Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) WHICH PLACES ARE "KOLET"

(a) (Mishnah): If he was sentenced...
(b) (Rav Yehudah): "Va'Yanas Yo'av...va'Yachazek b'Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" - Yo'av made two mistakes:

1. He grabbed the corners of the Mizbe'ach, but the Mizbe'ach is only Kolet someone standing on top;
2. Only the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash is Kolet, he grabbed a Bamah that David had made in front of the Aron (Rashi's text).

(c) (Abaye): He made a third mistake - the Mizbe'ach is only Kolet a Kohen engaging in Avodah, but Yo'av was a Zar.
(d) (Reish Lakish): The Sar (overseeing angel) of Romi will make three mistakes in the future - "Mi Zeh Ba mi'Edom...mi'Batzrah"

1. The Ir Miklat is Betzer, he went to Batzrah;
2. Klitah is only for Shogeg, he was Mezid;
3. Klitah is only for people, he is an angel.

(e) (R. Avahu): We do not bury Leviyim in the Arei Miklat - "U'Migresheihem...ul'Chol Chayasam", they are for life, not for burial.
(f) Question (Mishnah): "Shamah" - he will live, die and be buried there.
(g) Answer: Burial of murderers is different, the Torah explicitly commanded about it.
(h) (Mishnah): Just as the city is Kolet, also its Techum.
(i) Contradiction (Beraisa): "V'Yashav Bah" - not in the Techum.
(j) Answer (Abaye): The Techum is Kolet, but he may not dwell there.
(k) Question: No one may live there!

1. We may not convert a Migrash (1000 Amos surrounding a city in each direction) into a field or city, or vice-versa!

(l) Answer (Rav Sheshes): There is no general prohibition to dwell in the outskirts under the ground - "Va'Yashav Bah" forbids this to a murderer.

(a) (Mishnah): If a murderer left the Techum...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'Ratzach Go'el ha'Dam Es ha'Rotze'ach" - (If a murderer left the Techum), it is a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him; if there is no Go'el ha'Dam, anyone else is permitted;
(c) R. Akiva says, the Go'el ha'Dam is permitted to kill him, anyone else is (Gra's - not) liable if he kills him.
(d) Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's reason?
(e) Answer: It does not say 'Im' (if), it says "V'Ratzach" (imperative, he will kill)!

1. R. Akiva says, had it said 'Yirtzach', this would clearly be imperative, but 'v'Ratzach' can be Reshus! (Ritva - R. Akiva agrees that this tense usually denotes the imperative, but we do not expound to kill unless it is explicit).

(f) (Rav Zutra bar Tuvya): If the Go'el ha'Dam found and killed the murderer outside the Ir Miklat (R. Chananel - before Beis Din ruled that he goes to Galus), he is killed.
(g) Question: This is not like either Tana!
(h) Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer.

1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: What do we learn from "Ad Amdo Lifne ha'Edah la'Mishpat"?
2. Answer: One might have thought "V'Ratzach Go'el ha'Dam Es ha'Rotze'ach", he should kill him immediately - "Ad Amdo..." teaches, only after he is warned not to leave (Ritva; R. Chananel - until Beis Din sentences him to Galus).

(i) Question: How do R. Akiva and R. Yosi expound "Ad Amdo..."?
(j) Answer (Beraisa - R. Akiva): If the Sanhedrin witnessed a murder, they do not kill him, he is tried in a different Beis Din - "Ad Amdo Lifne ha'Edah la'Mishpat".
(k) (Beraisa #1) Suggestion: "Im Yatzo Yezte ha'Rotze'ach" (he may be killed) - perhaps this is only if he left his city b'Mezid!

1. Rejection: "Im Yatzo Yezte" - the verb is doubled to teach, even b'Shogeg.

(l) Version #1 - Rambam's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): (If he left b'Shogeg), if someone (the Go'el ha'Dam or anyone else) kills him b'Mezid is killed, b'Shogeg he goes to Galus.
(m) Version #2 - Ritva's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If he left b'Mezid he is killed, if he left b'Shogeg he returns to Galus. (End of Version #2)
(n) Resolution: The Tana of Beraisa #2 holds that the Torah speaks as people do (they sometimes double the verb, therefore, we need not expound this), the first Tana does not.
(o) (Abaye): It is more reasonable to learn like Beraisa #2, his liability for leaving the city should not be more stringent than for killing:

1. One who kills b'Mezid is killed, but b'Shogeg he only goes to Galus - it suffices to make him just as liable for leaving the city!

(p) (Beraisa #1): If a father killed (his son), his son becomes the Go'el ha'Dam.
(q) Contradiction: (Beraisa #2): If a father killed (his son), his son does not become Go'el ha'Dam.
(r) Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi ha'Galili (since it is a Mitzvah to kill, even a son can do this), Beraisa #2 is like R. Akiva (since it is only Reshus).
(s) Rejection: Even if it is a Mitzvah, it is forbidden for a son to kill his father!

1. (Rabah bar Rav Huna, also Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): A son may not be appointed to lash or curse his father, unless his father was a Mesis, regarding which it says "V'Lo Sachmol v'Lo Sechaseh Alav".

(t) Answer: Beraisa #1 means, the son of the son that was killed becomes Go'el ha'Dam; Beraisa #2 says that another son of the father does not become Go'el ha'Dam.

(a) (Mishnah): If a tree is within the Techum and the foliage is outside, or vice-versa, the entire tree has the law of the foliage (if the murderer is on the trunk, it is as if he is on the foliage).
(b) (Gemara - Mishnah #1) Contradiction: (Regarding Ma'aser Sheni) if a tree is within Yerushalayim and the foliage is outside, or vice-versa, any place on the tree is judged like the ground below (e.g. if it is inside the city wall, Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten there but not redeemed).
(c) Answer: You cannot ask from Ma'aser to Arei Miklat - Ma'aser depends on being within the wall, Arei Miklat depends on dwelling;

1. One can dwell in the foliage, not on the trunk.

(d) There is a contradiction regarding Ma'aser itself!

1. (Mishnah #2): Regarding (eating or redeeming Ma'aser in) Yerushalayim, we adopt the law of the foliage; regarding Arei Miklat, we adopt the law of the foliage.

(e) Answer (Rav Kahana): Mishnah #1 is like Chachamim, Mishnah #2 is like R. Yehudah.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (Regarding Ma'aser), if a cave is partly in Yerushalayim, the entire cave has the law of the opening; regarding a tree, we adopt the law of the foliage.

(f) Question: Perhaps R. Yehudah only goes after the foliage to be stringent, to forbid redeeming (on the trunk) if the foliage is inside Yerushalayim, and to forbid eating if the foliage is outside;

1. Also, if the trunk is outside an Ir Miklat and the foliage is inside, he would be stringent to forbid killing the murderer on the trunk;
2. But if the trunk is inside and the foliage is outside, would he say, since one could kill the murderer if he was on the foliage, he may kill him if he is on the trunk in the Ir Miklat?!

(g) Answer (Rava): All agree that he may kill him on the trunk (in the Ir Miklat);

1. If he is on the foliage, all agree that he may kill him by shooting arrows or throwing rocks;
2. They argue whether or not he may climb up the trunk in order to get to the murderer to kill him.