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 85
1) CAN A SON BE A "SHALI'ACH" TO LASH OR CURSE HIS FATHER?
(a) Question: May Beis Din appoint a son to be their
Shali'ach to lash or curse (excommunicate) his father?
1. Counter-question (Rav Sheshes): Why is a stranger
permitted to do this?
(b) Answer: Likewise, it overrides the prohibitions to hit or
curse a parent!
2. Answer: You must say, honoring Shamayim (by
punishing sinners) overrides the prohibitions to hit
or curse a Yisrael;
(c) Question (Beraisa): Someone whom it is a Mitzvah to hit
him, one is commanded not to hit him (an extra lash) -
someone whom there is no Mitzvah to hit him, all the more
so one is commanded not to hit him!
1. Suggestion: In both cases, the person is Chayav
lashes - it is a Mitzvah *for a stranger* to hit
him, it is not a Mitzvah *for his son* to hit him.
(This is the warning against hitting a parent!)
(d) Answer: No, we never distinguish (regarding lashes)
between the son and a stranger;
1. The Beraisa teaches, someone whom it is a Mitzvah to
hit (he is Chayav lashes), one is commanded not to
hit him (an extra lash) - someone whom there is no
Mitzvah to hit him (he is not Chayav lashes), all
the more so one is commanded not to hit him! (This
is a general warning not to hit a Yisrael.)
(e) (Beraisa): Reuven was being taken to be executed, his son
hit and cursed him - he is liable;
1. If someone else hit and cursed him, he is exempt.
(f) Question: What is the difference between the son and a
(g) Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): The case is, they were insisting
that Reuven go, he was refusing. (Beis Din may appoint a
stranger to be their Shali'ach to hit or curse Reuven to
make him go, they may not appoint his son.)
(h) Answer #2: Rav Sheshes must establish this when they were
not insisting that Reuven go.
1. Question: If so, why is a stranger exempt?
2. Answer #1: Once Reuven was sentenced, he is
3. Objection: But Rav Sheshes taught, if Levi was
sleeping and Shimon embarrassed him, he is liable,
even if Levi died without waking up (because his
children are embarrassed - here also, the stranger
should be liable on account of Reuven's children)!
4. Answer #2: The case is, the damage to Reuven was
less than the value of a Perutah.
i. Question: But R. Yochanan taught, if assessment
for damage is less than the value of a Perutah,
the damager is lashed!
5. Answer #3: Rather, a stranger is exempt because it
says "V'Nasi *b'Amcha* Lo Sa'or", one who acts like
someone of your nation.
ii. Answer: The Beraisa means, he is exempt from
paying (but he is lashed).
iii. Question: If so, when it says that the son is
liable, it means that he pays (but we said that
the damage was less than a Perutah)!
iv. Answer: The Beraisa means, his son is liable
his appropriate punishment (Misah).
v. Objection: If so, a stranger is exempt from his
appropriate punishment (lashes)!
6. Question: What is the source to exempt hitting one
who does not act like Amcha?
7. Answer: We equate the laws of hitting and cursing
(from a Binyan Av; alternatively, since they are
written near each other, this is like a Hekesh).
8. Question: If so, the son should also be exempt!
9. Answer: The case is as Rav Pinchus answered
(elsewhere), he did Teshuvah.
10. Question: If so, a stranger should also be liable!
11. Answer (Rav Mari): We expound "B'Amcha" - one who
will remain in your nation (to exclude someone
sentenced to die).
12. Question: If so, also the son should be exempt!
2) HITTING AND CURSING A PARENT
13. Answer: A son is liable for cursing his father even
after his father died.
(i) Question: What is the Halachah (may Beis Din appoint a
son to lash or curse his father)?
(j) Answer (Rabah bar Rav Huna, also Tana d'vei R. Yishmael):
A son may not be appointed to lash or curse his father,
unless his father was a Mesis, regarding which it says
"V'Lo Sachmol v'Lo Sechaseh Alav".
(a) (Mishnah): One who wounds his father or mother is not
liable unless he made a wound.
3) LIABILITY FOR KIDNAPPING
(b) In this respect, cursing is more stringent than hitting -
one is liable for cursing his father after death, not for
hitting after death.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - after death;
1. One might have thought, since one is Chayav Misah
for hitting or cursing, just as one is exempt for
hitting after death, the same applies to cursing;
(d) Question: R. Yonason can learn like this, but R. Yoshiyah
expounds this verse differently!
2. Also, a Kal va'Chomer supports this - the Torah
obligates for hitting even someone who is not
"Amcha" (our Tana argues with the Tana of the
Beraisa on 85A), yet one is exempt for hitting after
death - the Torah only obligates for cursing
"Amcha", all the more so one should be exempt for
cursing after death!
3. Therefore, it must say "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" to teach
that this is not so.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "Ish Ish" - this includes a
daughter, Tumtum (someone of unknown gender) or
Androginus (who has male and female genitals) who
curses a parent.
(e) Answer: R. Yoshiyah learns from "U'Mekalel Aviv v'Imo Mos
2. Question: "Asher Yekalel Es Aviv v'Es Imo" only
teaches if he curses both, how do we know if he
curses only one of them?
3. Answer #1: "Aviv v'Imo Kilel" - cursing is written
next to the mother (as well as next to the father)
to teach that he is liable even if he curses only
one of them.
4. Answer #2 (R. Yonason): "Aviv *v*'Es Imo", the 'Vov'
(and) connotes even one, unless the Torah explicitly
says 'together' (as it does regarding Kilayim).
1. R. Yonason uses this to obligate a daughter, Tumtum
(f) Question: Why didn't the Mishnah teach that hitting is
more stringent than cursing - one is liable for hitting
even someone who is not "Amcha", one is exempt for
cursing such a person!
2. Question: Why doesn't he learn from "Ish Ish"?
3. Answer: He holds that the Torah speaks as people do
(they sometimes double the verb, therefore, we need
not expound the extra occurrence).
(g) Answer: The Tana of our Mishnah equates the laws of
hitting and cursing.
(h) Suggestion: The Tana'im of our Mishnah and the Beraisa
argue as the following Tana'im do:
1. (Beraisa #1): We are commanded not to hit Kusim (the
people Sancheriv settled in place of the 10 exiled
Shevatim, who later converted), we are not forbidden
to curse them.
(i) Rejection: No, neither Tana equates hitting and cursing;
2. (Beraisa #2): We are not forbidden to hit or curse
3. We are thinking that all agree that Kusim are valid
converts (just they do not act like Amcha); the
second Tana equates the laws of hitting and cursing,
the first Tana does not.
1. The first Tana holds that Kusim are valid converts,
the second Tana holds that their conversion was only
to avoid being eaten by lions (it was insincere),
they are Nochrim.
(j) Rejection (of rejection): Beraisa #2 continues, 'the law
of his ox is like a Yisrael's ox (if it damaged or was
damaged)' - this shows that they are considered
(k) Conclusion: Indeed, the Beraisos argue about whether or
not we equate hitting and cursing.
(a) (Mishnah): One who kidnaps a Yisrael is not liable until
he takes him into his premises.
(b) R. Yehudah says, he is not liable until he takes him into
his premises and makes him work - "V'Hisamer Bo".
(c) R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan ben Brokah says, if
one kidnaps his son he is liable; Chachamim exempt.
(d) R. Yehudah says, if one kidnaps a half-slave he is
liable; Chachamim exempt.
(e) (Gemara) Question: Does the first Tana obligate even
though he did not make him work?!
(f) Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): They argue about Imur
(making him work) less than the value of a Perutah.
(g) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If he kidnaps and sells while he
is sleeping (this will be explained), what is the law? If
he sold a fetus in a pregnant woman, what is the law?
1. Is this the way of Imur?
(h) These questions are not resolved.
2. Question: The one sold cannot work at all now,
surely the kidnapper is exempt!
3. Answer: The case is, he can work now - the buyer
will lean on the sleeping person, the fetus
(stretches his mother's stomach) and blocks the
(i) (Beraisa #1): "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh me'Echav" -
this teaches about a man who kidnapped a man or woman;
1. "V'Gonev Ish" - this includes a woman who kidnapped
(j) Question: What is the source for a woman who kidnapped a
(k) Answer: "U'Mes ha'Ganav ha'Hu" - in any case.
(l) (Beraisa #2): "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh me'Echav" -
this obligates for kidnapping a man, woman, convert,
freed slave, or minor.
(m) If he kidnapped Reuven but did not sell him, or he sold
but Reuven is still on his own premises, the kidnapper is
(n) If he sold to one of Reuven's relatives, he is liable.
(o) One who kidnaps a slave is exempt.