(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) What does the Tana Kama of our Mishnah say about a case where Reuven throws a stone ...
  1. ... from his domain into the street and kills someone?
  2. ... from the street into his domain and kills someone? Based on the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar", when will he be Chayav and when will he be Patur?
(b) How does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov qualify the first of the Tana Kama's rulings?

(c) Aba Shaul learns from the Torah's example of chopping wood 'Mah Chatavas Eitzim Reshus'.
Which three cases does this come to exclude?

(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.
What do we add to the initial answer that the Tana is speaking at night-time, seeing as that does not really detract from the Meizid aspect of what he did?

(b) What problem do we still have ...

  1. ... assuming that people tend to use that trash-heap to relieve themselves?
  2. ... assuming that they don't?
(c) So how does Rav Papa establish the case, for the Mishnah to make sense?
(a) What does Rebbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov learn from the Pasuk "*u'Matza* es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar"?

(b) What do we learn from "u'Matza" in the Pasuk in Behar "ve'Ish Ki Lo Yiheyeh Lo Go'el O Hisigah Yado *u'Matza* K'dei Ge'ulaso"? What is he not permitted to sell in order to redeem a field that he sold?

(c) What discrepancy are we now faced with regarding the two words "u'Matza"?

(d) How do we resolve the discrepancy, based on "O Hisigah Yado" on the one hand, and "Ya'ar" on the other?

(a) What did Rava reply when one of the Rabbanan asked him 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.
What did he answer?

(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?
What did Rava answer?

(c) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Yaser Bincha ve'Yanichecha ve'Yiten Ma'adanim le'Nafshecha"?

(d) What does Rava mean when he then declares that he could have given a better answer? What does he learn from the Lashon "*va'Asher* Yavo es Re'ehu ba'Ya'ar"?

(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.
Whom would that preclude?

(b) Why did Rav Ada bar Ahavah object to Rava's initial answer, that the Pasuk there adds "Tamei Yiheyeh" to include a Meis Mitzvah in the Din Of Tum'as Mikdash?

(c) What does the Tana learn from ...

  1. ... "Tamei Yiheyeh"?
  2. ... " ... Tum'aso Bo"?
(d) So from where did Rava include a Meis Mitzvah?
Answers to questions



(a) Others cite the dialogue between one of the Rabbanan and Rava in connection with the case that we will now discuss.
How does Rebbi Akiva explain the Pasuk in Ki Sisa "be'Charish u've'Katir Tishbos"?

(b) Why does Rebbi Akiva decline to ascribe the Pasuk to Shabbos, despite the fact that it begins "Sheishes Yamim Ta'avod, u'va'Shevi'is Tishbos"?

(c) Rebbi Yishmael nevertheless establishes the Pasuk by Shabbos.
What does he mean when he says 'Mah Charish Reshus, Af Katzir Reshus'? Why can Charish not pertain to Charish shel Mitzvah?

(d) What did Rava answer when one of the Rabbanan asked him from where Rebbi Yishmael knew that the Pasuk is not coming to forbid plowing for the production of the Omer harvest (which would be a Mitzvah)?

(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.
How does he now learn it?

(b) How does this answer differ basically from his first one?

(c) From where do we then learn the obligation of reaping specifically for the Omer?

(a) Does a father go into Galus for killing his son be'Shogeg and vice-versa?

(b) What is a Ger Toshav?

(c) What does the Tana of our Mishnah say about ...

  1. ... a Yisrael who kills a Ger Toshav?
  2. ... a Ger Toshav who kills another Ger Toshav?
(a) How do we reconcile our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills his father be'Shogeg to Galus, with the previous Mishnah, which exempted him?

(b) And how do we reconcile this answer with the Mishnah in Kidushin, which counts teaching one's son a trade as a Mitzvah?

(a) How does the Beraisa Darshen the Pasuk in Masei (in connection with Galus) "Kol Makeh *Nefesh* bi'Shegagah"? Which cases do we initially think this covers?

(b) How does Rav Kahana then reconcile our Mishnah, which sentences a son who kills his father be'Shogeg to Galus, with this Beraisa?

(c) Why does Rebbi Shimon exempt the son from Galus?

(d) What punishment does a son receive for striking his father be'Meizid, according to the Rabbanan?

(a) Why according to Rebbi Shimon, would the son receive Chenek for killing his father be'Meizid, and not Hereg, like anybody else?

(b) How does Rava interpret the D'rashah of the Beraisa? How would this automatically eliminate the Kashya on our Mishnah?

(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?

(a) To explain 'ha'Kol Golin al-Yedei Yisrael ... ' in our Mishnah, whom does the Tana in a Beraisa include in the Din of Galus?

(b) What other Halachah does a second Beraisa, add to that of 'Golin'?

(c) What do we initially assume that he did to receive Malkos?

(d) From where do we know that someone receives Malkos for cursing a fellow-Jew?

(a) What would be the problem with the Beraisa ruling that a Yisrael received Malkos for cursing a Kuti?

(b) On what grounds do 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?

(c) So how do we finally establish the Beraisa? What is the Malkos for?

(d) And what do we mean when we conclude 've'Lo Makshinan Haka'ah li'Kelalah'?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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