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 78
1) LIABILITY OF AND FOR A TREIFAH
(a) (Beraisa): If 10 men hit Reuven, each with a different
stick, and he died, whether this was at the same time or
one after the other, they are exempt;
2) SOMEONE CRITICALLY WOUNDED
(b) R. Yehudah ben Beseira says, if they hit him one after
the other, the last one is liable, for he made him die
(c) (R. Yochanan): Both of them expound the same verse,
"V'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh Adam";
1. Chachamim say "Kol Nefesh" connotes, he must kill
the entire Nefesh;
(d) (Rava): All agree that one who kills a Treifah is exempt
(he was already mortally wounded, the murderer merely
quickened his death);
2. R. Yehudah ben Beseira says "Kol Nefesh" connotes
any amount of a Nefesh (even if he is already
1. All agree that one who kills a Goses bi'Dei Shamayim
(a sick person who will probably die) is liable (his
body was intact).
(e) (A reciter of Beraisos): "V'Ish Ki Yakeh Kol Nefesh" -
this includes if Reuven hits Shimon not hard enough to
kill him, and Levi killed him, Levi is liable.
2. They argue about a Goses bi'Dei Adam (a wounded
person who will probably die) - Chachamim consider
him like a Treifah, R. Yehudah considers him like a
Goses bi'Dei Shamayim.
i. Chachamim consider him like a Treifah, because
he is injured;
ii. R. Yehudah considers him like a Goses bi'Dei
Shamayim, because his vital organs are intact
(unlike a Treifah).
(f) Objection: If Reuven did not hit him hard enough to kill
him, obviously Levi is liable!
(g) Correction: Rather, Reuven hit him hard enough to kill
him, and Levi is liable - this unauthored Beraisa is like
R. Yehudah ben Beseira.
(h) (Rava): One who kills a Treifah is exempt; if a Treifah
killed someone in front of Beis Din he is liable, not in
front of Beis Din he is exempt.
1. In front of Beis Din he is liable on account of
"U'Viarta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha" (testimony is not
(i) (Rava): One who is Rove'a (has Mishkav Zachar with) a
Treifah is liable;
2. Not in front of Beis Din he is exempt because the
testimony cannot be Huzam (we could not kill
witnesses for trying to kill a Treifah), such
testimony is invalid.
1. If a Treifah is Rove'a in front of Beis Din he is
liable on account of "U'Viarta ha'Ra mi'Kirbecha";
(j) Question: Why must Rava teach this in addition to his
2. If a Treifah is Rove'a not in front of Beis Din he
is exempt because the testimony cannot be Huzam.
(k) Answer: He must teach the case of one who is Rove'a a
Treifah - one might have thought, this is like relations
with a dead person (which is exempt);
1. Rava teaches, this is not so - since he enjoys the
act, he is liable.
(l) (Rava): If witnesses testified about a Treifah and they
were Huzmu, they are exempt;
1. If Treifah witnesses were Huzmu, they are killed.
(m) (Rav Ashi): Also Treifah witnesses that were Huzmu are
not killed, because the testimony of the Mezimim (who
said that the witnesses were somewhere else) cannot be
Huzam (we could not kill them for trying to kill
(n) (Rava): If a Treifah ox gored, it is killed;
1. If the ox of a Treifah person gored, it is not
(o) (Rav Ashi): Even if a Treifah ox gored, it is exempt;
2. Question: What is the reason?
3. Answer: "Ha'Shor Yisakel v'Gam B'alav Yumas" - an
animal is killed only if its owner would have been
killed (had he killed).
1. Since its owner would not be killed (if he was a
Treifah), it is not killed.
(p) (Mishnah): If he incited a dog...
(q) (Rav Acha bar Yakov): R. Yehudah holds that a snake's
venom rests in its tooth - therefore, one who sticks its
tooth into a person directly killed him, he is liable,
the snake is not killed;
1. R. Yehudah holds that a snake bites and then injects
venom - therefore, the snake is killed, the person
was only a Gorem, he is not killed.
(a) (Mishnah): Reuven hit Shimon with his fist or a rock,
Beis Din assessed that Shimon will (probably) die:
1. If Shimon improved, but then worsened and died,
Reuven is liable;
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa - R. Nechemyah) Question: "Im Yakum
v'Hishalech ba'Chutz Al Mish'anto v'Nikah ha'Makeh" -
would we think that the victim (Shimon) walks in the
market, and the one who struck him (Reuven) is killed?!
2. R. Nechemyah exempts, because of Raglayim l'Davar
(circumstantial evidence that he did not hit him
hard enough to kill him).
(c) Answer: The case is, Beis Din assessed that Shimon will
die, he improved, then worsened and died - the verse
(d) Question: What do Chachamim learn from this verse?
(e) Answer: It teaches that we imprison Reuven until we see
whether Shimon will die.
(f) Question: What is R. Nechemyah's source for imprisoning
(g) Answer #1: He learns from the Mekoshesh (the one who was
killed in the Midbar for gathering wood on Shabbos).
1. Question: Why don't Chachamim learn from the
(h) Answer #2: R. Nechemyah's learns (imprisoning Reuven)
from the Megadef (blasphemer);
2. Answer: He was locked up because he was surely
Chayav Misah, just Moshe did not know which Misas
i. We cannot learn from there that we lock up
someone if we do not know if he will be Chayav
1. He was locked up even though Moshe did not know
whether or not he was Chayav Misah.
(i) Chachamim do not learn from the Megadef because it was a
Hora'as Sha'ah (special enactment needed at the time).
1. (Beraisa): Moshe knew that the Mekoshesh was Chayav
Misah - "Mechaleleha Mos Yumas";
(j) Question: According to R. Nechemyah, we understand why
the Torah writes two phrases of assessment ("V'Lo Yamus"
and "Im Yakum v'Hishalech ba'Chutz"), to teach two cases
in which we assessed Shimon to die, yet we do not kill
i. He did not know which Misas Beis Din - "Ki Lo
2. Moshe locked up the Megadef, even though Moshe did
not know whether or not he was Chayav Misah -
"Lifrosh Lahem Al Pi Hash-m".
1. Shimon later recovered;
(k) Answer: Reuven is exempt whether we assessed Shimon to
die and he lived, or whether we assessed Shimon to live
and he died.
2. Shimon improved and later worsened and died.
3. But according to Chachamim (who Mechayev in the
latter case), what do they learn from the two verses
1. R. Nechemyah does not need a verse for the latter -
once Beis Din (assesses that he will live and)
exempts Reuven, they can never Mechayev him.
(l) (Beraisa #1 - R. Nechemyah): If Reuven struck Shimon and
we assessed Shimon to die and he lived, Reuven is exempt;
1. If we assessed him to die and he improved, we make a
second assessment for payment of damages;
(m) (Beraisa #2): If we assessed him to die (and he
improves), we can later assess that he will live;
2. If Shimon later dies, Reuven pays (the heirs)
according to the second assessment.
3. Chachamim say, the second assessment does not
override the first (since we first assessed him to
die, if he eventually dies from the blow, Reuven is
1. If we assessed him to live (and he worsened), we do
not later assess that he will die (from the blow).
(n) This anonymous Beraisa is like R. Nechemyah.
2. If we assessed him to die and he improves, we later
assess payment for the damage;
i. If he worsened and died, the damager gives the
payments for Nezek (the decrease in his earning
potential on account of the blow) and pain to
3. Question: When we assess Nezek, do we consider the
victim's state right after the blow, or his state
after we assessed that he will live?
4. Answer: We consider his state right after the blow.