ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 21
MAKOS 21-24 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Shmuel rules that someone who makes Sirut with his hand - is Chayav.
(b) The Beraisa states - that Seritah and Gedidah are basically the same,
only Seritah is done using the hand, whereas Gedidah requires an implement.
(c) To explain Shmuel in light of the Beraisa, which implies that if one
warned a person not to make Sirut with an implement (see Aruch la'Ner) he
will be Patur - we establish him like Rebbi Yossi in the previous Beraisa
(who holds that the two incorporate both with the hand and using an
(a) Rebbi Yochanan objected to the Beraisa that a Beraisa expert cited to
him 'al Meis, Bein be'Yad Bein bi'Keli, Chayav; al Avodah-Zarah be'Yad
Chayav, bi'Keli Patur', on the grounds - that if anything, the reverse
should be the case, since the Pasuk in Melachim specifically writes
"Vayisgodedu ke'Mishpatam be'Charavos u'vi'Remachim'.
(b) So he amended the Beraisa to read - 'al Avodah-Zarah be'Yad Patur,
(c) The ramifications of this Halachah are - that, whereas someone who cuts
himself with his hand is only Chayav by the Avodah-Zarah that is worshipped
in that way, if he uses an implement, he is Chayav by all Avodah-Zarahs.
(a) To explain our Mishnah ...
1. ... 've'Chayav al ha'Rosh', Rav Sheishes demonstrated - the joints beside
the ears that divide between the head and the lower-face.
(b) The reason of Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah, who says that one only
receives one set of Malkos for shaving the two Pe'os is - because, in his
opinion, the two Pe'os constitute one La'av.
2. ... 've'Al ha'Zakan Shetayim mi'Ka'an ... ' - he demonstrated the five
joints of the jaw, as we explained earlier.
(c) Based on the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Pe'as" "Pe'as", the Beraisa learns from
the Pasuk ...
1. ... "*u'Pe'as* Zakanam Lo *Yegalechu*" - that one is Patur for shaving
one's beard using tweezers or a plane (which do not constitute shaving).
(d) Rebbi Eliezer includes shaving with tweezers or with a plane in the
La'av, but not using scissors - because, although he holds of the
'Gezeirah-Shavah', he considers the use tweezers and a plane as shaving.
2. ... Kedoshim "ve'Lo *Sashchis* es *Pe'as* - that one is Patur for shaving
with a pair of scissors (and the likes), which do not destroy the beard.
(a) The La'av of Kesoves Ka'aka comprises - first writing on one's skin and
then cutting into the writing.
(b) It make no difference what sort of dye one uses to fill the cut -
provided it leaves a mark.
(c) Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah qualifies the La'av still further - by
requiring (based on the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ani Hashem") a name to be
(d) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava thought that Rebbi Shimon requires the words "Ani
Hashem" to be written, until Rav Ashi told him - that he means the name of
an Avodah-Zarah (because "Ani Hashem" comes to teach us the inference 'Ani
Hu ve'Lo Acher').
(a) Rav Malkiya Amar Rav Ada forbids a person to place ashes on one's
wound - because it resembles Kesoves Ka'aka.
(b) According to Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika, the author of 'Sh'fod',
'Shefachos' and 'Gumos' is Rav Malkiyo; of 'Beluris', 'Eifer Makleh' (our
case) and 'Gevinah', Rav Malkiya. According to Rav Papa, whichever case
deals with a Mishnah or Beraisa, is Rav Malkiya, whatever is just a plain
Machlokes Amora'im, is Rav Malkiyo. The Si'man to remember this by) 'Masnita
Malkesa' (which literally means that the Mishnah or the Beraisa is a queen),
reminds us that the word 'Masnita' ends with an 'a', just like 'Malkiya').
(c) They are arguing over Shefachos, which is a Mishnah. Consequently,
according to Rav Papa, it must be Rav *Malkiya* who said it (and not Rav
*Malkiyo*, as Rav Chinena Brei de'Rav Ika maintains)
(d) Rav Bibi bar Abaye was careful not to transgress the La'av of Kesoves
Ka'aka when bloodletting. Ccording to Rav Ashi however - wherever there is a
wound, it is permitted, since the wound indicates his true motives (leaving
no room for suspicion).
(a) We already discussed the Mishnah's rulings regarding a Nazir who drinks
wine after being warned not to. The Tana rules that a Kohen who renders
himself Tamei Meis ...
1. ... all day following one warning - receives one set of Malkos.
(b) He also rules someone who ...
2. ... after being warned, and then, when he is warned again, he does so
again - receives one set of Malkos for each warning.
1. ... spends all day shaving off his Pe'os or wearing Kil'ayim
(Sha'atnez) - receives one set of Malkos.
2. ... following a warning, shaves one Pe'ah or wears Kil'ayim, and then,
when he is warned a second time, he shaves of the other Pe'ah or
transgresses the La'av of Sha'atnez again - receives one set of Malkos for
(a) Our Mishnah presents a case where someone receives eight Malkos for
plowing one furrow. The first Isur is that of plowing with an ox and a
donkey. The Tana does not then add Malkiyos by referring to a number of oxen
and donkeys - because he is looking for the maximum number of *different*
La'avin that a person will transgress.
(b) When the Tana adds 've'Hein Mukdashin', regarding ...
1. ... the ox, he means - the La'av of "Lo Sa'avod bi'Vechor Shorecha" (not
to work with a Bechor, incorporating all Kodshei Mizbe'ach).
(c) The fourth, fifth and sixth La'avin are Kil'ayim be'Kerem, Shevi'is and
Yom-tov. The last two La'avin referred to by the Tana Kama - are a Kohen and
a Nazir in a graveyard.
2. ... the donkey - he means 'Heizid bi'Me'ilah' (deriving benefit from
Kodshei Bedek ha'Bayis).
(a) The Rabbanan refute the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai, who adds
that the sinner is also wearing Kil'ayim - on the grounds that this has
nothing to do with plowing.
(b) And Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai counters their argument - by pointing
out that a Kohen and a Nazir in a graveyard does not constitute plowing
(c) Rav Bibi Amar Rebbi Yossi qualifies the Halachah in our Mishnah
(concerning Kil'ayim) 'Poshet ve'Lovesh, Chayav al Kol Achas ve'Achas' - by
confining it to taking off the sleeve and putting it on again.
(d) According to Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika, he actually has to remove the
sleeve and put it on again. Rav Ashi however, maintains - that one
transgresses the second La'av even by just waiting (after the warning) the
amount of time it would take to remove the sleeve and put it on again, even
he did not actually do it.
(a) Rebbi Yanai said 'ha'Chofeh (or 'ha'Mechapeh') be'Kil'ayim (which means
that in the course of plowing, one covers over Kil'ayim) - Lokeh' (because
(b) He said this - 'ba'Chaburah', on a day when the Chachamim all gathered
together for a meeting or for some other purpose.
(c) When Rebbi Yochanan asked whether that is not what our Mishnah means
when it says 'ha'Choresh ... u'va'Shevi'is'. Rebbi Yanai replied - that if
he had not taught them the Halachah, they would probably have connected the
Chiyuv to 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (working in the field and not destroying the
Kil'ayim which is there [and not because of 'Zore'a']).
(a) Resh Lakish was not impressed with Rebbi Yanai's praise of Rebbi
Yochanan - because in his opinion, 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' of our Mishnah is
indeed Chayav because of 'Mekayem Kil'ayim', like the opinion of Rebbi Akiva
(as we shall now see).
(b) The Beraisa says 'ha'Menachesh (someone who weeds) ve'ha'Mechapeh
be'Kil'ayim, Lokeh'. The basis for Mechapeh is - 'Mekayem Kil'ayim' (like
Rebbi Akiva) ...
(c) ... who actually concludes 'Af ha'Mekayem'. The Chachamim who argue
with him - exempt 'ha'Mechapeh be'Kil'ayim' from Malkos (though they agree
that 'Menachesh' is Chayav because of 'Zore'a').
(d) Based on the Pasuk "Behemt'cha Lo Sarbi'a Kil'ayim, Sadcha Lo Sizra
Kil'ayim", Rebbi Akiva's source is - the juxtaposition of "Sadcha" to
"Kil'ayim" (since that Torah should otherwise have written "Behemt'cha
Kil'ayim Lo Sarbi'a ... "), from which he Darshens 'Kil'ayim Sadcho Lo' ('No
Kil'ayim in your field').
(a) Ula asked Rav Nachman why the Tana omitted 'Zore'a' on Yom-Tov. For his
Kashya to be relevant, he must explain 'ha'Chofeh be'Kil'ayim' (in light of
the previous Sugya) - as 'Zore'a' (like Rebbi Yanai), and not as 'Mekayem'
(like Resh Lakish).
(b) Ula rejected Rav Nachman's answer that the Tana omitted it because of
the principle 'Tana ve'Shiyer' (the Tana learns some things, and omits
others) - because the Beraisa specifically mentions the number eight.
(c) Rabah therefore ascribed the omission to the fact - that even though
there is Chiluk Melachos on Shabbos (one is Chayav a Chatas for each
Melachah that one transgresses in one He'elam), there is no Chiluk Melachos
on Yom-Tov (incorporating the fact that if one act incorporates a number of
Melachos, one will only receive one Malkos).
(d) The source for Rabah's distinction is - either because when the Torah
mentions "Hav'arah" to teach us 'Chiluk Melachos', it is referring
specifically to Shabbos and not to Yom-Tov; or, if we learn Chiluk Melachos
from "me'Achas me'Heinah", that Pasuk pertains specifically to Chayvei
K'risus (like Shabbos) and not to Chayvei La'avin (like Yom-Tov).
(e) When, following Rabah's explanation, Ula said 'Ada Tehei', he meant -
that it was a good S'vara.
(a) The Beraisa prescribes - five sets of Malkos for someone who cooks a Gid
ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom-Tov and then eats it.
(b) He is Chayav for eating Gid ha'Nasheh and for cooking unnecessarily on
Yom-Tov - for cooking and eating meat and milk and for lighting a fire
(which is an independent Melachah from cooking).
(c) Abaye asks on Rabah from this Beraisa - which prescribes two sets of
Malkos for one act on Yom-Tov (and which therefore holds 'Yesh Chiluk
(d) To answer Abaye's Kashya, we initially establish the Beraisa by the Gid
ha'Nasheh of a Neveilah, and switch the fifth Malkos from 'Hav'arah' to
'Neveilah'. We reject this answer however, based on Rebbi Chiya, quoting
another Beraisa - who gives the composition of the Beraisa under discussion
as three Malkos for cooking and two for eating (thereby clashing with it).
(a) So we change the switch from the La'av of Neveilah to that of the wood
of an Asheirah (an idol-tree) - based on the Pasuk in Re'ei "ve'Yidbak
be'Yadcha Me'umah min ha'Cherem".
(b) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rava asks on this from the Pasuk there "ve'Lo Savi
So'eivah el Beisecha", which goes hand in hand with "ve'Lo Yidbak
be'Yadcha", in which case, the Tana ought to have prescribes six Malkos, and
not just five.
(c) So we finally establish the fifth set of Malkos, based on the Pasuk
"va'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Eish ... Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokecha" -
and the sinner used Hekdesh wood for the fire.