What does our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Rotze'ach" regarding a murderer whom the residents of the Ir Miklat wish to honor?
(b)
On what condition may he accept their offer?
(c)
According to Rebbi ...
1.
... Yehudah the murderers must pay the Levi'im rent. What does Rebbi Meir say?
2.
... Meir, when the murderer returns to his hometown, he returns to whatever prominent position he held previously. What does Rebbi Yehudah say?
1)
(a)
Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Rotze'ach" that - a murderer whom the residents of the Ir Miklat wish to honor is initially obligated to decline by stating 'Rotze'ach Ani'.
(b)
He may however accept their offer however - should they persist.
(c)
According to Rebbi...
1.
... Yehudah, the murderers must pay the Levi'im rent. Rebbi Meir maintains that - they live there free of charge.
2.
... Meir, when the murderer returns to his hometown, he returns to whatever prominent position he held previously (such as Nasi or Av Beis-Din); according to Rebbi Yehudah - he does not.
2)
(a)
Rav Kahana explains that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over the word "Lachem" (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Hayu lachem he'Arim le'Miklat mi'Go'el ... "), which Rebbi Meir interprets to mean for the benefit of the murderers (free of rent). How does Rebbi Yehudah interpret it?
(b)
If their Machlokes is confined to the six towns that were initially designated as Arei Miklat, what will both Tana'im then hold with regard to the additional forty-two towns that were added later?
(c)
On what grounds does Rava object to Rav Kahana's explanation?
(d)
According to Rava therefore, they are arguing over the forty-two towns, and the basis of their Machlokes concerns the Pasuk "va'Aleihem Titnu Arba'im-u'Shetayim Ir". How do Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir respectively, interpret it?
(e)
And what do they hold with regard to the six towns?
2)
(a)
Rav Kahana explains that Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah argue over the word "Lachem" (in the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Hayu lachem he'Arim le'Miklat mi'Go'el ... "), which Rebbi Meir interprets to mean for the benefit of the murderers (free of rent), whereas Rebbi Yehudah interpret it simply as - 'to take you in'.
(b)
Their Machlokes is confined to the six towns that were initially designated as Arei Miklat. Rebbi Meir will agree however that - with regard to the remaining forty-two towns, the murderer has to pay rent.
(c)
Rava objects to Rav Kahana's explanation because, he argues - "Lachem" implies 'for all your needs' (and not merely 'to take you in'.
(d)
According to Rava therefore, they are arguing over the forty-two towns, and the basis of their Machlokes concerns the Pasuk "va'Aleihem Titnu Arba'im-u'Shetayim Ir", which Rebbi Yehudah interprets to mean - exactly like the initial six (having to pay rent), and Rebbi Meir, that they take in like the first six (but not free of charge, like them).
(e)
They both agree however, that as far as the six towns are concefrned - the murderers are obligated to pay rent.
3)
(a)
Rebbi Yehudah explains the Pasuk in B'har "ve'Shav el Mishpachto (ve'el Achuzas Avosav Yashuv") to mean that he returns to his family, but not to his previous position. By whom is this written?
(b)
How does Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk?
(c)
What does Rebbi Meir then learn from the word "Yashuv"?
(d)
What is Rebbi Meir's real source for his latter ruling?
3)
(a)
Rebbi Yehudah explains the Pasuk in B'har - (in connection with an Eved Ivri after he goes free) "ve'Shav el Mishpachto (ve'el Achuzas Avosav Yashuv") to mean that he - returns to his family, but not to his previous position.
(b)
Rebbi Meir interprets the Pasuk to mean that - he also returns to any previous position that he may have held.
(c)
Rebbi Meir learns from the word "Yashuv" that - this Din also extends to the Din of a murderer who returns from the Ir Miklat.
(d)
Rebbi Meir's real source for his latter ruling is (not solely because "Yashuv" is a 'Ribuy', but) - because it is superfluous, enabling us to learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Yashuv" "Yashuv ("ve'Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol Yashuv ha'Rotze'ach ... ") from it.
Hadran alach 'Eilu hein ha'Golin'
Perek ve'Eilu hein ha'Lokin
4)
(a)
Our Mishnah includes in the list of 'Lokin', seven cases of Arayos that are Chayav Malkos 'a sister, a paternal and a maternal aunt, a wife's sister and brother's wife (sisters-in-law), a father's brother's wife (an aunt by marriage) and a Nidah. What else do they all have in common?
(b)
The list of 'Lokin' is not comprehensive, seeing as there are three hundred and sixty-five La'avin (most of which are subject to Malkos). Why did the Tana choose to insert ...
Why does the Tana then include 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' and 'Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot' in the list?
(d)
In that case, why does a Kohen only receive one set of Malkos for a woman who is both a Gerushah and a Chalutzah?
4)
(a)
Our Mishnah includes in the list of 'Lokin', seven cases of Arayos that are Chayav Malkos 'a sister, a paternal and a maternal aunt, a wife's sister and brother's wife (sisters-in-law), a father's brother's wife (an aunt by marriage) and a Nidah - which are all Chayav Kareis as well.
(b)
The list of 'Lokin' is not comprehensive, seeing as there are three hundred and sixty-five La'avin (most of which are subject to Malkos). The Tana chose to insert ...
1.
... Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon she'Lo Nitlah Terumaso and Hekdesh she'Lo Nifdeh - because in neither case is the La'av clearly spelt out in the Torah.
2.
... Ma'aser Sheini that has not been redeemed - because, it is similar to Hekdesh she'Lo Nifdeh, inasmuch as it too, is based on the fact that it has not been redeemed.
3.
... most other La'avin - because there is a Chidush attached to each one.
(c)
The Tana includes 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' and 'Gerushah va'Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot' in the list - to teach us that a Kohen Gadol who marries a woman who is both, receives two sets of Malkos.
(d)
Nevertheless, a Kohen only receives one set of Malkos for a woman who is both a Gerushah and a Chalutzah - because Chalutzah does not have its own Pasuk, and is only learned from a superfluous word ("ve'Ishah") that is written in the Parshah of Gerushah (see also Tosfos DH 'Gerushah').
5)
(a)
He also includes 'Mamzares u'Nesinah le'Yisrael'. From which Pasuk in Va'eschanan does he learn 'Nesinah le'Yisrael'?
(b)
What about a 'bas Yisrael le'Nasin u'le'Mamzer'? Will Malkos also apply there as well?
(c)
The La'av for Nosar is the Pasuk in Tetzaveh "ve'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish, Lo Ye'achel". What do we learn from the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh hu"?
5)
(a)
He also includes 'Mamzares u'Nesinah le'Yisrael'. The source of the La'av pertaining to a Nesinah is - the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Lo Sischaten bam".
(b)
Malkos will apply equally the other way round - (to a 'bas Yisrael le'Nasin u'le'Mamzer').
(c)
The La'av for Nosar is the Pasuk "ve'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish, Lo Ye'achel". From the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh hu", we incorporate - Pigul and all cases of Hekdesh that became Pasul ('Pesulo ba'Kodesh').
6)
(a)
What is the difference between 'ha'Mefatem es ha'Shemen' and 'ha'Sach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah'?
(b)
Which Pasuk in Emor is the source for the La'av for eating ...
1.
... Tevel?
2.
... Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken?
(c)
One receives Malkos for eating Ma'aser Sheini that has not been redeemed, from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha". Where must he eat it in order to transgress?
(d)
What is the source of the La'av against ...
1.
... a Zar eating Terumah?
2.
... eating Hekdesh that has not been redeemed?
6)
(a)
The difference between 'ha'Mefatem es ha'Shemen' and 'ha'Sach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah' is that - whereas the former pertains to making a replica of the anointing oil, that latter pertains to anointing oneself with the original oil itself.
(b)
The source for the La'av for eating both ...
1.
... Tevel and ......
2.
... Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not been taken (which also falls under the category of Tevel) is - the word "Yarimu" ('ba'Asidin li'Terom ha'Kasuv Medaber') in the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Sechal'lu es Kodshei b'nei Yisrael asher Yarimu la'Hashem".
(c)
One receives Malkos for eating Ma'aser Sheini that has not been redeemed from the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha". In order to transgress, he must eat it - in Yerushalayim.
(d)
The source of the La'av against ...
1.
... a Zar eating Terumah is - the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh".
2.
... eating Hekdesh that has not been redeemed is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet" "Chet" from Terumah.
7)
(a)
The author of our Mishnah that includes Chayvei K'risus in Malkos but not Chayvei Misas Beis-Din, is Rebbi Akiva (in a Beraisa). What reason does he give for this?
(b)
What does Rebbi Yishmael say there?
(c)
What does Rebbi Yitzchak say? How does he learn this from 'Achoso'?
(d)
But how does Rebbi Yitzchak know that this extends to all Chayvei Kareis?
7)
(a)
The author of our Mishnah that includes Chayvei K'risus in Malkos but not Chayvei Misas Beis-Din, is Rebbi Akiva, who explains in a Beraisa that - Kareis is subject to Divine pardon whereas Misas Beis-Din is not.
(b)
Rebbi Yishmael rules that - both Chayvei K'risus and Chayvei Misas Beis-Din are subject to Malkos.
(c)
Rebbi Yitzchak learns from 'Achoso', which is included in the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos "Ki Chol asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'avos ha'Eileh ve'Nichr'su", yet the Torah mentions it independently (in Kedoshim "ve'Ish asher Yikach es Achoso ... ve'Nichr'su") that - even Chayvei Kareis are not subject to Malkos.
(d)
Rebbi Yitzchak knows that this extends to all Chayvei Kareis - from the principle 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'Kelal Lelamed, Lo Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza Ela Lelamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatzta' ('Something that was originally part of a K'lal [general ruling], and which the Torah nevertheless mentions independently, comes to reflect on the entire K'lal').
13b----------------------------------------13b
8)
(a)
We cite Rebbi Yishmael's source (to give Malkos to both Chayvei K'risus and Chayvei Misas Beis-Din) as the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos es Kol Divrei ha'Torah ha'Zos ... ve'Hiflah Hash-m es Makoscha". How does he extrapolate Malkos from there?
(b)
We nevertheless preclude Chayvei Asei from Malkos, initially based on a principle of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ilai. What does he say about 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Hishamer, Pen ve'Al'?
(c)
What do we initially think that Rebbi Yishmael learns from "La'asos"?
8)
(a)
We cite Rebbi Yishmael's source (to give Malkos to both Chayvei K'risus and Chayvei Misas Beis-Din) as the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos es Kol Divrei ha'Torah ha'Zos ... ve'Hiflah Hash-m es Makoscha". He extrapolates Malkos from - the word "ve'Hiflah" (which is similar to the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Malkos) "Vehipilo* ha'Shofet, Veikahu lefanav").
(b)
We nevertheless preclude Chayvei Asei from Malkos, initially based on Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ilai, who states the principle that 'Kol Makom she'Ne'emar Hishamer, Pen ve'Al - Eino Ela Lo Sa'aseh (and here too, the Torah writes "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos").
(c)
We initially think that Rebbi Yishmael learns from "La'asos" - that a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' is precluded from Malkos.
9)
(a)
Finally however, we preclude a 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh' from Malkos from the same source as a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei' What is a 'La'av ha'Nitak la'Asei'?
(b)
From where do we learn that a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei' is not subject to Malkos?
(c)
What else do we learn from 'La'av de'Chasimah'?
(d)
Why do we learn specifically from that La'av more than from any other?
9)
(a)
Finally however, we preclude a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' from Malkos from the same source as a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei' - a La'av which the Torah enables one to rectify by performing an Asei.
(b)
We learn that a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei' is not subject to Malkos from the La'av of Chasimah ('Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho') which is a Binyan Av.
(c)
We also preclude - Mitzvos Asei from there.
(d)
We learn specifically from that La'av more than from any other - because it is juxtaposed to the Parshah of Malkos in Ki Seitzei.
10)
(a)
What does Rebbi Akiva learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Malkos) "K'dei Rish'aso"?
(b)
Why does Rebbi Yishmael disagree with this?
(c)
In that case, we ask, why does Rebbi Akiva not also preclude Chayvei Kareis from Malkos. Why will his explanation (the fact that they can do Teshuvah and be exempt from Kareis) not suffice?
(d)
What is Rebbi Avahu referring to when, to answer the Kashya, he says that the Torah specifically includes Chayvei Kareis in the Din of Malkos with the Gezeirah-Shavah of "le'Einei" "le'Einecha"?
(e)
Then why did Rebbi Akiva give the fact that one can do Teshuvah as the reason, seeing as it is really a Gezeirah-Shavah'?
10)
(a)
Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Malkos) "K'dei Rish'aso" - that there are no two punishments for one sin (in which case someone who is Chayav Misas Beis-Din cannot receive Malkos).
(b)
Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with this - because he confines that D'rashah to Misah and Mamon or Malkos and Mamon, but not to Misah and Malkos, since Misah is really an extension of Malkos ('Misah Arichta hi').
(c)
In that case, we ask why Rebbi Akiva does not also preclude Chayvei Kareis from Malkos. His explanation (the fact that they can do Teshuvah and be exempt from Kareis)) will not suffice - since meanwhile, the sinner receives Malkos even if he did not.
(d)
When, to answer the Kashya, Rebbi Avahu says that the Torah specifically includes Chayvei Kareis in the Din of Malkos with the Gezeirah-Shavah of "le'Einei" "le'Einecha" he means that - we learn that Chayvei K'risus (where the Torah writes "ve'Nichr'su le'Einei ... ") are subject to Malkos from Chayvei Malkos (where it writes "ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha").
(e)
When Rebbi Akiva gave the fact that one can do Teshuvah as the reason (despite the fact that it is really a Gezeirah-Shavah') - he was only explaining why the Torah is more stringent (to subject the sinner to Malkos) by Chayvei Kareis than by Chayvei Misos Beis-Din (Hagahos ha'Bach).
11)
(a)
How do we initially refute the Kashya of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal that, in that case, why can we cnot also learn "me'Einei" (written by Misas Beis-Din of Avodas-Kochavim) from "le'Einecha" (and include Misos Beis-Din in the Din of Malkos)?
(b)
We overrule this Kashya however, with a statement of de'bei Rebbi Yishmael. What does de'bei Rebbi Yishmael say about learning a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shiyvah" from "Bi'ah"?
(c)
What second objection do we raise to Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, based on the fact that we have just learned "le'Einei" from "le'Einecha" (K'risus from Malkos)?
(d)
'Kiblah mineih Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak' might mean that Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, and gave an answer. What else might it mean?
11)
(a)
Initially, we refute the Kashya of Rebbi Aba bar Mamal that, in that case, why can we not also learn "me'Einei" (written by Misas Beis-Din of Avodas-Kochavim) from "le'Einecha" (and include Misos Beis-Din in the Din of Malkos) on the grounds that - since the two words differ in two details, we cannot learn one from the other.
(b)
We overrule this Kashya however, with a statement of de'bei Rebbi Yishmael, who says that - since the words "Shiyvah" and "Bi'ah" have the same basic meaning, we can learn one from the other via a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ('Zu hi Shiyvah, Zu hi Bi'ah'), in spite of the fact that their grammatical format differs completely.
(c)
Besides we ask, having just learned "le'Einei" from "le'Einecha" (K'risus from Malkos) - we can learn "me'Einei" from "le'Einei" (Misos from K'risos), where the two words only differ in one detail?
(d)
'Kiblah mineih Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak' might mean that Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak accepted Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, and gave an answer. Alternatively, it means that - he heard the answer from Rebbi Avahu (against whom the Kashya was initially directed).
12)
(a)
In any event, to answer Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, how do we qualify the D'rashah 'Mishum Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Mechayvo Mishum Sh'tei Rish'ayos'? In which case will the principle not apply?
(b)
Rava disagrees with the previous interpretation of the Machlokes Tana'im. According t him, even Rebbi Yishmael will agree that if they warned the culprit that he will be killed, he will not receive Malkos. Why is that?
(c)
Then in which case do Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Akiva argue? What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d)
In that case, why, according to Rebbi Akiva, are Chayvei Kareis subject to Malkos? Why do we not say there too, that the Azharah is needed for Kareis?
12)
(a)
In any event, to answer Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, we qualify the D'rashah 'Mishum Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Mechayvo Mishum Sh'tei Rish'ayos' - by confining it to punishments that are at the hands of Beis-Din (since that is what the Pasuk is talking about), but does not apply to those that are at the Hand of Hash-m (such as Kareis).
(b)
Rava disagrees with the previous interpretation of the Machlokes Tana'im. According t him, even Rebbi Yishmael will agree that if they warned the culprit that he will be killed, he will not receive Malkos - due to the principle 'Mishum Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo ... ' (as Rebbi Akiva explained).
(c)
And they argue over - where he was warned for Malkos only, and they argue over whether an Azharah that is written in the Torah for Misas Beis-Din is subject to Malkos (like every other Azharah in the Torah, Rebbi Yishmael) or not (Rebbi Akiva, since it is needed for the Chiyuv Misah).
(d)
Nevertheless, according to Rebbi Akiva, Chayvei Kareis are subject to Malkos. We do not say there too, that the Azharah is needed for Kareis - because Kareis (which is in the Hands of Hash-m) does not require an Azharah.
13)
(a)
What proof does Rav Mordechai bring, quoting Avimi me'Hagrunya in the name of Rava, that Chayvei Kareis do not require an Azharah?
(b)
On what grounds do we suggest that the La'av is needed for a Korban be'Shogeg (by Chayvei Kareis), and not for Malkos?
(c)
How do we refute this proof? What other reason might there be for not bringing a Korban, for contravening Pesach and Milah be'Shogeg?
(d)
Ravina reinstates our original interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, and he takes his statement literally, 'she'Im Asu Teshuvah, Beis-Din shel Ma'alah Mochlin lahen'. How does he answer the Kashya that we asked earlier 'Ha Lo Avud Teshuvah'?
13)
(a)
Rav Mordechai, quoting Avimi me'Hagrunya in the name of Rava, proves the previous explanation from Pesach and Milah, which are Chayav Kareis even though there is no Azharah.
(b)
We suggest that the La'av is needed for a Korban be'Shogeg (by Chayvei Kareis), and not for Malkos - since Pesach and Milah are not subject to a Korban be'Shogeg, presumably because the Torah does not write an Azharah.
(c)
We refute this proof however - by attributing the P'tur from a Korban to the fact that they constitute only an Asei, whereas we learn from Avodas-Kochavim (one of the sources of Korban Chatas) that only a Lo Sa'aseh requires a Korban.
(d)
Ravina reinstates our original interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, and he takes his statement, 'she'Im Asu Teshuvah, Beis-Din shel Ma'alah Mochlin lahen' literally. And he answers the Kashya that we asked earlier 'Ha Lo Avud Teshuvah' - by pointing out that nevertheless, the fact that Teshuvah rescinds the Kareis makes its implementation uncertain. That is why it is not called 'Sh'tei Rish'ayos, and that is why he receives Malkos as well (even if he has not yet done Teshuvah).
