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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 13, 2017 | 讻状讚 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Makkot 8

There is further discussion of what types of cases would be considered accidental death that would get one sent to a refuge city and what would not fall into that category.聽 Various exceptions are brought and derived from the verses.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讬 诇讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜注讜讚

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, not the manner in which it is written? How can Rav 岣yya bar Ashi ascribe Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling to the contrary opinion? The Gemara answers: That is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: And furthermore. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: If the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, that supports my interpretation of the verse; if not, there is an additional proof.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讜讗讝讜诇 转诪专讬 讜拽讟讜诇 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讻讞 讻讞讜 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Pappa said: In the case of one who cast a clod of earth onto a palm tree, and he severed dates from the tree, and the dates went upon a person and killed him, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis in a case where one was splitting wood and a wood chip flew through the air and killed a person In that case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable to be exiled, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from exile. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The cases are identical. What novel element is Rav Pappa introducing? The Gemara answers: The parallel between the cases drawn by Rav Pappa is necessary. Lest you say that these severed dates were not propelled by the force of his action but are like an item propelled by a force generated by the force of his action, and even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that in that case he is exempt from exile, Rav Pappa teaches us that the dates are considered to have been severed by the force of his action.

讗诇讗 讻讞 讻讞讜 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 讜诪讞讬讛 诇讙专诪讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讙专诪讗 讜诪讞讬讛 诇讻讘讗住讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讜讗讝讜诇 转诪专讬 讜拽讟讜诇

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can you find circumstances of a force generated by the force of his action where he would be exempt from exile? The Gemara answers: It can be found in a case where one cast a clod of earth and it struck a branch of the palm tree, and the branch, propelled by the clod, proceeded to strike a cluster of dates [likhevasa] and severed the dates from the branch they were on and the dates proceeded to kill a person.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讻砖讬爪讗转讛 讛讗讘谉 诪讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讘诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt, as when he cast the stone into the public domain there was no one there.

讝专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 诇讞爪专讜 讜讛专讙 讗诐 讬砖 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讙讜诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 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 诇讛讻谞住 诇砖诐 讬爪讗 讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐

In the case of one who threw the stone into his courtyard and killed a person, if the victim had permission to enter into there, the murderer is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is stated with regard to the cities of refuge: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a forest, the victim and the assailant both have equal permission to enter there, so too, with regard to all places that the victim and the assailant have permission to enter there, the killer is liable. This serves to exclude the courtyard of the homeowner, where the victim and the assailant do not both have permission to enter there. Since the victim had no right to enter his courtyard, the unintentional murderer is exempt from exile.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 专砖讜转 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Abba Shaul says: Another halakha can be derived from that verse: Just as the cutting of wood that is mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are examples of cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. This serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court deputized to flog transgressors. If, in the course of performing the mitzva with which they are charged, they unintentionally murdered the son, the student, or the person being flogged, respectively, they are exempt.

讙诪壮 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. The Gemara asks: If he threw the stone into the public domain, why is he exiled? He is an intentional murderer. He knows that there are generally people in the public domain and is aware that he is likely to harm someone with the stone. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k says: The reference in the mishna is not to one who threw a stone for no reason; rather, it is a case where one is demolishing his wall, and one of the stones struck a person. The Gemara counters: That too is intentional, as he should have examined the other side of the wall to determine if there was anyone there. The Gemara answers: It is a case where one is demolishing his wall at night, when passersby are scarce. The Gemara asks: At night too he is required to examine the other side of the wall to determine if there is anyone there, as although it is uncommon, people are apt to walk through a public domain at all hours.

讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 诇讗砖驻讛 讛讗讬 讗砖驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The reference in the mishna is to a case where one demolishes his wall into a scrap heap, where there is no reasonable expectation to find anyone there, as it is located out of the way. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this scrap heap? If it is frequented by the multitudes because it is utilized as a bathroom, he is negligent; if it is not frequented by the multitudes, although it is a public domain in the sense that it is not private property, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as there was no reason to consider the possibility that someone was there.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘 驻讜砖注 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讜谞住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘

Rav Pappa said: It is necessary to state this halakha only in the case of a scrap heap that is utilized for people to defecate there at night but is not utilized for people to defecate there during the day, but it happens on occasion that one will sit there and defecate during the day. One who demolishes his wall into the scrap heap during the day is neither negligent, as the scrap heap is not utilized for people to defecate there during the day, nor is he a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as it happens on occasion that one will sit there and defecate during the day, which he should have considered. Therefore, his status is that of an unintentional murderer who is liable to be exiled.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诐 诪砖讬爪转讛 讛讗讘谉 诪讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讘诇讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt. The Gemara cites a related baraita. The Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the wood and finds his neighbor and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is inferred: 鈥淎nd finds鈥; this serves to exclude one who presents himself and is thereby killed by the stone. From here Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, the murderer is exempt.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪爪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 砖诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注讛 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 indicates an item that was there initially, prior to the incident in question? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which is written with regard to one who seeks to redeem an ancestral field that he sold: 鈥淎nd he acquires the means and finds sufficient funds for his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:26). The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 serves to exclude one who, in order to accrue funds to redeem his field, sells a field that was found in his possession when he originally sold the field. It means that he may not sell land that he owns in a distant place and redeem land that he owns in a proximate place, or sell a low-quality tract of land and redeem with the funds accrued from that sale high-quality land. One may not exploit his right to redeem his land for his own advantage. This baraita indicates that the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 indicates an item that was not there at the time but presents itself later.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜诪爪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讜讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛 讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛砖转讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 谞诪讬 诪讛砖转讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜诪爪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗祝 讜诪爪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗

Rava said: This is not difficult, as here, with regard to exile, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse, and there, with regard to the redemption of land, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse. There, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse. The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is similar to the phrase that precedes it: 鈥淎nd he acquires the means.鈥 Just as the meaning of the phrase 鈥渉e acquires the means鈥 is that he acquires the means from now, as had he possessed the means beforehand he would not have sold his ancestral field at all, so too, the meaning of the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is also that he finds sufficient funds from now and no earlier. Here, with regard to exile, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse, as the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is similar to a forest: Just as a forest is an entity that is there initially, so too, the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 also is referring to an entity that is there initially.

讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚专砖讜转 讚诇诪讗 诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚住讜讻讛 讜诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚诪注专讻讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讙诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诐 诪爪讗 讞讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讘 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches: One who throws a stone, etc. Abba Shaul derives from the verse: 鈥淎nd as when one goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5): Just as the cutting of wood mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are in cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. One of the Sages said to Rava: From where do you know that the derivation is from the cutting of wood for a purpose that is optional? Perhaps the derivation is from the cutting of wood for the purpose of building a sukka or from cutting wood for the arrangement of wood on the altar, both of which are obligatory, since they are mitzvot, and even so the Merciful One states: Let him be exiled. Rava said to him: Since if one found wood already cut he does not cut other wood, as in that case it is not a mitzva to cut, now, when there is no wood cut as well, although he is cutting wood to facilitate fulfillment of a mitzva, the act of cutting the wood itself is not a mitzva.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诪讬专 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬住专 讘谞讱 讜讬谞讬讞讱 讜讬转谉 诪注讚谞讬诐 诇谞驻砖讱

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from clause of the mishna that states that the example of the forest serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court. Let us say with regard to a father who strikes his son: Since if the son was learned, it is not a mitzva to strike him, now, in a case where the son is not learned and the father strikes him to facilitate his education too, it is not a mitzva, and therefore he should be exiled. Rava replied: There, even though the son is learned, it is a mitzva to strike him from time to time, as it is written: 鈥淐hastise your son, and he will give you rest; and he will give delight to your soul鈥 (Proverbs 29:17).

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讬讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 注讬讬诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪爪讜讛 诪讬 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 注讬讬诇

Rava then said: That which I said is nothing, as there is a different proof that the verse is not referring to cutting wood in fulfillment of a mitzva. It is written: 鈥淎nd as when one [ve鈥檃sher] goes with his neighbor into the forest.鈥 Based on the term asher, which indicates that the entering into the forest may or may not occur, what is the nature of the forest mentioned in the verse? It is a place where if one wants to, he enters the forest, and if one wants to, he does not enter. And if it enters your mind that the verse is referring to one who cuts wood to fulfill a mitzva, would it suffice if he did not enter the forest? He must enter the forest to fulfill the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Is it so that wherever the term asher is written in the Torah it is a case where if he wants to he does so, and it is not referring to a mitzva or an obligation? If that is so, that which is written: 鈥淎nd a man who [asher] becomes impure and does not purify himself, and that soul shall be excised鈥s he has impurified the Sanctuary of God鈥 (Numbers 19:20), can be referring only to a case where if he wants to he becomes impure, and if he wants to, he does not become impure. But in the case of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], where it would not suffice for him not to become impure in the process of burying it, would you say: So too, he is exempt from the punishment of karet if he enters the Temple in a state of impurity?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

Rava replied: There it is different, as the verse states with regard to one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse:

讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

鈥淗e shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:13), indicating that the same halakhot apply in any case, unrelated to the manner in which he became impure.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讜 诇专讘讜转 诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪注讜讚 讟讜诪讗转讜 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara challenges: He requires that verse for a different derivation, as that which is taught in a baraita: The phrase 鈥淗e shall be impure鈥 serves to include one who immersed that day and whose purification process will be completed at nightfall. If he enters the Temple before nightfall, he is also liable to receive karet. The phrase later in that verse: 鈥淗is impurity is upon him,鈥 serves to include one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, e.g., a leper or a zav. Rava said to Ravina: I said that the halakha that one rendered impure by a met mitzva is liable to receive karet is derived from the extraneous term 鈥測et,鈥 in the phrase later in that same verse: 鈥淗is impurity is yet upon him,鈥 which indicates that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity regardless of the manner in which he became impure. That is one version of the discussion.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讘讞专讬砖 讜讘拽爪讬专 转砖讘转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞专讬砖 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讚讱 诇讗 转讝专注 讜讻专诪讱 诇讗 转讝诪专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞专讬砖 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 砖谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讬爪讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Some teach this exchange with regard to this baraita: 鈥淚n plowing and in harvest you shall rest鈥 (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says: This verse is referring to the Sabbatical Year. The Torah does not need to state the prohibition against plowing during the Sabbatical Year or harvesting during the Sabbatical Year, as it is already stated: 鈥淵ou shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard鈥 (Leviticus 25:4). What, then, is derived from this verse? Rather, it is derived that even plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, which facilitates growth of crops when the Sabbatical Year enters, and the harvest of crops that grew during the Sabbatical Year, which emerged and were reaped after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, are prohibited.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞专讬砖 专砖讜转 讗祝 拽爪讬专 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 拽爪讬专 讛注讜诪专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yishmael says: This verse in Exodus is not referring to the Sabbatical Year; rather, the reference is to plowing and harvesting on Shabbat. Just as plowing is optional, as there is no case where there is a mitzva to plow per se, so too, the harvesting mentioned in the verse is optional. This serves to exclude from the prohibition the harvesting of barley for the omer offering, which is a mitzva, and is therefore permitted on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讞专讬砖讛 讚专砖讜转 讚诇诪讗 讞专讬砖转 注讜诪专 讚诪爪讜讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诐 诪爪讗 讞专讜砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜专砖 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛

One of the Sages said to Rava: From where does Rabbi Yishmael ascertain that the plowing mentioned in the verse is referring to plowing that is optional? Perhaps the reference is to plowing a field to grow barley for use in the omer offering, which is a mitzva, and even so the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall rest.鈥 Rava said to him: Since if one found the field already plowed, he need not plow the field but he may directly proceed to sow the barley in the plowed field, clearly, even if one plows a field to facilitate fulfillment of a mitzva, plowing is not a mitzva per se.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诪讬专 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬住专 讘谞讱 讜讬谞讬讞讱

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the clause of the mishna that states that the example of the forest serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court. And according to your opinion, why are a father who strikes his son and a teacher who oppresses his student excluded from exile? Let us say with regard to a father who strikes his son: Since if the son was learned, it is not a mitzva to strike him, now, in a case where the son is not learned and he strikes him to facilitate his education too, it is not a mitzva, and therefore he should be exiled. Rava replied: There, even if the son is learned, the father is performing a mitzva by striking him from time to time, as it is written: 鈥淐hastise your son, and he will give you rest; and he will give delight to your soul鈥 (Proverbs 29:17).

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽爪讬专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞专讬砖讛 诪讛 讞专讬砖讛 诪爪讗 讞专讜砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜专砖 讗祝 拽爪讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪爪讜讛 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 诪爪讜讛 诇拽爪讜专 讜诇讛讘讬讗

Rava then said: That which I said is nothing, as there is a different proof that the verse is not referring to plowing that is a mitzva. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, it is derived that harvesting is similar to plowing: Just as in the case of plowing, if one found the field already plowed, he need not plow, as there is no case where there is a mitzva to plow per se, so too with regard to harvesting as well, as if one found the barley already harvested, he need not harvest. And if it enters your mind that the reference in the verse is to plowing and harvesting for the purpose of a mitzva, is it so that if one found the barley already harvested, he need not harvest? There is a mitzva to harvest and bring the barley for the omer offering. The prohibition in the verse applies only to harvesting that is optional.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讘谉 讜讛讘谉 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讘 讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讙专 转讜砖讘 讜讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘

mishna The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them, except for the unintentional murder of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. And a ger toshav is exiled only due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav.

讙诪壮 讛讗讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讘谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讚讙诪讬专 讛讗诪专转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讘砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞讙专讬

gemara The mishna teaches: The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the previous mishna: To exclude a father who strikes his son, who is not exiled? The Gemara answers: This mishna is referring to a son who is learned, and there is no mitzva to strike him; therefore, since the striking is optional, the father is exiled. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say: Even if the son is learned, the father performs a mitzva by striking his son? The Gemara answers: This ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a carpenter鈥檚 apprentice [bishevaleya]. Since the father is teaching his son carpentry, not Torah, there is no mitzva to strike him to spur him to study.

砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞讙专讬 讞讬讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讚讬讛 讚讙诪讬专 讗讜诪谞讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: In the case of a carpenter鈥檚 apprentice, his father is teaching him a livelihood, which is also a mitzva. The Gemara answers: The reference is to a son who has already learned another craft, and since he is able to earn his livelihood there is no mitzva to teach him a second craft.

讜讛讘谉 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讘 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 驻专讟 诇诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd a murderer shall flee there, one who strikes a person unintentionally鈥 (Numbers 35:11), from which it is derived that one who strikes a person is exiled. This serves to exclude one who strikes his father, whose punishment for doing so intentionally is more severe than that of the standard intentional murderer, and therefore the son is not subject to exile. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult; this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree (Sanhedrin 50a) whether a son who kills his father intentionally is executed by strangulation or by the sword.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪住讬讬祝 砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛 砖讙讙转 讞谞拽 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛

According to Rabbi Shimon, who says: Strangulation is more severe than execution by the sword, which is why a son who kills his father is liable to be executed by strangulation, one who commits the unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword, i.e., intentional murder of one who is not a parent, is eligible for atonement by means of exile; one who commits the unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by the more severe death of strangulation, i.e., intentional murder of a parent, is not eligible for atonement by means of exile.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬祝 讞诪讜专 诪讞谞拽 讛讜专讙 讗讘讬讜 [讘砖讜讙讙] 砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 讛讜讗 讜砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛

By contrast, according to the Rabbis, who say: Execution by the sword is more severe than strangulation, which is why a son who kills his father is liable to be executed by the sword, a son who unintentionally kills his father has performed an unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword. And one who commits an unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword, i.e., intentional murder of one who is not a parent, is eligible for atonement by means of exile.

专讘讗 讗诪专 驻专讟 诇注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讘讗讘讬讜 讘砖讜讙讙 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava says: That which was derived in the baraita that one who strikes a person is exiled, to exclude one who strikes his father, who is not exiled, is not referring to a son who unintentionally kills his father, as in that case the son is certainly exiled. Rather, it is to exclude one who inflicts a wound on his father unwittingly. The novel element of this derivation is that it enters your mind to say: Since in a case where he wounded his father intentionally, he is liable to be executed like a murderer (see Exodus 21:15), if he did so unwittingly, let him also be exiled like an unintentional murderer. Therefore, this derivation teaches us that exile is administered specifically to an unintentional murderer, but it is not administered to the unwitting performer of any other transgression.

讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬 讜注讘讚

搂 The mishna teaches: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them. The Gemara asks: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew: What case that was not already specified does this phrase serve to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add a Canaanite slave and a Samaritan. The Gemara notes: We learn by inference from this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: A Canaanite slave and a Samaritan are exiled and flogged due to a Jew, and a Jew is exiled and flogged due to a Samaritan and a Canaanite slave.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜拽讛 讙讜诇讛 讚拽讟诇讬讛 讜诇讜拽讛 讚诇讟讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讜诇讛 讚拽讟诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讚诇讟讬讬讛 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, a slave and a Samaritan are exiled and flogged due to a Jew; either of them is exiled in a case where he killed a Jew unintentionally, and flogged in a case where he cursed the Jew, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. But with regard to the halakha that a Jew is exiled and flogged due to a Samaritan, granted, the Jew is exiled in a case where he killed the Samaritan unintentionally, but the Jew is flogged for violating what prohibition? For cursing the Samaritan? Isn鈥檛 that prohibition derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd a leader in your people you may not curse鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is inferred that the prohibition is in effect only with regard to one who performs an action characteristic of your people, who comports himself as an observant, God-fearing Jew? Even if the conversion of the Samaritans was valid, they regularly violate numerous prohibitions, and they do not comport themselves as observant Jews.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注讬讚 讘讜 讜讛讜讝诐 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 注讘讚 砖讛注讬讚 讘讜 讜讛讜讝诐 注讘讚 讘专 注讚讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: This baraita is not referring to lashes administered for cursing; rather, one is flogged in a case where a Jew testified against a Samaritan and a Samaritan testified against a Jew and he was rendered a conspiring witness. The Gemara asks: Does that mean that in the corresponding situation with regard to a Canaanite slave, a slave is flogged in a case where he testified against a Jew and was rendered a conspiring witness? Is a slave eligible to give testimony? Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: What are we dealing with here? The Jew is flogged due to a slave and a Samaritan, and the slave and the Samaritan are flogged due to the Jew in a case where one struck the other with a blow

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 8

讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讘讬 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘谉 专讜注抓 讜讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 住讘讬专讬 诇讛讜 讬砖 讗诐 诇诪拽专讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜注讜讚

But doesn鈥檛 Rav Yitz岣k, son of Rabbi Yosef, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, and Beit Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, not the manner in which it is written? How can Rav 岣yya bar Ashi ascribe Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 ruling to the contrary opinion? The Gemara answers: That is the reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: And furthermore. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: If the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, that supports my interpretation of the verse; if not, there is an additional proof.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讗谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 诇讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讜讗讝讜诇 转诪专讬 讜拽讟讜诇 讘讗谞讜 诇诪讞诇讜拽转 讚专讘讬 讜专讘谞谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讻讞 讻讞讜 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rav Pappa said: In the case of one who cast a clod of earth onto a palm tree, and he severed dates from the tree, and the dates went upon a person and killed him, we have arrived at the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis in a case where one was splitting wood and a wood chip flew through the air and killed a person In that case, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable to be exiled, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from exile. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? The cases are identical. What novel element is Rav Pappa introducing? The Gemara answers: The parallel between the cases drawn by Rav Pappa is necessary. Lest you say that these severed dates were not propelled by the force of his action but are like an item propelled by a force generated by the force of his action, and even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi would concede that in that case he is exempt from exile, Rav Pappa teaches us that the dates are considered to have been severed by the force of his action.

讗诇讗 讻讞 讻讞讜 诇专讘讬 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚砖讚讗 驻讬住讗 讜诪讞讬讛 诇讙专诪讗 讜讗讝讬诇 讙专诪讗 讜诪讞讬讛 诇讻讘讗住讗 讜讗转专 转诪专讬 讜讗讝讜诇 转诪专讬 讜拽讟讜诇

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, how can you find circumstances of a force generated by the force of his action where he would be exempt from exile? The Gemara answers: It can be found in a case where one cast a clod of earth and it struck a branch of the palm tree, and the branch, propelled by the clod, proceeded to strike a cluster of dates [likhevasa] and severed the dates from the branch they were on and the dates proceeded to kill a person.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 讗讘谉 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪讻砖讬爪讗转讛 讛讗讘谉 诪讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讘诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt, as when he cast the stone into the public domain there was no one there.

讝专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 诇讞爪专讜 讜讛专讙 讗诐 讬砖 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐 讙讜诇讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 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 诇讛讻谞住 诇砖诐 讬爪讗 讞爪专 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 砖讗讬谉 专砖讜转 诇谞讬讝拽 讜诇诪讝讬拽 诇讬讻谞住 诇砖诐

In the case of one who threw the stone into his courtyard and killed a person, if the victim had permission to enter into there, the murderer is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is stated with regard to the cities of refuge: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a forest, the victim and the assailant both have equal permission to enter there, so too, with regard to all places that the victim and the assailant have permission to enter there, the killer is liable. This serves to exclude the courtyard of the homeowner, where the victim and the assailant do not both have permission to enter there. Since the victim had no right to enter his courtyard, the unintentional murderer is exempt from exile.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 专砖讜转 讗祝 讻诇 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉

Abba Shaul says: Another halakha can be derived from that verse: Just as the cutting of wood that is mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are examples of cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. This serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court deputized to flog transgressors. If, in the course of performing the mitzva with which they are charged, they unintentionally murdered the son, the student, or the person being flogged, respectively, they are exempt.

讙诪壮 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬 讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 讘诇讬诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讬讜谞讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One who threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person is exiled. The Gemara asks: If he threw the stone into the public domain, why is he exiled? He is an intentional murderer. He knows that there are generally people in the public domain and is aware that he is likely to harm someone with the stone. Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k says: The reference in the mishna is not to one who threw a stone for no reason; rather, it is a case where one is demolishing his wall, and one of the stones struck a person. The Gemara counters: That too is intentional, as he should have examined the other side of the wall to determine if there was anyone there. The Gemara answers: It is a case where one is demolishing his wall at night, when passersby are scarce. The Gemara asks: At night too he is required to examine the other side of the wall to determine if there is anyone there, as although it is uncommon, people are apt to walk through a public domain at all hours.

讘住讜转专 讗转 讻讜转诇讜 诇讗砖驻讛 讛讗讬 讗砖驻讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 驻讜砖注 讛讜讗 讗讬 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讘讛 专讘讬诐 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The reference in the mishna is to a case where one demolishes his wall into a scrap heap, where there is no reasonable expectation to find anyone there, as it is located out of the way. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this scrap heap? If it is frequented by the multitudes because it is utilized as a bathroom, he is negligent; if it is not frequented by the multitudes, although it is a public domain in the sense that it is not private property, he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as there was no reason to consider the possibility that someone was there.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讗诇讗 诇讗砖驻讛 讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘 驻讜砖注 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬谞讛 注砖讜讬讛 诇讬驻谞讜转 讘讛 讘讬讜诐 讗讜谞住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讚诪拽专讬 讜讬转讬讘

Rav Pappa said: It is necessary to state this halakha only in the case of a scrap heap that is utilized for people to defecate there at night but is not utilized for people to defecate there during the day, but it happens on occasion that one will sit there and defecate during the day. One who demolishes his wall into the scrap heap during the day is neither negligent, as the scrap heap is not utilized for people to defecate there during the day, nor is he a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as it happens on occasion that one will sit there and defecate during the day, which he should have considered. Therefore, his status is that of an unintentional murderer who is liable to be exiled.

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪诪爪讬讗 讗转 注爪诪讜 诪讻讗谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗诐 诪砖讬爪转讛 讛讗讘谉 诪讬讚讜 讛讜爪讬讗 讛诇讛 讗转 专讗砖讜 讜拽讘诇讛 驻讟讜专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, he is exempt. The Gemara cites a related baraita. The Sages taught that it is written: 鈥淎nd the blade displaces from the wood and finds his neighbor and he dies鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), from which it is inferred: 鈥淎nd finds鈥; this serves to exclude one who presents himself and is thereby killed by the stone. From here Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says: If after the stone left his hand the other person placed his head out into the public domain and received a blow from the stone, the murderer is exempt.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚诪爪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诪砖诪注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讜诪爪讗 驻专讟 诇诪爪讜讬 砖诇讗 讬诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注讛 讜讬讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 indicates an item that was there initially, prior to the incident in question? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from that which is written with regard to one who seeks to redeem an ancestral field that he sold: 鈥淎nd he acquires the means and finds sufficient funds for his redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:26). The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 serves to exclude one who, in order to accrue funds to redeem his field, sells a field that was found in his possession when he originally sold the field. It means that he may not sell land that he owns in a distant place and redeem land that he owns in a proximate place, or sell a low-quality tract of land and redeem with the funds accrued from that sale high-quality land. One may not exploit his right to redeem his land for his own advantage. This baraita indicates that the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 indicates an item that was not there at the time but presents itself later.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛转诐 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜诪爪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讜讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛 讛砖讬讙讛 讬讚讜 诪讛砖转讗 讗祝 诪爪讗 谞诪讬 诪讛砖转讗 讛讻讗 诪注谞讬讬谞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讜诪爪讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗祝 讜诪爪讗 谞诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诪注讬拽专讗

Rava said: This is not difficult, as here, with regard to exile, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse, and there, with regard to the redemption of land, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse. There, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse. The term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is similar to the phrase that precedes it: 鈥淎nd he acquires the means.鈥 Just as the meaning of the phrase 鈥渉e acquires the means鈥 is that he acquires the means from now, as had he possessed the means beforehand he would not have sold his ancestral field at all, so too, the meaning of the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is also that he finds sufficient funds from now and no earlier. Here, with regard to exile, the term is interpreted in keeping with the context of the verse, as the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 is similar to a forest: Just as a forest is an entity that is there initially, so too, the term 鈥渁nd finds鈥 also is referring to an entity that is there initially.

讛讝讜专拽 讗转 讛讗讘谉 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚专砖讜转 讚诇诪讗 诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚住讜讻讛 讜诪讞讟讘转 注爪讬诐 讚诪注专讻讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讙诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诐 诪爪讗 讞讟讜讘 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讟讘 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛

搂 The mishna teaches: One who throws a stone, etc. Abba Shaul derives from the verse: 鈥淎nd as when one goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5): Just as the cutting of wood mentioned in the verse is optional, so too, all those liable to be exiled are in cases where the unintentional murderer was engaged in an activity that is optional. One of the Sages said to Rava: From where do you know that the derivation is from the cutting of wood for a purpose that is optional? Perhaps the derivation is from the cutting of wood for the purpose of building a sukka or from cutting wood for the arrangement of wood on the altar, both of which are obligatory, since they are mitzvot, and even so the Merciful One states: Let him be exiled. Rava said to him: Since if one found wood already cut he does not cut other wood, as in that case it is not a mitzva to cut, now, when there is no wood cut as well, although he is cutting wood to facilitate fulfillment of a mitzva, the act of cutting the wood itself is not a mitzva.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诪讬专 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 诪爪讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬住专 讘谞讱 讜讬谞讬讞讱 讜讬转谉 诪注讚谞讬诐 诇谞驻砖讱

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from clause of the mishna that states that the example of the forest serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court. Let us say with regard to a father who strikes his son: Since if the son was learned, it is not a mitzva to strike him, now, in a case where the son is not learned and the father strikes him to facilitate his education too, it is not a mitzva, and therefore he should be exiled. Rava replied: There, even though the son is learned, it is a mitzva to strike him from time to time, as it is written: 鈥淐hastise your son, and he will give you rest; and he will give delight to your soul鈥 (Proverbs 29:17).

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 诪讛 讬注专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 注讬讬诇 讜讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 注讬讬诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪爪讜讛 诪讬 住讙讬讗 讚诇讗 注讬讬诇

Rava then said: That which I said is nothing, as there is a different proof that the verse is not referring to cutting wood in fulfillment of a mitzva. It is written: 鈥淎nd as when one [ve鈥檃sher] goes with his neighbor into the forest.鈥 Based on the term asher, which indicates that the entering into the forest may or may not occur, what is the nature of the forest mentioned in the verse? It is a place where if one wants to, he enters the forest, and if one wants to, he does not enter. And if it enters your mind that the verse is referring to one who cuts wood to fulfill a mitzva, would it suffice if he did not enter the forest? He must enter the forest to fulfill the mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诇专讘讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讜讗讬砖 讗砖专 讬讟诪讗 讜诇讗 讬转讞讟讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诪讬讟诪讗 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 诪转 诪爪讜讛 讚诇讗 住讙讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讟诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚驻讟讜专

Rav Adda bar Ahava said to Rava: Is it so that wherever the term asher is written in the Torah it is a case where if he wants to he does so, and it is not referring to a mitzva or an obligation? If that is so, that which is written: 鈥淎nd a man who [asher] becomes impure and does not purify himself, and that soul shall be excised鈥s he has impurified the Sanctuary of God鈥 (Numbers 19:20), can be referring only to a case where if he wants to he becomes impure, and if he wants to, he does not become impure. But in the case of a corpse with no one to bury it [met mitzva], where it would not suffice for him not to become impure in the process of burying it, would you say: So too, he is exempt from the punishment of karet if he enters the Temple in a state of impurity?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗

Rava replied: There it is different, as the verse states with regard to one impure with impurity imparted by a corpse:

讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

鈥淗e shall be impure鈥 (Numbers 19:13), indicating that the same halakhot apply in any case, unrelated to the manner in which he became impure.

讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讟诪讗 讬讛讬讛 诇专讘讜转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讟讜诪讗转讜 讘讜 诇专讘讜转 诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪注讜讚 讟讜诪讗转讜 拽讗 讗诪讬谞讗

The Gemara challenges: He requires that verse for a different derivation, as that which is taught in a baraita: The phrase 鈥淗e shall be impure鈥 serves to include one who immersed that day and whose purification process will be completed at nightfall. If he enters the Temple before nightfall, he is also liable to receive karet. The phrase later in that verse: 鈥淗is impurity is upon him,鈥 serves to include one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, e.g., a leper or a zav. Rava said to Ravina: I said that the halakha that one rendered impure by a met mitzva is liable to receive karet is derived from the extraneous term 鈥測et,鈥 in the phrase later in that same verse: 鈥淗is impurity is yet upon him,鈥 which indicates that one is liable for entering the Temple in a state of impurity regardless of the manner in which he became impure. That is one version of the discussion.

讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讘讞专讬砖 讜讘拽爪讬专 转砖讘转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 讞专讬砖 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 砖讚讱 诇讗 转讝专注 讜讻专诪讱 诇讗 转讝诪专 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞专讬砖 砖诇 注专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 砖谞讻谞住 诇砖讘讬注讬转 讜拽爪讬专 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 砖讬爪讗 诇诪讜爪讗讬 砖讘讬注讬转

Some teach this exchange with regard to this baraita: 鈥淚n plowing and in harvest you shall rest鈥 (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says: This verse is referring to the Sabbatical Year. The Torah does not need to state the prohibition against plowing during the Sabbatical Year or harvesting during the Sabbatical Year, as it is already stated: 鈥淵ou shall neither sow your field, nor prune your vineyard鈥 (Leviticus 25:4). What, then, is derived from this verse? Rather, it is derived that even plowing on the eve of the Sabbatical Year, which facilitates growth of crops when the Sabbatical Year enters, and the harvest of crops that grew during the Sabbatical Year, which emerged and were reaped after the conclusion of the Sabbatical Year, are prohibited.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪讛 讞专讬砖 专砖讜转 讗祝 拽爪讬专 专砖讜转 讬爪讗 拽爪讬专 讛注讜诪专 砖讛讜讗 诪爪讜讛

Rabbi Yishmael says: This verse in Exodus is not referring to the Sabbatical Year; rather, the reference is to plowing and harvesting on Shabbat. Just as plowing is optional, as there is no case where there is a mitzva to plow per se, so too, the harvesting mentioned in the verse is optional. This serves to exclude from the prohibition the harvesting of barley for the omer offering, which is a mitzva, and is therefore permitted on Shabbat.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 诪诪讗讬 讚讞专讬砖讛 讚专砖讜转 讚诇诪讗 讞专讬砖转 注讜诪专 讚诪爪讜讛 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 转砖讘转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诐 诪爪讗 讞专讜砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜专砖 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛

One of the Sages said to Rava: From where does Rabbi Yishmael ascertain that the plowing mentioned in the verse is referring to plowing that is optional? Perhaps the reference is to plowing a field to grow barley for use in the omer offering, which is a mitzva, and even so the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall rest.鈥 Rava said to him: Since if one found the field already plowed, he need not plow the field but he may directly proceed to sow the barley in the plowed field, clearly, even if one plows a field to facilitate fulfillment of a mitzva, plowing is not a mitzva per se.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘讗 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讜讛专讘 讛专讜讚讛 讗转 转诇诪讬讚讜 讜砖诇讬讞 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬诇讜 讙诪讬专 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪爪讜讛 讛转诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 谞诪讬 诪爪讜讛 拽讗 注讘讬讚 讚讻转讬讘 讬住专 讘谞讱 讜讬谞讬讞讱

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the clause of the mishna that states that the example of the forest serves to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court. And according to your opinion, why are a father who strikes his son and a teacher who oppresses his student excluded from exile? Let us say with regard to a father who strikes his son: Since if the son was learned, it is not a mitzva to strike him, now, in a case where the son is not learned and he strikes him to facilitate his education too, it is not a mitzva, and therefore he should be exiled. Rava replied: There, even if the son is learned, the father is performing a mitzva by striking him from time to time, as it is written: 鈥淐hastise your son, and he will give you rest; and he will give delight to your soul鈥 (Proverbs 29:17).

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽爪讬专讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞专讬砖讛 诪讛 讞专讬砖讛 诪爪讗 讞专讜砖 讗讬谞讜 讞讜专砖 讗祝 拽爪讬专讛 谞诪讬 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪爪讜讛 诪爪讗 拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 拽讜爪专 诪爪讜讛 诇拽爪讜专 讜诇讛讘讬讗

Rava then said: That which I said is nothing, as there is a different proof that the verse is not referring to plowing that is a mitzva. Based on the juxtaposition of the two, it is derived that harvesting is similar to plowing: Just as in the case of plowing, if one found the field already plowed, he need not plow, as there is no case where there is a mitzva to plow per se, so too with regard to harvesting as well, as if one found the barley already harvested, he need not harvest. And if it enters your mind that the reference in the verse is to plowing and harvesting for the purpose of a mitzva, is it so that if one found the barley already harvested, he need not harvest? There is a mitzva to harvest and bring the barley for the omer offering. The prohibition in the verse applies only to harvesting that is optional.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讘谉 讜讛讘谉 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讘 讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬讛谉 讞讜抓 诪讙专 转讜砖讘 讜讙专 转讜砖讘 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘

mishna The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them, except for the unintentional murder of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. And a ger toshav is exiled only due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav.

讙诪壮 讛讗讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讘谉 讜讛讗诪专转 讬爪讗 讛讗讘 讛诪讻讛 讗转 讘谞讜 讚讙诪讬专 讛讗诪专转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讙诪讬专 诪爪讜讛 拽注讘讬讚 讘砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞讙专讬

gemara The mishna teaches: The father is exiled to a city of refuge due to his unintentional murder of his son. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say in the previous mishna: To exclude a father who strikes his son, who is not exiled? The Gemara answers: This mishna is referring to a son who is learned, and there is no mitzva to strike him; therefore, since the striking is optional, the father is exiled. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say: Even if the son is learned, the father performs a mitzva by striking his son? The Gemara answers: This ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a carpenter鈥檚 apprentice [bishevaleya]. Since the father is teaching his son carpentry, not Torah, there is no mitzva to strike him to spur him to study.

砖讜诇讬讗 讚谞讙专讬 讞讬讜转讗 讛讬讗 讚诇诪讚讬讛 讚讙诪讬专 讗讜诪谞讜转讗 讗讞专讬转讬

The Gemara challenges: In the case of a carpenter鈥檚 apprentice, his father is teaching him a livelihood, which is also a mitzva. The Gemara answers: The reference is to a son who has already learned another craft, and since he is able to earn his livelihood there is no mitzva to teach him a second craft.

讜讛讘谉 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讛讗讘 讻讜壮 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 驻专讟 诇诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: And the son is exiled due to his unintentional murder of his father. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita. It is written: 鈥淎nd a murderer shall flee there, one who strikes a person unintentionally鈥 (Numbers 35:11), from which it is derived that one who strikes a person is exiled. This serves to exclude one who strikes his father, whose punishment for doing so intentionally is more severe than that of the standard intentional murderer, and therefore the son is not subject to exile. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult; this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and that mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis disagree (Sanhedrin 50a) whether a son who kills his father intentionally is executed by strangulation or by the sword.

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪住讬讬祝 砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛 砖讙讙转 讞谞拽 诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛

According to Rabbi Shimon, who says: Strangulation is more severe than execution by the sword, which is why a son who kills his father is liable to be executed by strangulation, one who commits the unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword, i.e., intentional murder of one who is not a parent, is eligible for atonement by means of exile; one who commits the unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by the more severe death of strangulation, i.e., intentional murder of a parent, is not eligible for atonement by means of exile.

诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 住讬讬祝 讞诪讜专 诪讞谞拽 讛讜专讙 讗讘讬讜 [讘砖讜讙讙] 砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 讛讜讗 讜砖讙讙转 住讬讬祝 谞讬转谞讛 诇讻驻专讛

By contrast, according to the Rabbis, who say: Execution by the sword is more severe than strangulation, which is why a son who kills his father is liable to be executed by the sword, a son who unintentionally kills his father has performed an unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword. And one who commits an unwitting violation of a prohibition generally punishable by execution by the sword, i.e., intentional murder of one who is not a parent, is eligible for atonement by means of exile.

专讘讗 讗诪专 驻专讟 诇注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛 讘讗讘讬讜 讘砖讜讙讙 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讘诪讝讬讚 讘专 拽讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讘砖讜讙讙 谞诪讬 诇讬讙诇讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rava says: That which was derived in the baraita that one who strikes a person is exiled, to exclude one who strikes his father, who is not exiled, is not referring to a son who unintentionally kills his father, as in that case the son is certainly exiled. Rather, it is to exclude one who inflicts a wound on his father unwittingly. The novel element of this derivation is that it enters your mind to say: Since in a case where he wounded his father intentionally, he is liable to be executed like a murderer (see Exodus 21:15), if he did so unwittingly, let him also be exiled like an unintentional murderer. Therefore, this derivation teaches us that exile is administered specifically to an unintentional murderer, but it is not administered to the unwitting performer of any other transgression.

讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讛讻诇 讙讜诇讬谉 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬 讜注讘讚

搂 The mishna teaches: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to his unintentional murder of any of them. The Gemara asks: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew: What case that was not already specified does this phrase serve to add? The Gemara answers: It serves to add a Canaanite slave and a Samaritan. The Gemara notes: We learn by inference from this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: A Canaanite slave and a Samaritan are exiled and flogged due to a Jew, and a Jew is exiled and flogged due to a Samaritan and a Canaanite slave.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讘讚 讜讻讜转讬 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜拽讛 讙讜诇讛 讚拽讟诇讬讛 讜诇讜拽讛 讚诇讟讬讬讛 讗诇讗 讬砖专讗诇 讙讜诇讛 讜诇讜拽讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讻讜转讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讜诇讛 讚拽讟诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 讚诇讟讬讬讛 讜谞砖讬讗 讘注诪讱 诇讗 转讗专 讘注讜砖讛 诪注砖讛 注诪讱

The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, a slave and a Samaritan are exiled and flogged due to a Jew; either of them is exiled in a case where he killed a Jew unintentionally, and flogged in a case where he cursed the Jew, thereby violating a Torah prohibition. But with regard to the halakha that a Jew is exiled and flogged due to a Samaritan, granted, the Jew is exiled in a case where he killed the Samaritan unintentionally, but the Jew is flogged for violating what prohibition? For cursing the Samaritan? Isn鈥檛 that prohibition derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd a leader in your people you may not curse鈥 (Exodus 22:27), from which it is inferred that the prohibition is in effect only with regard to one who performs an action characteristic of your people, who comports himself as an observant, God-fearing Jew? Even if the conversion of the Samaritans was valid, they regularly violate numerous prohibitions, and they do not comport themselves as observant Jews.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讻讙讜谉 砖讛注讬讚 讘讜 讜讛讜讝诐 讚讻讜讜转讬讛 讙讘讬 注讘讚 砖讛注讬讚 讘讜 讜讛讜讝诐 注讘讚 讘专 注讚讜转 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛

Rather, Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov said: This baraita is not referring to lashes administered for cursing; rather, one is flogged in a case where a Jew testified against a Samaritan and a Samaritan testified against a Jew and he was rendered a conspiring witness. The Gemara asks: Does that mean that in the corresponding situation with regard to a Canaanite slave, a slave is flogged in a case where he testified against a Jew and was rendered a conspiring witness? Is a slave eligible to give testimony? Rather, Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: What are we dealing with here? The Jew is flogged due to a slave and a Samaritan, and the slave and the Samaritan are flogged due to the Jew in a case where one struck the other with a blow

Scroll To Top