ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Sanhedrin 80
(a) Rava therefore establishes our Mishnah as two different cases. The
Reisha speaks in a case where the culprit is not known - i.e. where one of
two people shot an arrow and killed someone, and where everyone agrees that
(b) And when Rebbi Yossi says 'Afilu Aba Chalafta', he means - that even if
one of those two people were to be his father, Chalafta, we would have no
right to assume that the other person is the murderer.
(c) Rebbi Yehudah ('Konsin Osan le'Kipah') argues in the case - where the
Shor ha'Niskal got mixed up in a group of innocent oxen. The Tana Kama now
holds - that they must be stoned (since they are all anyway Asur
(d) Rebbi Yehudah's reason - is because Chazal did not require Beis-Din to
take the trouble to stone all the oxen (mi'Safek).
(a) Another Beraisa holds, that in a case where a Shor ha'Niskal gives birth
to a calf ...
1. ... before the G'mar Din - the baby is permitted.
(b) The Tana Kama rules that, if the ox got mixed up with innocent oxen,
and then they got mixed up with a second group of oxen (see Tosfos DH
'va'Acheros'), they are all taken to the Kipah (like Rebbi Yehudah). Rebbi
Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon - requires them all to be stoned (like the Rabbanan).
2. ... after the G'mar Din - the baby is forbidden (because of the principle
'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu' [a fetus is like part of the mother]).
(a) Rava rules that in a case where a pregnant cow gored someone and killed,
when the baby is born, it cannot be brought as a Korban - because it gored
together with its mother ('Ubar Yerech Imo Hu').
We cannot establish the Beraisa speaks when the baby was not brought to
Beis-Din at all - because then, why would the Tana need to speak about the
baby, since the same would apply to the mother. It must therefore be a
question of whether one needs to bring it to Beis-Din or not.
(b) Where the cow did not gore someone, but was raped by him - Rava rules
likewise, since it was raped together with its mother.
(c) In either case, the cow is not then sentenced to death - because the
Tana is speaking when there was only one witness, who might even have been
the owner himself.
(d) The problem this poses on the previous Beraisa is - that the Tana seems
to permit the baby as long as it is born before the conclusion of the Din
(notwithstanding the fact that the mother was already pregnant at the time
of the goring) and Rava will certainly hold that if two witnesses saw the
goring, the animal is Asur be'Hana'ah?
(a) So we amend the Lashon 'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno Yaldah, V'ladah Mutar'
to read 'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diyno, Ibrah ve'Yaldah, V'ladah Mutar ... '
(and the baby is permitted only because it did not participate in the
(b) This answer leaves us with a problem on the Seifa however, 'Im
mi'she'Nigmar Diynah, Ibrah ve'Yaldah, V'ladah Asurah') - because according
to those who hold 'Zeh ve'Zeh Gorem', why should the baby be Asur, seeing as
(c) ... the baby's father (who was permitted) was as much responsible for
its birth as the mother?
(d) Ravina therefore leaves the Reisha intact, but finally amends the Seifa
to read - 've'Im ad she'Lo Nigmar Diynah, Ibrah, u'mi'she'Nigmar Diynah,
Yaldah, V'ladah Asur; 'Ubar Yerech Imo Hu'.
(a) We try to prove from our Mishnah 'Kol Chayvei Miysos she'Nisarvu Zeh
ba'Zeh, Nidunin be'Kalah' - that a warning for a more stringent punishment
incorporates punishments that are less stringent.
(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah answers that the author of our Mishnah is the Chachamim
of the Beraisa, who after ruling that Chayvei Miysos require 'Eidah, Eidim
and Hasra'ah', adds - that one only needs to warn the sinner that he will be
sentenced to death (but not necessarily, which death).
(c) Rebbi Yehudah, more strict than the Tana Kama - requires that the
witnesses specify which death he will receive.
(d) The Tana Kama learns his opinion from the Mekoshesh, whose death was not
even known at the time (as we explained earlier). Rebbi Yehudah maintains -
that the Mekoshesh was a 'Hora'as Sha'ah' (as we also explained earlier).
(a) Rav Yechezkel quote the Mishnah to his son Rav Yehudah (the Talmid of
Rav) 'ha'Nisrafin be Niskalin, Rebbi Shimon Omer Yadunu bi'Sekilah,
(b) The problem that Rav Yehudah had with his father's statement was - the
Lashon 'ha'Nisrafin be'Niskalin', implying that it is a minority of Nisrafin
that fell into a majority of Niskalin, in which case, his reason
'she'ha'Sereifah Chamurah' would be superfluous, since we would anyway go
after the majority.
(c) In addressing the problem - Rav Yehudah said to his father - 'Father,
don't learn like that (learn like this)!'
(d) He ...
1. ... amended the statement to read - 'ha'Niskalin be'Nisrafin ... ' (like
it stands in our Mishnah).
2. ... explains the Seifa, where the Chachamim state 'Yadunu bi'Sereifah,
she'Sekilah Chamurah' (which, according to Rav Yehudah's version of the
Reisha, leaves us with exactly the same Kashya that he asked there [that the
Tana could now have attributed the ruling to the fact that the majority of
the animals are 'Nisrafin') - by establishing the Chachamim as coming (not
to teach us their personal opinion, but) to dispute that of Rebbi Shimon.
'Sereifah is not more stringent (like he says), but Sekilah.
(a) Shmuel rebuked his Talmid Rav Yehudah - for directly telling his father
that he was wrong.
(b) According to the Tana of the Beraisa, one corrects one's father - by
just informing him that there is a Pasuk in the Torah (or a Halachah in
Shulchan-Aruch), which one reads out word for word, allowing his father to
draw his own conclusions.
(c) We reject even the original wording of the Beraisa, that the son says
'Aba, Kach Kasuv ba'Torah' - because that is like telling him that he
sinned, and it hurts.