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?
I think this is question is very relevant to many aspects of our lives. People often say things like "I don't want to learn Hilchot Lashon Hara because then I'll have to be more careful about my speech", or other such statements, which we (or at least I) have learned to be false.
ReplyDeleteMy guess/hope is that maybe this concept applies either to mitzvot which should be common knowledge and innate in humans (like not killing) and mitzvot that the individual is specifically avoiding learning about (like lashon hara). Learning is a lifelong process, and HaShem knows that. We can't be expected to know everything from day one.
I think this applies to mitzvoth that you know exist but do not do, not necessarily on purpose, but because you choose not to learn it because you think it does not apply to you (and also like Chana said, if you think you're exempt because you didn't learn the rules). It is our job to learn the Torah and to do the mitzvoth and if someone knows that a mitzvah exists but doesn't know the parameters of the mitzvah, he should study and learn the rules so that he can learn how to do the mitzvah correctly. I think that choosing not to learn about a mitzvah that you know about is what HaShem holds us responsible for. We have to make an effort to know as much as we can (and if that is different for each person). We don't have to know everything, but we have to make an effort.
ReplyDeleteI dont think that this applies to all mitzvot,only to mitzvot that are intuitive, because the case in the gemara, discussing Avimelech's being responsible for his action even though he did not know Sarah was Avraham's wife, is referring to a ben noach, and the sheva mitzvot bnei noach, according to the Rambam (Rambam Hilchot Melachim 9:1) are common sense ""Vehadaat noteh aleihen." (Rambam above) Therefore, bnei noach should know those laws or should have at least learned about them because they are so applicable and intuitive. Not all mitzvot are intuitive, however, and for some of them we dont even understand the reason behind it (chukim). The Torah is very vast and it is very hard to learn all of the mitzvot. We should do our best to learn the mitzvot and shouldn't not learn something just because we do not want to fulfill it. I dont think that Hashem would hold a person responsible for violating a mitzvah that is not intuitive if that person is truly making an effort to learn Torah, but did not learn that mitzvah yet.
ReplyDeleteI think this concept is true for the mitzvot that we know and that are relevant to nowadays. We can balance learning mitzvot and reviewing what we learned by incorporating daily mitzvot into our life everyday and as we become more immune to them, then we can add mitzvot that we may not always do like we are supposed to. By slowly adding in new mitzvot and learning new ones it’s will not be completely overwhelming.
ReplyDeleteI think it is very unlikely that this concept applies to all mitzvot even if you never learned them, especially ones that are not common sense. How can Hashem punish someone for wearing shatnez? It is not intuitive that wearing wool and linen is forbidden. However, it is our job to constantly be growing and learning so once we have learned something, you can't not follow it. Then is when you are punished for not doing something.
ReplyDeleteI think that this concept applies to mitzvoth that are obvious or for the common good. For example, it is common sense to not kill or steal, so even if you have never learned the actual sources in the torah for this mitzvah, you would be held accountable for violating it. However, there are 613 mitzvoth in the torah. That is a lot. It is very difficult to learn and remember all of them, and therefore, its is not feasible that we would be held accountable for violating those that we do not know or forgot about. I also think that we must continue learning the torah in depth so that we can try to learn all the mitzvoth, but I do think that if it comes down to a choice, it is better to review and practice the mitzvoth that you already know, because I think that it is better so do only some of the mitzvoth, but do them really well, than do all of them, but only perform them halfheartedly.
ReplyDeleteThis question is so true and relevant today, and I really believe that it applies to all of the mitzvot that are applicable to us. Even though I cannot say that I am performing all of these mitzvot properly and have studied and learned how to do all of them, but when the torah tells us to study when we rise and when we go to sleep, when at home and on the road, G-d is telling us to fully engage ourselves in torah study and to learn the halachot so that we can keep them! I would hope that there is a bigger importance placed on bigger mitzvot. Yet bottomline, the intentions that the person has, I think, really matter- because in Judaism, the effort a person makes and the actions they take have importance; it's not just about the end result.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is an important idea that applies to all mitzvot. It is important that we are dedicated and committed to HaShem and Torah. We must try to remember what we learn, to be ale to apply it in our day to day lives. Also, when this idea is mentioned in the Gemara, it does not specify that it is limited to certain mitzvot--it seems as though it is broad and applies to all mitzvot. I think that the murder case used to debate this idea is just an example.
ReplyDeleteI think that when we say that HaShem holds us accountable for something we never learned, I think what He could be saying is that if we do not make an effort to learn more or learn new things, then He will hold us accountable. If we haven't gotten up to something yet while learning new things, He will not hold us accountable for it, since we are trying to learn more and grow closer to Him and His Torah.
Along the lines of what Tamar and Tamar said, I feel as though it applies to all of the mitzvot that are applicable to us. There is a slight difficulty with saying that this only applies to "main" mitzvot or obvious mitzvot since one should strive to keep all the mitzvot even ones that arent the most essential or prevaIent and this would create a clear divide. Yet,I do agree that the intentions of the person in the situation matters. Judaism has the concept of kavana, not just about the action.
ReplyDeleteI believe only G-d and ourselves know our abilities. We should balance by finding out the amount of time and concentration we each have to study Torah and be satisfied. Everyone is different.
ReplyDelete