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?
I think that at the time that this gemara was written, it was normal for a parent to hit a child and thus "Yaser Bincha vi'Nichecha" would be interpreted to mean that it is a mitzvah for a parent to hit a child. Nowadays, however, we are exposed to hundred of psychological studies that prove that hitting a child is not the correct way to teach him something, in fact, it is quite harmful to the child. As a result, I would say that this idea of hitting a child is no longer relevant today. Rather, the idea that one should teach their children the right values is what we should take away from this phrase.
ReplyDeleteRather than considering this a time based issue, I think the idea is that you should "hit" in the sense of impacting a child with an idea or a notion you want to bestow in him/her. A parents duty is to teach a child and get the message across. My parents used to make me feel really guilty when I did something wrong, and they would just say they were disappointed, which was more painful than being physically hit. I think the Gemara's point is simply to ensure your child is taught the proper values in a way that will stick with him/her in an unforgettable way.
ReplyDeleteI love this answer.
DeleteI agree with Leora that "hit" could refer to punishing the child in any way that the parent feels he can teach his son a lesson. It is also important to note that the Halacha would only permit hitting a child for the purposes of chinuch, if that was the most productive way, and it would also be assur to hit the child for any other reason, for example, out of frustration or anger. The father must be hitting the child purely out of love and only to the extent that he feels necessary to teach the child.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to go with a combination of Leora's and Shana's answers-- I really liked Leora's answer, that the importance is in the impact. At the time of the Amoraim, the way to do this may have been physical, but now it may be something else. The value is in the gravity of the teaching, not the method.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the other answers completely. I also think that the Gemara might be extreme, and just showing the importance of teaching your children the right way. It might be that the Gemara is teaching a lesson, but not being literal.
ReplyDeleteWe learn that we are not supposed to get angry except in certain situations. However, when a parent wants to teach their child something\ rebuke them for doing something bad, they can and should act angry (although not feel it in their heart) in order to teach their child a lesson. I think the same applies with "hitting" their child. The point of hitting one's child is to teach their child a lesson and they should not do this as an act of abuse, G-d forbid, or feel resentful when doing it, but rather this was a means to teach their child a lesson. This is only one parenting method, and there are many other methods to teach one's child a lesson.
ReplyDeleteWhen listening to R' Aryeh Lebowitz's shiur on this daf, he explained this case as one of either a father or rebbe hitting a child while learning torah to try to get the best out of him. He kept it vague and clearly stated that it wasn't halacha l'maaseh, and I hope to look into those actual practical implications. But for now, I think I just accept the fact that the gemara is citing the way that they used to teach their children in a way that they would get the best learning out of them. Again, echoing our discussion in class last week, we owe respect to the Rabbanim that came far far before us, and while we will of course look into the practical implications for us, which don't advise physically abusing our children, the Torah is an ancient being that we must respect- not just the written, but also the oral.
ReplyDeleteI think that we have to keep in mind the societal context. This was a time when it was the norm to hit your son, and maybe then it was psychologically effective. We cannot compare today to hundreds of years ago.
ReplyDeleteI think that the reason it says for a father to “hit” his son is to teach his son a lesson if he did something wrong. Although in the 21st century hitting a child for disciplinary reasons is considered harsh and not as common as it used to be, in the times of the Gemara it was common to hit a child to discipline him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what everyone else has said. When we hear about parents hitting their children in the 21st century, we negativley judge them. However, not long ago it was very normal and acceptable for a child to be hit if they misbehave. When you think about it objectively, it could make sense that hitting a child would help them learn. We want to set children up to be the best person they can be and if they negativley associate doing something bad with pain, then they will be less likely to repeat whatever they have done.
ReplyDeleteThe Chida supports Leora's approach to this question since it brings up the machloket about whether Bat-Sheva really did tie Shlomo-hamelech to a pillar and oppress him or did she just threaten him? The fact that she was even able to just threaten shows that the purpose in hitting a child is the impression it will make. We are to teach the next generation our values, not in hitting of course, but through making a lasting impact.
ReplyDeleteI think that this case mostly relates to the times of the Gemara, but that we can still apply some aspects of it to nowadays. During the times of the Gemara, it was socially acceptable to hit and rebuke one's son; people were therefore able to perform the mitzvah without any questions. Nowadays, when it is not socially acceptable to hit one's son, I think that we should view this mitzvah with a different perspective--maybe not read it literally. Maybe we can apply this mitzvah nowadays by saying that it means we should discipline our children and show them the right way with some harshness involved. I do not think that we need to interpret it literally, but in the times of the Gemara it was acceptable to interpret it literally.
ReplyDelete