Question: Does the first Tana delay his execution in order to judge him?!

Answer #1 (Rav Yosef): They argue about a Milveh Al Peh. The first Tana says that it can be collected from heirs, and R. Shimon ben Elazar says that it cannot.

Objection (Rabah): All agree that a Milveh Al Peh cannot be collected from heirs!

Answer #2 (Rabah): Rather, they argue about whether or not Milveh ha'Kesuvah b'Torah is considered like a Milveh bi'Shtar. The first Tana says that it is, and R. Shimon says that it is not.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven was digging a pit in the public domain and Shimon's animal fell on Reuven and killed him, Shimon is exempt;

Further, if the animal died, Reuven's heirs compensate Shimon.

Answer (R. Ila'a citing Rav): The case is, Reuven died after Beis Din obligated him to pay. (This is like a Milveh bi'Shtar, therefore the heirs must pay.)

Question: The Beraisa says that the animal killed Reuven!

Answer (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): The case is, it made Reuven a Treifah.

Question: Rav Nachman taught that the animal buried Reuven in the pit (i.e. he never went to Beis Din)!

Answer: The case is, judges were sitting by the pit and obligated Reuven before he died.

(Beraisa): If Reuven was about to be executed, we are Zorek (throw) the blood of his Chatas or Asham;

If he sinned on his way to be executed, he does not bring a Korban.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer (Rav Yosef): We do not delay his execution.

Question (Abaye): If so, also in the Reisha we should not delay to do Zerikah!

Answer (Rav Yosef): The case is, the Korban was already slaughtered. (It is a tiny delay.)

Question (Abaye): If so, the Beraisa should distinguish between these cases;

It should say 'this is only if the Korban was already slaughtered. If not, we do not offer it!

Answer (Rav Yosef): This is what it means! We are Zorek the blood of his Chatas or Asham. This is only if the Korban was already slaughtered;

If not, we do not offer it.

(Mishnah): If a pregnant woman was about to be executed, we do not wait for her to give birth;

If (Rashi - before the final verdict; Tosfos - even afterwards) she sat on the Mashber (birthing stool), we wait for her to give birth.

If a woman was executed, we may benefit from her hair. If an animal was executed, we may not benefit from its hair.

(Gemara) Objection: Obviously, we do not wait. The fetus is part of her body! (It was included in the verdict to kill her.)

Answer: One might have thought that "Ka'asher Yashis Alav Ba'al ha'Ishah" teaches that the fetus is the property of the father, so we do not deprive him of it. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so.

Suggestion: Perhaps we do wait, so we will not deprive him of his fetus!

Answer (R. Avahu): "U'Mesu Gam Sheneihem" teaches that also the fetus is killed.

Question: We need this verse for a different law!

(Beraisa - R. Yoshiyah): "U'Mesu Gam Sheneihem" - they are killed only if they are alike (Rashi - both are adults; R. Gershom - and both were Mezid. If not, neither is killed.)

Answer: R. Avahu expounds the word "Gam."

(Mishnah): If she sat on the Mashber, we wait for her to give birth.

Question: What is the reason?

Answer: Once the fetus starts to leave, it is considered a separate entity.

(Rav Yehudah): Before a pregnant woman is executed, we hit her in the appropriate place to kill the fetus, lest it come out after she dies, which would be a disgrace.

Question: This implies that (otherwise) she might die first. We learned that the fetus dies first!

(Mishnah): A one-day old baby inherits and bequeaths.

(Question: He inherits from his father, and bequeaths to his paternal brothers. What difference does it make? Even if he did not inherit, his brothers would have inherited their father!)

Answer (Rav Sheshes): The Mishnah teaches that he inherits from his mother, and bequeaths to his paternal brothers;

This is only if he was born before his mother died, but not if she died before birth.

Explanation: When a pregnant woman dies, her fetus dies first. A son who died before his mother does not inherit her (when she dies) in order to bequeath to his paternal brothers.

Answer: When a pregnant woman dies naturally, since her fetus has little vitality, the bitter drop from the Mal'ach ha'Maves kills it first;

If she is killed, she can die first.

Question: A case occurred in which (she died naturally, yet) the fetus was Mefarches (quivered) three times!

Answer: Even though it died first, it still moves, just like a tail cut off a lizard.

(Rav Nachman): If a pregnant woman sat on the Mashber and died on Shabbos, we bring a knife, cut her open and remove the fetus. (We must say that once she sat on the Mashber, the fetus has more vitality; perhaps it is still alive. Tosfos (Nidah 44a DH Ihu) says that the Mishnah teaches that in every case a one-day old baby inherits and bequeaths. Sometimes the baby inherits and bequeaths even if she sat on the Mashber and died.)

Question: This is obvious. (Even if the fetus is dead, we did not transgress.) We merely cut dead flesh!

Answer (Rabah): He teaches that we may bring a knife through a Reshus ha'Rabim.

Question: Presumably, he teaches that we may desecrate Shabbos in a doubtful case of Piku'ach Nefesh (saving a life). We already learn this from a Mishnah!

(Mishnah): If a house caved in, we unearth it (even if we must desecrate Shabbos), even if we have the following doubts:

Perhaps no one was inside, and (even if someone was inside) perhaps he is already dead, perhaps he is a Nochri.

Answer: One might have thought that this is only when there is a Chazakah (we know that a Yisrael was alive to begin with. Here, the fetus has no Chazakah. Perhaps it is a Nefel.) Rabah teaches that even so, we may desecrate Shabbos.

(Mishnah): If a woman was executed (we may benefit from her hair).

Question: Why is this permitted? One may not benefit from a Mes!

Answer #1 (Rav): The case is, before dying she said "give my hair to my daughter."

Question: Had she said "give my hand to my daughter," we would not heed her (it is forbidden in any case. The same applies to her hair!)

Answer (Rav): It is not her hair. It is a wig.

Inference: Had she not said to give it to her daughter, it would be forbidden.

Question: R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina was unsure about this!

Question (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Must we burn hair of a Tzadekes of an Ir ha'Nidachas (a city that is burned because the majority of its residents served idolatry)?

(Rava): He asks about a wig of a Tzadekes of the city.

Answer: R. Yosi asks about a wig that she was not wearing. Here, it was attached to her. It is like herself, and it is forbidden unless she commanded to give it to her daughter.

Question (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Presumably, the case of her hair should resemble that of the animal's, i.e. its own hair!

Answer #2 (to Question (b) - Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): One may benefit from her until she dies. (Hair does not become forbidden, for it does not "die," i.e. death does not affected it.) Animals are different, for one may not benefit from (any part of) an animal once it is sentenced to die.

Levi taught a Beraisa supporting Rav, and a Beraisa supporting Rav Nachman.

(Beraisa #1): If a woman was being taken to be executed and she said "give my hair to my daughter," we give it. If she died (without saying this), we do not give it, for one may not benefit from a Mes.

Objection: This is obvious!

Answer: Rather, it teaches that one may not benefit from Noyei (adornments of a) Mes.

(Beraisa #2): If a woman was executed, one may benefit from her hair. If an animal was executed, one may not benefit from its hair.

Question: What is the difference between them?

Answer: One may benefit from her until she dies, but one may not benefit from an animal once it is sentenced to die.

(Mishnah): There is no Erech less than one Shekel. There is no Erech more than 50 Shekalim.

If (Reuven accepted to give an Erech of 50 Shekalim, and) he gave one Shekel (according to the Kohen's assessment) and later became rich, he need not give more;

If he gave less than a Shekel and later became rich, he must give 50 Shekalim.

R. Meir says, if he had five Shekalim, (since he cannot afford the full Erech) he gives only one Shekel;

Chachamim say, he gives all five.

There is no Erech less than one Shekel. There is no Erech more than 50 Shekalim. (We will discuss why this was repeated.)

(Gemara) Question: What is the source that there is no Erech less than one Shekel?

Answer: "V'Chol Erkecha Yihyeh b'Shekel ha'Kodesh" - every assessment of Erchin must be at least one Shekel;

We know that the biggest is 50, for that is the biggest Erech in the Parshah.

(Mishnah): If he had five Shekalim...

Question: What is R. Meir's reason?

Answer: The Torah says that the Erech is 50, and the above verse alludes to an Erech of one Shekel;

If he cannot give 50 (or any other Erech he obligated himself to give), he gives one.

Chachamim use the verse to teach that every assessment of Erchin must be at least one Shekel;

If the Ma'arich has more than one Shekel, we apply "Asher Tasig Yad ha'Noder." He must give as much as he can.

R. Meir says this verse teaches that Heseg Yad depends on the wealth of the Ma'arich, not of the Ne'erach.

Chachamim agree. However, we learn also (from the simple meaning of the verse) that he must give as much as he can.

(Rav Ada bar Ahavah): If Reuven had five Shekalim, and he said "Erki Alai", and again said "Erki Alai":

If he gave four Shekalim for the latter Erech and one for the former, he was Yotzei for both.

Question: What is the reason?

Note: All his money is Meshu'abad (there is a lien on it) to (pay for) the first Erech (indeed, he should have paid it first). It is as if he had no money for the latter (his Heseg Yad evaluation was one Shekel);

B'Di'evad, the money he gave for the latter Erech is valid, just like a creditor who collected (Metaltelim) before earlier creditors of the same borrower;

When he gave his last Shekel for the first Erech, it suffices, for he has no more money.