Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THOSE WHO TRANSGRESS A "LAV"

(a) (Beraisa): If one did Avodah when he was an Arel, Onen or sitting, he transgressed a Lav, he is not Chayav Misah,
(b) Question: What is the source for an Arel?
(c) Answer (Rav Chisda): We have no source from the Chumash, Yechezkeil wrote a verse alluding to it.

1. "Kol Ben Nechar Erel Lev v'Erel Basar Lo Yavo El Mikdashi" - (a Rasha or Arel may not enter the Mikdash).

(d) Question: What is the source for an Onen?
(e) Answer: "U'Min ha'Mikdash Lo Yetzei (a Kohen Gadol who became an Onen) v'Lo Yechalel Es Mikdash Elokav" - this implies that if a regular Kohen became an Onen he is Mechalel Avodah (this is forbidden by "V'Lo Yechalel").
(f) Question (Rav Ada): Why don't we learn a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah?
(g) Answer (Rava): Our verse discusses a Kohen Gadol, we *infer* the law of a regular Kohen, something learned from inference we do not learn (more laws about it) from a Gezerah Shavah.
(h) Question: What is the source for one who sits?
(i) Answer (Rava): "Bo Bachar Hash-m...La'amod Leshares" - Kohanim were chosen to serve standing, not sitting.
(j) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If a Ba'al Mum did Avodah he is Chayav Misah; Chachamim say, he only transgresses a Lav.
(k) Question: What is Rebbi's reason?
(l) Answer #1: It says "Ach El ha'Paroches Lo Yavo (...v'Lo Yechalel)"

1. He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chilul-Chilul" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah.
2. Question: Why not learn "Chilul-Chilul" from Nosar, which is Chayavei Kerisus?
3. Answer: It is more reasonable to learn from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, for there also the prohibition is on account of the person.

(m) Objection: Rather, he should learn from Nosar, for this resembles a Ba'al Mum who did Avodah in the following ways:

1. They pertain to Kodesh, they apply inside the Mikdash, Pigul applies to them, Nosar applies to them.

(n) Answer #2: Rather, he learns "Chilul-Chilul" from Avodah b'Tum'ah, the prohibition is on account of the person (like Avodah of a Ba'al Mum), and it also has the similarities of Nosar.
(o) Chachamim expound "(U'Mesu) *Bo* (a Tamei who eats Terumah)" - but there is no Misah for Avodah of a Ba'al Mum.
(p) (Beraisa - Rebbi): If someone intentionally transgresses Me'ilah he is Chayav Misah; Chachamim say, he only transgresses a Lav.
(q) Question: What is Rebbi's reason?
(r) Answer (R. Avahu): He learns a Gezerah Shavah "Chet-Chet" from a Tamei person who ate Terumah, who is Chayav Misah.
(s) Chachamim expound "(U'Mesu) *Bo*" - but there is no Misah for Me'ilah.

(a) (Beraisa): A Zar that did Avodah in the Mikdash...
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): It says "Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", it also says (regarding Korach's congregation) "Kol ha'Karev...Yamus";

1. Just as the latter died bi'Dei Shamayim, so is the punishment for a Zar that does Avodah.

(c) R. Akiva says, it says "Veha'Zar ha'Karev Yumas", it also says (regarding a false prophet) "Veha'Navi...Yumas";

1. Just as the latter is stoned, also a Zar that does Avodah.

(d) R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, just as a false prophet is choked, also a Zar that does Avodah.
(e) Question: What do R. Yishmael and R. Akiva argue about?
(f) Answer: R. Akiva holds that it is better to learn "Yumas" from "Yumas", not from "Yamus";

1. R. Yishmael holds that it is better to learn laws of a commoner from a commoner, not from a (false) prophet.
2. R. Akiva says, a prophet who entices to idolatry is the ultimate commoner!

(g) Question: What do R. Akiva and R. Yochanan ben Nuri argue about?
(h) Answer: They argue as R. Shimon and Chachamim do:

1. (Beraisa): If a prophet enticed to idolatry he is stoned;
2. R. Shimon says, he is choked.

(i) Question (Mishnah - R. Akiva): He is choked (but here, R. Akiva says that he is stoned!)
(j) Answer: Tana'im argue about the opinion of R. Akiva - our Mishnah is like R. Shimon, he says that R. Akiva (holds like himself) that he is choked;

1. The Beraisa is Chachamim, they say that R. Akiva (holds like themselves) that he is stoned.

3) THOSE WHO ARE PUNISHED WITH "CHENEK"

(a) (Mishnah): The following are choked:

1. One who wounds his father or mother;
2. One who kidnaps a Yisrael;
3. A Zaken Mamrei that rebels against Beis Din;
4. A false prophet, or one who prophesizes in the name of idolatry;
5. One who has relations with a married woman;
6. Edim Zomemim who convicted a Bas Kohen for adultery, or one who committed adultery with her (even though her Misah is burning).

(b) (Gemara) Question: What is the source for one who wounds his father or mother?
(c) Answer: "U'Make Aviv v'Imo Mos Yumas" - any unspecified Misah is choking.
(d) Question: Perhaps that refers to killing a parent!
(e) Answer #1: That is unreasonable - one is beheaded for killing a stranger, we cannot say that one is choked for killing a parent!
(f) Question: That is according to Chachamim, who say that beheading is more severe - according to R. Shimon, choking is more severe, how can we answer?
(g) Answer #2: It says "Make Ish va'Mes Mos Yumas", and "O v'Eivah Hikahu v'Yado va'Yamos" - since the Torah had to specify that he died, this shows that normally, 'Haka'ah' is not a death blow.
(h) The Torah must teach "Make Ish..." , and "Kol Make Nefesh":

1. If it only taught "Make Ish", one might have thought that one is liable only for (killing) a man, who is obligated in the Mitzvos, not for a minor - therefore, it says "Kol Make Nefesh".
2. If it only taught "Kol Make Nefesh", one might have thought that one is liable even for a Nefel, or a baby born after eight months (it is stillborn) - therefore, it says "Make Ish".

(i) Question: We should say that one is liable even if he did not make a wound (i.e. bleeding) - but this is wrong!

1. (Mishnah): One who hits his father or mother is not liable unless he made a wound.

(j) Answer: "Make Adam...Make Vehemah" - just as one is not liable (to pay) for hitting an animal unless he made a wound, for it says 'Nefesh' (which is in the blood), one is not liable (Misah) for hitting a person (parent).
(k) Rejection (R. Yirmeyah): If so, if one weakens an animal (by overloading it) with rocks, he should be exempt!
(l) Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): Since 'Nefesh' does not teach that one is liable for hitting an animal only if he wounds it, for one is liable for weakening it with rocks, we use it to teach about hitting a person (parent).
(m) Question: What do we learn from the Hekesh equating hitting people and animals?
(n) Answer #1: We learn Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah's law (that one who was Shogeg in Chayavei Misos does not pay).
(o) Question: What do the other opinions (that argue with Tana d'Vei Chizkiyah) learn from the Hekesh?
(p) Answer #2: Just as one who wounds an animal for the sake of curing it is exempt, also regarding people.

(a) Question: May a son let blood from his father?
(b) Answer #1 (Rav Masnah): "V'Ahavta l'Re'acha Kamocha" (since the father wants, it is permitted).
(c) Answer #2 (Rav Dimi bar Chinena): It says "Make Adam...Make Vehemah" - just as one who wounds an animal for the sake of curing it is exempt, also regarding people.
(d) Rav would not allow his son to remove a thorn from him (lest he draw blood).
(e) Mar brei d'Ravina would not let his son to open a blister to extract the puss, lest he draw blood (b'Shogeg), which is forbidden.
(f) Question: If so, he should not allow anyone to do so!
(g) Answer: Anyone else would transgress a Lav b'Shogeg; his son would be Shogeg in a Lav of Misah.
(h) Question (Mishnah): A small needle may be moved on Shabbos in order to remove a thorn.

1. If one draws blood, he was Shogeg in a Lav punished by stoning!

(i) Answer #1: There he is Mekalkel (destructive), which is exempt.
(j) Question: This is according to the opinion that Mekalkel is exempt (even if done intentionally);

1. According to the opinion that it is liable, how can we answer?

(k) Answer: R. Shimon holds that it is liable - he holds that one is exempt for a Melachah she'Einah Tzericha l'Gufah (a Melachah which was done for a reason unrelated to the purpose of the Melachah).