POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 79
SANHEDRIN 79 (24 Kislev) - Dedicated by R. Ginsberg of Queens, NY, l'Iluy
Nishmas his father, Arnold (Aharon Yehudah ben Reb Nasan) Ginsberg, for his
1) ONE WHO DID NOT STRIKE WHAT HE AIMED FOR
(a) (Mishnah): In the following cases, one is exempt:
1. He intended to kill an animal, Nochri, or Nafel
(stillborn baby) (and he (accidentally) killed a
(b) In the following cases, one is liable:
2. He intended to hit him on his leg, and such a blow
on the leg would not have killed him, but he hit him
on the heart and it was enough to kill him there;
3. He intended to hit him on his heart, and such a blow
on the heart would have killed him, but he hit him
on the leg and it was not enough to kill him there
(but he died anyway);
4. He intended to hit an adult, and such a blow would
not kill an adult, but he hit a minor and it was
enough to kill a minor;
5. He intended to hit a minor, and such a blow would
kill a minor, but he hit an adult and it was not
enough to kill an adult (but he died anyway).
1. He intended to hit him on his leg, such a blow on
the leg would kill, he hit him on the heart and it
was enough to kill him;
(c) R. Shimon says, even if he intended to kill Reuven and
killed Shimon, he is exempt.
2. He intended to hit an adult, such a blow would kill
an adult, he hit a minor and it was enough to kill a
(d) (Gemara) Question: To which law does R. Shimon respond?
(e) Answer #1: He responds to the last law.
(f) Rejection: Chachamim already illustrated killing a
different person than intended, and they Mechayev - R.
Shimon should have said only 'he is exempt'.
(g) Answer #2: He responds to the first law, 'He intended to
kill an animal, Nochri, or Nafel, and he killed a healthy
Yisrael - he is exempt';
1. This implies that if one intended to kill a Yisrael
and killed a different Yisrael, he is liable;
(h) Obviously, if Reuven and Shimon are standing together and
Levi said 'I intend to kill Reuven, not Shimon' (and he
killed Shimon), Chachamim Mechayev, R. Shimon exempts.
2. R. Shimon argues and says that even in this case he
(i) Question #1: If he said 'I want to kill one of them (I do
not care which)', what is the law?
(j) Question #2: If Levi appeared to him like Reuven and
therefore he killed him, what is the law?
(k) Answer (Beraisa - R. Shimon): He is not liable unless he
says "I intend to kill Ploni".
(l) Question: What is R. Shimon's reason?
(m) Answer: "V'Arav Lo v'Kam Alav" - he must intend for him.
(n) Question: How do Chachamim expound this?
(o) Answer (d'vei R. Yanai): This excludes one who throws a
rock into a crowd of Yisraelim and Nochrim, without
knowing whom it will kill.
(p) Question: What is the case?
1. If the majority are Nochrim, even without this verse
we would follow the majority!
(q) Answer: There is one Nochri and many Yisraelim;
2. Even if half were Nochrim, we would not kill on an
1. The Nochri is considered 'Kavu'a', i.e. we do not
assume that the victim will be from the majority,
rather, we consider it like an even doubt, we do not
kill the murderer.
(r) Question: We understand according to Chachamim, who say
that if Levi intended to kill Reuven and killed Shimon,
he is liable - they learn from "V'Chi Yinatzu Anashim
1. (R. Elazar): The verse discusses a fight to kill -
"V'Im Ason Yihyeh v'Nosata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh"
(Beis Din only kills one who intended to kill).
(s) Answer: R. Shimon says that this refers to paying money,
as Rebbi does (elsewhere).
2. But how does R. Shimon expound the verse?
1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): "V'Nasata Nefesh Tachas Nafesh" -
this refers to money.
2. Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to capital punishment!
3. Rejection: It says 'Nesinah' here, and also
regarding compensation for causing a miscarriage;
2) A MURDERER THAT BECAME MIXED UP WITH OTHERS
(t) (Rava): Tana d'vei Chizkiyah argues with Rebbi and with
i. Just as the latter refers to money, also here.
1. (Tana d'vei Chizkiyah): "Make Adam...u'Make Vehemah"
- the Torah equates striking (killing) people and
(u) Question: What does it mean 'without intention'?
2. One who strikes an animal always pays, whether he
was Shogeg or Mezid, with or without intention,
whether he hit going downward or upward - similarly,
one who strikes a man never pays, without
1. If it means without intention at all, that is
(v) Answer: Rather, he intended for Reuven and killed Shimon;
1. The Beraisa teaches, we always exempt him from
paying - if he is killed, there would be no need to
2. Rather, it teaches that he is not killed, he does
not pay money.
(a) (Mishnah): If a murderer became mixed up with others
(this will be explained), all are exempt;
(b) R. Yehudah says, we put them in a Kipah (a cell, and
precipitate their death).
(c) If people sentenced to receive different Misos Beis Din
became mixed together, they all receive the lightest
Misah (of any of them).
(d) R. Shimon says, if people sentenced to be stoned became
mixed with people sentenced to be burned, we stone them,
for this is more lenient;
(e) Chachamim say, we burn them, for this is more lenient.
1. R. Shimon says, a Bas Kohen who was Mezanah is
burned - this shows that burning is more severe;
(f) R. Shimon says, if people sentenced to be beheaded became
mixed with people sentenced to be choked, we choke them,
2. Chachamim say, stoning is more severe, for it is
given to blasphemers and idolaters.
(g) Chachamim say, we behead them.
(h) (Gemara) Question: With whom did the murderer get mixed
1. Suggestion: He became mixed with innocent people.
(i) Answer #1 (R. Avahu): A murderer who was not yet
sentenced became mixed up with sentenced murderers.
2. Rejection #1: If so, obviously all are exempt!
3. Rejection #2: If so, R. Yehudah would not say that
we put them in Kipah!
1. Chachamim say that he must be present (and
recognizable) to pronounce the final verdict -
since, we cannot do this, all are exempt.
(j) Rejection (Reish Lakish): If people became mixed up (and
one was not sentenced), all agree that they are exempt;
2. R. Yehudah says, we do not exempt them, since all
are murderers - therefore, we put them in Kipah.
1. The Mishnah discusses an ox that was not yet
sentenced (for goring) that became mixed up with
(k) Objection (Rava - Beraisa - R. Yosi): The law of the
Mishnah applies even if Aba Chalifta is among them!
2. Chachamim equate the death of the ox to what we
would do to people - since people (in this
situation) would be exempt, the oxen are exempt;
3. R. Yehudah says, we put them in Kipah.