Makkot 16

Chapter 16

א טמא יהיה מ"מ
1 'He shall be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—[i.e.] in any case." [Hence in the case of the corpse impurity it is not optional like the chopping wood case].
ב ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא טמא יהיה לרבות טבול יום טומאתו בו לרבות מחוסר כיפורים א"ל אנא מעוד (טומאתו) קא אמינא
2 "But he [i.e. you, Rava] needs this [verse] for [a case like] this baraita?!: 'He will be impure' (Numbers 19:13)—to include a day immerser (one who is impure and has immersed but needs to wait until nightfall to be pure). 'His impurity is in him' (Numbers 19:13)—to include one waiting for atonement." He said to him: "I say [that I derive my position] from 'more (od)' (Numbers 19:13)."
ג איכא דמתני לה אהא (שמות לד, כא) בחריש ובקציר תשבות ר"ע אומר אינו צ"ל חריש של שביעית וקציר של שביעית שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא כה, ד) שדך לא תזרע וכרמך לא תזמור אלא אפילו חריש של ערב שביעית שנכנס לשביעית וקציר של שביעית שיצא למוצאי שביעית
3 There are those that teach this on the following (Rava's statement, instead of being related to inadvertent killing will now be compared to laws of shemitah). "From the reaping and the plowing you shall rest" (Exodus 34:21). Rabbi Akiva says the text did not need to speak of reaping and plowing of the seventh year as it already said, "your field, do not plant and your vineyard do not prune" (Leviticus 25:4). Rather, it is teaching (the first verse) that even the plowing of the year before shemitah (is forbidden as its produce) will go into the 7th year and the (sanctity of shemitah is applied) for the reaping of the 7th year that will go out (continue to grow) after the 7th year.
ד רבי ישמעאל אומר מה חריש רשות אף קציר רשות יצא קציר העומר שהוא מצוה
4 Rabbi Yishmael says (his response because he sees the verse as referring to Shabbat): Just as plowing is optional (not a Mitzvah) so too reaping is optional (i.e. these acts are only forbidden on Shabbat if they are done voluntarily as opposed to for Mitzvah reasons). It excludes the reaping for the omer (offering) as it is a Mitzvah.
ה א"ל ההוא מרבנן לרבא ממאי דחרישה דרשות דלמא חרישת עומר דמצוה ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא תשבות א"ל כיון דאם מצא חרוש אינו חורש לאו מצוה
5 A certain Rabbi asked Rava: From where do you know (really R. Yishmael) that this plowing is voluntary? Maybe it is plowing for the Mitzvah of the Omer and even in this case, God said, "you shall desist." He said to him: If he were to find the (field) already plowed, then he would not have to plow again.(Therefore), plowing is not a Mitzvah.
ו איתיביה רבינא לרבא יצא האב המכה את בנו והרב הרודה את תלמידו ושליח ב"ד ואמאי לימא כיון דאילו גמיר לאו מצוה השתא נמי לאו מצוה התם אע"ג דגמיר נמי מצוה קא עביד דכתיב (משלי כט, יז) יסר בנך ויניחך
6 Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."
ז הדר אמר רבא לאו מילתא היא דאמרי קצירה דומיא דחרישה מה חרישה מצא חרוש אינו חורש אף קצירה נמי (מצא קצור אינו קוצר) ואי ס"ד מצוה מצא קצור אינו קוצר מצוה לקצור ולהביא:
7 He returned and said: That which I said before is not a thing (I could have given a better answer). Reaping is similar to plowing. Just as with plowing, if one found already plowed material, he does not have to plow another, so too with reaping, if he found it reaped, he does not have to reap again. And if you should think (that reaping, as brought by the verse) is a Mitzvah, if he found grain, (would he) not have to still reap? (Rather), it is a Mitzvah to reap and bring (new grain).
ח מתני האב גולה על ידי הבן והבן גולה ע"י האב הכל גולין על ידי ישראל וישראל גולין על ידיהן חוץ מגר תושב וגר תושב אינו גולה אלא על ידי גר תושב:
8 Mishnah: A father is exiled because of [killing accidentally] his son and the son is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] his father. Any person is exiled by way [killing accidentally] an Israelite and an Israelite is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] them except for a foreign resident. A foreign resident is only sent to exile for a [killing a fellow] foreign resident.
ט גמ' האב גולה ע"י הבן והאמרת יצא האב המכה את בנו דגמיר והאמרת אע"ג דגמיר מצוה קעביד בשוליא דנגרי
9 Gemara: "The father is exiled for his son." But didn't you say (in an earlier Mishnah) that a father who strikes his son is not exiled? But he was learned (which is why he would be exiled, since it was not a hit of a Mitzvah). But you said, even when he is learned, it actually is a Mitzvah that he is doing [so he would not be exiled]. [Here, we're talking about when the father is a carpenter and his son] is a carpenter's apprentice [so he is just teaching him a trade—and he would not be exiled].
י שוליא דנגרי חיותא היא דלמדיה דגמיר אומנותא אחריתי:
10 Learning [to be] a carpenter's apprentice is a livelihood that he is teaching him! [Actually] he is teaching him another trade [that is not his livelihood—so striking and killing him inadvertently will result in exile).
יא והבן גולה ע"י האב כו': ורמינהי (במדבר לה, יא) מכה נפש פרט למכה אביו אמר רב כהנא לא קשיא הא ר"ש והא רבנן
11 "And the son is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] his father..." And they pitted the following: "One who strikes a person" (Numbers 35:11) excludes one who strikes his father! Rav Kahana says: It is not a difficulty. This [is the opinion] of Rabbi Shimon and this [is the opinion] of the Rabbis.
יב לר"ש דאמר חנק חמור מסייף שגגת סייף ניתנה לכפרה שגגת חנק לא ניתנה לכפרה
12 According to Rabbi Shimon who says strangulation is more severe than decapitation [in the realm of punishment]. So, for the unwitting sin [in which, if he committed it intentionally, he would be punished with] beheading, he is given atonement [through exile]. But, an unwitting sin [which, if were done intentionally, would be punished with] strangulation, is not given atonement [through exile].
יג לרבנן דאמרי סייף חמור מחנק הורג אביו [בשוגג] שגגת סייף הוא ושגגת סייף ניתנה לכפרה
13 For the Rabbis who say beheading is more severe than strangulation: one who inadvertently kills his father, this is inadvertent sin [that would be punished, if done intentionally, with] beheading, so such an inadvertent sin would be given atonement [through exile—so this is the opinion of our Mishnah].
יד רבא אמר פרט לעושה חבורה באביו בשוגג ס"ד אמינא כיון דבמזיד בר קטלא הוא בשוגג נמי ליגלי קמ"ל:
14 Rava says:... [This case of non-exile for a son] is when he just hits [wounds] his father inadvertently. Since, you may have thought that if he would have killed him intentionally, he would be executed, then let him also be so in a case of inadvertent striking, this comes to teach us [that no, in fact, exile is specifically in cases of inadvertent killing and not striking/wounding].
טו הכל גולין על ידי ישראל וכו': הכל גולין על ידי ישראל לאיתויי מאי? לאיתויי עבד וכותי תנינא להא דת"ר עבד וכותי גולה ולוקה ע"י ישראל וישראל גולה ולוקה ע"י כותי ועבד
15 "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." "Everyone is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] an Israelite." To include what? To include a slave and a Samaritan. We have already taught about this as they taught in a baraita: A slave and a Samaritan are exiled or lashed by way of [committing a crime against] an Israelite. And an Israelite is exiled or lashed by way of a slave or Samaritan.
טז בשלמא עבד וכותי גולה ע"י ישראל ולוקה גולה דקטליה ולוקה דלטייה אלא ישראל גולה ולוקה ע"י כותי בשלמא גולה דקטליה אלא לוקה אמאי דלטייה (שמות כב, כז) ונשיא בעמך לא תאור בעושה מעשה עמך
16 This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]
יז אלא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב כגון שהעיד בו והוזם דכוותיה גבי עבד שהעיד בו והוזם עבד בר עדות הוא אלא אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהכהו הכאה
17 Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound
Previous ChapterNext Chapter