1)

(a)We just learned that Levi may stop Reuven, who is chasing Shimon, from sinning, by taking his life. Which other two cases does our Mishnah list, where this is permitted (and even obligatory)?

(b)What does the Tana then say about Levi who comes across Reuven chasing an animal in order to perform bestiality with it?

(c)Which other two cases does he add to this list?

(d)We learned the first case in the Mishnah (saving Shimon's life) from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("Ein lo Damim"). On what grounds does the Tana differentiate between a case where Reuven is chasing a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah or a man, and one where he is chasing an animal?

1)

(a)We just learned that Levi may stop Reuven, who is chasing Shimon, from sinning, by taking his life. The two other cases listed by our Mishnah where this is permitted (and even obligatory) - are where he is chasing a. a man or b. a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah to rape them.

(b)The Tana then rules that if Levi comes across Reuven chasing an animal in order to perform bestiality with it - he is not permitted to save him from sinning by killing him.

(c)The other two cases that he adds to this list are - someone who is about to either desecrate Shabbos or worship idols.

(d)We learned the first case in the Mishnah (saving Shimon's life) from a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' ("Ein lo Damim"). The Tana differentiates between a case where Reuven is chasing a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah or a man, and one where he is chasing an animal - because it is not to save the Rodeif that one is permitted to kill him, but to save the Nirdaf's life or reputation.

2)

(a)What does the Beraisa initially learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa"?

(b)How does the Beraisa explain the simple P'shat of the Pasuk?

(c)What is now the problem with the previous D'rashah?

(d)How do we then try to learn the Din of killing a Rodeif from the Pasuk of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah?

2)

(a)The Beraisa initially learns from the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa" - that one may kill a Rodeif to save the Nirdaf.

(b)The Beraisa explains the simple P'shat of the Pasuk as - an obligation to save a fellow-Jew from drowning, from wild animals or from robbers.

(c)The problem with the previous D'rashah now is that - seeing as we need the D'rashah for its simple interpretation, how can we use it to teach us additional Chidushim?

(d)So we try to learn the Din of killing a Rodeif from the Pasuk of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah - with a 'Kal va'Chomer', because if one may save a girl from merely being disgraced, by killing her pursuer, how much more so to save someone from being killed.

3)

(a)What is the problem with learning Rotze'ach from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah with a 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(b)How do we circumvent the problem?

(c)What is the basic difference between a 'Kal va'Chomer' on the one hand and a 'Hekesh' and a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' on the other?

(d)The source of this explanation is Tana de'bei Rebbi. What does Tana de'bei Rebbi mean when he comments on the Pasuk "Ki Ka'asher Yakum Ish al Re'eihu Kein ha'Davar ha'Zeh" 'Harei Zeh Ba le'Lamed ve'Nimtza Lameid'?

(e)What does ...

1. ... Tana de'bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah) "ve'Ein Moshi'a lah"?

2. ... Tana de'bei Rebbi now learn from there?

3)

(a)The problem with learning Rotze'ach from Na'arah ha'Me'urasah with a 'Kal va'Chomer' is that - it clashes with the principle 'Ein Onshin min ha'Din' (Beis-Din can learn prohibitions by means of a 'Kal va'Chomer', but not punishments).

(b)We circumvent the problem - by learning it (not from a 'Kal va'Chomer', but) from a Hekesh.

(c)The basic difference between a 'Kal va'Chomer' on the one hand and a 'Hekesh' and a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' on the other is that - whereas the former is dependent purely on human logic, the latter are specifically written in the Pasuk (allowing us to learn even punishments from them).

(d)The source of this explanation is Tana de'bei Rebbi, who comments on the Pasuk "Ki Ka'asher Yakum Ish al Re'eihu Kein ha'Davar ha'Zeh" 'Harei Zeh Ba le'Lamed ve'Nimtza Lameid', by which he means that - although the Pasuk seems to be coming to compare the Din of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah to that of a Rotze'ach, in fact, it is the other way round (though we will later learn it both ways).

(e)Tana de'bei ...

1. ... Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk (in connection with a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah) "ve'Ein Moshi'a lah" - that anyone who is able to save the girl from being denigrated, should do so (even if it means killing the pursuer), and Tana de'bei ...

2. ... Rebbi learns Rotze'ach from there (via the Hekesh).

4)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with returning a lost article) "va'Hashevoso lo"?

(b)Then why do we require the Pasuk "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa", which seems to teach us the same thing?

(c)We learned in our Mishnah that one must save both the life and the dignity of a man or of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, who is being chased, with the life of the pursuer. What does the Beraisa say about someone who is chasing ...

1. ... Chayvei Misos Beis-Din or Chayvei Kerisus

2. ... Chayvei La'avin, such as a Kohen Gadol who is chasing an Almanah or a Kohen Hedyot who is chasing a Gerushah or a Chalutzah?

(d)And what does the Tana say about killing the Rodeif ...

1. ... after the sin has already been committed?

2. ... if there is another way of saving the Nirdaf? What is the reason for these rulings?

4)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with returning a lost article) "va'Hashevoso lo" that - one is obligated to save a person from drowning, from wild animals or from robbers.

(b)We nevertheless need the Pasuk "Lo Sa'amod al Dam Re'echa" to teach us - that - not only is one obligated to save him personally, should this be possible, but that one is even obligated to hire people to help save him if necessary.

(c)We learned in our Mishnah that one must save both the life and the dignity of a man or of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, who is being chased, with the life of the pursuer. The Beraisa goes on to say that someone who is chasing ...

1. ... Chayvei Misos Beis-Din and Chayvei K'riysus (with intent to rape them) - is subject to the same rules, but that ...

2. ... Chayvei La'avin, such as a Kohen Gadol who is chasing an Almanah, or a Kohen Hedyot who is chasing a Gerushah or a Chalutzah (with intend to rape them) - are not.

(d)The Tana also says - that one may not kill the Rodeif ...

1. ... after the sin has already been committed - since the whole point of the concession is to prevent the victim from coming to harm or from becoming denigrated.

2. ... if there is another way of saving the Nirdaf (since the concession of "Ein lah Moshi'a" no longer applies).

5)

(a)What does Rebbi Yehudah say with regard to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah who pleads with Levi to leave Reuven who wants to rape her, alone?

(b)The Tana learns the above D'rashos from the latter half of the Pasuk "ve'la'Na'arah (missing a 'Hey', as we explained earlier) Lo Sa'aseh Davar ... ("Ein la'Na'arah Chet Ma'ves ... Ein Moshi'a lah"). Why specifically from the latter half?

(c)What does he learn from ...

1. ... "Na'ar"?

2. ... "Na'arah"?

3. ... "Chet"?

4. ... "Ma'ves"?

5)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah rules that if the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah herself pleads with Levi to leave Reuven who wants to rape her, alone - then he is not permitted to kill him either.

(b)The Tana learns the above D'rashos from the latter half of the Pasuk "ve'la'Na'arah (missing a 'Hey', as we explained earlier) Lo Sa'aseh Davar ... ("Ein la'Na'arah Chet Ma'ves ... Ein Moshi'a lah") - because, having already stated "ve'la'Na'arah Lo Sa'aseh Davar", it is superfluous.

(c)And he learns from ...

1. ... "Na'ar" - that the concession of "ve'Ein Moshi'a lah" extends to someone who is chasing a man (with intent to rape him).

2. ... "Na'arah" - that it applies to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.

3. ... "Chet" - that it also applies to Chayvei K'riysus.

4. ... "Ma'ves" - that is applies to Chayvei Misos Beis-Din too.

73b----------------------------------------73b

6)

(a)Having taught us the concession to kill the Rodeif by ...

1. ... Na'ar, why does the Torah need to specifically state Na'arah as well?

2. ... Na'arah, why does it need to specifically state Na'ar?

3. ... these two, why does the Torah then find it necessary to add the other Arayos?

4. ... the Arayos, why does the Torah need to add "Ma'ves"?

5. ... "Ma'ves" (Chayvei Misos), why does the Torah find it necessary to then add "Chet?

(b)How do we eliminate the need for half of these D'rashos?

(c)So why *does* the Torah see fit to insert "Na'ar" and "Na'arah"?

(d)Now that one Pasuk precludes Oveid Avodas-Kochavim from the Din of Rodef, why do we need another Pasuk to preclude Beheimah?

(e)Why does the Tana mention Shabbos together with Beheimah?

6)

(a)Having taught us the concession to kill the Rodeif by ...

1. ... Na'ar, the Torah nevertheless needs to specifically state Na'arah ha'Me'urasah as well - since raping a girl is more natural than a boy (in which case we might have thought the concession to kill the rapist does not apply).

2. ... Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, the Torah nevertheless needs to specifically state Na'ar too - since his P'gam (stigma) is not as severe as that of the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (who is now denigrated before the Arus, causing his love for her to decrease).

3. ... these two, the Torah nevertheless finds it necessary to add the other Arayos - since neither of the two reasons of the previous pair pertain to them to the same degree (it is both a natural occurrence and the P'gam of an ordinary Besulah and certainly of a Nesu'ah, is not as extreme as that of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah).

4. ... the Arayos, the Torah needs to add "Ma'ves" - to preclude Chayvei La'avin.

5. ... "Ma'ves", the Torah still finds it necessary to then add "Chet" - to include Chayvei K'riysus (which are less severe than Chayvei Misos Beis-Din).

(b)We eliminate the need for half of these D'rashos - by pointing out that "Chet" and "Ma'ves", which incorporate all Arayos, will also include 'Na'ar' and 'Na'arah ha'Me'rusah'.

(c)And we conclude that in fact, the Torah sees fit to insert "Na'ar" and "Na'arah" - one to preclude Oveid Avodas-Kochavim, and the other, Beheimah and Shabbos.

(d)Even though one Pasuk precludes Oveid Avodas-Kochavim from the Din of Rodeif, we still need another Pasuk to preclude Beheimah - since, due to its similarity to Arayos, we might have thought that it is included in the concession to kill the rapist.

(e)The Tana mentions Shabbos together with Beheimah - le'Ravcha de'Milsa' (as an extra, since we would automatically have given it the same Din as Avodah-Zarah); and the Tana only mentions it individually, since our Mishnah does.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, one may indeed kill someone who is about to worship Avodah-Zarah. Then why do we need ''Na'ar" and "Na'arah"? Why would we have thought that Shabbos is 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho'?

(b)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that Shabbos is also 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho'. From where does he learn that?

(c)According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, why does the Torah need to write "Na'ar" and "Na'arah"?

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Shimon, one may indeed kill someone who is about to worship Avodah-Zarah. We nevertheless need ''Na'ar" and "Na'arah" - to preclude Beheimah and Shabbos (which we might otherwise have learned is 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho' from Avodah-Zarah by means of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul").

(b)Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon maintains that Shabbos is also 'Nitan Le'hatzilo be'Nafsho' - from the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chilul" "Chilul".

(c)According to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, since the Torah wrote "Na'ar", it wrote "Na'arah", too (since they are one and the same word).

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah forbids Levi to kill the rapist if the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah pleads with him to leave him alone. What do the Rabbanan say?

(b)Why must they be arguing in a case where the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is concerned about her good name?

(c)Then what is the case?

(d)How do we know that the Torah is concerned about her good name?

8)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah forbids Levi to kill the rapist if the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah pleads with him to leave him alone. The Rabbanan hold that - he nevertheless kills him.

(b)They must be arguing in a case where the Na'arah ha'Me'urasah is concerned about her good name - because otherwise there would be no reason for the Rabbanan to permit Levi to kill the rapist.

(c)The case must be - where the girl is concerned about her good name, but is willing to forego it to save her life (which the rapist is threatening to take unless she complies).

(d)We know that the Torah is concerned about her good name - because the Pasuk confines the concession to kill the rapist to cases where the victim's good name is in jeopardy.

9)

(a)What is now the basis of their Machlokes? How does Rava explain the reason of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan?

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah?

(b)Whose opinion is Rav Papa querying when he asks 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol Nami ka'Pagam lah'?

(c)What did Abaye answer?

(d)What is the definition of ...

1. ... a major P'gam?

2. ... a minor P'gam?

9)

(a)Rava now explains that the reason of ...

1. ... the Rabbanan is - because the Torah is concerned about her spoiling her good name, and so indeed is she.

2. ... Rebbi Yehudah is - because the Torah only permits killing the rapist on the grounds that the girl would otherwise have given up her life to save her good name (in other words, killing the rapist saves the girl's life), but not if she puts her life before her good name.

(b)When Rav Papa asks 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol Nami ka'Pagam lah' (suggesting that the Torah's reason is clearly not because of P'gam) - he is querying the Rabbanan.

(c)Abaye answered that - the Torah is only concerned with a major P'gam, but not with a minor one.

(d)A major P'gam constitutes ...

1. ... Chayvei K'riysus and Chayvei Misos, which will render any child born from such a union a Mamzer and the girl, a Zonah; whereas a minor P'gam constitutes ...

2. ... Chayvei La'avin, where children that are born are only Chalalim (and not Mamzerim), and she, only a Chalalah.

10)

(a)Our Mishnah includes Chayvei K'riysus in the list of those whom one may kill. What problem does this create with the Mishnah in Kesuvos 've'Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh lahen K'nas, ha'Ba al Achoso'?

(b)How do we reconcile this with the fact that Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei K'riysus?

(c)How does Rav Chisda answer the Kashya by establishing the P'gam from the time of Ha'ara'ah? What is Ha'ara'ah?

(d)How do others explain Ha'ara'ah? Why will that interpretation negate Rav Chisda's answer?

10)

(a)Our Mishnah includes Chayvei K'riysus in the list of those whom one may kill. The problem with the Mishnah in Kesuvos 've'Eilu Na'aros she'Yesh lahen K'nas, ha'Ba al Achoso' is that - since Chayvei K'riysus are subject to the death-penalty, why should the rapist have to pay as well, bearing in mind the principle 'Kam leih be'de'Rabah Mineih' (Someone who is Chayav Misah is Patur from paying).

(b)There is no problem with the fact that Kidushin is not effective by Chayvei K'riysus - because the Din of K'nas has nothing to do with whether Kidushin is effective or not.

(c)Rav Chisda answers the Kashya by establishing the P'gam from the time of Ha'ara'ah - when the Eiver ha'Milah makes contact with the woman (before penetration), whereas he only becomes Chayav to pay K'nas from the time of G'mar Bi'ah (penetration).

(d)Others explain Ha'ara'ah to mean the beginning of penetration, negating Rav Chisda's answer - because, since the two obligations occur simultaneously, he ought to be Patur from K'nas (our original Kashya).

11)

(a)What does Rav Chisda mean when he establishes the Mishnah in Kesuvos 'she'Ba alehah she'Lo ke'Darkah, ve'Chazar u'Ba alehah ke'Darkah'? Does it make any difference whether he or someone else performed the first Bi'ah?

(b)Rava establishes the author as Rebbi Yehudah of our Mishnah. Which Rebbi Yehudah?

(c)Rav Papa establishes it 'bi'Mefutah', ve'Divrei ha'Kol'. What does he mean by that?

11)

(a)When, to answer he Kashya, Rav Chisda establishes the Mishnah in Kesuvos 'she'Ba alehah she'Lo ke'Darkah, ve'Chazar u'Ba alehah ke'Darkah', he means that - since either the rapist or someone else raped the girl previously (albeit she'Lo ke'Darkah) she is already Pagum, in which case she is no longer 'Nitan le'Hatzilah be'Nafshah'. Nevertheless, when he rapes her the second time ke'Darkah, he is Chayav to pay K'nas.

(b)Rava establishes the author of the Mishnah as Rebbi Yehudah of our Mishnah - who says 'Af ha'Omeres Hanichu lo ... (Lo Nitan Lehatzilo be'Nafsho)', in which case, there is no problem with the rapist having to pay K'nas.

(c)Rav Papa establishes it 'bi'Mefutah' ve'Divrei ha'Kol' by which he means that - the Mishnah in Kesuvos is speaking - (not about the rape of Chayvei K'riysus, as we assumed until now, but) about a case of a man who seduces a Besulah, which everyone agrees, is not subject to the death-penalty, since she agrees to the relations (in which case there is no P'gam).

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF