*8.1 Makkos Daf 06 A (6 lines Dn)* To download this shiur with Tosfos, click here: http://chilp.it/32fae5c*Summary**Mishna:*Witnesses who come together (two, three, or even a hundred) are considered one set, and are inseparable regarding hazamah , its punishment, and psul eidus. *Gemara: Rava:*This° is only if they all *spoke close after each other.* If a time of * kdei dibur * elapsed in between, their eidus becomes separated.*Rav Acha m’Diftei asked Ravina* : Kdei dibur is the *time it takes* for a talmid to greet his rebbe (by *saying three words* ); *how is it possible* for a hundred witnesses to testify within such a timeframe?*Ravina answered:* Each one has to speak within a kdei dibur of his predecessor. *° Rashi* explains that this refers to the entire mishna *Tosfos* explains that it refers only to the first part, regarding . However a different psul invalidates the testimony even pastthe time of kdei dibur. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*8.2 Makkos Daf 06 A (Middle)**Summary**Mishna (7.6):*Just as a testimony is invalidated when one of two witnesses is found to be a relative or a passul; it is invalidated even when one of three witnesses is found passul. (Even though we have two valid witnesses).*Gemara:**Rav Papa* remarked to *Abayye:* If the presence of a passul invalidates the testimony, *the harug * (murder victim) *rescues* his murderer. (He is passul and he was present!)*Abayye* responded: Perhaps he was killed stealthily from behind and *he didn’t see* the murderer.*Rav Papa:* What about a * nirva * (if a male “came upon” another male)?*Abayye:* Perhaps the rovei’a came upon him from behind and *he didn’t see him.**Rav Papa:* What about the *murderer or the rovei’a himself?* He is also passul! [These questions are not according to Rebbi (7.6) who requires the witnesses to take part in the hasra’ah, but they are valid questions on Rabbi Yosi].*Abayye* kept quiet.When the question came before Rava, he said: The passuk says *“The matter should be established* according to the witnesses”. We only consider the people who are coming to *establish the matter.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*8.3 Makkos Daf 06 A (6 lines Up)**Summary*We only consider the people who are coming to establish the matter.*Question:* How do we decide if a passul is a witness or not?*Rava:* We say to him: Did you come (to Beis Din) to observe, or to testify?If they came to observe, we disregard them and the testimony stands.*Rabbi Yehuda* quoting *Shmuel:* The * halacha * follows *Rabbi Yosi.**Rav Nachman:* The *halacha* follows *Rebbi.**Mishna:**Two* are watching (a crime) *from one window* and *two from another window* and *an individual* is warning ( hasra’ah ) from in between.If some of them *see each other* , it is considered *one eidus . Otherwise they’re* considered *two sets,* and if only two are huzam, *they are punished* for their crime *and the criminal is punished* for his crime (because there are two valid witnesses against him).*Rabbi Yosi:* Nobody is killed unless he received a * hasra’ah from both witnesses* as it states: “He shall be killed *by the mouth of two witnesses”.**An alternate explanation* of the verse: “By the mouth of two witnesses” teaches that *Sanhedrin cannot hear from a translator.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*8.4 Makkos Daf 06 B (10 lines Dn)* To download this shiur with Tosfos, click here: http://chilp.it/cad6764*Summary**Gemara:**Rav Zutra bar Tuvia* quoting *Rav: ‘Individual eidus’ is invalid* as the passuk states: “He shall not be killed by the word of one witness”. This cannot refer to testimony given by one witness, as the passuk already states: “He shall be killed by the mouth of two witnesses ”, it means that even if there are two witnesses but they did not witness it together (each one saw the crime from a different window), their *eidus* is not accepted.A *beraisa* also teaches thus: “He shall not be killed by the word of one witness”. He cannot be killed by the word of *two witnesses* who saw the crime from two *different windows* but did not see each other. Their testimony cannot be combined *even if they saw* the crime *from the same window,* but not at the same moment.*Rav Papa* commented to *Abayye:* Why would we think that their testimony could be combined when the crime is witnessed from one window? They’re each *only witnessing part of the crime!**Abayye:* (You’re right if they witnessed a murder. But) here we’re discussing a case of a man who came upon *an eishes ish, * where each one witnessed a full crime.*Rava:* If the individual eidus *saw the masreh* (individual giving the warning, 8.3), *or he saw them*°, their *testimony is accepted.**Rava:* Even the murderer *himself can be* considered the * masreh * (if he says I know what I’m doing). *Even a sheid* can be the masreh (it doesn’t have to be a human. We don’t follow the ruling of Rabbi Yosi that the witnesses must give the warning). *°Tosfos:* And there are witnesses who testify to that effect. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*8.5 Makkos Daf 06 B (11 lines Up)**Summary**Rav Nachman: ‘Individual eidus’ * is acceptable with regard to *monetary matters* as the passuk states: “He shall not be * killed * by the word of one witness”.*Rav Zutra* asked: We learned (8.3) that when *part of a singular eidus is huzam, * they are *put to death,* even though the murderer is also put to death based on the testimony of the other part of the singular eidus. But if ‘individual eidus’ is in fact valid with regard to monetary matters, then it *should be valid* even with regard to *capital crimes!* Of course we cannot administer capital punishment based on ‘individual eidus ’ as taught by the passuk (8.4), but all the witnesses should be considered one group [just as in monetary matters] and we should *save the zoimemim from capital punishment* based on the principle (7.5) that in order to punish zoimemim , the entire group must be found guilty!There is *no answer* on this. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*8.6 Makkos Daf 06 B (8 lines Up)**Summary*In the mishna (8.3) *Rabbi Yosi* said that *the witnesses must give the hasra’ah. **Rav Papa* commented to *Abayye: Isn’t Rabbi Yosi* of the opinion that we’re *not particular about the hasra’ah; * as we learn in a mishna that “Rabbi Yosi says an *‘enemy’ does not need a hasra’ah * because his act is clearly premeditated and he is aware of the consequences.“?*Abayye: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda* (one of the later tanna’im, in the generation of Rebbi) is the one who holds we are *not particular about hasra’ah. * We learn this in a beraisa: *“Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda* says that a *chaver* (a lamdan ) *does not require hasra’ah * because he is considered forewarned “. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.1 Makkos Daf 06 B (4 lines Up)**Summary*In the mishna (8.3) we learned that Sanhedrin cannot hear from a translator.There were two Jews who couldn’t speak Aramis (that was the “Yiddish” of the gemara’s day; the unique language spoken by Jews) who came before Rava as witnesses. *Rava appointed an interpreter.**Question:* Isn’t this *contrary to our mishna ?**Answer: Rava understood* their language but he needed the interpreter to *communicate* with them. (The following story is related here because it took place around the same time.) Ila’ah and Tuvia were *relatives of the guarantor* of a loan. *Rav Papa* wished to accept their testimony regarding a loan because *they were not related* to the borrower or the lender. *Ravina son of Rav Yehoshua disagreed* and said to Rav Papa: *“If the borrower defaults,* it becomes the guarantor’s problem!” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.2 Makkos Daf 07 A (5 lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna:* If someone escaped from Beis Din *after he was sentenced,* and then returned to that Beis Din; *Beis Din does not reexamine* his case, but carries out his sentencing immediately.If two witnesses testify in Beis Din that *C was sentenced to death* in a different Beis Din, and A and B were his witnesses (if they would just say A and B saw him kill, that is nothing. We need to hear that he was *sentenced* based on A and B’s testimony); *C can be killed* based on this testimony.A *Sanhedrin* (of 23 members) can be established anywhere *all over the world* (as long as there’s a central Sanhedrin of 71 members in Yerushalayim. Makkos is really an addenda to masichta Sanhedrin). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.3 Makkos Daf 07 A (10 lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna:*A Sanhedrin that *killed once in seven years* is called a cruel Sanhedrin (it wasn’t actually cruel, it was called cruel because Sanhedrin always searched for loopholes. However even when Sanhedrin let someone off on a technicality, he was either killed by the king, or Sanhedrin locked him in a room and “forgot” to feed him). *Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah:* A Sanhedrin that *killed once in seventy years.**Rabbi Akiva* and *Rabbi Tarfon:* Had we merited being in the Sanhedrin (while they did live before the churban, Sanhedrin had stopped judging capital cases forty years before the churban), *no one would ever have been killed* (they would have fulfilled the mitzvah of finding loopholes. However the murderers would have been handled in another way as mentioned above. See also: 9.6). *Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: They would have increased murderers* in Israel (chopping off a murderer’s head is the best deterrent). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.4 Makkos Daf 07 A (11 lines Dn)**Summary**Gemara:* From the first law of the mishna (9.2), it seems that *a second Beis Din reexamines the case.* But the second law clearly states that a second Beis Din *does not* reexamine the case!*Abayye:* It depends on whether the second Beis Din is in *Eretz Yisroel* or *Chutz La’aretz.* This is taught in a * beraisa: **“Rabbi Yehuda ben Dustai* taught in the name of *Rabbi Shimon ben Shatach:* If the first Beis Din is in Eretz Yisroel and the second Beis Din is in Chutz La’aretz (or even in in Eretz Yisroel), we do not reexamine his case. However if the first Beis Din was in Chutz La’aretz and *the second is in Eretz Yisroel, we reexamine* his case because the *merit of Eretz Yisroel* might save him.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.5 Makkos Daf 07 A (Middle)**Summary*We learned in the mishna (9.2) that *a sanhedrin can be established anywhere.**Question:* What is the *source?**Answer: Beraisa:* “The passuk says ‘for all generations *in all your dwellings’* . But there is a different passuk that says *‘In your (city)* gates’ - This teaches that *in Eretz Yisroel* there should be a sanhedrin *in every district* overseeing all the * sanhedrins in each town. Outside of Eretz Yisroel* there is a sanhedrin in each district but *not in every town.”*We learned in the mishna (9.3) that a Sanhedrin that *killed once in seven years* is called a cruel Sanhedrin. *Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah:* A Sanhedrin that *killed once in seventy years.**Question: What does Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah mean?* Is once in seventy years also considered cruel, or is that normal?*Answer: Teiku**Rabbi Akiva* and *Rabbi Tarfon* in the mishna (9.3) said: Had we merited being in the Sanhedrin, *no one would ever have been killed.**Question: What would they have done?**Rabbi Yochanan* and *Rabbi Elazar:* In a murder case they would ask “Perhaps the victim was *already mortally ill* before he was killed”.*Rav Ashi:* Even if you see that the *corpse seems complete; perhaps he had a hole in his heart before* he was stabbed! (Tosfos asks that this contradicts a gemara in Chullin which states that we need not speculate in that direction, since most people are healthy). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*9.6 Makkos Daf 07 A (8 lines Up)**Summary**Rabbi Akiva* and *Rabbi Tarfon* in the mishna (9.3) said: Had we merited being in the Sanhedrin, *no one would ever have been killed.**Rabbi Yochanan* and *Rabbi Elazar:* In a murder case they would ask “Perhaps the victim was *already mortally ill* before he was killed”.*Question:* What would they say *in a case of illicit relations°?**Abayye* and *Rava:* They would ask “Did you see the *peg entering the tube of Blue-stone?”* (A figurative way of saying ‘the penetration of the genitalia’).*Question:* It is indeed impossible to see, so *how did the sanhedrin punish* in such cases?*Answer:* By following the principle taught by *Shmuel:* If they’re lying *in the position of adulterers* , that’s enough. (Sanhedrin ended capital punishment 40 years before the churban because they foresaw the rise of the Tzedukim. It’s a possibility that Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon wished to end capital punishment because of the same reason.) ° Tosfos: What about Shabbos and Avodah Zarah?Such sins are uncommonIf the sinner was mortally ill, it would make the testimony an “Eidus that cannot be huzam”. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*10.1 Makkos Daf 07 A (4 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:* One who *kills b’shogeig * (it’s a very great crime, but he may have the kapparah that he) *goes into galus * (he must go to one of the arei miklat - ‘sanctuary cities’ and remain there, it’s a sort of jail).If he was rolling mud onthe roof with a roller, and it *fell downward* on someone *and killed him; he goes into galus. * Similarly if he was *lowering a barrel* with rope and it fell and killed someone; he goes into galus. Or, if he was *walking down a ladder* and he fell on to someone and killed him; he goes into galus .(Any downward fall of an object which then kills, makes the person who set it into motion chayav galus ).If however he was *drawing the roller* towards himself when it slipped and killed someone; *he does not need galus * (this is considered an unavoidable error and a kapparah is not necessary. When someone lowers an object we expect him to have been more careful, but when he is pulling it up he does not expect it to drop). Or, if he was *lifting a barrel* and the rope broke; he does not need galus. Or, if he was *ascending a ladder* and he fell on to someone and killed him; he does not need galus.*This is the rule:* If it *killed on the way down, he goes into galus, * otherwise he does not. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*10.2 Makkos Daf 07 B (4 lines Dn)**Summary**This is the rule:* If it *killed on the way down, he goes into galus, * otherwise he does not.*Gemara:*What is the *source?**Shmuel:* The passuk says *“Vayapeil* - he cast it down upon him and he died” this teaches that it has to *fall downward;* the way things fall.*Beraisa:* The passuk says “ * Bishgaga * - unwittingly”; this *excludes meizid * (someone who murders intentionally) from galus. The passuk says *“B’vli daas”;* this *excludes someone who killed with intention.* (The difference between these two will be explained) *Question: Why do we need to exclude meizid ?* Someone who kills intentionally is put to death by Beis Din!*Rabbah:* A * meizid * here refers to someone who *thinks it is permitted* to murder (perhaps for a vigilante killing).*Abayye:* If he *thinks it’s permitted,* why isn’t he a * shogeig * ? (Abayye uses the word oneis, but an oneis does not go to galus, he means shogeig). *Rabbah:* In my opinion, *someone who thinks it’s permitted is closer to meizid .* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*10.3 Makkos Daf 07 B (11 lines Dn)**Summary**Beraisa:* The passuk says * “B’vli daas” * ; this *excludes someone who killed with intention.**Question:* Someone who kills intentionally is *put to death* by Beis Din!*Rabbah:* It means someone who killed with intent, but his intended victim was *an animal*, and he ended up *killing a person b’shogeig. * Or he intended to kill a goy and *killed a Jew b’shogeig, * or he *killed a healthy child b’shogeig * when his intention was to kill a *neifel.**Beraisa:* The passuk says “If suddenly, without hatred, he shoved him, or he thrust upon him any vessel, without aiming [and he died]”. *‘If suddenly’ excludes someone who turned a corner* and bumped into another person violently and killed him. (Either because turning a corner is very sudden and even more unexpected than a usual case of shogeig. Or because one should have been more careful when turning a corner). *“Without hatred” excludes an enemy.**“He shoved him”* means that even though he shoved him *with his body,* it can still be considered shogeig *“He thrust upon him”* includes *a downward motion that is a preparation for an upward* motion.*“Without aiming” excludes someone who aimed* in one direction but it flew in another.*“And if he didn’t aim”* (a different passuk) *excludes someone who intended to throw something over a short distance* and it flew over a longer distance.*“If he came to the forest with his fellow* [and he killed him while chopping wood]” (a different passuk) . A forest is used as an example of *a place where no one is trespassing. If however the dead man trespassed* on the killer’s property, he does not go into galus (11.2). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*10.5 Makkos Daf 07 B (13 lines Up)**Summary*If someone was ascending a ladder and because of the pressure he applied, a rung fell and killed someone:Rabbi Yochanan: This is a downward killing which necessitates galus. Rabbi Avahu: This is an upward killing.*Perhaps this was already argued by the tannaim:**Beraisa 1:* If someone was *ascending a ladder and a rung fell* and killed someone, *he is chayav. **Beraisa 2:* If someone was *ascending a ladder and a rung fell* and killed someone, *he is patur. *It would seem that Beraisa 1 is in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion, and Beraisa 2 is in accordance with Rabbi Avahu.*The two beraisas are not arguing this question,* and can be explained as discussing something else:1. Beraisa 1 is referring to * chiyuv mamon, * and only 2 is referring to chiyuv galus. (Both beraisas are in accordance with Rabbi Avahu). 2. Beraisa 1 discusses a case where the *wooden rung is wormy,* but Beraisa 2 is referring to a solid rung. (Both beraisas may be in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan). 3. Beraisa 1 discusses a case where the wooden rung gives when someone steps on it, it is therefore considered downward, but Beraisa 2 is *referring to a stiff rung.* (Both beraisas may be in accordance with Rabbi Yochanan). (Explanation of 2,3: when the rung was wormy or loose, there was no upward motion at all). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*10.6 Makkos Daf 07 B (8 lines Up)**Introduction:* The passuk gives an example of an inadvertent killing as follows: If two people enter the forest to chop wood “v’nashal habarzel min ha’eitz”. There are two possible ways of translating this:The iron (blade) flew off ‘the wooden (handle)’ and killed somebody.The iron (blade) made ‘a piece of the tree’ fly off and kill somebody.If we understand “1” as the proper translation, we understand that he is shoigeg because he certainly never intended for the blade to fly off the handle.If we understand “2” as the proper translation, we understand that he is shoigeg because the wedge of wood that flew off the tree was an indirect consequence of his action and was not directly caused by him.*Summary**Mishna:*If the *blade slipped off the axe’s handle* and killed:*Rebbi:* He does not go into galus. (2)*Chachomim:* He goes into galus. (1)If *a chunk of wood flew off the tree* and killed:*Rebbi:* He goes into galus. (2)*Chachomim:* He does not go into galus. (1)*Gemara: Beraisa:**Rebbi* said to the *Chachomim:* [How can you understand the passuk as in “1”?] Does it say v’nashal habarzel mei’eitzo ? It states * min ha’eitz “from the tree”!**Besides, in this parsha * a different instance of *the word eitz refers to trees* not to the wooden handle, so it stands to reason that the word has a uniform definition throughout the parsha ! See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.1 Makkos Daf 07 B (3 lines Up)*Today’s audio is less than 4 minutes. Use the extra minute to repeat the give and take of the gemara out loud. It’s pretty complicated; so if you can repeat it out loud that’s some accomplishment!*Summary*The passuk gives an example of an inadvertent killing as follows: If two people enter the forest to chop wood “ v’nashal habarzel min ha’eitz ”. There are two possible ways of translating this:1. The iron (blade) flew off ‘the wooden (handle)’ and killed somebody. (Chachomim).2. The iron (blade) made ‘a piece of the tree’ fly off and kill somebody. (Rebbi).*Rav Chiya bar Ashi* quoting *Rav:* Both ways of learning are gleaned from the same passuk :*Rebbi* holds “ yesh eim l’masores - the way a word is *spelled* out in the Torah should be looked at as the source”. Since v’nashal is spelled * v’nishal * we understand “2” to be the appropriate translation.*The Chachomim* hold “ yesh eim l’mikra - the way a word is *read* should be looked at as the source”, and since we read *v’nashal,* “1” is the proper understanding.*Challenge:* Does Rebbi hold yesh eim l’masores? *Rav Yitzchok bar Yosef* quoting *Rabbi Yochanan: Rebbi, Rabbi Yehuda ben Roetz, Beis Shammai, Rabbi Shimon, Rabbi Akiva all hold yesh eim l’mikra! **Resolution: Rebbi* holds yesh eim l’mikra, and *that’s why he said “Besides,”* (10.6). [His argument from yesh eim l’masores was only according to the opinion of the Chachomim]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.2 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Papa:* If one threw *a clod of earth* at a tree *which caused dates to fall* on someone and kill him; he is only chayav *according to Rebbi* , and not the Chachomim.*Challenge: Isn’t that obvious?**Resolution:* This case *seems dissimilar* to the question of our mishna, because *the dates are twice removed* from the energy of the thrower (‘koach kocho’), so *Rav Papa* is teaching that *the law is indeed the same.**Challenge:* What would be a case of * ‘koach kocho’ according to Rebbi?**Resolution:* Where he *threw a clod* into the tree, and *struck a branch* , which *struck a cluster* of dates, *which caused dates to fall* and kill. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.3 Makkos Daf 08 A (10 lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna:*If someone *threw a stone into the street and it killed* someone, *he goes to galus* (the gemara will explain why this should not be considered meizid). *Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:* If the victim stuck his head out after the thrower threw the stone, he does not go to galus. If one threw a stone into his yard and it killed someone there; if the victim had permission to be there at the time ,he goes into galus, otherwise he does not. As the passuk says *“If he came to the forest with his fellow* [and he killed him while chopping wood]”. A forest is used as an example of *a place where no one is trespassing.* (10.3).*Abba Shaul:* Just like *chopping wood is not a mitzvah; * one only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah. If a father killed his son while spanking him, or a teacher killed his student, or the shaliach Beis Din [killed someone while administering malkos ], they do not go into galus. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.4 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to galus. *Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a shogeig?! *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an oneis! **Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too.*11.4 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to galus. *Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a shogeig?! *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an oneis! **Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too.s Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to galus. *Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a shogeig?! *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an oneis! **Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.5 Makkos Daf 08 A (5 lines after spreads)**Summary**Mishna:* Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: If the victim stuck his head out after the thrower threw the stone, he does not go to galus. *Gemara:**Beraisa:* The possuk says “[If one causes an object to hurtle through the air] * U’matza * [and it will encounter his fellow and kill him]”. *This excludes a case* where it wasn’t the stone that encountered the man *but the man encountered the stone.* This is the source for the law of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.*Challenge:* It seems from here that the word * u’matza * refers to *something that was already there.*However there’s a possuk that discusses someone who was forced to sell his ancestral fields * u’matza - and finally he acquired enough money* to buy it back.The * beraisa * says: the word u’matza excludes a case where he had money before he sold the property and is selling off previously held assets in order to acquire back this field.In our beraisa this expression [ u’matza ] refers to a head *that was already there.* In the second *beraisa* it refers to assets *that were not previously owned!* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.6 Makkos Daf 08 A (8 lines after spreads)**Summary*In our *beraisa* u’matza refers to a head *that was already there.* In the second * beraisa * it refers to assets *that were not previously owned!**Rava: It depends on the context.* In the possuk that the second beraisa is based on, the words v’hisiga yado - and finally he was able to afford it are written before u’matza , so we understand that *it’s referring to assets that he did not have* previously.In our beraisa the possuk is discussing two people who were in the woods, so u’matza means that *it was there previously just like the forest* was there from the beginning.Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a mitzvah; one only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah. *One of the Rabbanan* said to *Rava: Perhaps he went to chop wood for a mitzvah * such as sukkah or for the mizbeach ?*Rava:* Since he can use pre-chopped wood, *the chopping is not a mitzvah. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.1 Makkos Daf 08 A (10 lines Up)**Summary*Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a mitzvah; one only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah. One of the Rabbanan said to Rava: Perhaps he went to chop wood for a mitzvah? Rava: Since he can use pre-chopped wood, the chopping is not a mitzvah. *Ravina* challenged *Rava:* We learned in the mishna (11.3) “One only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah . *If a father killed his son* while spanking him, or *a teacher killed his student,* they do not go into galus. ”In the mishna too, *it is not the act which is a mitzvah, * but the desired result, the improved performance of the student; “If he had studied, it wouldn’t be a mitzvah” still we see it is considered a mitzvah?!*Rava:* It *is a mitzvah to hit a child* even when he learns well as the verse states: “Chastise your son (it’s a good investment!) and he’ll give you nachas, and he will send refreshments to your soul (once you go to the next world he will send up packages of good deeds).’ (see 12.4, 12.5).*Then Rava regretted* his explanation of the mishna (11.6) and offered this explanation: The possuk says: *“Va’asher* yavo es rei’eihu bayaar (If someone happened to come to the forest with his fellow)”. This means that entering the woods was a matter of *his personal choice.* If the possuk would be referring to someone entering the forest *for a mitzvah the word asher would not be appropriate.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.2 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines Up)*psssst... Did you hear about Toras Avigdor's crowdfunding campaign? It is *now in full swing* and you can make a special donation in honor of the gemara we learn together! cmatch.me/kevius*Summary*Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a mitzvah ; one only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah. *Rava:* The possuk says: *“Va’asher* yavo es rei’eihu bayaar (If someone happened to come to the forest with his fellow)”. This means that entering the woods was a matter of *his personal choice.* If the possuk would be referring to someone entering the forest *for a mitzvah the word asher would not be appropriate.**Rav Ada bar Ahava* said to *Rava:* Does the word asher denote a matter of personal choice? The possuk states “A man *asher* yitma, who happens to be impure [cannot enter the mikdash or eat kodesh ].” What if he was forced to become impure for a * meis mitzvah * ? According to you *he would be permitted to enter the mikdash !**Response:* After the word asher, the possuk adds: *“If he shall be tamei, * and the tumah is still with him”. “He shall be tamei ” teaches that *if he’s tamei for any reason,* he is included in this prohibition.*Challenge:* Beraisa *: “If he shall be tamei ,”* teaches that *a tvul yom * (someone who has already begun his purification process) *is included* in this prohibition. *“And the tumah is with him,”* teaches that *a mechusar kippurim * (another level of the purification process) *is included* in this prohibition.*Resolution: There’s a superfluous word there* “And the tumah is *still* with him” this teaches that he is included in the prohibition *even if he became tamei for a mitzvah. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.3 Makkos Daf 08 B (4 lines Dn)**Summary**Another version* of the forgoing discussion (11.6-12.1):*Beraisa:* The possuk states: “On Shabbos, *you should rest* in *plowing* [season] and in *reaping* [season]”.*Rabbi Akiva:* This verse must refer to the Shabbos of shemittah , but *not to the year of shemittah * , because we already know that plowing and reaping is forbidden the entire year. *This verse teaches* that plowing for the benefit of the shemittah crop is forbidden even before shemittah, and reaping the shemittah crop *after the shemittah year is forbidden.* [This is called tosefes shevi’is]. *Rabbi Yishmael:* The verse does *refer to the weekly shabbos.* Although we already know that sowing and reaping is forbidden, it comes to teach us something new: Just as *plowing is not done for a mitzvah* , so too, reaping is only forbidden when it’s not for a mitzvah, but *reaping the omer is permitted even on shabbos.**One of the Rabbanan* said to *Rava: Perhaps the plowing was also for the mitzvah of omer?**Rava:* Only *the reaping is a mitzvah.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.4 Makkos Daf 08 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary*Rabbi Yishmael: Just as plowing is not done for a mitzvah, so too, reaping is only forbidden when it’s not for a mitzvah, but reaping the omer is permitted even on shabbos.One of the Rabbanan said to Rava: Perhaps the plowing was also for the mitzvah of omer ?Rava: Only the reaping is a mitzvah.*Ravina* challenged *Rava:* We learned in the mishna (11.3) “One only goes to galus if he was not doing a mitzvah. *If a father killed his son* while spanking him, or *a teacher killed his student,* they do not go into galus. ”In the mishna too, *it is not the act which is a mitzvah, * but the desired result, the improved performance of the student; “If he had studied, it wouldn’t be a mitzvah” still we see it is considered a mitzvah?!*Rava:* It *is a mitzvah to hit a child* even when he learns well as the verse states: “Chastise your son (or your student, or even anyone who is hit by Beis Din!) and he’ll give you nachas, and he will send refreshments to your soul (once you go to the next world he will send up packages of good deeds).’*Then Rava regretted* his explanation of the beraisa (12.3) and offered this explanation:Plowing is mentioned together with reaping; *just as plowing is never a mitzvah in its own right* (although it may result in a mitzvah), so too, reaping is only forbidden when it is not actually a mitzvah, but *reaping the omer is always a mitzvah.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.5 Makkos Daf 08 B (4 lines after spreads)**Summary**Mishna:* A father goes into galus because of killing his son [not during a mitzvah]. A son goes into galus because of his father.Anyone (including a ger or an eved) goes into galus for killing a Yisroel, and a Yisroel goes into galus for killing them, but not for killing a ger toshav.A ger toshav (only) goes into galus for killing a ger toshav [this will be explained in the gemara. The Gra deletes the word “only” because a ger toshav also goes into galus for killing a Yisroel]. *Gemara:**Challenge:* Didn’t we learn (11.3) that a father doesn’t go into galus for killing his son? [Our mishna seems to say that a father always *goes* into galus for killing his son]. *Resolution:* This mishna is referring to a son who is studying well and doesn’t deserve to be hit.*Challenge:* Didn’t we learn (12.1) that even a son who studies well should be hit?*Resolution:* This is a case where the father is teaching him carpentry, and he hits him for not studying well.*Challenge:* But it’s a mitzvah for a father to teach his son a livelihood.*Resolution:* He already learned some other parnassah. [We see that just to hit a son is not a mitzvah, only whe, even if he’s doing well, it’s a mitzvah]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.6 Makkos Daf 08 B (9 lines after spreads)**Summary*We learned in the Mishna that a son goes into galus for killing his father.*Challenge:* The Beraisa states *“ *makkeh nefesh** (a blow that takes the soul) teaches that *a son does not go into galus * for killing his father (because he sins by hitting his father even if his blow did not “take the soul”). A murderer is executed by ‘sayif’ or ‘hereg’. An inadvertent murderer goes into galus instead of being killed by ‘sayif’, so we know that galus is a sufficient kapparah for a sin deserving of ‘sayif’, however we don’t know that galus is enough of a kaparah for someone who deserves a more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the chachomim regarding the severity of ‘Beis Din’s four execution types’. According to the Chachomim ‘chenek’ is the most lenient of all execution types. According to Rabbi Shimon, ’sayif’ is the most lenient. *Resolution:* The *beraisa follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,* and *the mishna follows the opinion of the Chachomim.* Since when one wounds his father he is killed by ‘ chenek ’, and by killing one’s father one has also wounded him, this man now needs a kaparah for both ‘ sayif ’ and ‘ chenek ’.According to *Rabbi Shimon* a son cannot go to galus because he is liable for ‘chenek’ which is more severe than ‘sayif/galus’. However according to the *Chachomim* , since ‘chenek’ is not as severe as ‘sayif’, galus is a sufficient kaparah. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.1 Makkos Daf 08 B (9 lines Up)**Summary*We learned in the Mishna that a son goes into galus for killing his father.*Challenge:* The Beraisa states * “makkeh nefesh * (a blow that takes the soul) teaches that *a son does not go into galus * for killing his father (because he sins by hitting his father even if his blow did not “take the soul”). A murderer is executed by ‘sayif’ or ‘hereg’. An inadvertent murderer goes into galus instead of being killed by ‘sayif’, so we know that galus is a sufficient kapparah for a sin deserving of ‘sayif’, however we don’t know that galus is enough of a kaparah for someone who deserves a more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the chachomim regarding the severity of ‘Beis Din’s four execution types’. According to the Chachomim ‘chenek’ is the most lenient of all execution types. According to Rabbi Shimon, ’sayif’ is the most lenient. *Resolution:* The *beraisa follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,* and *the mishna follows the opinion of the Chachomim.* Since when one wounds his father he is killed by ‘chenek’, and by killing one’s father one has also wounded him, this man now needs a kaparah for both ‘sayif’ and ‘chenek’. According to *Rabbi Shimon* a son cannot go to galus because he is liable for ‘chenek’ which is more severe than ‘sayif/galus’ . However according to *the Chachomim,* since ‘chenek’ is not as severe as ‘sayif’ , galus is a sufficient kaparah. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.2 Makkos Daf 08 B (3 lines Up)* *Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better! *Summary*We learned in the Beraisa that a Yisroel receives malkos because of what he did to a slave or a samaritan. But what could that be?*Rav Acha bar Yaakov:* If the *Yisroel falsely testified against the slave and was huzam, * he would be punished with whatever he intended to punish the slave; that’s how he would receive malkos because of a slave.*Challenge: The first half of the * beraisa * mentions that a slave receives malkos because of what he did to a Yisroel, but *a slave cannot testify!**Rav Acha son of Rav Ika:* The slave *hit the Yisroel and he caused less than a perutah’s-worth of damage.* Since there is no payment here, he receives malkos. (The Torah says that when administering malkos “He should not add” if one gave one more blow than necessary, he has transgressed a lav. However whenever a payment is involved, there is no malkos [5.2].) *As Rabbi Ami quoted from Rabbi Yochanan:* If one hit his fellow and caused less than a perutah’s-worth of damage, he receives malkos. We do not equate hitting with cursing. [While we are not punished for cursing a samaritan (13.1), we are punished for hitting him]. [The Kusim (Samaritans) accepted the entire Torah, only that they didn’t keep all of it! A ger toshav never accepted all the mitzvos, only to refrain from idolatry]. *We learned in the mishna:* A Yisroel does not go into galus for killing a ger toshav . A ger toshav goes into galus for killing another ger toshav. *Question:* From the beginning of the mishna it seems that *a ger toshav is treated as a gentile* (because his murder is not cause for galus ), but then we see that a ger toshav *does* have to go to galus , but *there’s no galus for a gentile?!**Rav Kahana:* The beginning of our mishna refers to a ger toshav who killed a Yisroel (galus is not enough for him; he’s put to death), and the end of the mishna refers to a ger toshav who killed another ger toshav .*Attached is daf 6 make sure to print it.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.3 Makkos Daf 09 A (8 lines Dn)* *Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better! *Summary**Another version* of the foregoing discussion: *One possuk states* “These [sanctuary] cities will be for you (the bnei Yisroel) *and for the ger (toshav) * amongst you”. *Another possuk states* “The sanctuary cities will be *for you”* . And we understand “But not for the ger toshav ”. So it’s a contradiction.*Rav Kahana:* The second possuk refers to *a ger toshav who killed a Yisroel* (galus is not enough for him; he’s put to death), and the first possuk refers to a * ger toshav who killed another ger toshav .**Challenge: Beraisa: A ger toshav or a gentile* who murdered, is put to death.We don’t distinguish between the victims of a gentile, and even if he murdered a gentile, not a Yisroel, he is put to death. So *it seems that we don’t distinguish between the victims of the ger toshav * either.*Rav Chisda:* The ger toshav goes into galus when he killed with a downward blow, just like a Yisroel (10.1-10.5). But *the beraisa refers to when he killed with an upward blow* . Since even a Yisroel does not go into galus for upward killing, the ger toshav cannot go into galus and is executed. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.4 Makkos Daf 09 A (14 lines Up)* *Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better! *Summary*Rav Chisda: The ger toshav goes into galus when he killed with a downward blow, just like a Yisroel (10.1-10.5). But the beraisa refers to when he killed with an upward blow.Since even a Yisroel does not go into galus for upward killing, the ger toshav cannot go into galus and is executed.*Rabbah* to Rav Chisda: But *upward killing is more lenient than downward killing.* Since you admit that a ger toshav can have the same kaparah as a yisroel in the more severe case of downward killing, *why should he be killed* for upward killing when we are lenient with a yisroel, and he does not need a kaparah at all? [Perhaps Rav Chisda believes that upward killing is not more lenient, but that galus is not enough of a kaparah, because one is more in control while moving upward]. *Rabbah:* The beraisa (13.3 “A ger toshav is killed even for inadvertent murder”) refers to someone who *thinks it is permitted* to murder (perhaps for a vigilante killing). (See 10.2). (A Yisroel, however, would go into galus). *Abayye:* If he *thinks it’s permitted,* why isn’t he a * shogeig ?**Rabbah:* In my opinion, *someone who thinks it’s permitted is closer to meizid. *This discussion is in accordance with their opinions elsewhere:One who intended to kill *an animal,* and he ended up *killing a person.* Or he intended to kill a gentile and *killed a ger toshav: **Rabbah:* He is put to death, one who *thinks his act is permissible is closer to meizid. **Rav Chisda:* He is not put to death, one who *thinks his act is permissible is not considered a meizid.**Rabbah* asked Rav Chisda: *When Avimelech took Sarah* it states “You will die on account of this woman you took”. It seems that this means he would be guilty and accountable in a court of law. But since *he didn’t know* Sarah was married, he thought it was permissible.*Response:* In this case, since he thought it was permissible, he would not be held accountable in court. The verse which holds him accountable is discussing his *guilt in the eyes of Heaven.**As the verse states* “I [Hashem] prevented you from sinning to *Me”.* However it would not be considered a sin by standard legal procedure.*Challenge:* When Yosef was tested by the wife of Potiphar he also used such wording “And I will *sin against Elokim”.* Does that also mean that it would not be punishable by ordinary legal procedure? *It certainly would.*So too here, although the possuk calls it “a sin against Me”, it would still be considered a sin in a human court of law, because we *do not accept the excuse that he thought it was permissible.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.5 Makkos Daf 09 A (2 lines Up)* *Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better! *Summary**Rabbah:* One who *thinks his act is permissible (Avimelech, for instance) is considered a meizid .**Abayye* asked Rabbah: The possuk states that Avimelech said to Hashem in his dream “Will you kill *a righteous man?”.* It seems that since he didn’t know Sarah was married, he is considered a righteous man.*Response:* That was Avimelech’s statement but *Hashem did not agree,* as it states “Now return this married woman for she is the wife of a prophet”.What is the meaning of this verse? Is only a prophet’s wife forbidden to other men, *isn’t every married woman forbidden?* The explanation is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said:*Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini* quoting *Rabbi Yonason:* Hashem said “Return this married woman, *regardless of who her husband is.* But with regard to your question ‘Will you kill a righteous man? He told me she’s his sister!’, *he only said that because he is a prophet* and he knows who you are.”*From your words, he learned* that you’re a villain! When a wayfarer comes to a town, he should be asked if he has where to eat and drink. Since you asked him inappropriate questions, he answered in kind.We learn from here that even a goy is *guilty for not learning derech eretz, * proper behavior. Avimelech was not held responsible or taking Sarah, but for his lack of learning proper behavior. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*13.6 Makkos Daf 09 B (8 lines before spreads)* *Suggestion:* Before listening to the recording take a minute and review yesterday’s gemara. It will help to lock it in in your mind, and today’s gemara will flow better! *Summary**Beraisa:* The possuk says:*“He* [killed inadvertently and] *didn’t see* [what his actions caused]”*Rabbi Yehuda:* This possuk *excludes a blind man* [ordinarily he does see].*Rabbi Meir:* This possuk *includes a blind man* [who doesn’t see].*Question:* What is the reasoning behind this argument?*The possuk begins with the inclusive statement* “If one enters the forest” this seems to include blind men as well. The later statement “He didn’t see” excludes one who does not usually see. *This is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning.**Rabbi Meir* says that “He didn’t see” alone would indeed exclude blind men, but the possuk adds another exclusion: *“He had no knowledge”.* We have a principle that two exclusions are in fact intended to exclude the exclusion; *a double negative is a positive.**What does Rabbi Yehuda answer to that?*“He had no knowledge” *excludes someone who killed ‘with intention* ’ (10.2, 10.3).We learned in the Mishna that according to Rabbi Yosi: *a sonei is put to death.**Question: He wasn’t warned?* How can he be put to death without hasra’ah ?Our mishna records *the opinion of Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda (8.6):**Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: A chaver * (a lamdan) *does not require hasra’ah * because he is considered forewarned. * Hasra’ah is only necessary to distinguish between shogeig and meizid. * (The other tannaim hold that hasra’ah is necessary as the criminal’s acceptance of his punishment, knowledge of the punishment is not enough, an affirmation is necessary). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*QUICK AND EASY GEMARA LIKAVOD PURIM!**14.3 Makkos Daf 09 B (7 lines Up)**Summary**Beraisa:*Moshe set aside three sanctuary cities in eiver hayarden. Yehoshua set up three cities parallel to them in eretz canaan, on the other side of the Yarden. They were directly opposite, like the rows of vines in a vineyard.Chevron, which was in Yehuda, was parallel to Betzer in the south of eiver hayarden. Shechem which was in Har Efrayim, Canaan, was parallel to Ramos in Gilead, the center of eiver hayarden . Kedesh in Har Naftoli, Canaan, was parallel to Golan in Bashan, the north of eiver hayarden. The possuk says “Divide the land into three”, this means that the land should be divided evenly. The distance between the Southernmost boundary and Chevron, was equivalent to the distance between Chevron and Shechem. And the same distance from Shechem to Kedesh, and from there to the northernmost boundary.*Question:* Why did eiver hayarden which had a much smaller population, *require the same amount of cities as the mainland?**Abayye:* In Gilead (and the rest of eiver hayarden) murder is more prevalent, as the possuk says “Gilead the city of those who do evil, and stained with blood” (this possuk was said in much later days, by Hoshea, close to the exile of Gilead, it was certainly not that way in the beginning. However because these cities were distant from the center of the nation, it was understandable that the people there were more lax in their idealism). *Question:* What does the Hebrew word “akuvah” mean in the abovementioned verse?*Rabbi Elazar:* They would *lie in wait* to murder their enemies (it is related to ‘vayaakveini zeh pamoyim’). There was premeditated murder there. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*14.4 Makkos Daf 10 A (3 lines Dn)**Summary*The distance between the Southernmost boundary and Chevron, was equivalent to the distance between Chevron and Shechem. And the same distance from Shechem to Kedesh, and from there to the northernmost boundary.*Question:* Why were the residents of the edges of the land *further away than those in the center of the land?* [If one lived between Chevron and Shechem, he was closer to one of the cities, but one who lived near the south border had to travel a greater distance to Chevron].*Abayye: In Shechem too (14.3), murder was more prevalent.* As the possuk says “Like bands of men, troops, groups of kohanim, *who kill on the road to Shechem”* (The nevi’im always exaggerated the sins of our people, while they may seem small in our eyes, these sins were grave ‘in the eyes of Hashem’). *Question:* Why are they called *“groups of kohanim”?**Rabbi Elazar:* They would *come together* to kill, it looked like kohanim who come together to collect terumah. [While the kohanim come together for a mitzvah, since there is some self-interest, the baal habayis feels accosted by them and their competition. Similarly, when people came together to kill someone, they surely felt they were doing a righteous act, however they should have taken their victim to beis din instead of lynching him]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*14.5 Makkos Daf 10 A (10 lines Dn)**Summary*We learned in the mishna (14.2) that there were six sanctuary cities.*Question: Weren’t there more?*The possuk says “Add onto them; *forty two cities”.**Abayye: The original six cities offer sanctuary regardless of the murderer’s intention;* if he’s there, he’s protected. To find refuge in the other forty two cities, he must intentionally flee there.*Challenge: Was Chevron (14.3) a sanctuary city?*The possuk says *“Chevron was given to Kalev”* - so it became his private property, how can it be a sanctuary city?*Abayye: He was only given the outskirts of the city,* the suburbs. As the possuk states, “They gave the fields and the villages surrounding the city to Kalev ben Yefuneh”.*Challenge: Was Kedesh (14.3) a sanctuary city?*The possuk enumerates it among the *fortified cities!**Beraisa:* Sanctuary cities cannot be small villages [where a goeil hadam can barge in and murder his relative’s murderer undeterred], nor big cities [where the goeil hadam may come for business and encounter his relative’s murderer], *only mid-sized towns.**Rav Yosef: There were two cities* named Kedesh.*Rav Ashi* (an alternate explanation): *The fortification was separate from the city;* as in Saleikus and Fort Saleikus See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*14.6 Makkos Daf 10 A (1 lines before spreads)**Summary**Beraisa:* Sanctuary cities cannot be small villages [where a goeil hadam can barge in and kill his relative’s murderer undeterred], nor big cities [where the goeil hadam may come for business and encounter his relative’s murderer], only *mid-sized towns,* that have *easy access to water.* If the water ran out, water should be brought. It must be a city where there are markets and *commodities are available* [so that the murderer isn’t forced to risk his life by leaving the city]. The city should be *in a populated place,* between other towns and cities [so that the goeil hadam cannot collect an army and storm the city easily]. If the population decreases, we resettle more people to the area. If the *residents of the city moved away, we replenish their ranks* by bringing in Kohanim, Levi’im and Yisroelim (we want all kinds; it is not clear to me why). *Rabbi Nechemia* : Weapons or animal traps should not be available for purchase in these cities [traps have sharp teeth and are used to kill]. *The Chachomim permit it. They agree however, that traps should not be spread out there,* nor nets to catch fish [a lot of people gather at hunting or fishing grounds] nor can the city be a place where *ropes are manufactured* [or anything else] - so that the goeil hadam should not have reason to visit. Daf 10 A (1 lines before spreads)**Summary**Beraisa:* Sanctuary cities cannot be small villages [where a goeil hadam can barge in and kill his relative’s murderer undeterred], nor big cities [where the goeil hadam may come for business and encounter his relative’s murderer], only *mid-sized towns,* that have *easy access to water.* If the water ran out, water should be brought. It must be a city where there are markets and *commodities are available* [so that the murderer isn’t forced to risk his life by leaving the city]. The city should be *in a populated place,* between other towns and cities [so that the goeil hadam cannot collect an army and storm the city easily]. If the population decreases, we resettle more people to the area. If the *residents of the city moved away, we replenish their ranks* by bringing in Kohanim, Levi’im and Yisroelim (we want all kinds; it is not clear to me why). *Rabbi Nechemia* : Weapons or animal traps should not be available for purchase in these cities [traps have sharp teeth and are used to kill]. *The Chachomim permit it. They agree however, that traps should not be spread out there,* nor nets to catch fish [a lot of people gather at hunting or fishing grounds] nor can the city be a place where *ropes are manufactured* [or anything else] - so that the goeil hadam should not have reason to visit. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*15.1 Makkos Daf 10 A (5 lines after spreads)**Summary**Beraisa:* Sanctuary cities must be mid-sized towns, with easy access to water. It must be a city where commodities are available. The city should be in a populated place. Traps should not be spread out there, nor should it be a place of manufacturing.*Rav Yitzchok:* The *source* for all this is in the verse “He shall escape to one of these cities *and live”; we must make his ‘living’ there convenient.**Beraisa:* If a * talmid * must go into galus, we *send along his rebbi,* as the verse states *“and live”.* (There were no seforim in those days and without a rebbi to learn torah from, what is the use of life?) *Rabbi Zeira:* We learn from here that one must be careful *not to teach torah to an unworthy disciple* (Hashem wouldn’t allow a worthy person to make a mistake that would cost someone’s life). *Rabbi Yochanan:* If a *Rebbi* must go into galus, *we send along his yeshiva.**Challenge: Rabbi Yochanan: Torah provides asylum* just like a sanctuary city. As the possuk says, “The city of *Betzer* (provides asylum) in the wilderness. *This is the Torah”.* [So why would a rebbi need to go to galus? The torah would protect him (either the learning serves as an ir miklat, or the Torah prevents him from stumbling into sin and killing by accident).] *Response: Torah provides asylum only while one is studying.**Or,* the Torah *only protects him only from the angel of death.**Rav Chisda was studying and the angel of death couldn’t approach him,* because he wouldn’t stop learning. So the angel sat in a nearby tree which cracked loudly and *Rav Chisda paused for a moment.* At that moment he passed away. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*15.4 Makkos Daf 10 A (11 lines Up)**Summary**Rav Simai* said a *drasha:* The second half of the verse means *“The man who owns all the produce* [he is proficient in tanach, mishna, halacha and aggadah] *is the one worthy of teaching torah to the multitude”.**Rav Ashi:* An alternate explanation of the second half of the verse: *One who loves to study in a multitude, will reap the crop;* he will be successful in his studies.*Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina:* The verse states “A sword upon the loners v’noalu”. This refers to *torah scholars who study all alone - they will become foolish,* as the verse states elsewhere “asher noalnu”. Additionally, one who learns alone *will stumble into sin* as that verse continues “And we have sinned”. There is also another verse that uses the word noalu and from the context we understand that it means to become foolish.*Ravina:* An alternate explanation of the second half of the verse: *One who loves to teach in a multitude, will reap the crop;* he will be successful in his studies as a result of his desire to teach.*Rebbi:* I learned much from my teachers, more from my comrades, and *I learned more from my students than from anyone else.**Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi:* The possuk states: “Our feet were standing in your gates; Yerushalayim” [The plain meaning of the verse is that the people were so enthusiastic on the way up to Yerushalayim, that they didn't realize that they had already arrived until they found themselves in Yerushalayim]. This means, “We remained standing and have not lost our footing in war, in the merit of the gates of Yerushalayim which was the place of Torah [The sanhedrin would sit at the gates of the city]” [This is the meaning of the possuk “Nora Elokim m’mikdashecha, Keil Yisroel hu nosein oz v’saatzumos l’am - Our power comes from our sanctuaries”]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*15.5 Makkos Daf 10 A (5 lines Up).mp3**Summary**Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: “A song of ascension by Dovid; I was happy when they told me ‘we’re going up to the House of Hashem’.”* Dovid was a great obstacle to building the Beis Hamikdash, because Hashem had said that he wouldn’t build it. And yet Dovid said that *he was happy to hear people grumble “when will this old man die,* so that his son Shlomo will be able to build the Temple and we can go up for the regalim”. Hashem replied “Tov yom b’chatzeirecha mei’elef” *I appreciate your Torah study* (which is only in a courtyard) *more than the thousand offerings* your son Shlomo will sacrifice before me.We learned in the mishna (14.2): Straight roads were formed between the cities, so that murderers can choose the quickest and easiest way to get to the *ir miklat.**Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:*There were signs stating “Miklat” at all crossroads, so that murderers can choose the quickest and easiest way to get to the ir miklat .*Rav Kahana:* As the possuk states: “Prepare the road”, not only should cities be designated, but the roads need to be prepared too.*Rav Chama bar Chanina* would introduce the subject: “Hashem is Good and Just and he shows sinners the right path”. If he’s interested in helping sinners, he will certainly help the righteous. [If someone killed b’shogeig he is considered a sinner, as we will soon see]. *Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish* would introduce the subject: “If one made no ambush, but Elokim made it happen [that he murdered]”.This possuk is what is referenced in the verse “As the ancient proverb goes ‘from the wicked, wickedness goes forth’.” The ‘ancient proverb’ is our possuk ‘Elokim made it happen’. It means; in a case where two people deserved to be punished for previous sins, one was to be executed and the second was to go into galus. So Elokim brings them together to one place. The second one climbs a ladder while the first is underneath and he falls on him and kills him. He was thus executed, and now his killer is forced into exile by the witnesses. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*15.6 Makkos Daf 10 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary**Rabbah bar Rav Huna quoting Rav Huna* and some say *Rav Huna quoting Rabbi Elazar: A man is led in the way he desires to go.* This is a principle taught in Torah, Nevi’im and Kesuvim (it means, there are proofs wherever we look). [This is not a contradiction to the concept that Haba litamei poschin lo, which seems to imply that one is not led to bad. Over there the emphasis is on Haba litaher misayin lo, which means that a very great help is given to one who wishes to be good, but one who desires evil is led towards it, but not helped]. This is evident from *Torah:* Where Hashem encouraged Bileam to go with Balak’s messengers (the end result of course was that he was killed. But he was led very strongly, he received a nevuah!). This is evident from *Nevi’im:* as the possuk states “I teach you to accomplish (good) and lead you in the path you wish to go (even if it’s bad).” This is evident from *Kesuvim:* as the possuk states “He will help the arrogant to be scoffers and he will help the humble join those of good character”. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.1 Makkos Daf 10 B (6 lines after spreads)**Summary**Rav Huna: The goeil hadam is not guilty if he killed his relative’s murderer.* The words “He is not deserving of a death sentence” *apply to the goeil hadam. *[The possuk says “The goeil hadam may pursue the murderer in hot anger and kill him ‘and he is not deserving of a death sentence’, (even though) the murderer did not previously hate his victim”. The phrase ‘and he is not deserving of a death sentence’ can be applied to both the goeil hadam (when read with the parenthetical insertion) and the murderer (as we shall soon see).]*Challenge: Beraisa:*‘And he is not deserving of a death sentence’ - *This refers to the murderer.* How do I know? Because the possuk says ‘and he is not deserving of a death sentence, after all, the murderer did not previously hate his victim’.*Resolution: There is another Beraisa:*‘And he is not deserving of a death sentence’ - *This refers to the goeil hadam. * How do I know? Because the possuk says ‘the murderer did not previously hate his victim’, that refers to the murderer , but “He is not deserving of a death sentence” *refers to the goeil hadam. **Challenge:* We learned in the mishna (14.2) that Beis Din provides the murderer with two talmidei chachomim *to accompany him so that he is not killed* by the goeil hadam. It would seem that their purpose is to warn the goeil hadam that if he attempts to avenge his relative’s death, he will be held responsible and killed.*Resolution: The beraisa explains the purpose of thetwo talmidei chachomim: * They say to him ‘Do not act as if he were a man who shed blood; it happened by accident’. [However if he disregards their words he is not guilty of murder]. (the beraisa continues,) *Rabbi Meir argued* He speaks for himself as the possuk states “zeh dvar harotzeach”. *The chachomim responded:* Many times the words of another accomplish more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.2 Makkos Daf 10 B (19 lines Up)*The beraisa explains the purpose of thetwo talmidei chachomim: They say to him ‘Do not act as if he were a man who shed blood; it happened by accident’.*Summary**Question:* Why does the goeil hadam need to be told ‘it was an accident’, *why else would the murderer be going to the sanctuary city?**Answer: All murderers head to the sanctuary city.**Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehuda: In every murder case, the murderer escapes to the sanctuary city.* Beis Din then brings him back to stand trial, then based on their decision, he is either executed as it states “The elders of his city will send for him and give him over to the goeil hadam to die”. Or he will be set free, as it states “Sanhedrin shall rescue the murderer from the goeil hadam”. Or he will be sent back to the sanctuary city, as it states “They will send him back to his city of sanctuary”. *Rebbi: The murderers head there on their own,* because they hope to have asylum there even though the murder was premeditated and the don’t deserve asylum.*Rabbi Elazar: A sanctuary city is not effective if the majority of its population are murderers* as it states “He shall state ‘his case’ before the elders of the city”. If most of them are murderers it’s their case as well, not only ‘his case’.*Rabbi Elazar: A sanctuary city is not effective if there are no elders (talmidei chachomim with semicha) there* as it states “He shall state his case before ‘the elders of the city’.” See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.3 Makkos Daf 10 B (9 lines Up)*Rabbi Elazar: A sanctuary city is not effective if there are no elders (talmidei chachomim with semicha) there as it states “He shall state his case before ‘the elders of the city’.”*Summary**Ir Miklat:* If there are no elders in the city, there is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Asi.* According to one; it does not provide asylum, as it states “the elders of the city”. According to the other, that possuk is just a mitzvah but not a condition.*Ben Soreir Umoreh:* If there are no elders in the city, there is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Asi* . According to one; they cannot judge a ben soreir umoreh , as it states “the elders of the city”. According to the other, that possuk is just a mitzvah but not a condition.*Eglah Arufah:* If there are no elders in the city, there is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Asi* . According to one; the people of the city do not follow this procedure without elders, as it states “the elders of the city”. According to the other, that possuk is just a mitzvah but not a condition.*Rabbi Chama bar Chanina:* The root ‘dibbur’ is used three times in sefer Yehoshua in the discussion about murderers. *This vigorous expression is used because these are Torah laws.**Question:* Where do we find that ‘ dibbur ’ is a strong word?*Answer:* The brothers said “The master of the land spoke ‘ diber ’ strongly with us”.*Challenge:* Beraisa: Nidberu, as in “Those who fear Hashem will discuss matters together”, signifies gentleness (because they speak together gently) . As it states “ Yadber (He will humble) nations before you”.So we see that *‘ dibbur ’ denotes gentleness and humility!**Resolution: ‘ Dibbur ’ and ‘ yadber ’ have different meanings.* [Sometimes the same word can have opposite meanings in different forms. Lishrosh means to take root, lisharesh means to uproot]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.4 Makkos Daf 11 A (8 lines Dn)*Rabbi Chama bar Chanina: The root ‘dibbur’ is used three times in sefer Yehoshua in the discussion about murderers. This vigorous expression is used because these are Torah laws.*Summary**Rabbi Yehuda* and the *Chachomim* disagree: According to one, the vigorous expression is used in criticism of Yehoshua for *postponing the matter of arei miklat. * According to the other, this vigorous expression is used *because these are Torah laws,* and thus more important.The possuk states “Yehoshua wrote these matters in the book of Toras Elokim”. *Rabbi Yehuda* and *Rabbi Nechemia* disagree: According to one, this refers to *the eight verses* [the final verses of the Torah which describe the passing of Moshe]. According to the other, this refers to *the matter of arei miklat. **Challenge:* It states ‘he wrote these matters in the book of Toras Elokim’, but *the matter of the Sanctuary Cities was written in Sefer Yehoshua?**Resolution:* The verse can be translated thus: “Yehoshua wrote these matters of Toras Elokim [arei miklat] *in the book [that he authored]”*Regarding sewing a Torah scroll with threads of flax: *Rabbi Yehuda* and *Rabbi Meir* disagree:According to one, *it is possul because* the possuk says “Wear tefillin so that you will study Torah all the time”. This teaches that the entire Torah has the same law as tefillin; and * tefillin can only be sewn with sinews* [halacha l’moshe misinai] not threads.According to the other, *it is kosher because there is only one specific law of tefillin * [which is derived from this verse - that the materials used in producing the scroll must be from kosher animals] *which applies to Torah scrolls.**Rav:* The tefillin of my uncle [Rabbi Chiya (4.1)] was sewn with flax threads. [The gemara comments] *But the halacha is not so.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.5 Makkos Daf 11 A (10 lines befor spreads)**Summary* The possuk states “He shall flee to his sanctuary city, where he shall remain until the death of the kohen gadol”. Our mishna discusses this law. *Mishna:* The death of any kohen gadol, whether he was *anointed* [up until the end of the first temple] or merely ‘a kohen of *many garments’* [during the second temple] or even an *ex-kohen gadol,* is cause for the murderer to leave his sanctuary city.*Rabbi Yehuda:* Even *a kohen who was anointed for war* is considered a kohen gadol in this sense.Since the murderers were waiting for the kohanim gedolim to die; *the mothers* of the kohanim gedolim *would provide the murderers with food and clothing,* so that they’re comfortable and they don't pray for the kohanim gedolim to die.*Gemara:* What is the source for these laws?*Rav Kahana: There are three pessukim* which refer to the death of the kohen gadol in reference to the murderer; thus we learn that the death of all three kohanim gedolim mentioned in the mishna are effective for the murderer’s freedom.There is also a fourth possuk which mentions the death of the kohen but not the kohen gadol. *Rabbi Yehuda* understands that this signifies a fourth type of kohen gadol, but *the Chachomim argue; since gadol is not mentioned* , it refers to one of the previous three. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*16.6 Makkos Daf 11 A (15 lines Up)*The mothers of the kohanim gedolim would provide the murderers with food and clothing, so that they’re comfortable and they don't pray for the kohanim gedolim to die.*Summary**Question: Would the kohanim gedolim die based on such prayers?* It is written “Like a bird that wanders away (that no one notices) so also will an unjust curse never come true” (17.1).*An old man* quoting the sermon of *Rava: The kohanim gedolim should have prayed for their generation.* So the curse is earned.*Some learned the mishna:* The mothers of the kohanim gedolim would provide the murderers with food and clothing, so that they’re comfortable and they pray for the kohanim gedolim to live and not die.*Question:* Why would the kohanim gedolim die without their prayers? In Bavel we say “Should Sigud be flogged for Tuvia’s sin?”. In Eretz Yisroel they say “Should Mavga’i be circumcised so that Shechem can marry? (When Shechem wished to marry Dinah, everyone in the city was forced to circumcise.)” So *why should the kohen gadol be punished for the sin of the murderers?**An old man* quoting the sermon of *Rava: The kohanim gedolim should have prayed for their generation.* His lack of prayer is considered a sin on his behalf. [According to to the first version, it is a failing but not a sin. According to the second version, failure of a leader to pray for his generation is a sin]. [The prayers of the murderers were necessary as a form of mechila.] *Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi* was visited daily by Eliyahu Hanavi. Once a man was eaten by a lion some distance from his city. *Eliyahu did not visit him for three days.* He was blamed for not praying that misfortune not befall the radius of his city. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*17.1 Makkos Daf 11 A (9 lines Up)**Summary**Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* [Although we learned (16.6) that an unjust curse will come to pass] *The curse of a chacham will always come true* even if it was unwarranted. [Rav Yisroel Salanter: A chacham has a loaded gun and must keep his mouth closed!] *Question:* How do we know this?*Answer:* From the incident when Dovid cursed the chacham who conceals the halacha from him [Dovid suspected that there were chachomim who were jealous of him and they held back from sharing the halacha with him]. In the end, even though Achitophel taught Dovid the halacha, Dovid’s curse came true. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate