1)

(a)We already cited the D'rashah "ve'Ragmu Oso", 'Oso ve'Lo osah'. We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with someone who worships idols) "ve'Hotzeisa es ha'Ish ha'hu O es ha'Ishah ha'hi ... " that - a woman is subject to stoning just like a man, in which case 'Oso ve'Lo osah' cannot mean to preclude a woman from stoning.

(b)The Rabbanan learn from "Oso", 've'Lo osah' that - a man is stoned without his clothes, but not a woman (as we just learned).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah - does not agree with the D'rashah "Oso", 've'Lo osah'.

(d)The Rabbanan do not require a woman too, to be stoned without clothes, in order to expediate her death - because, in their opinion, she herself would prefer her dignity to be preserved even if it means suffering a little more pain.

2)

(a)We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah that, in addition to loosening her hair, the Chachamim permit a Sotah to be manhandled to the point that the Kohen tears her clothes and exposes her body. According to Rebbi Yehudah - this will not apply in cases where the woman has beautiful hair or beautiful breasts.

(b)Rabah attributes Rebbi Yehudah's concern with 'Hirhur' (immoral thoughts) by a Sotah to - the possibility that the woman will survive the ordeal, and he is worried that the Kohanim who saw her exposed might accost her, whereas in our case, she is about to die (and there is nothing to be concerned about).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah is not concerned with the people who see the woman exposed accosting other women - because Hirhur does not transfer from one woman to another.

(d)Rava explains that - the Rabbanan are not concerned with Hirhur, as is clear by Sotah. And the reason that they require the woman to be stoned fully clothed is - because the women will be sufficiently chastised ("ve'Nivasru Kol ha'Nashim ... ") by the condemned woman's death, which is not the case by a Sotah, who may survive the ordeal, and who will cause the other women to be chastised only by degrading her further in this way.

3)

(a)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answers the Kashya why, in order to fulfill the Pasuk "ve'Nivasru Kol ha'Nashim ... ", the woman should not be put to shame in addition to being killed - by citing the Pasuk in Kedoshim "Ve'ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha", which teaches to protect the dignity even of a fellow-Jew, even one who is condemned to die.

(b)Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehudah requires the woman to be stoned without her clothes - because, in his opinion, a woman would rather suffer less pain, even at the expense of her dignity.

4)

(a)According to our Mishnah, ythe Beis-ha'Sekilah is - the height of two people.

(b)The condemned man is pushed down onto his side - by one of the witnesses.

(c)If he then rolls over so that he is facing the ground - he turns him back onto his side.

(d)If ...

1. ... the fall does not kill him - the second witness drops a boulder on top of him.

2. ... the large stone does not kill him either - then the people who are present pelt him with stones.

5)

(a)The Beraisa refers to the Beis ha'Sekilah as being three heights of a person - because, bearing in mind that he is pushed from a standing position, it includes the condemned man's height.

(b)The minimum height of a pit that is fit to kill is - ten Tefachim.

(c)The problem this creates with our Mishnah is - why the Beis-ha'Sekilah then needs to be two heights of a man?

(d)Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah answer the Kashya, based on the Pasuk "ve'Ahavta le'Re'acha Kamocha" - 'Bror lo Miysah Yafah' (Pick for him a nice death, by making sure that he dies as quickly as possible).

(e)We do not make it higher still, to ensure that he dies even more quickly - because that would cause his death to be ugly, since pushing him from such a great height would cause parts of the body to break off and to splatter in all directions.

6)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Yisro (concerning someone who ascended Har Sinai before the Shechinah had departed) "Sakol (Yisakel) O Yaroh (Yiyareh)" - that, where necessary, both pushing off a cliff and stoning are required (as we learned earlier).

(b)The Tana learns that if the latter does not finish the job, Beis-Din are obligated to employ the former - from the double Lashon "Sakol Yisakel O Yaroh Yiyareh".

(c)And he learns that, even though this is written with regard to Har Sinai, it applies to all times - from the fact that "Sakol Yisakel" is written in the future.

7)

(a)The problem with our Mishnah, which describes how the second witness takes the stone ... is from Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar in a Beraisa, who gives the weight of the stone as - one that requires two people to carry it. In that case, how can one of the witnesses pick it up on his own?

(b)We retort that the Beraisa itself is difficult to understand - since Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar uses the same expression as our Mishnah ('Notlah ve'Nosnah al Libo'), so we can ask the same Kashya on Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar himself.

(c)We answer - that, in fact, both witnesses pick up the stone. The first witness leaves go, allowing the second one, who can no longer hold it anyway, to throw it down with force.

(d)It was not common at all for the peeople to have to 'finish the job'. As a matter of fact, says the Beraisa - it never happened ...

(e)... and the Tana only mentions it to teach us what to do should it be necessary.

8)

(a)The Beraisa states that the stone used for stoning, the board on which the condemned man was subsequently hanged, the sword with which he was beheaded and the cloth with which he was strangled - are all buried together with him.

(b)The problem with Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar (whom we just quoted and) who begins with the words 'Even Haysah Sham' is - how it is possible for a stone that has to be buried, to be available for use all the time.

(c)We resolve the two Beraisos - by interpreting 'Even Haysah Sham' not as being the same stone that was used last time, but one that they used to replace it the moment it has been buried.

9)

(a)Rav Papa reconciles the second Beraisa with a third Beraisa, which states 'Lo Hayu Nikbarin Imo' - by establishing 'Imo' (in the second Beraisa) to mean, not literally 'with him', but 'near him' (within four Amos).

(b)Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Yad ha'Eidim Tih'yeh bo ba'Rishonah"- that the death-penalty must be carried out by the same hands that the witnesses had at the time of the testimony (precluding the possibility of sentencing the accused, via witnesses who lost their hands after witnessing the crime).

(c)This incorporates the principle - 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' (We must carry out the Torah's specifications to the letter).

(d)Shmuel precludes witnesses who had no hand in the first place from this D'rashah - because whatever they had then (whichever part of the arm) is considered 'their hand' at the time, and that is what it still is.

(e)The Beraisa proclaims a man Chayav Misah if witnesses testify that so-and-so was sentenced in such and such a Beis-Din, and that so-and-so were the witnesses. Shmuel, who requires the same witnesses (with the same hands) establishes this Beraisa - by the same witnesses who testified the first time.

10)

(a)The Beraisa rules - that if Beis-Din are unable to apply the appropriate death-penalty to a murderer - they must kill him in any way that they can.

(b)This poses a Kashya on Shmuel - who requires that one conform to the Pasuk as it is written ('Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv').

(c)We answer that a murderer is different - because the Torah writes "Mos Yumas", implying in any way possible.

(d)And we cannot learn all other cases from there with a 'Binyan ha'Av' - because the same applies to a Go'el ha'Dam (the next of kin of the murdered man, who is obligated to avenge the blood of his relative, should the 'murderer' leave the city of refuge), as we shall now see, in which case we apply the principle 'Sh'nei Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad Ein Melamdin'.

(e)In spite of the Pasuk having already written "Go'el ha'Dam Yamis es ha'Rotze'ach", we learn from the Pasuk there "be'Fig'o vo Hu Yemisenu" that - if the murdered man has no Go'el ha'Dam (if he is a Ger), then Beis-Din appoint one.

11)

(a)The Beraisa precludes from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Safsu bo Aviv ve'Imo", the son of a parent or parents who have no hands, from the Din of a ben Sorer u'Moreh, and from "ve'Hotzi'u Oso", if they have no feet. He precludes from ...

1. ... "ve'Amru" - the son of parent/s who are dumb.

2. ... "B'neinu Zeh" - the son of parent/s who are blind.

3. ... "Einenu Shome'a be'Koleinu" - the son of parent/s who are deaf.

(b)When Mar Keshisha b'rei de'Rav Chisda asked Rav Ashi why there is no proof from here that 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv', he explained that - it is because all of the above are learned from superfluous Pesukim.

(c)Based on the Pasuk "ve'Hotzi'uhu el Ro'ehchov ha'Ir" (when it could have written "el Sha'ar ha'Ir'), Rebbi Yishmael precludes a town that has no main street from the Din of Ir ha'Nidachas. According to Rebbi Akiva - if the town has no main street, then they are obligated to build one.

(d)This Beraisa poses a Kashya on those who hold 'Lo Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' - inasmuch as both Tana'im agree that 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv'.

12)

(a)We conclude that 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' is in fact a Machlokes Tana'im in the Mishnah in Nega'im. The Tana Kama there rules that a Metzora who has no right thumb, right big toe or right ear - can never become Tahor.

(b)According to Rebbi Eliezer, the Kohen places the oil and the blood where the right thumb, the right big toe and the right ear ought to be, and according to Rebbi Shimon - it is preferable to place it on the equivalent one on the left side.

(c)The Machlokes is - whether 'Ba'inan K'ra ke'di'Chesiv' (the Tana Kama) or not (Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Shimon Shimon).

13)

(a)In our Mishnah, Rebbi Eliezer holds that ...

1. ... whoever is killed by means of Sekilah, is then hanged. According to the Chachamim - only someone who cursed Hash-m or who served idols is hanged.

2. ... a man is hanged facing the people, a woman with her back towards them, whereas According to the Chachamim - a woman is not hanged at all.

(b)When Rebbi Eliezer tries to prove his latter ruling from Shimon ben Shetach, who hanged eighty witches in Ashkelon - the Chachamim replied that one cannot prove anything from Shimon ben Shetach, who judged all eighty women on one day, even though Beis-Din is normally permitted to judge only one person per day (this will be discussed in more detail later) ...

(c)... a proof - that Shimon ben Shetach's actions were a Hora'as Sha'ah (a one-off ruling), which is not binding on other occasions).

14)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "ve'Humas ve'Salisa" - that someone who is Chayav Misah, must be hanged.

(b)Rebbi Eliezer extrapolates from "Ki Kil'las Elokim Taluy" that this ruling is confined to a Chiyuv (like the current case [someone who cursed Hash-m]). According to the Chachamim - only someone who, like a Mekalel Hash-m, denies Hash-m - incorporating someone who served idols.

(c)We conclude that the basis of their Machlokes is whether to Darshen a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Chelal' (the Chachamim), or a 'Ribuy, Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' (Rebbi Eliezer). A ...

1. ... 'K'lal u'P'rat' begins with the K'lal; the P'rat comes to modify it, but not to include anything.

2. ... 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut', begins with the Miy'ut, and the Ribuy comes to incorporate whatever is similar to the Miy'ut (like a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Chelal' according to the other opinion).

(d)In fact, our Pasuk only contains a 'K'lal u'P'rat' (or a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut' ["ve'Humas ve'Salisa" and "Ki Kil'las Elokim Taluy" respectively]), and we consider the 'K'lal u'P'rat' to be a 'K'lal u'P'rat u'Chelal', and the 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut', a 'Ribuy u'Miy'ut ve'Ribuy' - because they are not juxtaposed, as a 'K'lal' and a 'P'rat', or Ribuy u'Miy'ut usually are.

15)

(a)According to ...

1. ... the Rabbanan, in whose opinion the final P'rat would only include a Mekalel in the Din of hanging - it comes to add someone who served idols.

2. ... Rebbi Eliezer, who already includes someone who served idols from the Miy'ut - the final Ribuy, it comes to include all those who are sentenced to death to death by Sekilah.