ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 8
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah states - that if Reuven throws a stone ...
1. ... from his domain into the street and kills Shimon - he is Chayav
(b) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov qualifies the first of the Tana Kama's
rulings - by restricting it to where Shimon was in the stone's path from the
moment the stone left Reuven's hand. But if he only entered it after that,
Reuven is Patur.
2. ... from the street into his domain and kills Shimon then, based on the
Pasuk "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar" (which we discussed earlier) - he
will be Chayav provided Shimon had permission to be there, but Patur, if he
(c) Aba Shaul learns from the Torah's example of chopping wood 'Mah Chatavas
Eitzim Reshus' - that if Reuven kills (be'Shogeg) whilst performing a
Mitzvah, then he is Patur, precluding a father hitting his son, a Rebbe
chastising his Talmid, and a Sheli'ach Beis-Din administering Malkos.
(a) We ask why the Reisha of the Mishnah sentences Shimon to Galus, for
throwing a stone into the public street, seeing as he is Meizid. In addition
to the fact that Reuven threw the stone at night-time (which does not really
detract from the Meizid aspect of what he did) - we add that the Tana is
also speaking when he threw the stone into a trash-heap.
(b) The problem with that however, is ...
1. ... assuming that people tend to use that trash-heap to relieve
themselves - he is still a Meizid.
(c) For the Mishnah to make sense, Rav Papa establishes the case - when
Reuven threw the stone in the day-time, into a trash-heap that is normally
used as a bathroom by night, and only rarely by day. In such a case he is
neither Meizid, nor O'nes.
2. ... assuming that they don't - he is an O'nes, and ought not to be
(a) Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learns from the Pasuk "*u'Matza* es Re'ehu
ba'Ya'ar" - that Shimon must have been in line with the stone from the
moment that Reuven threw it.
(b) We learn from "u'Matza" in the Pasuk "ve'Ish Ki Lo Yiheyeh Lo Go'el O
Hisigah Yado *u'Matza* K'dei Ge'ulaso" - that he is not permitted to sell
fields that he already owns far away in order to redeem a field that he sold
(c) The discrepancy we are now faced with regarding the two words "u'Matza"
is - that in our Sugya, "u'Matza" implies as it was originally, whereas in
the case of redeeming a field, it implies a new field, and not that he owned
(d) We resolve the discrepancy, based on "O Hisigah Yado" on the one hand,
and "Ya'ar" on the other - by establishing each case according to its own
context. Consequently, with regard to redeeming a field, where the Torah
also writes "O Hisigah Yado", then "u'Matza", like "O Hisigah Yado", means
new fields; whereas in the case of Galus "u'Matza", like Ya'ar, means that
Shimon, like the forest, was originally there.
(a) When one of the Rabbanan asked Rava how Aba Shaul knows that the Pasuk
is speaking about Chatavas Eitzim of Reshus, and not of chopping wood for
building a Sucah or for the Mizbe'ach, he answered - that seeing as one can
use any wood that one finds for either of these Mitzvos, cutting it does not
constitute a Mitzvah.
(b) Ravina asked Rava why our Mishnah then precludes a father hitting his
son and a Rebbe hitting his Talmid ... ? Why we do not say there too, that
seeing as if the son or the Talmid was learning properly, he would not need
to be admonished, now that he is not, there is no Mitzvah to hit him either?
Rava answered - that in fact, there it is a Mitzvah to hit a son and a
Talmid even if they are learning properly ...
(c) ... as we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Yaser Bincha ve'Yanichecha
ve'Yiten Ma'adanim le'Nafshecha".
(d) When Rava then declares that he could have given a better answer, he
means - that he could have learned from the Lashon "*va'Asher* Yavo es
Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar" that the Pasuk is speaking specifically about someone
entering the forest voluntarily, to preclude an act that is a Mitzvah.
(a) Rav Ada bar Ahavah asked Rava whether in the Pasuk in Chukas (in
connection with Tum'as Mikdash ve'Kadashav) "ve'Ish Asher Yitma ve'Lo
Yischata", "Asher" also speaks specifically about someone who became Tamei
voluntarily, to preclude - a Tamei Meis.
(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah objected to Rava's initial answer, that the Pasuk
there adds "Tamei Yiyeheh" to include a Meis Mitzvah in the Din Of Tum'as
Mikdash - because the Beraisa learns something else from these words (as we
shall now see).
(c) The Tana learns from ...
1. ... "Tamei Yiheyeh" - that a T'vul-Yom (who has been to Mikveh and is
waiting for nightfall) is also included in the Din of Tum'as Mikdash.
(d) In fact, Rava meant to include a Meis Mitzvah - from the word "*Od*
2. ... " ... Tum'aso Bo" - that a Mechusar Kipurim (who Toveled on the
seventh day, and who is now waiting on the eighth day to bring his
appropriate Korbanos) is included too.
(a) Others cite the dialogue between one of the Rabbanan and Rava in
connection with the case that we will now discuss. According to Rebbi Akiva,
the Pasuk "be'Charish u've'Katir Tishbos" refers to - plowing at the end of
the sixth year, to prepare the land for the Sh'mitah-year, and reaping in
the eighth year crops that grew more than a third in the seventh (to teach
us that they must be treated with Kedushas Shevi'is).
(b) Rebbi Akiva declines to ascribe the Pasuk to Shabbos, despite the fact
that it begins "Sheishes Yamim Ta'avod, u'va'Shevi'is Tishbos" - because he
sees no reason why the Torah should pick out plowing and reaping, more than
any other Av Melachos.
(c) Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless establishes the Pasuk by Shabbos. When he
says 'Mah Charish Reshus, Af Katzir Reshus", he means - that just as plowing
can only be voluntary (because there is no such thing as a plowing of
Mitzvah), so too, reaping.
(d) When one of the Rabbanan asked Rava from where Rebbi Yishmael knew that
the Pasuk is not coming to forbid plowing for the production of the Omer
harvest (which is a Mitzvah) - he replied (like he did in the first
Lashon) - that since one is permitted to sow a field that is already plowed,
in order to produce the Omer, it cannot be a Mitzvah to plow.
(a) Like in the previous case, Ravina asks Rava from the case of 'ha'Av
ha'Makeh es B'no ... ', and again, Rava answers that it is a Mitzvah to
chastise one's son and one's Talmid. This time however, Rava overrides his
first answer by changing the Hekesh of Ketzirah to Charishah to - 'just as
there is no obligation to plow for the Omer, so too, is there no obligation
to reap for the Omer'.
(b) This answer differs basically from his first one -inasmuch as it does
not rule out the possibility that it is a Mitzvah to plow for the Omer, even
though one may sow the barley in a field that is already plowed.
(c) We learn the obligation to reap specifically for the Omer - from the
Pasuk in Emor u'Ketzartem ... ve'Heivesem".
(a) A father goes into Galus for killing his son be'Shogeg and vice-versa,
just like anybody else.
(b) A Ger Toshav is - a Nochri who lives amongst Jews as a Nochri, but who
undertakes not to worship idols.
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah rules that ...
1. ... a Yisrael who kills a Ger Toshav be'Shogeg - does not go into Galus.
2. ... a Ger Toshav who kills another Ger Toshav - does.
(a) We reconcile our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills his father
be'Shogeg to Galus, with the previous Mishnah, which exempted him - by
establishing it by a son who is working for his father as a carpenter's
apprentice, and whose father's struck him for poor work, which was not a
(b) And to reconcile this answer with the Mishnah in Kidushin, which counts
teaching one's son a trade as a Mitzvah - we establish it further by a son
who already had another trade.
(a) The Beraisa Darshen the Pasuk "(in connection with Galus) "Kol Makeh
*Nefesh* bi'Shegagah" - "Nefesh" 'P'rat le'Makeh Aviv' (which we initially
think covers even when he killed him).
(b) Rav Kahana then reconciles our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills
his father be'Shogeg to Galus, with this Beraisa - by establishing the
latter like Rebbi Shimon, who exempts a son from Galus ...
(c) ... because the Torah only issues the sentences of Galus be'Shogeg to
someone who would be Chayav *Hereg* be'Meizid, but not someone who is Chayav
Chenek (which is more stringent that Hereg in his opinion, and which a son
therefore receives for striking his father).
(d) According to the Rabbanan, a son who strikes his father be'Meizid
receives - Hereg (just like anybody else).
(a) According to Rebbi Shimon, the son would receive Chenek for killing his
father be'Meizid, and not Hereg, like anybody else - because someone who is
Chayav two punishments, receives the more stringent of the two.
(b) Rava however - confines the D'rashah of the Beraisa (exempting the son
from Galus) to where he struck his father without killing him, automatically
dispelling the Kashya on our Mishnah, which speaks when he killed him (in
which case he is Chayav Galus even according to Rebbi Shimon).
(c) What made us think that a son who strikes his father be'Shogeg should be
sentenced to Galus, even though he did not kill him - is the fact that the
Din of a son is equivalent to that of murderer. Perhaps, we figured, the
same corollary will apply when he strikes him be'Shogeg.
(a) To explain 'ha'Kol Golin al-Yedei Yisrael ... ' in our Mishnah, the Tana
in a Beraisa includes - Eved ve'Kuti.
(b) A second Beraisa, adds - 'Lokin' to 'Golin'.
(c) An Eved and a Kuti will go into Galus for killing a Yisrael be'Shogeg.
In order to receive Malkos, we initially assume - that he cursed him.
(d) We know that someone receives Malkos for cursing a fellow-Jew - from a
'Mah ha'Tzad' from Dayan, Nasi and Cheresh, by each of which the Torah
specifically writes that one is.
(a) The problem with the Beraisa ruling that a Yisrael receives Malkos for
cursing a Kuti would be - the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Nasi be'Amcha Lo
Sa'or", which permits cursing anyone who is not 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha' (who
does not behave like a Jew) (and the Kutim, who served idols, were certainly
not 'Oseh Ma'aseh Amcha').
(b) We reject Rav Acha bar Ya'akov's suggestion that the Malkos of the
Beraisa is because the two Yisre'elim who testified against the Eved or the
Kuti became Zomemin - on the grounds that 'vice-versa' would not then be
feasible, since an Eved is not eligible to testify.
(c) We finally establish the Beraisa - when the Yisrael struck the Eved or
the Kuti or vice-versa a blow that caused less damage than a Shaveh P'rutah,
for which one receives Malkos, as Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan taught.
(d) And when we conclude 've'Lo Makshinan Haka'ah li'Kelalah' - we preclude
the opinion in Sanhedrin that exempts striking a Kuti from Malkos, just like
one is Patur for cursing him.