(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


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 Galus.
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 didn't.
(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.

(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.
2. ... assuming that they don't - he is an O'nes, and ought not to be Chayav.
(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.
(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 close by.

(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 before.

(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.
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.
(d) In fact, Rava meant to include a Meis Mitzvah - from the word "*Od* Tum'aso Bo".



(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 Mitzvah.

(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.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,