1)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that ...

1. ... a litigant who runs away after being receiving the death sentence, and then returns and asks for a retrial - is turned down (and must face the death-sentence).

2. ... if two witnesses appear in Beis-Din, and testify that Reuven was sentenced to death in such and such a Beis-Din - and so-and-so were the witnesses, the second Beis-Din carry out the death-sentence on the basis of their testimony.

3. ... the Din of Sanhedrin regarding the death-sentence - applies in Chutz la'Aretz, too.

(b)The Tana Kama refers to a Beis-Din that sentences to death once in seven years as a 'Chovlanis' ('a destructive Beis-Din'). Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says - 'Achas le'Shiv'im Shanah' (which will be discussed in the Sugya).

(c)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say - that had they been in the Sanhedrin - nobody would have ever been sentenced to death.

(d)Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said that - they would have certainly caused an increase of murders in Yisrael.

2)

(a)From the words 'Lifnei oso Beis-Din' that the Tana uses in the opening Din in our Mishnah ('Mi she'Nigmar Dino ... '), we can extrapolate that - if he goes to another Beis-Din, he is permitted to demand a retrial.

(b)This contradicts the Mishnah's second ruling ('Wherever two witnesses appear in Beis-Din ... ') - which teaches us that Beis-Din's initial ruling is not subject to an appeal.

(c)To answer the Kashya, Abaye (quoting Rebbi Yehudah ben Dustai in a Beraisa) - establishes the Mishnah's latter ruling where the second witnesses testify in Chutz la'Aretz that the sentence was passed in Eretz Yisrael (or in Chutz la'Aretz [see Ritva]), whereas the inference from the Reisha applies specifically where the initial ruling was issued in Chutz la'Aretz, and the accused now appears in a Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael ...

(d)... where the merit of Eretz Yisrael might work to save him from the death-sentence.

3)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Masei 'Hayu Eileh lachem le'Chukas Mishpat" that - the Sanhedrin (even with regard to the death-sentence) applies in Chutz la'Arez too.

2. ... in Parshas Shoftim "Shoftim ve'Shotrim Titen l'cha be'Chol She'arecha" (implying 'in Eretz Yisrael' exclusively) that - the obligation to set up a Sanhedrin in every state and in every city is confined to Eretz Yisrael.

(b)When Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says 'Once every seventy years ... ', we are not sure whether he means that a Sanhedrin which sentences to death once in seventy years is called a 'Beis-Din Chovlanis' or that - it is normal for them to kill once every seventy years (but not more).

(c)The She'eilah remains - unanswered.

4)

(a)Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva would have avoided the death sentence in cases of ...

1. ... murder - by asking the witnesses whether they could ascertain that the victim was not a T'reifah, which they would be unable to answer (in which case the murderer would be absolved).

2. ... adultery - by asking them whether they could ascertain that the couple had actually been intimate, which they generally could not.

(b)Assuming that, in the first case, they replied in the affirmative, Rav Ashi adds - that they would have asked them whether they could ascertain that there had not been a hole in the victim's body beforehand and that the sword had not pierced the exact spot where the hole was.

(c)Presumably, the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva on the basis of Rov. Regarding the case of adultery, even though it is not the done thing to look closely when two people are being intimate, they would have sentenced an adulterer to death - based on Shmuel, who rules that for the witnesses to see the adulterers behaving like two people committing adultery, is sufficient to send them to their deaths.

5)

(a)Our Mishnah now discusses various cases where someone who kills be'Shogeg is subject to Galus. When the Tana says ...

1. ... 'Hayah Me'agel ba'Ma'agilah' he means that - he was cementing his roof with a roller.

2. ... 'O Meshalshel ba'Chavis' that - he was lowering a barrel from the roof'.

(b)The Tana cites three cases; 'Me'agel ba'Agilah', 'Meshalshel be'Chavis' and 'Yoreid be'Sulam', all of which - refer to a downward movement, and which therefore render the performer Chayav Galus, should the roller, the barrel or the person fall and kill someone.

(c)If the 'murderer' is drawing the roller or the barrel towards him, or climbing up the ladder - he will be Patur.

6)

(a)Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Masei "Vayapeil Alav Vayamos" - that one is only Chayav Galus for a downward stroke ('ad she'Yipol Derech Nefilah').

(b)What is strange about the Beraisa "bi'Shegagah" (ibid.), 'P'rat le'Meizid'; "bi'Veli Da'as" (Parshas Shoftim), 'P'rat le'Miskaven' is the fact that - both rulings are obvious, seeing as they are both Chayav Misah.

(c)Rabah therefore establishes ...

1. ... the first case - where the 'murderer' thought that it was permitted to kill.

2. ... the second case - where he intended to kill an animal, a Kuti or a Nefel (for which one is not Chayav Misah).

(d)When, with regard to the first case, Abaye asked him why this is not considered an Oneis, he retorted that - he considered 'Omer Mutar' close to Meizid.

7)

(a)When the Tana of another Beraisa comments on the Pasuk in Masei "Im be'Fesa", 'P'rat le'Keren Zavis', he means - that if Shimon walks out of a Mavoy into the street, and is pierced by the dagger that Reuven is holding, the latter is Patur from Galus.

(b)The Pasuk (ibid.) "be'Lo Eivah" comes to preclude a hater from Galus. Seeing as there were no witnesses that he killed be'Meizid, he is not subject to any punishment. However, he is at the mercy of the Go'el ha'Dam (the murdered man's closest relative, as will be discussed later).

(c)We learn from the Pasuk there ...

1. ... "Hadafo" that - if Reuven inadvertently kills Shimon by pushing him with his body (into a fire), he is Chayav Galus.

2. ... "O Hishlich alav" that - if in the process of lowering an ax in order to swing it upwards ('Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' [where one descends in order to ascend]), Reuven kills Shimon, he is Chayav Galus.

(d)And we learn from the Pasuk ...

1. ... there "be'Lo Tzediyah" that - if he meant to throw something to the right, and by mistake, he threw it to the left, he is Patur.

2. ... in Mishpatim "va'Asher Lo Tzadah" - that he is also Patur if he intended to toss something a distance of two Amos, and by mistake, it went four (or vice-versa), killing Shimon in the process.

(e)The final D'rashah in the Beraisa is from the word "ba'Ya'ar" (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim) "va'Asher Yavo es Re'eihu ba'Ya'ar", from which the Tana learns that - Reuven is only Chayav Galus if he kills Shimon in a domain that permits Shimon to enter no less than himself (to preclude a case where Shimon entered his domain without permission).

8)

(a)Rebbi Avahu asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Din will be, in a case where Reuven is climbing a ladder, and the rung on which he places his foot falls out and kills Shimon who is standing below - whether we go after Reuven, who was climbing (and who would therefore have been Patur (if for example, he had slipped and fallen on Shimon), or whether we go after the rung, which only moved in a downward direction, and which would therefore render Reuven Chayav (this will be qualified shortly).

(b)To which Rebbi Yochanan replied - with the Beraisa that we just learned, which obligates a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah'.

9)

(a)Rebbi Avahu queried Rebbi Yochanan from our Mishnah (which is a S'tam) 'Kol she'be'Derech Yeridaso, Goleh, ve'she'Lo be'Derech Yeridaso, Eino Goleh'. Rebbi Avahu thought that the latter case comes to include - a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' (which the Tana considers an Aliyah, a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).

(b)Rebbi Yochanan countered Rebbi Avahuh's Kashya - by pointing to the Reisha ('Kol she'be'Derech Yeridaso, Goleh') where the Chidush would then have to be that an 'Aliyah le'Tzorech Yeridah' is considered a Yeridah (which would then clash with the Chidush of the Seifa).

(c)The two 'Zeh ha'Kelals' therefore come to include - the two groups of cases (Derech Aliyah and Derech Yeridah) contained in the four by a butcher (which we will now explain).

(d)The Beraisa presents four cases of 'a butcher'. The case in the Beraisa which rules ...

1. ... 'Lefanav Chayav, Le'acharav Patur' speaks - where Reuven lowers the chopper in front of him in order to swing it upwards behind him.

2. ... 'Le'acharav Chayav, Lefanav Patur speaks - where he swings it down behind him in order to chop in front of him with an upward stroke.

3. ... 'Bein Lefanav bein Le'acharav, Chayav' speaks - where he performs a downward stroke either in front of him or behind him.

4. ... 'Bein Lefanav bein Le'acharav, Patur' speaks - where he performs an upward stroke either in front of him or behind him.

10)

(a)We cite two Beraisos, both of which discuss Reuven who is climbing a ladder, when one of the rungs falls out and kills Shimon. One rules Chayav, and the other Patur. And we suggest that the basis of their Machlokes might be - with regard to Rebbi Yochanan's ruling (whether 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is considered a Yeridah or an Aliyah).

(b)We conclude however, that both Tana'im hold that a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is considered an Aliyah (not like the previous Beraisa), only one of the Beraisos is discussing Nezikin - where the Torah obligates the Mazik to pay, irrespective of whether he delivered a downward stroke or an upward one; the other, Galus (where he is Patur for an upward stroke).

(c)Alternatively, both Beraisos are discussing Galus, but the Beraisa which holds 'Chayav' speaks about a rung that is wormy, and which therefore bends downwards before falling out and killing Shimon (and in fact, both Tana'im now hold that 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah' is (considered a Yeridah and is) Chayav, like Rebbi Yochanan (see Tosfos DH 've'I Ba'is Eima' and also Hagahos ha'G'ra).

(d)Based on the same principle as the previous answer, we establish both Beraisos where the rung was not wormy. Nevertheless, the first Beraisa declares Reuven Chayav - because the rung was not firm, and therefore (like in the case of a wormy one) it bent downward when trodden on, rendering the climber Chayav.

11)

(a)If, whilst Reuven is chopping wood, the ax flies off the handle and kills Shimon, Rebbi exempts Reuven from Galus. The Rabbanan rule - that he is Chayav.

(b)In a case where it is a piece of chopped wood that flies into the air and kills Shimon - they will reverse their rulings; Rebbi will hold 'Chayav', and the Rabbanan, 'Patur'.

(c)Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Lashon of the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Nashal ha'Barzel min ha'Etz" (rather than 've'Nashal ha'Barzel me'Atzo') that - the Torah is not talking about a case where the ax flies off the handle and kills, but a piece of wood that is being chopped.

(d)The second source he cites for his ruling is a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Eitz" "Eitz" - from "Lich'ros ha'Eitz" (in the same Pasuk), which is certainly referring to the wood that is being chopped.

12)

(a)According to Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav, both Tana'im learn their respective opinions from the same source, and they argue over 'Yesh Eim li'Mesores' (Rebbi) and 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' (the Rabbanan). Consequently, the Pasuk "ve'Nashal ha'Barzel min ha'Eitz" will translate as ...

1. ... 'the ax caused the wood to jump up' (as if it read 've'Nishal' [since there is no 'Alef' or 'Hey' after the 'Nun' - see Ritva]), according to Rebbi.

2. ... 'the metal flew off the handle', according to the Rabbanan.

(b)We reconcile this with Rav bar Rav Yosef Amar Rebbi Yochanan, who includes Rebbi in the list of those who hold 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' - by pointing out that it is precisely in anticipation of this Kashya that the Beraisa adds the Limud of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.

13)

(a)Rav Papa connects the case of Reuven who throws a clod of earth at a date-palm detaching a cluster of dates, which in turn, falls on Shimon and kills him, with the Machlokes between Rebbi, who holds that - he is Chayav and the Rabbanan, who hold - that hold Patur.

(b)To answer the question 'P'shita?', we explain that - we would otherwise have thought that this is a case of 'Ko'ach Kocho' (since the clod of earth itself appears to be 'Kocho' [rather than 'Gufo'], and the dates 'Ko'ach Sheini') ...

(c)... which would be unanimously Patur.

(d)In fact, is it not 'Ko'ach Kocho' - because the clod of earth, like the ax, is considered (not 'Kocho', but) 'Gufo'.

(e)A case of 'Ko'ach Kocho', which even Rebbi will exempt, is - where Reuven throws a clod of earth at a date-palm, striking a palm-branch, which then flies into a cluster of dates (Ko'ach Rishon) which detaches and flies into a person (Ko'ach Sheini), killing him.