Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana de'Bei Menasheh learns two of the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach from the Pasuk in No'ach "*va'Tishaches* ha'Aretz Lifnei ha'Elokim", based on a statement by Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael say about the word "*Hashchasah*"?

(b) Tana de'Bei Menasheh learns murder from "Shofech Dam ha'Adam, ba'Adam Damo Yishafech". According to the earlier Tana (who learns from "va'Yetzav"), why does the Torah find it necessary to write the Pasuk ...

1. ... "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ... "?
2. ... "va'Tishaches ha'Aretz Lifnei ha'Elokim"?

(c) According to Tana de'Bei Menasheh, what do we learn from the Pasuk (in No'ach) ...

1. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati Lachem es Kol"?
2. ... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu"?
3. ... "Shirtzu ba'Aretz u'Revu Vah"?
4. ... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu"?

(d) How does the earlier Tana explain the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ke'Yerek Eisev Nasati Lachem es Kol"?
2. ... "Ach Basar be'Nafsho Lo Socheilu"?
3. ... "Shirtzu va'Aretz u'Revu Vah"?
4. ... "me'ha'Of le'Mineihu"?

(a) According to Rav Yehudah Amar Rav, only three of the Sheva Mitzvos B'nei No'ach are subject to the death-sentence.
Which three?

(b) Which of the three is written explicitly in the Pasuk?

(c) Why can Shefichas Damim not be the Binyan Av from we learn the other two?

(d) What problem do we have in saying that the source of the other two is because the Torah writes by each one "Ish" "Ish"? By which other Mitzvah does the Torah write "Ish Ish"?

(a) To resolve the current She'eilah, how do we amend Rav Yehudah Amar Rav's statement?

(b) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconcile Rav Yehudah Amar Rav with the Beraisa, which writes that a Nochri is warned on things for which a Yisrael is killed (implying that a Nochri is warned, but not put to death)?

(c) According to Rav Huna, Rav Yehudah and all the Talmidim of Rav, a Nochri is sentenced to death for all his seven Mitzvos.
From where do they learn this?

(d) How do we reconcile this ruling with the Beraisa 'al ha'Gezel ... Kuti be'Kuti, ve'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur, ve'Yisrael be'Kuti, Mutar', implying that the Kuti in the Reisha is Asur, but not Chayav?

(a) What is then the problem with the Reisha 'al Shefichas Damim Kuti be'Kuti ve'Kuti be'Yisrael Chayav, Yisrael be'Kuti Patur'?

(b) How do we answer this?

(c) What does the Beraisa say about Kutim and shepherds?

(d) What is the reason for this ruling with regard to shepherds?

(a) Rav Acha bar Ya'akov tries to establish 'ke'Yotze Bahen' (with regard to Gezel) by a worker eating the grapes in the vineyard where he is working. On what grounds do we reject this explanation?

(b) So Rav Papa establishes it by someone who steals less than a Shiur (i.e. the value of a Perutah).
In that case, why is 'Kuti be'Yisrael Asur'? Why do we not rely on the automatic Mechilah of the owner to permit it even Lechatchilah?

(c) On what grounds do we then repudiate this interpretation of 'ke'Yotze Bahen' completely?

(d) So how do we finally establish the case of 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Gezel? Why is it not considered real Gezel?

(a) Next, we discuss 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Y'fas To'ar.
Why do we not even attempt to explain it by Ganav?

(b) On what basis is a Nochri who designates a Shifchah for his Eved and then has relations with her sentenced to death?

(c) What is the equivalent case with regard to ...

1. ... Kuti be'Yisrael, who is also Chayav?
2. ... Yisrael be'Kuti? Why is she permitted Lechatchilah?

(a) Why do we initially think that the Tana did not insert a case of 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Shefichas Damim?

(b) Why do we not establish 'ke'Yotze Bo' by a case of someone who killed be'Shogeg (see Aruch le'Ner)?

(a) Abaye concludes however, that it is possible to insert 'ke'Yotze Bo' by Shefichas Damim, according to Rebbi Yonasan ben Shaul.
What does Rebbi Yonasan ben Shaul say in a case where Shimon could have saved himself from Reuven who is chasing after him to kill him, by severing one of his limbs?

(b) How will this explain our case?

(c) Why will this not work according to the Rabbanan?

9)

(a) Rebbi Ya'akov bar Acha found a scroll of Agadta de'Bei Rebbi, on which was written 'ben No'ach Neherag be'Dayan Echad, be'Eid Echad she'Lo be'Hasra'ah'.
What else was written on the scroll, in connection with the type of witness who is eligible to testify?

(b) Based on a statement quoted there in the name of Rebbi Yishmael, what is the difference between a Din of a Yisrael and that of a Nochri, as regards killing a fetus?

(c) The entire Beraisa is based on a Pasuk in No'ach.
What do we learn from ...

1. ... "Ach es Dimchem le'Nafshoseichem Edrosh"?
2. ... "mi'Yad Kol Chayah"?
3. ... "Edreshenu u'mi'Yad ha'Adam"?
4. ... "mi'Yad Ish"?
5. ... ""Achiv"?

(a) How does Rebbi Yishmael derive his Din from the Pasuk there "Shofech Dam ha'Adam ba'Adam Damo Yishafech"?

(b) And how does the Tana Kama, who disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael, explain "ba'Adam Damo Yishafech"? Who is the Tana Kama?

(c) What does Rebbi Yishmael hold in this regard?

(d) In light of Tana de'Bei Menasheh, who disqualifies a bas No'ach from testifying or judging, how does Rav Hamnuna explain the Pasuk in Lech-Lecha (in connection with Avraham) "Lema'an Asher Yetzaveh es Banav ve'es Beiso Acharav ... La'asos Tzedakah u'Mishpat"? Who is meant by "Beiso"?

(a) Rav Ivya the elder asked Rav Papa whether, in light of the Pasuk "mi'Yad Ish", a bas No'ach who murdered, is not punishable. Rav Papa's reply was based on a statement of Rav Yehudah. How does Rav Yehudah Darshen the Pasuk "Shofech Dam ha'Adam" in this respect?

(b) He also asked him whether, based on the Pasuk (in Bereishis, in connection with the relationship between husband and wife) "Al Kein Ya'azov Ish es Aviv ve'es Imo", a bas No'ach is not punishable for adultery.
Rav Paa cited him the end of the Pasuk "ve'Hayu le'Basar Echad".
What does that prove?

(c) Having already learned Giluy Arayos by the B'nei No'ach from "Leimor", why does the Tana of the Beraisa need to learn it from the Pasuk in Acharei- Mos (in connection with Arayos) "Ish Ish"?

(a) The Seifa of the Beraisa, which we bring as proof of the previous ruling, adds 'Ba al Arayos Yisrael, Nidon be'Diynei Yisrael'. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah explains this to mean that for Arayos Yisrael, a ben No'ach is judged like a Yisrael.
What does he mean by that?

(b) On what grounds do we reject Rav Nachman's explanation?

(c) How does Rebbi Yochanan therefore explain the Seifa of the Beraisa?

(d) How does Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconcile Rebbi Yochanan's second statement 'Aval Eishes Ish, be'Diyna Didhu Dayninan Leih' with the Beraisa, which supports his first statement, but which adds 'al Eishes Ish, Nidon be'Chenek'? What is the reason for this unusual ruling?

(a) From where does the Beraisa quoted by Rebbi Chanina, learn that, by the B'nei No'ach, Chupah is not considered Eishes Ish?

(b) In the Beraisa that we cite as proof for Rebbi Yochanan's previous ruling, what is Rebbi Meir referring to when he says that any Ervah that is not subject by Diynei Yisrael to the death penalty, is not forbidden to the B'nei No'ach?

(a) What do the Chachamim hold in this matter?

(b) And what do they say about Ba al Arayos Yisrael? How many cases do they list?

(c) Why do they not list the case of 'Nichnesah le'Chupah ve'Lo Niv'alah'?

Next daf