Bearing in mind the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Ki Yimatzei Ish Gonev Nefesh", why does the Torah see fit to insert this Pasuk?


Rashi: To teach us that a woman, a Tumtum (someone whose sexual organs are covered) or an Androginus (someone who is bi-sexual) who kidnap are also Chayav Misah by strangulation. 1


Because every S'tam Misah is by strangulation (Rashi, citing Sanhedrin, 84b).


What are the ramifications of "ve'Nimtza be'Yado"?


Rashi: It means that witnesses saw the victim in the kidnapper's possession before he sold him. 1


Ramban (citing Sanhedrin, 85b): To teach us that he is only Chayav if he takes him into his domain. 2


The Ramban objects to this explanation, since it is obvious that, without witnesses who saw the kidnapping and the sale, he would not be Chayav Misah!


And, when subsequently selling him, he is transferred from the domain of the kidnapper to that of the purchaser (See Ramban).


Why did the Torah write kidnapping in between [murder,] striking parents and cursing parents?


Ramban citing R. Sa'adya Ga'on, Rosh, Hadar Zekenim #1: One who kidnaps a child and causes him to grow up among others, he is estranged from his parents, and may come to strike and curse them 1 .


Riva citing Tosfos Shantz, Hadar Zekenim #2: The Torah teaches Aveiros of increasing severity. One is liable for murder, and one who strikes a parent for a mere wound, and a kidnapper without any blow, and cursing a parent without even touching.


Riva #1, Hadar Zekenim #3: One Aveirah causes the next. Amidst striking a colleague, one comes to strike his father. Beis Din sentences him to death; he flees and kidnaps, for he does not know a trade. The kidnapped child does not know his parents, and may come to curse them, or the kidnapper himself might do so when he is caught to be executed.


Riva #2, Da'as Zekenim: A kidnapper and one who strikes parents are choked; one who curses parents is put afterwards, for he is stoned. Kidnapping was not put before striking parents 2 , in order to put striking [and killing] next to striking parents.


Rashi, Ramban, Hadar Zekenim #4, Moshav Zekenim (17): Kidnapping interrupts, lest we learn stoning from striking parents from cursing parents. 3


Ramban: Consequently, the kidnapper deserves the same punishment as the child who strikes his parents.


Presumably, it would be good to do so in order to put striking parents next to cursing parents. (PF)


Rashi, Moshav Zekenim: There is an argument about this. One opinion learns to obligate one who strikes one parent from a Hekesh to cursing. The other opinion obligates choking for striking parents; he does not learn from cursing.


Rashi writes that "Ish Gonev Nefesh" obligates a man who kidnaps a woman or minor, and our verse to obligate for a woman who kidnaps a man. What is the source for a woman who kidnaps a woman?


Riva, from Sanhedrin 85b: We learn from "u'Mes ha'Ganav ha'Hu."


Rashi writes that our verse obligates a woman who kidnaps. Why is this needed? Men are equated to women for all punishments in the Torah!


Moshav Zekenim (17, citing Ri): This is only when the Torah wrote in the masculine, but when it says "Ish", this excludes women. 1 Hadar Zekenim, Riva, citing R"A - this is why a Drashah was needed to teach that women can pledge Erchin.


Moshav Zekenim: Likewise, we need verse 17 to obligate a woman who curses her parents.

Chumash: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & Donations Readers' Feedback Mailing Lists Talmud Archives Ask the Kollel Dafyomi Weblinks Dafyomi Calendar Other Yomi calendars