Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the Tana Kama of the Beraisa, if ten men with ten sticks beat someone to death, they are all Patur (from Miysas Beis-Din).
What does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira say?

(b) Rebbi Yochanan quotes the source as the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Ish ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam".
If the Rabbanan interpret "Kol Nefesh" to mean 'the entire person' (and not just part of him), how does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira interpret it?

(c) 'Rava Amar ha'Kol Modim ... '.
In which similar case do both Tana'im concede that he is ...

1. ... Patur?
2. ... Chayav?

(a) What is the difference between our case and ...

1. ... that of a Tereifah?
2. ... that of a Goses?

(b) In that case, why do the Chachamim prefer to compare our case to a Tereifah than to a Goses?

(c) And why does Rebbi Yehudah ben Beseira prefer to compare it to a Goses than to a Tereifah?

(a) The Beraisa quoted by the Beraisa expert in front of Rav Sheishes obligated Reuven who killed Shimon after Levi had beaten him in a way that could not kill him.
What problem do we have with this Beraisa?

(b) So how do we amend it? Who is then the author?

(c) We have already learned that someone who kills a Tereifah is Patur.
On what grounds does Rava also exempt a Tereifah who kills, if witnesses are called to testify against him?

(d) On what grounds does he then declare him Chayav if he killed in the presence of Beis-Din (thereby eliminating the need for witnesses)?

(a) Rava issues the same set of Halachos with regard to a Tereifah who raped another man.
What does he rule with regard to someone who raped a Tereifah?

(b) What is Rava coming to teach us in this latter ruling? Why might we have thought that he should be Patur?

(c) Why indeed, is he Chayav? In what way does it differ from Meshamesh Meis?

(a) Rava then exempts witnesses who testify against a Tereifah (as we explained earlier), but declares Chayav, witnesses who are themselves a Tereifah.
What does Rav Ashi say?

(b) On what basis does Rava disagree with Rav Ashi, whose logic is irrefutable?

(c) Rava declares a Tereifah ox which killed a person Chayav.
What does he then go on to learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ha'Shor Yisakel ve'Gam Be'alav Yumas"?

(d) On what grounds does Rav Ashi disagree with Rava's first ruling?

(a) We learned in our Mishnah the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah, who obligates Reuven who holds a snake against Shimon's body, as the snake bites him, and the Rabbanan declare him Patur.
How does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explain the Machlokes? What is the reason of ...

1. ... Rebbi Yehudah?
2. ... the Chachamim?

(b) How will the same Tana'im therefore rule with regard to the death of the snake?

(c) How can the Chachamim sentence the snake to death, seeing as the Torah only talks about "Shor"?

(a) What does the Tana Kama say in a case where Reuven struck Shimon with a stone or with his fist, if after Beis-Din assessed that he would die, he first took a turn for the better, and then died?

(b) What does Rebbi Nechemyah say?

(c) What does "al Mish'anto" mean?

(d) What prompts Rebbi Nechemyah to learn his Din from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "Im Yakum ve'Hishalech ba'Chutz al Mish'anto ve'Nikah ha'Makeh"?

(e) What do the Rabbanan then learn from "ve'Nikah ha'Makeh"?

8)

(a) We suggest that Rebbi Nechemyah learns the concept of interim jail from the Mekoshesh.
Why do the Rabbanan decline to learn it from there?

(b) Does Rebbi Nechemyah agree with that argument?

(c) Then from where does he ultimately learn it?

(d) On what grounds do the Rabbanan disagree with that source?

(a) From where does the Beraisa know that the Mekoshesh was definitely Chayav Miysah?

(b) If his exact punishment was not known, how could the Hasra'ah be valid, and in that case, how could Beis-Din sentence him to death?

(c) What does the Tana extrapolate from the fact that the Torah writes ...

1. ... by the Mekoshesh "Ki Lo Forash Mah Ye'aseh Lo"?
2. ... by the Megadef "Li'ferosh Lahem al-Pi Hashem"?

(d) Rebbi Nechemyah learns the above D'rashah from the extra words "Im Yakum ve'Hi'halech s" (as we explained).
What does he learn from the extra Pasuk "ve'Lo Yamus"?

(a) The Rabbanan learn Amduhu le'Miysah ve'Chayah from "ve'Lo Yamus ve'Nafal le'Mishkav".
What do they then learn from "ve'Nikah ha'Makeh"?

(b) What is now the problem, according to them?

(c) Finally, the Rabbanan learn 'Chovshin Oso' from "ve'Nikah ha'Makeh" (as they learned earlier), and 'Amduhu le'Miysah ... ', from "Im Yakum ... ".
What do they then learn from "ve'Lo Yamus"?

(d) What does Rebbi Nechemyah say about that?

(a) What does Rebbi Nechemyah in a Beraisa say in a case where Beis-Din initially assessed Shimon le'Miysah, and eventually he did indeed die, but not before he had improved and even gone outside, at which point they had assessed him le'Chayim?

(b) The Rabbanan say 'Ein Omed Achar Omed'.
What do they mean by that?

(c) What does a second Beraisa say about ...

1. ... 'Amduhu le'Miysah'?
2. ... 'Amduhu le'Chayim'?

(d) What does the Tana then say in a case where, after the second Omed Le'hakel (le'Mamon), he deteriorated and died? What will he then be Chayav? Who is the author?

(e) From when do we assess his value?

(a) What does our Mishnah say about someone who intended to kill an animal but missed and hit a person, a Nochri, and hit a Yisrael, or a Nefel and hit a regular person?

(b) Assuming that he was duly warned that he might kill the living Yisarel, why is he Patur (see Rashash)?

(c) And what does the Tana say about a case where Reuven aimed to strike Shimon on his side with a stone say, that was not large enough to kill him at that spot, but was large enough to kill him on his heart, which is where he struck him?

(d) And what does he say in the reverse case, where he aimed to strike him on the heart, with a stone that was large enough to kill him on the heart, but would not normally have killed him had he struck him on his side, and where he missed and struck him on his side, and by a fluke, he died?

(a) And what does the Tana say in a case where Reuven meant to strike ...

1. ... a Gadol with a stone that could not have killed him, but missed and struck a Katan instead, who was small enough for the stone to kill and who did indeed die?
2. ... a Katan with a stone that could have killed him, but missed and struck a Gadol instead, who was too big for the stone to kill, but by a fluke, he died?

(b) And what does the Tana finally say about a case where he meant to hit ...

1. ... Shimon on his side with a stone that was sufficiently large to kill him, but struck him on his heart and killed him?
2. ... a Gadol with a stone that was sufficiently large to kill him, but missed and struck a Katan and killed him?

(c) On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon argue with the Tana Kama?

(d) Which two conditions does the Tana Kama require to avoid Hasra'as Safek?

Next daf