Arakhin

From this it would appear that the first Tanna holds that he may be placed before the Court of Law again! Said R. Joseph: They are disputing whether an oral debt can be collected from the heirs, the first Tanna holding an oral debt may be collected from the heirs, whilst R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds it cannot be collected. Rabbah said: All agree that an oral debt cannot be collected from the heirs, they are disputing here whether an obligation arising from the law of the Torah may be considered as one written in a document of indebtedness, the first Tanna holding it is to be regarded like one acknowledged in a document of indebtedness, whilst R. Simeon b. Eleazar holds it is not to be regarded like one acknowledged in a document of indebtedness. An objection was raised:1 If one dug a pit in a public thoroughfare, and an ox fell upon him and killed him, [the owner of the latter] is free, and even more, if the ox should die, then the heirs of the owner of the pit must repay its money value to the owner of the ox! Said R. Ela in the name of Rab: [This speaks of the case] where he stood before the Court of Law.2 But the text reads: ‘And killed him’! — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: It means he hurt him fatally. But did not R. Nahman say that R. Hagga read: Killed and buried him!3 But the law is [that the heirs are liable] where the judges were sitting at the opening of the pit. Our Rabbis taught: If one is about to be executed one sprinkles4 for him the blood of the sin-offering or the blood of the guilt-offering. But if he sinned at that time,5 one is no more obliged to attend to him.6 What is the reason? — R. Joseph said: We must not put off his execution. Said Abaye: If so, then concerning the first part, too?7 — That refers to the case that his sacrifice by that hour was killed already. But if it had not been slaughtered before that hour, what then [would be the law]? presumably it would not be so! Then instead of having the text read, ‘If he sinned at that time they do not attend to him’, let the distinction be made with reference to [the sacrifice itself]: These things apply only when his sacrifice by that hour had been slaughtered already, but if his sacrifice had not been slaughtered by that hour, one does not [sprinkle of his blood upon him]? — This indeed is what he said: These things apply only if by that hour his sacrifice had been slaughtered already, but if his sacrifice had not been slaughtered yet, then his case is like that of one who sinned at that hour, and to whom therefore one need not attend in this matter. MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN IS ABOUT TO BE EXECUTED, ONE DOES NOT WAIT FOR HER UNTIL SHE GIVES BIRTH:8 BUT IF SHE HAD ALREADY SAT ON THE BIRTHSTOOL,9 ONE WAITS FOR HER UNTIL SHE GIVES BIRTH. IF A WOMAN HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH ONE MAY USE HER HAIR; IF AN ANIMAL HAS BEEN PUT TO DEATH IT IS FORBIDDEN TO MAKE ANY USE OF IT.10 GEMARA. But that is self-evident, for it is her body!11 — It is necessary to teach it, for one might have assumed since Scripture says: According as the woman's husband shall lay upon him,12 that it [the unborn child] is the husband's property, of which he should not be deprived, therefore we are informed [that it is not so]. But perhaps [the former point of view] may indeed [be the law]? — Said R. Abbuha in the name of R. Johanan: Scripture says: They shall die, also both of them,13 that includes the child. But this [verse] is required for the inference that they must both be of equal condition,14 as R. Joseph teaches? — We infer it from ‘also’.15 BUT IF SHE HAD ALREADY SAT ON THE BIRTHSTOOL: What is the reason? — As soon as it moves [from its place in the womb] it is another body. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: If a woman is about to be executed one strikes her against her womb so that the child may die first, to avoid her being disgraced.16 That means to say that [otherwise] she dies first? But we have an established [assumption] principle that the child dies first, for we learnt: A child one day old inherits and bequeaths;17 and R. Shesheth said [in explanation]: He inherits the mother's property to bequeath it to his brothers from his father. Now this [as is clearly indicated] applies only to a child ‘one day old’, but not to an embryo, because it would die first and no son already in the grave can inherit from his mother to bequeath to his paternal brothers?18 — This applies only to [her natural] death, because the child's life is very frail, the ‘drop’ [of poison] from the angel of death enters and destroys its vital organs,19 but in the case of death by execution she dies first. But there was a case in which [the child] moved three times? — Mar son of R. Ashi said: That is analogous to the tail of a lizard which moves [after being cut off].20 R. Nahman said in the name of Samuel: If a woman who has been sitting on a birthstool died on a Sabbath, one may bring a knife and cut her womb open to take out the child. But that is self-evident? What is he doing? document of indebtedness, and since the principle is there definitely established as legitimate, it is wrong to assume that what is a recognized Tannaitic principle, since it is reported in an anonymous, i.e., accepted form, is opposed by the majority view in our Mishnah on Raba's explanation. himself in writing. could not have been adjudged before the court. I.e., the court was held at the pit, with the fatally wounded man adjudged guilty before his actual death, the obligation arising having the character of a debt acknowledged in writing. offered up. may cause the prohibited delay in his execution. before sentence was pronounced; accord ing to Tosaf, even if the pains had begun only after the sentence. For the child is considered as of one body with the mother only as long as it still is in its normal place. But as soon as it has started to move, it is another body and thus unaffected by the mother's state. prohibition to use its corpse in any manner comes into force as soon as sentence is pronounced, in the case of a human being only with the execution proper. woman. situation. inflicted. executed mother to be disgraced. paternal brothers to inherit it. V. B.B. 142a; Nid. 44a. in the grave; he is therefore unable to inherit his mother's property and much less to bequeath it to his paternal brothers. This proves that the child is assumed to die before the mother as otherwise the case above could also deal with an unborn child, whilst the Mishnah limits it to the child born and one day old. Shechitah by the cutting of the windpipe and the gullet, the two organs to be cut in accordance with the ritual law.