POINT BY POINT OUTLINE
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
daf@dafyomi.co.il http://www.dafyomi.co.il
|
KESUVOS 31 (20 Tishrei) - Dedicated by Al, Sophia and Jared Ziegler of Har Nof, Jerusalem, in loving memory of Al's mother, Chaya bas Berel Dov Ziegler, on the day of her Yahrzeit, and towards Jared's continued growth in Torah and Yir'as Shamayim.
|
1) A CAPITAL OFFENSE EXEMPTS FROM PAYMENT
(a) (Rav Chisda): R. Nechunya ben Hakanah agrees that one who
stole Chelev and ate it must pay;
1. He is liable to pay once he picks it up. He is not
Chayav Misah until he eats it.
(b) Suggestion: Rav Chisda disagrees with R. Avin:
1. (R. Avin): If one threw an arrow four Amos (in a
Reshus ha'Rabim on Shabbos) and it tore silk along
the way, he is exempt from paying. An arrow cannot
land unless it was thrown (his Chiyuv Misah starts
with the throwing).
2. Here too, R. Avin would also say that one cannot eat
Chelev unless he lifts it!
(c) Rejection: The cases are different;
1. Reason #1: An arrow cannot land without being
thrown. One can eat without lifting the Chelev. He
can bend down and eat!
2. Reason #2: One cannot retrieve an arrow after
shooting it. One can return the Chelev after picking
it up.
(d) These reasons argue about one who carries a knife four
Amos in a Reshus ha'Rabim (on Shabbos) and tears silk
along the way;
1. According to reason #1, also here the Chiyuv Misah
starts with setting the knife in motion, so he
should be exempt;
2. According to reason #2, here he could stop the knife
in the middle, so he should pay.
(e) (R. Avin): If one threw an arrow four Amos and it tore
silk along the way, he is exempt because an arrow cannot
land unless it was thrown.
(f) Question (R. Bivi bar Abaye - Beraisa): One who steals a
wallet on Shabbos must pay, because the theft precedes
the desecration of Shabbos;
1. If he was dragging the wallet he is exempt, because
the theft and the Chilul Shabbos come
simultaneously.
2. Here, too, we should say that he cannot put the
wallet down unless he picked it up (and the Chiyuv
Misah started then)!
(g) Answer #1: The case is, he picked up the wallet intending
to hide it (so the Chiyuv did not start then), then
reconsidered to take it out.
(h) Objection: One is not liable for Chilul Shabbos in such a
case!
1. (R. Yochanan): If one was moving things from one
corner to another and reconsidered to take them out,
he is not liable for Chilul Shabbos because his
initial intention was not to take them out.
2) OTHER WAYS TO EXPLAIN THE "BERAISA"
(a) Answer #2: He intended to take it out from the start, but
he stopped in the middle.
(b) Question: If he stopped to adjust the load, this is
normally done while carrying (so still, the Chilul
Shabbos starts with picking it up)!
(c) Answer: Rather, he stopped to rest (the Chilul Shabbos
starts when he resumed walking).
(d) Inference: Had he stopped to readjust the load, he would
be exempt.
31b----------------------------------------31b
(e) Question: If so, the Beraisa should distinguish between
stopping to rest and to readjust, rather than between
carrying and dragging!
(f) Answer: The Beraisa is like Ben Azai, who says that each
step a person takes is considered to be resting (so the
Chilul Shabbos starts only when he steps outside).
(g) Inference: This would not apply if he threw the wallet.
If so, he should be exempt!
(h) Question: If so, the Beraisa should distinguish between
carrying and throwing, rather than between carrying and
dragging!
(i) Answer: We must teach the case of dragging so one will
not think that this is not a normal way to carry a
wallet, and he would not be liable for Chilul Shabbos.
(j) Question: What size is the wallet?
1. If it is small, dragging is not normal!
2. If it is big, obviously dragging it is normal!
(k) Answer: Rather, it is a medium size wallet.
(l) Question: To where did he take it?
1. If he took it to a Reshus ha'Rabim he is liable for
Chilul Shabbos, but he is not yet liable for theft
(Meshichah does not acquire there)!
2. If he took it to his own domain, he is liable for
theft, but not for Chilul Shabbos!
(m) Answer: Rather, he brought it to a shoulder of a Reshus
ha'Rabim.
(n) Question: What is the Tana's opinion about a shoulder of
a Reshus ha'Rabim?
1. If he holds like R. Eliezer, who says that it is
like a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable for Chilul
Shabbos, but not (yet) for theft!
2. If he holds like Chachamim, who say that it is not
like a Reshus ha'Rabim, he is liable for theft, but
not for Chilul Shabbos!
(o) Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer considers it
like a Reshus ha'Rabim regarding Shabbos, because the
road is often congested and people are pushed to the
shoulder;
1. Regarding acquisitions, it is not like Reshus
ha'Rabim, since people are not often there.
(p) Answer #3 (Rav Ashi): He put his hand (that he was not
dragging it with) within three Tefachim of the ground and
received the wallet.
1. This is like Rava's law.
2. (Rava): A man's hand is considered like a place four
Tefachim by four Tefachim (to be liable for Hanachah
on Shabbos. Likewise, it can acquire.)
(q) Rav Acha learned like Rav Ashi.
(r) Answer #4 (Ravina): Really, he took the wallet to a
Reshus ha'Rabim. A theft is acquired even in a Reshus
ha'Rabim.
3) ACQUIRING IN A "RESHUS" "HA'RABIM"
(a) Rav Acha and Ravina argue about what we infer from the
following Mishnah.
1. (Mishnah): If a man was dragging an ox to steal it
and it died before he left the owner's premises, he
is exempt. If he lifted it or took it out of the
premises before it died, he must pay.
(b) Ravina learned from the Reisha. He is exempt because he
did not yet leave the premises. Had he left, even to a
Reshus ha'Rabim, he would have to pay.
(c) Rav Acha learned from the Seifa, which discusses lifting
and taking it out. This shows that they are the same;
1. Just like lifting it brings it to his domain, also
taking it out must be to his domain.
(d) Question: The Reisha contradicts Rav Acha, and the Seifa
contradicts Ravina!
(e) Answer #1 (for Rav Acha): Until the thief reaches his
domain, he is considered to be in the owner's premises.
(f) Answer #2 (for Ravina): We do not equate taking it out to
lifting it.
4) DOES ONE PAY OR SUFFER LASHES?
(a) (Mishnah): One who raped or seduced his sister (pays a
fine).
(b) Contradiction (Mishnah #1): The following are lashed: one
who has Bi'ah with his sister, his father's sister, his
mother's sister, Achos Ishto, the wife of his brother,
the wife of his father's brother, or a Nidah.
1. We hold that one does not pay and get lashed for one
sin!
Next Daf
Index to Outlines for Maseches Kesuvos |
