FOR SHABBOS?

(a) (Mishnah): If one desecrates Shabbos by something which is Chayav Kares (for Mezid) and Chayav Korban b'Shogeg (if he was Mezid and warned, he is Chayav Misah).
(b) (Gemara) Question: This implies that there is a desecration of Shabbos which is not Chayav Korban or Kares - what is it?
(c) Answer #1: According to R. Akiva, it is forbidden mid'Oraisa to leave the Techum (2000 Amos around the city) on Shabbos, this is not Chayav Korban or Kares;
(d) Answer #2: According to R. Yosi, burning on Shabbos is only a Lav.

(a) (Mishnah): One is liable for cursing his father and mother only if he curses with Hash-m's name;
(b) R. Meir says, if he cursed with a Kinuy he is liable;
(c) Chachamim say, he is exempt.
(d) (Gemara) Question: Who are the Chachamim that exempt?
(e) Answer: It is R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi.

1. (Beraisa - R. Menachem b'Rebbi Yosi) Question: "B'Nokvo *Shem* Yumas" - what does this teach?
2. Answer: One is liable for cursing a parent only if he used Hash-m's name.

(f) (Beraisa): "Ish Ish" - this includes a daughter, Tumtum (someone of unknown gender, his genitals are covered) and Androginus (someone who has male and female genitals);

1. Question (R. Yoshiyah): "Asher Yekalel Es Aviv v'Es Imo" only teaches if he curses both, how do we know if he curses only one of them?
2. Answer (R. Yoshiyah): "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - cursing is written next to the mother (as well as next to the father) to teach that he is liable even if he curses only one of them.
3. R. Yonason says, "Aviv *v*'Es Imo", the 'Vov' (and) connotes even one, unless the Torah explicitly says 'together' (as it does regarding Kilayim).

(g) "Mos Yumas" - by stoning.
(h) Suggestion: Perhaps it is a different Misas Beis Din!
(i) Rejection: It says here "Damav Bo", it says regarding Ov and Yid'oni "Demeihem Bam" - there (it explicitly says that) it means stoning, also here.
(j) Question: This teaches the punishment - what Lav forbids this?
(k) Answer: If his father was a judge, he transgresses "Elokim Lo Sekalel";

1. If his father was a Nasi (king), he transgresses "V'Nasi v'Amcha Lo Sa'or";

(l) Question: If his father was neither a judge nor a Nasi, what is the source?
(m) Answer #1: We learn from a Binyan Av (precedent) from both of them:

1. Each has its own stringency - we are commanded to follow the rulings of a judge, not of a Nasi;
2. We are commanded not to rebel against a Nasi, not against a judge.
3. The Tzad ha'Shavah of them is that they act like someone of your nation, we are commanded not to curse them - also one's father, it is forbidden to curse him!

(n) Objection: It is forbidden to curse a judge or a Nasi because of their greatness, this does not apply to one's father!
(o) Answer #2: "Lo Sekalel Cheresh" - just like it is forbidden to curse a deaf person, also one's father.

1. Question: It is forbidden to curse him because he is deaf, this does not apply to one's father!
2. Answer: We learn from a Nasi and a judge that deafness is not the criteria.
3. Question: We cannot learn from a judge or a Nasi, their greatness causes the prohibition to curse them!
4. Answer: Each has its own stringency, we learn from the Tzad ha'Shavah of them - they act like someone of your nation, we are commanded not to curse them - the same applies to one's father.
5. Objection: We cannot learn from these, each of them is special!

(p) Answer #3: The Torah could have omitted Nasi or a judge (it could be learned from the other two), we use it to teach about one's father.

1. Question: This is according to the opinion that "Elohim Lo Sekalel" refers to a judge;

i. According to the opinion that it refers to Hash-m (and forbids blasphemy), how can we answer?
ii. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "Elohim Lo Sekalel" refers to a judge;
iii. R. Akiva says, it refers to Hash-m.
iv. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): "Elokim Lo Sekalel" forbids blasphemy.

2. Answer: We must say, R. Yishmael learns the prohibition of blasphemy from cursing a judge (there is no other source);

i. Likewise, R. Akiva learns the prohibition of cursing a judge from blasphemy!

3. Question: We understand R. Yishmael (the Torah refers to a judge as 'Elokim' to teach that it also applies to Hash-m) - but according to R. Akiva, perhaps there is no prohibition of cursing a judge!
4. Answer: If so, it should say 'Elokim Lo Sekal';

i. Rather, it says "Sekalel" to teach that it also forbids cursing a judge.

3) STONING FOR RELATIONS WITH A "NA'ARAH ME'ORASAH"

(a) (Mishnah): One is not stoned for relations with a Na'arah Me'orasah, Ad (unless) she is a Na'arah, a virgin, Mekudeshes, and in her father's house;
(b) If two men had relations with her, the first is stoned, the second is choked.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Na'arah" - this excludes a Bogeres; "Besulah" - this excludes a non-virgin; "Me'orasah" - this excludes a Nesu'ah; "Beis Avihah"; - this excludes the case when her father's messengers handed her over to her husband's (to take her for Chupah).
(d) (Rav Yehudah): Our Mishnah is like R. Meir, but Chachamim say that "Na'arah" includes a minor.
(e) Question (Rav Acha mi'Difti): Perhaps the Mishnah is like Chachamim - 'unless she is a Na'arah' excludes a Bogeres!
(f) Answer (Ravina): If so, it should say 'one is liable *only for* a Na'arah, a virgin, Mekudeshes, and in her father's house;

1. Rather, it says '*Ad (until)* she is a Na'arah...' to exclude a minor.
2. This cannot be refuted,

(g) Question (R. Yakov bar Ada): According to R. Meir, if one had relations with a Mekudeshes minor, what is the law?

1. Does the Parshah totally exclude (relations with) a minor (he is exempt), or does it apply to a minor, except for stoning?

(h) Answer (Rav): Presumably, it applies, except for stoning (he is choked).
(i) Question: But it says "U'Mesu Gam Shneihem" - they must be alike (i.e. both are adults and are Chayav Misah - if not, neither is killed)!
(j) Rav was silent.
(k) Question (Shmuel): Rav should have answered "U'Mes ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado"!
(l) Answer: Tana'im argue as Rav and Shmuel do.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "U'Mesu Gam Shneihem" - only if they are alike;
2. R. Yonason says, U'Mes ha'Ish...Levado" (if she is a minor).

(m) Question: What does R. Yonason learn from "U'Mesu Gam Shneihem"?
(n) Answer (Rava): This excludes acts of Chidudim (he touches the Ever to other parts of her body - she does not get much pleasure from this, surely she is exempt), the verse teaches that (also) he is exempt.

1. R. Yoshiyah does not need a verse to teach this, obviously, one is not liable for it.

(o) Question: What does R. Yoshiyah learn from "U'Mes ha'Ish...Levado"? (p) Answer: He learns Rebbi's law.

1. (Beraisa): If 10 men had relations with a Na'arah Me'orasah, and she is still a virgin (e.g. they had unnatural relations), all are stoned;
2. Rebbi says, the first is stoned, the others are choked.

(a) (Beraisa - Rebbi): "U'Vas Ish Kohen Ki Sechel Liznos" - the beginning (this will be explained);

1. Support: "U'Mes ha'Ish Asher Shachav Imah Levado".

(b) Question: What does Rebbi teach?
(c) Answer (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): Rebbi holds like R. Yishmael, who says that an Arusah is burned, not a Nesu'ah;

1. "...Ki Sechel Liznos" teaches that if her first relations were adultery, she is burned; if she had relations before this, she is choked.

(d) Question: What support did he bring for himself from "U'Mes..."?
(e) Answer: Just as there, the verse discusses her first relations, also here.
(f) (Rav Bivi bar Abaye): Rav Yosef explained that Rebbi holds like R. Meir, who says that (a Nesu'ah is also burned, but) if she married a Pasul (someone forbidden to marry a Bas Yisrael), she is choked for adultery.

1. "...Ki Sechel Liznos" teaches that if her first Chilul (defilement) was adultery, she is burned; if not, she is choked.

(g) Question: What support did he bring for himself from "U'Mes..."?
(h) Answer: That verse gives a special law (stoning) for first relations (of a Na'arah Me'orasah); similarly, our verse gives a special law (burning) for her first Chilul.