ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 9
MAKOS 9 (7 Shevat) - dedicated by Danny & Ramona Schwartz, l'Iluy Nishmat
Yochanan Shabsai ben Yair, Z"L, whose Yahrzeit is 7 Shevat.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah 'Chutz mi'Ger Toshav' incorporating - both a
Ger Toshav who kills a Yisrael and vice-versa.
(b) This gives a Ger Toshav - the status of a Nochri (vis-a-vis the Din of
(c) The Kashya on this from the Seifa of our Mishnah - is that if a Ger
Toshav is considered a Nochri in this regard, we would ecpect him to be
Patur even if he were to kill a fellow Ger Toshav, yet our Mishnah rules
that he is Chayav.
(d) Rav Kahana reconciles the two sections of the Mishnah - by confining the
Reisha to a Ger Toshav who killed a Ger Toshav, who is Patur from Galus
because Galus is not a sufficient Kaparah, and he requires Misah; but it
does not include a Ger Toshav who killed a Ger Toshav, for whom Galus is a
good enough Kaparah.
(a) In another version of the Kashya (which Rav Kahana will answer in the
same way), the Pasuk in Mas'ei (in connection with the Arei Miklat)
"li'Venei Yisrael ve'la'Ger ve'la'Toshav" appear to clash with the Pasuk
there "ve'Hayu he'Arim ha'Eileh Lachem" - because "Lachem" implies that the
Arei Miklat are confined to Yisre'elim, to the exclusion of Gerei Toshav.
(b) Another Beraisa states 'Lefichach Ger ve'Oved-Kochavim she'Hargu,
Neheragin'. 'Lefichach' - refers to the seven Mitzvos B'nei No'ach, which
the Tana has just taught that 'their warning in the Torah, constitutes their
death warrant', and no further warning is necessary (because a Nochri is
Chayav Misah even be'Shogeg).
(c) The comparison between Ger and Oved-Kochavim teaches us - like a Nochri,
a Ger Toshav is always subject to Misah (and does not go into Galus),
irrespective of whom he kills (even another Ger Toshav like himself clashing
with our Mishnah, which sentences him to Galus in the latter case).
(a) To resolve the Kashya, Rav Chisda draws a distinction between an upward
stroke and a downward one, by which means - that our Mishnah speaks in the
case of a downward stroke, for which a Ger Toshav, like a Yisrael, goes Into
Galus; whereas the Beraisa speaks in the case of an upward stroke, for which
a Yissrael is Patur from Galus, and for which the Ger Toshav is therefore
sentenced to death.
(b) Rava rejects Rav Chisda's answer - on the grounds that if the Ger Toshav
is Patur from Misah by a downward stroke because, like by a Yisrael, Galus
is good enough, then by an upward stroke, where a Yisrael is even Patur from
Galus, he should certainly be Patur from Misah.
(c) Consequently, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by 'Omer Mutar'. Abaye
queries this (as he did above) with - "Omer Mutar A'nus Hu"?
(d) To which Rabah replies - 'she'Ani Omer, Omer Mutar Karov le'Meizid Hu'
(as he did above).
(a) And we conclude that they follow their own reasoning (as will emerge
from the Sugya). Rabah rules that a Ger Toshav who kills a person thinking
that he is an animal, or a fellow Ger Toshav thinking that he is a
Cana'ani - is Chayav Misah.
(b) To which Rav Chisda says - Patur, because 'Omer Mutar' is considered an
(c) Rava asks on Rav Chisda from the Pasuk (where Hashem says to Avimelech)
"Hincha Meis al ha'Ishah Asher Lakachta" - which he assumes, means death at
the hands of man. So we see that 'Omer Mutar' is not consideres an O'nes?
(d) Rav Chisda replied - that "Hincha Meis" means at the Hands of Hashem.
(a) Rav Chisda attempted to prove his answer from Hashem's words "me'Chato
"*Li*", implying that Hashem was responsible for Avimelech's sin and not his
fellow man. Rava countered this proof however - by quoting Yosef's words to
the wife of Potifera "ve'Chatasi l'Elokim", which must mean (not that he
would be Chayav Misah at the Hand of Hashem but) that although he would have
sinned to Hashem, his punishment would be meted out by his fellow humans;
and that is what it means here too.
(b) Abaye asks Rabah from Avimelech's words to Hashem "ha'Goy Gam Tzadik
Taharog" - implying that Avimelech (who belonged to the category of 'Omer
Mutar') was an O'nes?
(c) Rabah refutes Abaye's Kashya with a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar
Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, who does not at first understand - why Hashem
told Avimelech "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish Ki Navi Hu", which implies that
if Avraham had not been a Navi, Avimelech would have been permitted to
retain Sarah (which is of course, ridiculous).
(d) So he explains ...
1. ... "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish" to mean - in any case, irrespective of
(e) And Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolates from
here - that a ban No'ach is Chayav Misah for not learning the laws of Derech
Eretz, should this cause him to sin.
2. ... "Ki Navi Hu" to mean - that he is a Navi, and only claimed that Sarah
is his sister because he learned from your words what was in your heart
(because the first question you asked Avraham was concerning Sarah [instead
of asking him whether he has somewhere to stay]). Consequently, it is not he
who tricked you, but you who frightened him.
(a) According to Rebbi Yehudah, a blind man who kills be'Shogeg does not go
into Galus; according to Rebbi Meir - he does.
(b) According to the Tana Kama, a hater does not go into Galus either.
According to Rebbi Yossi - he is even Chayav Misah.
(c) Rebbi Shimon is the most lenient of all. He compromises even on the Din
of Galus, making it dependent on the way he killed the man he hates. If it
looks as if he killed him on purpose, he goes into Galus; if not, he is
(a) Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa initially learn from "be'Lo Re'os" (which
implies a person with eyesight) - that a blind man is not subject to Galus.
(b) He then learns from the continuation of the Pasuk "bi'Veli Da'as" - that
he is subject to Galus (because of the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela
le'Rabos' ['Two consecutive words that come to exclude, actually include']).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah initially includes a blind man from "va'Asher Yavo es
Re'ehu". Consequently - when the Torah adds "be'Lo Re'os", it must be to
preclude a blind man from Galus.
(d) And from "bi'Veli Da'as" he learns - 'P'rat le'Miskaven (Laharog es
ha'Beheimah ve'Harag es ha'Adam... ', as we learned earlier).
(a) The problem with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who sentences a hater to
death, even if he killed be'Shogeg is - that there are no witnesses.
(b) And we answer by amending the name of the author to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi
Yehudah, who states in a Beraisa - that a 'Chaver' (a Talmid-Chacham) does
not require warning (because, in his opinion) the sole objective of warning
is to distinguish between Shogeg and Meizid). In other words, there are
witnesses, only they did not warn the hater.
(a) To explain Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah (who makes it dependent upon how
the hater killed), we differentiate between a rope that snapped - in which
case he is Patur (as we shall see shortly) and one that slipped - which is
considered Meizid in the case of a hater.
(b) We ask a double S'tirah however, from Rebbi Shimon himself, who says
that someone who kills be'Shogeg by means of allowing a trowel to fall on a
person and kill him - is Chayav Galus only if the trowel slipped out of his
(c) To answer the S'tirah on the two cases of the rope or the trowel
slipping, we answer simply 'Ha be'Ohev, ve'Ha be'Sonei'. And we resolve the
S'tirah between the two cases of snapping - a. by comparing the rope
snapping to the metal flying off the handle of an ax, and b. by establishing
our Mishnah like the Rabbanan of Rebbi (who sentence such a case to Galus),
and the Beraisa like Rebbi (who exempts even a friend from Galus).
(d) According to Rebbi Shimon, a hater will never go into Galus if we hold
like Rebbi with regard to 'Nishmat'.
(a) The basis of the mistake in our erroneous text 'Nifsak a'Nifsak Lo
Kashya, Ha be'Ohev ... . Nishmat a'Nishmat Lo Kashya, Ha Rebbi, Ha Rabbanan'
is - the comparison between 'Nishmat ha'Chevel' and 'Nishmat ha'Barzel'
(which in fact, are incompatible).
(b) And we reject this text for two reasons. One of them, because if
'Nifsak' goes into Galus by a Sonei, then how much more so by an Ohev. The
other with regard to 'Nishmat a'Nishmat Lo Kashya' is - if we establish
'Nishmat Eino Goleh' like Rebbi, then it pertains to Meizid too, and has
nothing to do with the fact that even if he killed be'Shogeg, he probably
did it on purpose (which is in fact, Rebbi Shimon's reason).
(a) The two groups of three Arei Miklat were situated - three in Eiver
ha'Yarden and three in Eretz Cana'an (which the Tana calls by this name
because that is what it was called at the time that they were commanded to
set up the six towns.
(b) The three in Eiver ha'Yarden, which Moshe already designated, only came
into effect - simultaneously with the three in Eretz Yisrael, fourteen years
after entering Eretz Yisrael ...
(c) ... because the Torah writes in Masei "Sheish Arei Miklat Tiheyenah"
(the six towns must come into effect simultaneously).
(a) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech" - that the
road leading to Arei Miklat had to be cleared of any obstacles that might
slow the murderer down (Tiferes Yisrael).
(b) Beis-Din would allot two Talmidei-Chachamim to accompany the Rotze'ach
to the Ir Miklat - to convince the Go'el ha'Dam (the next of kin to the
victim) not to kill him, should he catch up with them.
(c) According to Rebbi Meir - based on the Pasuk "ve'Zeh D'var
ha'Rotze'ach", the murderer had to speak for himself.
(d) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah maintains that initially every murderer
(even a Meizid) had to run to an Ir Miklat. The procedure would then be -
for the Beis-Din to judge him, and depending on his intentions, he would
either be sentenced to death (if he was declared a Meidiz), set free (if he
was either O'nes or Karov le'Meizid) and made to flee to the Ir Miklat (a
second time, should he be declared a Shogeg).
(a) The Beraisa compares the two groups of Arei Miklat (one in Eiver
ha'Yarden, the other, in Eretz Yisrael) - to two rows of a vineyard.
(b) Chevron, Sh'chem and Kedesh (the three Arei Miklat running from south to
north in Eretz Yisrael), belonged to Yehudah, (Har) Efrayim and Naftali,
(c) Regarding the three corresponding towns in Eiver ha'Yarden, Betzer was
in the desert, Ramot in Gilad and Golan - in Bashan.
(d) The Beraisa explains the word "ve'Shilashta" to mean - that the distance
between the northern and southern borders and the first town was equal to
the distance between the first town and the second.
(a) Abaye attributes the fact that Eiver ha'Yarden, where only two and a
half tribes lived, required as many Arei Miklat as Eretz Yisrael - to the
fact that there were a lot of murderers in Gilad (the center of Eiver
ha'Yarden [see Tosfos DH 'be'Gilad', Hagahos ha'Bach and Mesores ha'Shas).
(b) This is based on the Pasuk in Hoshe'a "Gilad Kiryas Po'alei Aven Akuvah
mi'Dam". Rebbi Elazar interprets "Akuvah mi'Dam" to mean - that they
actually used to wait in ambush for passers-by, whom they would then murder,
presumably for their money.
(c) Once again, Abaye attributes the fact that the distance between the
extreme north and south of Eretz Yisrael to Kedesh and Chevron,
respectively, was twice as far as the distance between them and the middle
town (Sh'chem) - to the fact that in Sh'chem (like in Gilad) there were many
(d) In the relevant Pasuk in Hoshe'a, the Navi inserts the words "Chever
Kohanim" - to describe the actions of the murderers in Sh'chem, who would
band together to murder, like Kohanim would band together at the granaries
to collect Terumah.