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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 8, 2017 | 讬状讞 讘转砖专讬 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)

Sanhedrin 84

Study Guide Sanhedrin 84. The gemara聽derives the last few halachot mentioned in the braita quoted on the previous page which delineated which acts relating to teruma and the mikdash obligate one in death by the hands of God or just a regular negative commandment (lashes).聽 The gemara also elaborates on the debate in the mishna聽regarding a stranger who works in the temple and what punishment he gets.聽 The tenth perek begins with a list of who gets killed by strangulation and starts to delve into the first one – one who hits one’s parents.聽 What type of hitting is referred to?聽 Wha tif done for healing purposes?

讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 (诇砖专转谞讬)

or uncircumcised in flesh may enter My Temple鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9).

讗讜谞谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讛讬讜 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an acute mourner priest to perform the Temple service? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a High Priest whose mother or father died: 鈥淎nd from the Temple he shall not emerge and he shall not desecrate the Temple of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12), from which it may be inferred that another, who is not a High Priest but an ordinary priest, who did not emerge from the Temple and who continued to perform the service, has desecrated the service.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 诇专讘讗 讜谞讬诇祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

Rav Adda said to Rava: And let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诪讻诇诇讗 拽讗转讬 讛讜讬 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讙讝专讛 砖讜讛

Rava answers: Is desecration written with regard to the matter of a priest who performs the Temple service as an acute mourner itself? It is derived from that which is written with regard to the High Priest, by inference. Therefore, it is a matter that emerges from an inference, and the principle is: Any matter that emerges from an inference cannot be derived by means of a verbal analogy. A verbal analogy can be derived only when the matter is written explicitly.

讬讜砖讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讘讜 讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讻诇 砖讘讟讬讱 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诇注诪讬讚讛 讘讞专转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讬砖讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for a priest who is seated to perform the Temple service? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The verse states: 鈥淔or him has the Lord chosen from among all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:5). God states in the verse that I chose him for service while he is standing, but not for service while seated.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讗诇 讛驻专讻转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讬诇讬祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

搂 The baraita continues: With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is written: 鈥淏ut he shall not come into the curtain and he shall not approach the altar as he has a blemish, that he desecrate not My sacred places鈥 (Leviticus 21:23). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜谞讬诇祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪谞讜转专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讻专转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讻专转

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar. Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet.

诪住转讘专讗 诪转专讜诪讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诪驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讜转专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专

The Gemara explains: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from teruma, as the tanna derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of the impure priest. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from notar, as there are elements common to notar and a blemished priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma, both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve matters performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable.

讗诇讗 诪讟诪讗 砖砖讬诪砖 讙诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诪驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 诪拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the halakha of a blemished priest who performed the Temple service from the halakha of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, due to the elements common to both. He derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of an impure priest who performs the Temple service, and he derives the case of a blemished priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar, from the case of an impure priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what is the reason that they hold that he is liable only for violating a prohibition? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd die because of it if they desecrate it; I am the Lord Who sanctifies them鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), from which it is derived: 鈥淏ecause of it鈥 they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of a blemished priest.

讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

The baraita continues: With regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of sin written with regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15) is derived from the term of sin written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, the priest is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, one who intentionally misuses consecrated property is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注讬诇讛

The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis say that the verse states with regard to teruma: 鈥淏ecause of it鈥 they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of the intentional misuse of consecrated property.

讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘诪拽讚砖 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讻诇 讛拽专讘 讛拽专讘 讗诇 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讬诪讜转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the punishment of a non-priest who performed the Temple service. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: It is stated here: 鈥淵ou and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar鈥nd any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 (Numbers 18:7), and it is stated there: 鈥淎nyone who approaches the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die [yamut]鈥 (Numbers 17:28). Just as there, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven; so too here, in the case of a non-priest who performs the Temple service, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讜讛谞讘讬讗 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讞诇诐 讛讞诇讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讞谞拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讞谞拽

Rabbi Akiva says that it is stated here: 鈥淎nd any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淎nd that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6). Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by stoning, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by strangulation, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by strangulation.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讬讜诪转 诪讬讜诪转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讜诪转 诪讬诪讜转 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪谞讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讚讬讞 讗讬谉 诇讱 讛讚讬讜讟 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds: In the verbal analogy, one derives yumat from yumat and one does not derive yumat from yamut. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: Although the terms are not identical, one derives by means of a verbal analogy the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of an ordinary person and one does not derive the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of a prophet. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva hold? Once the prophet incited others to idol worship, you have no greater example of an ordinary person than that, i.e., he no longer has the status of a prophet.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞讘讬讗 砖讛讚讬讞 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽 讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to a prophet who incites others to idol worship that Rabbi Akiva says: He is executed by strangulation, contrary to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion cited in the baraita?

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘谞谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: These are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The mishna, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by strangulation, is citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon was his preeminent disciple. The baraita, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning, is citing the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, and they too hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞砖专驻讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞讞谞拽讬谉 讛诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 讜讛诪转谞讘讗 讘砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讝讜诪诪讬 讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛

MISHNA: These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman.

讙诪壮 诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讜讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One who strikes his father or his mother is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:15), and every death stated in the Torah without specification is referring to nothing other than strangulation.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诪讬拽讟诇 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讟诇 讞讚 讘住讬讬祝 讜讗讘讬讜 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara suggests: Say that one is not executed for striking his father or mother unless he kills him or her. The Gemara explains: Does it enter your mind to say that if one kills one other person, he is executed by beheading with a sword, but if he kills his father or mother he is executed by strangulation? That is not reasonable.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 拽诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that strangulation is a more lenient form of execu-tion than decapitation. But according to the one who said that strangulation is a more severe form of execution than decapitation, what is there to say? Perhaps one is liable to receive the death penalty for striking his father or mother only if he kills the parent, and the added severity for killing a parent is in terms of the specific form of death penalty.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜诪转 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讜讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讗讬讘讛 讛讻讛讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬诪转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗讛 住转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, prove that one is executed by strangulation for striking his father or mother even if he does not kill them from the fact that it is written: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man and he dies shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:12), and it is written: 鈥淥r if in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died he shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 35:21). Learn from these verses in which it states: Strikes and he dies, that anywhere that there is mention of striking without specifying a resultant death, it is not referring to a case where the blow caused one鈥檚 death.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜诪转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man,鈥 and it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul, the murderer shall be slain on the basis of witnesses鈥 (Numbers 35:30), since if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man and he dies,鈥 I would say that one who strikes a man, i.e., an adult, who is obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, yes, he is executed, but one who kills a minor, no, he is not executed. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul.鈥 And if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul,鈥 I would say that one is executed even if he killed a non-viable newborn, or even if he killed a child born after a gestation period of eight months, who, in talmudic times, was also considered non-viable. Consequently, both verses are necessary.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讛谉 讞讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the source for the halakha that one is liable for striking his father or mother, why not say that he is liable even though he did not wound him or her and draw blood? Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (85b): One who strikes his father and his mother is not liable unless he wounds them?

讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讘讛 讞讘讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 谞驻砖 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讞讘讜专讛

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd one who strikes an animal shall pay for it; and one who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), juxtaposing one who strikes an individual with one who strikes an animal. An earlier verse states: 鈥淥ne who strikes the soul of an animal shall pay for it鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). Based on this it is derived: Just as one who strikes an animal is not liable unless he wounds it and draws blood, as 鈥渟oul鈥 is written concerning it, and it can be derived from the verse: 鈥淔or the blood is the soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), that the term 鈥渟oul鈥 is a reference to blood, so too, one who strikes a person is not liable unless he causes a wound and draws blood.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讻讞讬砖讛 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讚讛讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讞讬砖讛 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐

Rav Yirmeya objects to this proof: If that is so, then in a case where one weakened the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it and thereby injured or killed it, would one say that so too in that case he is not liable because he did not draw blood? Clearly he is liable to pay for the damage that he caused. Rather, with regard to the term soul in the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes the soul of an animal,鈥 if it is not a matter that is relevant to the soul of an animal, as even in a case where one weakens the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it, he is liable, apply it to the matter of the soul of a person, and thereby derive that one who strikes his parent is liable to be executed only if he wounds his parent and draws blood.

讗诇讗 讛拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if the fact that one who strikes his parent is liable only if he draws blood is derived based on the principle: If it is not a matter, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary in order to derive the halakha for that which is taught in a baraita in the school of 岣zkiyya: Just as in the case of one who strikes an animal there is no distinction between one who does so unwittingly and one who does so intentionally, and in both cases he is liable to pay damages, so too, in the case of one who strikes a person there is no distinction between one who does so intentionally and is executed, and one who does so unwittingly and is not executed. In both cases he is exempt from paying damages based on the principle that one receives only the greater punishment.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讬拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, but according to the one who does not hold in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal?

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: He derives that just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from payment of restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt, even if it results in the death of the one that he treated.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谉 诪讛讜 砖讬拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讗讘讬讜 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara explains: As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether a son may let blood for his father? Is he liable for wounding his father? Rav Mattana says that it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18); just as one would want others to heal him when the need arises, one must heal others when the need arises. It is prohibited for one to do to others only those actions that he would not want done to him. Therefore, it is permitted for one to heal his father even if the procedure entails wounding him. Rav Dimi bar 岣nnana says: This is derived from the juxtaposition between one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal. Just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from paying restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt from liability.

专讘 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讘专讬讛 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诇讬讛 住讬诇讜讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讘专讬讛 诇诪讬驻转讞 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讘讬诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讙讙转 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara relates: Rav did not allow his son to extract a thorn from him, due to the concern that his son would unwittingly wound him. Mar, son of Ravina, did not allow his son to pierce his blister, lest he wound him, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗讞专 砖讬讙讙转 诇讗讜 讘谞讜 砖讙讙转 讞谞拽

The Gemara challenges this: If so, this should be a concern when another who is not his son treats him as well, as it is prohibited for one Jew to injure another. The Gemara explains: There is a distinction, as when another treats him, the concern is that the individual would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition. By contrast, when his son treats him, the concern is that he would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by strangulation.

讜讛讚转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖诇 讬讚 诇讬讟讜诇 讘讛 讗转 讛拽讜抓 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讘讬诇 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖讙讙转 住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 122b): It is permitted on Shabbat to move an ordinary hand needle used for sewing garments to extract a thorn with it, why is it permitted to extract a thorn on Shabbat? Let us be concerned lest he wound the individual in the process, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by stoning.

讛转诐 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: There, even if one wounds the individual, he is unwittingly performing a labor for a destructive purpose, i.e., he is causing an injury, and one is liable to be executed only for the performance of a labor for a constructive purpose on Shabbat.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that one who performs a labor on Shabbat for a destructive purpose is exempt. But according to the one who said that even when performing the labor for a destructive purpose, there are cases where one is liable if he benefits from the action, what is there to say?

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Whom did you hear that said that one who is destructive in causing a wound is liable to be executed if there is a constructive element to his action? It is Rabbi Shimon,

  • 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!

Sanhedrin 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Sanhedrin 84

讜注专诇 讘砖专 诇讗 讬讘讜讗 讗诇 诪拽讚砖讬 (诇砖专转谞讬)

or uncircumcised in flesh may enter My Temple鈥 (Ezekiel 44:9).

讗讜谞谉 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪谉 讛诪拽讚砖 诇讗 讬爪讗 讜诇讗 讬讞诇诇 讗转 诪拽讚砖 讗诇讛讬讜 讛讗 讗讞专 砖诇讗 讬爪讗 讞讬诇诇

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for an acute mourner priest to perform the Temple service? It is derived from a verse, as it is written with regard to a High Priest whose mother or father died: 鈥淎nd from the Temple he shall not emerge and he shall not desecrate the Temple of his God鈥 (Leviticus 21:12), from which it may be inferred that another, who is not a High Priest but an ordinary priest, who did not emerge from the Temple and who continued to perform the service, has desecrated the service.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 诇专讘讗 讜谞讬诇祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

Rav Adda said to Rava: And let us derive it by means of a verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to an acute mourner who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诪讻诇诇讗 拽讗转讬 讛讜讬 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 讜讻诇 讚讘专 讛讘讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转讜 讘讙讝专讛 砖讜讛

Rava answers: Is desecration written with regard to the matter of a priest who performs the Temple service as an acute mourner itself? It is derived from that which is written with regard to the High Priest, by inference. Therefore, it is a matter that emerges from an inference, and the principle is: Any matter that emerges from an inference cannot be derived by means of a verbal analogy. A verbal analogy can be derived only when the matter is written explicitly.

讬讜砖讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讬 讘讜 讘讞专 讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诪讻诇 砖讘讟讬讱 诇注诪讚 诇砖专转 诇注诪讬讚讛 讘讞专转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讬砖讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that it is prohibited for a priest who is seated to perform the Temple service? Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: The verse states: 鈥淔or him has the Lord chosen from among all your tribes, to stand and minister in the name of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 18:5). God states in the verse that I chose him for service while he is standing, but not for service while seated.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗讱 讗诇 讛驻专讻转 诇讗 讬讘讗 讜讙讜壮 讜讬诇讬祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

搂 The baraita continues: With regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? It is as it is written: 鈥淏ut he shall not come into the curtain and he shall not approach the altar as he has a blemish, that he desecrate not My sacred places鈥 (Leviticus 21:23). And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the punishment by means of a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service is derived from the term of desecration written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma. Just as there, with regard to teruma, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜谞讬诇祝 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪谞讜转专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讻专转 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讻专转

The Gemara challenges: And let us derive the punishment by means of a different verbal analogy: Derive the meaning of the term of desecration written with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from the term of desecration written with regard to notar. Just as there, with regard to notar, he is punished with karet, so too here, with regard to a blemished priest who performs the Temple service, he is punished with karet.

诪住转讘专讗 诪转专讜诪讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诪驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 讗讚专讘讛 诪谞讜转专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诇祝 砖讻谉 拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专

The Gemara explains: It is reasonable to say that he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from teruma, as the tanna derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of the impure priest. The Gemara challenges: On the contrary, he should have derived the punishment for a blemished priest who performs the Temple service from notar, as there are elements common to notar and a blemished priest who performs the Temple service. Unlike teruma, both are cases involving sacrificial matters; both involve matters performed inside the Temple; and in both cases, the disqualification of piggul and the disqualification of notar are applicable.

讗诇讗 诪讟诪讗 砖砖讬诪砖 讙诪专 驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 诪驻住讜诇 讛讙讜祝 拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 诪拽讜讚砖 驻谞讬诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专

Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the halakha of a blemished priest who performed the Temple service from the halakha of an impure priest who performed the Temple service, due to the elements common to both. He derives the bodily disqualification of a blemished priest from the bodily disqualification of an impure priest who performs the Temple service, and he derives the case of a blemished priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar, from the case of an impure priest, whose case involves sacrificial matters, matters performed inside the Temple, and the relevance of both piggul and notar.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what is the reason that they hold that he is liable only for violating a prohibition? It is as the verse states: 鈥淎nd die because of it if they desecrate it; I am the Lord Who sanctifies them鈥 (Leviticus 22:9), from which it is derived: 鈥淏ecause of it鈥 they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of a blemished priest.

讛讝讬讚 讘诪注讬诇讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诪讬转讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讘讗讝讛专讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讙诪专 讞讟讗 讞讟讗 诪转专讜诪讛 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘诪讬转讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘诪讬转讛

The baraita continues: With regard to one who intentionally performed an action of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: He is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the Rabbis say: He is liable only for violating a prohibition. The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rabbi Abbahu says: He derives a verbal analogy: The meaning of the term of sin written with regard to one who intentionally misuses consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:15) is derived from the term of sin written with regard to an impure priest who partakes of teruma (see Leviticus 22:9). Just as there, with regard to teruma, the priest is punished with death at the hand of Heaven, so too here, one who intentionally misuses consecrated property is punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讜 讘讜 讜诇讗 讘诪注讬诇讛

The Gemara explains: And the Rabbis say that the verse states with regard to teruma: 鈥淏ecause of it鈥 they receive death at the hand of Heaven, but not in the case of the intentional misuse of consecrated property.

讝专 砖砖讬诪砖 讘诪拽讚砖 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讻诇 讛拽专讘 讛拽专讘 讗诇 诪砖讻谉 讛壮 讬诪讜转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐

The Gemara cites a dispute between the Sages with regard to the punishment of a non-priest who performed the Temple service. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: It is stated here: 鈥淵ou and your sons with you shall keep your priesthood in everything that pertains to the altar鈥nd any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 (Numbers 18:7), and it is stated there: 鈥淎nyone who approaches the Tabernacle of the Lord shall die [yamut]鈥 (Numbers 17:28). Just as there, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven; so too here, in the case of a non-priest who performs the Temple service, the reference is to death at the hand of Heaven.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 壮讜讛讝专 讛拽专讘 讬讜诪转壮 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 壮讜讛谞讘讬讗 讛讛讜讗 讗讜 讞诇诐 讛讞诇讜诐 讛讛讜讗 讬讜诪转壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘讞谞拽 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘讞谞拽

Rabbi Akiva says that it is stated here: 鈥淎nd any non-priest who approaches shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 and it is stated there: 鈥淎nd that prophet or that dreamer of a dream shall be put to death [yumat]鈥 (Deuteronomy 13:6). Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by stoning, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by stoning. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Just as there, with regard to the prophet, he is executed by strangulation, so too here, a non-priest who performs the Temple service is executed by strangulation.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讬讜诪转 诪讬讜诪转 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬讜诪转 诪讬诪讜转 讜专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟 诪谞讘讬讗 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讚讬讞 讗讬谉 诇讱 讛讚讬讜讟 讙讚讜诇 诪讝讛

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Akiva holds: In the verbal analogy, one derives yumat from yumat and one does not derive yumat from yamut. And Rabbi Yishmael holds: Although the terms are not identical, one derives by means of a verbal analogy the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of an ordinary person and one does not derive the halakha of an ordinary person from the halakha of a prophet. The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva hold? Once the prophet incited others to idol worship, you have no greater example of an ordinary person than that, i.e., he no longer has the status of a prophet.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 谞讘讬讗 砖讛讚讬讞 讘住拽讬诇讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽 讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri disagree? The Gemara answers: They disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute of Rabbi Shimon and the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita: A prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning. Rabbi Shimon says: He is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to a prophet who incites others to idol worship that Rabbi Akiva says: He is executed by strangulation, contrary to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion cited in the baraita?

转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘专讬讬转讗 专讘谞谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: These are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The mishna, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by strangulation, is citing the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon was his preeminent disciple. The baraita, which cites the opinion that Rabbi Akiva holds that a prophet who incited others to idol worship is executed by stoning, is citing the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Shimon, and they too hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞砖专驻讬谉

 

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讛谉 讛谞讞谞拽讬谉 讛诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讜讙讜谞讘 谞驻砖 诪讬砖专讗诇 讜讝拽谉 诪诪专讗 注诇 驻讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜谞讘讬讗 讛砖拽专 讜讛诪转谞讘讗 讘砖诐 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讜讛讘讗 注诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讜讝讜诪诪讬 讘转 讻讛谉 讜讘讜注诇讛

MISHNA: These are the transgressors who are strangled in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who strikes his father or his mother, and one who abducts a Jewish person, and a rebellious elder according to the court, and a false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of idol worship, and one who engages in intercourse with a married woman, and conspiring witnesses who testify that the daughter of a priest committed adultery, even though were she guilty, she would be executed by burning. And her paramour is also executed via strangulation as in any case where a man engages in intercourse with a married woman.

讙诪壮 诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讜讻诇 诪讬转讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘转讜专讛 住转诐 讗讬谞讛 讗诇讗 讞谞拽

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: One who strikes his father or his mother is executed by strangulation. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淥ne who strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:15), and every death stated in the Torah without specification is referring to nothing other than strangulation.

讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬讛 诪讬拽讟诇 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 拽讟诇 讞讚 讘住讬讬祝 讜讗讘讬讜 讘讞谞拽

The Gemara suggests: Say that one is not executed for striking his father or mother unless he kills him or her. The Gemara explains: Does it enter your mind to say that if one kills one other person, he is executed by beheading with a sword, but if he kills his father or mother he is executed by strangulation? That is not reasonable.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 拽诇 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞谞拽 讞诪讜专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that strangulation is a more lenient form of execu-tion than decapitation. But according to the one who said that strangulation is a more severe form of execution than decapitation, what is there to say? Perhaps one is liable to receive the death penalty for striking his father or mother only if he kills the parent, and the added severity for killing a parent is in terms of the specific form of death penalty.

讗诇讗 诪讚讻转讬讘 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜诪转 诪讜转 讬讜诪转 讜讻转讬讘 讗讜 讘讗讬讘讛 讛讻讛讜 讘讬讚讜 讜讬诪转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讛讻讗讛 住转诐 诇讗讜 诪讬转讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: Rather, prove that one is executed by strangulation for striking his father or mother even if he does not kill them from the fact that it is written: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man and he dies shall be put to death鈥 (Exodus 21:12), and it is written: 鈥淥r if in enmity he struck him with his hand and he died he shall be put to death鈥 (Numbers 35:21). Learn from these verses in which it states: Strikes and he dies, that anywhere that there is mention of striking without specifying a resultant death, it is not referring to a case where the blow caused one鈥檚 death.

讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讬讻转讘 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇诪讻转讘 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪讻讛 讗讬砖 讜诪转 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗讬砖 讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讗讬谉 拽讟谉 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 诪讻讛 谞驻砖 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 谞驻诇讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘谉 砖诪讜谞讛 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man,鈥 and it was necessary for the Torah to write: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul, the murderer shall be slain on the basis of witnesses鈥 (Numbers 35:30), since if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淥ne who strikes a man and he dies,鈥 I would say that one who strikes a man, i.e., an adult, who is obligated in the fulfillment of mitzvot, yes, he is executed, but one who kills a minor, no, he is not executed. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul.鈥 And if the Merciful One wrote only: 鈥淎nyone who kills a soul,鈥 I would say that one is executed even if he killed a non-viable newborn, or even if he killed a child born after a gestation period of eight months, who, in talmudic times, was also considered non-viable. Consequently, both verses are necessary.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬讛 讞讘讜专讛 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 讛诪讻讛 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注讚 砖讬注砖讛 讘讛谉 讞讘讜专讛

The Gemara asks: But if that is the source for the halakha that one is liable for striking his father or mother, why not say that he is liable even though he did not wound him or her and draw blood? Why, then, did we learn in a mishna (85b): One who strikes his father and his mother is not liable unless he wounds them?

讗诪专 拽专讗 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讘讛 讞讘讜专讛 讚讻转讬讘 讘讛 谞驻砖 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 讞讘讜专讛

The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd one who strikes an animal shall pay for it; and one who strikes a person shall be put to death鈥 (Leviticus 24:21), juxtaposing one who strikes an individual with one who strikes an animal. An earlier verse states: 鈥淥ne who strikes the soul of an animal shall pay for it鈥 (Leviticus 24:18). Based on this it is derived: Just as one who strikes an animal is not liable unless he wounds it and draws blood, as 鈥渟oul鈥 is written concerning it, and it can be derived from the verse: 鈥淔or the blood is the soul鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:23), that the term 鈥渟oul鈥 is a reference to blood, so too, one who strikes a person is not liable unless he causes a wound and draws blood.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讛讻讞讬砖讛 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞驻砖 讘讛诪讛 讚讛讗 讗讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讞讬砖讛 讘讗讘谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 转谞讬讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇谞驻砖 讗讚诐

Rav Yirmeya objects to this proof: If that is so, then in a case where one weakened the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it and thereby injured or killed it, would one say that so too in that case he is not liable because he did not draw blood? Clearly he is liable to pay for the damage that he caused. Rather, with regard to the term soul in the verse: 鈥淥ne who strikes the soul of an animal,鈥 if it is not a matter that is relevant to the soul of an animal, as even in a case where one weakens the animal by placing a burden of stones upon it, he is liable, apply it to the matter of the soul of a person, and thereby derive that one who strikes his parent is liable to be executed only if he wounds his parent and draws blood.

讗诇讗 讛拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛

The Gemara asks: But if the fact that one who strikes his parent is liable only if he draws blood is derived based on the principle: If it is not a matter, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal? The Gemara answers: The juxtaposition is necessary in order to derive the halakha for that which is taught in a baraita in the school of 岣zkiyya: Just as in the case of one who strikes an animal there is no distinction between one who does so unwittingly and one who does so intentionally, and in both cases he is liable to pay damages, so too, in the case of one who strikes a person there is no distinction between one who does so intentionally and is executed, and one who does so unwittingly and is not executed. In both cases he is exempt from paying damages based on the principle that one receives only the greater punishment.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讬拽讬砖讗 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who holds in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, but according to the one who does not hold in accordance with the opinion of the tanna of the school of 岣zkiyya, why do I need the juxtaposition between the striking of a man and the striking of an animal?

诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: He derives that just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from payment of restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt, even if it results in the death of the one that he treated.

讚讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘谉 诪讛讜 砖讬拽讬讝 讚诐 诇讗讘讬讜 专讘 诪转谞讗 讗诪专 讜讗讛讘转 诇专注讱 讻诪讜讱 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 讗诪专 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 讜诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诪讛 诪讻讛 讘讛诪讛 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专 讗祝 诪讻讛 讗讚诐 诇专驻讜讗讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara explains: As a dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to whether a son may let blood for his father? Is he liable for wounding his father? Rav Mattana says that it is written: 鈥淎nd you shall love your neighbor as yourself鈥 (Leviticus 19:18); just as one would want others to heal him when the need arises, one must heal others when the need arises. It is prohibited for one to do to others only those actions that he would not want done to him. Therefore, it is permitted for one to heal his father even if the procedure entails wounding him. Rav Dimi bar 岣nnana says: This is derived from the juxtaposition between one who strikes a person and one who strikes an animal. Just as one who strikes an animal for medical purposes is exempt from paying restitution, so too, one who strikes a person for medical purposes is exempt from liability.

专讘 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讘专讬讛 诇诪讬砖拽诇 诇讬讛 住讬诇讜讗 诪专 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 诇讗 砖讘讬拽 诇讘专讬讛 诇诪讬驻转讞 诇讬讛 讻讜讜转讗 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讘讬诇 讜讛讜讛 诇讬讛 砖讙讙转 讗讬住讜专

The Gemara relates: Rav did not allow his son to extract a thorn from him, due to the concern that his son would unwittingly wound him. Mar, son of Ravina, did not allow his son to pierce his blister, lest he wound him, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讞专 谞诪讬 讗讞专 砖讬讙讙转 诇讗讜 讘谞讜 砖讙讙转 讞谞拽

The Gemara challenges this: If so, this should be a concern when another who is not his son treats him as well, as it is prohibited for one Jew to injure another. The Gemara explains: There is a distinction, as when another treats him, the concern is that the individual would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition. By contrast, when his son treats him, the concern is that he would be in unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by strangulation.

讜讛讚转谞谉 诪讞讟 砖诇 讬讚 诇讬讟讜诇 讘讛 讗转 讛拽讜抓 诇讬讞讜砖 讚讬诇诪讗 讞讘讬诇 讜讛讜讬讗 诇讛 砖讙讙转 住拽讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: But with regard to that which we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 122b): It is permitted on Shabbat to move an ordinary hand needle used for sewing garments to extract a thorn with it, why is it permitted to extract a thorn on Shabbat? Let us be concerned lest he wound the individual in the process, which would be an unwitting violation of a prohibition punishable by stoning.

讛转诐 诪拽诇拽诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: There, even if one wounds the individual, he is unwittingly performing a labor for a destructive purpose, i.e., he is causing an injury, and one is liable to be executed only for the performance of a labor for a constructive purpose on Shabbat.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 驻讟讜专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讞讬讬讘 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said that one who performs a labor on Shabbat for a destructive purpose is exempt. But according to the one who said that even when performing the labor for a destructive purpose, there are cases where one is liable if he benefits from the action, what is there to say?

诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 诪拽诇拽诇 讘讞讘讜专讛 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: Whom did you hear that said that one who is destructive in causing a wound is liable to be executed if there is a constructive element to his action? It is Rabbi Shimon,

Scroll To Top