(Rav Papa): If Reuven threw a clump of earth at a date tree, and it detached dates and they fell and killed someone, Rebbi obligates Galus, and Chachamim exempt.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that this is like Ko'ach (impetus) of his Ko'ach (since he was not touching the earth when it detached the dates), and Rebbi would agree that he is exempt.

Question: What is a case of Ko'ach of his Ko'ach that Rebbi would agree is exempt?

Answer: He threw a clump of earth, and it detached a branch, which fell and hit a cluster of dates and uprooted them, and they killed.

(Mishnah): If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim and it killed, he is exiled;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven's hand, Reuven is exempt.

If Reuven threw a rock in his property and it killed, he is exiled only if the victim had permission to enter.

"Va'Asher Yavo Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - Galus applies only when the killer and victim both were allowed to be there, like in a forest;

This excludes the killer's property, where the victim is forbidden to enter.

Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus (optional, and not a Mitzvah) - Galus applies only to Reshus, and not to a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din (to lash).

(Gemara) Question: If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is (close to) Mezid, he is not exiled!

Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is, Reuven destroyed his wall.

Question: Still (he is close to Mezid), he should have looked if anyone is around!

Answer: He destroyed it at night.

Question: Still, he should have looked!

Answer: He destroyed it into a waste area.

Question: What is the case?

If people often use it for a privy, he is close to Mezid!

If people do not normally use it for a privy, he is close to Ones!

Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, people often use it for a privy at night, but they do not often do so by day, but occasionally they do. Therefore he is neither Mezid nor Ones.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): (If the victim stuck out his head... )

(Beraisa): "U'Motza" excludes a case in which the victim brought himself to be damaged;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov learns from here that if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven's hand, Reuven is exempt.

Inference: 'Motza' connotes finding something there from the beginning;

Contradiction (Beraisa): "U'Motza" (he will acquire money) forbids selling a far-away or bad field (i.e. that he is not so eager to keep) in order to redeem (against the will of the buyer) a close or good field that he sold.

Answer (Rava): We learn from the context of the verses;

There, "u'Motza" resembles "v'Hisigah Yado" (surely, he did not have money when he sold, he acquired it only now);

Here, "u'Motza" resembles the forest. It was there from the beginning.

(Mishnah): If Reuven threw a rock ... (Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus... )

Version #1 - Question: What is the source that the verse discusses cutting of Reshus? Perhaps he cuts for the sake of a Sukah, or to be burned on the Mizbe'ach (a Mitzvah), and even so, if he kills, he is exiled!

Answer #1 (Rava): Those examples are not Mitzvos (they are only Hechsher (preparation for) Mitzvos);

If he had wood already, there would be no Mitzvah to cut more. Therefore, even if he lacks wood, cutting is not a Mitzvah.

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

We do not say that since if the son were learning properly, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, even if he is not learning properly, there is no Mitzvah to hit him!

Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit him - "Yaser Bincha vi'Nichecha." (Even Shleimah 6:2 - one should hit to correct even a small imperfection.)

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rava): A better proof is from the verse "va'Asher Yavo (if he will come) Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar." This does not discuss a Mitzvah, for then he must enter!

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Does 'Asher' always refers to Reshus?!

"V'Ish Asher Yitma" - is it always optional to become Tamei?! One must become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah (an unattended corpse)!

Answer (Rava): There is different, for it says "Tamei Yihyeh" - in any case (i.e. sometimes he must become Tamei).

Question: We need that verse for a different law!

(Beraisa): "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechushar Kipurim (if either of them enters the Mikdash, he is Chayav Kares).

Answer (Rava): I learn from "Od" (this is extra, to teach that sometimes he must become Tamei).

Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: Why does it say "be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos"? "Sadcha Lo Sizra v'Charmecha Lo Sizmor" already forbids plowing and reaping in Shemitah

Rather, this comes to forbid plowing in Erev Shemitah (so that in Shemitah, the land will be better), and to give Kedushas Shemitah to Peros reaped in Motzei Shemitah that were a third grown in Shemitah.

R. Yishmael says, (the verse forbids plowing and reaping on Shabbos.) Just like plowing is Reshus, also reaping. This excludes reaping the Omer, which is a Mitzvah, and therefore it is permitted on Shabbos.

Question: What is the source that the verse discusses plowing of Reshus? Perhaps he plows for the sake of the Omer (a Mitzvah), and even so, it is forbidden on Shabbos!

Answer #1 (Rava): If he already had a plowed field, there would be no Mitzvah to plow another for the sake of the Omer. This shows that plowing for the Omer is not a Mitzvah!

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din.

Inference: Hitting one's son in order to teach him is considered a Mitzvah. We do not say that since if the son were learning properly, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, there is never a Mitzvah to hit him!

Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit a son, even if he is learning properly - "Yaser Bincha..."

Answer #2 ((to Question (l) - Rava): I can answer better. If one already had a plowed field, he would never have a Mitzvah to plow another. Similarly, the Torah refers to the type of reaping that if one already had reaped his field, he would not have a Mitzvah to reap another. This excludes the reaping of the Omer, which is a Mitzvah. (This answer is better, for it teaches that there is never a Mitzvah to plow, not for the Omer or anything else.)

(Mishnah): A father can get Galus for killing his son. A son can get Galus for killing his father.

Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael. A Yisrael can get Galus for killing anyone, except for a Ger Toshav (a Ben Noach who accepted to keep his Mitzvos);

A Ger Toshav can (not - Gra deletes this) get Galus for killing a Ger Toshav.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says that a father can get Galus for killing his son. We said that it is always a Mitzvah for him to hit him!

Answer: (It is always a Mitzvah when he teaches him Torah.) The case is, he was teaching him carpentry when he killed him.

Question: It is also a Mitzvah to teach one's son a trade!

Answer: The case is, the son already knew a trade.

(Mishnah): A son can get Galus for killing his father.

Contradiction (Beraisa): "Makeh Nefesh" excludes one who strikes his father.

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): The Beraisa is like R. Shimon. The Mishnah is like Chachamim.

R. Shimon says that choking is more stringent than beheading. Galus atones for killing (anyone but a parent) b'Shogeg, for this is punishable by beheading (if done b'Mezid);

It does not atone for killing a parent, which is more stringent (even wounding a parent is punishable by choking)!

Chachamim say that choking is less stringent than beheading. Also killing a parent is punished by beheading, so Galus atones for it.

Answer #2 (Rava): The Beraisa teaches that one who wounds a parent is not exiled;

One might have thought that since one is killed for doing it b'Mezid, he is exiled for Shogeg. The Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael...

Question: What does this come to include?

Answer: It includes a slave and Nochri.

Our Mishnah alludes to what a Beraisa teaches.

(Beraisa): A slave or Nochri is exiled (for doing one thing to a Yisrael,) and he is lashed for (doing something else to) a Yisrael. A Yisrael is exiled, and is lashed for (doing things to) a slave or Nochri.

Question: Granted, a slave or Nochri is exiled for killing a Yisrael, and he is lashed for cursing him. A Yisrael is exiled for killing a slave or Nochri. However, how is a Yisrael lashed due to a slave or Nochri?

There is no Lav against cursing him - "v'Nasi b'Amcha Lo Sa'or" (only people of your nation)!

Answer #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, he testified about him and he was Huzam.

Rejection: Surely, he is lashed for the same reason as the slave or Nochri (in the Reisha). They cannot testify!

Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, the Yisrael hit him, and the monetary compensation for the wound would have been less than a Perutah;

(R. Ami): If Reuven wounded Shimon and the compensation would be less than a Perutah , he is lashed instead;

We do not equate wounding to cursing (to say that it applies only to Amcha).