Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) CAN A SON BE A "SHALI'ACH" TO LASH OR CURSE HIS FATHER?

(a) Question: May Beis Din appoint a son to be their Shali'ach to lash or curse (excommunicate) his father?

1. Counter-question (Rav Sheshes): Why is a stranger permitted to do this?
2. Answer: You must say, honoring Shamayim (by punishing sinners) overrides the prohibitions to hit or curse a Yisrael;

(b) Answer: Likewise, it overrides the prohibitions to hit or curse a parent!
(c) Question (Beraisa): Someone whom it is a Mitzvah to hit him, one is commanded not to hit him (an extra lash) - someone whom there is no Mitzvah to hit him, all the more so one is commanded not to hit him!

1. Suggestion: In both cases, the person is Chayav lashes - it is a Mitzvah *for a stranger* to hit him, it is not a Mitzvah *for his son* to hit him. (This is the warning against hitting a parent!)

(d) Answer: No, we never distinguish (regarding lashes) between the son and a stranger;

1. The Beraisa teaches, someone whom it is a Mitzvah to hit (he is Chayav lashes), one is commanded not to hit him (an extra lash) - someone whom there is no Mitzvah to hit him (he is not Chayav lashes), all the more so one is commanded not to hit him! (This is a general warning not to hit a Yisrael.)

(e) (Beraisa): Reuven was being taken to be executed, his son hit and cursed him - he is liable;

1. If someone else hit and cursed him, he is exempt.

(f) Question: What is the difference between the son and a stranger?
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): The case is, they were insisting that Reuven go, he was refusing. (Beis Din may appoint a stranger to be their Shali'ach to hit or curse Reuven to make him go, they may not appoint his son.)
(h) Answer #2: Rav Sheshes must establish this when they were not insisting that Reuven go.

1. Question: If so, why is a stranger exempt?
2. Answer #1: Once Reuven was sentenced, he is considered dead.
3. Objection: But Rav Sheshes taught, if Levi was sleeping and Shimon embarrassed him, he is liable, even if Levi died without waking up (because his children are embarrassed - here also, the stranger should be liable on account of Reuven's children)!
4. Answer #2: The case is, the damage to Reuven was less than the value of a Perutah.

i. Question: But R. Yochanan taught, if assessment for damage is less than the value of a Perutah, the damager is lashed!
ii. Answer: The Beraisa means, he is exempt from paying (but he is lashed).
iii. Question: If so, when it says that the son is liable, it means that he pays (but we said that the damage was less than a Perutah)!
iv. Answer: The Beraisa means, his son is liable his appropriate punishment (Misah).
v. Objection: If so, a stranger is exempt from his appropriate punishment (lashes)!

5. Answer #3: Rather, a stranger is exempt because it says "V'Nasi *b'Amcha* Lo Sa'or", one who acts like someone of your nation.
6. Question: What is the source to exempt hitting one who does not act like Amcha?
7. Answer: We equate the laws of hitting and cursing (from a Binyan Av; alternatively, since they are written near each other, this is like a Hekesh).
8. Question: If so, the son should also be exempt!
9. Answer: The case is as Rav Pinchus answered (elsewhere), he did Teshuvah.
10. Question: If so, a stranger should also be liable!
11. Answer (Rav Mari): We expound "B'Amcha" - one who will remain in your nation (to exclude someone sentenced to die).
12. Question: If so, also the son should be exempt!

13. Answer: A son is liable for cursing his father even after his father died.

(i) Question: What is the Halachah (may Beis Din appoint a son to lash or curse his father)?
(j) Answer (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".

(a) (Mishnah): One who wounds his father or mother is not liable unless he made a wound.
(b) In this respect, cursing is more stringent than hitting - one is liable for cursing his father after death, not for hitting after death.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - after death;

1. One might have thought, since one is Chayav Misah for hitting or cursing, just as one is exempt for hitting after death, the same applies to cursing;
2. Also, a Kal va'Chomer supports this - the Torah obligates for hitting even someone who is not "Amcha" (our Tana argues with the Tana of the Beraisa on 85A), yet one is exempt for hitting after death - the Torah only obligates for cursing "Amcha", all the more so one should be exempt for cursing after death!
3. Therefore, it must say "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" to teach that this is not so.

(d) Question: R. Yonason can learn like this, but R. Yoshiyah expounds this verse differently!

1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "Ish Ish" - this includes a daughter, Tumtum (someone of unknown gender) or Androginus (who has male and female genitals) who curses a parent.
2. Question: "Asher Yekalel Es Aviv v'Es Imo" only teaches if he curses both, how do we know if he curses only one of them?
3. Answer #1: "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - cursing is written next to the mother (as well as next to the father) to teach that he is liable even if he curses only one of them.
4. Answer #2 (R. Yonason): "Aviv *v*'Es Imo", the 'Vov' (and) connotes even one, unless the Torah explicitly says 'together' (as it does regarding Kilayim).

(e) Answer: R. Yoshiyah learns from "U'Mekalel Aviv v'Imo Mos Yumas";

1. R. Yonason uses this to obligate a daughter, Tumtum or Androginus.
2. Question: Why doesn't he learn from "Ish Ish"?
3. Answer: He holds that the Torah speaks as people do (they sometimes double the verb, therefore, we need not expound the extra occurrence).

(f) Question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach that hitting is more stringent than cursing - one is liable for hitting even someone who is not "Amcha", one is exempt for cursing such a person!
(g) Answer: The Tana of our Mishnah equates the laws of hitting and cursing.
(h) Suggestion: The Tana'im of our Mishnah and the Beraisa argue as the following Tana'im do:

1. (Beraisa #1): We are commanded not to hit Kusim (the people Sancheriv settled in place of the 10 exiled Shevatim, who later converted), we are not forbidden to curse them.
2. (Beraisa #2): We are not forbidden to hit or curse Kusim.
3. We are thinking that all agree that Kusim are valid converts (just they do not act like Amcha); the second Tana equates the laws of hitting and cursing, the first Tana does not.

(i) Rejection: No, neither Tana equates hitting and cursing;

1. The first Tana holds that Kusim are valid converts, the second Tana holds that their conversion was only to avoid being eaten by lions (it was insincere), they are Nochrim.

(j) Rejection (of rejection): Beraisa #2 continues, 'the law of his ox is like a Yisrael's ox (if it damaged or was damaged)' - this shows that they are considered Yisraelim!
(k) Conclusion: Indeed, the Beraisos argue about whether or not we equate hitting and cursing.

(a) (Mishnah): One who kidnaps a Yisrael is not liable until he takes him into his premises.
(b) R. Yehudah says, he is not liable until he takes him into his premises and makes him work - "V'Hisamer Bo".
(c) R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah says, if one kidnaps his son he is liable; Chachamim exempt.
(d) R. Yehudah says, if one kidnaps a half-slave he is liable; Chachamim exempt.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Does the first Tana obligate even though he did not make him work?!
(f) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): They argue about Imur (making him work) less than the value of a Perutah.
(g) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If he kidnaps and sells while he is sleeping (this will be explained), what is the law? If he sold a fetus in a pregnant woman, what is the law?

1. Is this the way of Imur?
2. Question: The one sold cannot work at all now, surely the kidnapper is exempt!
3. Answer: The case is, he can work now - the buyer will lean on the sleeping person, the fetus (stretches his mother's stomach) and blocks the wind.

(h) These questions are not resolved.
(i) (Beraisa #1): "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh me'Echav" - this teaches about a man who kidnapped a man or woman;

1. "V'Gonev Ish" - this includes a woman who kidnapped a man;

(j) Question: What is the source for a woman who kidnapped a woman?
(k) Answer: "U'Mes ha'Ganav ha'Hu" - in any case.
(l) (Beraisa #2): "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh me'Echav" - this obligates for kidnapping a man, woman, convert, freed slave, or minor.
(m) If he kidnapped Reuven but did not sell him, or he sold but Reuven is still on his own premises, the kidnapper is exempt.
(n) If he sold to one of Reuven's relatives, he is liable.
(o) One who kidnaps a slave is exempt.