IS THE AREV A PARTY TO THE CASE?
Ila'a and Tuvya were relatives of the Arev (cosigner) of a loan.
(Rav Papa): Since they are not relatives of the lender or borrower, they may testify about the loan.
Rejection (Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua): If the borrower cannot pay, the lender collects from the Arev! (Therefore, they are relatives of a party in the case, and they cannot testify.)
SANHEDRIN IN CHUTZ LA'ARETZ
(Mishnah): If Beis Din sentenced Ploni to die and he fled, and he came before the same Beis Din again, the verdict stands. We do not judge him again.
If two witnesses testify in any Beis Din that Ploni was sentenced in Almoni's Beis Din, based on testimony of Reuven and Moshe, we kill him.
Also Sanhedriyos in Chutz la'Aretz are authorized to execute people.
A Sanhedrin that kills one person in seven years is called brutal;
R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, once in 70 years.
R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say, had we sat on the Sanhedrin, no one would ever have been killed;
R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, that is improper. People would not fear Beis Din, and murders would increase!
(Gemara) Inference: In front of the same Beis Din again, the verdict stands, but if he came before a different Beis Din again, we judge him again;
Contradiction (the next clause): If two witnesses testify in any Beis Din that Ploni was sentenced in Almoni's Beis Din, based on testimony of Reuven and Moshe, we kill him.
Resolution (Abaye): In Chutz la'Aretz the verdict stands. In Eretz Yisrael it does not.
(Beraisa - R. Dostai): If Ploni was sentenced in Eretz Yisrael and fled to Chutz la'Aretz, the verdict stands;
If he was sentenced in Chutz la'Aretz and fled to Eretz Yisrael, we judge him again. Perhaps the merit of Eretz Yisrael will help find a reason to acquit him.
(Mishnah): Also Sanhedriyos in Chutz la'Aretz are authorized to execute people.
Question: What is the source of this?
Answer: It says "l'Chukas Mishpat l'Doroseichem (b'Chol Moshvoseichem", i.e. wherever you dwell)!
Question: If so, what do we learn from "b'Chol She'arecha"?
Answer: In She'arecha (Eretz Yisrael) we establish Sanhedriyos in every Pelach (group of cities) and in every city. In Chutz la'Aretz we establish a Sanhedrin in every Pelach, but not in every city.
HOW OFTEN SANHEDRIN SHOULD KILL
(Mishnah): A Sanhedrin that kills... (R. Eliezer ben Azaryah says, once in 70 years).
Question: Does R. Eliezer ben Azaryah mean that even once in 70 years is brutal? Or, is this a proper frequency?
This question is unsettled.
(Mishnah - R. Tarfon and R. Akiva): Had we sat...
Question: How would they exempt everyone?
Answer #1 (R. Yochanan and R. Elazar): They would ask the witnesses 'did you check (after the murder) whether the victim was Treifah (would have died even if not murdered, due to a fatal cut or puncture...)?'
Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): If the witnesses said that he was not Treifah, they would ask 'perhaps there was a hole where the murderer inserted the knife!' (Ramban - this means, perhaps there was a hole that you could have seen had you lifted up his clothing before the stabbing. Surely they do not ask about an internal hole that witnesses could never know about. R. Tam - if they do not know, the testimony is invalid. Tosfos - if they do not know, the testimony is valid. They would ask a barrage of questions, and almost certainly the witnesses would contradict each other about something, invalidating the testimony.)
Question: In a case of Arayos, what would they ask?
Answer (Abaye and Rava): They would ask if they explicitly saw the contact of the genitals. (Witnesses would never look so closely.)
Question: What do Chachamim (who argue with R. Tarfon and R. Akiva) consider sufficient testimony of Bi'ah?
Answer: It is like Shmuel said. It suffices if they acted (lied together) like adulterers.
WHO IS EXILED
One who killed b'Shogeg is exiled in the following cases.
He was pushing a Ma'agilah (a block or roller) to plaster the roof, and it fell from his hands and killed someone. (Rashi - the mortar is thickest in the middle of the roof, so he was pushing it down a slight incline);
He was lowering a barrel. It fell from his hands and killed someone;
He was going down a ladder, and he fell and killed someone.
He is not exiled in the following cases.
He was pulling a Ma'agilah back to himself, and it fell;
He was raising a barrel. The rope snapped, and the barrel fell;
He was ascending a ladder, and he fell.
The general rule is, if he killed doing anything Derech Yeridah (in a downward motion), he is exiled;
For anything not done Derech Yeridah, he is not exiled.
(Gemara) Question: What is the source of this?
Answer (Shmuel): "Va'Yipol Alav va'Yamos" - he is exiled only if the accident happened (when he was engaging in a downward motion,) the way things fall.
(Beraisa): "Bi'Shgagah" excludes Mezid. "Bi'Vli Da'as" excludes one who intended.
Objection: If he was Mezid, obviously he is not exiled. He is killed (Tosfos - by Beis Din. A different verse teaches about Mezid without warning; Ritva - even if he is not killed, even if he was Karov l'Mezid, surely he is not exiled!)
Answer (Rava): It excludes (something close to) Mezid, i.e. Omer Mutar (he thought that murder is permitted)
Question (Abaye): Omer Mutar is Ones!
Answer (Rava): I say that it is close to Mezid.
(Beraisa): "Bi'Vli Da'as" excludes one who intended.
Objection: If he intended, he is killed. Obviously he is not exiled!
Answer (Rabah): It excludes one who intended to kill an animal, a Nochri or a Nefel, and he killed a viable Yisrael.
(Beraisa): "V'Im b'Fesa" excludes one who (was carrying a knife and) killed when he turned a corner (he did not see the victim in time). "B'Lo Eivah" excludes if he hated the victim;
"Hadafo" - his body pushed him. "Oh Hishlich Alav" includes Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah (an upward motion).
"B'Lo Tzediyah" excludes one who intended to throw in one direction, and it went in another direction;
"Va'Asher Lo Tzadah" excludes one who intended to throw two Amos, and it went four Amos.
"Va'Asher Yavo Es Re'ehu va'Ya'ar" - Galus applies only when the killer and victim both were allowed to be there, like in a forest.
ALIYAH AND YERIDAH
Question (R. Avahu): If one was ascending a ladder and the rung fell and it killed someone, what is the law?
Is this considered Aliyah (because he was ascending), or Yeridah (when he steps on a rung, it sags a bit)?
Answer (R. Yochanan): This is Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah. (The Beraisa says that he is exiled for this.)
Question (Mishnah): The general rule is, for anything done Derech Yeridah, he is exiled. For anything not Derech Yeridah, he is not exiled.
Question: What does the Seifa (anything not Derech Yeridah) come to include?
Answer #1: It includes R. Avahu's case!
Counter-question: What does the Reisha (anything done Derech Yeridah) come to include?
Answer: You must say that it includes someone chopping meat (Yeridah for the sake of Aliyah, as we will explain);
Answer (and Answer #2 to Question 1): Likewise, the Seifa includes someone chopping (Aliyah for the sake of Yeridah, and he is not exiled).
If a butcher was chopping meat, and he killed;
(Beraisa #1): If this was while he was swinging in front (of himself), he is liable (Galus). If it was in back, he is exempt;
(Beraisa #2): If it was in front, he is exempt. If it was in back, he is liable;
(Beraisa #3): Whether it was in front or in back, he is liable;
(Beraisa #4): Whether it was in front or in back, he is exempt.
Version #1 (Rashi) Resolution: Wherever it says that he is liable, the case is, he was swinging down. Wherever it says that he is exempt, he was swinging up. (E.g. Beraisa #1 obligates in front when he was swinging down. It exempts in back when he was swinging up, even though this was for the sake of Yeridah, to chop down strongly in front.)
Version #2 (Rambam): If he killed while swinging back, he is exempt. If he killed while swinging forward, he is exiled. (E.g. Beraisa #1 obligates in front, at the end of a forward swing; it exempts in back, at the end of a backward swing.)
Suggestion: Tana'im argue about R. Avahu's case.
(Beraisa #1): If one was ascending a ladder and the rung fell, he is liable.
(Beraisa #2): He is exempt.
Suggestion: Tana #1 considers this Yeridah, and Tana #2 considers it Aliyah!
Rejection #1: No, both consider it Aliyah (Tosfos - both discuss a strong rung that does not sag, it is pure Aliyah);
Beraisa #1 obligates for damages (if the victim did not die). Beraisa #2 exempts from Galus.
Version #1 (our text) Rejection #2: Both Beraisos discuss Galus. In Beraisa #1, the rung was wormy (it sags down when he steps on it. This is considered Yeridah). In Beraisa #2, the rung was strong.
Version #2 (Rambam's text) Rejection #2: Both Beraisos discuss damages. In Beraisa #1, the rung was weak or not taut. In Beraisa #2 it was strong, but it fell because it became wormy (this is Ones). (end of Version #2)
Rejection #3: In both Beraisos it was not wormy. In Beraisa #1, the rung was loose (it sags). In Beraisa #2, it was taut.
THE CASE OF THE TORAH
(Mishnah - Rebbi): If (Reuven was chopping, and) the blade slipped off the wood and killed, Reuven is not exiled;
Chachamim say, he is exiled;
Rebbi says, if a piece of the wood he was chopping flew off and killed, he is exiled;
Chachamim say, he is not exiled;
(Gemara - Beraisa - Rebbi (to Chachamim)): It does not say 'v'Nashal ha'Barzel me'Etzo (its wood, i.e. the handle)', rather, "Min ha'Etz" (the wood, i.e. what he was chopping)!
Also, it says 'ha'Etz" twice. Just like the first time it refers to the wood he was chopping, also the second time!
(R. Chiya bar Aba): Both learn from the verse "'v'Nashal ha'Barzel Min ha'Etz." Rebbi holds that Yesh Em l'Masores (we expound the way a verse is written. Rashi - v'Nashal is written without an Aleph, so) we can read "v'Nishal" (the ax caused (a piece of) wood to come off);
Chachamim hold that Yesh Em l'Mikra (we expound the way we read (pronounce) a verse). We read it "v'Nashal" (the blade itself came off).
Question: Rebbi (normally) holds Yesh Em l'Mikra!
(Rav Yitzchak bar Yosef): The following Tana'im all hold Yesh Em l'Masores: Rebbi, R. Yehudah ben Ro'atz, Beis Shamai, R. Shimon and R. Akiva.
Answer: That is why Rebbi also learned from the Gezerah Shavah "ha'Etz-ha'Etz."