KESUVOS 31 (14 Adar) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas HaRav Ze'ev Wolf Rosengarten of Zurich, Switzerland, a person of "Sheleimus" in every way. Well-known for his Shimush of the Brisker Rav, Rav Wolf passed away on 14 Adar 5760. Dedicated in honor of his Yahrzeit by his nephew and Talmid, Eli Rosengarten of Zurich.
 


12th CYCLE DEDICATION
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!

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF