Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) KO'ACH OF KO'ACH

(a) (Rav Papa): If Reuven threw a clump of earth at a date tree, it detached dates and they fell and killed someone, Rebbi is Mechayev Galus, Chachamim exempt.
(b) Objection: This is obvious!
(c) Answer: One might have thought, this is like Ko'ach (impetus) of his Ko'ach (since he was not touching the earth when it detached the dates), Rebbi would agree that he is exempt.
(d) Question: What is a case of Ko'ach of his Ko'ach that Rebbi would agree is exempt?
(e) Answer: He threw a clump of earth, it detached a branch, which fell and hit a cluster of dates and uprooted them, and they killed.

(a) (Mishnah): If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim and it killed, he goes to Galus;
(b) R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven's hand, Reuven is exempt.
(c) If Reuven threw a rock in his property and it killed, he goes to Galus only if the victim had permission to enter.

1. "Va'Asher Yavo Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - Galus only applies when the killer and victim both were allowed to be there, like in a forest;

i. This excludes the killer's property, where the victim is forbidden to enter.

2. Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus (optional, not a Mitzvah) - Galus only applies to Reshus, not to a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din (to lash).

(d) (Gemara) Question: If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is (close to) Mezid, he does not go to Galus!
(e) Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is, Reuven destroyed his wall.
(f) Question: Still (he is close to Mezid), he should have looked if anyone is around!
(g) Answer: He destroyed it at night.
(h) Question: Still, he should have looked!
(i) Answer: He destroyed it into a waste area.
(j) Question: What is the case?

1. If people often relieve themselves there, he is close to Mezid!
2. If people normally do not relieve themselves there, he is close to Ones!

(k) Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, people often relieve themselves there at night, they do not *often* do so by day, but occasionally they do, therefore he is neither Mezid nor Ones.
(l) (Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): (If the victim stuck out his head...)
(m) (Beraisa): "U'Matza" - this excludes the case when the victim brought himself to be damaged;

1. R. Eliezer ben Yakov learns from here that if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven's hand, Reuven is exempt.

(n) Question: This implies that 'Matza' connotes finding something there from the beginning;

1. Contradiction (Beraisa): "U'Matza" (he will acquire money to redeem his field) - this forbids selling a far-away or bad field (i.e. that he is not so eager to keep) in order to redeem (against the will of the buyer) a close or good field.

(o) Answer (Rava): We learn from the context of the verses:

1. There, "U'Matza" resembles "V'Hisigah Yado" (surely, he did not have money when he sold, he only acquired it now);
2. Here, "U'Matza" resembles the forest, it was there from the beginning.

(a) (Mishnah): ...(Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus...)
(b) Version #1 - Question: What is the source that the verse discusses cutting of Reshus? Perhaps he cuts for the sake of a Sukah, or to be burned on the Mizbe'ach (a Mitzvah), and even so, if he kills, he goes to Galus!
(c) Answer #1 (Rava): Those examples are (only Hechsher (preparation for) Mitzvos,) not (actual) Mitzvos;

1. If he had wood already, there would be no Mitzvah to cut more - therefore, even if he lacks wood, cutting is not a Mitzvah.
2. Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

i. We do not say, since if the son would be learning properly, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, even if he is not learning properly, there is no Mitzvah to hit him!

3. Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit him - "Yaser Bincha Vi'Nichecha".

(d) Answer #2 (Rava): A better proof is from the verse "Va'Asher Yavo (*if* he will come) Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - this does not discuss a Mitzvah, for then he must enter!
(e) Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Does 'Asher' always refers to Reshus?!

1. "V'Ish Asher Yitma" - is it always optional to become Tamei?! One must become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah (an unattended corpse)!

(f) Answer (Rava): There is different, it says "Tamei Yihyeh" - in any case (i.e. sometimes he must become Tamei).

(g) Question: We need that verse for a different law!

1. (Beraisa): "Tamei Yihyeh" - this includes a Tevul Yom; "Od Tum'aso Bo" - this includes a Mechushar Kipurim (if either of them enters the Mikdash, he is Chayav Kares).

(h) Answer (Rava): I learn from "Od" (this is extra, to teach that sometimes he must become Tamei).
(i) Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Akiva): "Be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos" - we already know that plowing and reaping in Shemitah are forbidden - "Sadcha Lo Sizra v'Charmecha Lo Sizmor"

1. Rather, this comes to forbid plowing in Erev Shemitah so the land will be better in Shemitah, and to give Kedushas Shemitah to produce reaped in Motzei Shemitah which was a third grown in Shemitah.
2. R. Yishmael says, (the verse forbids plowing and reaping on Shabbos -) just as plowing is Reshus, also reaping - this excludes reaping the Omer, which is a Mitzvah, it is permitted on Shabbos.

(j) Question: What is the source that the verse discusses plowing of Reshus? Perhaps he plows for the sake of the Omer (a Mitzvah), and even so, it is forbidden on Shabbos!
(k) Answer #1 (Rava): If he already had a plowed field, there would be no Mitzvah to plow another for the sake of the Omer - this shows that plowing is not a Mitzvah!

1. Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

i. We do not say, since if the son would be learning, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, there is never a Mitzvah to hit him!

2. Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit him - "Yaser Bincha..."

(l) Answer #2 (Rava): A better answer is that the comparison between plowing and reaping is as follows: Just as with plowing, if one already had a plowed field he would never have a Mitzvah to plow another, so too, the Torah is referring to the type of reaping that if one already had reaped his field, he would not have a Mitzvah to reap another. This excludes the reaping of the Omer, which is permitted on Shabbos.

(a) (Mishnah): A father can get Galus for killing his son, a son can get Galus for killing his father.
(b) Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael, a Yisrael can get Galus for killing anyone, except for a Ger Toshav (a Ben No'ach who accepted to keep his Mitzvos);

1. A Ger Toshav can (not - Gra deletes this) get Galus for killing a Ger Toshav.

(c) (Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says that a father can get Galus for killing his son - but we said that it is always a Mitzvah for him to hit him!
(d) Answer: (It is always a Mitzvah when he teaches him Torah -) the case is, he was teaching him carpentry when he killed him.
(e) Question: It is also a Mitzvah to teach one's son a trade!
(f) Answer: The case is, the son already knew a trade.
(g) (Mishnah): A son can get Galus for killing his father.
(h) Contradiction (Beraisa): "Makeh Nefesh" - this excludes one who strikes his father.
(i) Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): The Beraisa is like R. Shimon, the Mishnah is like Chachamim.

1. R. Shimon says that choking is more stringent than beheading - Galus is an atonement for killing b'Shogeg (anyone but a parent), for this is punishable by beheading (if done b'Mezid);

i. It does not atone for killing a parent, which is more stringent (even wounding a parent is punishable by choking)!

2. Chachamim say that choking is less stringent than beheading - killing a parent is also punished by beheading, Galus atones for it.

(j) Answer #2 (Rava): The Beraisa teaches that one who wounds a parent does not go to Galus;

1. One might have thought, since one is killed for doing it b'Mezid, he goes to Galus for Shogeg - the Beraisa teaches, this is not so.

(k) (Mishnah): Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael...
(l) Question: What does this come to include?
(m) Answer: It includes a slave and Nochri.
(n) A Beraisa explicitly teaches what the Mishnah alludes to.

1. (Beraisa): A slave or Nochri goes to Galus/is lashed on account of (what he did to) a Yisrael, a Yisrael goes to Galus/is lashed on account of a slave or Nochri.
2. Question: We understand, a slave or Nochri goes to Galus for killing a Yisrael, he is lashed for cursing him, and a Yisrael goes to Galus for killing a slave or Nochri - but how is a Yisrael lashed on account of a slave or Nochri?

i. There is no Lav against cursing him - "V'Nasi b'Amcha Lo Sa'or"!

3. Answer #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, he testified about him and was Huzam.
4. Rejection: Surely, he is lashed for the same reason as the slave or Nochri - but they cannot testify!
5. Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, he hit him, the monetary compensation for the wound would have been less than a Perutah;

i. (R. Ami): If Reuven wounded Shimon and the compensation would be is less than a Perutah , he is lashed instead;
ii. We do not equate wounding to cursing (to say that it only applies to Amcha).