Previous daf

1)

(a) We already cited the D'rashah "ve'Ragmu Oso", 'Oso ve'Lo Osah'.
What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with someone who worships idols) "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'Hu O es ha'Ishah ha'Hi ... " that reflects on this D'rashah?

(b) Then what *do* the Rabbanan learn from "Oso", 've'Lo Osah'?

(c) What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(d) Why do the Rabbanan not require a woman too, to be stoned without clothes, in order to expedite her death?

(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.
What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

(b) How does Rabah explain the apparent discrepancy between there, where Rebbi Yehudah is concerned with 'Hirhur' (immoral thoughts) more than the Rabbanan, whereas here, he is less concerned than they are?

(c) Why is Rebbi Yehudah not concerned here with the people who see the woman exposed starting up with other women?

(d) How does Rava explain the apparent discrepancy in the Rabbanan, who require the woman to be stoned fully clothed in spite of the fact that they do not seem to be concerned with Hirhur by a Sotah?

(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.
How does Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answer this Kashya?

(b) In that case, why does Rebbi Yehudah require the woman to be stoned without her clothes?

(a) How high was the Beis-ha'Sekilah?

(b) Who pushed the condemned man down onto his side?

(c) What if he then rolled over so that he was facing the ground?

(d) What would they do if ...

1. ... the fall did not kill him?
2. ... the large stone did not kill him either?

(a) Why does the Beraisa refer to the Beis ha'Sekilah as being three heights of a person?

(b) What is the minimum height of a pit that is fit to kill?

(c) Then why does the Beis ha'Sekilah need to be the height of two people, since much less than that can kill (and two heights is not guaranteed to kill anyway)?

(d) In that case, why not make it higher still, to ensure that he dies even more quickly (or perhaps to ensure that he dies)?

(a) What do we learn from the Lashon in Yisro (concerning someone who ascended Har Sinai) "Sakol (Yisakel) O Yaroh (Yiyareh)"?

(b) From where does the Tana learn that if the latter does not finish the job, Beis-Din are obligated to employ the former?

(c) And from where does he learn that even though this is written with regard to Har Sinai, it applies to all times?

7)

(a) What problem do we have with our Mishnah, which describes how the second witness takes the stone ... ? What does Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa say that makes this difficult to understand?

(b) We retort that the Beraisa itself needs to be understood.
Why is that?

(c) How do we answer the Kashya? Who actually picks up the stone?

(d) How common was it for the community to have to 'finish the job'?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about 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?

(b) What is now the problem with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (whom we just quoted and) who begins with the words 'Even Haysah Sham'?

(c) How do we resolve the two Beraisos?

(a) And how does Rav Papa reconcile the second Beraisa with a third Beraisa, which states 'Lo Hayu Nikbarin Imo'?

(b) What does Shmuel learn from the Pasuk in Shoftim "Yad ha'Eidim *Tih'yeh Bo* ba'Rishonah"?

(c) Why then, does he preclude witnesses who had no hand in the first place from this D'rashah?

(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.
How will Shmuel, who requires the same witnesses who saw the crime (even with the same hands) explain this Beraisa?

(a) What does the Beraisa say about a condemned man to whom Beis-Din are unable to apply the appropriate death-penalty?

(b) Why does this pose a Kashya on Shmuel?

(c) We answer that Rotze'ach is different, because the Torah writes "Mos Yumas".
So why can we not learn all other cases from there in the form of a 'Binyan ha'Av'?

(d) Seeing as the Pasuk has already written (in Masei) "Go'el ha'Dam Yamis es ha'Rotze'ach", what do we learn from the Pasuk there "be'Fig'o Vo Hu Yemisenu"?

(a) From the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "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.
What does he preclude from ...

1. ... "ve'Amru"?
2. ... "B'neinu Zeh"?
3. ... "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu"?

(b) What did Rav Ashi reply when Mar Keshisha B'rei de'Rav Chisda asked him why there is no proof from here that one must conform with the Pasuk as it is written?

(c) Based on the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "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.
What does Rebbi Akiva say?

(d) How does this Beraisa pose a Kashya on Shmuel?

(a) We conclude that whether or not, we must conform with the Pasuk as it is written or not, is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im.
What does the Tana Kama say about a Metzora who has no right thumb, right big toe or right ear?

(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.
What does Rebbi Shimon say?

(c) With which Tana'im does Shmuel now concur?

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

1. ... whoever is killed by means of Sekilah, is then hanged.
   What do the Chachamim say?
2. ... a man is hanged facing the people, a woman with her back towards them.
   What do the Chachamim say?

(b) What did the Chachamim reply, when Rebbi Eliezer attempted to prove his latter point from Shimon ben Shetach, who hanged eighty witches in Ashkelon?

(c) What does that prove?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk "ve'Humas ve'Salisa"?

(b) Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from "Ki Kilelas Elohim Taluy" that this is confined to a Chiyuv Sekilah (like someone who cursed Hashem). According to the Chachamim, it includes only someone who, like a Mekalel Hashem, denies Hashem.
Whom does this incorporate?

(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).
What is the difference between a 'K'lal u'Perat' and a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut'?

(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]).
On what grounds do 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'?

1. ... the Rabbanan, bearing in mind, that without the final P'rat, we would only include a Mekalel in the Din of hanging?
2. ... Rebbi Eliezer, who already includes someone who served idols from the Miy'ut?

Next daf