Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Shimi bar Chiya learns from the Pasuk "ve'Hoka Osam la'Hashem Neged ha'Shemesh" - that Diynei Nefashos Danin be'Yom ve'Gomrin ba'Yom'.

(b) "ve'Hoka Osam" means - 'and hang them'.

(c) Rav Chisda learns from the Pasuk in Shmuel "ve'Hoka'num la'Hashem be'Giv'as Pinchas" that "Hoka" means hanging. He learns it from there in conjunction with another Pasuk "va'Tikach Ritzpah ... es ha'Sak va'Tateihu Lah el ha'Tzur bi'Techilas K'tzir Chitim", implying that the bodies remained exposed.

(d) In spite of the La'av of "Lo Salin Nivlaso", Ritzpah bas Ayah left the seven corpses of Sha'ul's decendants hanging over the summer - in order to create a public Kidush Hashem (so that people would see how scrupulously Yisrael dealt even with princes, to make up for the harm that Yisrael [King Shaul] had done the Giv'onim, the weakest of Geirim, by depriving them of their Parnasah).

(a) Moshe hanged those who died by Ba'al Pe'or - because, having worshipped Ba'al-Pe'or, they were Chayav Sekilah, and whoever dies by Sekilah, is hanged before he is buried.

(b) In the Pasuk "Kach es Rashei ha'Am ve'Hoka Osam Neged ha'Shemesh", the significance of the "Rashei ha'Am" (who did not sin), explains Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, is - the fact that Moshe organized the heads of the people into many Batei-Dinim, to punish the sinners.

(c) We cannot attribute the need for many Batei-Din to the fact that one Beis-Din is forbidden to sentence two people to death on the same day - since that prohibition is restricted to where the sinners receive different deaths (since we are afraid that the Beis-Din might not research the issues with the thourougness that each case requires), but not to where the two sinners will receive the same death and even for performing the same sin.

(d) Nevertheless, Moshe found it necessary to do so - in order to hasten the death of the Resha'im, to remove Hasem's burning anger from Yisrael (when He would see how the whole of Yisrael were involved in sanctifying His Name).

(a) Rebbi Chanina learns from the Pasuk "(Meleisi Mishpat), Tzedek Yalin Bah ve'Atah Meratzchim" - that if by Dinei Nefashos, the concescus of opinion is to pronounce the defendant guilty, then they must wait until the following day before issuing the G'mar-Din.

(b) The Pasuk means - that when they used to wait overnight before concluding le'Chovah, Yerushalayim was full of justice, but now that they were no longer doing so, they had become murderers.

(c) Rava learns the same Chidush from the Pasuk there "Ishru Chamotz", which he explains to mean - 'Praise the one who delays his final decision (until tomorrow)'.

(d) Rebbi Chanina explains the Pasuk "Ishru Camotz" to mean - 'Strengthen the one who has been robbed'.

(a) Rava will explain the Pasuk "Meleisi Mishpat ... " like Rebbi Elazar Amar Rebbi Yitzchak, who explains - that if one does give Tzedakah to the poor immediately on the night following the Ta'anis, it is akin to murder (since the poor are then unable to break their fast).

(b) This description will not apply however - there where it is customary to give them wheat, barley or money (which they are anyway unable to eat immediately).

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Lefichach Ein Danin be'Erev Shabbas ... '. They cannot judge him on Erev Shabbos ...

1. ... and conclude on Erev Shabbos - because should they conclude le'Chov, they will obligated to wait until the next day.
2. ... conclude on Shabbos and put him to death on Shabbos - because killing a sinner constitutes an Av Melachah, and does not override Shabbos.
3. ... conclude on Shabbos and put him to death on Motza'ei Shabbos - because one is obligated to put the sinner to death 'opposite the sun' (as we learned earlier).
4. ... conclude on Shabbos and put him to death on Sunday - because once the death-sentence has been passed, it is forbidden to delay overnight in carrying it out.
5. ... conclude on Sunday and put him to death on Sunday - because by Sunday, the Dayanim will have forgotten their reasons.

(b) We are afraid of that, in spite of the fact that the two Sofrim recorded everything anyway - because nevertheless, the judges are likely to be less clear than they were when they first stated their opinions.

6)

(a) The Torah writes (in connection with a Nazir) "le'Aviv u'le'Imo, le'Achiv ve'le'Achoso ... Lo Yitama". Bearing in mind that "ve'la'Achoso" is the last of the D'rashos in this group, we learn from it - that even if a Kohen Gadol who is also a Nazir is going to Shecht his Korban Pesach or to circumcise his son, he is not permitted to render himself Tamei to bury one of his seven relations, but he *is* obligated to bury a Meis Mitzvah (who has nobody else to see to his burial).

(b) Based on that D'rashah, Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan why a Meis Mitzvah should not override Shabbos from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - because if a Meis-Mitzvah overrides Avodah, which in turn, overrides Shabbos, it should certainly override Shabbos.

(c) When Rebbi Yochanan answered 'Retzichah (putting to death someone who is Chayav Miysah) Tochi'ach', he meant - that since Retzichah overrides the Avodah, but not Shabbos, the same will apply with regard to Meis Mitzvah (despite the 'Kal va'Chomer').

(d) We learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "(me'Im) Mizbechi Tikachenu La'mus" - that if a Kohen who is about to perform the Avodah is found to be Chayav Miysah, Beis-Din take him away and carry out the death-sentence.
2. ... "me'Im (Mizbechi Tikachenu La'mus)" - that 'me'Im Mizbechi ve'Lo me'Al Mizbechi' (once he is already on the Mizbe'ach, Beis-Din must wait until he has finished the Avodah before taking him away to be killed).

(a) Resh Lakish asked Rebbi Yochanan further that Retzichah itself should override Shabbos from a 'Kal va'Chomer' - namely, that if it overrides Avodah which overrides Shabbos, it should certainly override Shabbos.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan answered him from a Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael (which we will explain shortly). When Rebbi Yossi explains that when the Torah singles out the La'av of "Lo Se'va'aru Eish be'Chol Moshvoseichem" (and does not just rely on "Lo Sa'asu Kol Melachah") 'le'La'av Yatzas', he means - that burning a fire has been precluded from Kareis, and unlike all other Melachos on Shabbos, is only subject to a La'av.

(c) According to Rebbi Nasan, the Torah singles out the La'av of "Lo Seva'aru" - to teach us that one is Chayav for each individual Melachah (and is not required to transgress all thirty-nine in order to be Chayav).

(a) If, in view of the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Nasan, Rebbi Yishmael does not have a problem as a whole with this Pasuk; he does have a problem though, with the word "Moshvoseichem" - which normally comes to include Chutz la'Aretz, which is unnecessary here, since Shabbos is a Mitzvah that has nothing to do with the land, and applies everywhere automatically.

(b) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Yishmael is faced with another quandary regarding the Pasuk "Ki Yih'yeh be'Ish Chet Mishpat Maves ve'Humas" and that of "Mechalelehah Mos Yumas" - whether the first Pasuk applies even on Shabbos, and the second to all Melachos except for Miysas Beis-Din; or whether the second Pasuk applies across the board, and the first Pasuk applies during the week, but not on Shabbos.

(c) Before resolving the She'eilah, he adds 'O Eino Ela Afilu be'Shabbos'. Even though this appears to be synonymous with the first side of the She'eilah, he repeats it - based on the fact that the second side of the She'eilah is synonymous with 'Retzichah Tochi'ach ... ' (that we quoted earlier). 'O Eino Ela ... ' therefore, is the Pircha on the 'Kal-va'Chomer' 'Retzichah Gufah Tidcheh Shabbos ... ' (that we asked there), which is not at all synonymous with the first side.

(d) He resolves his quandary from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Lo Seva'aru Eish be'Chol Moshvoseichem" from "ve'Hayu Eileh Lachem le'Chukas Mishpat be'Chol Moshvoseichem" - which teaches us that the former, like the latter, is speaking in Beis-Din, yet the Torah writes "Lo Seva'aru".

10)

(a) Based on what we just learned, and given that according to him 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Kereivin be'Yom-Tov', Rava proves from a 'Kal-va'Chomer that Retzichah ought not to override a Korban Yachid - because if Retzichah does not override Yom-Tov (like it does not override Shabbos), then it will certainly not override a Korban Yachid which overrides Yom-Tov.

(b) "me'Im Mizbechi Tikachenu La'mus" therefore teaches us - that it does (a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', that negates a 'Kal-va'Chomer').

(c) We would not need this Chidush however, according to those who hold 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein Kereivin be'Yom-Tov' - because according to them, there is no 'Kal va'Chomer' to negate.

(a) Rava concludes that in any event, even those who hold 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Ein Kereivin be'Yom-Tov', have to agree that "me'Im Mizbechi" must be speaking about a Korban Tzibur - because "Mizbechi" implies 'ha'Meyuchad Li' (a reference to the daily Korban Tamid, which is a Korban Tzibur).

(b) And he counters Abaye's Kashya from the 'Kal va'Chomer' - by pointing to his previous comment, where he proved that according to those who hold 'Nedarim u'Nedavos Kereivin be'Yom-Tov', and we establish the Pasuk by a Korban Yachid, the Pasuk overrides the Kal-va'Chomer. In that case, we can say the same thing even if we establish the Pasuk by a Korban Tzibur.