Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHY R. YOCHANAN ARGUES ON ULA

(a) Objection #1: We do not give lashes for the prohibition for wounding!
(b) Objection #2: Regarding Edim Zomemim, we do not fulfill "if the evil one is fitting for lashes"!

1. Rather, we must say that it suffices that we lash Edim Zomemim who testify that a Kohen is unfit.
2. Similarly, One who makes a wound of less than a Prutah is lashed.

(c) Question: If so, it also suffices that we lash one who has relations with a sister who is a Bogeres!
(d) Answer #2: Rather, R. Yochanan did not learn as Ula because he uses "Tachas" as Abaye.

1. (Abaye): "Tachas" (compensation for) that he afflicted her" - we infer, there are additional payments of embarrassment and blemish.

i. Ula learns this law as Rava: "The man that lies with her will give 50" - 50 is for the enjoyment of lying with her, implying that there are additional payments of embarrassment and blemish.

(a) (R. Elazar): Edim Zomemim pay money and are not lashed because they cannot be warned.
(b) Support (Rava): There is no time they can be warned!

1. If they are warned some time before they testify - they can claim, they forgot the warning!
2. If they are warned when they testify - (even truthful witnesses) will decline to testify!
3. If they are warned after they testify - this does nothing (they already lied, unwarned)!

(c) Objection #1 (Abaye): They can be warned after they testify, within the time it takes to greet someone, when they could still retract their testimony!
(d) Objection #2 (Rav Acha Brei d'Rav Ika): We can warn them some time before they testify, and subtly remind them at they time they testify!
(e) Retraction (Abaye): It must be, they do not require warning!

1. If we would say they cannot be killed unless they were warned - is it proper that they tried to kill someone without warning, but they cannot be killed without warning?!

i. This does not fulfill "As he plotted to do to his brother"!

(f) Question (Rav Sama Brei d'Rav Yirmiyah): According to this, Edim Zomemim that testified that Ploni is an unfit Kohen, who are lashed not because of "As he plotted" (rather for false testimony) - they should require warning!
(g) Answer: "There will be 1 law for you" - the same law for all.

(a) (Rav Shisha Brei d'Rav Idi): One who hits his friend also (as Edim Zomemim) pays money but is not lashed.
(b) Source #1: "When men will fight and one strikes a pregnant woman, killing the fetus".

1. (R. Elazar): The verse deals with men trying to kill each other - "If she will die, you will give a life for a life".

i. If there was no warning - why is he killed?!
ii. Clearly, we must say he was warned - and warning for a severe punishment (death, for murder) is considered warning for a lighter punishment (lashes, for hitting) - and the Torah said, he pays money!

2. Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Perhaps warning for a severe punishment is not considered warning for a light one!
3. Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Even if you will say it is considered warning - perhaps lashes is harsher than death!

i. (Rav): If Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah had been lashed, they would have bowed to the image!

4. Question (Rav Sama Brei d'Rav Asi, against Rav Ashi): Don't you distinguish between a limited hitting (of Beis Din) and unlimited (had Nebuchadnetzar lashed them)!
5. Objection #3 (Rav Yakov): This could be the source for Chachamim, who say that "A life for a life" is literally true.

i. Rebbi says that it refers to a monetary payment - (he need not say that warning was given) - how will he learn that a wounder pays money?

(c) Source #2 (Rav Yakov): "If he will get up ... he will be acquitted".

1. Question: Would we think that the victim recovers, and the one who struck him is killed?!
2. Answer: Rather, we learn that the striker is locked up; if the victim dies, he is killed; if he recovers, "He pays his unemployment and medical expenses".

i. If there was no warning - why can he be killed?
ii. Clearly, we must say he was warned - and warning for a severe punishment is considered warning for a lighter one - and the Torah said, he pays money!

3. Objection #1 (Rav Ashi): Perhaps warning for a severe punishment is not considered warning for a light one!
4. Objection #2 (Rav Ashi): Even if you will say it is considered warning - perhaps lashes is harsher than death!

i. (Rav): If Chananyah, Misha'el and Azaryah had been lashed, they would have bowed to the image!

5. Question (Rav Sama Brei d'Rav Asi): Don't you distinguish between a limited hitting and unlimited!
6. Objection #3 (Rav Mari): We need not say he intended to kill, and is acquitted from death - perhaps he unintentionally struck him, and is acquitted from exile!
7. This is left difficult.

(a) Answer #3 (To question at end of 31B, Reish Lakish): Our Tana is R. Meir, who says that a person can be lashed and pay for 1 sin.
(b) Question: If the Mishnah is as R. Meir, he should pay even for his daughter!
(c) Suggestion: Perhaps R. Meir says that one may be lashed and pay, but not be killed and pay.
(d) Question: But we see not this way in a Beraisa!

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir): One who steals an animal and slaughters it on Shabbos or to serve an idol, or steals and slaughters an animal sentenced to die, pays 4 or 5 times its value;
2. Chachamim say that he is exempt from this fine.

(e) Answer #1 (In the name of R. Yochanan): The case is, he appointed someone else to slaughter for him.
(f) Question: The slaughterer sins, and the thief is punished for it?!
(g) Answer: Yes!

1. Source #1 (Rava): "He slaughters or sells it - just as selling it involves another person, so slaughtering may involve another person.
2. Source #2 (Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "Or" comes to include a messenger (appointed to slaughter).
3. Source #3 (Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah): "Tachas" comes to include a messenger.

(h) Objection (Mar Zutra): Do we ever find that a person is exempt for doing something, and must pay if his messenger does it?!
(i) Answer: When he slaughters himself, he is really obligated - just he does not pay in addition to being killed.
(j) Question: If the case is, a messenger slaughtered - why do Chachamim exempt the thief?