Previous daf

1)

(a) The definition of a ben Neichar Areil Leiv - is a Kohen (in this case) who worships idols (whose heart is uncircumcised [i.e. wicked] and who is estranged from Hashem.

(b) The Navi Yechezkel writes - "Kol ben Neichar Areil Leiv ve'Areil Basar Lo Yavo el Mikdashi", from which Rav Chisda learns that a Kohen Areil who does the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash has transgressed only a La'av (but is not Chayav Miysah).

(c) And we extrapolate from the Pasuk "u'min ha'Mikdash Lo Yeitzei ve'Lo Yechalel es Mikdash Elokav" - that a Kohen Hedyot Onan who fails to leave the Beis-Hamikdash too, has transgressed a La'av.

(d) When Rav Ada asked Rava why we should not then go on to learn "Chilul" "Chilul" from Terumah that an Kohen Onan who serves should be Chayav Miysah - he replied by citing the principle that one can only learn a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from what the Torah writes directly, but not from what is learned from an inference' (as is the case here).

(a) And we learn from the Pasuk "Ki Bo Bachar Hashem ... La'amod Le'shares" - that a Kohen transgresses a La'av if he performs the Avodah in the Beis-Hamikdash sitting (though it is not clear why it is a La'av and not just an Asei).

(b) The Kohen is not Chayav Miysah because he is considered a Zar (like one who serves without the Bigdei Kehunah) - because Zar, Lo Rachutz Yadayim ve'Raglayim and Shesuyei Yayin are three Pesukim that come to teach us that, and we have a principle that we cannot learn from two or three Pesukim that come to teach us the same thing (see also Chidushei ha'Ran).

(a) Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "Ach el ha'Paroches Lo Yavo ... ve'Lo Yechalel es Mikdashai" - (by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul") that a Ba'al-Mum is Chayav Miysah.

(b) Originally, we learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from Terumah on the grounds that both of them are P'sul ha'Guf, which means - that it is the Kohen who is Pasul (as opposed to Nosar, where it is the object).

(c) We refute the original contention on the grounds - that there are more similarities between Nosar and a Ba'al-Mum (Kodesh, P'nim, Pigul ve'Nosar [in which case he outght to be Chayav Kareis]) than there are to Terumah.

(d) So Rebbi finally learns Ba'al from Tamei she'Shimesh, which has all the advantages of Nosar and is also P'sul ha'Guf.

(a) The Rabbanan learn from "u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu" - that Terumah is Chayav Miysah, but not a Ba'al-Mum.

(b) Rebbi learns that Heizid bi'Me'ilah is Chayav Miysah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' - "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah.

(c) And the Rabbanan's source for saying that this too, is only a La'av is - the same as that of Zar she'Shimesh ("u'Meisu *Bo* Ki Yechaleluhu").

(d) Neverheless, they concede that Heizid bi'Me'ilah transgresses a La'av - because they agree with the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' in principle, and the Miy'ut of "Bo" is confined to Miysah (which is where it is written).

(a) Rebbi Yishmael (alias the Chachamim in our Mishnah) learns that Zar she'Shimesh is Chayav Miysah from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ve'ha'Zar ha'Kareiv) *Yumas*" from "Kol ha'Kareiv ha'Kareiv el Mishkan Hashem *Yamus*" (Parshas Korach), which is written in connection with - the congregation of Korach.

(b)

1. Rebbi Akiva learns (that he is Chayav Sekilah) from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Navi ha'Hu ... Yumas" - because he prefers to learn "Yumas" from "Yumas" than from "Yamus".
2. Rebbi Yishmael on the other hand, prefers to learn from the congregation of Korach - who were Hedyotos (ordinary people) than from a Navi she'Hidi'ach.

(c) Rebbi Akiva counters - that a Navi who talks people into serving idols is in fact, a Hedyot.

(a) The problem with the opinion of Rebbi Akiva is - that in our Mishnah, he learns that Zar she'Shimesh, is Chayav Chenek, like Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in the Beraisa?

(b) We resolve it - by citing a Machlokes in this very point between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan, which clearly concerns the opinion of Rebbi Akiva. The author of ...

1. ... our Mishnah is - Rebbi Shimon (citing Rebbi Akiva).
2. ... the Beraisa is - the Rabbanan (citing him).

(c) What the Rabbanan and Rebbi Shimon have in common is - that they are all Rebbi Akiva's Talmidim.

7)

(a) Eight people receive Chenek (strangulation). 'ha'Makeh Aviv ve'Imo, ve'Gonev Nefesh mi'Yisrael ve'Zaken Mamrei' (- meaning a person who refuses or a rebel [like "Mamrim Heyisem im Hashem" [Parshas Eikev]). A 'Zakein Mamrei' is - an elder who refuses to accept a majority ruling of his local Beis-Din, and goes on to teach his own opinion an a specific issue (as will be explained later).

(b) A Navi Sheker and one who prophesies in the name of Avodah-Zarah both receive Chenek?

(c) An adulterer and the Zomemin of a bas Kohen receive Chenek too. In spite of the fact that the bas Kohen herself is sentenced to Sereifah, her Zomemin receive Chenek - because the Torah writes in Ki Seitzei "Ka'asher Zamam La'asos le'Achiv" (from which we Darshen ''Le'Achiv", 've'Lo la'Achoso').

(d) The last of the Nechenakin is - the Bo'el of a bas Kohen (whom we just mentioned).

(a) We derive from the Pasuk "Makeh Aviv ve'Imo Mos Yumas" that someone who strikes his parents is Chayav Chenek - by virtue of the principle 'that S'tam Miysah in the Torah means 'Chenek'.

(b) We initially learn from the fact that a murderer receives Sayaf, that Makeh Aviv ve'Imo is not speaking when he actually killed them - because then someone would receive a lighter punishment for killing his parents one' than for killing someone else.

(c) We refute this proof however - on the grounds that it would fall away according to Rebbi Shimon, who considers Chenek more stringent than Hereg.

(d) So we finally learn it from the Pasuk "Makeh Ish va'Meis Mos Yumas", and the Pasuk in Mas'ei "O be'Eivah Hikahu va'Yamos" - which teach us that whenever the Torah refers to someone who is killed, it uses an expression of Miysah (from which we can infer, that when it doesn't, then there is no Chiyuv Miysah (as is the case currently under discussion).

(a) Despite having written ...

1. ... "Makeh Ish va'Meis ... ", the Torah needs to write there "Kol Makeh Nefesh ... ", to teach us that one is Chayav even for killing a Katan (even though he is not Chayav to keep the Mitzvos).
2. ... "Kol Makeh Nefesh", the Torah needs to write "Makeh Ish" - to teach us that one is only Chayav for killing someone who is destined to live, but not if he killed a Nefel.

(b) The definition of a 'Nefel' in this context is - an eighth month baby who was born alive, but who will not survive.

(c) We then learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Makeh Adam ... Makeh Beheimah" - that 'Makeh Aviv ve'Imo' (like Makeh Beheimah) is only Chayav if he makes a wound.
2. ... "Nefesh", written by Makeh Beheimah - that one is only Chayav to pay the owner of the animal that one struck if he made a wound (since "Nefesh" implies blood).

(d) Rebbi Yirmiyah rejects this D'rashah however, on the grounds - that 'Hikchishah ba'Avanim' (beating an animal until it becomes weak, without actually causing a wound) would then be Patur (a ruling which would be highly illogical).

(a) So we learn that Makeh Aviv ve'Imo is only Chayav if he makes a wound - 'Im Eino Inyan' from the Pasuk of Makeh Beheimah (which is not needed for itself, since Makeh Beheimah does not require a wound, as we just explained).

(b) And from the Hekesh of Adam to Beheimah we learn Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah (to exempt someone who kills a person from payment, even if he is Shogeg or O'nes ... just like one is Chayav to pay for wounding an animal whether he is Shogeg or O'nes ... (as we learned in the previous Perek).

(c) According to those who do not hold of Tana de'Bei Chizkiyah, Rav Dimi bar Chinena learns from the Hekesh - that just as Makeh Beheimah is Patur if he is a vet attempting to cure the animal, so too, is a doctor who is trying to cure his father Patur, if in the process, he inadvertently wounds him.

(d) Rav Masna resolves the She'eilah of whether a son is allowed to let his father's blood or not, from the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha" - from the word ''Kamocha" which forbids a Jew to do to his people would not like done to them, to preclude curing him when he is ill (which is therefore permitted by a father too).

(a) Rav - would not permit his son to remove a splinter from his body ...

(b) ... and Mar B'rei de'Ravina would not allow his son to squeeze the pus out of a boil, in case they inadvertently caused a wound in the process.

(c) They were not afraid of the same thing happening by anyone other than a father (in spite of the fact that wounding him is also subject to two La'avin, "Lo Yosif" and "Pen Yosif") - because the Shogeg of a La'av is much less serious than that of a Chayav Miysah (who has to bring a Chatas).

(a) We then ask on the Mishnah in Shabbos, which permits picking up a small needle to remove a splinter - how this can be permitted on Shabbos, in case one inadvertently makes a wound (and Shabbos is a Chiyuv Sekilah).

(b) We answer - that a wound is considered 'Kilkul' (destructive) for which one is not Chayav on Shabbos.

(c) The Kashya remains however, according to those who hold Mekalkel ba'Chaburah Chayav. So we finally answer the Kashya by establishing the Mishnah according to Rebbi Shimon - who holds that one is Patur for an inadvertent act, because in his opinion 'Melachah she'Einah Tzerichah le'Gufah Patur' (under which category an inadvertent wound falls).