Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) LIABILITY FOR KIDNAPPING

(a) (A reciter of Beraisos): R. Shimon says "Me'Echav" teaches that he must remove him from his brother's premises, he is exempt for selling to relatives!
(b) (Rav Sheshes): Indeed, the Beraisa should say that he is exempt for selling to relatives.
(c) Question: Why change the Beraisa, perhaps it is like Chachamim who argue with R. Shimon!
(d) Answer: The Beraisa is part of Sifri (which expounds Sefer ba'Midbar and Sefer Devarim), we may assume it is like R. Shimon;

1. (R. Yochanan): An unauthored Mishnah is assumed to be R. Meir;
2. An unauthored Tosefta is assumed to be R. Nechemyah;
3. An unauthored Sifra (which expounds Sefer Va'Yikra) is assumed to be R. Yehudah;
4. An unauthored Sifri is assumed to be R. Shimon;
5. All of these are assumed to be according to R. Akiva (all of these were his Talmidim).

(e) (Mishnah): If one kidnaps his son...
(f) Question: What is Chachamim's reason (to exempt)?
(g) Answer (Abaye): "Ki Yimatzei" - this excludes someone (such as his son) who is always found by the kidnapper.
(h) Question (Rav Papa): If so, "Ki Yimatzei Ish Shochev Im Ishah B'ulas Ba'al" - will we exclude the house of Ploni (a certain house) where men and women live together?
(i) Answer (Abaye): I learn from "V'Nimtza b'Yado".
(j) (Rava): Children and Talmidim are normally by their Rebbi, therefore he would be exempt for kidnapping them.
(k) (Mishnah): If one kidnaps a half-slave...
(l) (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): Embarrassment does not apply to slaves.
(m) Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?
(n) Answer: "Ki Yinatzu...Ish v'Achiv" - this refers to people that have (according to Torah law) brothers, it excludes slaves.

1. Chachamim argue - since a slave is also commanded to keep Mitzvos, he is called a brother of a Yisrael.

(o) Question: What is R. Yehudah's source to obligate for kidnapping a half-slave?
(p) Answer: "Me'Echav" excludes a slave; "Benei Yisrael" excludes a half-slave; "Mi'Bnei Yisrael" also excludes a half-slave;

1. Two exclusions, one after the other, always come to include.

(q) Chachamim say, "Me'Echav" does not exclude a slave, for he is a brother in Mitzvos;

1. "Benei Yisrael" excludes a slave; "Mi'Bnei Yisrael" excludes a half-slave.

(a) Question: Which verse forbids kidnapping?
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yoshiyah): "Lo Signov (in the 10 utterances)".
(c) Answer #2 (R. Yonason): "Lo Yimachru Mimkeres Aved".

1. They do not argue - R. Yoshiyah gives the Lav not to kidnap, R. Yonason gives the Lav not to sell.

(d) (Beraisa #1): "Lo Signov" - this forbids kidnapping.

1. Question: Perhaps it forbids stealing money!
2. Answer: One of (R. Yishmael's) 13 methods of expounding is to learn from the context - the previous Mitzvos (murder and adultery) are Chayavei Misos, presumably "Lo Signov" is also.

(e) (Beraisa #2): "Lo Tignovu (in Parshas Kedoshim)" - this forbids stealing money.

1. Question: Perhaps it forbids kidnapping!
2. Answer: One of the 13 methods of expounding is to learn from the context - the verse is followed by monetary laws.

(a) (Chizkiyah): If two witnesses testified that Reuven kidnapped, two others testified that he sold, and all were Huzmu, they are not killed (therefore, the testimony is I Efshar Lehazimo, even if they are not Huzmu, Reuven is not killed);
(b) (R. Yochanan): They are killed.

1. Chizkiyah holds like R. Akiva, who says that testimony must be a (full) Davar (matter), not a half-Davar;
2. R. Yochanan holds like Chachamim, who say that testimony can even be a half-Davar.

(c) Chizkiyah admits that if witnesses who testify about the second time a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole and ate (for which he is killed) were Huzmu, they are killed;

1. Since the witnesses who testified about the first theft suffice to lash him, also the testimony of the latter witnesses is considered a (full) 'Davar'.

(d) Question (Rav Papa): If so, Chizkiyah should also admit regarding kidnapping - since the witnesses who testify about the kidnapping suffice to lash him, the testimony about the sale is also a 'Davar'!

1. Suggestion: Perhaps Chizkiyah holds that one is not lashed for kidnapping (without selling).
2. Rejection: Chizkiyah and R. Yochanan argued whether or not Edim Zomemim who testified about kidnapping are lashed;

i. We concluded that Chizkiyah must say that they are lashed - according to R. Yochanan, they *could* be killed (if witnesses will testify that he sold, and all will be Huzmu after the final verdict);
ii. One is not lashed for a Lav that can obligate Misah!

3. Summation of rejection: If Chizkiyah says that the kidnapper cannot be lashed, how can the witnesses be lashed (this is not "Ka'asher Zamam")?!

(e) (Rav Papa): Rather, all agree that witnesses of the sale are killed (if they are Huzmu after the final verdict); they argue about witnesses of the kidnapping:

1. Chizkiyah says that they are not killed - kidnapping is considered a matter unto itself, it is not a transgression of Misah;
2. R. Yochanan says that they are killed - kidnapping is the first half of the transgression (which culminates with the sale).

(f) R. Yochanan admits that if witnesses who testify about the first time a Ben Sorer u'Moreh stole were Huzmu, they are not killed, because they can say that they only intended to lash him.
(g) (Abaye): All agree about Ben Sorer u'Moreh (sometimes, the witnesses are exempt), all agree about Ben Sorer u'Moreh (sometimes, the witnesses are liable), they argue about (liability of the witnesses in a third scenario of) Ben Sorer u'Moreh:

1. All agree that the witnesses who testify about the first theft are not killed, because they can say that they only intended to lash him;
2. All agree that the witnesses who testify about the second theft are killed, because the testimony of the first witnesses suffices to lash him, so the testimony about the second theft is also a 'Davar';
3. The argument about Ben Sorer u'Moreh is when two witnesses say that they saw him steal, two others say that they saw him eat. (R. Akiva says that each pair testifies about a half-Davar, the testimony is invalid; Chachamim accept the testimony.)

(h) (Rav Asi): If witnesses testify that Reuven sold someone (and they were Huzmu), they are exempt, for he can say that he sold his slave.
(i) (Rav Yosef): This is like R. Akiva, who invalidates testimony about a half-Davar.
(j) Objection (Abaye): Rav Asi said that they are exempt because he can say that he sold his slave - Chachamim agree with this, the case is, there are no witnesses that he kidnapped.

1. Objection: If so, obviously they are exempt!
2. Answer: The case is, witnesses of kidnapping came later (and Reuven was convicted, and later the witnesses were Huzmu).
3. Objection: Still, it is obvious that they are exempt, when they testified, there were no witnesses of kidnapping!
4. Answer: The case is, the witnesses gesture to each other;

i. One might have thought, this shows that they collaborated with each other (and the witnesses of the sale are also liable) - Rav Asi teaches, this is not so.

(a) (Mishnah): Zaken Mamrei that rebels against the Great Sanhedrin - "Ki Yipalei...(v'Alisa El ha'Makom...v'El ha'Shofet)". The verse discusses three Sanhedriyos:

1. One sits at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis, one sits at the entrance to the Azarah, one sits in Lishkas ha'Gazis.

(b) If a Chacham opposed the Beis Din of his city, they go to the Sanhedrin at the entrance to Har ha'Bayis. He says, this is how I expounded, this is how they expounded; this is how I learned, this is how they learned. If the Sanhedrin has a tradition for the law, they give it; if not, they go to the Sanhedrin at the entrance to the Azarah.
(c) If also this Sanhedrin has no tradition, they all go to the Great Sanhedrin in Lishkas ha'Gazis which teaches Torah to Yisrael - "Min ha'Makom Asher Yivchar Hash-m". (The Great Sanhedrin rules on the issue.)
(d) If the Chacham returns to his city and learns as he did before, he is exempt; if he rules (for others to follow in practice) he is liable - "Asher *Ya'aseh* v'Zadon", he is liable only if he teaches for others to follow.
(e) If a Talmid (not qualified to rule) teaches for others to follow he is exempt;

1. His disqualification exempts him.