hebrew
1)

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

1.

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


1

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

2)

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

1.

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

2.

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


1

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!

2

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

3)

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

1.

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 .

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

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.

5.

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


1

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

2

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

3

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.

4)

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?

1.

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

5)

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!

1.

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.


1

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