Previous daf

1)

(a) Our Mishnah states - that ...

1. ... a litigant who, after being declared guilty and running away, reappears in the same Beis-Din and asks for a retrial - is turned down (and must face the death-sentence).
2. ... in a case where two witnesses appear in Beis-Din, and testify that Reuven was sentenced to death in such and such a Beis-Din - and so-and-so were the witnesses, Reuven is put to death.
3. ... the Din of Sanhedrin (incorporating the death-sentence) - applies in Chutz la'Aretz, too.

(b) The Tana Kama refers to a Beis-Din that sentences to death once in seven years as a 'Chovlanis' ('a destructive Beis-Din'). Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - 'Achas le'Shiv'im Shanah' (which will be discussed in the Sugya).

(c) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say - that had they been in the Sanhedrin - nobody would have ever been sentenced to death.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel said - that they would have certainly caused an increase in murder in Yisrael.

(a) From the words 'Lifnei Oso Beis-Din' that the Tana uses in the opening Din in our Mishnah ('Mi she'Nigmar Dino ... '), we infer - that if he went to another Beis-Din, he would be able to demand a retrial. But ...

(b) ... did we not subsequently learn that if two witnesses testify that a man was sentenced to death in Beis-Din P'loni, that the sentence stands, and he is put to death?

(c) To answer the Kashya - Abaye (quoting Rebbi Yehudah ben Dustai in a Beraisa) establishes the latter ruling when the witnesses testify in Chutz la'Aretz that the sentence was passed in Eretz Yisrael (or in Chutz la'Aretz [see Ritva]), whereas the former ruling speaks when the defendant appears before a Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael after having been sentenced by a Beis-Din in Chutz la'Aretz ...

(d) ... where the merit of Eretz Yisrael might work to release him from the death-sentence.

(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Hayu Eileh Lachem le'Chukas Mishpat" - that the Sanhedrin (vis-a-vis the death-sentence) applies in Chutz la'Arez too.
2. ... "Shoftim ve'Shotrim Titen Lecha be'Chol She'arecha" (implying 'in Eretz Yisrael' exclusively) - that the obligation to set up a Sanhedrin in every state and in every city is confined to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) When Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says 'Achas le'Shiv'im Shanah' - he either means that a Sanhedrin which sentences to death once in seventy years is called a Chovlanis, or that it is not (unless it passes the death sentence within seventy years).

(c) The She'eilah remains unanswered.

(a) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva would have avoided the death sentence in cases of ...

1. ... murder - by asking the witnesses whether they could ascertain that the victim was not a T'reifah (in which case the murderer would be absolved), a most unlikely suggestion.
2. ... adultery - by asking them whether they could ascertain that the couple were really intimate (which is most unlikely, too).

(b) Assuming that, in the first case, they replied in the affirmative, Rav Ashi adds - that they would have asked them whether they could ascertain that really there had not been a blemish and that the sword had pierced the exact spot where the hole was.

(c) Presumably, the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva on the basis of Rov. And they would have sentenced an adulterer to death - on the basis of Shmuel, who rules that for the witnesses to see the adulterers behaving like two people committing adultery, is sufficient to send them to their deaths.

5)

(a) When our Mishnah says ...

1. ... 'Hayah Me'agel ba'Agilah' it means - that he was cementing his roof with a roller.
2. ... 'O Meshalshel ba'Chavis' - that he was lowering a barrel'.

(b) The Tana cites three cases; 'Me'agel ba'Agilah', 'Meshalshel be'Chavis' and 'Yored be'Sulam', all of which - refer to a downward movement, and which therefore render the performer Chayav Galus, should the roller, the barrel or the person fall and kill someone.

(c) If he had been drawing the roller or the barrel, or climbing up the ladder, on the other hand - he would have been Patur.

6)

(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "Vayapel Alav Vayamos" - that one is only Chayav Galus for a downward stroke ('ad she'Yipol Derech Nefilah').

(b) What is strange about the Beraisa "bi'Shegagah" (ibid.), 'P'rat le'Meizid'; "bi'Veli Da'as" (Shoftim), 'P'rat le'Miskaven' - is the fact that both rulings are obvious, seeing as they are both Chayav Misah.

(c) Rabah therefore establishes ...

1. ... the first case - when the 'murderer' thought that it was permitted to kill.
2. ... the second case - when he intended to kill an animal, a Kuti or a Nefel (for which one is not Chayav Misah).

(d) When, with regard to the first case, Abaye asked him 'I Omer Mutar, A'nus Hu', he retorted - 'she'Ani Omer ha'Omer Mutar Karov le'Meizid Hu'.

(a) When the Tana of another Beraisa says "Im be'Fesa", 'P'rat le'Keren Zavis', he means that if Shimon walks out of a Mavoy into the street, and is pierced by the dagger that Reuven is holding, the latter is Patur from Galus.

(b) "be'Lo Eivah" comes to preclude a hater from Galus. Bearing in mind that there are no witnesses that he killed be'Meizid, he is not subject to any punishment. However, he is at the mercy of the Go'el ha'Dam (the murdered man's closest relative, as will be discussed later).

(c) We learn from ...

1. ... "Hadafo" - that if Reuven inadvertently killed Shimon by pushing him with his body (e.g. into a fire), he is Chayav Galus.
2. ... "O Hishlich Alav" - that if in the process of lowering an ax, (for example) in order to swing it upwards, Reuven kills Shimon, he is Chayav Galus.

(d) And we learn from ...

1. ... "be'Lo Tzediyah" (ibid.) - that he is Patur, if he meant to throw something to the right, and by mistake, he threw it to the left.
2. ... "va'Asher Lo Tzadah" (Mishpatim) - that he is also Patur if he intended to toss something a distance of two Amos, and by mistake, it went four (or vice-versa), killing Shimon in the process.

(e) The final D'rashah in the Beraisa is from "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu *ba'Ya'ar*", from which the Tana learns - that Reuven is only Chayav Galus if he kills Shimon in a domain that permits Shimon to enter, no less than himself (to preclude a case where Shimon entered his domain without permission).

(a) Rebbi Avahu asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Din will be, in a case where Reuven is climbing a ladder, when the rung on which he places his foot falls out and kills Shimon who is standing below - whether we go after Reuven, who was climbing (and who would therefore have been Patur (if for example, he had slipped and fallen on Shimon), or whether we go after the rung, which only moved in a downward direction, and which would therefore render Reuven Chayav (this will be qualified shortly).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan replied - with the Beraisa that we just learned, which obligates a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah'.

(a) Rebbi Avahu asked Rebbi Yochanan from our Mishnah (which is a S'tam) 'Kol she'be'Derech Yeridaso, Goleh, *ve'she'Lo be'Derech Yeridaso, Eino Goleh*'. Rebbi Avahu thought - that the latter case comes to include a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' (which the Tana then considers an Aliyah, a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b) Rebbi Yochanan counters Rebbi Avahuh's Kashya - by pointing to the Reisha ('Kol she'be'Derech Yeridaso, Goleh') where the Chidush would then have to be that an 'Aliyah le'Tzorech Yeridah' is considered a Yeridah (which would be the same basic Chidush as the Seifa).

(c) The two 'Zeh ha'Kelal' therefore come to include - the two groups of cases (Derech Aliyah and Derech Yeridah) contained in the four by a butcher (which we will now explain).

(d) The Beraisa presents four cases of 'a butcher'. The case in the Beraisa which rules ...

1. ... 'Lefanav Chayav, Le'acharav Patur' - speaks when Reuven lowers the chopper in front of him in order to swing it upwards behind him.
2. ... 'Le'acharav Chayav, Lefanav Patur - where he swings it down behind him in order to chop in front of him with an upward stroke.
3. ... 'Bein Lefanav Bein Le'acharav, Chayav' - when he performs a downward stroke either in front of him or behind him.
4. ... 'Bein Lefanav Bein Le'acharav, Patur' - when he performs an upward stroke either in front of him or behind him.

(a) We cite two Beraisos, both of which discuss Reuven who is climbing a ladder, when one of the rungs falls out and kills Shimon. One rules Chayav, and the other Patur. And we suggest - that the basis of their Machlokes might be - with regard to Rebbi Yochanan's ruling (whether 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is considered a Yeridah or not).

(b) We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold that a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is considered an Aliyah (not like the previous Beraisa), only one of the Beraisos is discussing Nezikin - where the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay, irrespective of whether he delivered a downward stroke or an upward one; the other, Galus (where he is Patur for an upward one).

(c) Alternatively, both Beraisos are discussing Galus, but the Beraisa which holds 'Chayav' speaks about a rung that is wormy, and which therefore bends downwards before falling out and killing Shimon (and in fact, both Tana'im now hold that 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is Chayav, like Rebbi Yochanan (see Tosfos DH 've'I Ba'is Eima' and also Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(d) Based on the same principle as the previous answer, we establish both Beraisos when the rung was not wormy. Nevertheless, one Beraisa declares Reuven Chayav - because the rung was not firm, and therefore (like in the case of a wormy one) it bent downward when trodden on, rendering the climber Chayav.

(a) If, whilst Reuven was chopping wood, the ax flew off the handle and killed Shimon, Rebbi exempts Reuven from Galus. The Rabbanan rule - that he is Chayav.

(b) In a case where it was a piece of chopped wood that flew into the air and killed Shimon - they will reverse their rulings; Rebbi will hold 'Chayav', and the Rabbanan, 'Patur'.

(c) Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Lashon "ve'Nashal ha'Barzel min ha'Etz" (rather than 've'Nashal ha'Barzel me'Atzo') - that the Torah is not talking about a case where the ax flew off the handle that killed, but a piece of wood that was being chopped.

(d) The second source he cites for his ruling is a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Eitz" from "Li'cheros ha'Eitz", which is certainly referring to the wood that is being chopped.

(a) According to Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav, both Tana'im Learn their respective opinions from the sane source, and they argue over 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores' (Rebbi) and 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' (the Rabbanan).

1. ... Rebbi explains the Pasuk "*ve'Nashal* ha'Barzel min ha'Eitz" as if it was read 've'Nishal' (since there is no 'Alef' or 'Hey' after the 'Nun', implying that the ax caused the wood to jump up (see Ritva).
2. ... the Rabbanan explain it - exactly the way it is read, "ve'Nashal ... ", meaning that the metal flew off the handle.

(b) We reconcile this with Rav bar Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who includes Rebbi in the list of those who hold 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' - by pointing out that it is precisely because of this Kashya that the Beraisa adds the Limud of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

(a) Rav Papa connects the case of Reuven who throws a clod of earth at a date-palm detaching a cluster of dates, which in turn, falls on Shimon and kills him, with the Machlokes between Rebbi and the Rabbanan. Rebbi will hold -Chayav, whereas the Rabbanan will hold Patur (exactly like the case of 'min ha'Eitz ha'Misbake'a').

(b) In answer to the question 'P'shita'?, we reply that we would otherwise have thought that this is a case of 'Ko'ach Kocho' (since the clod of earth itself seems to case of 'Kocho' rather than 'Gufo') - in which case even Rebbi will exempt Reuven from Galus (see Tosfos DH 'Mahu de'Seima').

(c) In fact, is it not 'Ko'ach Kocho' - because the clod of earth is not considered 'Kocho', but 'Gufo'.

(d) A case of 'Ko'ach Kocho', which even Rebbi would exempt, would be - one where Reuven threw a clod of earth at a date-palm, striking a palm-branch, which then struck and detached a cluster of dates ... .