Previous daf

1)

(a) We already cited the D'rashah "ve'Ragmu Oso", 'Oso ve'Lo Osah'. We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who worships idols) "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu O es ha'Ishah ha'Hi ... " - that a woman is subject to stoning just like a man, in which case 'Oso ve'Lo Osah' cannot mean to preclude a woman from stoning.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from "Oso", 've'Lo Osah' - that a man is stoned without his clothes, but not a woman (as we learned earlier).

(c) Rebbi Yehudah - does not agree with the D'rashah "Oso", 've'Lo Osah'.

(d) The Rabbanan do not require a woman too, to be stoned without clothes, in order to expedite her death - because, in their opinion, she herself would prefer her dignity to be preserved even if it means suffering a little more pain.

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah that, in addition to loosening her hair, the Chachamim permit a Sotah to be manhandled to the point that the Kohen tears her clothes and exposes her body. According to Rebbi Yehudah - this will not apply in cases where the woman has beautiful hair or beautiful breasts.

(b) Rabah attributes Rebbi Yehudah's concern with 'Hirhur' (immoral thoughts) by a Sotah to the possibility that the woman will survive the ordeal, and he is worried that the Kohanim who saw her exposed might start up with her, whereas in our case, she is destined to die (and there is nothing to be concerned about).

(c) He is not concerned with the people starting up with other women - because Hirhur does generally work on a man from one woman to another.

(d) And the Rabbanan, says Rava - are not concerned with Hirhur, as is clear by Sotah. And the reason that they require the woman to be stoned fully clothed is - because the women will be sufficiently chastised by the condemned woman's death, which is not the case by a Sotah, who may survive the ordeal, and who will cause the other women to be chastised only through her degradation.

(a) We ask why, in order to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Nivasru Kol ha'Nashim ... ", the woman should not be put to shame in addition to being killed. Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answers this Kashya - based on the Pasuk in Kedoshim "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha", which teaches to protect the dignity even of someone who is condemned to die.

(b) Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah requires the woman to be stoned without her clothes - because, in his opinion, a woman would rather suffer less pain, even at the expense of her dignity.

(a) The Beis-ha'Sekilah, says our Mishnah, was - the height of two people.

(b) One of the witnesses pushed the condemned man down onto his side.

(c) If he then rolled over so that he was facing the ground - he would turn him back onto his side.

(d) If ...

1. ... the fall did not kill him - then the second witness would drop a boulder on top of him.
2. ... the large stone did not finish the job - then the people present would pelt him with stones.

(a) The Beraisa refers to the Beis ha'Sekilah as being three heights of a person - because, bearing in mind that he was pushed from a standing position, it includes the condemned man's height.

(b) The minimum height of a pit that is fit to kill is - ten Tefachim.

(c) Nevertheless, the Beis ha'Sekilah needs to be the height of two people (in spite of the fact that much less can kill [and two heights is not guaranteed to kill anyway]) - on account of the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha", explains Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah, 'Bror Lo Miysah Yafah' (Pick for him a nice death, by making sure that he dies as quickly as possible).

(d) We do not make it higher still, to ensure that he dies quicker still (or perhaps to ensure that he dies) - because that would cause his death to be ugly, since pushing him from such a great height would cause the body to break up, and the parts to splatter in all directions.

(a) We learn from the Lashon of the Pasuk (concerning someone who ascended Har Sinai) "Sakol (Yisakel) O Yaroh (Yiyareh)" - if necessary, both pushing off a cliff and stoning are required.

(b) The Tana learns that if the latter does not finish the job, Beis-Din are obligated to employ the former - from the double Lashon "Sakol Yisakel O Yaroh Yiyareh".

(c) And he learn that, even though this is written with regard to Har Sinai applies to all times - from the fact that "Yaroh Yiyareh" is written in the future.

7)

(a) The problem with our Mishnah, which describes how the second witness takes the stone ... is from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa, who gives the weight of the stone as - one that requires two people to carry it. In that case, how can one of the witnesses pick it up on his own?

(b) We retort that the Beraisa itself needs to be understood - since Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar uses the same expression as our Mishnah ('Notlah ve'Nosnah al Libo'), so we can ask the same Kashya on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar himself.

(c) We answer - that, in fact, both witnesses pick up the stone. The first witness leaves go, allowing the second one, who can no longer hold it anyway, to throw it down with force.

(d) It was not common at all for the community to have to 'finish the job'. As a matter of fact, the Beraisa informs us - it never happened.

(a) The Beraisa states that the stone used for stoning, the board on which the condemned man was subsequently hanged, the sword with which he was killed and the cloth with which he was strangled - are all buried together with the condemned man.

(b) The problem with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (whom we just quoted and) who begins with the words 'Even Haysah Sham' is - how it is possible for a stone that has to be buried, to be available for use all the time.

(c) We resolve the two Beraisos - by interpreting 'Even Haysah Sham' not as being the same stone that was used last time, but one that they used to replaced it the moment was buried.

(a) Rav Papa reconciles the second Beraisa with a third Beraisa, which states 'Lo Hayu Nikbarin Imo' - by establishing 'Imo' to mean, not literally 'with him', but 'near him' (within four Amos).

(b) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "Yad ha'Eidim *Tih'yeh Bo* ba'Rishonah"- that the death-sentence must be carried out by the same hands that the witnesses had at the time of the testimony (precluding the possibility of sentencing the accused, via witnesses who lost their hands after witnessing the crime.

(c) He precludes witnesses who had no hand in the first place from this D'rashah - because whatever they had then was considered 'their hand' at the time, and that is what it still is.

(d) The Beraisa proclaims a man Chayav Miysah if witnesses testify that so-and-so was sentenced in such and such a Beis-Din, and that so-and-so were the witnesses. Shmuel, who requires the same witnesses (with the same hands) establishes this Beraisa - by the same witnesses who testified the first time.

(a) The Beraisa rules - that if Beis-Din are unable to apply the appropriate death-penalty - they must kill the condemned man in any way that they can.

(b) This poses a Kashya on Shmuel - who requires that one must conform with the Pasuk as it is written ('Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', at least when it is not possible to do so).

(c) We answer that Rotze'ach is different, because the Torah writes "Mos Yumas". And we cannot learn all other cases from there in the form of a 'Binyan ha'Av' - because we have a second case where we do not conform with the Pasuk as it is written, namely that of the Go'el ha'Dam (the next of kin of the murdered man, who is obligated to avenge the blood of his relative, should he leave the city of refuge).

(d) In spite of the Pasuk having already written "Go'el ha'Dam Yamis es ha'Rotze'ach", we learn from the Pasuk there "be'Fig'o Vo Hu Yemisenu" - that if the murdered man has no Go'el ha'Dam (i.e. if he is a Ger), then Beis-Din appoint one.

(a) From the Pasuk in "ve'Safsu Bo Aviv ve'Imo" the Tana of the Beraisa precludes the son of parents (even one parent) who have no hands, from the Din of a ben Sorer u'Moreh, and from "ve'Hotzi'u Oso", if they have no feet. He precludes from ...

1. ... "ve'Amru" - the son of parents who are dumb.
2. ... "B'neinu Zeh" - the son of parents who are blind.
3. ... "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu" - the son of parents who are deaf.

(b) When Mar Keshisha B'rei de'Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi why there is no proof from here that one must conform with the Pasuk as it is written, he explained - that it was because all of the above are derived from superfluous Pesukim.

(c) Based on the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi'uhu el Rechov ha'Ir" (when it could have written "el Sha'ar ha'Ir'), Rebbi Yishmael precludes a town that has no street from the Din of Ir ha'Nidachas. According to Rebbi Akiva - if the town has no street, then they are obligated to build one.

(d) This Beraisa poses a Kashya on Shmuel - inasmuch as both Tana'im agree that we must conform with the Pasuk as it is written.

(a) We conclude that whether or not, we must conform with the Pasuk as it is written is in fact, a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama maintains that a Metzora who has no right thumb, right big toe or right ear - can never become Tahor.

(b) According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places the oil and the blood where the right thumb, the right big toe and the right ear ought to be, and according to Rebbi Shimon - it is preferable to place it on the equivalent one on the left side.

(c) Shmuel now concurs - with Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon, neither of whom require that one concurs with the Pasuk.

(a) In our Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer holds that ...

1. ... whoever is killed by means of Sekilah, is then hanged. According to the Chachamim - only someone who cursed Hashem or who served idols.
2. ... a man is hanged facing the people, a woman with her back towards them. According to the Chachamim - a woman is not hanged at all.

(b) When Rebbi Eliezer attempted to prove his latter point from Shimon ben Shetach, who hanged eighty witches in Ashkelon - the Chachamim replied that one cannot prove anything from Shimon ben Shetach, who judged all eighty women on one day, even though Beis-Din is normally permitted to judge only one person per day (this will be discussed in more detail later).

(c) This goes to prove - that Shimon ben Shetach's actions were a Hora'as Sha'ah (a momentary ruling), which was not necessarily binding on other occasions).

(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ve'Humas ve'Salisa" - that someone who is Chayav Miysah, must be hanged.

(b) Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from "Ki Kilelas Elokim Taluy" that this ruling is confined to a Chiyuv Sekilah (like a Mekalel Hashem). According to the Chachamim - only someone who, like a Mekalel Hashem, denies Hashem - incorporating someone who served idols.

(c) We conclude that the basis of their Machlokes is whether to Darshen a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Chelal' (the Chachamim), or a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' (Rebbi Eliezer). The difference between a 'K'lal u'Perat' and a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut' is - that the former (which begins with the K'lal, and which the P'rat comes to modify) includes nothing at all, whereas the latter (which begins with the Miy'ut, to which the Ribuy comes to add) incorporates whatever is similar to the Miy'ut (like a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Chelal' according to the other opinion).

(d) In fact, our Pasuk only contains a 'K'lal u'Perat' (or a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut' ["ve'Humas ve'Salisa" and "Ki Kilelas Elokim Taluy" respectively]), and we consider the 'K'lal u'Perat' to be a 'K'lal u'Perat u'Chelal', and the 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut', a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - because they are not juxtaposed, as a 'K'lal' and a 'P'rat' usually are.

1. ... the Rabbanan, in whose opinion the final P'rat, would only include a Mekalel in the Din of hanging - the final P'rat comes to add someone who served idols.
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer, who already includes someone who served idols from the Miy'ut - the final Ribuy comes to include all those who are sentenced to death by Sekilah.