Masechet Makkot, Daf Yud
Thank you to dafyomi.co.il

            Question: Why were there three Arei Miklat in Ever ha'Yarden (for only two and a half Shevatim), and three in Eretz Yisrael (for nine and a half Shevatim)?

            Answer (Abaye): There were many murderers in Gil'ad

            -(R. Elazar) They sat in ambush to kill people.

            Question: The Beraisa said 'they must be evenly spaced...' Why was the (north to south) distance from the extremes (north and south) to the nearest Ir Miklat greater than the distance in the middle? (The former was a quarter of the length of Eretz Yisrael, and the latter was at most half of this.)

            Answer (Abaye): There were also many murderers in Shechem (in the middle of Eretz Yisrael).

            -(R. Elazar): They used to gang up to kill, like Kohanim gang up to collect Terumah from granaries.

            Question: There were more than six cities

            Answer (Abaye): The six are able Kolet (Kolet=to provide refuge) whether or not the murderer intended to take refuge there. The other 42 are Kolet only if he intended.

            Question: Chevron was not an Ir Miklat! It says "va'Yitnu l'Kalev Es Chevron..."

            Answer (Abaye): Kalev received the surrounding villages - "v'Es Sede ha'Ir v'Es Chatzereha Nosnu l'Kalev."

            Question: Kadesh was not an Ir Miklat! It says "v'Arei Mivtzar... v'Kedesh..." (Mivtzar is a great city);

            -(Beraisa): We do not select small towns to be Arei Miklat (for food is scarce), nor great cities (lest the Go'el ha'Dam come there often, and plot to kill the murderer), rather, intermediate cities.

            Answer (Rav Yosef): There were two cities called Kedesh.

            -(Rav Ashi): This is like Salikum, a great city with a middle-size suburb city called by the same name.

            -(Beraisa): Arei Miklat are not small towns, nor great cities, rather, intermediate cities;

            1. We establish them only in places of water and if there is no water, we dig channels so water will flow to them from rivers.

            2. We establish them only where there are markets, and many people nearby (lest Go'elei ha'Dam take up arms and overcome the residents);

            3. If the people nearby dwindled, we bring more. If residents of the city dwindled, we bring Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim (so that murderers will not comprise the majority)

            -R. Nechemyah says, we do not sell weapons or traps in the cities;

            -Chachamim permit this. (The Go'el ha'Dam is afraid to visibly kill him, for if so, he is Chayav Mitah).

            -All agree that we do not set traps there. Also, we do not twine ropes (this is done over a large area, encompassing many people), lest the Go'el ha'Dam come there often.

            -(R. Yitzchak): We learn from "... va'Chai" - we must ensure that he will live.

            -(Beraisa): "Va'Chai" - if a Talmid is exiled, his Rebbi also goes, so he will have true life.

            -(R. Zeira): This teaches that a Rebbi should be careful not to teach an improper Talmid (the Rebbi is exiled as punishment for teaching him).

            -(R. Yochanan): If a Rebbi is exiled, his academy also goes.

            Question: R. Yochanan taught that Torah is Kolet - "Es Betzer ba'Midbar... v'Zos ha'Torah."

            Answer #1: It is Kolet only when he is learning.

            Answer #2: It is Kolet (protects) from the angel of death, but not from the Go'el ha'Dam.

            -Rav Chisda was learning. The angel of death could not approach him because he did not stop speaking Torah. He sat on a tree. The angel of death split the tree. Rav Chisda stopped learning for a moment, and died.

            -(R. Tanchum bar Chanilai): The first Ir Miklat mentioned was in Reuven's portion. He merited this because he was the first to speak to save Yosef

            -(R. Simlai): Hashem told Moshe to (separate the cities, and thereby) make the sun shine for murderers. Alternatively, He told him 'by separating the cities, you made the sun shine for murderers.'

            -(R. Simai): "Ohev Kesef Lo Yisba Kesef" is Moshe, who knew that the cities he separated would not Kolet until the ones in Eretz Yisrael were separated. In any case he seized the opportunity to do the Mitzvah;

            -"U'Mi Ohev be'Hamon Lo Sevu'ah" - who is qualified to teach Torah to many? One who has all the grain (he knows Tanach, Mishnah, Halachos and Agados).

            -(R. Elazar): "Mi Yemalel Gevuros Hash-m Yashmi'a Kol Tehilaso" - who is qualified to recount Hash-m's mighty acts? One who can make known all His praise (knows all His Torah).

            -(Rav Ashi): "U'Mi Ohev be'Hamon..." - whoever loves learning with many, he will have grain (Torah).

            -(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): "Cherev El ha'Badim..." - Chachamim who learn Bad b'Vad (individually) deserve the sword;

i. Further, they become foolish. It says "v'No'alu", like "Asher No'alnu";

ii. Further, they sin. We learn from "va'Asher Chatanu", or from "No'alu Sarei Tzo'an."

            -(Ravina): "U'Mi Ohev..." - whoever loves teaching many, he will have Torah.

            -(Rebbi): I learned much from my Rebbeyim, even more from my colleagues, and the most from my Talmidim.

            -(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): "Samachti b'Omrim Li Beis Hash-m Nelech" - David said to Hashem 'I heard people saying 'When will David die, and Shlomo will build the Beis ha'Mikdash and we will go there for the festivals!', and I rejoiced'!

            -Hashem: "Tov Yom ba'Chatzerecha me'Alef" - I prefer one day that you engage in Torah to 1000 Korbanos that Shlomo will bring.

            -(Mishnah): We prepare roads between the cities...

            -(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): We write 'Miklat' on every crossroads, so a murderer will know which way to go.

10b

            -(Rav Kahana): He learns from "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech" - prepare the way.

            -Rav Chama bar Chanina would began expounding the Parshah of murderers with the following "Tov v'Yashar Hash-m Al Ken Yoreh Chata'im ba'Darech" - He shows sinners the path, and all the more so Tzadikim!

            -Reish Lakish would begin "veha'Elokim Inah l'Yado", "Ka'asher Yomar Meshal ha'Kadmoni me'Rsha'im Yetzei Resha" - the verse discusses two men who killed without witnesses. One was Shogeg, and the other was Mezid;

            -Hashem arranges that they come to the same inn. The Shogeg murderer walks down a ladder and falls on the Mezid and kills him, as he deserved;

            -(Witnesses saw this time, so) the Shogeg murderer is exiled, as he deserves.

            -(Rabah bar bar Huna): Hashem leads a person in the way he wants to go. We learn this from Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim:

1. Torah: At first, Hash-m told Bil'am "Lo Selech Imahem." After he persisted, Hash-m told him "Kum Lech Itam";

2. Nevi'im: "Ani Hash-m... Madrichecha b'Derech Telech."

3. Kesuvim: "Im la'Letzim Hu Yalitz vela'Anavim Yiten Chen."

            -(Rav Huna): If the Go'el ha'Dam killed the murderer on his way to Galus, he is exempt;

            He understands that "v'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" discusses the Go'el ha'Dam.

            Question (Beraisa): "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" refers to the murderer;

            Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to the Go'el ha'Dam!

            Rejection: The verse continues "Ki Lo Sonei Lo Mitmol Shilshom", i.e. the murderer.

            Answer: Rav Huna holds like the following Tana.

            -(Beraisa): "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" refers to the Go'el ha'Dam;

            Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to the murderer!

            Rejection: "Ki Lo Sonei Lo..." already teaches that we do not kill the murderer. "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" teaches about the Go'el ha'Dam.

            -(Mishnah): We send two Chachamim with a murderer on his way to the Ir Miklat. They speak to the Go'el ha'Dam, lest he kill him on the way;

            Suggestion: The Chachamim warn the Go'el ha'Dam, if he kills the murderer, he will be killed.

            Rejection: No, they merely try to dissuade him from killing him.

            -(Beraisa): They say appropriate words. 'Do not treat him like a murderer. It happened b'Shogeg.'

            -R. Meir says "Zeh Devar ha'Rotze'ach" - the murderer speaks for himself.

            -Chachamim: Words are accepted better through many Sheluchim (than through the person himself).

            Question (Beraisa): 'Do not treat him like a murderer. It happened b'Shogeg.'

            This is obvious. If he was Mezid he is not exiled!

            Answer: Indeed, even b'Mezid (at first) he is exiled!

            (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): At first, he goes to an Ir Miklat, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid. Beis Din send for him, and pass sentence:

i. If the verdict is that he is Chayav Misah, they kill him - "v'Shalchu Ziknei Iro... v'Nasnu Oso b'Yad Go'el ha'Dam va'Mes";

ii. If he is exempt, they discharge him - "v'Hitzilu ha'Edah... mi'Yad Go'el ha'Dam";

iii. If he is Chayav Galus, they return him to his Ir Miklat - "v'Heshivo Oso ha'Edah El Ir Miklato..."

            -Rebbi says, the murderers run to Arei Miklat on their own. The Mezid murderers do not realize that Kelitah is only for Shogeg.

            -(R. Elazar): If a city is mostly murderers, it is not Kolet. "V'Diber b'Oznei Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi Es Devarav" - his words (I murdered) cannot be the same as (the majority of) their words.

            -(R. Elazar): If a city lacks Zekenim, it is not Kolet, for we cannot fulfill "v'Diber b'Oznei Ziknei ha'Ir."

            -R. Ami and R. Asi argued about R. Elazar's law; one of them learned like him;

            The other says that it is Kolet. "V'Diber..." is only l'Chatchilah.

            -(R. Ami or R. Asi): If a city lacks Zekenim, a boy (of the city) cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh. We need "Ziknei Iro" (to judge him);

            -(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): He can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh. "Ziknei Iro" is only l'Chatchilah.

            -(R. Ami or R. Asi): If a city lacks Zekenim, it does not bring Eglah Arufah (behead a calf if a murdered corpse is found and it is the closest city), for we need "Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi";

            -(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): It brings Eglah Arufah. "Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi" is only l'Chatchilah.

Question for Discussion: The Beraita says that if a Rebbi’s student is exiled, he is also exiled. R’ Zeira explains that a Rebbi is exiled as a punishment if he teaches an improper student. This is difficult for me to understand because even though it is the Rebbi’s responsibility to lead his students on the right path, why is the Rebbi blamed and must also be exiled when it is not his fault for what his students do?

Makot daf 9
Thank you to dafyomi.co.il and R' Aryeh Lebowitz.

Mishna: A Jew goes to galut when he kills another Jew, but not when he kills a ger toshav. A ger toshav doesn’t go to galut for killing a Jew, but does go to galut if he kills a ger toshav.

Question: A Jew doesn’t go to galut for killing a ger toshav, and a ger toshav doesn’t go to galut for killing a Jew, so it seems to be that a ger toshav is just like an idol worshipper, however, the seifa says that a ger toshav goes to galut for killing another ger toshav, which makes it seem that he has the laws of a Jew, so which one is it?

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): This is not a contradiction: when he kills a Jew, he doesn’t go to galut, but when he kills a ger toshav, he does go to galut. So, he doesn’t have exactly the same laws of galut as a Jew, but these laws are not as completely irrelevant as they are to idol worshippers.

There is also a contradiction in the pesukim: one pasuk says, L’Vinei Yisrael v’lager v’latoshav…, teaching that arei miklat are for garei toshav. But there is another pasuk that says, “V’hayu lachem…” teaching that arei miklat are for us, not for garei toshav. Rav Kahana resolves this contradiction the same way he did the first time—A Ger Toshav is not exiled for killing a Yisrael. He is exiled for killing a Ger Toshav.

Question: This answer doesn’t work. The Beraita equates a Ger Toshav to an oved kochavim. Just like an oved Kochavim is killed whether he or not he killed someone of his own status, so too, a Ger Toshav should be killed whether the person he killed has the same status as him or not.

Answer #2 (Rav Chisda): If a Ger Toshav killed a Ger Toshav Derech Yeridah, for which a Yisrael is exiled, then galut also suffices for him, but if he killed Derech Aliyah, for which a Yisrael is exempt, he is killed.

Rava objects: A kal v’chomer refutes this: if a Yisrael is exiled for derech yeridah, and exile suffices for a ger toshav as well, and a Yisrael is exempt for derech Aliyah, then all the more so a Ger Toshav shouldn’t be killed for this!

Answer #3 (Rava): if a Ger Toshav kills accidentally, he is exempt from exile, but he is exiled for Omer Mutar (he killed purposely because he thought killing was allowed).

            Abaye: Omer Mutar is Ones

            Rava: I think that it is close to mezid

                        This Machloket appears elsewhere between Rava and Rav Chisda:

Rava: if a Ger Toshav killed a person, thinking it was an animal, or killed a Ger Toshav, thinking it was a Non-Jew, he is chayav mitah, because Omer Mutar (he thought that he was permitted to shoot what he was shooting, but he wasn’t) is mezid.

Rav Chisda: He is exempt, Omer Mutar is Ones.

Proofs for Rava: pasuk says that HaShem tells Avimelech that "Hincha Met Al ha'Ishah," “You will die because of this woman” (even though Avimelech did not know that Sarah was married). This teaches that he is chayav mitat beit din (which would prove that Omer Mutar is close to mezid)

Rav Chisda disagrees and thinks that he is Chayav Mita b’yedei Shamayim.

Abaye challenges Rava: It says "ha'Goy Gam Tzadik Taharog"! (Because he was Shogeg, it is considered as if he did not sin, and Hash-m did not refute him! HaShem agreed that he didn’t deserve to die.)

Answer (Rava): Hash-m refuted him!

Question: "Hashev Eshes ha'Ish Ki Navi Hu" - if her husband was not a Navi, would Avimelech be allowed to keep her?!

 Answer (R. Shmuel bar Nachmani): HaShem responds, "Hashev Eshes ha'Ish", in any case, and regarding your claim to be a Tzadik (because Avraham said 'she is my sister'), "Ki Navi Hu" - Avraham learned from your people that it would be dangerous to say that she is his wife! When a traveler comes to a city, people should ask him if he needs food or drink, and not about the status of the woman with him! This teaches that a non-Jew is responsible and is killed for not having learned (and therefore not knowing).

Mishna: R’ Yehuda thinks a blind person doesn’t go to galut. R’ Meir disagrees. A Sonei (the murderer hated the victim) is not exiled; R. Yosi says, he is killed, because it is as if he was warned; R. Shimon says, sometimes he is killed, and sometimes not: If we can say that he killed intentionally, he is killed. If he killed unintentionally, he is exiled.

Gemara: "B'Lo Re'ot" excludes a blind person;

 R. Meir says, "b'Lo Re'os" includes a Suma.

 Question: What is R. Yehudah's reason?

Answer: "Va'Asher Yavo Et Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" includes a blind person, so "b'Lo Re'ot" R. Meir agrees, but he says that "bi'Vli Da'at" also excludes him. Two exclusions, one after the other, always come to include. R. Yehudah holds that "bi'Vli Da'at" excludes one who intended.

 Mishnah - R. Yosi: A Sonei is killed...

 Question: He was not warned!

Answer: He holds like R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a Chaver doesn’t need to be warned, because warning is only to distinguish whether one is shogeg or mezid. (Similarly, we may assume that a Sonei was mezid.)

 Mishnah - R. Shimon: Sometimes a Sonei is exiled...

Beraita #1: When does R. Shimon say that a Sonei is exiled? If the rope snapped, he is exiled. If it slipped, he is not exiled. (You can’t stage a rope snapping so it must have been a mistake).

Contradiction Beraita #2 - R. Shimon: He is exiled only if the rope slipped from his hands. These Beraitot argue about the rope breaking (Beraita #1 obligates Galus, and Beraita #2 exempts) and about slipping (Beraita #1 exempts, and Beraita #2 obligates)!

Answer - part 1: We can resolve slipping. Beraita #1 discusses a Sonei, and Beraita #2 discusses a friend;

Answer - part 2: We can resolve snapping. Beraita #1 is like Rebbi (who exempts when the axe-blade slipped off), and Beraita #2 is like Chachamim (who are Mechayev).

Mishnah: Galut is in one of the Arei Miklat (refuge cities). There were three in Ever ha'Yarden, and three in Eretz Kena'an - "Es Shelosh he'Arim Titnu me'Ever la'Yarden v'Es Shelosh... b'Eretz Kena'an."

Until those in Eretz Kena'an were chosen, those in Ever ha'Yarden didn’t work. "Shesh Arei Miklat Tihyenah" teaches that if all six are not established, none are.

We prepare roads between the cities and space them evenly - "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech v'Shilashta Et Gevul Artzecha."

 We send two Chachamim with a murderer on his way to the Ir Miklat. They speak to the Go'el ha'Dam, to try to prevent him from killing the murderer on the way.

R. Meir says "Zeh Davar ha'Rotze'ach" - the murderer speaks for himself.

 R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah says, at first, whether he killed b'Shogeg or b'Mezid, he goes to an Ir Miklat. Beis Din sends for him to come to trial: If the verdict is that he is Chayav Mitah, they kill him. If not, they exempt him, and if he is Chayav Galut, they return him to his Ir Miklat - "v'Heshivo Oso ha'Edah El Ir Miklato..."

 Gemara - Beraisa: Moshe separated three cities in Ever ha'Yarden. Yehoshua separated three opposite them in Eretz Kena'an, like two rows of vines in a vineyard: Chevron in Yehudah was opposite Betzer in Midbar. Shechem in Har Efrayim was opposite Ramos in Gil'ad. Kadesh in Har Nafoli was opposite Golan in Bashan.

"V'Shilashta" teaches that they must be evenly spaced. The following distances were the same:

From the south (of Eretz Yisrael) to Chevron, from Chevron to Shechem, from Shechem to Kadesh, and from Kadesh to the north (of Eretz Yisrael).

Question: R’ Shmuel bar Nachami learns from the story of Avimelech that a non-Jew is punished for not having learned, and therefore committing a sin because he didn’t know it was forbidden. This also reminds me of a Mishna in Pirkei Avot (3:10) which states, “Rabbi Dostai bar Yannai says in the name of Rabbi Meir: Whoever forgets anything of his Torah learning, the Torah considers it as if he bears guilt for his soul, for it is said: ‘But beware, and guard your soul exceedingly lest you forget the things your eyes have seen’ (Devarim 4:9). Does this apply even if [he forgot because] his studies were too difficult for him? [this is not so, for] the Torah says, ‘And lest they be removed from your heart all the days of your life’ (Devarim 4:9). Thus, one does not bear guilt for his soul unless he sits [idly] and [through lack of concentration and review] removes them from his consciousness." We see here that HaShem may hold humans responsible for something that they don’t know, whether it be because they never learned it in the first place, or they simply did not make enough of an effort to remember what they learned. Does this concept hold true for violating all mitzvot, or just for major ones? Also, how do we balance trying to learn as much as we can and reviewing what we learned so that we don’t forget, but also not overwhelming ourselves with so much information?

Bekiut Masechet Makkot, Daf Chet

Leah 

Thank you dafyomi.co.il for the point by point outline. 

(Rav Papa): If Reuven threw a clump of earth at a date tree, and it detached dates and they fell and killed

someone, Rebbi obligates Galus, and Chachamim exempt.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: One might have thought that this is like Ko'ach (impetus) of his Ko'ach (since he was not

touching the earth when it detached the dates), and Rebbi would agree that he is exempt.

Question: What is a case of Ko'ach of his Ko'ach that Rebbi would agree is exempt?

Answer: He threw a clump of earth, and it detached a branch, which fell and hit a cluster of dates and

uprooted them, and they killed.

(Mishnah): If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim and it killed, he is exiled;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven's hand, Reuven is

exempt. If Reuven threw a rock in his property and it killed, he is exiled only if the victim had permission

to enter. "Va'Asher Yavo Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - Galus applies only when the killer and victim both were 

allowed to be there, like in a forest; This excludes the killer's property, where the victim is forbidden to

enter. Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus (optional, and not a Mitzvah) - Galus applies only to

Reshus, and not to a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a Shali'ach of Beis Din (to

lash).

(Gemara) Question: If Reuven threw a rock into Reshus ha'Rabim, he is (close to) Mezid, he is not

exiled!

Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchak): The case is, Reuven destroyed his wall.

Question: Still (he is close to Mezid), he should have looked if anyone is around!

Answer: He destroyed it at night.

Question: Still, he should have looked!

Answer: He destroyed it into a waste area.

Question: What is the case?

1. If people often use it for a privy, he is close to Mezid!

2. If people do not normally use it for a privy, he is close to Ones!

Answer (Rav Papa): The case is, people often use it for a privy at night, but they do not often do so by

day, but occasionally they do. Therefore he is neither Mezid nor Ones.

(Mishnah - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): (If the victim stuck out his head... )

(Beraisa): "U'Motza" excludes a case in which the victim brought himself to be damaged;

R. Eliezer ben Yakov learns from here that if the victim stuck out his head after the rock left Reuven’s

hand, Reuven is exempt.

Inference: 'Motza' connotes finding something there from the beginning;

Contradiction (Beraisa): "U'Motza" (he will acquire money) forbids selling a far-away or bad field (i.e.

that he is not so eager to keep) in order to redeem (against the will of the buyer) a close or good field that

he sold.

Answer (Rava): We learn from the context of the verses;

1.There, "u'Motza" resembles "v'Hisigah Yado" (surely, he did not have money when he sold, he

acquired it only now);

2. Here, "u'Motza" resembles the forest. It was there from the beginning.

(Mishnah): If Reuven threw a rock ... (Aba Sha'ul says, cutting wood is Reshus... )

Version #1 - Question: What is the source that the verse discusses cutting of Reshus? Perhaps he cuts for

the sake of a Sukah, or to be burned on the Mizbe'ach (a Mitzvah), and even so, if he kills, he is exiled!

Answer #1 (Rava): Those examples are not Mitzvos (they are only Hechsher (preparation for) Mitzvos);

1.If he had wood already, there would be no Mitzvah to cut more. Therefore, even if he lacks wood,

cutting is not a Mitzvah.

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a

Shali'ach of Beis Din.

We do not say that since if the son were learning properly, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, even

if he is not learning properly, there is no Mitzvah to hit him!

Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit him - "Yaser Bincha vi'Nichecha." (Even Shleimah 6:2 - one should

hit to correct even a small imperfection.)

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rava): A better proof is from the verse "va'Asher Yavo (if he will come) Es

Re'ehu va'Ya'ar." This does not discuss a Mitzvah, for then he must enter!

Question (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): Does 'Asher' always refers to Reshus?!

"V'Ish Asher Yitma" - is it always optional to become Tamei?! One must become Tamei for a Mes

Mitzvah (an unattended corpse)!

Answer (Rava): There is different, for it says "Tamei Yihyeh" - in any case (i.e. sometimes he must

become Tamei).

** Amud Bet **

Question: We need that verse for a different law!

(Beraisa): "Tamei Yihyeh" includes a Tevul Yom. "Od Tum'aso Bo" includes a Mechushar Kipurim (if

either of them enters the Mikdash, he is Chayav Kares).

Answer (Rava): I learn from "Od" (this is extra, to teach that sometimes he must become Tamei).

Version #2 (Beraisa - R. Akiva) Question: Why does it say "be'Charish uva'Katzir Tishbos"? "Sadcha Lo

Sizra v'Charmecha Lo Sizmor" already forbids plowing and reaping in Shemitah

1. Rather, this comes to forbid plowing in Erev Shemitah (so that in Shemitah, the land will be better),

and to give Kedushas Shemitah to Peros reaped in Motzei Shemitah that were a third grown in Shemitah.

2. R. Yishmael says, (the verse forbids plowing and reaping on Shabbos.) Just like plowing is Reshus,

also reaping. This excludes reaping the Omer, which is a Mitzvah, and therefore it is permitted on

Shabbos.

Question: What is the source that the verse discusses plowing of Reshus? Perhaps he plows for the sake of

the Omer (a Mitzvah), and even so, it is forbidden on Shabbos!

Answer #1 (Rava): If he already had a plowed field, there would be no Mitzvah to plow another for the

sake of the Omer. This shows that plowing for the Omer is not a Mitzvah!

Question (Ravina - Mishnah): This excludes a father hitting his son, a Rebbi chastising a Talmid, or a

Shali'ach of Beis Din.

Inference: Hitting one's son in order to teach him is considered a Mitzvah. We do not say that since if the

son were learning properly, there would be no Mitzvah to hit him, there is never a Mitzvah to hit him!

Answer: It is always a Mitzvah to hit a son, even if he is learning properly - "Yaser Bincha..."

Answer #2 ((to Question (l) - Rava): I can answer better. If one already had a plowed field, he would

never have a Mitzvah to plow another. Similarly, the Torah refers to the type of reaping that if one already

had reaped his field, he would not have a Mitzvah to reap another. This excludes the reaping of the Omer,

which is a Mitzvah. (This answer is better, for it teaches that there is never a Mitzvah to plow, not for the

Omer or anything else.)

(Mishnah): A father can get Galus for killing his son. A son can get Galus for killing his father.

Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael. A Yisrael can get Galus for killing anyone, except for a Ger

Toshav (a Ben Noach who accepted to keep his Mitzvos);

1. A Ger Toshav can (not - Gra deletes this) get Galus for killing a Ger Toshav.

(Gemara) Question: The Mishnah says that a father can get Galus for killing his son. We said that it is

always a Mitzvah for him to hit him!

Answer: (It is always a Mitzvah when he teaches him Torah.) The case is, he was teaching him carpentry

when he killed him.

Question: It is also a Mitzvah to teach one's son a trade!

Answer: The case is, the son already knew a trade.

(Mishnah): A son can get Galus for killing his father.

Contradiction (Beraisa): "Makeh Nefesh" excludes one who strikes his father.

Answer #1 (Rav Kahana): The Beraisa is like R. Shimon. The Mishnah is like Chachamim.

1.R. Shimon says that choking is more stringent than beheading. Galus atones for killing (anyone but a

parent) b'Shogeg, for this is punishable by beheading (if done b'Mezid);

It does not atone for killing a parent, which is more stringent (even wounding a parent is punishable by

choking)!

2. Chachamim say that choking is less stringent than beheading. Also killing a parent is punished by

beheading, so Galus atones for it.

Answer #2 (Rava): The Beraisa teaches that one who wounds a parent is not exiled;

One might have thought that since one is killed for doing it b'Mezid, he is exiled for Shogeg. The

Beraisa teaches that this is not so.

(Mishnah): Anyone can get Galus for killing a Yisrael...

Question: What does this come to include?

Answer: It includes a slave and Nochri.

Our Mishnah alludes to what a Beraisa teaches.

(Beraisa): A slave or Nochri is exiled (for doing one thing to a Yisrael,) and he is lashed for (doing

something else to) a Yisrael. A Yisrael is exiled, and is lashed for (doing things to) a slave or Nochri.

Question: Granted, a slave or Nochri is exiled for killing a Yisrael, and he is lashed for cursing him. A

Yisrael is exiled for killing a slave or Nochri. However, how is a Yisrael lashed due to a slave or Nochri?

There is no Lav against cursing him - "v'Nasi b'Amcha Lo Sa'or" (only people of your nation)!

Answer #1 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, he testified about him and he was Huzam.

Rejection: Surely, he is lashed for the same reason as the slave or Nochri (in the Reisha). They cannot

testify!

Answer #2 (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): The case is, the Yisrael hit him, and the monetary compensation

for the wound would have been less than a Perutah;

(R. Ami): If Reuven wounded Shimon and the compensation would be less than a Perutah , he is lashed

instead;

We do not equate wounding to cursing (to say that it applies only to Amcha).

Question to consider: We learn that it is always a Mitzvah for a father to hit his son from "Yaser Bincha vi'Nichecha." (Even Shleimah 6:2 - one should hit to correct even a small imperfection). This seems very difficult to me. We know that there are so many other ways for a parent to teach a child, and there have been studies that prove that children respond better to positive discipline. Why then does the Gemara say that a parent can, and SHOULD hit a child. Why is this a mitzvah? Doesn't that seem overly harsh? What value are we being taught, when we are told to hit our children, even for a small imperfection? 

Bekiut Masechet Makkot, Daf Zayin
Chana
Thank you to Artscroll for the assistance.

SUMMARY

(Gemara continued from discussion on previous daf)
Case: Ila'a and Tuvyah were related to a cosigner of a loan, and they witnessed the loan being signed.
R' Papa: It doesn't matter-- they can still testify-- because they were only relatives of the cosigner, not the actual lender or borrower.
R' Huna b' R' Yehoshua: However, if the borrower doesn't have the money to pay back the loan (shoutout to AP English: Merchant of Venice!!), doesn't the cosigner have to pay it? Therefore, s/he is really involved in the case, and Ila'a and Tuvyah should not be able to be witnesses.

Mishnah
1) If someone receives their verdict from Beit Din, runs away before their execution, and then returns to that Beit Din, the Beit Din does not have to try again to save him/her.
2) If two witnesses come and testify that someone was found guilty in another Beit Din, and they cite the name of the Beit Din and the witnesses of the case, then the guilty person is executed.
3) A Sanhedrin's rulings hold up, both in Israel and in Chutz La'aretz.
4) A Sanhedrin that executes once in seven years is called destructive.
    R' Eliezer b' Azaryah: Once in seventy years. (See below for discussion of this translation)
    R' Tarfon and R' Akiva: If we were on Sanhedrin when they were still performing executions, we would never have executed anyone.
    R' Shimon b' Gamliel (to R' Tarfon and R' Akiva): Then there would have been a ton of murders in Israel (because there would be no deterrent).

Gemara
Question: The first rule in the Mishnah only says that we don't reconsider a sentence and try to save the defendant when they reappear before the same Beit Din. However, the end of the Mishnah (rule 2) seems to say that we don't retry the defendant in another Beit Din either. So why didn't it say that in the first rule?
Answer: Abaye: It's not a difficulty, because the first rule is talking about a Beit Din in Israel, whereas the second one is talking about a Beit Din in Chu"L. This is explained in the following Braita:
Braita: R' Yehuda b' Dostai quotes R' Shimon b' Shatach: When the defendant runs away from a Beit Din in Israel to one in Chu"L, s/he is not retried, but when the defendant runs away from a Beit Din in Chu"L to one in Israel, s/he is retried, because maybe the zechut of Israel will help the judges find a loophole and save the defendant.

Question: How do we know that the rulings of a Sanhedrin hold up, both in Israel and Chu"L?
Source: "These will be the laws of judgement for you for generations" (paraphrased Artscroll translation). The pasuk continues to say "in all the places you live," so the rulings of Sanhedrin must apply, no matter where.
Question: If that's the source, then why does it say somewhere else, "in all your gates"?
Answer: To teach that in Israel there must be courts in every city in every province, whereas in Chu"L, they are only needed in every province.

Question: When R' Eliezer b' Azaryah said "Once in seventy years," was he fixing the previous statement ("no, it's once in seventy, not once in seven years"), or saying that once in seventy was appropriate?
Answer: Teku (we don't know).

Question: How would R' Tarfon and R' Akiva have prevented all executions?
Answer: R' Yochanan and R' Elazar: They would ask whether the witness had seen whether the person was a treifah (someone who will die soon anyway and therefore there is no death penalty for their killer). R' Ashi: Then, if the witnesses said that they saw that the person was not a treifah, they would ask if the witness could possibly know if there was a hole in an internal organ (which they could not).
Question: How would they have prevented executions in a case of gilui arayot?
Answer: Abaye and Rava: They would ask the witnesses if they had witnessed the actual penetration, (which they probably hadn't).
Question: But then how could anyone ever be executed for adultery?
Answer: As Shmuel did: When the witnesses saw the suspected couple behaving in a way that lends itself to be suspected of adultery.

HADRAN ALACH KEITZAD HA'EDIM

Mishnah
Statement: People who kill accidentally are exiled to Arei Miklat.
Examples of people who are exiled:
1) If someone was pushing a roller to plaster a roof and it fell and killed someone
2) If someone was lowering a barrel off a roof and it fell and killed someone
3) If he was coming down a ladder and fell on someone and killed them
Examples of people who are not exiled:
1) If someone was pulling a roller to plaster a roof and it fell and killed someone
2) If someone was raising a barrel onto a roof and it fell and killed someone
3) If he was coming up a ladder and fell on someone and killed them
General Rule: If the motion that resulted in the person's death was a downward one, then the perpetrator is exiled. If the motion that resulted in the person's death was an upward one, then the perpetrator is not exiled.

Gemara
Question: How do we know (about the downward vs upward motion rule)?
Source: Shmuel: The pasuk says "He caused it to fall on him, and he died"-- it must be falling, and therefore downward.

Braita: The word "bishgagah" ("by accident") is to exclude someone who kills b'meizid (on purpose). The word "bivli da'at" ("without knowledge") is to exclude someone who kills b'mitkavein (with intention).
Challenge: It is obvious that someone who kills b'meizid is not exiled, because s/he is deserving of the death penalty!
Answer: Rava: Rather, it excludes someone who thinks that murder is permitted.
Challenge: Abaye: But someone who thinks that murder is permitted is an ones, and not a meizid!
Answer: Rava: No, I hold that someone who thinks it's allowed is comparable to someone who killed on purpose.
Challenge: It is obvious that someone who kills b'mitkavein is not exiled, because s/he is deserving of the death penalty!
Answer: Rabbah: It excludes someone who was trying to kill an animal but instead accidentally killed a man, someone who was trying to kill a Kuti but instead accidentally killed a Jew, and someone who was trying to kill a nefel but instead accidentally killed a viable baby.

Braita: In the pasuk, "If suddenly" excludes if one accidentally kills someone coming around the corner; "without malice" excludes someone who kills an enemy, regardless of if it was an accident; "he pushed him" means that s/he accidentally pushed him/her with his/her body; "or he threw something at him" includes someone who killed with a downward motion that is needed for an upward motion; "without ambush" excludes someone who aimed one way but their projectile went in the other direction and killed someone. Another source that says "And one who did not ambush" excludes someone who intended to throw a projectile two amot but accidentally threw it four and killed someone. "And if one comes with his friend in the forest" teaches that just like a forest is a place where both the accidental killer and the victim have the right to be, so too, any area where both the accidental killer and the victim have the right to be, is a place where the killing can fall into the category of requiring exile.

Question: R' Abahu asked R' Yochanan: If someone is going up a ladder and the rung fell out from under his/her foot, what is it considered? Is it upward, because the person is going up, or downward, because the foot was pressing the rung down?
Answer: R' Yochanan: That is a case where there is a downward motion required for an upward one.
Challenge: R' Abahu: But why does the Mishnah say twice that a downward motion is chayav a person to be exiled, and not an upward motion? Isn't it to teach that this case is not one that results in exile?
Answer: R' Yochanan: But according to your reasoning, why does the Mishnah need to say it the first time? Rather, it must be to add the case of the butcher: (Braita) Case: if a butcher is chopping meat and accidentally kills someone.
-One Braita: If s/he killed them while s/he was swinging his/her arm and cleaver forward, s/he is chayav exile, but not if s/he was swinging it backward.
-Another Braita: If s/he killed them while s/he was swinging his/her arm and cleaver backward, s/he is chayav exile, but not if s/he was swinging it forward.
-Another Braita: Regardless of whether it was forward or backward, s/he is chayav.
-Another Braita: Regardless of whether it was forward or backward, s/he is not chayav.
Resolution: There is no difficulty among the Braitot. The first is talking about when the forward motion is downward and the backward motion is upward, the second is talking about when the backward motion is downward and the forward motion is upward, the third is when both forward and backward are downward, and the fourth is when both forward and backward are upward.

Proposal: Let's say that R' Abahu's case of the ladder is like the following: If someone is going up a ladder and the rung falls and kills someone, one Braita says s/he is chayav exile, and the other says s/he is not.
Question: Isn't the following what they disagree about?
Suggestion: One says it's upward, and one says it's downward.
Rejection: No, because everyone says it's upward...
Resolution: ...but there is no difficulty between the two Braitot. The first is when the victim was damaged but not killed (so there is no exile), and the second is when the victim was killed.
Another suggestion: There is no difficulty, because the first is talking about a rotting, worm-eaten rung (so it was downwardly sagging), whereas the second is not.
Another suggestion: There is not difficulty-- they were both worm-eaten and rotting, but the first Braita refers to a rung that was not securely attached, whereas the second one was.

Mishnah
Case 1: If the blade falls off the handle of an axe and kills someone, Rebbi says s/he is not chayav exile, whereas the Chachamim say s/he is.
Case 2: If someone was chopping wood and a woodchip flew off and killed someone, Rebbi says s/he is chayav exile, whereas the Chachamim say s/he is.

Gemara
Braita: Rebbi said to the Chachamim: Doesn't the pasuk not refer to the first case, and instead to a case without the axe (the second)? Also, it says "eitz" in both-- therefore, it must refer to the wood being chopped.
Clarification: R' Chiya b' Ashi quotes Rav: Rebbi and the Chachamim quote the same pasuk, but they learn different things: Rebbi bases his understanding on the way that the word is written ("v'nisheil"), whereas the Chachamim base their understanding on the way it is pronounced ("v'nashal").
Question: Does Rebbi really read it this way?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCUSSION QUESTION(s)

I was really late in posting, so as an apology, I'll give you a choice of questions. Feel free to pick the one you want to answer (or more, if you so desire) of the three:

1) What do you think the purpose is of exile/Arei Miklat? Is it to save the person from a goel hadam? Is it a punishment, or is it a deterrent? Extra points if you can back yourself up.
Regarding the treifah logic:
2) Don't we usually follow the majority? Most people are not walking around with holes in their internal organs, so how could we base such a gravely large ruling on a minority?
3) Is the fact that there is no death penalty for someone who kills a treifah positive or negative? (Just to clarify, it's still forbidden, just there is no death penalty.) On the one hand, it may seem callous, because they are still people, but on the other hand, could it be seen as an allowance to put a person out of his/her misery?