[71 - 40 lines; 71b - 39 lines]

1a)[line 3]דקטלאKETALA- punishment of death

b)[line 3]מלקותMALKUS- punishment of lashes

2)[line 4]דאינו לוקה ומשלםD'EINO LOKEH U'MESHALEM - a person does not receive two punishments, one of Malkos (lashes) and one of a monetary payment (but rather he receives the more severe - Malkos)

(a)When one performs a single act from which he incurs two punishments, or a punishment and a monetary liability, the more severe punishment exempts the sinner from the less severe one. For example, one who stabs another to death will not have to pay for the shirt that he tore while stabbing, since he receives the death penalty.

(b)This rule is only true if the two punishments, or the punishment and the monetary liability are caused by a "single action." If one follows the other, even by one second, the sinner is punished with both punishments.

(c)Rebbi Meir argues with this principle and holds that this only applies to a death penalty. One who is punishable with Malkos, though, is required to pay as well as to receive Malkos (Kesuvos 33b).

3)[line 9]שור הנסקלSHOR HA'NISKAL

The term Shor ha'Niskal refers to any animal or bird that is stoned to death by Beis Din. Such an animal is Asur b'Hana'ah after the death sentence is issued. One of the instances of Shor ha'Niskal is an animal that killed a person, as described in Shemos 21:28-31 and in Sanhedrin 2a.

4)[line 23]דקם ליה בדרבה מיניהKAM LEI BID'RABAH MINEI (literally, "he remains with the worse of the two," or, "a more severe punishment exempts one from the less severe one")

(a)When one performs a single act from which he incurs two punishments, or a punishment and a monetary liability, the more severe punishment exempts the sinner from the less severe one. For example, one who stabs another to death will not have to pay for the shirt that he tore while stabbing.

(b)This rule is only true if the two punishments, or the punishment and the monetary liability, are caused by a "single action." If one follows the other, even by one second, the sinner is punished with both punishments. The Gemara questions what defines the difference between "a single action" and different actions. According to one opinion, the entire series of actions which define the more severe sin are considered a single action with regard to Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei. (Kesuvos 31a)

(c)There are a number of situations in which this rule does not apply:

1.Rebbi Meir holds that it only applies to a death penalty. One who is punishable with Malkos, though, is required to pay as well as to receive Malkos. (Kesuvos 33b)

2.If one sins b'Shogeg, Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei does not necessarily apply (that is, since no actual punishment is executed, the potential punishment does not exempt the sinner from monetary liability), as follows: If the sin is one which warrants the death penalty, Rav Dimi holds that Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree whether Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei applies, while Ravin says that they both agree that it applies. If the sin is one which warrants Malkos, Rebbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree whether Kam Lei bid'Rabah Minei applies. (Kesuvos 34b-35a)

3.In certain cases, if the monetary liability is paid to a person other than the victim, the sinner may be liable to pay even though he is also punished with the death penalty or Malkos.

5)[line 25]שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטהSHECHITAH SHE'EINAH RE'UYAH, LO SHEMAH SHECHITAH

(a)A proper Shechitah (ritual slaughter) that does not permit the animal to be eaten is referred to as a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah. (A Shechitah that was not performed properly is not a Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah. It is not a Shechitah at all.)

(b)The Shechitah of the bird of Tziporei Metzora, the Shechitah of a Parah Adumah, and Shechitah of a Shor ha'Niskal are examples of Shechitah she'Einah Re'uyah, because even after their slaughter, they may not be eaten.

(c)There is a Machlokes Tana'im whether a Shechitah that does not permit the animal to be eaten has the title of "Shechitah" (for various Halachic purposes other than for eating).

6)[line 30]המבשל בשבת בשוגג יאכלHA'MEVASHEL B'SHABBOS B'SHOGEG, YOCHAL- one who cooks inadvertently on Shabbos may eat the food (according to Rebbi Meir)

7)[line 33]בשוגג יאכל למוצאי שבת לאחרים ולא לוB'SHOGEG YE'ACHEL L'MOTZA'EI SHABBOS L'ACHERIM V'LO LO- [if done] inadvertently, the food may be fed to others on Motza'i Shabbos, but may not be eaten by the one who cooked it himself

8)[line 34]אפיתחא דבי נשיאהA'PISCHA D'VEI NESI'AH- on the entrance of the house of the Nasi (leader)

9)[line 35]מעשה שבתMA'ASEH SHABBOS- something that was produced on Shabbos by transgressing one of the 39 forbidden Melachos (categories of creative acts)

10)[last line]א מטו להכיAMATU L'HACHI- because of this

71b----------------------------------------71b

11)[line 4]פורתאPURTA- a little bit

12)[line 4]איסורי הנאה הוא ולא דמריה קא טבחISUREI HANA'AH HU, V'LO D'MAREI KA TAVACH - it is an item that is Asur b'Hana'ah, and it is thus not considered to be the owner's item that he is slaughtering (ISUREI HANA'AH)

Isurei Hana'ah are items from which it is prohibited by the Torah to derive benefit. Such items are considered to be of no monetary value. Some examples are Orlah (see Background to Kidushin 56:6), Kil'ei ha'Kerem (see Background to Kidushin 56:7), Chametz b'Pesach (see next entry), and Shor ha'Niskal (see Background to Bava Kama 44:20).

13)[line 15]דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמיDAVAR HA'GOREM L'MAMON, K'MAMON DAMI

(a)Davar ha'Gorem l'Mamon refers to an object in which the owner has neither the right to eat it, use it or derive benefit from it in any way. Still, if this object is destroyed, it causes its owner a financial loss. Examples of this are: 1. An object that is Asur b'Hana'ah at present but will be Mutar b'Hana'ah in the future, such as Chametz on Pesach according to Rebbi Shimon, who permits its use after Pesach; 2. An item that one accepted to be Shomer (to care for and return it to its owner unharmed) that became Asur b'Hana'ah or invalidated from use while it is in the hands of the Shomer. In certain circumstances, if a Shomer returns such an item (although it is now worthless) to its owner, he is not responsible to replace it with an object of value.

(b)The Tana'im (Bava Kama 74b) argue as to whether a person who steals or damages such an item is liable to pay the owner for it or for the damages (since he caused the owner a financial loss) or not (since it is worthless at present in either case).

14)[line 16]קדשים שחייב באחריותן חייבKODSHIM SHE'CHAYAV B'ACHRAYUSAN, CHAYAV (NEDER / NEDAVAH)

(a)A person may offer a Korban in the Beis ha'Mikdash as a voluntary sacrifice, as it states in Vayikra 1:2. Voluntary Korbanos may be Olos (which are burned entirely on the Mizbe'ach, see Vayikra 1:2-17, 6:1-6), Shelamim (parts of which are eaten, see Vayikra 3:1-17, 7:11-21, 7:28-37) or Menachos (flour offerings, see Vayikra 2:1-13, 6:7-11, 7:9-10).

(b)When a person states, "I pledge an Olah" ("Harei Alai Olah"), without singling out a specific animal, his pledge is called a Neder. When he sets aside an animal with which to fulfill his pledge, and the animal gets lost or dies, he must bring another in its place. If he states, "This animal is an Olah" ("Harei Zo Olah"), his pledge is called a Nedavah. If the animal gets lost or dies, he has no obligation to bring another in its place.

15)[line 25]גנב שור... והודה לאחד מהןGANAV SHOR... V'HODAH L'ECHAD MEHEN (MODEH BI'KENAS PATUR)- he stole and slaughtered the ox belonging to two partners, and then he admits what he did to one of the partners. Since the obligation to pay for slaughtering the stolen animal is a "Kenas," he should exempt for paying for the half to which he admit. Any payment that involves over-compensation for a monetary loss is considered a "Kenas" (penalty) rather than "Mamon" (compensation). In every case of Kenas, the liable party does not have to pay the Kenas if he admits to his guilt of his own accord. Only if witnesses testify to his guilt in court must he pay.

16)[line 33]כגון שעמד אביו בדיןKEGON SHE'AMAD AVIV B'DIN- the case under discussion is one in which the father already stood in court and had his verdict passed

17)[line 37]איידי דנסיב רישאAIDI D'NASIV REISHA- since it teaches in the first case

18a)[line 38]לצפראL'TZAFRA- in the morning

b)[last line]באורתאB'URTA- in the night

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF