Previous daf

1)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Chutz mi'Ger Toshav' incorporating - both a Ger Toshav who kills a Yisrael and vice-versa.

(b) This gives a Ger Toshav - the status of a Nochri (vis-a-vis the Din of Galus).

(c) The Kashya on this from the Seifa of our Mishnah - is that if a Ger Toshav is considered a Nochri in this regard, we would ecpect him to be Patur even if he were to kill a fellow Ger Toshav, yet our Mishnah rules that he is Chayav.

(d) Rav Kahana reconciles the two sections of the Mishnah - by confining the Reisha to a Ger Toshav who killed a Ger Toshav, who is Patur from Galus because Galus is not a sufficient Kaparah, and he requires Misah; but it does not include a Ger Toshav who killed a Ger Toshav, for whom Galus is a good enough Kaparah.

(a) In another version of the Kashya (which Rav Kahana will answer in the same way), the Pasuk in Mas'ei (in connection with the Arei Miklat) "li'Venei Yisrael ve'la'Ger ve'la'Toshav" appear to clash with the Pasuk there "ve'Hayu he'Arim ha'Eileh Lachem" - because "Lachem" implies that the Arei Miklat are confined to Yisre'elim, to the exclusion of Gerei Toshav.

(b) Another Beraisa states 'Lefichach Ger ve'Oved-Kochavim she'Hargu, Neheragin'. 'Lefichach' - refers to the seven Mitzvos B'nei No'ach, which the Tana has just taught that 'their warning in the Torah, constitutes their death warrant', and no further warning is necessary (because a Nochri is Chayav Misah even be'Shogeg).

(c) The comparison between Ger and Oved-Kochavim teaches us - like a Nochri, a Ger Toshav is always subject to Misah (and does not go into Galus), irrespective of whom he kills (even another Ger Toshav like himself clashing with our Mishnah, which sentences him to Galus in the latter case).

(a) To resolve the Kashya, Rav Chisda draws a distinction between an upward stroke and a downward one, by which means - that our Mishnah speaks in the case of a downward stroke, for which a Ger Toshav, like a Yisrael, goes Into Galus; whereas the Beraisa speaks in the case of an upward stroke, for which a Yissrael is Patur from Galus, and for which the Ger Toshav is therefore sentenced to death.

(b) Rava rejects Rav Chisda's answer - on the grounds that if the Ger Toshav is Patur from Misah by a downward stroke because, like by a Yisrael, Galus is good enough, then by an upward stroke, where a Yisrael is even Patur from Galus, he should certainly be Patur from Misah.

(c) Consequently, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by 'Omer Mutar'. Abaye queries this (as he did above) with - "Omer Mutar A'nus Hu"?

(d) To which Rabah replies - 'she'Ani Omer, Omer Mutar Karov le'Meizid Hu' (as he did above).

(a) And we conclude that they follow their own reasoning (as will emerge from the Sugya). Rabah rules that a Ger Toshav who kills a person thinking that he is an animal, or a fellow Ger Toshav thinking that he is a Cana'ani - is Chayav Misah.

(b) To which Rav Chisda says - Patur, because 'Omer Mutar' is considered an O'nes.

(c) Rava asks on Rav Chisda from the Pasuk (where Hashem says to Avimelech) "Hincha Meis al ha'Ishah Asher Lakachta" - which he assumes, means death at the hands of man. So we see that 'Omer Mutar' is not consideres an O'nes?

(d) Rav Chisda replied - that "Hincha Meis" means at the Hands of Hashem.

(a) Rav Chisda attempted to prove his answer from Hashem's words "me'Chato "*Li*", implying that Hashem was responsible for Avimelech's sin and not his fellow man. Rava countered this proof however - by quoting Yosef's words to the wife of Potifera "ve'Chatasi l'Elokim", which must mean (not that he would be Chayav Misah at the Hand of Hashem but) that although he would have sinned to Hashem, his punishment would be meted out by his fellow humans; and that is what it means here too.

(b) Abaye asks Rabah from Avimelech's words to Hashem "ha'Goy Gam Tzadik Taharog" - implying that Avimelech (who belonged to the category of 'Omer Mutar') was an O'nes?

(c) Rabah refutes Abaye's Kashya with a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, who does not at first understand - why Hashem told Avimelech "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish Ki Navi Hu", which implies that if Avraham had not been a Navi, Avimelech would have been permitted to retain Sarah (which is of course, ridiculous).

(d) So he explains ...

1. ... "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish" to mean - in any case, irrespective of Avraham's status.
2. ... "Ki Navi Hu" to mean - that he is a Navi, and only claimed that Sarah is his sister because he learned from your words what was in your heart (because the first question you asked Avraham was concerning Sarah [instead of asking him whether he has somewhere to stay]). Consequently, it is not he who tricked you, but you who frightened him.

(e) And Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolates from here - that a ban No'ach is Chayav Misah for not learning the laws of Derech Eretz, should this cause him to sin.

6)

(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, a blind man who kills be'Shogeg does not go into Galus; according to Rebbi Meir - he does.

(b) According to the Tana Kama, a hater does not go into Galus either. According to Rebbi Yossi - he is even Chayav Misah.

(c) Rebbi Shimon is the most lenient of all. He compromises even on the Din of Galus, making it dependent on the way he killed the man he hates. If it looks as if he killed him on purpose, he goes into Galus; if not, he is Patur.

(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa initially learn from "be'Lo Re'os" (which implies a person with eyesight) - that a blind man is not subject to Galus.

(b) He then learns from the continuation of the Pasuk "bi'Veli Da'as" - that he is subject to Galus (because of the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela le'Rabos' ['Two consecutive words that come to exclude, actually include']).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah initially includes a blind man from "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu". Consequently - when the Torah adds "be'Lo Re'os", it must be to preclude a blind man from Galus.

(d) And from "bi'Veli Da'as" he learns - 'P'rat le'Miskaven (Laharog es ha'Beheimah ve'Harag es ha'Adam... ', as we learned earlier).

(a) The problem with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who sentences a hater to death, even if he killed be'Shogeg is - that there are no witnesses.

(b) And we answer by amending the name of the author to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who states in a Beraisa - that a 'Chaver' (a Talmid-Chacham) does not require warning (because, in his opinion) the sole objective of warning is to distinguish between Shogeg and Meizid). In other words, there are witnesses, only they did not warn the hater.

(a) To explain Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah (who makes it dependent upon how the hater killed), we differentiate between a rope that snapped - in which case he is Patur (as we shall see shortly) and one that slipped - which is considered Meizid in the case of a hater.

(b) We ask a double S'tirah however, from Rebbi Shimon himself, who says that someone who kills be'Shogeg by means of allowing a trowel to fall on a person and kill him - is Chayav Galus only if the trowel slipped out of his hands.

(c) To answer the S'tirah on the two cases of the rope or the trowel slipping, we answer simply 'Ha be'Ohev, ve'Ha be'Sonei'. And we resolve the S'tirah between the two cases of snapping - a. by comparing the rope snapping to the metal flying off the handle of an ax, and b. by establishing our Mishnah like the Rabbanan of Rebbi (who sentence such a case to Galus), and the Beraisa like Rebbi (who exempts even a friend from Galus).

(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, a hater will never go into Galus if we hold like Rebbi with regard to 'Nishmat'.

(a) The basis of the mistake in our erroneous text 'Nifsak a'Nifsak Lo Kashya, Ha be'Ohev ... . Nishmat a'Nishmat Lo Kashya, Ha Rebbi, Ha Rabbanan' is - the comparison between 'Nishmat ha'Chevel' and 'Nishmat ha'Barzel' (which in fact, are incompatible).

(b) And we reject this text for two reasons. One of them, because if 'Nifsak' goes into Galus by a Sonei, then how much more so by an Ohev. The other with regard to 'Nishmat a'Nishmat Lo Kashya' is - if we establish 'Nishmat Eino Goleh' like Rebbi, then it pertains to Meizid too, and has nothing to do with the fact that even if he killed be'Shogeg, he probably did it on purpose (which is in fact, Rebbi Shimon's reason).

(a) The two groups of three Arei Miklat were situated - three in Eiver ha'Yarden and three in Eretz Cana'an (which the Tana calls by this name because that is what it was called at the time that they were commanded to set up the six towns.

(b) The three in Eiver ha'Yarden, which Moshe already designated, only came into effect - simultaneously with the three in Eretz Yisrael, fourteen years after entering Eretz Yisrael ...

(c) ... because the Torah writes in Masei "Sheish Arei Miklat Tiheyenah" (the six towns must come into effect simultaneously).

(a) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech" - that the road leading to Arei Miklat had to be cleared of any obstacles that might slow the murderer down (Tiferes Yisrael).

(b) Beis-Din would allot two Talmidei-Chachamim to accompany the Rotze'ach to the Ir Miklat - to convince the Go'el ha'Dam (the next of kin to the victim) not to kill him, should he catch up with them.

(c) According to Rebbi Meir - based on the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Rotze'ach", the murderer had to speak for himself.

(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah maintains that initially every murderer (even a Meizid) had to run to an Ir Miklat. The procedure would then be - for the Beis-Din to judge him, and depending on his intentions, he would either be sentenced to death (if he was declared a Meidiz), set free (if he was either O'nes or Karov le'Meizid) and made to flee to the Ir Miklat (a second time, should he be declared a Shogeg).

(a) The Beraisa compares the two groups of Arei Miklat (one in Eiver ha'Yarden, the other, in Eretz Yisrael) - to two rows of a vineyard.

(b) Chevron, Sh'chem and Kedesh (the three Arei Miklat running from south to north in Eretz Yisrael), belonged to Yehudah, (Har) Efrayim and Naftali, respectively.

(c) Regarding the three corresponding towns in Eiver ha'Yarden, Betzer was in the desert, Ramot in Gilad and Golan - in Bashan.

(d) The Beraisa explains the word "ve'Shilashta" to mean - that the distance between the northern and southern borders and the first town was equal to the distance between the first town and the second.

(a) Abaye attributes the fact that Eiver ha'Yarden, where only two and a half tribes lived, required as many Arei Miklat as Eretz Yisrael - to the fact that there were a lot of murderers in Gilad (the center of Eiver ha'Yarden [see Tosfos DH 'be'Gilad', Hagahos ha'Bach and Mesores ha'Shas).

(b) This is based on the Pasuk in Hoshe'a "Gilad Kiryas Po'alei Aven Akuvah mi'Dam". Rebbi Elazar interprets "Akuvah mi'Dam" to mean - that they actually used to wait in ambush for passers-by, whom they would then murder, presumably for their money.

(c) Once again, Abaye attributes the fact that the distance between the extreme north and south of Eretz Yisrael to Kedesh and Chevron, respectively, was twice as far as the distance between them and the middle town (Sh'chem) - to the fact that in Sh'chem (like in Gilad) there were many murderers.

(d) In the relevant Pasuk in Hoshe'a, the Navi inserts the words "Chever Kohanim" - to describe the actions of the murderers in Sh'chem, who would band together to murder, like Kohanim would band together at the granaries to collect Terumah.