*13.1 Makkos Daf 08 B (9 lines Up)**Summary*We learned in the Mishna that a son goes into _galus_ for killing his father.*Challenge:* The Beraisa states *_“makkeh nefesh_* (a blow that takes the soul) teaches that *a son does not go into _galus_* for killing his father _(because he sins by hitting his father even if his blow did not “take the soul”).__A murderer is executed by ‘sayif’ or ‘hereg’. An inadvertent murderer goes into galus instead of being killed by ‘sayif’, so we know that galus is a sufficient kapparah for a sin deserving of ‘sayif’, however we don’t know that galus is enough of a kaparah for someone who deserves a more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the chachomim regarding the severity of ‘Beis Din’s four execution types’. According to the Chachomim ‘chenek’ is the most lenient of all execution types. According to Rabbi Shimon, ’sayif’ is the most lenient._*Resolution:* The *beraisa follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,* and *the mishna follows the opinion of the Chachomim.* Since when one wounds his father he is killed by _‘chenek’,_ and by killing one’s father one has also wounded him, this man now needs a _kaparah_ for both _‘sayif’_ and _‘chenek’._According to *Rabbi Shimon* a son cannot go to _galus_ because he is liable for _‘chenek’_ which is more severe than _‘sayif/galus’_ . However according to *the Chachomim,* since _‘chenek’_ is not as severe as _‘sayif’ , galus_ is a sufficient _kaparah._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.6 Makkos Daf 08 B (9 lines after spreads)**Summary*We learned in the Mishna that a son goes into _galus_ for killing his father.*Challenge:* The Beraisa states *“ *makkeh nefesh** (a blow that takes the soul) teaches that *a son does not go into _galus_* for killing his father _(because he sins by hitting his father even if his blow did not “take the soul”).__A murderer is executed by ‘sayif’ or ‘hereg’. An inadvertent murderer goes into galus instead of being killed by ‘sayif’, so we know that galus is a sufficient kapparah for a sin deserving of ‘sayif’, however we don’t know that galus is enough of a kaparah for someone who deserves a more severe punishment. There is a difference of opinion among the chachomim regarding the severity of ‘Beis Din’s four execution types’. According to the Chachomim ‘chenek’ is the most lenient of all execution types. According to Rabbi Shimon, ’sayif’ is the most lenient._*Resolution:* The *beraisa follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon,* and *the mishna follows the opinion of the Chachomim.* Since when one wounds his father he is killed by ‘ _chenek_ ’, and by killing one’s father one has also wounded him, this man now needs a kaparah for both ‘ _sayif_ ’ and ‘ _chenek_ ’.According to *Rabbi Shimon* a son cannot go to _galus_ because he is liable for _‘chenek’_ which is more severe than _‘sayif/galus’._ However according to the *Chachomim* , since _‘chenek’_ is not as severe as _‘sayif’,_ galus is a sufficient _kaparah._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.5 Makkos Daf 08 B (4 lines after spreads)**Summary**Mishna:* A father goes into galus because of killing his son _[not during a mitzvah]._ A son goes into _galus_ because of his father.Anyone (including a ger or an eved) goes into galus for killing a Yisroel, and a Yisroel goes into galus for killing them, but not for killing a ger toshav.A ger toshav (only) goes into galus for killing a ger toshav _[this will be explained in the gemara. The Gra deletes the word “only” because a ger toshav also goes into galus for killing a Yisroel]._*Gemara:**Challenge:* Didn’t we learn (11.3) that a father doesn’t go into galus for killing his son? _[Our mishna seems to say that a father always *goes* into galus for killing his son]._*Resolution:* This mishna is referring to a son who is studying well and doesn’t deserve to be hit.*Challenge:* Didn’t we learn (12.1) that even a son who studies well should be hit?*Resolution:* This is a case where the father is teaching him carpentry, and he hits him for not studying well.*Challenge:* But it’s a mitzvah for a father to teach his son a livelihood.*Resolution:* He already learned some other parnassah. _[We see that just to hit a son is not a mitzvah, only whe, even if he’s doing well, it’s a mitzvah]._ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.4 Makkos Daf 08 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary*Rabbi Yishmael: Just as plowing is not done for a mitzvah, so too, reaping is only forbidden when it’s not for a mitzvah, but reaping the _omer_ is permitted even on shabbos.One of the Rabbanan said to Rava: Perhaps the plowing was also for the mitzvah of _omer_ ?Rava: Only the reaping is a mitzvah.*Ravina* challenged *Rava:* We learned in the mishna (11.3) “One only goes to _galus_ if he was not doing a mitzvah. *If a father killed his son* while spanking him, or *a teacher killed his student,* they do not go into _galus._”In the _mishna_ too, *it is not the act which is a _mitzvah,_* but the desired result, the improved performance of the student; “If he had studied, it wouldn’t be a mitzvah” still we see it is considered a mitzvah?!*Rava:* It *is a _mitzvah_ to hit a child* even when he learns well as the verse states: “Chastise your son _(or your student, or even anyone who is hit by Beis Din!)_ and he’ll give you nachas, and he will send refreshments to your soul (once you go to the next world he will send up packages of good deeds).’*Then Rava regretted* his explanation of the _beraisa_ (12.3) and offered this explanation:Plowing is mentioned together with reaping; *just as plowing is never a mitzvah in its own right* (although it may result in a mitzvah), so too, reaping is only forbidden when it is not actually a mitzvah, but *reaping the omer is always a mitzvah.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.3 Makkos Daf 08 B (4 lines Dn)**Summary**Another version* of the forgoing discussion (11.6-12.1):*Beraisa:* The _possuk_ states: “On Shabbos, *you should rest* in *plowing* [season] and in *reaping* [season]”.*Rabbi Akiva:* This verse must refer to the Shabbos of _shemittah_ , but *not to the year of _shemittah_* , because we already know that plowing and reaping is forbidden the entire year. *This verse teaches* that plowing for the benefit of the shemittah crop is forbidden even before shemittah, and reaping the shemittah crop *after the _shemittah_ year is forbidden.* _[This is called tosefes shevi’is]._*Rabbi Yishmael:* The verse does *refer to the weekly shabbos.* Although we already know that sowing and reaping is forbidden, it comes to teach us something new: Just as *plowing is not done for a mitzvah* , so too, reaping is only forbidden when it’s not for a mitzvah, but *reaping the _omer_ is permitted even on shabbos.**One of the Rabbanan* said to *Rava: Perhaps the plowing was also for the mitzvah of omer?**Rava:* Only *the reaping is a mitzvah.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.2 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines Up)*psssst... Did you hear about Toras Avigdor's crowdfunding campaign? It is *now in full swing* and you can make a special donation in honor of the gemara we learn together! cmatch.me/kevius*Summary*Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a _mitzvah_ ; one only goes to _galus_ if he was not doing a _mitzvah._*Rava:* The _possuk_ says: _*“Va’asher* yavo es rei’eihu bayaar_ (If someone happened to come to the forest with his fellow)”. This means that entering the woods was a matter of *his personal choice.* If the _possuk_ would be referring to someone entering the forest *for a _mitzvah_ the word _asher_ would not be appropriate.**Rav Ada bar Ahava* said to *Rava:* Does the word _asher_ denote a matter of personal choice? The _possuk_ states “A man _*asher* yitma,_ who happens to be impure [cannot enter the _mikdash_ or eat _kodesh_ ].” What if he was forced to become impure for a *_meis mitzvah_* ? According to you *he would be permitted to enter the _mikdash_ !**Response:* After the word asher, the _possuk_ adds: *“If he shall be _tamei,_* and the _tumah_ is still with him”. “He shall be _tamei_ ” teaches that *if he’s _tamei_ for any reason,* he is included in this prohibition.*Challenge:* Beraisa *: “If he shall be _tamei_ ,”* teaches that *a _tvul yom_* (someone who has already begun his purification process) *is included* in this prohibition. *“And the _tumah_ is with him,”* teaches that *a _mechusar kippurim_* (another level of the purification process) *is included* in this prohibition.*Resolution: There’s a superfluous word there* “And the tumah is *still* with him” this teaches that he is included in the prohibition *even if he became tamei for a _mitzvah._* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*12.1 Makkos Daf 08 A (10 lines Up)**Summary*Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a _mitzvah;_ one only goes to galus if he was not doing a _mitzvah._One of the Rabbanan said to Rava: Perhaps he went to chop wood for a _mitzvah?_Rava: Since he can use pre-chopped wood, the chopping is not a _mitzvah._*Ravina* challenged *Rava:* We learned in the mishna (11.3) “One only goes to _galus_ if he was not doing a _mitzvah_ . *If a father killed his son* while spanking him, or *a teacher killed his student,* they do not go into _galus._ ”In the _mishna_ too, *it is not the act which is a _mitzvah,_* but the desired result, the improved performance of the student; “If he had studied, it wouldn’t be a mitzvah” still we see it is considered a mitzvah?!*Rava:* It *is a _mitzvah_ to hit a child* even when he learns well as the verse states: “Chastise your son _(it’s a good investment!)_ and he’ll give you nachas, and he will send refreshments to your soul (once you go to the next world he will send up packages of good deeds).’ (see 12.4, 12.5).*Then Rava regretted* his explanation of the _mishna_ (11.6) and offered this explanation: The _possuk_ says: _*“Va’asher* yavo es rei’eihu bayaar_ (If someone happened to come to the forest with his fellow)”. This means that entering the woods was a matter of *his personal choice.* If the _possuk_ would be referring to someone entering the forest *for a _mitzvah_ the word _asher_ would not be appropriate.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.6 Makkos Daf 08 A (8 lines after spreads)**Summary*In our *beraisa* _u’matza_ refers to a head *that was already there.* In the second *_beraisa_* it refers to assets *that were not previously owned!**Rava: It depends on the context.* In the _possuk_ that the second _beraisa_ is based on, the words _v’hisiga yado - and finally he was able to afford it_ are written before _u’matza_ , so we understand that *it’s referring to assets that he did not have* previously.In our _beraisa_ the _possuk_ is discussing two people who were in the woods, so _u’matza_ means that *it was there previously just like the forest* was there from the beginning.Mishna (11.3), Abba Shaul: Just like chopping wood is not a _mitzvah;_ one only goes to _galus_ if he was not doing a _mitzvah._*One of the Rabbanan* said to *Rava: Perhaps he went to chop wood for a _mitzvah_* such as _sukkah_ or for the _mizbeach_ ?*Rava:* Since he can use pre-chopped wood, *the chopping is not a _mitzvah._* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.5 Makkos Daf 08 A (5 lines after spreads)**Summary**Mishna:* Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: If the victim stuck his head out after the thrower threw the stone, he does not go to _galus._*Gemara:**Beraisa:* The _possuk_ says “[If one causes an object to hurtle through the air] *_U’matza_* [and it will encounter his fellow and kill him]”. *This excludes a case* where it wasn’t the stone that encountered the man *but the man encountered the stone.* This is the source for the law of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.*Challenge:* It seems from here that the word *_u’matza_* refers to *something that was already there.*However there’s a _possuk_ that discusses someone who was forced to sell his ancestral fields *_u’matza_ - and finally he acquired enough money* to buy it back.The *_beraisa_* says: the word _u’matza_ excludes a case where he had money before he sold the property and is selling off previously held assets in order to acquire back this field.In our _beraisa_ this expression [ _u’matza_ ] refers to a head *that was already there.* In the second *beraisa* it refers to assets *that were not previously owned!* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*11.4 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to _galus._*Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a _shogeig?!_ *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an _oneis!_**Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too.*11.4 Makkos Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to _galus._*Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a _shogeig?!_ *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an _oneis!_**Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too.s Daf 08 A (4 lines before spreads)**Summary*If someone threw a stone into the street and it killed someone, he goes to _galus._*Gemara:**Question:* Someone who throws a stone out on the street is a _shogeig?!_ *He’s being careless!**Rav Shmuel bar Yitzchok:* This is discussing a case where *he was demolishing a wall* - he wasn’t just throwing stones out carelessly.*Question:* He should still watch what he’s doing!*Response:* The demolition is taking place *at night* (when streets are generally deserted).*Question: At night one must also watch* what he’s doing?*Response:* The stones aren’t falling into the street, but *into a dung-hill* (where people go to move their bowels).*Question:* If this is a place *frequented by people;* he is blameworthy! If it *isn’t frequented by people;* he shouldn’t even be considered a shogeig, *he’s an _oneis!_**Rav Papa: It’s a dung-hill that is generally frequented only at night,* and the demolition took place during the day, so he isn’t careless by letting the stones fall there, yet he should have checked if anyone happened to come by because sometimes people come during the day too. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate