(Please include header and footer when redistributing this material.)
_________________________________________________________________
THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
________________________________________________________________
Sanhedrin 077b: Removing the ladder before the end of the fall
Aaron Glatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked:
Rashi (DH Kadam vesilka) appears to contradict the gemara. Clearly
the Meiri learns the gemara as even if the "pusher" himslef removes the
ladder AFTER the man is in the pit, he is not liable to missas bes din.
However, Rashi learns even if he removes the ladder BEFORE the fall. How can
this be? Is Rashi referring to removing the ladder after the push but before
the fall? This is quite a "dochak" pshat. But if not, what does rashi mean???
Thank you.
Aaron Glatt, Woodmere, NY
----------------------------------------------
The Kollel replies:
Your understanding of Rashi is correct. The perpetrator pushed his victim
with one hand and removed the ladder from the pit a moment later with the
other hand (see Margoliyos ha'Yam). I did not find in the Me'iri any
allusion to an alternate translation of the Gemara's words. Of course, the
same Halachah would apply if the perpetrator lifted the ladder *after* the
victim hit the ground. However, the wording of the Gemara ("*Kadam*
v'Silko," as opposed to just "Silko") implies that the perpetrator lifted
it even before the victim hit the bottom.
Your question may be applied to the Gemara itself, though. Why did the
Gemara mention the strange case of the perpetrator removing the ladder
before the victim hit the bottom of the pit, rather than the simpler case
of removing the ladder after the victim hit the bottom? The Halachah is
certainly the same in both cases!
The answer is that it is obvious that the perpetrator cannot be killed for
removing the ladder *after* the victim reached the bottom. We already know
that if someone removes the ladder at that point the perpetrator remains
exempt from punishment and there is no reason to differentiate between a
case where the *perpetrator* removes the ladder at that point, and a case
where *another person* removes it. On the other hand, if the perpetrator
himself removes the ladder, and he does so before the victim reaches the
bottom, there is reason to believe that he might be held liable. The
original push can now be seen as an act of murder, since due to the removal
of the ladder the *final result of the push* (sending a person to the
bottom of a ladderless pit) is an act of murder. The Gemara teaches that
even in such a case the perpetrator is not guilty of murder, since we view
the act of pushing based on what its result *would have been* had nothing
else changed until the victim reached the bottom (i.e. the ladder was not
removed).
Best wishes,
M. Kornfeld
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with this text in the body of the message:
unsubscribe daf-discuss
