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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 26, 2017 | 讜壮 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Sanhedrin 72

Assumptions are made about a rebellious child regarding the course his future will take and therefore he is killed to prevent him from sinning further.聽 Assumptions are also made regarding a robber – the assumption is that a robber will come to kill if the owner of the house stands up to him and therefore it is permitted to kill him.聽 The gemara聽discusses the circumstances in which one can assume the robber is coming to kill.聽 Since at the time聽of the robbery, there is a “death penalty” on the robber, the robber is exempt from damages caused to the property because of the law that if one incurs two punishments at the same come, one is exempt from the more lenient one.聽 Rav takes this even further to say he is exempt from returning the stolen items.聽 Rava disagrees.聽 Does one who breaks into another’s house need to be warned?聽 Rav Huna says no.聽 The gemara raises questions and also potential proofs聽to Rav Huna’s statement, including a mishna in Ohalot that discusses聽aborting聽a fetus to save the mother’s life.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讻诇 讝讛 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讬住拽诇 讗诇讗 讛讙讬注讛 转讜专讛 诇住讜祝 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖住讜祝 诪讙诪专 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪讘拽砖 诇诪讜讚讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗 讜讬讜爪讗 诇驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜诪诇住讟诐 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that further elaborates upon the words of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that the Torah states that he shall be taken out to court to be stoned? Rather, the Torah penetrated the ultimate mind-set of the stubborn and rebellious son and the inevitable results of his actions, and it is understood that he will continue on this path, and in the end he will squander his father鈥檚 property, and then, seeking the pleasures to which he had become accustomed but not finding them, he will go out to the crossroads and rob people.

讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬诪讜转 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诇 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诪讬转转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 砖讬谞讛 讜讬讬谉 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讟 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 驻讬讝讜专 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

The Torah said that it is better that he should die now when he is still innocent, and he should not die later when he is guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them and also beneficial to the world, while the death of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The sleep and wine of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, while that of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, while the dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 谞讬讚讜谉 注诇 砖诐 住讜驻讜 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜砖讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is sentenced on account of his ultimate end, as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is if a father broke into his son鈥檚 house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is exempt from paying for the barrel.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞转专转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬 讗讝讬诇谞讗 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讬 讜讗讬 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 拽讟诇讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诐 讘讗 诇讛讜专讙讱 讛砖讻诐 诇讛讜专讙讜

GEMARA: Rava says: What is the reason for this halakha concerning a burglar who breaks into a house? He explains: There is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore this burglar must have said to himself: If I go in and the owner sees me, he will rise against me and not allow me to steal from him, and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated a principle: If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜谞讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 拽谞谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘砖砖讬讘专 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 谞讟诇 诇讗

Rav says: If a burglar broke into a house and took certain vessels, and he then left and was caught only afterward, he is exempt from the obligation to pay restitution for the vessels. What is the reason? He acquired the vessels with his blood. When he broke into the house, he risked his life, as the owner could have killed him. This grave risk that he took exempts him from any other more lenient punishments that could otherwise have been imposed upon him, including the obligation to pay restitution. Rava says: Rav鈥檚 statement is reasonable in a case where he broke the vessels in the course of robbing, so that they no longer exist, and the issue is only whether he has to pay for them. But if he took the vessels and they are still extant, Rav鈥檚 ruling does not apply.

讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诇 讚讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讗谞住讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara comments: But by God! Rav states his ruling even with regard to a case where the burglar took the vessels and they are still extant. That is to say, Rav himself does not distinguish between the two cases, as in a case where there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, e.g., in a case where a father came to steal from his son, if an accident occurred to the vessels, the burglar is liable to pay for them. Apparently, the vessels are established in the burglar鈥檚 possession, and he must pay for any damage that occurs to them. Here also, then, where there is no blood-guiltiness, the vessels are established as being in the burglar鈥檚 possession and they are his.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 讗讜拽诪讬谞讗 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜谞住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诪专讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖讜讗诇

Rava explains: But this is not so, i.e., there is no proof from that case that can be applied to this one. One can claim that when the Merciful One established the vessels in the burglar鈥檚 possession, that was only concerning accidents, so he should be liable to pay for any damage that occurs to them. But as for ownership, they remain in the possession of their owner, just as it is in the case of a borrower. Even though a borrower is liable to pay for all the accidental damage caused to the item he borrowed, nevertheless the borrowed item does not become his property.

转谞谉 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚砖讬讘专 讚讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞讟诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav: We learned in the mishna that if the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay the value of the barrel. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, he is exempt from paying for the barrel. A precise reading of the mishna indicates that the reason he is exempt is that he broke the barrel, so where there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, he is exempt from paying for it. But if he took the barrel, he would not be exempt; rather, he would be liable, counter to the ruling of Rav.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 转谞讬 砖讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讬讘专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: The same is true, i.e., that the burglar would be exempt, even if he took the barrel. And that which was taught in the mishna: He broke the barrel, serves to teach us that when there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, then even though he broke the barrel and it is no longer extant, he is also liable to pay for it.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讝讬拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讬谞讗 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is liable? This burglar is like any other person who causes damage and is liable to pay for it. The Gemara answers: This mishna teaches us that he is liable even if he broke the barrel unintentionally. The Gemara objects once again: What is the mishna teaching us with this ruling? Does it teach that the legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, and therefore he is liable even for unintentional damage? But we already learn this in a baraita: The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, whether the damage was done unintentionally or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or whether it was done willingly. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this presents a difficulty for Rav.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转

Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises an objection to the ruling of Rava from a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat and takes it out into a public domain is liable to pay for what he stole even though he also desecrated Shabbat, which is a transgression for which one is executed by stoning. Ordinarily, one who is liable to receive two punishments for the same offense is administered only the more severe punishment and exempt from the other one. Here, however, he is liable to pay for the purse and is executed, because he was already liable to pay for the theft as soon as he lifted the purse, and this took place before he came to violate the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying the purse into the public domain.

讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讘讛 讜讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If he did not lift the purse, but rather was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, he is exempt from paying for what he stole, as in this case, since he did not lift the purse, he would become liable to pay for the stolen item only when he drags it out of its owner鈥檚 property into the public domain. Accordingly, the prohibition of theft and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, which is punishable with death by stoning, are violated simultaneously, and one who is liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from monetary liability that he incurred with the selfsame act. This poses a difficulty to Rava, who ruled that if the stolen item is extant the burglar must return it, whereas this baraita indicates that if one commits a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is exempt from all payments.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讚砖讚谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗

The Gemara answers: And the halakha is that the baraita must be understood as referring to a case where the burglar threw the purse into a river. Since the purse is no longer extant, he is exempt from having to pay for it even though he caused the damage intentionally. But if the purse is extant, he is in fact required to return it.

专讘讗 讗讬讙谞讘讜 诇讬讛 讚讬讻专讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘

It is related that rams were once stolen from Rava by burglars who broke into his house. The burglars came to return the animals to him, but Rava did not accept them. Rava said: Since a ruling issued from Rav鈥檚 mouth that a burglar who may be killed acquires the items he stole, I no longer agree to take them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讝专讞讛 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜壮 讜讻讬 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讘诇讘讚 讝专讞讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讛讚讘专 讻砖诪砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讜诐 注诪讱 讛专讙讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 转讛专讙讛讜

搂 Apropos a burglar who breaks into a house, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verses state: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account. If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1鈥2). A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather, these words must be understood in a metaphoric sense: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is not coming to you in peace, but rather his intention is to kill you, arise and kill him first. But if you are not sure about his intentions, do not kill him.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮讗诐 讝专讞讛 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讜讻讬 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讘诇讘讚 讝专讞讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讻砖诪砖 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诇讜诐 注诪讱 讗诇 转讛专讙讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讙讛讜 拽砖讬讗 住转诪讗 讗住转诪讗

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account.鈥 A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather, these words must be understood as follows: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is coming to you in peace, do not kill him. But if you are not sure about his intentions, arise and kill him. The Gemara notes a difficulty: The halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the first baraita contradicts the halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the second baraita. The first baraita indicates that if the homeowner is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions, he is prohibited from killing the burglar, whereas the second baraita indicates that in such a case, he is permitted to kill the burglar.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.

讻讗谉 讘讗讘 注诇 讛讘谉 讻讗谉 讘讘谉 注诇 讛讗讘

Here, where the baraita teaches that if one is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions it is prohibited for him to kill him, it is referring to a father who comes to rob his son. A father has great compassion for his son, and therefore it may be presumed that he will not kill his son if he resists. Accordingly, the son is prohibited from killing his father unless he knows for certain that his father has the intention of killing him. There, where the baraita teaches that if one is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions it is permitted for him to kill him, it is referring to a son who comes to rob his father. Since a son has less compassion for his father, it may be presumed that he would be ready to kill his father if he resists. Therefore, the father is permitted to kill his son unless he knows for certain that his son would never kill him.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讚讗转讬 注诇讗讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘专 诪专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚爪讚讬拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗转讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚诪专讞诐 注诇讬 讻专讞诐 讗讘 注诇 讛讘谉

Rav says: With regard to anyone who breaks into my house, I would kill him, as I would presume that he is ready to kill me, except for Rav 岣nina bar Sheila, whom I would not kill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav excludes Rabbi 岣nina bar Sheila? If we say that Rav trusts him because he is a righteous person, this is difficult, as the case is one where he broke into his house, which indicates that he is not a righteous person. Rather, it is because he would say: I am certain that he would have mercy upon me just like a father would have mercy on a son.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 壮讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淚f the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:2), both during the week and on Shabbat. 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in鈥here shall not be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1), both during the week and on Shabbat.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛专讜讙讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘砖讘转 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽讟诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 壮讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讛砖转讗 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘砖讘转 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara clarifies this baraita: Granted that with regard to 鈥渢here shall not be blood shed on his account,鈥 it was necessary to say that this applies both during the week and on Shabbat, as it might enter your mind to say that this is just as it is in the case of those who are executed by the court, who are not executed on Shabbat. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the burglar may be slain in self-defense even on Shabbat. But with regard to 鈥渢here shall be blood shed on his account,鈥 the statement that this applies both during the week and on Shabbat is puzzling. Now, if on a weekday he may not be slain, is it necessary to say that he may not be slain on Shabbat?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

Rav Sheshet says: This ruling is necessary only to teach that if a building collapsed on the burglar on Shabbat, one is obligated to clear the pile of stones from on top of him and perform any action necessary to rescue him, even if it involves the desecration of Shabbat; one does not say that while he is not permitted to actively kill him, he is also not obligated to save him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讻讛壮 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 壮讜诪转壮 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘砖诇诪讗 壮讜讛讻讛壮 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讚拽讬诐 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诇讗

搂 Concerning the verse that states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1), the Sages taught a baraita: 鈥淎nd is smitten,鈥 by any person who strikes him; 鈥渁nd dies,鈥 by any means of death by which you can put him to death. The Gemara clarifies this baraita: Granted, with regard to the words 鈥渁nd is smitten,鈥 it was necessary to say that he may be struck by any person, as it might enter your mind to say that it is only the owner of the house whom the burglar is certain will resist him, because there is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore it is only the homeowner鈥檚 life that is in danger from the burglar. But as for another person, the burglar is not sure that he will try to stop him, and therefore that other person may not kill him, since the burglar did not come with the intention of killing him.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讜讚祝 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 壮讜诪转壮 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this burglar is considered a pursuer, and he is subject to the same halakha as anyone who pursues another in order to kill him, namely, that anyone may kill the pursuer in order to rescue the one being pursued. Therefore, even another person is permitted to kill the burglar in order to save the homeowner. But that which the baraita teaches, that the words 鈥渁nd dies鈥 teach that he may be slain by any means of death by which you can put him to death, why do I need this?

诪专讜爪讞 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛 专爪讞 讛讜讗壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讜 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: This can be derived from the halakha governing a murderer, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse with regard to a murderer states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer鈥 (Numbers 35:21). I have derived only that the murderer is put to death with the mode of execution stated concerning him, namely, killing by decapitation. From where do I derive that if you cannot put him to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, e.g., if he is escaping, that you can put him to death with any mode of execution with which you can put him to death? The verse states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death [mot yumat],鈥 the doubled verb teaching that he is put to death in any case, by any mode of execution. Why not derive the halakha of a burglar from the halakha of a murderer?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讜转 讬讜诪转

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: There it is different, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥Mot yumat,鈥 which serves to include all modes of execution.

讜谞讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 专讜爪讞 讜讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But why not learn from it a principle that can be applied to all people who may be put to death? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: This case does not serve as a source for a principle, because the halakhot of a murderer and of a blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of one who was killed who is allowed to kill his relative鈥檚 killer (see Makkot 11b), are two verses that come as one, and two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated with regard to two specific cases in the Torah, the halakha is understood to apply only to those cases. Had the halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. Therefore, the baraita had to teach us that this halakha also applies to a burglar who breaks into a person鈥檚 house.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮诪讞转专转壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讞转专转 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讞转专转壮 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讙谞讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讘诪讞转专转

The Sages taught in a baraita: From the words: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in鈥 (Exodus 22:1), I have derived only that this halakha applies to a burglar who came breaking in through a wall. But from where do I derive that the same halakha applies if he was found on his roof, in his yard, or in the enclosed area behind his house? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found,鈥 which teaches that the halakha applies in any case. If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淏reaking in鈥? Because the Torah speaks of a common case, and most thieves are found breaking in.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮诪讞转专转壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讞转专转 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讞转专转壮 诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜

It is taught in another baraita: From the words: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in,鈥 I have derived only that this halakha applies to a burglar who came breaking in through a wall. But from where do I derive that the same halakha applies if he was found on his roof, in his yard, or in the enclosed area behind his house? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found,鈥 which teaches that the halakha applies in any case. If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淏reaking in鈥? This teaches that his breaking in is his forewarning. If a burglar is found breaking into a house, the owner need not formally forewarn him before killing him. If he is found elsewhere, such a forewarning is necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讟谉 讛专讜讚祝 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 拽住讘专 专讜讚祝 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟谉

Rav Huna says: If a minor was pursuing another person in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved with the pursuer鈥檚 life. That is to say, one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, and one does not say that since the minor lacks halakhic competence, he is not subject to punishment. The Gemara explains: Rav Huna maintains that a pursuer, in general, does not require forewarning, and there is no difference with regard to this matter between an adult and a minor. The essence of the matter is rescuing the pursued party from death, and therefore the pursuer鈥檚 liability to receive the death penalty is irrelevant.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 谞驻砖 诪驻谞讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诪讗讬 专讜讚祝 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪砖诪讬讗 拽讗 专讚驻讬 诇讛

Rav 岣sda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If a woman was giving birth and her life was being endangered by the fetus, the life of the fetus may be sacrificed in order to save the mother. But once his head has emerged during the birthing process, he may not be harmed in order to save the mother, because one life may not be pushed aside to save another life. If one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, why is this so? The fetus is a pursuer who is endangering his mother鈥檚 life. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is different there, with regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讗讜诪专 诇讜 壮专讗讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讘专讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛爪诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 讝讛壮

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the ruling of Rav Huna, who said that a pursuer does not require a forewarning: If a pursuer was pursuing another person in order to kill him, a third party says to the pursuer: See that he whom you are pursuing to kill is a Jew, and a loyal member of the covenant, and the Torah stated: 鈥淲hoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The Torah stated: Save the blood of this person who is being pursued with the blood of that person who is pursuing him. The fact that there is no indication here that the pursuer must say that he heard the forewarning suggests that forewarning is not required, as stated by Rav Huna.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 讛转专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Perhaps this baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A 岣ver, who is thoroughly knowledgeable in halakha, does not need to be issued a forewarning by witnesses in order to become liable to be punished, because forewarning is given only to distinguish between unintentional sin and intentional sin, and a 岣ver is certainly aware of the halakha. The same may be said about a pursuer: Since his malice is clear, he does not require a forewarning; his sin is obviously intentional. Those who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and say that even a 岣ver needs to be issued a forewarning would say that a pursuer must be forewarned as well.

转讗 砖诪注 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讗诪专 诇讜 壮专讗讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讘专讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱壮 讗诐 讗诪专 壮讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谉壮 驻讟讜专 壮注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讗谞讬 注讜砖讛壮 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that a pursuer must be forewarned, and therefore one may not save a pursued party by killing a minor who is pursuing him, from a baraita: If a pursuer was pursuing another person in order to kill him, and a third party said to him: See that he whom you are pursuing to kill is a Jew, and a loyal member of the covenant, and the Torah stated: 鈥淲hoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6), in this case, if the pursuer said: I know this to be so, he is exempt from being killed, but if he said: I am doing it on this condition, i.e., knowing that I am liable to be killed for this, he is liable to be slain. This indicates that even a pursuer must be issued a forewarning.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讬讘专讬 讚谞讛专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗爪讜诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬转讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘注讬 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: This forewarning is not necessary except in a case where the pursuer and the person issuing the warning are standing on two opposite sides of a river, so that the latter cannot save the party being pursued by killing the pursuer. What is there for him to do? Unable to save the pursued party, he wants at least to bring the pursuer to court, so that he will be convicted and have the death penalty administered to him. But in order to administer punishment, the court requires that the offender receive proper forewarning. It is for this reason that the baraita speaks of forewarning, but a pursuer may be killed by a bystander even without having been forewarned.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻转谞讗 讚诪讞转专转 讚讗诪专 诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜

If you wish, say instead that Rav Huna could have said to you: I stated my opinion that it is permitted to kill a minor pursuer in accordance with the tanna who spoke of the issue of a burglar who breaks into a house. As this tanna says that his breaking in is his forewarning, that is, a burglar who breaks into a house needs no further forewarning. Here, too, anyone who is pursuing another in order to kill him does not require forewarning since his pursuit is his forewarning.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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!

Sanhedrin 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 72

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 讜讻讬 诪驻谞讬 砖讗讻诇 讝讛 转专讟讬诪专 讘砖专 讜砖转讛 讞爪讬 诇讜讙 讬讬谉 讛讗讬讟诇拽讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讬住拽诇 讗诇讗 讛讙讬注讛 转讜专讛 诇住讜祝 讚注转讜 砖诇 讘谉 住讜专专 讜诪讜专讛 砖住讜祝 诪讙诪专 谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 讜诪讘拽砖 诇诪讜讚讜 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讜爪讗 讜讬讜爪讗 诇驻专砖转 讚专讻讬诐 讜诪诇住讟诐 讗转 讛讘专讬讜转

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that further elaborates upon the words of the mishna: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Is it simply due to the fact that the boy ate a tarteimar of meat and drank a half-log of Italian wine that the Torah states that he shall be taken out to court to be stoned? Rather, the Torah penetrated the ultimate mind-set of the stubborn and rebellious son and the inevitable results of his actions, and it is understood that he will continue on this path, and in the end he will squander his father鈥檚 property, and then, seeking the pleasures to which he had become accustomed but not finding them, he will go out to the crossroads and rob people.

讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讬诪讜转 讝讻讗讬 讜讗诇 讬诪讜转 讞讬讬讘 砖诪讬转转谉 砖诇 专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 砖讬谞讛 讜讬讬谉 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 砖拽讟 诇专砖注讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 驻讬讝讜专 诇专砖注讬诐 讛谞讗讛 诇讛诐 讜讛谞讗讛 诇注讜诇诐 讜诇爪讚讬拽讬诐 专注 诇讛诐 讜专注 诇注讜诇诐

The Torah said that it is better that he should die now when he is still innocent, and he should not die later when he is guilty. This is because the death of the wicked is beneficial to them and also beneficial to the world, while the death of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The sleep and wine of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, while that of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world. The tranquility of the wicked is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world, while the tranquility of the righteous is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world. The dispersal of the wicked is beneficial to them and beneficial to the world, while the dispersal of the righteous is detrimental to them and detrimental to the world.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 谞讬讚讜谉 注诇 砖诐 住讜驻讜 讛讬讛 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜砖讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讗诐 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: A burglar who is found breaking into a house may be killed by the owner of the house with impunity (see Exodus 22:1). He too is sentenced on account of his ultimate end, as it is presumed that if the owner of the house would resist the burglar, the burglar would kill the owner of the house. If the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be liable for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay for the value of the barrel. An example of this is if a father broke into his son鈥檚 house, in which case it is presumed that even if the son resists his father, his father would never kill him, and therefore the son may not kill his father, and if he does so he is liable. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, i.e., if the homeowner would be exempt from punishment for killing him, the burglar is exempt from paying for the barrel.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚诪讞转专转 讞讝拽讛 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬 讗讝讬诇谞讗 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 讜诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讬 讜讗讬 拽讗讬 诇讗驻讗讬 拽讟诇讬谞讗 诇讬讛 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 讗诐 讘讗 诇讛讜专讙讱 讛砖讻诐 诇讛讜专讙讜

GEMARA: Rava says: What is the reason for this halakha concerning a burglar who breaks into a house? He explains: There is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore this burglar must have said to himself: If I go in and the owner sees me, he will rise against me and not allow me to steal from him, and if he rises against me, I will kill him. And the Torah stated a principle: If someone comes to kill you, rise and kill him first.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜谞讟诇 讻诇讬诐 讜讬爪讗 驻讟讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讘讚诪讬诐 拽谞谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪讬诇转讬讛 讚专讘 讘砖砖讬讘专 讚诇讬转谞讛讜 讗讘诇 谞讟诇 诇讗

Rav says: If a burglar broke into a house and took certain vessels, and he then left and was caught only afterward, he is exempt from the obligation to pay restitution for the vessels. What is the reason? He acquired the vessels with his blood. When he broke into the house, he risked his life, as the owner could have killed him. This grave risk that he took exempts him from any other more lenient punishments that could otherwise have been imposed upon him, including the obligation to pay restitution. Rava says: Rav鈥檚 statement is reasonable in a case where he broke the vessels in the course of robbing, so that they no longer exist, and the issue is only whether he has to pay for them. But if he took the vessels and they are still extant, Rav鈥檚 ruling does not apply.

讜讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诇 讚讛讗 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讜谞讗谞住讜 讞讬讬讘 讗诇诪讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘专砖讜转讬讛 拽讬讬诪讬

The Gemara comments: But by God! Rav states his ruling even with regard to a case where the burglar took the vessels and they are still extant. That is to say, Rav himself does not distinguish between the two cases, as in a case where there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, e.g., in a case where a father came to steal from his son, if an accident occurred to the vessels, the burglar is liable to pay for them. Apparently, the vessels are established in the burglar鈥檚 possession, and he must pay for any damage that occurs to them. Here also, then, where there is no blood-guiltiness, the vessels are established as being in the burglar鈥檚 possession and they are his.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 讻讬 讗讜拽诪讬谞讗 专讞诪谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诇注谞讬谉 讗讜谞住讬谉 讗讘诇 诇注谞讬谉 诪拽谞讗 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讚诪专讬讬讛讜 拽讬讬诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗砖讜讗诇

Rava explains: But this is not so, i.e., there is no proof from that case that can be applied to this one. One can claim that when the Merciful One established the vessels in the burglar鈥檚 possession, that was only concerning accidents, so he should be liable to pay for any damage that occurs to them. But as for ownership, they remain in the possession of their owner, just as it is in the case of a borrower. Even though a borrower is liable to pay for all the accidental damage caused to the item he borrowed, nevertheless the borrowed item does not become his property.

转谞谉 讘讗 讘诪讞转专转 讜砖讬讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 讟注诪讗 讚砖讬讘专 讚讻讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 驻讟讜专 讛讗 谞讟诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection against Rav: We learned in the mishna that if the burglar was breaking into a house, and in the course of doing so he broke a barrel, if there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, the burglar is liable to pay the value of the barrel. If there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, he is exempt from paying for the barrel. A precise reading of the mishna indicates that the reason he is exempt is that he broke the barrel, so where there is no blood-guiltiness for killing him, he is exempt from paying for it. But if he took the barrel, he would not be exempt; rather, he would be liable, counter to the ruling of Rav.

讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诇 谞诪讬 讜讛讗 讚拽讗 转谞讬 砖讘专 讗转 讛讞讘讬转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讻讬 讬砖 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖讬讘专 谞诪讬 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara explains: The same is true, i.e., that the burglar would be exempt, even if he took the barrel. And that which was taught in the mishna: He broke the barrel, serves to teach us that when there is blood-guiltiness for killing him, then even though he broke the barrel and it is no longer extant, he is also liable to pay for it.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讝讬拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘讻讜讜谞讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 转谞讬谞讗 讗讚诐 诪讜注讚 诇注讜诇诐 讘讬谉 讘砖讜讙讙 讘讬谉 讘诪讝讬讚 讘讬谉 讘讗讜谞住 讘讬谉 讘专爪讜谉 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he is liable? This burglar is like any other person who causes damage and is liable to pay for it. The Gemara answers: This mishna teaches us that he is liable even if he broke the barrel unintentionally. The Gemara objects once again: What is the mishna teaching us with this ruling? Does it teach that the legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, and therefore he is liable even for unintentional damage? But we already learn this in a baraita: The legal status of a person is always that of one forewarned, whether the damage was done unintentionally or intentionally, whether by unavoidable accident or whether it was done willingly. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this presents a difficulty for Rav.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讙讜谞讘 讻讬住 讘砖讘转 讞讬讬讘 砖讛专讬 谞转讞讬讬讘 讘讙谞讬讘讛 拽讜讚诐 砖讬讘讗 诇讬讚讬 讗讬住讜专 砖讘转

Rav Beivai bar Abaye raises an objection to the ruling of Rava from a baraita: One who steals a purse on Shabbat and takes it out into a public domain is liable to pay for what he stole even though he also desecrated Shabbat, which is a transgression for which one is executed by stoning. Ordinarily, one who is liable to receive two punishments for the same offense is administered only the more severe punishment and exempt from the other one. Here, however, he is liable to pay for the purse and is executed, because he was already liable to pay for the theft as soon as he lifted the purse, and this took place before he came to violate the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat by carrying the purse into the public domain.

讛讬讛 诪讙专专 讜讬讜爪讗 驻讟讜专 砖讛专讬 讗讬住讜专 讙谞讘讛 讜讗讬住讜专 住拽讬诇讛 讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚

The baraita continues: If he did not lift the purse, but rather was dragging it on the ground and exiting the private domain, he is exempt from paying for what he stole, as in this case, since he did not lift the purse, he would become liable to pay for the stolen item only when he drags it out of its owner鈥檚 property into the public domain. Accordingly, the prohibition of theft and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat, which is punishable with death by stoning, are violated simultaneously, and one who is liable to receive the death penalty is exempt from monetary liability that he incurred with the selfsame act. This poses a difficulty to Rava, who ruled that if the stolen item is extant the burglar must return it, whereas this baraita indicates that if one commits a transgression for which he is liable to receive the death penalty, he is exempt from all payments.

讜讛诇讻转讗 讚砖讚谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗

The Gemara answers: And the halakha is that the baraita must be understood as referring to a case where the burglar threw the purse into a river. Since the purse is no longer extant, he is exempt from having to pay for it even though he caused the damage intentionally. But if the purse is extant, he is in fact required to return it.

专讘讗 讗讬讙谞讘讜 诇讬讛 讚讬讻专讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞驻拽 诪驻讜诪讬讛 讚专讘

It is related that rams were once stolen from Rava by burglars who broke into his house. The burglars came to return the animals to him, but Rava did not accept them. Rava said: Since a ruling issued from Rav鈥檚 mouth that a burglar who may be killed acquires the items he stole, I no longer agree to take them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讗诐 讝专讞讛 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜壮 讜讻讬 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讘诇讘讚 讝专讞讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讛讚讘专 讻砖诪砖 砖讗讬谉 诇讜 砖诇讜诐 注诪讱 讛专讙讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗诇 转讛专讙讛讜

搂 Apropos a burglar who breaks into a house, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verses state: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account. If the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1鈥2). A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather, these words must be understood in a metaphoric sense: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is not coming to you in peace, but rather his intention is to kill you, arise and kill him first. But if you are not sure about his intentions, do not kill him.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮讗诐 讝专讞讛 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讜讻讬 讛砖诪砖 注诇讬讜 讘诇讘讚 讝专讞讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讘专讜专 诇讱 讻砖诪砖 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖诇讜诐 注诪讱 讗诇 转讛专讙讛讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛专讙讛讜 拽砖讬讗 住转诪讗 讗住转诪讗

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚f the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account.鈥 A question may be raised: But did the sun rise only upon him? Rather, these words must be understood as follows: If the matter is as clear to you as the sun that the burglar is coming to you in peace, do not kill him. But if you are not sure about his intentions, arise and kill him. The Gemara notes a difficulty: The halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the first baraita contradicts the halakha in the undetermined case as stated in the second baraita. The first baraita indicates that if the homeowner is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions, he is prohibited from killing the burglar, whereas the second baraita indicates that in such a case, he is permitted to kill the burglar.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult.

讻讗谉 讘讗讘 注诇 讛讘谉 讻讗谉 讘讘谉 注诇 讛讗讘

Here, where the baraita teaches that if one is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions it is prohibited for him to kill him, it is referring to a father who comes to rob his son. A father has great compassion for his son, and therefore it may be presumed that he will not kill his son if he resists. Accordingly, the son is prohibited from killing his father unless he knows for certain that his father has the intention of killing him. There, where the baraita teaches that if one is unsure about the burglar鈥檚 intentions it is permitted for him to kill him, it is referring to a son who comes to rob his father. Since a son has less compassion for his father, it may be presumed that he would be ready to kill his father if he resists. Therefore, the father is permitted to kill his son unless he knows for certain that his son would never kill him.

讗诪专 专讘 讻诇 讚讗转讬 注诇讗讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 拽讟讬诇谞讗 诇讬讛 诇讘专 诪专讘 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 砖讬诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚爪讚讬拽 讛讜讗 讛讗 拽讗转讬 讘诪讞转专转讗 讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讬诐 诇讬 讘讙讜讜讬讛 讚诪专讞诐 注诇讬 讻专讞诐 讗讘 注诇 讛讘谉

Rav says: With regard to anyone who breaks into my house, I would kill him, as I would presume that he is ready to kill me, except for Rav 岣nina bar Sheila, whom I would not kill. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Rav excludes Rabbi 岣nina bar Sheila? If we say that Rav trusts him because he is a righteous person, this is difficult, as the case is one where he broke into his house, which indicates that he is not a righteous person. Rather, it is because he would say: I am certain that he would have mercy upon me just like a father would have mercy on a son.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 壮讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转

The Sages taught in a baraita: 鈥淚f the sun is risen upon him, there shall be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:2), both during the week and on Shabbat. 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in鈥here shall not be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1), both during the week and on Shabbat.

讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讛专讜讙讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讚讘砖讘转 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚拽讟诇讬谞谉 讗诇讗 壮讚诪讬诐 诇讜壮 讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇 讘讬谉 讘砖讘转 讛砖转讗 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 拽讟诇讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讘砖讘转 诪讘注讬讗

The Gemara clarifies this baraita: Granted that with regard to 鈥渢here shall not be blood shed on his account,鈥 it was necessary to say that this applies both during the week and on Shabbat, as it might enter your mind to say that this is just as it is in the case of those who are executed by the court, who are not executed on Shabbat. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that the burglar may be slain in self-defense even on Shabbat. But with regard to 鈥渢here shall be blood shed on his account,鈥 the statement that this applies both during the week and on Shabbat is puzzling. Now, if on a weekday he may not be slain, is it necessary to say that he may not be slain on Shabbat?

讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讗 谞爪专讻讗 讗诇讗 诇驻拽讞 注诇讬讜 讗转 讛讙诇

Rav Sheshet says: This ruling is necessary only to teach that if a building collapsed on the burglar on Shabbat, one is obligated to clear the pile of stones from on top of him and perform any action necessary to rescue him, even if it involves the desecration of Shabbat; one does not say that while he is not permitted to actively kill him, he is also not obligated to save him.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮讜讛讻讛壮 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 壮讜诪转壮 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘砖诇诪讗 壮讜讛讻讛壮 讘讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讛讜讗 讚拽讬诐 诇讛讜 讚讗讬谉 讗讚诐 诪注诪讬讚 注爪诪讜 注诇 诪诪讜谞讜 讗讘诇 讗讞专 诇讗

搂 Concerning the verse that states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in, and is smitten and dies, there shall not be blood shed on his account鈥 (Exodus 22:1), the Sages taught a baraita: 鈥淎nd is smitten,鈥 by any person who strikes him; 鈥渁nd dies,鈥 by any means of death by which you can put him to death. The Gemara clarifies this baraita: Granted, with regard to the words 鈥渁nd is smitten,鈥 it was necessary to say that he may be struck by any person, as it might enter your mind to say that it is only the owner of the house whom the burglar is certain will resist him, because there is a presumption that a person does not restrain himself when faced with losing his money, and therefore it is only the homeowner鈥檚 life that is in danger from the burglar. But as for another person, the burglar is not sure that he will try to stop him, and therefore that other person may not kill him, since the burglar did not come with the intention of killing him.

拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚专讜讚祝 讛讜讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 壮讜诪转壮 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

Therefore, the baraita teaches us that this burglar is considered a pursuer, and he is subject to the same halakha as anyone who pursues another in order to kill him, namely, that anyone may kill the pursuer in order to rescue the one being pursued. Therefore, even another person is permitted to kill the burglar in order to save the homeowner. But that which the baraita teaches, that the words 鈥渁nd dies鈥 teach that he may be slain by any means of death by which you can put him to death, why do I need this?

诪专讜爪讞 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讛诪讻讛 专爪讞 讛讜讗壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讘诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讜 讜诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘诪讬转讛 讛讻转讜讘讛 讘讜 砖讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讛诪讬转讜 讘讻诇 诪讬转讛 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛诪讬转讜 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讜转 讬讜诪转壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐

The Gemara clarifies the difficulty: This can be derived from the halakha governing a murderer, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse with regard to a murderer states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death, for he is a murderer鈥 (Numbers 35:21). I have derived only that the murderer is put to death with the mode of execution stated concerning him, namely, killing by decapitation. From where do I derive that if you cannot put him to death with the mode of execution written concerning him, e.g., if he is escaping, that you can put him to death with any mode of execution with which you can put him to death? The verse states: 鈥淗e that smote him shall be put to death [mot yumat],鈥 the doubled verb teaching that he is put to death in any case, by any mode of execution. Why not derive the halakha of a burglar from the halakha of a murderer?

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讜转 讬讜诪转

The Gemara rejects this reasoning: There it is different, as the verse explicitly states: 鈥Mot yumat,鈥 which serves to include all modes of execution.

讜谞讬讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 专讜爪讞 讜讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara asks: But why not learn from it a principle that can be applied to all people who may be put to death? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: This case does not serve as a source for a principle, because the halakhot of a murderer and of a blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of one who was killed who is allowed to kill his relative鈥檚 killer (see Makkot 11b), are two verses that come as one, and two verses that come as one do not teach a principle. In other words, if a halakha is stated with regard to two specific cases in the Torah, the halakha is understood to apply only to those cases. Had the halakha applied to all other relevant cases as well, it would not have been necessary for the Torah to teach it twice. Therefore, the baraita had to teach us that this halakha also applies to a burglar who breaks into a person鈥檚 house.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 壮诪讞转专转壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讞转专转 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讞转专转壮 诪驻谞讬 砖专讜讘 讙谞讘讬诐 诪爪讜讬讬谉 讘诪讞转专转

The Sages taught in a baraita: From the words: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in鈥 (Exodus 22:1), I have derived only that this halakha applies to a burglar who came breaking in through a wall. But from where do I derive that the same halakha applies if he was found on his roof, in his yard, or in the enclosed area behind his house? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found,鈥 which teaches that the halakha applies in any case. If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淏reaking in鈥? Because the Torah speaks of a common case, and most thieves are found breaking in.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 壮诪讞转专转壮 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讞转专转 讙讙讜 讞爪讬专讜 讜拽专驻讬驻讜 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮讬诪爪讗 讛讙谞讘壮 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讗诐 讻谉 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 壮诪讞转专转壮 诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜

It is taught in another baraita: From the words: 鈥淚f a burglar is found breaking in,鈥 I have derived only that this halakha applies to a burglar who came breaking in through a wall. But from where do I derive that the same halakha applies if he was found on his roof, in his yard, or in the enclosed area behind his house? Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚f a burglar is found,鈥 which teaches that the halakha applies in any case. If that is so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淏reaking in鈥? This teaches that his breaking in is his forewarning. If a burglar is found breaking into a house, the owner need not formally forewarn him before killing him. If he is found elsewhere, such a forewarning is necessary.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽讟谉 讛专讜讚祝 谞讬转谉 诇讛爪讬诇讜 讘谞驻砖讜 拽住讘专 专讜讚祝 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 讙讚讜诇 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟谉

Rav Huna says: If a minor was pursuing another person in order to kill him, the pursued party may be saved with the pursuer鈥檚 life. That is to say, one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, and one does not say that since the minor lacks halakhic competence, he is not subject to punishment. The Gemara explains: Rav Huna maintains that a pursuer, in general, does not require forewarning, and there is no difference with regard to this matter between an adult and a minor. The essence of the matter is rescuing the pursued party from death, and therefore the pursuer鈥檚 liability to receive the death penalty is irrelevant.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬爪讗 专讗砖讜 讗讬谉 谞讜讙注讬谉 讘讜 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讚讜讞讬谉 谞驻砖 诪驻谞讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诪讗讬 专讜讚祝 讛讜讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诪砖诪讬讗 拽讗 专讚驻讬 诇讛

Rav 岣sda raised an objection to Rav Huna from a baraita: If a woman was giving birth and her life was being endangered by the fetus, the life of the fetus may be sacrificed in order to save the mother. But once his head has emerged during the birthing process, he may not be harmed in order to save the mother, because one life may not be pushed aside to save another life. If one is permitted to save the pursued party by killing the minor who is pursuing him, why is this so? The fetus is a pursuer who is endangering his mother鈥檚 life. The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as it is different there, with regard to the woman giving birth, since she is being pursued by Heaven. Since the fetus is not acting of his own volition and endangering his mother of his own will, his life may not be taken in order to save his mother.

谞讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讗讜诪专 诇讜 壮专讗讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讘专讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讛爪诇 讚诪讜 砖诇 讝讛 讘讚诪讜 砖诇 讝讛壮

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that a baraita supports the ruling of Rav Huna, who said that a pursuer does not require a forewarning: If a pursuer was pursuing another person in order to kill him, a third party says to the pursuer: See that he whom you are pursuing to kill is a Jew, and a loyal member of the covenant, and the Torah stated: 鈥淲hoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6). The Torah stated: Save the blood of this person who is being pursued with the blood of that person who is pursuing him. The fact that there is no indication here that the pursuer must say that he heard the forewarning suggests that forewarning is not required, as stated by Rav Huna.

讛讛讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 讛转专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Perhaps this baraita was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: A 岣ver, who is thoroughly knowledgeable in halakha, does not need to be issued a forewarning by witnesses in order to become liable to be punished, because forewarning is given only to distinguish between unintentional sin and intentional sin, and a 岣ver is certainly aware of the halakha. The same may be said about a pursuer: Since his malice is clear, he does not require a forewarning; his sin is obviously intentional. Those who disagree with Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and say that even a 岣ver needs to be issued a forewarning would say that a pursuer must be forewarned as well.

转讗 砖诪注 专讜讚祝 砖讛讬讛 专讜讚祝 讗讞专 讞讘讬专讜 诇讛讜专讙讜 讗诪专 诇讜 壮专讗讛 砖讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讜讘谉 讘专讬转 讛讜讗 讜讛转讜专讛 讗诪专讛 砖驻讱 讚诐 讛讗讚诐 讘讗讚诐 讚诪讜 讬砖驻讱壮 讗诐 讗诪专 壮讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻谉壮 驻讟讜专 壮注诇 诪谞转 讻谉 讗谞讬 注讜砖讛壮 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof that a pursuer must be forewarned, and therefore one may not save a pursued party by killing a minor who is pursuing him, from a baraita: If a pursuer was pursuing another person in order to kill him, and a third party said to him: See that he whom you are pursuing to kill is a Jew, and a loyal member of the covenant, and the Torah stated: 鈥淲hoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed鈥 (Genesis 9:6), in this case, if the pursuer said: I know this to be so, he is exempt from being killed, but if he said: I am doing it on this condition, i.e., knowing that I am liable to be killed for this, he is liable to be slain. This indicates that even a pursuer must be issued a forewarning.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讘转专讬 注讬讘专讬 讚谞讛专讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗爪讜诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬转讜讬讬 诇讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讘注讬 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: This forewarning is not necessary except in a case where the pursuer and the person issuing the warning are standing on two opposite sides of a river, so that the latter cannot save the party being pursued by killing the pursuer. What is there for him to do? Unable to save the pursued party, he wants at least to bring the pursuer to court, so that he will be convicted and have the death penalty administered to him. But in order to administer punishment, the court requires that the offender receive proper forewarning. It is for this reason that the baraita speaks of forewarning, but a pursuer may be killed by a bystander even without having been forewarned.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻转谞讗 讚诪讞转专转 讚讗诪专 诪讞转专转讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 讛转专讗转讜

If you wish, say instead that Rav Huna could have said to you: I stated my opinion that it is permitted to kill a minor pursuer in accordance with the tanna who spoke of the issue of a burglar who breaks into a house. As this tanna says that his breaking in is his forewarning, that is, a burglar who breaks into a house needs no further forewarning. Here, too, anyone who is pursuing another in order to kill him does not require forewarning since his pursuit is his forewarning.

Scroll To Top