POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Sanhedrin 77
1) THE EXEMPTION OF METZAMTZEM
(a) (Rav Mesharshiya): Rav Acha bar Rav exempted on account
of a verse:
2) LEAVING SOMEONE TO DIE
1. "Mos Yumas ha'Makeh Rotze'ach Hu" - a murderer is
liable for Metzamtzem, not a damager.
(a) (Rava): If Reuven tied up Shimon and Shimon starved to
death, Reuven is exempt (the cause of death (hunger) came
(b) (Rava): If Reuven tied up Shimon in a hot sun or in the
cold and he died from this, Reuven is liable;
1. If he tied him up before the sun shone there or
before it was cold, but knowing that the sun or cold
will later come, he is exempt (this is only Grama
(c) (Rava): If Reuven tied up Shimon in front of a lion, he
is exempt (Rashi - Shimon could not have escaped even if
he was not tied up; Tosfos - since Reuven had time to tie
him up, surely the lion was not yet upon him);
1. If he tied him up in front of a swarm of mosquitoes
and they killed him, he is liable.
(d) (Rav Ashi): Even if he tied him up in front of
mosquitoes, he is exempt - the ones chasing him went
away, others came and killed him.
(e) (Rava or R. Zeira): If Reuven tied a barrel over Shimon
(and he suffocated) or he uncovered the roof over him
(allowing the cold in, which killed him) he is liable;
(f) (The other of Rava and R. Zeira): He is exempt.
(g) Inference: Rava must say that he is exempt, for Rava
taught that if he tied him up and he starved to death,
Reuven is exempt.
(h) Objection: R. Zeira must exempt, for he taught that if
Levi locked Yehudah in a marble house and lit a fire (and
the heat killed him), he is liable;
1. Inference: Had *he* not lit the fire, he would be
(i) Answer: There, had he not lit the fire, he would be
exempt because the cause of death (the heat) did not
3) BOUNCING A BALL OFF A WALL
1. When he tied a barrel over him, the (lack of air,
the analog of the) heat is there from the beginning.
(j) (Rava): If Reuven pushed Shimon into a pit with a ladder,
and Yehudah or even Reuven himself removed the ladder
(leaving Shimon to die), he is exempt, because when he
pushed him in, it was possible to leave. (Removing the
ladder is only Grama.)
(k) (Rava): If Shimon was holding a shield, and Reuven shot
an arrow at him, and Yehudah or even Reuven himself
removed the shield, he is exempt;
1. This is because when he shot the arrow, it was not
prone to kill him, it is resolved that Reuven is
(l) (Rava): If Shimon was holding medicine (that could heal
him from being hit with an arrow), and Reuven shot an
arrow at him, and Yehudah or even Reuven himself removed
the medicine, he is exempt;
1. This is because when he shot the arrow, it was not
prone to kill him, Shimon could have cured himself.
(m) (Rav Ashi): Therefore, even if Shimon was not holding
medicine but he could buy it in the market, Reuven is
(n) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If when Reuven shot the
arrow Shimon did not have a way to obtain medicine, and
later Shimon had an opportunity but did not cure himself,
what is the law?
(o) Answer (Rav Ashi): Once Shimon had an opportunity to cure
himself, it was resolved that Reuven is exempt.
(a) (Rava): If Reuven threw a rock at a wall and it bounced
back and killed, he is liable.
(b) Support (Beraisa): If Levi was playing with a ball (to
bounce it off a wall) and it rebounded and killed
1. If Levi was Mezid, he is killed;
(c) (Rav Tachlifa bar Ma'arava - Beraisa): If Levi was
playing with a ball (like above) and it rebounded and
killed someone within four Amos (of the wall), he is
exempt (from Galus; some explain, from Misas Beis Din);
outside of four Amos, he is liable.
2. If he was Shogeg, he gets Galus (he must stay in an
3. Objection: This law (Galus) is obvious!
4. Answer: The Chidush is the first law, if he was
Mezid, he is killed;
i. One might have thought, since it is not clear
that it will bounce back, the warning is
doubtful and he is exempt - the Beraisa
teaches, this is not so.
(d) Question (Ravina): What is the case?
1. If he wanted it to go that far, he should be liable
even within four Amos;
(e) Answer (Rav Ashi): People who play with balls want the
ball to rebound as far as possible. (We assume that he
did not want it to go less than four Amos.)
2. If he did not want it to go that far, he should be
exempt even outside four Amos!
(f) Inference: (Since he is liable, this shows that) bouncing
a ball off a wall is considered a person's Ko'ach
(g) Contradiction (Mishnah): If Reuven wanted to Mekadesh (to
put ashes of the Parah Adumah on) water, and the ashes
fell on his hand or on the side of the vessel holding the
water and from there to the water, the Kidush is invalid.
(h) Answer: The case is, the ashes came to rest, and then
fell (by themselves, not because he initially dropped
(i) Question (Mishnah): If a needle was on earthenware, and
one sprinkled Mei Chatas, and he is unsure if it went
directly on the needle or if it fell on the earthenware
and from there Mitzah (spurted) to the needle, the
sprinkling is invalid.
(j) Answer (Rav Chinena bar Yehudah): The text should say
'Matza' (it was found) on the needle (the earthenware is
inclined, perhaps it flowed down, not on account of human
(k) (Rav Papa): Reuven tied up Shimon and directed water to
onto him, killing him - Reuven is liable for murder, for
his action killed him, it is as if he shot an arrow at
1. This is only if he was right by Shimon when he
directed the water; if not, he only *caused* the
death, he is exempt.
(l) (Rav Papa): If Reuven threw a rock up and it came down
and killed someone to the side, he is liable (the
sideways movement is Reuven's Ko'ach, it is not due to
(m) Question (Mar bar Rav Ashi): If you say that it moved on
account of his Ko'ach, it should have continued in the
direction he threw it, i.e. up!
1. Counter-question (Rav Papa): If you will say that it
is not his Ko'ach, it should have gone straight
(n) Answer (Rav Papa): Rather, the sideways movement is a
weak component of Reuven's Ko'ach.