| א. שאלות מבנה |
| A. Structural Questions |
נסה להסביר את מבנה הפרשה החל מפרק כ"א פסוקים י"ב-ל"ו על פי השאלות הבאות:
Try to explain the structure of the parsha from Exodus 21:12 to 21:36, based on the following questions:
1. What is the function of verse 13 in the segment from verses 12-17?
2. What is the function of verse 16 between verse 15 and 17? And should not verses 15 and 17 have ostensibly been adjacent [to each other]?
3. מה המאחד את הפסוקים י"ח-כ"ז לחטיבה אחת, ומה מקום חטיבה זו בין י"ב-י"ז ובין כ"ח והלאה?
3. What unites verses 18-27 into one section? And what is the function of this section between verses 12-17 [on the one side] and verse 28 and onward [on the other]?
4. What is the function of verses 33-34 (the laws of a pit) between verses 28-32 (an ox that gored a man) and verses 35-36 (an ox that gored an ox)? And should not verses 28-32 and 35-36 have ostensibly been adjacent?
| ב. שאלות מבנה |
| B. Structural Questions |
שים לב:
Note:
And if men contend...
And if a man smite...
And if men strive...
And if a man smite the eye of his bondman...
And if an ox gore...
And if a man shall open a pit...
And if one man’s ox hurt...
לעומת:
As opposed to:
If a man steal...
"כִּ֤י יַבְעֶר־אִישׁ֙ שָׂדֶ֣ה אוֹ־כֶ֔רֶם וְשִׁלַּח֙ אֶת־בעירה"
If a man lets his livestock loose to graze in another’s land...
If fire breaks out...
Explain the reason for the word, and, at the beginning of all the paragraphs between verses 18 and 35. What connects these verses and makes them into a single unit, as opposed to the verses that come after them?
| ג. "מכה איש..." - שאלות ברש"י |
| C. "He who smites a man..." Questions in Rashi |
ד"ה מכה איש ומת: כמה כתובים נאמרו בפרשת רוצחין ומה שבידי לפרש למה באו כולם – אפרש.
מכה איש ומת WHOSOEVER SMITETH A MAN SO THAT HE DIE [SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH] — Many apparently redundant verses have been written in various sections of the Torah dealing with murderers and I shall explain to the best of my ability why all these statements have been made.
בעל ספר הזיכרון, על רש"י (ר' אברהם בקראט) מקשה:
ויש לתמוה על אמרוֹ ז"ל "כמה כתובים באו..." ועוד אמרוֹ "למה באו כולם" – וכשנתן הצריכות לא דיבר אלא בשנים מהם (בפסוקנו כ"א י"א, בפסוק השני ויקרא כ"ד "ואיש כי יכה").
The author of Sefer Hazikaron on Rashi (R. Avraham Bukrat) raises a difficulty: And his, may his memory be blessed, saying, "Many verses have been written" and also, "why all these statements have been made" is a wonder; since when he explained their need (in the continuation of his words which can be found in the original), he only spoke about two of them (in our verse 21:11 and in Leviticus 24:17, "If a man smites").
התוכל לתרץ קושייתו?
Are you able to answer his difficulty?
מכה איש ומת WHOSOEVER SMITETH A MAN SO THAT HE DIE — Why is this said (how does the particular form of words used here tell us some point of law which is not contained in another text bearing upon the same subject)? Since it is said, (Leviticus 24:17) “And the man that smiteth (יכה) any person (more lit., the soul of any human being) [shall surely be put to death]”, Scripture therefore states here, “Whosoever smiteth a man so that he die [shall surely be put to death]”, thus telling you that he is not punishable with death unless the stroke proves fatal. On the other hand if it had stated here, “Whosoever smiteth a man…” and it had not said there “If a man smiteth [any person]”, I might have inferred that the murderer is not guilty except if he killed “a man”; whence, however, could I know that he is subject to the death penalty if he killed a woman or a minor? Therefore Scripture states “And if [a man] smiteth any person”, thus including even a minor and a woman. Then again: if it had stated only, “Whosoever smiteth a man” I might have inferred that even a minor who smote and killed a person is punishable with death. Scripture therefore states “and if a man smiteth” — a man but not a minor. Then on the other hand, so far as concerns the statement “And if [a man] smiteth the soul of any man” it might be held that even premature births (at a term of eight months) are included in the term כל נפש אדם “soul of any man”, Scripture therefore states “Whosoever smiteth a man” to intimate that one is not subject to the death penalty unless he kills a viable child — one which is fitted to become a man (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 21:12:2).
א. הסבר לפי איזה משני הפסוקים (פסוקנו והפסוק ויקרא כ"ד י"ז) היקף תחולת הדין רחב יותר?
a. Explain according to which of the two verses (our verse and Leviticus 24:18) the law has wider application.
"I might have inferred that mere smiting without resultant death [is subject to the death penalty]." It is a wonder how it could come to one's mind that he would be killed for hitting without [killing] – and behold, it is written (verses 18-19), "and he struck his neighbor with a stone... and he did not die, and the one who struck is cleared, yet he must give his rest, etc." And Rashi himself wrote there (s.v. and the one who struck is cleared), "And would it come to one's mind that this one who did not kill would be killed?"
**ב. התוכל ליישב קושייתו?
** b. Are you able to answer his difficulty?
כיוון שמצינו גבי אביו ואמו שחייב מיתה אף בהכאה אפילו שלא המית, אם כן הוה אמינא אפילו אחר נמי...
c. The author of Minchat Yehudah (R. Yehudah Theodore) answers the above difficulty with various answers, and this is one of them: Since we have found with his father and his mother that one is liable for death even with a strike that did not kill – if so, I might have thought that even with [striking] someone else as well.
בעל צידה לדרך, (אחרי הביאו את קושיית הרא"ם דלעיל):
וכבר ראיתי מה שכתבו המחברים האחרונים לתרץ קושיית הרא"ם בתירוצים דחוקים עד מאוד שאין להם קיום כלל, על כן לבי אומר וגומר, שכן היא המידה במכילתא לומר "או אינו אלא" או "שומע אני", אף על פי שלפי האמת אי אפשר כלל לומר כן. ואל תתמה על החפץ, כי כבר השריש לנו רש"י שורש זה באר היטב בריש מסכת מגילה וזה לשונו: "ואורחא דסוגיא דגמרא להקשות דבר שאינו עד דטרח ומעמידה על בוריה".
The author of Tseidah Laderekh (R. Yissachar Ber Eilenberg) writes (after citing the difficulty of Mizrachi above): And I have already seen what the recent writers have written to answer the difficulty of R. E. M[izrachi] with very forced answers that do not stand up at all. Hence my heart says and concludes that this is the way of the Mekhilta to say, "Or is it not," or "I might have inferred," even though it is actually impossible to say [what is introduced in this way]. And do not wonder about the thing, as Rashi has already planted this root for us with full clarity at the beginning of Tractate Megillah (Rashi on Megillah 3a:2), and these are his words, "And it is the way of discussions in the Talmud to ask about a thing that cannot be, before it works it out and makes it clear.
הסבר מהו הדוחק בתירוצו של בעל מנחת יהודה.
Explain what is forced in the answer in Minchat Yehudah.
הסבר כיצד מיישב בעל צידה לדרך את קושיית הרא"ם.
Explain how the author of Tzeidah Laderekh answers the difficulty of R. E. M.
יש להקשות, שכאשר נתן הרב צריכותא במילת "מכה איש" עם מילת "כל נפש אדם" (=כאשר הראה שיש צורך בשני הביטויים, ואין אחד מהם מיותר), שעשה הצריכותא להקל, מה ראה שלא עשה להחמיר, ויאמר כן: "אם נאמר "איש" (=מכה איש), שומע אני אינו חייב אלא אם היכה איש, ולא אישה, ולא קטן, ולא נפלים? תלמוד לומר: "ואיש כי יכה כל נפש אדם" – שעל כולם (=על איש, על אישה, על קטן ועל נפלים) יהא חייב?!"
d. [R. Chasdai] Almoshnino raises a difficulty about the last question in the words of Rashi above (it might be held that even premature births are included): One should raise the difficulty that when the rabbi (Rashi) gave the need for the words, "He who smites a man," together with "the soul of any man," (when he showed that there was a need for both expressions and that neither was superfluous) such that he made the need in order to be lenient – what did he see in order not to be stringent and say as follows: "If [it only] stated, "a man" ("He who smites a man"), I would understand that he is not liable unless he smote a man, but not a woman, a child or premature births. Hence we learn to say, "If a man strikes the soul of any man" – that he is liable for any of them (a woman, a child or premature births)!?
הסבר קושייתו ונסה לתרץ אותה!
Explain his difficulty and try to answer it!
| ד. שאלות כלליות |
| D. General Questions |
"אִם יָקוּם וְהִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּחוּץ עַל מִשְׁעַנְתּוֹ וְנִקָּה הַמַּכֶּה רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"
If he rise again, and walk abroad upon his staff, then shall he that smote him be quit; only he shall pay for the loss of his time, and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed.
1. "רַק שִׁבְתּוֹ יִתֵּן..."
1. "Only he shall pay for the loss of his time..."
מילת "אך" מורה מיעוט במשפט השני שבא בו מילת "אך", ובזה מובדל ממילת "רק", שמוציא דבר מן המשפט הקודם.
Malbim, Ayelet Hashachar, Principle 660:
The word, however (ach), indicates a reduction in the second phrase in which the word, however, appears. And through this, it is distinguished from the word, only (rak), which excludes something from the previous phrase.
מה הקושי בפסוקנו שמיושב בעזרת כלל זה?
What is the difficulty in our verse that he answers with this principle?
...אם אמר ליה: "האיך הב לי לדידי ואנא מסינא נפשאי" (=אם אמר לו הניזוק: "תן לי לעצמי (=דמי ריפוי) ואני מרפא את עצמי"), אמר ליה: "פשעת בנפשך ושקלת מיניה טפי" (=תפשע בעצמך ותיטול ממני יותר). ואי אמר ליה: "קוץ לי מיקץ" (=קצוב לי קצבה לריפוי, ואם יימשך רפויי אשלים בעצמי), אמר ליה: "כל שכן דפשעת בנפשך וקרו לי "שור המזיק"!
(התרגום והביאור בסוגריים של ע"צ מלמד ב"תלמוד בבלי עם תרגום עברי").
S.v. All the more so – is it not good for me like this; as if you will be negligent with yourself, it will be a great disgrace for me – since they will call me an "ox that damages."
a. Explain the reasoning for why we don't listen to the one hurt to give him a global settlement for his healing, so that he can [be in charge of] healing himself.
ב. מהו הבסיס הלשוני בפסוקנו לדין זה?
b. What is the linguistic basis in our verse for this law?
3. "וְרַפֹּא יְרַפֵּא"
3. "and shall cause him to be thoroughly healed"
דבי ר' ישמעאל אומר: מכאן שניתן רשות לרופא לרפאות.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael says: When the verse states: “And shall cause him to be thoroughly healed [verappo yerappe]” (Exodus 21:19), it is derived from here that permission is granted to a doctor to heal, and it is not considered to be an intervention counter to the will of God.
הסבר מהי הוה אמינא שלא יהא לרופא רשות לרפאות?
Explain the rejected hypothesis of why the physician would not be given permission to heal.