BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us.

301

*17.3 Makkos Daf 11 B (14 lines Dn)*

Mar 31, 2020

16:33:52

*17.3 Makkos Daf 11 B (14 lines Dn)*Today's Torah Learning is *Sponsored Anonymously:*לזכות רפואת *יעקב יצחק בן חיילא גאלדא וישראל* *יעקב בן פיגא יוטא*בתוך שאר חולי ישראל!Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary* We learned in the mishna (16.5) that the death of all types of kohanim gedolim (3 or 4 types) is cause for the murderer to leave his sanctuary city. *Question:* Is he released only with the death of all kohanim gedolim or *does one of them suffice?**Tentative Answer:* The coming mishna states “If there was no kohen gadol at the time of his sentencing, he can never leave the sanctuary city”. *This implies that all four are necessary for his release,* because even if one was missing, there should have been others.*Response: It is possible that there were no kohanim gedolim at all.**Mishna:* If the kohen gadol died *after his sentencing, he need not go into exile* at all.If a kohen gadol was appointed before his sentencing, he needs to wait for *the new appointee’s passing* before he can go free.If the kohen gadol died before his sentencing and no new kohen gadol was appointed until after his sentencing; *there was no kohen gadol at the time of his sentencing, he can never leave* the sanctuary 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

302

*17.4 Makkos Daf 11 B (21 lines Dn)*

Apr 1, 2020

16:33:52

*17.4 Makkos Daf 11 B (21 lines Dn)**Summary**Mishna* continued: If one *killed the kohen gadol * [and none was appointed until after his sentencing], *he can never leave* the sanctuary city.Or if *a kohen gadol murdered, he can never leave* the sanctuary city. [If one of the other kohanim are alive, he can leave upon their death].A murderer *cannot leave the sanctuary city for any reason, even to testify* for a mitzvah [kiddush hachodesh] or for testimony in a monetary case or a case of a capital crime. *Even if the people need him* or he’s an army officer as important as Yoav ben Tzeruya; he cannot leave. *As it states “There”;* he must live “there”, die “there” and be buried “there”.*The techum of a sanctuary city provides asylum* just like the city.*If a murderer leaves the sanctuary city* and its techum and is discovered by the goeil hadam: *Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* The goeil hadam *has a mitzvah to kill him. Anyone may kill the murderer* (and will not be liable for murder).*Rabbi Akiva:* The goeil hadam *may kill the murderer* (and will not be liable for murder). *Anyone else is liable for murder* for killing him.*Gemara: What’s the reason* that if the kohen gadol died before he went into exile (the first case in the mishna (17.3) “he need not go into exile at all”?*Abayye:* If the kohen gadol’s death is *potent enough to return him to his home after he already went* into exile; certainly it’s potent enough to preclude him from going.*Challenge:* Perhaps exile provides kapparah, but in our case there was no kapparah. *Response: The death of the kohen gadol is what effects a kapparah. * 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

303

*17.5 Makkos Daf 11 B (13 lines Up)*

Apr 2, 2020

14:15:42

*17.5 Makkos Daf 11 B (13 lines Up)**Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored:*לזכות החלמה מהירה בבריאות גוף ונשמה לראובן בן יעל יונינה, יעקב ראובן בן חייקה, שמחה חנה בת שפרה, סאמארה אבובה בת שפרה, אהובה חיה בת סאמארה אבובה, שפרה בת ציביהSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary*We learned in the mishna (17.3) that if a kohen gadol was appointed before the murderer’s sentencing, the new appointee’s passing is what sets him free [even though he was not kohen gadol at the time of the murder]*Question: What is the source?**Answer:* The wording of the possuk seems to indicate that *the murderer is the one who anoints the kohen gadol; * this teaches that the one who was anointed *in his time* [the meaning of this is not clear] is the one whose death sets him free.*Question:* Why is he held responsible if he became kohen gadol *after the murder took place?**Answer: He should have prayed* for the sentencing to be favorable.*Abayye:* If a murderer died before he could go to exile, *his remains are taken to the sanctuary city* as hinted by the possuk “in the land”, this refers to burial.*Beraisa:* If he died before the kohen gadol, *his remains may be transferred* out of the sanctuary city once the kohen gadol dies. As the possuk states “He returns to his ancestral lands”, this refers to *his ancestors' burial plots.* 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

304

*17.6 Makkos Daf 11 B (6 lines Up)*

Apr 3, 2020

16:00:50

*17.6 Makkos Daf 11 B (6 lines Up)*Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by *Michael Grossman**May Today’s Torah Learning be a zechus to end the pandemic and may all the sick have a refua shleima!*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary**If the kohen gadol is disqualified from kehunah * [he was found to be a challal. If he was found to be a Yisroel there is no question that it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all]: It is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Yitzchok Nafcha.* According to one; it’s like *the kehuna died* and the murderers go free. According to the other, *the kehuna is cancelled* and it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all.*Question: Is this dispute the same* as that of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?*Mishna:* If a kohen gadol was bringing korbanos and *he was discovered to be a challal: Rabbi Eliezer: All his previous korbanos are disqualified. Rabbi Yehoshua: They’re kosher.*It seems that the amora who posits that *the kehuna died is following Rabbi Yehoshua* and the amora who posits that *the kehuna is cancelled is following Rabbi Eliezer.* 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

305

*18.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (Top line)*

Apr 19, 2020

22:35:30

*18.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (Top line)**Summary* We have reproduced the last summary in full since today’s learning is a direct follow up *If the kohen gadol is disqualified from kehunah * [he was found to be a challal. If he was found to be a Yisroel there is no question that it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all]: It is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Yitzchok Nafcha.* According to one; it’s like *the kehuna died* and the murderers go free. According to the other, *the kehuna is cancelled* and it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all.*Question: Is this dispute the same* as that of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?*Mishna:* If a kohen gadol was bringing korbanos and *he was discovered to be a challal: Rabbi Eliezer: All his previous korbanos are disqualified. Rabbi Yehoshua: They’re kosher.*It seems that the amora who posits that *the kehuna died is following Rabbi Yehoshua* and the amora who posits that *the kehuna is cancelled is following Rabbi Eliezer.**Answer: The disputes are not necessarily correlated.* While Rabbi Eliezer certainly is of the opinion that the kehuna is cancelled, *both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzchok Nafcha can explain Rabbi Yehoshua’s position* in a way that matches up with their own.*Rabbi Yehoshua agrees* even with the position that ‘the kehuna is cancelled’. He only says that * korbanos brought by a challal will not be disqualified* because of the possuk regarding poeil yadav [the korbanos he brings] in which he *darshens* *the word cheilo to include challalim. * The Torah states that a murderer must be taken to be executed from near the mizbeach (from doing the avodah). However the gemara in Yuma teaches that while a kohen is actually on the mizbeach, he is not taken to be killed. Before his death, Dovid Hamelech commanded Shlomo to execute Yoav ben Tzeruya. Yoav fled into the ‘tent of Hashem’ and grabbed onto the corners of the mizbeach. But Shlomo had him executed anyway. *Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* Yoav made *two errors* at that time.*1.Only standing on the mizbeach* is protection against being executed, not holding its corners.*2.The mizbeach protects only when it is in its proper place,* but this tent of Hashem in Yerushalayim (Rashi emends the text of the gemara so it doesn’t read Shiloh) had the status of a bamah. *Abayye:* He made an *additional error.**The mizbeach * protects only kohanim in the midst of avodah, but Yoav was not a kohen. 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

306

*18.2 Makkos Daf 12 A (13 lines Dn)*

Apr 20, 2020

8:32:43

*18.2 Makkos Daf 12 A (13 lines Dn)**Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by Moshe L.**May Today’s Torah Learning be L'zchus refuah shleima of all the cholim of, and affected by, Covid-19*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary**The following gemara contains hints to secrets of Torah. The gemara clothes them in an allegorical story.**Reish Lakish: The angel of Rome is destined to make three errors,* these are hinted at in the verse “Who is this One coming from Edom, with [blood] stained clothing, as one who has tread wine [batzrah]”. [This refers to Hashem returning from slaughtering the angel of Edom/Rome]. *1.*He will escape to Batzrah thinking that it will provide asylum for him, but *Betzer is a sanctuary city, not Batzrah.**2.*A sanctuary city provides asylum *only for those who killed b’shogeig, * yet Edom persecuted us b’meizid. *3.* A sanctuary city provides asylum *only for humans,* not angels.*Rabbi Avahu: An ir miklat is not a place for cemeteries* as it states: “For all their animals and livestock” - it was given *for live people,* not dead ones.*Challenge:* We learned (17.4) that *a murderer must be buried there?**Resolution: A murderer has a special exception from the Torah that he is buried there until the death of the kohen gadol* 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

307

*18.3 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines After spreads)*

Apr 21, 2020

18:32:02

*18.3 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines After spreads)**27 Nissan - Yahrtzeit of the Rov ztz”l*Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by *Eliyahu Levy**In memory of Rav Avigdor ben Yisroel Hakohen Miller zatzal*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary*We learned in the mishna (17.4) that the techum of an ir miklat provides asylum just like the city.*Challenge: Beraisa:*“The murderer must dwell in the city” This teaches that he must dwell within the city proper and *not in the techum. **Abayye: Our mishna discusses asylum.* Even the techum provides asylum. *The beraisa 0 discusses dwelling.* The murderer’s dwelling must be within the city proper.*Challenge:* Why is the law of the beraisa necessary? It is obvious that *the dwelling must be within the city proper.*The law is: fields cannot be changed to suburbs, nor can suburbs become a city or the city a suburb.[If one dwells in the techum of the city he is turning a suburb into a city!]*Rav Sheishes:* The beraisa can be referring to someone who wishes *to dwell in a cave.* [By living in a cave he is not changing the techum into a city].We learned in the mishna (17.4) that *If a murderer leaves the sanctuary city* and its techum and is discovered by the goeil hadam: *Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* The goeil hadam has a mitzvah to kill him. Anyone may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder).*Rabbi Akiva:* The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing him.*Beraisa:* “V’ratzach [can be translated ‘if he murdered’ or ‘he should murder’] goeil hadam” *Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* This teaches that the goeil hadam has an obligation to kill the murderer and anyone else is not guilty for killing him. *Rabbi Akiva:* The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing 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

308

*18.4 Makkos Daf 12 A (15 lines After spreads)*

Apr 22, 2020

15:10:34

*18.4 Makkos Daf 12 A (15 lines After spreads)*Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by *Mark Weinman**In honor of my birthday, as a zechut for Clal Israel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Beraisa: “V’ratzach [can be translated ‘if he murdered’ or ‘he should murder’] goeil hadam” Rabbi Yosi Hagelili: This teaches that the goeil hadam has an obligation to kill the murderer and anyone else is not guilty for killing him. Rabbi Akiva: The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing him.*Summary**Question: What are the rationales* of Rabbi Yosi Hagelili and Rabbi Akiva?*Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* If Rabbi Akiva is correct, the possuk should have said “ im ratzach ”.*Rabbi Akiva:* If RabbiYosi Hagelili is correct, the possuk should have said “ yirtzach ”.*Mar Zutra bar Tuvia* quoting *Rav:* If the goeil hadam encounters the murderer outside of the city limits and kills him, *he is charged with murder.**Question:* This in accordance with *neither Rabbi Yosi Hagelili nor Rabbi Akiva?**Answer:* It is in accordance with the following beraisa.*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “[The murderer shall not be killed] until he is judged by the Sanhedrin” this teaches that the goeil hadam cannot kill the murderer unless he is *pronounced guilty by the Sanhedrin.**Question:* What do Rabbi Yosi Hagelili and Rabbi Akiva *learn from this possuk ?**Answer:* It teaches the law of the following beraisa. *Beraisa: Rabbi Akiva:* A Sanhedrin that witnesses a murder may not execute *the murderer ‘until he is judged by a different Sanhedrin’.* [Since they saw too much, they may not recognize certain legal loopholes] 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

309

*18.5 Makkos Daf 12 A (19 lines Up)*

Apr 23, 2020

6:55:28

*18.5 Makkos Daf 12 A (19 lines Up)**Summary**Beraisa 1:* “If the murderer goes out and exits ( yatzo yeitzei ) his sanctuary city [he may be killed]”. The double wording yatzo yeitzei teaches that this law applies whether he left the city with intent or without.*Beraisa 2:* If the murderer exits his sanctuary city intentionally, he may be killed. However if he left in error, he may return safely.*Question:* How are these two beraisas resolved?*Answer: Beraisa 2 believes “The Torah speaks in the language of men”* not every turn of phrase has halachic ramifications, while Beraisa 1 believes “The Torah does not speak in the language of men” and every word must be analyzed.*Abayye:* Beraisa 2 is more logical because *leaving a city unintentionally cannot be worse than killing unintentionally.* If one who murdered unintentionally does not get killed, it cannot be that one who leaves a sanctuary city unintentionallydoes get killed.*Beraisa 1: A murderer’s son may take his father’s life* as the goeil hadam [if his father had killed his brother].*Beraisa 2:* A murderer’s son *may not act as the goeil hadam * against his father.*Suggestion:* Perhaps *Beraisa 1 is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosi Hagelili* (17.4, 18.4) [that the goeil hadam is obligated by the Torah to take the murderer’s life] and *Beraisa 2 follows Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.**Rebuttal:* Even according to Rabbi Yosi Hagelili *it wouldn’t be permissible for a son to take his father’s life,* as *Rabbah bar Rav Huna* said, and the same was taught in *Rabbi Yishmael’s Yeshiva: A son cannot be the shaliach beis din against his father* [even if the father is a murderer] except in the case of a meisis [one who persuades others to worship idols] as it states “Do not pity him or cover for him”.*Resolution* of the beraisas: “Son” in Beraisa 1 refers to a son. “Son” in Beraisa 2 *refers to a grandson.* If his grandfather killed his father, then he can be a goeil hadam against 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

310

*18.6 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines Up)*

Apr 24, 2020

21:13:21

*18.6 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines Up)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Today’s learning sponsored by P.W. in honor of Sruly and Hindy Knopfler**Summary**Mishna:* If a tree stands inside the city limits [the trunk] and its foliage [the whole body of the tree] extends outside, or vice versa, and the murderer is under *the foliage; the entire tree’s location is determined by its foliage.* [Thus if one is sitting on the trunk, within the city limits, he can be put to death, because the foliage extends outside of the city limits.] *Gemara:* Maaser Sheini must be eaten inside the walls of Yerushalayim. As long as one has not yet entered the city, the maaser sheini can be redeemed for money. *Challenge:**Mishna:* If a tree stands inside the city walls and its foliage extends outside, or vice versa, the wall is the boundary and we do not consider the trunk or the foliage. 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

311

*19.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (4 lines Up)*

Apr 26, 2020

13:21

*19.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (4 lines Up)*We learned in the mishna that if someone stands under a tree which extends outside of the ir miklat’s city limits, he may be considered as if he is standing outside, although in reality he is within the limits. However regarding maaser sheini we learn that it all depends on the walls of Jerusalem.*Summary**Resolution: The laws of maaser sheini cannot be compared to arei miklat. * With regard to maaser we’re concerned only with the ‘boundary’. Whereas with regard to arei miklat *we’re concerned with ‘sheltering’* the murderer.He can find shelter in the tree’s foliage but not on its trunk.*Challenge: We can find a challenge from maaser sheini! **Mishna:* The boundary of Yerushalayim depends on *the tree’s foliage,* just like the arei miklat. *Rav Kahana: it is a dispute among tannaim; * Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim.*Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda:* A cave’s location (with regard to maaser sheini ) is decided by *its entrance.* A tree’s location is decided by *its foliage.* [Although the mishna in maaser sheini (18.6) said: “we do not consider the trunk or the foliage”, that is the opinion of the Chachamim, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees]. 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

312

*19.2 Makkos Daf 12 B (2 lines Dn)*

Apr 27, 2020

1:38:27

*19.2 Makkos Daf 12 B (2 lines Dn)**Today’s learning dedicated in honor of my dear wife Tziporah whose dedication enables my learning - Y.Z.*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50 Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. Rav Kahana explains that the second mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda of the beraisa while the first is the opinion of the chachomim. *Summary**Challenge: It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda* only takes the location of the foliage into consideration, but *does not consider it to be the single decisive factor.**With regard to maaser there are two ways of being stringent* (18.6) 1. Outside the city it cannot be consumed. 2. Inside the city it cannot be redeemed.It is possible that in a case where the foliage is outside the city, Rabbi Yehuda holds that maaser cannot be consumed on the trunk which is inside the city. And in a case where the foliage is inside the city, Rabbi Yehuda holds that maaser cannot be redeemed on the trunk which is outside the city.*However, with regard to Ir Miklat, * 1. Outside the city he may be killed. 2. Inside the city it is an act of murder to kill him. *Can we say that* if the foliage is outside the city and he is inside, *he may be killed and it is not considered an act of murder?!* He is inside the ir miklat ! [This question was not asked on our mishna, because our mishna records an accepted halacha. But since there is a dissenting view in maaser sheini, it is difficult to believe that the viewpoints of Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim would differ so vastly] 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

313

*19.3 Makkos Daf 12 B (12 lines Dn)*

Apr 28, 2020

23:32:27

*19.3 Makkos Daf 12 B (12 lines Dn)* Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. Rav Kahana explains that the second mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda of the beraisa while the first is the opinion of the chachomim. The gemara found it difficult to accept that Rabbi Yehuda differs so vastly with the Chachamim, and that he will hold that someone who is technically inside the sanctuary city may be killed just because the foliage of the tree where he is standing extends outside of the city limits. *Summary**Rabbah: Our mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda. However, the location of the foliage is not the single deciding factor* [as it may seem from a simple reading of the mishna]. Rather:▪A. If the foliage is within the city limits and the murderer is on the trunk outside the city, he may not be killed.▪B. If the foliage is outside the city limits and the murderer is on the trunk inside the city, he cannot be killed.▪C. If the foliage is outside the city limits and the murderer is on the foliage, he may be killed. *However the goeil hadam is not permitted to enter the city and ‘use the trunk as a ladder’ in order to kill 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

314

*19.4 Makkos Daf 12 B (14 lines Up)*

Apr 29, 2020

22:41:30

*19.4 Makkos Daf 12 B (14 lines Up)* Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. *Summary**Rav Ashi:* Generally speaking a tree’s location is decided only by its trunk, however, in the case of ir miklat *the foliage is also taken into account,* and as long as any part of the tree extends into the city limits, he cannot be killed in the other part of the tree.*Mishna:*A murderer who *killed while in the ir miklat is exiled to another area* within the city, and must remain within that limited area [up until now he could roam freely in the entire city and its techum, and now he is limited to a small section]. *A Levi who killed* [while he was living in a sanctuary city, since the cities of the levi’im (see 14.5) also provided asylum to murderers] *is exiled to a different 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

315

*19.5 Makkos Daf 12 B (11 lines Up)*

Apr 30, 2020

2:34:25

*19.5 Makkos Daf 12 B (11 lines Up)**Summary**Gemara:**Beraisa:* [The following possuk was said at the beginning of the 40 year sojourn in the desert] “I will make a place for you [Moshe] where the murderer may find asylum” This teaches that *the cities were allocated while Moshe was yet alive* (14.2, 15.3).“A place” this teaches ‘like your place’ where Moshe resided *in the section of Levi.*“Where the murderer may find asylum” this teaches that if a murder would have happened *in the wilderness* they would have been able to find asylum in the section of Levi.*A levi * who murdered may find asylum *in a different city, or in his city* [in a different section, and he must be confined to that section. Tosafos ].*Rav Acha bar Ika:* We learn this from the possuk “He must dwell within his city of asylum”, sometimes he can find asylum *within the city where he previously found asylum.* 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

316

*19.6 Makkos Daf 12 B (4 lines Up)*

May 1, 2020

2:36:10

*19.6 Makkos Daf 12 B (4 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:**{Similarly,} a murderer should not accept honor* from the people of the ir miklat , *he must declare “I am a murderer”. If they persist he may accept the honor.* As it states “This is the word of the murderer”. (The mishna begins with the word “similarly” because our mishna is similar to the mishna in 14.2 which also learns a din from the same possuk. However some omit this word.) *Rabbi Yehuda: The murderers would pay rent* to the levi’im (who resided in these cities).*Rabbi Meir: They would not pay rent.**Rabbi Meir: The murderer would be reinstated to his position* (if he was a dayan or he held some other office) after being released from the ir miklat. *Rabbi Yehuda: He is not reinstated.**Gemara:**Rav Kahana:* Only with regard to the six primary sanctuary cities regarding which the Torah states lachem , Rabbi Meir holds that lachem means it has to be provided rent free.However in the forty two cities of the levi'im (which also provided asylum) Rabbi Meir agrees that rent had to be paid.*Rava* to Rav Kahana: Lachem certainly entitles the murderer to live rent free. So *regarding the six primary cities, Rabbi Yehuda agrees* that rent need not be paid.They only debate whether *the additional forty two* were added on to include all the benefits of the six cities. *Rabbi Yehuda holds* that while the six are primarily for sanctuary, *the forty two are primarily for levi’im and rent must be paid to them.* 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

317

*20.1 Makkos Daf 13 A (14 lines Dn)*

May 3, 2020

20:17:14

*20.1 Makkos Daf 13 A (14 lines Dn)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Rabbi Meir: The murderer would be reinstated to his position (if he was a dayan or he held some other office) after being released from the ir miklat. Rabbi Yehuda: He is not reinstated.*Summary**Beraisa:*“He [the Hebrew slave at yovel ] shall return to his family, and to the possession of his fathers he shall return”.*Rabbi Yehuda: He returns only to his family but not to a position* which he inherited from his father [authority positions are generally inheritances, if the son is worthy he takes his father’s place. If the position is not inherited, he is certainly not reinstated]. *Rabbi Meir: His former position is reinstated* as it states “and to the possession of his fathers he shall return”, *this includes positions of authority.*The possuk repeats *“he shall return”,* to teach that *the same applies to galus * of a murderer. As in the *Beraisa:*“The murderer *shall return* to the land of his inheritance”.*Rabbi Yehuda:* He returns *only to inherited land,* but not to any positions he held before galus. *Rabbi Meir: He returns to his inheritance as well, since the possuk uses the words “shall return”* as in the case of the Hebrew slave. 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

318

*20.2 Makkos Daf 13 A (15 lines Up)*

May 4, 2020

8:44:10

*20.2 Makkos Daf 13 A (15 lines Up)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary**Mishna:*These are liable for malkos: One who has relations with his sister - his father’s sister - his mother’s sister - his brother’s wife - his father’s brother’s wife - or a niddah. [These are all punishable by kareis; the mishna is teaching that they receive malkos as well]. A kohen gadol who marries a widow - any kohen who marries a divorcee or one who had chalitza. [These are enumerated since they are not considered sins for all Jews, still they are punishable. (A kohen who marries a chalutza is actually only punishable by malkos d’rabbanan)]. A marriage between a mamzer or a nasin and a Yisroel [It is not clear why this sin was singled out for mention in the mishna]. If a kohen gadol marries a woman who was both, widowed and divorced - he is liable for malkos twice. If any kohen marries a woman who was divorced and had chalitza, he is only liable once [because a chalutza is only a rabbinic prohibition]. 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

319

*20.3 Makkos Daf 13 A (5 lines Up)*

May 5, 2020

19:15:06

*20.3 Makkos Daf 13 A (5 lines Up)*As we begin a new perek, we wish to remind our subscribers that several talmidim of the Rov zatzal have made themselves available to answer questions. If you have any difficulty please don’t hesitate to contact us by whatsapp or email.*Summary**Mishna* continued:How much tevel grain must one eat in order to be liable?*Rabbi Shimon: Any amount.**Chachomim: A kezayis. **Rabbi Shimon to the Chachomim:* “Wouldn’t you agree that *one is liable for eating an ant, even though it’s very small?”**Chachomim: One ant is a biryah * [a complete creation].*Rabbi Shimon: Even one kernel is a biryah* [if you put it into the ground you can reap a full harvest from that one kernel of grain - it is a complete creation]. *Gemara:**This mishna mentions that kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. * However misah -level prohibitions are not mentioned as being liable. *This is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.**Beraisa:**Rabbi Yishmael: Both* kerisus -level prohibitions and misah -level prohibitions*are liable for malkos. * [The current understanding of this opinion is that before one is put to death by Beis Din, he receives malkos, however see 21.1]. *Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. * Since kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva, there is a possibility that the crime won’t be punished at all, so we give malkos . However in a regular misah case, *since teshuva will not help in an earthly court of law, one punishment, misah, is enough.* [Even if he ran away and became an old Rosh Yeshiva, his sin is not pardoned and he must be put to death when discovered]. *Rabbi Yitzchok: Even kerisus -level prohibitions are not liable for malkos. * [One of the principles of determining Torah Law is דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד, לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא “Anything that was included in a general rule, but was specified by the Torah, teaches something specific across the entire rule”] Forbidden relations with *a sister was part of the general rule* of all the close relatives with whom intimate relations are punishable by kerisus. *And yet the Torah specifies* that forbidden relations with a sister is a kerisus liability; this teaches that it [and all others in the rule] is punishable *only by kareis and not malkos. * 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

320

*20.5 Makkos Daf 13 B (21 lines Dn)*

May 7, 2020

1:09:32

*20.5 Makkos Daf 13 B (21 lines Dn)*Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Since kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva, there is a possibility that the crime won’t be punished at all, so we give malkos . However in a regular misah case, since teshuva will not help in an earthly court of law, one punishment, misah, is enough.*Summary**Question:* What is *Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning?**Answer:* The possuk states “He is penalized according to his act of wickedness”. There is only *one penalty for each act of wickedness.**Question: What about Rabbi Yishmael?* (20.3: Even one who is executed is liable for malkos ) Doesn’t he agree that a single act can only incur one penalty?*Answer: Misah and malkos are not two penalties,* they are both forms of corporal punishment and the malkos is viewed as the first step in the process of executing the criminal.*Challenge: How can Rabbi Akiva give malkos for a chayav kareis ? Perhaps he will not do teshuva * and will end up receiving two punishments for one act?*Rabbi Abahu: The Torah specifically indicates that chayvei krisus receive malkos. *Regarding kerisus we find the word *“l’einei”* and regarding malkos we find the word *“l’einecha”.* [Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning of teshuva is merely a taama dikra, Rabbi Abahu provides the legal underpinnings]. 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

321

*20.6 Makkos Daf 13 B (9 lines before spreads)*

May 8, 2020

16:56:28

*20.6 Makkos Daf 13 B (9 lines before spreads)**Today’s Learning sponsored by Chaim Markowitz in honor of RSG and our siyum Masechta Bechoros, may we finish many masechtos together!*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Rabbi Abahu: The Torah specifically indicates that chayvei krisus receive malkos. Regarding kerisus we find the word “l’einei” and regarding malkos we find the word “l’einecha”. *Summary**Rabbi Abba bar Mammal: Regarding chayvei misah we also find a similar word, “mei’eini”? **Response:* “l’einei” only differs from “l’einecha” in its ending, but *“ mei’eini ” differs* both in the beginning and the end, and cannot be compared.*Challenge: Why should it matter?**Tanna D’bei Rabbi Yishmael:* “The kohen shall return” and “The kohen shall come” *refer to the same kohen, even though completely different words are used.* (Words do not need to be precisely the same for them to be compared as long as they convey the same idea).*Additional Challenge:* “Mei’eini” only differs from “l’einei” in its beginning, so * misah can be compared to kerisus which is compared to malkos? *The challenge was accepted by *Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchok* and he answered: The teaching that “There is *only one penalty* for each act of wickedness” is speaking of *penalties administered by Beis Din.* Since kerisus is not administered by Beis Din, they may give malkos. 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

322

*21.1 Makkos Daf 13 B (10 lines Up)*

May 10, 2020

23:44:59

*21.1 Makkos Daf 13 B (10 lines Up)*Rabbi Yishmael: There is malkos even for chayvei misah. Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Rabbi Yishmael holds that every lav is punishable by malkos and although there is only one penalty for each act of wickedness, malkos and misah are considered one punishment.According to Rabbi Akiva malkos and misah or kareis are considered two penalties, yet there are pesukim that teach that there is malkos in addition to kareis. *Summary**Rava:* No one holds that malkos is given in addition to misah. The debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is only in a case where misah cannot be administered because there was no hasra’ah for capital punishment.The witnesses *only warned the criminal that his crime is punishable by malkos. * According to *Rabbi Yishmael,* when the Torah warns about misah, * malkos is included. Rabbi Akiva* holds that if the Torah warns about misah, * malkos is not applicable.**Challenge:* According to Rabbi Akiva, *why is malkos applicable* where the Torah warns about * kareis? **Rav Mordechai to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronia* explained it thus in the name of *Rava:* In order to give kareis, a lav is not necessary, as in the case of *Pesach and Milah,* so the presence of a lav *indicates a liability of malkos .* 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

323

*21.2 Makkos Daf 13 B (4 lines Up)*

May 11, 2020

7:11:25

*21.2 Makkos Daf 13 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s Learning sponsored**לע”נ אמי מורתי רבקה חיה בת ר’ צבי יעקב ע”ה*יה”ר שלימוד התורה דרבים ביום השלשים יהא לזכות לנשמתהSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=According to Rabbi Akiva malkos is applicable where the Torah warns about kareis, because the presence of a lav indicates a liability of malkos. The lav is not necessary for kareis since Pesach and Milah are punishable by kareis without a lav. *Summary**Challenge:* Perhaps the lav causes a korban liability (in the event of a shogeig transgression of kerisus )? Indeed, there is no korban for missing Pesach or Milah!*Resolution:* All kerisus bear korban liability, because they are *modeled after the lav of Avodah Zarah,* the prototype of capital transgressions.*Pesach and Milah* are different from Avodah Zarah since Avodah Zarah is shev v’al taaseh (a prohibition) while they are * kum v’asei * (commandments).Since the lav is not necessary for korban, it brings a liability of malkos. 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

324

*21.3 Makkos Daf 13 B (Bottom line)*

May 12, 2020

2:21:50

*21.3 Makkos Daf 13 B (Bottom line)*According to Rabbi Akiva malkos is applicable where the Torah warns about kareis , because kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva (20.3). Subsequently there was a long discussion about Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning.*Summary**Ravina:* The reason Rabbi Akiva administers malkos where there is kerisus is *indeed because kerisus is administered by the heavenly court* who can be appeased by teshuva. The argument against this (20.5) was that perhaps he will not do teshuva, still, *since we’re not certain* that he will receive additional punishment, we may administer malkos. *[20.3] Rabbi Yitzchok:* No capital crimes are liable for malkos. *Even kerisus -level prohibitions are not liable for malkos. *Forbidden relations with *a sister was part of the general rule* of all the close relatives with whom intimate relations are punishable by kerisus. *And yet the Torah specifies* that forbidden relations with a sister is a kerisus liability; this teaches that it [and all others in the rule] is punishable *only by kareis and not malkos. **Question:* How do *the Chachamim* (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain the Torah’s specifying kareis regarding a sister?*Answer:* The specification emphasizes that *all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment* [if one person had relations b’shogeig with three different arayos, he must bring three korbanos].*Rabbi Yochanan:* If he transgressed all the arayos without knowing that it’s problematic [he was a liberal, and then he became a baal teshuva], *he must bring a korban for each transgression.* 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

325

The Rich Lady from Pressburg

May 12, 2020

5:06:14

We hope you are enjoying and gaining from this holy podcast! Please sponsor a podcast in honor of a loved one or be a monthly supporter. Just click: www.DailyHolyStory.com 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

326

*21.4 Makkos Daf 14 A (9 lines Dn)*

May 13, 2020

18:58:33

*21.4 Makkos Daf 14 A (9 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yitzchok: The Torah specifies kareis regarding a sister to teach that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos.The Chachamim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister emphasizes that all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment*Summary**Question:* What is Rabbi Yitzchok's source for the law that each lav of krisus bears a unique liability?*Answer:* From the verse “Don’t get intimate with ‘a woman’ who is a niddah”. This teaches that *each woman* is another liability (the possuk could have left out the words a woman, it is obvious that we’re talking about a woman).*Question: Do the Chachomim object* to this source?*Answer: They actually agree.**Question:* So, *how do the Chachomim explain* the Torah’s specifying kareis regarding a sister?*Answer:* The specification emphasizes that all types of sisters *(a sister, a father’s sister, and a mother’s sister)* bear their own punishment.*Challenge: That’s obvious!* They’re different people, and the Torah specifies all of them!*Resolution:* The specification teaches that if *all three happen to be one person,* he must bring three korbanos. This is possible in *the case of a wicked man, son of a wicked man* [A begat two daughters (C&D) from his mother, then he begat a son (B) from one of his daughters/sisters (C). When B has relations with D he is having relations with his sister (father’s daughter) who is his father’s sister (from the same mother) and his mother’s sister (from the same father)]. 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

327

*21.5 Makkos Daf 14 A (19 lines Up)*

May 14, 2020

59:26

*21.5 Makkos Daf 14 A (19 lines Up)*Rabbi Yitzchok: The Torah specifies kareis regarding a sister to teach that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos.The Chachamim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister emphasizes that all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment.However they agree with Rabbi Yitzchok that actually, this is taught by the verse “a woman who is a niddah”. They explain the previous specification as discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.*Summary**Question: What is Rabbi Yitzchok's source* for the law of *a wicked man, son of a wicked man?**Answer:* From derivative logic (kal vachomer). *Beraisa:**Rabbi Akiva: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua* [when they went to the meat market of Iamum, to buy meat for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son (Rabban Gamliel was the nasi and could certainly have sent his servants, but he wished to fulfill the mitzvah himself)], if one has intimate relations with *his sister who is also his father’s sister and his mother’s sister* - Do we say that since it’s only one woman, he brings only one korban, or *is he guilty on three counts?**They replied:* We never heard of something like this, but we heard something similar. “If one is with *five niddos* [they were all his wives] without discovering that he did an aveirah, he is *liable on five counts.* [If one ate cheilev five times without discovering his aveirah, he is only liable for one chatas, but here, because it is five different persons, he is liable five times].” *We can now infer the answer* to your question. If for niddah , which is only one sin, one can be found guilty five times, *surely one can be guilty three times* in our case, where it is actually *three sins specified by the Torah.**The others* (Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva): *The logic is refuted.*The case of niddah deals with *five persons, while our case deals with only one.* 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

328

*21.6 Makkos Daf 14 A (6 lines Up)*

May 15, 2020

8:15:05

*21.6 Makkos Daf 14 A (6 lines Up)*The Chachomim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.Rabbi Yitzchok maintained that the verse is not necessary for that (it teaches that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos ) since it can be inferred from the case of five niddos. The Chachomim argued that the cases cannot be compared.*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok's defend his argument?**Answer:* He does not. Instead he learns it from the second time the verse mentions *“his sister”* [unnecessarily].*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from “his sister”?**Answer:* The Torah discusses only a half-sister [from either the father or mother], this repetition teaches that even a full sister is punishable. Although we would know this by logic, *We do not punish based on logic,* rather we need the passuk to state it explicitly (7.3).*Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that a full sister is punished?*Answer:* From the extra lav written about a sister. 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

329

*22.1 Makkos Daf 14 A (2 lines Up)*

May 17, 2020

14:32:13

*22.1 Makkos Daf 14 A (2 lines Up)*The Chachomim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.Rabbi Yitzchok maintained that the verse teaches that where there is kareis , there is only kareis and no malkos . He learns the above law about sister-prohibitions from the extra words “his sister”The Chachomim learn from here that relations with a full sister is a punishable crime [and the necessity of this verse teaches that we do not punish based on logic].*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that a full sister is punished?*Answer 1: From the lav * written about “a sister”, this must include a full sister.*Answer 2: The word “his sister”* is repeated “His sister, daughter of his father, or his sister, daughter of her mother”, this word is superfluous, because a daughter of a parent is obviously his sister; it thus teaches that the law applies to a full sister as well.*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from “his sister”?**Answer:* They apply this possuk to *the laws of mefatem and sach, * [to give each lav the penalty of kareis ]. Since there is a superfluous word here regarding kareis, we apply it to another kareis law using the principle of im ein inyan. [Here we have many lavin and only one kareis , yet here we are taught (21.4) that each bears its own penalty. The extra words here teach that this principle should be extended to other similar cases where there are several lavin and one punishment]. 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

330

*22.2 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Dn)*

May 18, 2020

17:53:43

*22.2 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Dn)**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=The Chachomim learn from the words “his sister” that relations with a full sister is a punishable crime.Rabbi Yitzchok learns this from the first time the words “his sister” are mentioned.The Chachomim apply this possuk to the laws of mefatem and sach, [to give each lav the penalty of kareis ].*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that although only one kareis is mentioned for both mefatem and sach, each one is punishable in its own right?*Answer 1:* From the principle taught by Rabbi Elazar amar Rabbi Hoshaya.*Rabbi Elazar amar Rabbi Hoshaya:* Wherever you encounter *multiple lavin and only one kareis, they are each liable for a korban. **Answer 2:* He disagrees with Rabbi Elazar. He learns it from the possuk “V’ish asher yishkav es isha davah” (The issur of niddah. This verse is superfluous, see 21.4, thus it can be applied using the principle of im ein inyan [22.1].)*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from this verse?**Answer:* They derive the law of Rabbi Yochanan from here.*Rabbi Yochanan* in the name of *Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai:* A woman is only tamei if her issue (davah) comes through the ervah [if it came out through a caesarean cut, she would not be tamei], as the possuk states “V’ish asher yishkav es isha davah … ervasah”. (20.2) *1. An individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah. 2. One who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah.**Question:* For 1, we have an onesh [Es mishkan Hashem timei v’nichresa] and an azhara (5.6) [V’lo yitamu es machaneihem]. For 2 we have an onesh [V’hanefesh asher tochal basar mizevach hashlamim asher laHashem v’tumaso alav, v’nichresa], but *where is the azhara? * [At this point the Rov learned a Rashi, See separate audio to listen to the Shiur with Rashi] 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

331

*22.3 Makkos Daf 14 B (1 line before spreads)*

May 19, 2020

19:04:59

*22.3 Makkos Daf 14 B (1 line before spreads)*Where is the azhara for An individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah ?*Summary**Reish Lakish:* From the possuk “She [a woman who is tamei because of childbirth] *must not touch kodesh”.**Rabbi Yochanan: From the Beraisa taught by Bardela.**Bardela:* Regarding one who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah, there’s an onesh and an azhara (22.2). So we learn it by a * gezeirah shaveh .**Question:* Reish Lakish doesn’t give Rabbi Yochanan’s answer because *he never learned that gezeirah shaveh * [a gezeirah shaveh must be learned by tradition]. *Why doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan answer like Reish Lakish?**Answer:* “Kodesh” in that possuk *refers to terumah. **Question:* How does Reish Lakish *learn that law?**Answer:* From the possuk “A tamei from the seed of Aharon should not touch kodesh”. *Since the possuk specifies Aharon’s seed, we understand that it refers to terumah. **Question: Why doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan answer like Reish Lakish?**Answer:* One possuk *prohibits touching terumah * and one possuk prohibits *eating *terumah.** 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

332

*22.4 Makkos Daf 14 B (16 lines Up)*

May 20, 2020

5:14:35

*22.4 Makkos Daf 14 B (16 lines Up)*Today's learning sponsored by *Moshe Horowitz* In honor of *the hardworking author of the summaries*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=According to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.Rabbi Yochanan argued; “Kodesh” in that possuk refers to terumah. *Summary**Challenge:* Does Reish Lakish derive the lav prohibiting eating kodesh from the possuk “She must not touch kodesh ”? Doesn’t he learn the lav prohibiting a tamei from *touching kodesh * from here?*We Learned: If a tamei touched kodesh **Reish Lakish:* He is liable for * malkos. **Rabbi Yochanan:* There is *no malkos * penalty.*Reish Lakish:* He is liable for malkos, as the verse states; *“She must not touch kodesh”. **Rabbi Yochanan:* There is no malkos penalty; that possuk refers to terumah. *Resolution:* The wording of the verse *explicitly mentions touching,* so that is our azhara. However, *the possuk continues with the law prohibiting entry* to the mikdash which implies an act of kareis. Touching kodesh is not known to be an act of kareis, only eating kodesh, so *the hekesh teaches us the lav prohibiting eating kodesh. * 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

333

*22.5 Makkos Daf 14 B (11 lines Up)*

May 21, 2020

7:07:39

*22.5 Makkos Daf 14 B (11 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of Rochel bas ReizelSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUAccording to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.He also learns an azhara for a tamei who touches kodesh from the wording of the possuk. *Summary**Challenge:* Doesn’t Reish Lakish derive a different law from the possuk “She must not touch kodesh ”? Doesn’t he learn that a tamei is forbidden from *eating unprocessed kodesh * ( zrikah was not yet done) from here?*We Learned: If a tamei ate unprocessed kodesh: **Reish Lakish:* He is liable for malkos. *“She must not touch kodesh” * does not differentiate whether it was processed or not.*Rabbi Yochanan:* There is *no malkos * penalty. The lav against eating kodesh is derived from a gezeirah shaveh (22.3) from the word tumaso which is written in connection with kareis . Since kareis is only Resolution: The possuk says *“she must not touch ‘any (kol)’ kodesh ”.* The word any teaches that even unprocessed kodesh is forbidden. [At this point the Rov learned a Tosafos which discusses yesterday’s kevius, click here to listen to the Shiur with Tosafos] http://chilp.it/3299e31 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

334

*22.6 Makkos Daf 14 B (6 lines Up)*

May 22, 2020

5:46:03

*22.6 Makkos Daf 14 B (6 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of Rochel bas Reizel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUAccording to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.Rabbi Yochanan derived it from a gezeirah shaveh .*Summary*There is a Beraisa that *supports the opinion of Reish Lakish.**Beraisa:* “She must not touch any kodesh ”. *This is an azhara forbidding a tamei from eating kodesh .**Perhaps it prohibits touching?*The possuk says “She must not touch kodesh nor enter the mikdash”. *Entry to the mikdash is a capital crime.*Since touching kodesh is not known to be a capital crime, only eating kodesh, we understand that *the possuk refers to eating kodesh .* (22.4) [Some Torah prohibitions are categorized as a lav hanitak l’eseh; a lav that gets moved over, and becomes an eseh (5.3). For instance “do not leave over from kodesh meat”, “any meat that is left over should be burned”. By means of the added eseh, the Torah is telling us how to remedy transgression of the lav, and such a lav is not liable for malkos.] *Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar Rabbi Yochanan: An eseh that precedes the lav*¤, does not make it a lav hanitak l’eseh, and *carries a malkos penalty.*¤It is written earlier in the possuk. This follows the explanation of *Ritva* (23.1). For *Rashi’s explanation,* see separate audio. 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

335

*23.1 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Up)*

May 24, 2020

1:26:40

*23.1 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of *Rochel bas Reizel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*Summary* [Some Torah prohibitions are categorized as a lav hanitak l’eseh; a lav that gets moved over, and becomes an eseh (5.3). For instance “do not leave over from kodesh meat”, “any meat that is left over should be burned”. By means of the added eseh, the Torah is telling us how to remedy transgression of the lav, and such a lav is not liable for malkos.] *Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar Rabbi Yochanan: An eseh that precedes the lav * [There are two ways of understanding this. 1. It is written earlier in the possuk. 2. The eseh is doable before the lav was transgressed], does not make it a lav hanitak l’eseh, and it *carries a malkos penalty.*They said *to Rabbi Yochanan:* Did you say so? And *he denied it.* [Although those asking him may have heard it from his mouth, since he had fully retracted his opinion, he denied his first conclusion. This was to indicate that he retracted fully and believed his first opinion to have been a complete error]. *Rabbah: I swear he said so.* And it was founded on the words of the Mishna.*It is written:* “Temei’im are to be sent away from the camp” ( eseh ) “And they may not contaminate the camp [by entering in a state of tumah]” (lav). *We learned in the Mishna* (20.2) [among those who receive malkos ] “One who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah ”. Evidently, * malkos is applicable to a lav preceded by an eseh. * 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

336

*23.2 Makkos Daf 15 A (4 lines Dn)*

May 25, 2020

11:38:51

*23.2 Makkos Daf 15 A (4 lines Dn)**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=Rabbah bar bar Chanah quoted Rabbi Yochanan as enunciating a rule that a lav shekadmo eseh is not considered a lav hanitak l’eseh and carries a malkos penalty.Rabbi Yochanan retracted.Rabbah proved this law from our mishna.*Summary**Question: What caused Rabbi Yochanan to retract his opinion?**Answer:* It was contradicted by *the law of Oneis.* [The possuk states regarding an oneis “He must take her for his wife” (eseh) “He can never divorce her” (lav)] *Beraisa:* If an oneis was married and divorced. *If he can remarry her, he must* do so. If he’s a kohen and cannot remarry her, he receives malkos. Why does her husband not receive malkos [in most cases]? While it seems to be a lav hanitak l’eseh it is in fact a lav shekadmo eseh .We see from here that *a lav shekadmo eseh is just like any other lav hanitak l’eseh. **Ulla:* The eseh here is superfluous because *it can be learned from motzi shem ra. * Since the sin of oneis is more grievous than that of motzi shem ra , we understand that the eseh surely applies.Thus we use the principle of * im ein inyan to move the eseh after the lav * and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. 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

337

23.3 Makkos Daf 15 A (15 lines Dn)

May 26, 2020

23:21:04

23.3 Makkos Daf 15 A (15 lines Dn)Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUIf an oneis was married and divorced he can remarry her, and will not receive malkos. We see from here that a lav shekadmo eseh is just like any other lav hanitak l’eseh and is pattur from malkos. Ulla: The eseh here is superfluous because it can be learned from motzi shem ra. Since the sin of oneis is more grievous than that of motzi shem ra, we understand that the eseh surely applies.Thus we use the principle of im ein inyan to move the eseh after the lav and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. *Summary**Challenge:* While the sin of oneis may be more grievous, * motzi shem ra is treated more severely* by the Torah; offenders are penalized with both malkos and monetary fines.*Alternate Explanation: The eseh of motzi shem ra is superfluous* because it can be learned from * oneis. *Since motzi shem ra is treated by the Torah more severely than oneis, we understand that the eseh written regarding oneis surely applies.We then use the principle of * im ein inyan * to move the eseh to motzi shem ra. Since it is not necessary there, *we apply the principle again to move the eseh after the lav * and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. 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

338

*23.4 Makkos Daf 15 A (9 lines before spreads)

May 27, 2020

10:02:19

*23.4 Makkos Daf 15 A (9 lines before spreads) 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

339

*23.5 Makkos Daf 15 A (5 lines Up) & 23.6*

May 28, 2020

22:11:54

*23.5 Makkos Daf 15 A (5 lines Up) & 23.6*Today’s learning sponsoredלזכות *פינחס יהודה בן חיה עלא,* שנזכה לקבל התורה ללמוד וללמד לשמור ולעשות ולקיים באהבהSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUWe learned (23.1) that there is malkos for transgressing a lav shekadmo eseh. *Summary**Rav Papa to Rava: But it is different from the lav of chasimah ?!* [Malkos is administered only for something similar to chasimah (see 20.4)]. *Rava: Why would an extra eseh change the nature of the lav ?**Rav Papa: Would you argue the same for lav hanitak l’eseh ? (20.4)**Rava:* When the eseh is written after the lav, *its purpose is to mitigate the lav. * But a lav shekadmo eseh is a more severe lav and shouldn’t be absolved of punishment. 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

340

*24.1 Makkos Daf 15 B (3 lines Dn)*

May 31, 2020

4:40:46

*24.1 Makkos Daf 15 B (3 lines Dn)**Summary**A learner* in the presence *of Rabbi Yochanan:* In the case of a lav hanitak l’eseh, if he fulfilled the eseh as soon as he was warned by beis din *(kiymo)*, *he is absolved* from malkos. If however he ruined the opportunity to do the eseh *(bitlo)*, *he receives malkos. **Rabbi Yochanan: What are you saying?* (He saw that he was mixing together two extremes).*Learn: “Bitlo * receives malkos, * lo bitlo * is absolved from malkos.” *Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Kiymo, * if he fulfilled the eseh as soon as he was warned by beis din, he is absolved from malkos. However in a case of * lo kiymo, * he would receive malkos. *Question:* What is this argument based on?*Answer:* It depends on the question of hasra’as safek [a doubtful hasra’ah, that is when the eidim giving the hasra’ah cannot know whether a transgression will indeed take place]. *Rabbi Yochanan: It is considered a valid hasra’ah.* [One can therefore be warned upon transgressing the lav and receive malkos a long time later upon ruining the opportunity to do the eseh]. *Reish Lakish: It is not a valid hasra’ah.* [One can receive malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh because the malkos is not dependent on the eseh*]. * Listen to the recording with Tosfos for more clarity on this point. 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

341

*24.2 Makkos Daf 15 B (4 lines Up)*

Jun 1, 2020

9:27:26

*24.2 Makkos Daf 15 B (4 lines Up)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah. Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. *Summary**They follow their opinions elsewhere.*If one swore he would eat a certain bread on a particular day and *the day passed and the bread remained uneaten; he is not punished* by malkos. *Rabbi Yochanan:* Because it’s a * lav sh’ein bo maaseh * (a transgression without an action).*Reish Lakish:* Because it’s a * hasra’as safek * (at the time of the hasra’ah the witnesses could not be sure he would indeed transgress).*Their debate is in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda:**Beraisa:**Rabbi Yehuda:* Nosar (leaving part of a korban uneaten) is not punishable by malkos *because it is a lav hanitak l’eseh .**Rabbi Yochanan:* If it wouldn’t be a lav hanitak l’eseh there would be malkos *even though the hasra’ah would be a hasra’as safek. **Reish Lakish:* If it wouldn’t be a lav hanitak l’eseh there would be malkos *even though it’s a lav sh’ein bo maaseh. * 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

342

*24.3 Makkos Daf 16 A (13 lines Dn)*

Jun 2, 2020

23:55:15

*24.3 Makkos Daf 16 A (13 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah. Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. Rabbi Yochanan: Malkos is not administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. Reish Lakish: Malkos is administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. They each claim a source for this opinion from the Beraisa in which Rabbi Yehuda teaches that Nosar is not punishable by malkos because it’s a lav hanitak l’eseh. It would however also be a hasra’as safek as well as a lav she’ein bo maaseh. *Summary**Challenge to Reish Lakish: Perhaps the beraisa proves that hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah? **Resolution:* There is a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda that proves it is not so:*If one hit or cursed both his possible fathers* (his mother remarried immediately after her divorce and the child may have been fathered by either on of the husbands), he is liable.*Rabbi Yehuda: He can only be punished if he hit or cursed them simultaneously* [otherwise it’s a hasra’as safek]. 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

343

*24.4 Makkos Daf 16 A (19 lines Dn)*

Jun 3, 2020

14:25:15

*24.4 Makkos Daf 16 A (19 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah .Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. Rabbi Yochanan: Malkos is not administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. Reish Lakish: Malkos is administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. They each claim a source for this opinion from the Beraisa in which Rabbi Yehuda teaches that Nosar is not punishable by malkos because it’s a lav hanitak l’eseh. It would however also be a hasra’as safek (support for Rabbi Yochanan) as well as a lav she’ein bo maaseh (support for ReishLakish).The support to Rabbi Yochanan is a challenge to Reish Lakish.Reish Lakish quotes a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda which proves that his opinion was: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. *Summary**Challenge to Rabbi Yochanan:* The support to Reish Lakish is a challenge to Rabbi Yochanan. [If there is indeed no malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh, why does the beraisa explain the lack of malkos because of lav hanitak l’eseh?] *Resolution:* There is a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda that proves it is so:Rav Idi bar Avin amar Rav Amram amar Rabbi Yitzchok amar Rabbi Yochanan:*Rabbi Yehuda from Rabbi Yosi Haglili: There is no malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh * with the exception of Nishba [a false oath (an oath which is false from the time it is taken, unlike the case in 24.2 where the oath was not fulfilled)], Meimar [exchanging a korban for a different animal], Mekallel Bashem [cursing with the name of Hashem]. *Difficulty: Rabbi Yehuda made contradictory statements.*[In 24.2 he said that Nosar, despite being a lav she’ein bo maaseh and a hasra’as safek, is not punishable by malkos solely because it is a lav hanitak l’eseh *( lav she’ein bo maaseh and hasra’as safek are both punishable by malkos ).* And yet, in 24.3 he said that * hasra’as safek would not cause a malkos * liability, and here in 24.4 he said that * lav she’ein bo maaseh would not cause a malkos * liability!]*Reish Lakish: Different tannaim * taught the beraisas quoted in 24.2 and 24.3, they disagree on what Rabbi Yehuda’s position was.*Rabbi Yochanan:* The beraisa brought here is quoting *Rabbi Yehuda’s teacher* . Rabbi Yehuda’s own position is recorded by the beraisa in 24.2. Also attached is daf טז to print. 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

344

*24.5 Makkos Daf 16 A (1 line before spreads)*

Jun 4, 2020

4:19:15

*24.5 Makkos Daf 16 A (1 line before spreads)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rabbi Eluzer Gips* and the *Birkas Avrohom Daf Yomi Shiur**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*Summary**Tnan Hasam* (a Mishna from a different masichta):*Rabbi Yehuda: Shiluach Hakan is not a lav hanitak l’eseh, * one who takes the mother bird is immediately punished with malkos. (We don’t follow this opinion). *Chachamim:* He is given the option of sending away the mother bird and not receiving malkos . It *is a lav hanitak l’eseh * and there is no malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh. *Rabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.* [Rabbi Yochanan holds “bitlo v’lo bitlo” (23.6): There is only malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh when one ruins any opportunity to do the eseh. This is possible in the case of Shiluach Hakan when he kills the mother bird, and in one more case]. 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

345

*24.6 Makkos Daf 16 A (3 line After spreads)*

Jun 5, 2020

21:59:15

*24.6 Makkos Daf 16 A (3 line After spreads)* 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

346

*25.1 Makkos Daf 16 A (10 lines Up)*

Jun 7, 2020

11:23:15

*25.1 Makkos Daf 16 A (10 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*לעילוי נשמת זקינתי האשה החשובה מרת יוטל בת ר' יוסף ע"ה, תנצב"הSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 click hereRabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: How can an oneis receive malkos if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo?! *Summary**Rav Shimi of Chozna’ah:* If the ex-husband *accepted kiddushin on her behalf,* he has ruined his opportunity to marry her.*Rava:* If she authorized him to accept the kiddushin, then *she is the one* who ruined his opportunity [and he does not receive malkos ]. If he wasn’t authorized, *his actions have no validity!**Rav Shimi of Neharda’a:* In a case where the husband makes *a public neder * not to benefit from her, he can no longer marry her and he has ruined his opportunity.*Challenge:* Whether *a public neder can be revoked* is a matter of dispute. If it can be revoked, this husband has not ruined his opportunity.*Resolution:* It’s a case where the husband made *a neder al daas rabim * (contingent on the public’s opinion, this cannot be revoked since the entire public - every jew - would have to be consulted for his opinion) as per Ameimar.*Ameimar:* A public neder can be revoked. *A neder contingent on the public’s opinion cannot be revoked.**Challenge: Are there no more than two* lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty?*What about gezel ?* The Torah states “Do not steal” and “Return what was stolen”.*Or a mashkon ?* The Torah states “Do not enter his house to collect a collateral” and “You should return it”.Both of these cases *can incur the malkos penalty even according to bitlo v’lo bitlo, * in a case where the stolen object or the collateral is destroyed.*Resolution: Since these are cases of monetary obligation, he does not receive malkos * (5.3). [Tosfos: Even if he destroyed the stolen item, he always has an obligation to pay].*Challenge:* What about *the collateral of a ger ?* [When a ger passes away without children there are no heirs, and he can no longer pay it back].*Resolution: He has not ruined his opportunity of fulfilling the eseh, * it was ruined by the ger’s death. 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

347

*25.2 Makkos Daf 16 A (Bottom line)*

Jun 8, 2020

21:34:01

*25.2 Makkos Daf 16 A (Bottom line)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: Are there no more than two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty? What about a case of a mashkon ? The Torah states “Do not enter his house to collect a collateral” and “You should return it”.Resolution: Since this is a case of monetary obligation, he does not receive malkos. *Summary**Challenge:* What about *the collateral of a ger ?* [When a ger passes away without children there are no heirs, and he had destroyed the collateral and can no longer pay it back].*Resolution: He has not ruined his opportunity of fulfilling the eseh, * it was ruined by the ger’s death [destroying the collateral has no bearing on fulfilling the eseh. It is only the ger’s death which ruins the opportunity to fulfill the eseh, and the death was not caused by the debtor]. *Challenge: What about Pei’ah?* The Torah states “Do not cut everything down” and “You shall leave over for the poor and needy”.This carries a malkos liability *even if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo, * as we’ve learned in a mishna: It is a mitzvah to separate pei’ah from the standing grain. If he didn’t, he must separate from the sheaves. If he didn’t, he must separate from the threshed grain (even though it would seem that it underwent a change). If he didn’t and winnowed it he must now separate maaser and then he must separate pei’ah. [If however it was already turned into flour, the opportunity to fulfill pei’ah is ruined, thus we see a case of a lav hanitak l’eseh where it is possible to ruin the opportunity for the eseh!]. 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

348

*25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)*

Jun 9, 2020

19:35:52

*25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: Are there no more than two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty? What about Pei’ah? If it was already turned into flour, the opportunity to separate pei’ah is ruined. One would be liable for malkos even if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo. *Summary**Resolution: Rabbi Yochanan excludes Pei’ah in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael* who says that pei’ah can even be set aside once it was turned into dough.*Challenge: What if he consumed the dough?* Even Rabbi Yishmael would agree that he ruined any opportunity to fulfill the eseh in such a case.*Resolution:* The second case of Rabbi Yochanan (24.5) was *indeed Pei’ah.*Rabbi Elazar’s opinion (24.6) that oneis is the second case, was based on the statement of Ameimar (25.1) that a neder contingent on the public’s opinion cannot be revoked. However *this rule does not apply to a case of a mitzvah. * (See 25.1; it is impossible to revoke it because it would require the public’s consent. However in the case of a mitzvah we can assume the public would consent). Since there is an eseh for the oneis to take her as a wife, he cannot swear her off effectively.There was a mikra teacher who was too rough with the boys. *Rav Acha forced him to take a neder al daas rabim * that he will never teach boys again. *Ravina reinstated him* because they could not find another teacher who was so precise. [Since it was a mitzvah to have him teaching the boys, Ravina overruled the neder al daas rabim]. (We also see that it’s a mitzvah to teach chumash with precision; Yoav ben Tzeruyah was taught “zachar Amalek” instead of “zecher Amalek” and it led to a great error in practice). 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

349

*25.4 Makkos Daf 16 B (17 lines Dn)*

Jun 10, 2020

6:17

*25.4 Makkos Daf 16 B (17 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!)* for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=Mishna (20.2): One who eats shekatzim and remasim is liable for malkos .*Summary**Rav Yehuda: One who eats Binisa D’bei Karba * (a small fishlike creature that is found in the burrows of plowed up ground, Tosfos) *is punished with malkos * based on the possuk prohibiting a land dwelling sheretz. There was *a man who ate binisa d’bei karba * (it looks like a fish that has fins and scales, and if it would live in the water it would be kosher), and *Rav Yehuda gave him malkos * (because it’s not a fish and does not become kosher with fins and scales. The Rabbanim in Bavel had the authority to administer malkos). *Abayye:* One who eats *Putisa* (a water insect) is liable for *four sets of malkos * [there are two general lavin for forbidden creatures, and an additional two for a water sheretz]. One who eats an *ant* is liable for *five sets of malkos * [the two general lavin and another three that are written regarding land creatures]. One who eats a wasp is liable for six sets of malkos [the five previous ones as well as an additional lav for flying creatures]. [One of these general lavin is “Lo sishaktzu - you shouldn’t abominate yourself”] *Rav Achai: One who puts off urinating or defecating, is in violation of Lo Sishaktzu* [Don’t abominate yourself - get rid of your waste when you get the urge. (some consider this a d’rabbanan because it is not the main teaching of the verse)]. *Rav Bivi bar Abayye: If one uses a bloodletter’s vessel* (even if it’s clean) *to drink from, he is in violation of Bal Tishaktzu* (this issur is also d’rabbanan). [This teaches that the Torah is displeased with people who do disgusting things]. 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

350

*25.5 Makkos Daf 16 B (18 lines Up)*

Jun 11, 2020

7:08

*25.5 Makkos Daf 16 B (18 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rabbi Mordechai Steinharter**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUOne who eats an ant is liable for five sets of *malkos.**Summary**Rabbah bar Huna:* If one squashed nine ants, and added a whole* ant, thereby completing a kezayis, he is liable for six sets of malkos. Five for the one whole ant, and one because he ate a kezayis of neveilah (that’s a chiddush that a dead sheretz is considered neveilah, and that the issur of neveilah is chal on the issur of sheretz). *Rabbah amar Rabbi Yochanan:* Even** if he squashed two ants and added a whole ant.*Rav Yosef:* Even if there was only one squashed ant.*They’re all in agreement,* it just depends on the size of the added ant.*Rav:* There is * malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani * [ terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].*Question: This is in accordance with whose opinion?* (It’s a big chiddush since there’s no penalty for eating the maaser itself, it’s only considered as if he stole from the aniyim). *Answer:* It’s based on the following beraisa. *Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi: In the possuk prohibiting eating* maaser outside of Yerushalayim the word *“B’she’arecha”* is used. This word is also found regarding maaser ani, we thus learn that *it is prohibited to eat.* **Tosfos:* Chai must be translated “whole” not “live” because we’re referring to neveilah. The sheretz must be whole so that all of the lavin should apply. But even when a sheretz is not whole, some of the lavin apply.** Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Yosef are adding that even if the whole ant only completes the zayis because it is not squashed, it is still considered a kezayis. 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

BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us.

BNEI AVIGDOR. Learn with us.

More by Rabbi Avigdor Miller