ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 13
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Zeh D'var
ha'Rotze'ach" - that a murderer whom the residents of the Ir Miklat wish to
honor is initially obligated to say to them 'Rotze'ach Ani'.
(b) He may however accept their offer - should they persist.
(c) According to ...
1. ... Rebbi Yehudah, the murderers had to pay the Levi'im rent. Rebbi
Meir - maintains that they live there free of charge.
(d) Rav Kahana extrapolates from the Pasuk ve'Hayu *Lachem* he'Arim
le'Miklat mi'Go'el ... " - that the first of the two Machlokos is confined
to the six initial Arei Miklat.
2. ... Rebbi Meir, when the murderer returned to his hometown, he would
return to whatever prominent position he held previously (such as Nasi or
Beis-Din); according to Rebbi Yehudah - he doesn't.
(a) Rebbi Yehudah interprets "Lachem" to mean 'to take you in', whereas
Rebbi Meir interprets it to mean - 'for all your needs' (i.e. even without
having to pay).
(b) According to this explanation - they would most certainly have to pay
rent to the Levi'im for residing in the other forty-two towns.
(c) Rava objects to Rav Kahana's interpretation - because to his mind
"Lachem" certainly implies 'for all your needs' (which, according to both
Tana'im is the Halachah regarding the six initial towns).
(d) According to Rava, the basis of the Machlokes is then how to interpret
the Pasuk (in connection with the forty-two towns) "va'Aleihem Titnu", which
Rebbi Yehudah interprets to mean - exactly like the initial six (having to
pay rent), and Rebbi Meir, that they are Kolet like the first six, but no
(a) Rebbi Yehudah explains the Pasuk "ve'Shav el Mishpachto (ve'el Achuzas
Avosav Yashuv") to mean that he - meaning an Eved Ivri, returns to his
family, but not to his previous position.
***** Hadran Alach 'Eilu Hein ha'Golin' *****
(b) Rebbi Meir interprets the Pasuk to mean - that he also returns to any
previous position that he may have held.
(c) Rebbi Meir learns from the word "Yashuv" - that this Din also extends to
the Din of a murderer who returns from the Ir Miklat.
(d) Rebbi Meir's real source for his latter ruling is (not solely because
"Yashuv" is a 'Ribuy', but) - because it is superfluous, enabling us to
learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' ("ve'Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol *Yashuv*
ha'Rotze'ach ... ") from it.
***** Perek ve'Eilu Hein ha'Lokin *****
(a) Our Mishnah includes in the list of 'Lokin', seven cases of Arayos that
are Chayav Malkos 'a sister, a paternal and a maternal aunt, a wife's sister
and brother's wife (sisters-in-law), a father's brother's wife (an aunt by
marriage) and a Nidah - which are all Chayav Kareis.
(b) The list of 'Lokin' is not comprehensive, seeing as there are three
hundred and sixty-five La'avin (most of which are subject to Malkos). The
Tana chose to insert ...
1. ... Tevel, Ma'aser Rishon she'Lo Nitlah Terumaso and Hekdesh she'Lo
Nifdeh - because in neither case, is the La'av is not clearly spelt out in
(c) The Tana includes 'Almanah le'Kohen Gadol' and 'Gerushah va'Chalutzah
le'Kohen Hedyot' in the list - to teach us that a Kohen Gadol who marries a
woman who is both receives two sets of Malkos.
2. ... Ma'aser Sheini she'Lo Nifdeh - because, it is similar to Hekdesh
she'Lo Nifdeh, inasmuch as it too, is based on the fact that it has not been
3. ... most other La'avin - because there is a Chidush attached to them.
(d) Nevertheless, a Kohen only receives one set of Malkos for a woman who is
both a Gerushah and a Chalutzah - because Chalutzah does not have its own
Pasuk, and is only learned from a superfluous word ("ve'Ishah") that is
written in the Parshah of Gerushah (see also Tosfos DH 'Gerushah').
(a) He also includes 'Mamzares u'Nesinah le'Yisrael'. The source of the
La'av pertaining to a Nesinah is - the Pasuk in Va'eschanan "Lo Sischaten
(b) Malkos will apply equally the other way round (to a 'bas Yisrael
(c) The La'av for Nosar is the Pasuk "ve'Sarafta es ha'Nosar ba'Eish, Lo
Ye'achel". From the continuation of the Pasuk "Ki Kodesh Hu", we
incorporate - Pigul and all cases of Hekdesh that became Pasul ('P'sulo
(a) The basic difference between 'ha'Mefatem es ha'Shemen' and 've'ha'Sach
be'Shemen ha'Mishchah' is - that whereas the former pertains to making a
replica of the anointing oil, that latter pertains to anointing oneself with
the original oil itself.
(b) The source for the La'av for eating ...
1. ... Tevel is the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Lo Sechalelu es Kodshei B'nei Yisrael
Asher *Yarimu* la'Hashem" ('ba'Asidin li'Terom ha'Kasuv Medaber') ...
(c) One receives Malkos for eating Ma'aser Sheini that was not redeemed from
the Pasuk in Re'ei "Lo Suchal Le'echol bi'She'arecha". In order to
transgress, he must eat it - in Yerushalayim.
2. ... and the same source applies to Ma'aser Rishon whose Terumah has not
been taken, since it is also called Tevel.
(d) The source of the La'av for eating ...
1. ... Terumah is - the Pasuk in Emor "ve'Chol Zar Lo Yochal Kodesh".
2. ... Hekdesh that was not redeemed is - the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Chet"
"Chet" from Terumah.
(a) The author of our Mishnah that includes Chayvei K'risus in Malkos but
not Chayvei Misas Beis-Din, is Rebbi Akiva, who explains in a Beraisa - that
whereas Kareis is subject to Divine pardon, Misas Beis-Din is not.
(b) Rebbi Yishmael rules - that both Chayvei K'risus and Chayvei Misas
Beis-Din are subject to Malkos.
(c) Rebbi Yitzchak learns from 'Achoso', which was included in the Pasuk in
Acharei-Mos "Ki Chol Asher Ya'aseh mi'Kol ha'To'avos ha'Eileh ve'Nichresu",
yet the Torah mentions it separately (in Kedoshim "ve'Ish Asher Yikach es
Achoso ... ve'Nichr'su") - that even Chayvei Kareis are not subject to
(d) Rebbi Yitzchak knows that this extends to all Chayvei Kareis - from the
principle 'Kol Davar she'Hayah bi'Chelal ve'Yatza min ha'K'lal Lelamed, Lo
Lelamed al Atzmo Yatza Ela Lelamed al ha'K'lal Kulo Yatzta'.
(a) We cite Rebbi Yishmael's source (to give Malkos to both Chayvei K'risus
and Chayvei Misas Beis-Din) as the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos
es Kol Divrei ha'Torah ha'Zos ... ve'Hiflah Hashem es Makoscha". Rebbi
Yoshmael extrapolates Malkos from - the word "*ve'Hiflah" (which is similar
to the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei (in connection with Malkos) "*Vehipilo*
ha'Shofet, Veikahu Lefanav").
(b) We nevertheless preclude Chayvei Asei from Malkos, initially based on a
principle of Rebbi Avin Amar Rebbi Ilai, who states the principle that 'Kol
Makom she'Ne'emar Hishamer, Pen ve'Al - Eino Ela Lo Sa'aseh (and here too,
the Torah writes "Im Lo *Sishmor*).
(c) We initially think that Rebbi Yishmael learns from "La'asos" - that a
'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' is precluded from Malkos.
(a) Finally however, we preclude a 'La'av she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh' from Malkos
from the same source as a 'La'av she'Nitak la'Asei' - (a La'av which the
Torah enables one to rectify by performing an Asei and) which we learn from
the La'av of Chasimah ('Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho') which is a Binyan Av.
(b) We also preclude - Mitzvos Asei from the La'av of Chasimah.
(c) We learn specifically from that La'av more than from any other - because
it is juxtaposed to the Parshah of Malkos in Ki Seitzei.
(a) Rebbi Akiva learns from the Pasuk (in connection with Malkos) "K'dei
Rish'aso" - that there are no two punishments for one sin (in which case
someone who is Chayav Misas Beis-Din will not receive Malkos).
(b) Rebbi Yishmael disagrees with that - because he confines that D'rashah
to Misah and Mamon or Malkos and Mamon, but not to Misah and Malkos, since
Misah is really an extension of Malkos ('Misah Arichta Hi').
(c) In that case, we ask, why Rebbi Akiva does not also preclude Chayvei
Kareis from Malkos. The fact that they can do Teshuvah (which is what he
says) is not a good enough answer - because meanwhile, he receives Malkos
even if he has not.
(d) When Rebbi Avahu says that the Torah specifically includes Chayvei
Kareis in the Din of Malkos with the Gezeirah-Shavah of "le'Einei"
"le'Einecha" - he means that we learn Chayvei K'risus (where the Torah
writes "ve'Nichr'su le'Einei ... ") from Chayvei Malkos (where it writes
"ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha").
(e) When Rebbi Akiva gave the fact that one can do Teshuvah as the reason -
he was only explaining why the Torah was more stringent by Chayvei Kareis
than by Chayvei Misos Beis-Din (Hagahos ha'Bach).
(a) We initially reject Rebbi Aba bar Mamal Kashya that, in that case, why
do we not also learn "me'Einei" (written by Misas Beis-Din of
Avodas-Kochavim) from "le'Einecha" (and include Misas Beis-Din in Malkos) -
on the grounds that the two words differ in two details, making them too
different to learn one from the other.
(b) We overrule this Kashya however, with a statement of de'Bei Rebbi
Yishmael, who says about learning a 'Gezeirah-Shavah' "Shiyvah" from
"Bi'ah" - 'Zu Hi Shiyvah, Zu Hi Bi'ah' (since the words have the same
meaning it doesn't matter that their grammatical format differs completely).
(c) Besides we ask, if we can learn "le'Einei" from "le'Einecha" (K'risus
from Malkos) - why can we not also learn "me'Einei" from "le'Einei" (Misos
from K'risos), where the two words only differ in one detail?
(d) Rebbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak gave an answer to Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's
Kashya, and gave an answer. Alternatively, 'Kiblah Mineih Rebbi Shmuel bar
Rav Yitzchak' might mean - that he heard the answer from Rebbi Avahu
(against whom the Kashya was initially directed).
(a) In any event, to answer Rebbi Aba bar Mamal's Kashya, we qualify the
D'rashah 'Mishum Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo, ve'I Atah Mechayvo Mishum
Sh'tei Rish'ayos' - by confining it to punishments that are at the hands of
Beis-Din (since that is what the Pasuk is talking about), but not to those
that are at the Hand of Hashem (such as Kareis).
(b) Rava disagrees with the previous interpretation of the Machlokes
Tana'im. Even Rebbi Yishmael agrees he says, that if they warned the culprit
that he will be killed, he will not receive Malkos - because of the
principle 'Mishum Rish'ah Achas Atah Mechayvo ... ' (as Rebbi Akiva
(c) And they argue over - where he was warned for Malkos only, whether an
Azharah that is written in the Torah for Misas Beis-Din is subject to Malkos
(like every other Azharah in the Torah, Rebbi Yishmael) or not (Rebbi Akiva,
since it is needed for the Chiyuv Misah).
(d) In spite of what we just said, according to Rebbi Akiva, Chayvei Kareis
are subject to Malkos. We do not say there too, that the Azharah is needed
for Kareis - because Kareis does not require an Azharah.
(a) Rav Mordechai, quoting Avimi me'Hagrunya in the name of Rava, proves
this from Pesach and Milah, which are Chayav Kareis even though there is no
(b) We try contend that the La'av is needed for a Korban be'Shogeg (by
Chayvei Misas Beis-Din, and not for Malkos) - from Pesach and Milah, by
which the Torah does not write an Azharah, and which do not bring a Korban
(c) We refute this contention however - by attributing the absence of a
Korban to the fact that they constitute only an Asei, whereas we learn from
Avodas-Kochavim (one of the sources of Korban Chatas) that only the
contravention of a Lo Sa'aseh requires a Korban.
(d) Ravina reinstates our original interpretation of Rebbi Akiva, and he
takes his statement, 'she'Im Asu Teshuvah, Beis-Din shel Ma'alah Mochlin
Lahen' literally. He answers the Kashya that we asked earlier 'Ha Lo Avud
Teshuvah' - by pointing out that nevertheless, the fact that Teshuvah
rescinds the Kareis makes its implementation uncertain. That is why it is
not called 'Sh'tei Rish'ayos, and that is why he receives Malkos, too (even
if he has not yet done Teshuvah).