Previous Daf

MAKOS 8

Ask A Question

1)   click for question
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah states - that if Reuven throws a stone ...
1. ... from his domain into the street and kills Shimon - he is Chayav Galus.
2. ... from the street into his domain and kills Shimon then, based on the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar" (which we discussed earlier) - he will be Chayav, provided Shimon had permission to be there, but Patur, if he didn't.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov qualifies the first of the Tana Kama's rulings - by restricting it to where Shimon was in the stone's path from the moment the stone left Reuven's hand. But if he only entered it after that, Reuven is Patur.
(c) Aba Shaul learns from the Torah's example of chopping wood 'Mah Chatavas Eitzim Reshus' - that Reuven is Patur if he kills (be'Shogeg) whilst performing a Mitzvah ...
(d) ... incorporating a father hitting his son, a Rebbe chastising his Talmid, and a Shali'ach Beis-Din administering Malkos.

2)   click for question
(a) To explain why the Reisha of the Mishnah sentences Shimon to Galus for throwing a stone into the public street, even though he is Meizid, we establish the case where Reuven threw the stone at night-time - and that he threw the stone into a trash-heap.
(b) The problem with that however, is, assuming that people ...
1. ... tend to use that trash-heap to relieve themselves - he remains a Meizid and is subject to Misah.
2. ... don't use it for that purpose - then he is an Oneis, and ought to be Patur.
(c) To render Reuven Chayav Galus, Rav Papa finally establishes the case - where Reuven threw the stone in the day-time, into a trash-heap that is normally used as a bathroom by night, and only rarely by day. In such a case he is neither Meizid, nor Oneis, but Shogeg.

3)   click for question
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the word "u'Matza" (in the Pasuk "u'Matza es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar") - that Shimon must have been in line with the stone from the moment that Reuven threw it.
(b) We learn from the word "u'Matza" (in the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ki Lo Yih'yeh Lo Go'el O Hisigah Yado u'Matza K'dei Ge'ulaso") - that one is not permitted to sell fields that he already owns far away in order to redeem a field that he sold close by.
(c) The discrepancy between the two words "u'Matza" is - that in our Sugya, "u'Matza" implies 'as it was originally', whereas in the case of redeeming a field, it implies 'a new field, and not that he owned before'.
(d) We resolve the discrepancy, based on "Ya'ar" in our case, indicating that Shimon, like the forest, was originally there, and "O Hisigah Yado" in B'har, which indicates that he obtained the fields only later.

4)   click for question
(a) When one of the Rabbanan asked Rava how Aba Shaul knows that the Pasuk is speaking about chopping wood of R'shus, and not for building a Sucah, or for the Mizbe'ach, he answered - that seeing as one can use any wood that one finds for either of these Mitzvos, there is no reason why cutting it should constitute a Mitzvah.
(b) When Ravina asked Rava why our Mishnah then precludes a father hitting his son and a Rebbe hitting his Talmid ... , from Galus; why we do not say there too, that seeing as if the son or the Talmid was learning properly, he would not need to be admonished, now that he is not, there is no Mitzvah to hit him either?, he replied - that in fact, there it is a Mitzvah to hit a son and a Talmid even if they are learning properly ...
(c) ... as we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Yaser Bincha ve'Yanichecha ve'Yitein Ma'adanim le'Nafshecha".
(d) When Rava subsequently declared that he could have given a better answer, he meant - that the Lashon "va'Asher (in the Pasuk "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar") that the Torah is speaking specifically about someone entering the forest voluntarily, to preclude an act that is a Mitzvah.

5)   click for question
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Rava whether in the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav) "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo Yischata", "Asher" also speaks specifically about someone who became Tamei voluntarily, to preclude - a Tamei Meis who is performs the Mitzvah of burying his deceased relative or a Meis Mitzvah).
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah objected to Rava's initial answer, that the Pasuk there adds "Tamei Yiy'heh" to include a Meis Mitzvah in the Din Of Tum'as Mikdash - because the Beraisa learns something else from these words (as we shall now see).
(c) The Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Tamei Yih'yeh" - that a T'vul-Yom (who has been to Mikveh and is waiting for nightfall) is also included in the Din of Tum'as Mikdash.
2. ... " ... Tum'aso Bo" - that a Mechusar Kipurim (who Toveled on the seventh day, and who is now waiting on the eighth day to bring his appropriate Korbanos) is included too.
(d) In fact, Rava includes a Meis Mitzvah - from the word "Od (that precedes "Tum'aso Bo").

6)   click for question
(a) Others cite the dialogue between one of the Rabbanan and Rava in connection with the case that we will now discuss. According to Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Charish u've'Katir Tishbos" refers to - plowing at the end of the sixth year, to prepare the land for the Sh'mitah-year, and reaping in the eighth year ...
(b) ... crops that grew more than a third in the seventh (to teach us that they must be treated with Kedushas Shevi'is).
(c) Rebbi Akiva declines to ascribe the Pasuk to Shabbos, despite the fact that it begins "Sheishes Yamim Ta'avod" - because he sees no reason why the Torah should pick out specifically plowing and reaping, more than any other Av Melachos.
(d) Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless establishes the Pasuk by Shabbos. When he says 'Mah Charish R'shus, Af Katzir R'shus", he means - that just as plowing can only be voluntary (because there is no such thing as a plowing of Mitzvah), so too, reaping.
(e) When one of the Rabbanan asked Rava from where Rebbi Yishmael knew that the Pasuk is not coming to forbid plowing for the production of the Omer harvest (which is a Mitzvah) - he replied (like he did in the first Lashon) - that since one is permitted to sow a field that is already plowed, in order to produce the Omer, it cannot be a Mitzvah to plow.

7)   click for question
(a) Like in the previous case, Ravina queries Rava from the case of 'ha'Av ha'Makeh es B'no ... ', and again, Rava answers that it is a Mitzvah to chastise one's son and one's Talmid, even if they are learning well. This time however, Rava overrides his first answer by changing the Hekesh of Ketzirah to Charishah to - 'just as there is no obligation to plow for the Omer, so too, is there no obligation to reap for the Omer'.
(b) This answer differs basically from his first one -inasmuch as it does not rule out the possibility that it is a Mitzvah to plow for the Omer, even though one may sow the barley in a field that is already plowed.
(c) We learn the obligation to reap specifically for the Omer - from the Pasuk in Emor u'Ketzartem ... ve'Heivesem".

8)   click for question
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if a father kills his son be'Shogeg, or vice-versa - he goes into Galus just like anybody else.
(b) A Ger Toshav is - a Nochri who lives amongst Jews as a Nochri, but who undertakes not to worship idols.
(c) The Tana rules that ...
1. ... a Yisrael who kills a Ger Toshav be'Shogeg - does not go into Galus.
2. ... a Ger Toshav who kills another Ger Toshav - does.

9)   click for question
(a) We reconcile our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills his father be'Shogeg to Galus, with the previous Mishnah, which exempts him - by establishing it by a son who is working for his father as a carpenter's apprentice, and whose father's struck him for poor work, which is not a Mitzvah.
(b) And to reconcile this answer with the Mishnah in Kidushin, which counts teaching one's son a trade as a Mitzvah - we establish it further by a son who already has another trade.

10)   click for question
(a) The Beraisa Darshen the word "Nefesh" (in the Pasuk in Masei "(in connection with Galus) "Kol Makeh Nefesh bi'Shegagah" - "Nefesh" 'P'rat le'Makeh Aviv' (which we initially think covers even when he killed him).
(b) Rav Kahana then reconciles our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills his father be'Shogeg to Galus, with this Beraisa, by establishing the latter like Rebbi Shimon - in whose opinion he will then receive Chenek (which Rebbi Shimon considers more stringent that Hereg).
(c) And the reason that he therefore exempts from Galus a son who strikes his father be'Shogeg and kills him is - because the Torah only issues the sentences of Galus be'Shogeg to someone who would be Chayav Hereg (death by the sword) be'Meizid, but not someone who is Chayav Chenek.
(d) According to the Rabbanan, a son who strikes his father be'Meizid ...
1. ... receives - Hereg.
2. ... be'Shogeg and kills him - is Chayav Galus.

11)   click for question
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, a son receives Chenek for killing his father and not Hereg, to which anybody who murders be'Meizid is subject - because someone who is Chayav two punishments, receives the more stringent of the two.
(b) Rava however - confines the D'rashah of the Beraisa (exempting the son from Galus) to where he struck his father without killing him, automatically dispelling the Kashya from our Mishnah, which speaks when he did kill him.
(c) We require a Pasuk to teach us that a son who strikes his father be'Shogeg is Patur from Galus, and that he would otherwise be Chayav (even though he did not kill him) - is the fact that the Din of a son who strikes his father is equivalent to that of murderer be'Meizid, in which case, sriking him be'Shogeg ought to render him a murderer be'Shogeg.

12)   click for question
(a) To explain 'ha'Kol Golin al-Y'dei Yisrael ... ' in our Mishnah, the Tana in a Beraisa includes - Eved ve'Kuti.
(b) A second Beraisa, adds - 'Lokin' to 'Golin'.
(c) In order to receive Malkos, we initially assume - that the Eved and the Kuti must have cursed a Yisrael.
(d) We know that someone receives Malkos for cursing a Yisrael - from a 'Mah ha'Tzad' from Dayan, Nasi and Cheresh, by each of which the Torah specifically writes that one is Chayav for doing so.

13)   click for question
(a) The problem with the Beraisa ruling that a Yisrael receives Malkos for cursing a Kuti is - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo Sa'or", which permits cursing anyone who is not 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha' (who does not behave like a Yisrael, and the Kutim, who served idols, did certainly not fall into the category of 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha').
(b) We reject Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's suggestion that the Malkos of the Beraisa is because the two Yisre'elim who testified against the Eved or the Kuti became Zomemin - on the grounds that 'vice-versa' would not then be feasible, since an Eved is not eligible to testify.
(c) We finally establish the Beraisa - where the Yisrael struck the Eved or the Kuti or vice-versa, a blow that caused less damage than a Shaveh P'rutah, for which one receives Malkos, as Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan taught.
(d) And when we conclude 've'Lo Makshinan Haka'ah li'Kelalah' - we preclude the opinion in Sanhedrin that exempts striking a Kuti from Malkos, just like one is Patur for cursing him.

Next Daf