Previous daf

1)

(a) We just learned that Levi may stop Reuven, who is chasing Shimon, from sinning, by taking his life. The two other cases listed by our Mishnah where he may do so (and even should) - are if he is chasing either a man or a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

(b) The Tana then rules that if Levi comes across Reuven chasing an animal in order to perform bestiality with it - he is not permitted to save him from sinning by killing him.

(c) The other two cases that he adds to this list are - someone who is about to either desecrate Shabbos or worship idols.

(d) We learned the first case in the Mishnah (saving Shimon's life) from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("Ein Lo Damim"). The Tana differentiates between a case where Reuven is chasing a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah or a man, and one where he is chasing an animal - on the grounds that it is not to save the *Rodef* that one is permitted to kill him, but to save the Nirdaf's life or reputation.

(a) The Beraisa initially learns from the Pasuk "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa" - that one may kill a Rodef to save the Nirdaf.

(b) The simple interpretation of the Pasuk is - that one is obligated to save a fellow-Jew from drowning, from wild animals or from robbers (as the Beraisa explains).

(c) The problem with the previous D'rashah then is - seeing as we need the D'rashah for its simple interpretation, how can we use it to teach us additional Chidushim?

(d) So we attempt to learn the Din of killing a Rodef from the Pasuk of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah - with a 'Kal va'Chomer', because if one may save a girl from merely being degraded, by killing her pursuer, how much more so to save someone from death.

(a) The problem with learning Rotze'ach from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' is - that it clashes with the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (Beis-Din can learn prohibitions by means of a 'Kal va'Chomer', but not punishments).

(b) We circumvent the problem by learning it (not from a 'Kal va'Chomer', but) from a Hekesh. The basic difference between a 'Kal va'Chomer' on the one hand and a 'Hekesh' and a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' on the other is - that whereas the former is dependent purely on human logic, the latter is specifically written in the Pasuk (which is why we can learn even Onshin from them).

(c) The source of this explanation is Tana de'Bei Rebbi, who comments on the Pasuk "Ki Ka'asher Yakum Ish al Re'eihu Kein ha'Davar ha'Zeh" 'Harei Zeh Ba le'Lamed ve'Nimtza Lameid', by which he means - that although the Pasuk seems to be coming to compare the Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah to that of a Rotze'ach, in fact, it is the other way round (though we will later learn it both ways).

(d) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah) "ve'Ein Moshi'a Lah" - that anyone who is able to save the girl from being denigrated, should do so (even if is means killing the pursuer), and Tana de'Bei Rebbi learns Rotze'ach from there.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with returning a lost article) "va'Hashevoso Lo" - that one is obligated to save a person from drowning, from wild animals or from robbers.

(b) We nevertheless require the Pasuk "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa", which comes to teach us - that one is not only obligated to save him personally, should this be possible, but that one is even obligated to hire people to help save him if necessary.

(c) We learned in our Mishnah that one must save both the life and the dignity of a man or of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, who is being chased, with the life of the pursuer. The Beraisa goes on to say that someone who is chasing ...

1. ... Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din and Chayvei Kerisus (with intent to rape them) - is subject to the same rules.
2. ... Chayvei La'avin, such as a Kohen Gadol who is chasing an Almanah or a Kohen Hedyot who is chasing a Gerushah or a Chalutzah (with intend to rape them) - is not.

(d) The Tana also says - that one may not kill the Rodef ...

1. ... after the sin has already been committed - since the whole point of the concession is to prevent the victim from coming to harm or from becoming denigrated.
2. ... if there is another way of saving the Nirdaf (since the concession of "Ein Lah Moshi'a" no longer applies).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah rules that if the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah herself pleads with Levi to leave Reuven who wants to rape her, alone - then he is not permitted to kill him either.

(b) "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar, *Ein la'Na'arah Chet Maves* ... Ein Moshi'a Lah". The Beraisa Darshens from the second half of the Pasuk - because, having already stated "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar", it is superfluous.

(c) The Tana learns from ...

1. ... "Na'ar" (which is written without a 'Hey') - that the concession of "ve'Ein Moshi'a Lah" applies to a someone who is chasing a man (with intent to rape him).
2. ... "Na'arah" - that it applies to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.
3. ... "Chet" - that it also applies to Chayvei K'riysus.
4. ... "Maves" - that is also applies to Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din.

6)

(a) Having taught us the concession to kill the Rodef by ...

1. ... Na'ar, the Torah nevertheless needs to specifically state Na'arah as well - because it is a more natural occurrence than a Na'ar (in which case we might have thought the concession to kill the rapist does mot apply).
2. ... Na'arah, it needs to specifically state Na'ar - because his P'gam (stigma) is not as severe as that of the Na'arah (who is now denigrated before the Arus, causing his love for her to be impaired).
3. ... these two, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to add the other Arayos (i.e. Chayvei K'riysus, in the word "Chet") - since neither of the two reasons of the previous pair pertain to them to the same degree (i.e. it is both a natural occurrence and the P'gam of an ordinary Besulah and certainly of a Nesu'ah, is not as extreme as that of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah).
4. ... the Arayos, the Torah needs to add "Maves" - to preclude Chayvei La'avin.
5. ... "Maves", the Torah still finds it necessary to then add "Chet" - to include Chayvei K'riysus (and not only Chayvei Miysos Beis-Din).

(b) We eliminate the need for half of these D'rashos - by pointing out that "Chet" and "Maves", which incorporate all Arayos, will also include 'Na'ar' and 'Na'arah'.

(c) In fact, we conclude, that the Torah sees fit to insert "Na'ar" and "Na'arah" - one to preclude Oved Avodas-Kochavim, and the other, Beheimah and Shabbos.

(d) Even though one Pasuk precludes Oved Avodas-Kochavim from the Din of Rodef, we still need another Pasuk to preclude Beheimah - since, due to its similarity to Arayos, we might have thought that it is included in the concession to kill the rapist (like *they* are).

(e) The Tana mentions Shabbos together with Beheimah - le'Ravcha de'Milsa' (as an extra, since we would automatically have given it the same Din as Avodah-Zarah); and the Tana only mentions it individually, since our Mishnah did so.

(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, one may indeed kill someone who is about to worship Avodah-Zarah. We nevertheless need ''Na'ar" and "Na'arah" - to preclude Beheimah and Shabbos (which we might otherwise have learned is 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho' from Avodah-Zarah by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul").

(b) Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that Shabbos is also 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho' - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul".

(c) According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, since the Torah wrote "Na'ar", it wrote "Na'arah", too (i.e. since they are one and the same word).

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah forbids Levi to kill the rapist if the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah pleads with him to leave him alone. The Rabbanan hold - that he ignores her pleas and kills him nonetheless.

(b) They must be arguing in a case where the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is concerned about her good name - because otherwise there would be no reason for the Rabbanan to permit Levi to kill the rapist.

(c) The case must be - when the girl is concerned about her good name, but is willing to forego it to save her life (which the rapist is threatening to take unless she complies).

(d) We know that the Torah is concerned about her good name - because the Pasuk confines the concession to kill the rapist to cases where the victim's good name is in jeopardy.

(a) The basis of their Machlokes is as Rava explains it. The reason of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan is - because the Torah is concerned about her spoiling her good name, and so indeed is she.
2. ... Rebbi Yehudah is - because the Torah only permitted killing the rapist on the grounds that the girl would otherwise have given up her life to save her good name (in other words, killing the rapist saves the girl's life), but not if she puts her life before her good name.

(b) When Rav Papa asks 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol Nami ka'Pagam Lah' (suggesting that the Torah's reason is clearly not because of P'gam), he is asking on the Rabbanan.

(c) Abaye answers him - that the Torah is only concerned with a major P'gam, but not with a minor one.

(d) A major P'gam is - Chayvei K'riysus and Chayvei Miysos, which will render any child born from such a union a Mamzer and the girl, a Zonah; whereas a minor P'gam is one where children that are born are only Chalalim (and not Mamzerim), and she, only a Chalalah.

(a) Our Mishnah includes Chayvei K'riysus in the list of those whom one may kill. The problem with the Mishnah in Kesuvos 've'Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh Lahen K'nas, ha'Ba al Achoso' is - that since Chayvei K'riysus are subject to the death-penalty, why should the rapist have to pay as well (since someone who is Chayav Miysah does not pay).

(b) There is simply no problem with the fact that Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei K'riysus - because the Din of K'nas has nothing to do with whether Kidushin is effective or not.

(c) Rav Chisda answers the Kashya by establishing the P'gam from the time of Ha'ara'ah - which means when the Eiver ha'Milah makes contact with the woman (before penetration), whereas he only becomes Chayav to pay K'nas from the time of G'mar Bi'ah (penetration).

(d) Others explain Ha'ara'ah to mean the beginning of penetration, negating Rav Chisda's answer - because, since the two obligations occur simultaneously, he ought to be Patur from K'nas (our original Kashya).

(a) When Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah in Kesuvos 'she'Ba Alehah she'Lo ke'Darkah, ve'Chazar Alehah ke'Darkah', he means that - since either the rapist or someone else had raped the girl previously (albeit she'Lo ke'Darkah) she is already Pagum, in which case she is no longer 'Nitan le'Hatzilah be'Nafshah'. Nevertheless, when he raped her the second time ke'Darkah, he is Chayav to pay K'nas.

(b) Rava establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah of our Mishnah - who says 'Af ha'Omeres Hanichu Lo ... (Lo Nitan Lehatzilo be'Nafsho)', in which case, there is no problem with the rapist having to pay K'nas.

(c) Rav Papa establishes it 'bi'Mefutah' ve'Divrei ha'Kol' - by which he means that the Mishnah in Kesuvos is not speaking about the rape of a Chayvei K'riysus, as we assumed until now, but about a case of seduction, which everyone agrees, is not subject to the death-penalty, since she agrees to the relations (and there is no P'gam).