What does our Mishnah say about a ben Sorer u'Moreh who steals either from his father and eats in his father's domain or who steals from others and eats either in their domain or in that of his father?
(b)
What must he do in order to be Chayav?
(c)
Why is he Patur in a case where he steals ...
1.
... from his father and eats in his father's domain?
2.
... from others and eats in their domain?
3.
... from others and eats in his father's domain?
(d)
Why is he then Chayav if he steals from his father's domain and eats it in the domain of others?
1)
(a)
Our Mishnah states that a ben Sorer u'Moreh who steals either from his father and eats in his father's domain or who steals from others and eats either in their domain or in that of his father - is Patur.
(b)
In order to be Chayav - he must steal from his father and eat in somebody else's domain.
(c)
He is Patur in a case where he steals ...
1.
... from his father and eats in his father's domain - because he is afraid that his father might catch him (and will therefore not do it on a regular basis).
2.
... from others and eats in their domain - because it is not easily accessible to him ...
3.
... how much more so where he steals from others and eats in his father's domain - when both of the above reasons apply.
(d)
The reason that he is Chayav if he steals from his father's domain and eats it in the domain of others is - because both conditions that are required to implicate him are fulfilled: a. that the money is available to him, and b. that he is not afraid that his father will catch him.
2)
(a)
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh to steal from what belongs to his mother as well as to his father. Bearing in mind that whatever his mother owns belongs to his father, how does Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explain that?
(b)
How do we amend this in view of Rebbi Chanan bar Moldah, who requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh to steal money with which he buys meat and wine?
(c)
How do we finally establish the case even where the money actually belongs to his mother. How is that possible?
2)
(a)
Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh to steal from what belongs to his mother as well as to his father. Bearing in mind that whatever his mother owns belongs to his father, Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina explains that - what he really steals is the meal that is prepared for their dinner.
(b)
In view of Rebbi Chanan bar Moldah, who requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh to steals money with which he buys meat and wine, we amend this to read that - he steals money that is designated to purchase their dinner, and uses it to buy meat and wine.
(c)
We finally establish the case even where the money actually belongs to his mother - by adding that someone gave her the money on condition that her husband will not acquire it (see Tosfos).
3)
(a)
What does our Mishnah say about a case where either the ben Sorer u'Moreh's father or mother declines to hand him over to the Beis-Din?
(b)
Rebbi Yehudah also requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh's mother to be fit for his father. On what grounds do we reject the suggestion that 'unfit' means that she is forbidden to him because she is a Chayvei K'riysus?
(c)
What then, does Rebbi Yehudah mean?
(d)
How does he derive this from the Pasuk "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu"?
3)
(a)
Our Mishnah states that in a case where either the ben Sorer u'Moreh's father or mother declines to hand him over to Beis-Din - he is Patur.
(b)
Rebbi Yehudah also requires the ben Sorer u'Moreh's mother to be fit for his father. We reject the suggestion that 'unfit' means that she is forbidden to him because she is a Chayvei K'riysus - on the grounds that, seeing as they are his parents, what difference will that make to his Chiyuv.
(c)
What Rebbi Yehudah therefore means is that - they are socially compatible, in that they resemble each other in voice, appearance and height.
(d)
And he derives this from the Pasuk "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu" - by inferring (by virtue of the singular form of "Koleinu", which has no 'Vav') that they must have the same voice, and we assume that this extends to appearance and height, too.
4)
(a)
Why do we assume the author of the Beraisa which says 'ben Sorer u'Moreh Lo Hayah ve'Lo Asid Lih'yos', to be Rebbi Yehudah?
(b)
Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon. On what grounds does Rebbi Shimon say in a Beraisa that the parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh are hardly likely to hand him over to be stoned?
(c)
If a ben Sorer u'Moreh will never happen, why did the Torah write it?
(d)
What did Rebbi Yonasan testify?
4)
(a)
We assume the author of the Beraisa which says 'ben Sorer u'Moreh Lo Hayah ve'Lo Asid Lih'yos' to be Rebbi Yehudah - because it is virtually impossible for a husband and wife to resemble each other in the manner prescribed by him.
(b)
Alternatively, we establish the Beraisa like Rebbi Shimon, who maintains that parents of a ben Sorer u'Moreh's parents are hardly likely to hand him over to be stoned - just because he ate a Tartimar of meat and drank half a log of wine.
(c)
Even though a ben Sorer u'Moreh will never happen, the Torah nevertheless writes it - for us to study it and get reward for it (presumably this includes the many lessons that we can learn from the Parshah).
(d)
Rebbi Yonasan testified - that he saw a ben Sorer u'Moreh and even sat on his grave.
5)
(a)
And we establish the Beraisa which says 'Ir ha'Nidachas Lo Haysah ve'Lo Asidah Lih'yos' like Rebbi Eliezer. What does Rebbi Eliezer say about as little as one solitary Mezuzah? Is this Din confined to a Mezuzah as opposed to other Sefarim?
(b)
How does he learn this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz ... ve'Sarafta"?
(c)
What does Rebbi Rebbi Yonasan say about Ir ha'Nidachas?
(d)
Which is the third Parshah about which the Beraisa says 'Lo Hayah ve'Lo Asid Lih'yos'?
5)
(a)
And we establish the Beraisa which says 'Ir ha'Nidachas Lo Haysah ve'Lo Asidah Lih'yos' like Rebbi Eliezer, who says that - if a town has as little as one solitary Mezuzah (and certainly one of the five Sefarim of the Torah or one of the Nevi'im), it cannot become an Ir ha'Nidachas.
(b)
He learns this from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'es Kol Shelalah Tikbotz ... ve'Sarafta" - which is impossible to carry out with regard to a Mezuzah, due to the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Sa'asun Kein la'Hashem Elokecha" (forbidding the destruction of the Name of Hash-m).
(c)
The above Beraisa is not unanimous - because there too, Rebbi Yonasan testified that he saw an Ir ha'Nidachas and sat on its ruins.
(d)
The third Parshah about which the Beraisa says 'Lo Hayah ve'Lo Asid Lih'yos' is - that of Bayis ha'Menuga (a house with Tzara'as).
6)
(a)
We establish the latter statement like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon. What does he say about the Shi'ur, the bricks and the walls of a Bayis ha'Menuga?
(b)
From which two Pesukim (words) does Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon learn this?
(c)
What did Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok mean when he referred to an area within the boundaries of Aza which was called 'Churv'sa Segirta'?
(d)
And what did Shimon Ish K'far Ako say about his visit to the Galil? What marked place was he referring to?
6)
(a)
We establish the latter statement like Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, who rules that - the Shi'ur of Tum'ah is two G'risin (a large bean), which appear on two adjacent bricks in the corner of a Beis ha'Menuga, one G'ris on each brick (a most unlikely scenario) ...
(b)
... and he learns this from the fact that - the Torah in Tazri'a writes once "Kir" and once, "Kiros", implying that the Tzara'as should be seen on one wall which is like two (implying the bricks in the corner, as we explained).
(c)
When Rebbi Eliezer b'Rebbi Tzadok referred to an area within the boundaries of Aza which was called 'Churv'sa Segirta', he meant that - it contained a ruin consisting of bricks from a Beis ha'Menuga.
(d)
And Shimon Ish K'far Ako related that, when he visited the Galil - he came across a marked spot, which, he was told, was where they threw stones from a Beis ha'Menuga.
7)
(a)
What does our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...
1.
... "Ve'Safsu bo Aviv ve'Imo"?
2.
... "ve'Hotzi'u oso"?
3.
... "ve'Amru"?
4.
... "B'neinu Zeh"?
5.
... "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu"?
(b)
What is the significance of the last ruling? Why will it not suffice that his parents later see that he disobeyed them?
(c)
What does the Tana mean when he says that they warn their son in front of Beis-Din? Since when does a warning require three judges?
(d)
What is then the significance of the warning? Why can it not be the warning which will lead to Malkos?
7)
(a)
Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei ...
1.
... "Ve'Safsu bo Aviv ve'Imo" - 've'Lo Gidmin' (with no arms).
2.
... "ve'Hotzi'u oso" - 've'Lo Chigrin' (lame).
3.
... "ve'Amru" - 've'Lo Ilmin' (dumb).
4.
... "B'neinu Zeh" - 've'Lo Sumin' (blind [as "Zeh" always implies an object that one can point at]).
The significance of the last ruling is that - they must hear his refusal to accept their admonition at the time of the warning (and it will not suffice for them to see later that he disobeyed them).
(c)
When the Tana says that they warn their son in front of Beis-Din they mean that - they admonish him in front of two witnesses, and should he subsequently contravene their warning in font of two regular witnesses, then he receives Malkos at the hand of three judges.
(d)
The significance of the warning is - to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Yisru oso" (which actually has dual connotations). It cannot be the warning which will lead to Malkos - because a. that needs to be issued by the witnesses and not by the parents, and b. it would constitute a 'Hasra'as Safek', since he is unlikely to contravene their warning immediately, and any time lapse between the warning and the contravention renders the warning a 'Hasra'as Safek'.
8)
(a)
We just learned that the parents warn their son in front of two witnesses. Why are the witnesses necessary?
(b)
Should he then contravene their warning, they bring him before a Beis-Din of twenty-three to be stoned. What condition does our Mishnah still require before he can be sentenced to death?
(c)
We cite Rebbi Avahu, who learns two 'Gezeirah-Shavos' (all in the Parshah of Ki Seitzei). What does he learn from ...
1.
... "ben (Sorer u'Moreh)" from "(ve'Hayah im) Bin (Hakos ha'Rasha")?
2.
... "ve'Lakchu Ziknei ha'Ir es ha'Ish ve'Yisru oso" (in Ki Seitzei, in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra) from "ve'Yisru oso" (of ben Sorer u'Moreh)?
8)
(a)
We just learned that the parents warn their son in front of two witnesses - who are needed to testify that they did indeed do so, because otherwise, the parents will not be believed.
(b)
Should he then contravene their warning, they bring him before a Beis-Din of twenty-three to be stoned - on condition that the Beis-Din include the three original Dayanim, before whom he received Malkos.
(c)
We cite Rebbi Avahu, who learns two 'Gezeirah-Shavos' (all in the Parshah of Ki Seitzei). From ...
1.
... "ben (Sorer u'Moreh)" from ("ve'Hayah im) Bin (Hakos ha'Rasha)" he learns - that a Ben Sorer u'Moreh receives Malkos after the first warning.
2.
... "ve'Lakchu Ziknei ha'Ir es ha'Ish ve'Yisru oso" (in Ki Seitzei, in connection with a Motzi-Shem-Ra) from "ve'Yisru oso" (of ben Sorer u'Moreh) he learns - that a Motzi Shem Ra (against his newly-married wife) receives Malkos.
71b----------------------------------------71b
9)
(a)
What will be the Din if the ben Sorer u'Moreh runs away and passes the maximum age limit ('Hikif Z'kan ha'Tachton ... ') ...
1.
... before the final judgment has been passed?
2.
... after the final judgment has been passed?
(b)
What does Rebbi Chanina say about a ben No'ach who curses Hash-m and converts?
(c)
What change occurred in his ...
1.
... Din?
2.
... manner of death?
(d)
We initially try to support Rebbi Chanina from the Reisha of our Mishnah ('Barach ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno ... Patur'), but we reject the proof from there. What advantage does the ben Sorer u'Moreh there have over and above the Ger of Rebbi Chanina?
(e)
And how do we answer the Kashya on Rebbi Chanina from the Seifa of our Mishnah 've'Im mi'she'Nigmar Diyno Barach ... Chayav' (from which we see that a person remains Chayav even though his Din has changed)?
9)
(a)
If the ben Sorer u'Moreh runs away and passes the maximum age limit ('Hikif Z'kan ha'Tachton ... ') ...
1.
... before the final judgment has been passed - he is Patur.
2.
... after the final judgment has been passed - he remains Chayav.
(b)
Rebbi Chanina rules that a ben No'ach who curses Hash-m and converts - is Patur, because both his Din and his death-sentence have changed.
(c)
The change that occurred in his ...
1.
... Din - is that he now requires two witnesses, twenty-three judges and warning (whereas before no warning was necessary, and only one witness and one judge).
2.
... death-sentence is - from Sayaf to Sekilah.
(d)
We initially try to support Rebbi Chanina from he Reisha of our Mishnah ('Barach ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno ... Patur'), but we reject the proof from there - seeing as the Ger would be Chayav if he were to repeat the sin now, unlike the ben Sorer u'Moreh in our Mishnah, who would be Patur.
(e)
And we answer the Kashya on Rebbi Chanina from the Seifa of our Mishnah 've'Im mi'she'Nigmar Diyno Barach ... Chayav') from which we see that a person remains Chayav even though his Din has changed - by ascribing that Chiyuv to the fact that since he was already sentenced, he is like a dead man).
10)
(a)
What does the Beraisa say about a ben No'ach who kills ...
1.
... a Nochri or who commits adultery with his wife and then converts?
2.
... a Yisrael or who commits adultery with his wife and then converts?
(b)
We see from here that even though the Din has changed, he remains Chayav. Why is this not a Kashya on Rebbi Chanina?
(c)
That's fine as far as a murderer is concerned, but surely the Din of Eishes Ish has changed (from Sayaf to Chenek), so why is he not Patur?
(d)
On what grounds do we reject this answer?
10)
(a)
The Beraisa rules that a ben No'ach who kills ...
1.
... a Nochri or who commits adultery with his wife and then converts - is Patur.
2.
... a Yisrael or who committed adultery with his wife and then converted - is Chayav.
(b)
We see from here that even though the Din has changed, he remains Chayav, yet it is not a Kashya on Rebbi Chanina - since his death-sentence remains unchanged.
(c)
That's fine as far as a murderer is concerned, and it's also fine with regard to the Din of Eishes Ish - because we are talking about a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah, who receives Sekilah whether he is a Nochri or a Yisrael.
(d)
We reject this answer however - on the grounds that 'Asah Kein be'Yisrael' is said in the Beraisa in connection with 'Eishes Chavero' in the Reisha, where there is no such thing as Na'arah ha'Me'urasah (only Be'ulas Ba'al).
11)
(a)
So we answer the initial Kashya by differentiating between this case and that of Rebbi Chanina, because (in this case) 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha'. What does that mean?
(b)
We query this answer however, on the grounds that it will not work out according to Rebbi Shimon. Why not?
(c)
And we solve this problem by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Tana de'bei Menasheh. What does Tana de'bei Menasheh say with regard to the death-sentence of a Nochri, that reconciles Rebbi Shimon with our answer?
11)
(a)
So we answer the initial Kashya by differentiating between this case and that of Rebbi Chanina, because (in this case) 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha' - meaning that as the latter punishment (Chenek) is more lenient than the former (Sayaf), it is included in it, and cannot therefore negate it.
(b)
We query this answer however, on the grounds that it will not work out according to Rebbi Shimon - because, according to him, Chenek is more stringent than Sayaf (leaving the Kashya intact).
(c)
We solve this problem however, by establishing Rebbi Shimon like Tana de'bei Menasheh - who maintains that a Nochri is always punished by Chenek (and not Sayaf).
12)
(a)
The Beraisa rules that if a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah commits adultery and (after the final ruling has been issued, she) becomes a Bogeres, she receives Chenek. What do we try to prove from there?
(b)
We refute this proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Yochanan's statement to the Beraisa expert. What amendment did he make to the Beraisa?
(c)
According to Rebbi Yochanan then, what will be the Din in Rebbi Chanina's case, where a ben No'ach cursed Hash-m and then converted?
12)
(a)
The Beraisa rules that if a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah commits adultery and (after her sentence, she) becomes a Bogeres, she receives Chenek. We try to prove from there - that if a change in her body causes a change in her death-sentence (which cannot be negated because 'Kalah ba'Chamurah Meishach Shaycha'), then how much more so will we accept the change in the status of the Ger and negate the more stringent Miysah completely in the case of ben No'ach she'Beirach (a proof for Rebbi Chanina).
(b)
We refute this proof however, on the basis of Rebbi Yochanan, who told the Beraisa expert - to change the wording of the Beraisa to 'Teidon bi'Sekilah, in which case the Tana will not go after the changed status, even to give a lighter death-sentence.
(c)
Consequently, in Rebbi Chanina's case, where a ben No'ach cursed Hash-m and then converted - he will be sentenced to Sayaf like his original Din (not like Rebbi Chanina).
13)
(a)
We have already quoted our Mishnah, that a ben Sorer u'Moreh is punished because of what he is going to do, and not because of what he did. Why does the Tana go on to say that drinking wine and sleeping, and the death of ...
1.
... Resha'im is beneficial both to themselves and to the world?
2.
... Tzadikim is bad both for themselves and for the world?
(b)
And on what basis does the Tana say that ...
1.
... the scattering of Resha'im is beneficial both to them and to the world, whereas their banding together is bad?
2.
... the scattering of Tzadikim is bad for them and for the world, whereas their banding together is beneficial to both?
(c)
What is the last thing listed by the Tana that is bad for Resha'im but good for Tzadikim?
13)
(a)
We have already quoted our Mishnah, that a ben Sorer u'Moreh is punished because of what he is going to do and not because of what he did. The Tana goes on to say that drinking wine and sleeping, and the death of ...
1.
... Resha'im is beneficial for them and for the world - because they can no longer go on sinning and because the havoc they bring to the world comes to an end, respectively.
2.
... Tzadikim is bad for them and for the world - because they can no longer study Torah (and accumulate Mitzvos), and because the world cannot then benefit from the protection of their Torah-learning and their Musar, respectively.
(b)
And the Tana finally says that ...
1.
... the scattering of Resha'im is beneficial for them and for the world, whereas their banding together is bad - because when the Resha'im unite, they plot to harm (like the generation of the Tower of Bavel), and because they help each other to do mischief.
2.
... the scattering of Tzadikim is bad for them and for the world, whereas their banding together is beneficial for both - because when they meet, it is for the good of all concerned.
(c)
The last thing listed by the Tana that is bad for Resha'im but good for Tzadikim is - tranquility.
