Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 12, 2017 | 讻状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 7

Study Guide Makkot 7. The mishna and gemara discuss issues relating to the courts – upholding decisions by the same court after the prosecuted person has run away, a court upholding the decision of a different court, and others.聽 Should the courts be using capital punishment?聽 If so, how often?聽 The new chapter starts with laws of the city of refuge.聽 Who goes there?聽 Who does not?聽 For what reason do they not go?聽 Is it because they are not deserving of the punishment or is it because they are not deserving of receiving protection from the relative of the one who was killed?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讬诇注讗 讜讟讜讘讬讛 拽专讬讘讬讛 讚注专讘讗 讛讜讛 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讘讬 诇讜讛 讜诪诇讜讛 专讞讬拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讘转专 注专讘讗 讗讝讬诇 诪诇讜讛

Apropos disqualified witnesses, the Gemara relates: Two people called Ile鈥檃 and Tuviyya, who signed as witnesses on a promissory note, were relatives of the guarantor of the loan. Rav Pappa thought to say that since vis-脿-vis the borrower and lender these witnesses are distant and are not related, their testimony on the document is valid. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: If the borrower does not have the means to repay the loan, doesn鈥檛 the lender pursue the guarantor to claim his debt? Therefore, the guarantor is party to the loan, and his relatives are not eligible to serve as witnesses on the promissory note.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讘专讞 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讗讜转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙

MISHNA: This mishna continues to discuss the matter of testimony in the case of one who is liable to be executed. Concerning one whose verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death and he fled, and he then came before the same court that sentenced him, they do not overturn his verdict and retry him. Rather, the court administers the previous verdict. Consequently, in any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讛讜专讙转 讗讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 谞拽专讗转 讞讜讘诇谞讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诇砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 诇讗 谞讛专讙 讗讚诐 诪注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谉 诪专讘讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

The mishna continues: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.

讙诪壮 诇驻谞讬 讗讜转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讛讗 诇驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专 住讜转专讬谉 讛讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讛专讙

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It is in the case of one who comes before the same court that they do not overturn the verdict, but if one comes before a different court they overturn the verdict and retry the case. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony? This indicates that the verdict is not overturned and the defendant is not retried even before another court.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Abaye said: This apparent contradiction is not difficult, as here, in the first clause of the mishna, from which it was inferred that the second court overturns the initial verdict, it is referring to a case where the initial verdict was outside Eretz Yisrael and the defendant came before a court in Eretz Yisrael. There, in the latter clause, which indicates that the second court sustains the initial verdict and does not retry the defendant, it is referring to a case where the initial verdict was in Eretz Yisrael, and the case subsequently came before a court outside Eretz Yisrael.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讘专讞 诪讗专抓 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讝讻讜转讛 砖诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Dostai says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Shata岣: If a convicted defendant fled from Eretz Yisrael to outside Eretz Yisrael one does not overturn his verdict. Rather, they implement the initial verdict. But if one fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, one overturns his verdict and the defendant is retried. Perhaps, due to the merit of Eretz Yisrael, the court will discover a reason to exonerate him.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚专转讬讻诐 诇诪讚谞讜 诇住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

搂 The mishna teaches: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara clarifies: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the sentencing of murderers: 鈥淎nd these shall be for you as a statute of justice for your generations in all your dwelling places鈥 (Numbers 35:29), from which we learn that the mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖注专讬讱 讘砖注专讬讱 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬诐 讘讻诇 驻诇讱 讜驻诇讱 讜讘讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘讻诇 驻诇讱 讜驻诇讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淛udges and officers you shall appoint in all your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18), which indicates that the mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin is in effect where the gates are yours, i.e., only in Eretz Yisrael? The explanation is as follows: In your gates, in Eretz Yisrael, you establish courts in each and every district and in each and every city, and outside Eretz Yisrael you establish courts in each and every district, but you do not establish courts in each and every city. The requirement to establish courts in every city is only in Eretz Yisrael.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讛讜专讙转 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讞转 诇砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 谞拽专讗转 讞讘诇谞讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

搂 The mishna teaches: A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy years. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya saying that a Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy, rather than seven, years is characterized as a destructive tribunal? Or perhaps he is saying that standard conduct is for a Sanhedrin to execute once in seventy years, and only if it executes more than one person during that period is it characterized as destructive? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 专讗讬转诐 讟专讬驻讛 讛专讙 砖诇诐 讛专讙

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted the trials in a manner where no person would have ever been executed. The Gemara asks: How would they have acted to spare the accused from execution if witnesses testified that he intentionally committed murder? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar both say that they would have asked the witnesses: Did you see whether the accused killed a tereifa, i.e., a person with a condition that would lead to his death within twelve months, or if he killed someone who was intact? The halakhic status of a tereifa is like that of one who is dead, in the sense that one who kills him is not executed. Since no witness can be certain with regard to the victim鈥檚 physical condition, they would invalidate any testimony to a murder.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 砖诇诐 讛讜讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住讬讬祝 谞拽讘 讛讜讛

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that they examined him postmortem and he was intact the testimony could be challenged, as perhaps in the place that the sword pierced the victim鈥檚 body there was a perforation in one of the organs that renders the person a tereifa, but which was rendered undetectable by the wound caused by the sword.

讘讘讜注诇 讗转 讛注专讜讛 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 专讗讬转诐 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讬谞讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪谞讗驻讬诐 诪砖讬专讗讜 讻诪谞讗驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, how would they have acted to spare the accused from execution? Abaye and Rava both say that they would have asked the witnesses: Did you see the intercourse, like a brush entering into a tube? Since witnesses rarely witness the act that closely, one could claim that the testimony is incomplete. The Gemara asks: And concerning the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, how would they have adjudicated that case? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: In cases involving adulterers one can testify and convict them from when they will appear as adulterers, without any need for him to witness the act in graphic detail.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讛注讚讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讙讜诇讬谉 讛讛讜专讙 谞驻砖 讘砖讙讙讛 讛讬讛 诪注讙诇 讘诪注讙讬诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇 讘讞讘讬转 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 讬讜专讚 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讱 讘诪注讙讬诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 讚讜诇讛 讘讞讘讬转 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讘诇 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜

MISHNA: These are the people who are exiled: Anyone who kills a person unintentionally. Whether one is liable to be exiled depends on the particular circumstances of the case: If one was rolling a roller to smooth the covering of mortar that he applied to seal his roof and the roller fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was lowering a barrel from the roof and it fell on a person and killed him, or if he was descending a ladder and he fell on a person and killed him, in all of these cases, he is exiled. But if one was pulling a roller toward him and it fell from his hands upon a person and killed him, or if one was lifting a barrel and the rope was severed and it fell upon a person and killed him,

讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讙讜诇讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

or if one was climbing a ladder and he fell upon a person and killed him, that unintentional murderer is not exiled. This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讬诪转 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the principle that one is exiled only if he killed unintentionally through a downward motion: From where are these matters derived? It is derived from a verse, as Shmuel says that the verse states with regard to those exiled to a city of refuge: 鈥淎nd he cast it down upon him and dies鈥 (Numbers 35:23), indicating that one is not liable to be exiled unless the item falls in a downward motion.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita derivations from verses written with regard to the unintentional murderer: 鈥淯nintentionally鈥 (Numbers 35:11); to exclude from exile the one who kills intentionally. 鈥淯nawares鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4); to exclude from exile the one who kills with intent.

诪讝讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Why is a derivation necessary to exclude one who kills intentionally? It is obvious that he is not exiled; he is subject to the death penalty. Rather, Rava said: Say that the type of intentional killer referred to is meant to exclude the one who says that it is permitted to kill the victim. The verse teaches that this person is neither executed nor is he exiled. Abaye said to Rava: If the reference is to one who says that it is permitted, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he did not know any better. How could that be characterized as intentional? Rava said to him: That is not a problem, as I say that with regard to one who says that it is permitted, his action borders on the intentional.

壮讘讘诇讬 讚注转壮 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 讜讛专讙 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇 讜讛专讙 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗

The baraita states: 鈥淯nawares鈥; to exclude from exile the one who kills with intent. The Gemara asks: With intent? It is obvious that he is not exiled; he is subject to the death penalty. Rabba said: The reference is to exclude the one who acted with the intent to kill an animal and he killed a person inadvertently, or one who acted with the intent to kill a gentile and he killed a Jew, or one who acted with the intent to kill a non-viable newborn and he killed a viable newborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讘驻转注 驻专讟 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讘诇讗 讗讬讘讛 驻专讟 诇砖讜谞讗 讛讚驻讜 砖讚讞驻讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讜 讛砖诇讬讱 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讬专讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 爪讜专讱 注诇讬讛 讘诇讗 爪讚讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讚 讝讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 诇爪讚 讗讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse written with regard to an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd if suddenly, without enmity, he thrust him or cast upon him any vessel without lying in wait鈥 (Numbers 35:22). 鈥淚f suddenly鈥; this serves to exclude one who unintentionally kills another that he encounters at a corner. 鈥淲ithout enmity鈥; this serves to exclude one who unintentionally kills his enemy, as even if the act appears unintentional, the presumption is that it was not. 鈥淗e thrust him鈥; this indicates that even if he unintentionally shoved him with his body and killed him, he is liable to be exiled. 鈥淥r cast upon him鈥; this serves to include the case of a downward motion that is for the purpose of an upward motion, e.g., if one bent down in order to lift an item from the ground, and in the process of bending down he killed another unintentionally, he is exiled. 鈥淲ithout lying in wait鈥; this serves to exclude one who had the intent to throw a stone to this side and it went to a different side and killed a person.

讜讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐

And it is written with regard to an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd who did not lie in wait鈥 (Exodus 21:13); this serves to exclude one who had intent to throw a stone two cubits and he inadvertently threw it four cubits and killed a person. And it is written concerning an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as a forest is ownerless property, and there is permission for the victim and for the assailant to enter there, so too, unintentional murder that occurs in any place where there is permission for the victim and for the assailant to enter there, is punishable with exile. The unintentional murder of one who entered the assailant鈥檚 property without his permission is not cause for the murderer to be exiled.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞砖诪讟 讛砖诇讬讘讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讜谞驻诇讛 讜讛专讙讛 诪讛讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讬专讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 谞讙注转 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 爪讜专讱 注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Abbahu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one was ascending a ladder and the rung was displaced from beneath him, and the rung fell and killed another, what is the halakha with regard to his being exiled? In a case like this, is it considered killing in an upward motion, as he was climbing the ladder, and therefore he is exempt, or is it considered killing in a downward motion, as when he stepped on the rung he pushed it down, and therefore he is liable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: In the scenario you described, you already touched upon the case in the baraita cited above, the case of unintentional murder that is performed with a downward motion that is for the purpose of an upward motion. The ruling in the baraita is that one is liable to be exiled in that case.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the mishna, which states: This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled. Rabbi Abbahu clarifies: With regard to the phrase in the mishna: One who kills not through his downward motion, what case that was not already specified does this serve to add? Is it not to add a case like this, and to teach that even though the death was caused by the falling rung, since the assailant was ascending the ladder at the time, he is not exiled? Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: And according to your reasoning that this apparently extraneous phrase serves to include a case that is not addressed explicitly, with regard to the previous phrase in the mishna: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion, what case that was not already specified does this serve to add?

讗诇讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽爪讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽爪讘 讚转谞讬讗 拽爪讘 砖讛讬讛 诪拽爪讘 转谞讗 讞讚讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rather, one may say that it serves to add the case of a butcher. Here too, in the latter clause, the phrase: One who kills not through his downward motion, serves to add the case of a butcher, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a butcher who was chopping animal limbs with a cleaver, one Sage taught that if he killed a person in front of him, he is liable to be exiled; if he killed a person behind him, he is exempt. And it is taught in another baraita: If he killed a person behind him, he is liable; if he killed a person in front of him, he is exempt. And it is taught in another baraita: Both if he killed a person in front of him and if he killed a person behind him, he is liable. And it is taught in another baraita: Both if he killed a person in front of him and if he killed a person behind him, he is exempt. And although these baraitot appear contradictory, the apparent contradiction is not difficult.

讻讗谉 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜注诇讬讛 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讬专讬讚讛 砖诇讗讞专讬讜

When a butcher is about to cut the meat of an animal, he raises the cleaver and lowers it behind him in order to create momentum that will generate power. Then he raises the cleaver from behind him and brings it down forcefully onto the meat. In that process, the butcher lowers the cleaver in front of him and behind him and raises the cleaver both in front of him and behind him. Each of the four baraitot addresses a different stage of the process. Here, the baraita that says he is liable if he unintentionally murders a person in front of him and exempt if he unintentionally murders a person behind him, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with a downward motion in front of him and an upward motion behind him. There, the baraita that says he is exempt if he unintentionally murders a person in front of him and liable if he unintentionally murders a person behind him, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with an upward motion in front of him and a downward motion behind him.

讻讗谉 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬讜

In addition, here, the baraita where he is liable in both instances, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with a downward motion both in front of him and behind him. There, the baraita where he is exempt in both instances, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with an upward motion both in front of him and behind him. The two phrases that constitute the principle in the mishna teach that the determining factor is whether the motion is upward or downward, not whether it is in front of him or behind him. This is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reply to the objection of Rabbi Abbahu.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞砖诪讟讛 砖诇讬讘讛 诪转讞转讬讜 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讞讬讬讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬专讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 dilemma with regard to unintentional murder committed by one climbing a ladder is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one was ascending a ladder and its rung was displaced from beneath him, it is taught in one baraita that he is liable, and it is taught in another baraita that he is exempt. What, is it not that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this, as one Sage holds: It is unintentional murder in a downward motion, and therefore he is liable, and one Sage holds: It is unintentional murder in an upward motion, and therefore he is exempt?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讙诇讜转

The Gemara rejects that parallel: No, that is not the point of contention, as everyone agrees that it is an upward motion, and there is no dispute between the Sages in the baraitot. Nevertheless, the apparent contradiction between them is not difficult, as here, in the baraita that rules him liable, the reference is to payment of damages, as with regard to one鈥檚 liability to pay damages, there is no difference between upward and downward motions, or between intentional and unwitting damage; and there, in the baraita that rules him exempt, the reference is to exile, from which one who murders unintentionally in an upward motion is exempt by Torah edict.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 诇讙诇讜转 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转诇讬注 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转诇讬注

If you wish, say instead that in both this baraita and that baraita the reference is to exile, and it is not difficult, as this baraita, where the ruling is that he is liable, is referring to a case where the rung of the ladder was worm infested and he should have been cautious before stepping on it, and that baraita, where the ruling is that he is exempt, is referring to a case where the rung was not worm infested, as in that case it is murder due to circumstances beyond his control, as he could not have anticipated that the rung would be displaced.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转诇讬注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽

And if you wish, say that in both this baraita and that baraita the reference is to a rung that was not worm infested, and it is not difficult, as this baraita, where the ruling is that he is exempt, is referring to a case where the rung was tightly inserted into the ladder, and therefore he could not have foreseen that it would be displaced, and that baraita, where the ruling is that he is liable, is referring to a case where the rung was not tightly inserted and he should have anticipated its displacement.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖诪讟 讛讘专讝诇 诪拽转讜 讜讛专讙 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜诇讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

MISHNA: If the blade of an ax or hatchet was displaced from its handle, and it flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is not exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is exiled. If part of a tree that is being split flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The murderer is exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is not exiled.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜谞砖诇 讛讘专讝诇 诪注爪讜 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讜注讜讚 谞讗诪专 注抓 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 注抓 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 注抓 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注 讗祝 注抓 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: Is it stated in the verse: And the blade displaces from its wood handle? But isn鈥檛 it stated: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), indicating that it is a wood chip from the tree that causes the death of the person? And furthermore: Etz is stated below: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the etz,鈥 and etz is stated above, earlier in the same verse: 鈥淎nd his hand wields the ax to cut down the etz.鈥 Just as the term etz stated above is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, so too, the term etz stated below is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, not to the wood of the ax handle.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜谞砖诇 讛讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛注抓 专讘讬 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜谞讬砖诇 讻转讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜谞砖诇 拽专讬谞谉

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, interpreted one verse to arrive at their rulings. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces [venashal] from the wood.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the manner in which the words are written, not on the manner in which they are vocalized. And it is written venishel, a transitive verb, indicating that the blade displaced wood chips from the tree. And the Rabbis maintain: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and we read the term as venashal, an intransitive verb indicating that the blade is displaced from its wooden handle and kills a person.

讜专讘讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 7

讗讬诇注讗 讜讟讜讘讬讛 拽专讬讘讬讛 讚注专讘讗 讛讜讛 住讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讙讘讬 诇讜讛 讜诪诇讜讛 专讞讬拽讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讬转 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 诇讗讜 讘转专 注专讘讗 讗讝讬诇 诪诇讜讛

Apropos disqualified witnesses, the Gemara relates: Two people called Ile鈥檃 and Tuviyya, who signed as witnesses on a promissory note, were relatives of the guarantor of the loan. Rav Pappa thought to say that since vis-脿-vis the borrower and lender these witnesses are distant and are not related, their testimony on the document is valid. Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said to Rav Pappa: If the borrower does not have the means to repay the loan, doesn鈥檛 the lender pursue the guarantor to claim his debt? Therefore, the guarantor is party to the loan, and his relatives are not eligible to serve as witnesses on the promissory note.

诪转谞讬壮 诪讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讘专讞 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 讗讜转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗谞讜 讘讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讛专讙

MISHNA: This mishna continues to discuss the matter of testimony in the case of one who is liable to be executed. Concerning one whose verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death and he fled, and he then came before the same court that sentenced him, they do not overturn his verdict and retry him. Rather, the court administers the previous verdict. Consequently, in any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讛讜专讙转 讗讞讚 讘砖讘讜注 谞拽专讗转 讞讜讘诇谞讬转 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 诇砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讘住谞讛讚专讬谉 诇讗 谞讛专讙 讗讚诐 诪注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛谉 诪专讘讬谉 砖讜驻讻讬 讚诪讬诐 讘讬砖专讗诇

The mishna continues: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.

讙诪壮 诇驻谞讬 讗讜转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讛讗 诇驻谞讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讞专 住讜转专讬谉 讛讗 转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讬注诪讚讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪注讬讚讬谉 讗谞讜 讗转 讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 讜驻诇讜谞讬 注讚讬讜 讛专讬 讝讛 谞讛专讙

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: It is in the case of one who comes before the same court that they do not overturn the verdict, but if one comes before a different court they overturn the verdict and retry the case. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it taught in the latter clause of the mishna: Any place where two witnesses will stand and say: We testify with regard to a man called so-and-so that his verdict was delivered and he was sentenced to death in the court of so-and-so, and so-and-so and so-and-so were his witnesses, that person shall be executed on the basis of that testimony? This indicates that the verdict is not overturned and the defendant is not retried even before another court.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Abaye said: This apparent contradiction is not difficult, as here, in the first clause of the mishna, from which it was inferred that the second court overturns the initial verdict, it is referring to a case where the initial verdict was outside Eretz Yisrael and the defendant came before a court in Eretz Yisrael. There, in the latter clause, which indicates that the second court sustains the initial verdict and does not retry the defendant, it is referring to a case where the initial verdict was in Eretz Yisrael, and the case subsequently came before a court outside Eretz Yisrael.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 讚讜住转讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 砖讟讞 讘专讞 诪讗专抓 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗讬谉 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 住讜转专讬谉 讗转 讚讬谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讝讻讜转讛 砖诇 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇

This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda ben Dostai says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Shata岣: If a convicted defendant fled from Eretz Yisrael to outside Eretz Yisrael one does not overturn his verdict. Rather, they implement the initial verdict. But if one fled from outside Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, one overturns his verdict and the defendant is retried. Perhaps, due to the merit of Eretz Yisrael, the court will discover a reason to exonerate him.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 谞讜讛讙转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜讛讬讜 讗诇讛 诇讻诐 诇讞拽转 诪砖驻讟 诇讚专转讬讻诐 诇诪讚谞讜 诇住谞讛讚专讬谉 砖谞讜讛讙转 讘讗专抓 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

搂 The mishna teaches: The mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin with the authority to administer capital punishments is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara clarifies: From where are these matters derived? It is as the Sages taught: It is written with regard to the sentencing of murderers: 鈥淎nd these shall be for you as a statute of justice for your generations in all your dwelling places鈥 (Numbers 35:29), from which we learn that the mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin is in effect both in Eretz Yisrael and outside Eretz Yisrael.

讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘砖注专讬讱 讘砖注专讬讱 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬诐 讘讻诇 驻诇讱 讜驻诇讱 讜讘讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专 讜讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘讻诇 驻诇讱 讜驻诇讱 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讜砖讬讘 讘讻诇 注讬专 讜注讬专

If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淛udges and officers you shall appoint in all your gates鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:18), which indicates that the mitzva to establish a Sanhedrin is in effect where the gates are yours, i.e., only in Eretz Yisrael? The explanation is as follows: In your gates, in Eretz Yisrael, you establish courts in each and every district and in each and every city, and outside Eretz Yisrael you establish courts in each and every district, but you do not establish courts in each and every city. The requirement to establish courts in every city is only in Eretz Yisrael.

住谞讛讚专讬谉 讛讛讜专讙转 讜讻讜壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讗讞转 诇砖讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 谞拽专讗转 讞讘诇谞讬转 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讜专讞 讗专注讗 讛讬讗 转讬拽讜

搂 The mishna teaches: A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy years. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya saying that a Sanhedrin that executes once in seventy, rather than seven, years is characterized as a destructive tribunal? Or perhaps he is saying that standard conduct is for a Sanhedrin to execute once in seventy years, and only if it executes more than one person during that period is it characterized as destructive? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 专讗讬转诐 讟专讬驻讛 讛专讙 砖诇诐 讛专讙

The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted the trials in a manner where no person would have ever been executed. The Gemara asks: How would they have acted to spare the accused from execution if witnesses testified that he intentionally committed murder? Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Elazar both say that they would have asked the witnesses: Did you see whether the accused killed a tereifa, i.e., a person with a condition that would lead to his death within twelve months, or if he killed someone who was intact? The halakhic status of a tereifa is like that of one who is dead, in the sense that one who kills him is not executed. Since no witness can be certain with regard to the victim鈥檚 physical condition, they would invalidate any testimony to a murder.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 砖诇诐 讛讜讛 讚诇诪讗 讘诪拽讜诐 住讬讬祝 谞拽讘 讛讜讛

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that they examined him postmortem and he was intact the testimony could be challenged, as perhaps in the place that the sword pierced the victim鈥檚 body there was a perforation in one of the organs that renders the person a tereifa, but which was rendered undetectable by the wound caused by the sword.

讘讘讜注诇 讗转 讛注专讜讛 讛讬讻讬 讛讜讜 注讘讚讬 讗讘讬讬 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 专讗讬转诐 讻诪讻讞讜诇 讘砖驻讜驻专转 讜专讘谞谉 讛讬讻讬 讚讬讬谞讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪谞讗驻讬诐 诪砖讬专讗讜 讻诪谞讗驻讬诐

The Gemara asks: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, how would they have acted to spare the accused from execution? Abaye and Rava both say that they would have asked the witnesses: Did you see the intercourse, like a brush entering into a tube? Since witnesses rarely witness the act that closely, one could claim that the testimony is incomplete. The Gemara asks: And concerning the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva, how would they have adjudicated that case? The Gemara answers: They hold in accordance with the statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: In cases involving adulterers one can testify and convict them from when they will appear as adulterers, without any need for him to witness the act in graphic detail.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻讬爪讚 讛注讚讬诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛讙讜诇讬谉 讛讛讜专讙 谞驻砖 讘砖讙讙讛 讛讬讛 诪注讙诇 讘诪注讙讬诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 诪砖诇砖诇 讘讞讘讬转 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 讬讜专讚 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 讗讘诇 讗诐 讛讬讛 诪讜砖讱 讘诪注讙讬诇讛 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜 讛讬讛 讚讜诇讛 讘讞讘讬转 讜谞驻住拽 讛讞讘诇 讜谞驻诇讛 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙转讜

MISHNA: These are the people who are exiled: Anyone who kills a person unintentionally. Whether one is liable to be exiled depends on the particular circumstances of the case: If one was rolling a roller to smooth the covering of mortar that he applied to seal his roof and the roller fell upon a person and killed him, or if one was lowering a barrel from the roof and it fell on a person and killed him, or if he was descending a ladder and he fell on a person and killed him, in all of these cases, he is exiled. But if one was pulling a roller toward him and it fell from his hands upon a person and killed him, or if one was lifting a barrel and the rope was severed and it fell upon a person and killed him,

讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讛专讙讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讙讜诇讛 讜砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

or if one was climbing a ladder and he fell upon a person and killed him, that unintentional murderer is not exiled. This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬驻诇 注诇讬讜 讜讬诪转 注讚 砖讬驻讜诇 讚专讱 谞驻讬诇讛

GEMARA: The Gemara asks with regard to the principle that one is exiled only if he killed unintentionally through a downward motion: From where are these matters derived? It is derived from a verse, as Shmuel says that the verse states with regard to those exiled to a city of refuge: 鈥淎nd he cast it down upon him and dies鈥 (Numbers 35:23), indicating that one is not liable to be exiled unless the item falls in a downward motion.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖讙讙讛 驻专讟 诇诪讝讬讚 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉

The Sages taught in a baraita derivations from verses written with regard to the unintentional murderer: 鈥淯nintentionally鈥 (Numbers 35:11); to exclude from exile the one who kills intentionally. 鈥淯nawares鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4); to exclude from exile the one who kills with intent.

诪讝讬讚 驻砖讬讟讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 诇讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讛讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Why is a derivation necessary to exclude one who kills intentionally? It is obvious that he is not exiled; he is subject to the death penalty. Rather, Rava said: Say that the type of intentional killer referred to is meant to exclude the one who says that it is permitted to kill the victim. The verse teaches that this person is neither executed nor is he exiled. Abaye said to Rava: If the reference is to one who says that it is permitted, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he did not know any better. How could that be characterized as intentional? Rava said to him: That is not a problem, as I say that with regard to one who says that it is permitted, his action borders on the intentional.

壮讘讘诇讬 讚注转壮 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诪转讻讜讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讛专讜讙 讗转 讛讘讛诪讛 讜讛专讙 讗转 讛讗讚诐 诇讙讜讬 讜讛专讙 讗转 讬砖专讗诇 诇谞驻诇 讜讛专讙 讘谉 拽讬讬诪讗

The baraita states: 鈥淯nawares鈥; to exclude from exile the one who kills with intent. The Gemara asks: With intent? It is obvious that he is not exiled; he is subject to the death penalty. Rabba said: The reference is to exclude the one who acted with the intent to kill an animal and he killed a person inadvertently, or one who acted with the intent to kill a gentile and he killed a Jew, or one who acted with the intent to kill a non-viable newborn and he killed a viable newborn.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗诐 讘驻转注 驻专讟 诇拽专谉 讝讜讬转 讘诇讗 讗讬讘讛 驻专讟 诇砖讜谞讗 讛讚驻讜 砖讚讞驻讜 讘讙讜驻讜 讗讜 讛砖诇讬讱 注诇讬讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讬专讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 爪讜专讱 注诇讬讛 讘诇讗 爪讚讬讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇爪讚 讝讛 讜讛诇讻讛 诇讛 诇爪讚 讗讞专

The Sages taught in a baraita based on the verse written with regard to an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd if suddenly, without enmity, he thrust him or cast upon him any vessel without lying in wait鈥 (Numbers 35:22). 鈥淚f suddenly鈥; this serves to exclude one who unintentionally kills another that he encounters at a corner. 鈥淲ithout enmity鈥; this serves to exclude one who unintentionally kills his enemy, as even if the act appears unintentional, the presumption is that it was not. 鈥淗e thrust him鈥; this indicates that even if he unintentionally shoved him with his body and killed him, he is liable to be exiled. 鈥淥r cast upon him鈥; this serves to include the case of a downward motion that is for the purpose of an upward motion, e.g., if one bent down in order to lift an item from the ground, and in the process of bending down he killed another unintentionally, he is exiled. 鈥淲ithout lying in wait鈥; this serves to exclude one who had the intent to throw a stone to this side and it went to a different side and killed a person.

讜讗砖专 诇讗 爪讚讛 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 诇讝专讜拽 砖转讬诐 讜讝专拽 讗专讘注 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐

And it is written with regard to an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd who did not lie in wait鈥 (Exodus 21:13); this serves to exclude one who had intent to throw a stone two cubits and he inadvertently threw it four cubits and killed a person. And it is written concerning an unintentional murderer: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as a forest is ownerless property, and there is permission for the victim and for the assailant to enter there, so too, unintentional murder that occurs in any place where there is permission for the victim and for the assailant to enter there, is punishable with exile. The unintentional murder of one who entered the assailant鈥檚 property without his permission is not cause for the murderer to be exiled.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞砖诪讟 讛砖诇讬讘讛 诪转讞转讬讜 讜谞驻诇讛 讜讛专讙讛 诪讛讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 讬专讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讘专 谞讙注转 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖讛讬讗 爪讜专讱 注诇讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites a related discussion. Rabbi Abbahu raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: If one was ascending a ladder and the rung was displaced from beneath him, and the rung fell and killed another, what is the halakha with regard to his being exiled? In a case like this, is it considered killing in an upward motion, as he was climbing the ladder, and therefore he is exempt, or is it considered killing in a downward motion, as when he stepped on the rung he pushed it down, and therefore he is liable? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: In the scenario you described, you already touched upon the case in the baraita cited above, the case of unintentional murder that is performed with a downward motion that is for the purpose of an upward motion. The ruling in the baraita is that one is liable to be exiled in that case.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 砖诇讗 讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讻讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讻诇 砖讘讚专讱 讬专讬讚转讜 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

Rabbi Abbahu raised an objection to the explanation of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the mishna, which states: This is the principle: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion is exiled, and one who kills not through his downward motion is not exiled. Rabbi Abbahu clarifies: With regard to the phrase in the mishna: One who kills not through his downward motion, what case that was not already specified does this serve to add? Is it not to add a case like this, and to teach that even though the death was caused by the falling rung, since the assailant was ascending the ladder at the time, he is not exiled? Rabbi Yo岣nan replied: And according to your reasoning that this apparently extraneous phrase serves to include a case that is not addressed explicitly, with regard to the previous phrase in the mishna: Any murderer who kills unintentionally through his downward motion, what case that was not already specified does this serve to add?

讗诇讗 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽爪讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽爪讘 讚转谞讬讗 拽爪讘 砖讛讬讛 诪拽爪讘 转谞讗 讞讚讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇讗讞专讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 诇驻谞讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讞讬讬讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 驻讟讜专 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗

Rather, one may say that it serves to add the case of a butcher. Here too, in the latter clause, the phrase: One who kills not through his downward motion, serves to add the case of a butcher, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a butcher who was chopping animal limbs with a cleaver, one Sage taught that if he killed a person in front of him, he is liable to be exiled; if he killed a person behind him, he is exempt. And it is taught in another baraita: If he killed a person behind him, he is liable; if he killed a person in front of him, he is exempt. And it is taught in another baraita: Both if he killed a person in front of him and if he killed a person behind him, he is liable. And it is taught in another baraita: Both if he killed a person in front of him and if he killed a person behind him, he is exempt. And although these baraitot appear contradictory, the apparent contradiction is not difficult.

讻讗谉 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜注诇讬讛 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜讬专讬讚讛 砖诇讗讞专讬讜

When a butcher is about to cut the meat of an animal, he raises the cleaver and lowers it behind him in order to create momentum that will generate power. Then he raises the cleaver from behind him and brings it down forcefully onto the meat. In that process, the butcher lowers the cleaver in front of him and behind him and raises the cleaver both in front of him and behind him. Each of the four baraitot addresses a different stage of the process. Here, the baraita that says he is liable if he unintentionally murders a person in front of him and exempt if he unintentionally murders a person behind him, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with a downward motion in front of him and an upward motion behind him. There, the baraita that says he is exempt if he unintentionally murders a person in front of him and liable if he unintentionally murders a person behind him, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with an upward motion in front of him and a downward motion behind him.

讻讗谉 讘讬专讬讚讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讻讗谉 讘注诇讬讛 砖诇驻谞讬讜 讜砖诇 讗讞专讬讜

In addition, here, the baraita where he is liable in both instances, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with a downward motion both in front of him and behind him. There, the baraita where he is exempt in both instances, is referring to a case where the butcher swings the cleaver with an upward motion both in front of him and behind him. The two phrases that constitute the principle in the mishna teach that the determining factor is whether the motion is upward or downward, not whether it is in front of him or behind him. This is Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 reply to the objection of Rabbi Abbahu.

诇讬诪讗 讻转谞讗讬 讛讬讛 注讜诇讛 讘住讜诇诐 讜谞砖诪讟讛 砖诇讬讘讛 诪转讞转讬讜 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讞讬讬讘 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讬专讬讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 dilemma with regard to unintentional murder committed by one climbing a ladder is the subject of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m: If one was ascending a ladder and its rung was displaced from beneath him, it is taught in one baraita that he is liable, and it is taught in another baraita that he is exempt. What, is it not that the tanna鈥檌m disagree with regard to this, as one Sage holds: It is unintentional murder in a downward motion, and therefore he is liable, and one Sage holds: It is unintentional murder in an upward motion, and therefore he is exempt?

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 注诇讬讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇谞讬讝拽讬谉 讻讗谉 诇讙诇讜转

The Gemara rejects that parallel: No, that is not the point of contention, as everyone agrees that it is an upward motion, and there is no dispute between the Sages in the baraitot. Nevertheless, the apparent contradiction between them is not difficult, as here, in the baraita that rules him liable, the reference is to payment of damages, as with regard to one鈥檚 liability to pay damages, there is no difference between upward and downward motions, or between intentional and unwitting damage; and there, in the baraita that rules him exempt, the reference is to exile, from which one who murders unintentionally in an upward motion is exempt by Torah edict.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 诇讙诇讜转 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗转诇讬注 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转诇讬注

If you wish, say instead that in both this baraita and that baraita the reference is to exile, and it is not difficult, as this baraita, where the ruling is that he is liable, is referring to a case where the rung of the ladder was worm infested and he should have been cautious before stepping on it, and that baraita, where the ruling is that he is exempt, is referring to a case where the rung was not worm infested, as in that case it is murder due to circumstances beyond his control, as he could not have anticipated that the rung would be displaced.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讗 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 讗转诇讬注 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚诪讬讛讚拽 讜讛讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讛讚拽

And if you wish, say that in both this baraita and that baraita the reference is to a rung that was not worm infested, and it is not difficult, as this baraita, where the ruling is that he is exempt, is referring to a case where the rung was tightly inserted into the ladder, and therefore he could not have foreseen that it would be displaced, and that baraita, where the ruling is that he is liable, is referring to a case where the rung was not tightly inserted and he should have anticipated its displacement.

诪转谞讬壮 谞砖诪讟 讛讘专讝诇 诪拽转讜 讜讛专讙 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讙讜诇讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讙讜诇讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

MISHNA: If the blade of an ax or hatchet was displaced from its handle, and it flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is not exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is exiled. If part of a tree that is being split flew through the air and killed a person, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The murderer is exiled, and the Rabbis say: He is not exiled.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜讻讬 谞讗诪专 讜谞砖诇 讛讘专讝诇 诪注爪讜 讜讛诇讗 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 诪谉 讛注抓 讜注讜讚 谞讗诪专 注抓 诇诪讟讛 讜谞讗诪专 注抓 诇诪注诇讛 诪讛 注抓 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪注诇讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注 讗祝 注抓 讛讗诪讜专 诇诪讟讛 诪谉 讛注抓 讛诪转讘拽注

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: Is it stated in the verse: And the blade displaces from its wood handle? But isn鈥檛 it stated: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the wood鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), indicating that it is a wood chip from the tree that causes the death of the person? And furthermore: Etz is stated below: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the etz,鈥 and etz is stated above, earlier in the same verse: 鈥淎nd his hand wields the ax to cut down the etz.鈥 Just as the term etz stated above is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, so too, the term etz stated below is referring to wood from the tree that is being split, not to the wood of the ax handle.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诪专 专讘 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪拽专讗 讗讞讚 讚专砖讜 讜谞砖诇 讛讘专讝诇 诪谉 讛注抓 专讘讬 住讘专 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 讜谞讬砖诇 讻转讬讘 讜专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讜谞砖诇 拽专讬谞谉

Rav 岣yya bar Ashi says that Rav says: And both of them, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis, interpreted one verse to arrive at their rulings. The verse states: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces [venashal] from the wood.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds: The tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, and one derives halakhot based on the manner in which the words are written, not on the manner in which they are vocalized. And it is written venishel, a transitive verb, indicating that the blade displaced wood chips from the tree. And the Rabbis maintain: The vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, and we read the term as venashal, an intransitive verb indicating that the blade is displaced from its wooden handle and kills a person.

讜专讘讬 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪住讜专转 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold that the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative?

Scroll To Top