[9a - 35 lines; 9b - 48 lines]
1)[line 2]äëäå äëàä ùàéï áä ùåä ôøåèä, ìå÷äHIKAHU HAKA'AH SHE'EIN BAH SHAVEH PERUTAH, LOKEH
If a Jew wounds a fellow Jew with a blow that causes damage that is not worth a Perutah, he is liable to receive Malkus (RAMBAM Hilchos Sanhedrin 16:12). If the damage is worth more than a Perutah, he must pay the fees of Chovel b'Chaveiro (see Background to Sanhedrin 78:30).
2)[line 3]î÷ùéðï äëàä ì÷ììäMAKSHINAN HAKA'AH LI'KELALAH- Ha'ka'ah (striking) is compared to Kelalah (cursing) through a Hekesh. (A Hekesh usually compares two topics or words that are recorded in the same verse (see Background to Bava Kama 106:15). The Hekesh discussed in our Gemara, for which there is an argument as to whether it can be used as a Hekesh or not, compares two verses in Parshas Mishpatim that are separated by another verse. The verses are "åÌîÇëÌÅä àÈáÄéå åÀàÄîÌåÉ îåÉú éåÌîÈú" "u'Makeh Aviv v'Imo, Mos Yumas" - "And if one strikes his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death" (Shemos 21:15), and "åÌîÀ÷ÇìÌÅì àÈáÄéå åÀàÄîÌåÉ îåÉú éåÌîÈú" "u'Mekalel Aviv v'Imo Mos Yumas" - "And if one curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death" (ibid. 21:17).)
3)[line 27]åàæãå ìèòîééäåAZDU L'TA'AMAIHU- and they (Rabah and Rav Chisda) each follow their own reasoning elsewhere
4)[line 28]ëðòðéKENA'ANI- a Nochri (lit. Canaanite)
5)[line 31]"[åÇéÌÈáÉà àÁìÉäÄéí àÆì-àÂáÄéîÆìÆêÀ áÌÇçÂìåÉí äÇìÌÈéÀìÈä åÇéÌÉàîÆø ìå] äÄðÌÀêÈ îÅú òÇì-äÈàÄùÌÑÈä àÂùÑÆø-ìÈ÷ÇçÀúÌÈ [åÀäÄåà áÌÀòËìÇú áÌÈòÇì]""... HINECHA MES AL HA'ISHAH ASHER LAKACHTA"- "Behold, your are deserving of the death penalty (lit. you are dead) with regard to the woman whom you took" (Bereishis 20:3). - When Avraham traveled to the land of the Pelishtim, he was immediately asked whether Sarah was his wife or his sister. Since he was well aware of their practice of murdering men who were married to beautiful women in order to take their wives, Avraham answered that she was his sister. Avimelech, king of the Pelishtim, promptly took her as his wife. HaSh-m intervened and made it physically impossible for Avimelech to consummate the marriage. He then appeared to Avimelech in a dream and informed him that he is liable to the death penalty for taking someone else's wife. Avimelech protested that he was only informed that she was Avraham's sister, not his wife. HaSh-m instructed him to return Sarah to Avraham and to ask Avraham to pray for him. He listened to HaSh-m and was healed as a result of Avraham's prayers (Bereishis 20:1-18).
6)[line 33]"[åÇéÌÉàîÆø àÅìÈéå äÈàÁìÉäÄéí áÌÇçÂìÉí âÌÇí àÈðÉëÄé éÈãÇòÀúÌÄé ëÌÄé áÀúÈí-ìÀáÈáÀêÈ òÈùÒÄéúÈ æÌÉàú åÈàÆçÀùÒÉêÀ âÌÇí-àÈðÉëÄé àåÉúÀêÈ] îÅçÂèåÉ-ìÄé [òÇì-ëÌÅï ìÉà-ðÀúÇúÌÄéêÈ ìÄðÀâÌÉòÇ àÅìÆéäÈ]""ME'CHATO LI"- "from sinning to Me" (Bereishis 20:6)
7)[line 33]"[àÅéðÆðÌåÌ âÈãåÉì áÌÇáÌÇéÄú äÇæÌÆä îÄîÌÆðÌÄé åÀìÉà-çÈùÒÇêÀ îÄîÌÆðÌÄé îÀàåÌîÈä ëÌÄé àÄí-àåÉúÈêÀ áÌÇàÂùÑÆø àÇúÌÀ-àÄùÑÀúÌåÉ åÀàÅéêÀ àÆòÁùÒÆä äÈøÈòÈä äÇâÌÀãÉìÈä äÇæÌÉàú] åÀçÈèÈàúÄé ìÅàìÉäÄéí""... V'CHATASI L'ELOKIM"- "... and I will have sinned to HaSh-m!" (Bereishis 39:9) - this verse refers to Yosef and the wife of Potifar
8)[line 33]ãéðå îñåø ìàãíDINO MASUR L'ADAM- his judgment is in the hands of people (as opposed to Heaven) (see, however, TOSFOS DH Ela Dino)
9)[line 34]"[åÇàÂáÄéîÆìÆêÀ ìÉà ÷ÈøÇá àÅìÆéäÈ; åÇéÌÉàîÇø, ä'] äÂâåÉé âÌÇí öÇãÌÄé÷ úÌÇäÂøÉâ""... HA'GOY GAM TZADIK TAHAROG?!"- "Will you kill a nation even though it is righteous?" (Bereishis 20:4)
10)[last line]"åÀòÇúÌÈä äÈùÑÅá àÅùÑÆú-äÈàÄéùÑ [ëÌÄé-ðÈáÄéà äåÌà åÀéÄúÀôÌÇìÌÅì áÌÇòÇãÀêÈ åÆçÀéÅä åÀàÄí-àÅéðÀêÈ îÅùÑÄéá ãÌÇò ëÌÄé-îåÉú úÌÈîåÌú àÇúÌÈä åÀëÈì-àÂùÑÆø-ìÈê] ""V'ATAH HASHEV ESHES HA'ISH..."- "And now, return the man's wife, because he is a prophet, [and he will pray for you and you will live]" (Bereishis 20:7) - Because Avraham was a prophet, he will know that Avimelech did not defile her, and he will take her back.
9b----------------------------------------9b
11)[line 7]àëñðàéACHSENAI- one who seeks lodgings; a traveler
12)[line 10]ùäéä ìå ììîåã, åìà ìîãSHE'HAYAH LO LILMOD V'LO LAMAD- since he should have learned but he did not learn, i.e. Rabah has answered Abaye's challenge and has upheld his contention that "Omer Mutar," thinking that a certain action is permitted, is close to intentional transgression; Avimelech should have learned the proper behavior and instructed his subjects to desist from stealing travelers' wives.
13)[line 11]äñåîàSUMA- a blind person
14)[line 13]îôðé ùäåà ëîåÌòãMIPNEI SHE'HU K'MU'AD- since he is like an intentional transgressor
15)[line 17]"[àåÉ áÀëÈì-àÆáÆï àÂùÑÆø-éÈîåÌú áÌÈä] áÌÀìÉà øÀàåÉú [åÇéÌÇôÌÅì òÈìÈéå åÇéÌÈîÉú åÀäåÌà ìÉà-àåÉéÅá ìåÉ åÀìÉà îÀáÇ÷ÌÅùÑ øÈòÈúå]""B'LO RE'OS"- "without seeing" (Bamidbar 35:23)
16)[line 23]åàéï îéòåè àçø îéòåè àìà ìøáåúEIN MI'UT ACHAR MI'UT ELA L'RABOS
(a)When a Mi'ut (text that excludes a particular case or item) is followed by another Mi'ut, the law is that "Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela l'Rabos." That is, when one limitation of the law appears after another limitation, the Torah's intent is to extend the law, rather than limit it.
(b)This rule of Biblical interpretation interprets the occurrence of two Mi'utim regarding an identical point as extending the Halachah they describe, rather than limiting it to include less items or to apply in less cases. That is, even though a single Mi'ut limits the Halachah to specific items or cases, a double Mi'ut teaches to extend the Halachah and not to interpret it in a limiting sense.
(c)The logical derivation for this rule is as follows: If we already know to apply the Halachah under discussion to a particular item (or case), it would not be necessary for the Torah to again teach that the Halachah applies only to that item. It is therefore evident from the second Mi'ut that the first one was not meant to limit the law to lesser items or cases. Likewise, the second Mi'ut cannot have been written to exclude those cases, for the Torah could have taught to exclude them by writing only the first Mi'ut. It must therefore be concluded that the double Mi'ut means to teach that we should not learn to exclude items or cases in the Halachah under discussion. (This rule is closely related to the rule of "Shenei Chesuvim ha'Ba'im k'Echad Ein Melamdim" - see Background to Kidushin 58:13 and to the converse rule of "Ein Ribuy Achar Ribuy Ela l'Ma'et - see Bava Kama 45:19.)
(d)In all cases of Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut, the obvious question is why did the Torah write even a single Mi'ut? Let the Torah write neither Mi'ut and we would know by ourselves not to exclude items or cases from the law, since there is no Mi'ut to exclude it! (Obviously the item would not be excluded without a Mi'ut, since we originally found it necessary to interpret the first Mi'ut as excluding that item.) TOSFOS (to Yoma 60a DH Trei) asks this question, and answers that perhaps we would have excluded that item without the first Mi'ut, through a Binyan Av (see Background to Sanhedrin 30:18) or a Kal va'Chomer (see Background to Bava Basra 111:13). The first Mi'ut was not really necessary, but we would have justified the Mi'ut as "Milsa d'Asya b'Kal va'Chomer Tarach v'Chasav Lah Kra" - "the Torah troubles itself to write out explicitly that which can be learned from a Kal va'Chomer" (see Kidushin 4a, Chulin 118b). The second Mi'ut teaches not only to ignore the first Mi'ut, but also to ignore the Binyan Av or Kal va'Chomer as well.
17)[line 24]ôøè ìîúëåéïPERAT L'MISKAVEN- to exclude the case of intention [to kill an animal and he killed a person; to kill a Nochri and he killed a Yisrael; etc. - Daf 7b]
18)[line 25]ìà àúøå áéäLO ASRU VEI - he was not warned (HASRA'AH)
19)[line 26]çáøCHAVER- a Talmid Chacham who is meticulous in his observance of Halachah (see Background to Makos 6:17)
20a)[line 29]ðôñ÷NIFSAK- it (the rope) snapped
b)[line 29]ðùîèNISHMAT- it slipped from his hands
21)[line 31]øáé / øáðïREBBI / RABANAN- (source: Mishnah Daf 7b)
22)[line 36]"úÌÈëÄéï ìÀêÈ äÇãÌÆøÆêÀ [åÀùÑÄìÌÇùÑÀúÌÈ àÆú-âÌÀáåÌì àÇøÀöÀêÈ àÂùÑÆø éÇðÀçÄéìÀêÈ éÀäåÈä àÁìÉäÆéêÈ åÀäÈéÈä ìÈðåÌñ ùÑÈîÌÈä ëÌÈì-øÉöÅçÇ]""TACHIN LECHA HA'DERECH..."- "Prepare for yourself the road..." (Devarim 19:3).
23)[line 43]åîëååðåú äéåMECHUVANOS HAYU- they were aligned
24)[line 43]ëîéï ùúé ùåøåú ùáëøíK'MIN SHTEI SHUROS SHEB'CHEREM- like two rows in a vineyard
25)[line 46]îùåìùéïMESHULASHIN- they should be trisecting, i.e. there should be an equal distance from the border to the first city as from the first city to the second city, and so on