ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו
“And you will do to him as he plotted to do to his brother” - 1. We learn that him and only him can be affected by this punishment and 2. They only get what they plotted and not what they gave, so if they’re found out prior to the punishment they get punished but if found out after then they don’t get punished
קל וחומר
“A fortiori logic” - If something lenient has a certain stringency then certainly something stricter has the same stringency and vice versa.
חלל
“None Cohen” - If a Cohen marries someone he can’t, then the child is a חלל
סקילה
“Stoning” - One of the 4 main death penalties the Torah gives out.
וליפסילוהו
And we disqualify him
לדידיה
To him
וליכה
And there isn’t
רב יהושע בן לוי
Status: Amorah
Location: Israel
בר פדא
Status: Amorah
Location: Israel
רבינא
Status: Amorah
Location: Bavel
Kesef Mishnah: What reason does the Gemara give for when AZ are caught after they killed a man and then aren’t killed?
A reason for this is given in Unit 5, if the Torah never specified a specific punishment for if they succeed then we can’t use logic to deduce a capital punishment for them
What are 2 ways in which The Kesef Mishnah explains הרגו אין נהרגים?
- Punishments in the Torah are given to redeem the soul, if the AZ succeed then we don’t want to give them opportunity to redeem themselves so we leave Hashem to punish them.
- Every beit din has Hashem in their midst so if they make the wrong decision they’re really carrying out a higher form of justice, and if they succeed it’s obviously because the defendant deserved to die.
Rashi: How does rashi explain the statement made about stoning?
If AZ succeed in killing someone they aren’t killed so certainly if they don’t succeed they shouldn’t get killed
What problems does Tosvot have with Rashi?
- Ravina should have used the word kill not stone
- Torah limits its punishment to “As he plotted and not as he did”to a case where E”Z are trying to give someone a regular punishment, so no Kal Vachomer is applicable here. But in our case, the E”Z are attempting to make someone a Chalal, which is logically derived from a regular case of E”Z. Therefore it should not be exluded from the law “As he plotted and not as he did” and instead should follow the laws of logic (A Kal Vachomer).
- The Kal Vachomer of Ravina does not disprove the argument of Bar Paddah. As one could knock it off by saying: the law of Ka’asher Zamam veloh ka’asher asah must have some form of application. Therefore it won’t let us punish E”Z who kill someone (the regular case of E”Z), now that it has some application, it shouldn’t be used in the case of E”Z when they try to make D a Chalal.
Rabeinu Tams re-interpretation: Some crap that’s true too hard to understand
- We are specifically talking about a case where someone stones his friend and is punished with decapitation, so we use the term “Sokel” and not “Horeg”.
- It has nothing to do with ״כאשר זמם ולא כאשר עשה״, so this question doesn’t even arise.
- Bar Paddah cannot respond that Ravina’s case is the core case of E”Z and therefore his Kal Vachomer must not worm (or it leaves E”Z without application) because Ravina’s case does leave E”Z having application in a case where they testify and the defendant killed by decapitation. Since the Torah does extend E”Z to other death penalties it clearly has no exceptions and therefore, the case of a Chalal would also be a general case.
