ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 7
(a) Our Mishnah states - that ...
1. ... a litigant who, after being declared guilty and running away,
reappears in the same Beis-Din and asks for a retrial - is turned down (and
must face the death-sentence).
(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).
2. ... in a case where 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, Reuven is put to death.
3. ... the Din of Sanhedrin (incorporating the death-sentence) - applies in
Chutz la'Aretz, too.
(c) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva say - that had they been in the Sanhedrin -
nobody would have ever been sentenced to death.
(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel said - that they would have certainly caused an
increase in murder in Yisrael.
(a) From the words 'Lifnei Oso Beis-Din' that the Tana uses in the opening
Din in our Mishnah ('Mi she'Nigmar Dino ... '), we infer - that if he went
to another Beis-Din, he would be able to demand a retrial. But ...
(b) ... did we not subsequently learn that if two witnesses testify that a
man was sentenced to death in Beis-Din P'loni, that the sentence stands, and
he is put to death?
(c) To answer the Kashya - Abaye (quoting Rebbi Yehudah ben Dustai in a
Beraisa) establishes the latter ruling when the witnesses testify in Chutz
la'Aretz that the sentence was passed in Eretz Yisrael (or in Chutz la'Aretz
[see Ritva]), whereas the former ruling speaks when the defendant appears
before a Beis-Din in Eretz Yisrael after having been sentenced by a Beis-Din
in Chutz la'Aretz ...
(d) ... where the merit of Eretz Yisrael might work to release him from the
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Hayu Eileh Lachem le'Chukas Mishpat" - that the Sanhedrin
(vis-a-vis the death-sentence) applies in Chutz la'Arez too.
(b) When Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah says 'Achas le'Shiv'im Shanah' - he either
means that a Sanhedrin which sentences to death once in seventy years is
called a Chovlanis, or that it is not (unless it passes the death sentence
within seventy years).
2. ... "Shoftim ve'Shotrim Titen Lecha 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.
(c) The She'eilah remains unanswered.
(a) Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva would have avoided the death sentence in
cases of ...
***** Hadran Alach 'Keitzad ha'Eidim *****
1. ... murder - by asking the witnesses whether they could ascertain that
the victim was not a T'reifah (in which case the murderer would be
absolved), a most unlikely suggestion.
(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 really there had not been a blemish and that the sword had pierced the
exact spot where the hole was.
2. ... adultery - by asking them whether they could ascertain that the
couple were really intimate (which is most unlikely, too).
(c) Presumably, the Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Tarfon and Rebbi Akiva on
the basis of Rov. And they would have sentenced an adulterer to death - on
the basis of Shmuel, who rules that for the witnesses to see the adulterers
behaving like two people committing adultery, is sufficient to send them to
***** Perek Eilu Hein ha'Golin *****
(a) When our Mishnah says ...
1. ... 'Hayah Me'agel ba'Agilah' it means - that he was cementing his roof
with a roller.
(b) The Tana cites three cases; 'Me'agel ba'Agilah', 'Meshalshel be'Chavis'
and 'Yored 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.
2. ... 'O Meshalshel ba'Chavis' - that he was lowering a barrel'.
(c) If he had been drawing the roller or the barrel, or climbing up the
ladder, on the other hand - he would have been Patur.
(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "Vayapel 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" (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 - when the 'murderer' thought that it was permitted to
(d) When, with regard to the first case, Abaye asked him 'I Omer Mutar,
A'nus Hu', he retorted - 'she'Ani Omer ha'Omer Mutar Karov le'Meizid Hu'.
2. ... the second case - when he intended to kill an animal, a Kuti or a
Nefel (for which one is not Chayav Misah).
(a) When the Tana of another Beraisa says "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
(b) "be'Lo Eivah" comes to preclude a hater from Galus. Bearing in mind that
there are 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 ...
1. ... "Hadafo" - that if Reuven inadvertently killed Shimon by pushing him
with his body (e.g. into a fire), he is Chayav Galus.
(d) And we learn from ...
2. ... "O Hishlich Alav" - that if in the process of lowering an ax, (for
example) in order to swing it upwards, Reuven kills Shimon, he is Chayav
1. ... "be'Lo Tzediyah" (ibid.) - that he is Patur, if he meant to throw
something to the right, and by mistake, he threw it to the left.
(e) The final D'rashah in the Beraisa is from "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
2. ... "va'Asher Lo Tzadah" (Mishpatim) - 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.
(a) Rebbi Avahu asked Rebbi Yochanan what the Din will be, in a case where
Reuven is climbing a ladder, when 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) Rebbi Yochanan replied - with the Beraisa that we just learned, which
obligates a 'Yeridah le'Tzorech Aliyah'.
(a) Rebbi Avahu asked 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 then considers an Aliyah, a
Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan).
(b) Rebbi Yochanan counters 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 be the same basic Chidush as the Seifa).
(c) The two 'Zeh ha'Kelal' 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 when Reuven lowers the
chopper in front of him in order to swing it upwards behind him.
2. ... 'Le'acharav Chayav, Lefanav Patur - 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' - when he performs a downward
stroke either in front of him or behind him.
4. ... 'Bein Lefanav Bein Le'acharav, Patur' - when he performs an upward
stroke either in front of him or behind him.
(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 not).
(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 one).
(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 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 when the rung was not wormy. Nevertheless, one 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
(a) If, whilst Reuven was chopping wood, the ax flew off the handle and
killed Shimon, Rebbi exempts Reuven from Galus. The Rabbanan rule - that he
(b) In a case where it was a piece of chopped wood that flew into the air
and killed Shimon - they will reverse their rulings; Rebbi will hold
'Chayav', and the Rabbanan, 'Patur'.
(c) Rebbi in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Lashon "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 flew off the handle that killed, but a
piece of wood that was being chopped.
(d) The second source he cites for his ruling is a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Eitz"
from "Li'cheros ha'Eitz", which is certainly referring to the wood that is
(a) According to Rav Chiya bar Ashi Amar Rav, both Tana'im Learn their
respective opinions from the sane source, and they argue over 'Yesh Eim
li'Mesores' (Rebbi) and 'Yesh Eim le'Mikra' (the Rabbanan).
1. ... Rebbi explains the Pasuk "*ve'Nashal* ha'Barzel min ha'Eitz" as if it
was read 've'Nishal' (since there is no 'Alef' or 'Hey' after the 'Nun',
implying that the ax caused the wood to jump up (see Ritva).
(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 because of this Kashya that the Beraisa
adds the Limud of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah'.
2. ... the Rabbanan explain it - exactly the way it is read, "ve'Nashal ...
", meaning that the metal flew off the handle.
(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 and the Rabbanan. Rebbi will
hold -Chayav, whereas the Rabbanan will hold Patur (exactly like the case of
'min ha'Eitz ha'Misbake'a').
(b) In answer to the question 'P'shita'?, we reply that we would otherwise
have thought that this is a case of 'Ko'ach Kocho' (since the clod of earth
itself seems to case of 'Kocho' rather than 'Gufo') - in which case even
Rebbi will exempt Reuven from Galus (see Tosfos DH 'Mahu de'Seima').
(c) In fact, is it not 'Ko'ach Kocho' - because the clod of earth is not
considered 'Kocho', but 'Gufo'.
(d) A case of 'Ko'ach Kocho', which even Rebbi would exempt, would be - one
where Reuven threw a clod of earth at a date-palm, striking a palm-branch,
which then struck and detached a cluster of dates ... .