Gemara Marking · PDF filePlace the first two pages side by side, just as they appear in a...

Instructions:

Print out this entire document.

Place the first two pages side by side, just as they appear in a regular Gemara.

Then begin reading the commentary, starting on page 3.

Gemara Marking System

Sample Sugya:

Baba Kama 55b-56a

The Gemara Marking System is an innovative method that visually

highlights a sugya by placing geometric lines and shapes onto the

daf. This provides structure and clarity to the flow of the Gemara,

enhancing one's understanding, retention, and effective review.

For more information:

www.GemaraMarkings.com

U.S. phone: (718) 614-8494

Israel phone: (052) 530-0710

On Baba Kama 55b, the sugya begins five lines from the

bottom, the first wide line. The Gemara is marked with a

double-slash, to indicate that the sugya starts here.

The theme of this sugya is "Patur m'dinei adam, v'chaiv

b'dinei Shamayim" - in Jewish law, certain actions are

exempt from paying damages vis-a-vis the laws of Beis

Din, yet one is still obligated to pay B'dinei Shamayim.

The idea is that, although technically speaking Beis Din

cannot prosecute this action, it is still deemed as negative

by the Torah, and a God-fearing person should make

restitution.

Notice in the Gemara - toward the bottom of the page, on

the outside margin - is a gray shaded area marked "Noseh"

- topic. This indicates the start of a new topic:

ohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp

Now let's go to the text of the Gemara itself. Notice that 4

lines of Gemara are enclosed in a box. A box designates a

Tannaic source, in this case a Baraisa. In learning Gemara

it is crucial to be able to clearly distinguish between a

source from a Tanna, from that of an Amora.

The Baraisa begins:

vaugv - ohrcs vgcrt :gauvh wr rnt 'thb, :iv uktu 'ohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp i,ut

Rebbe Yehoshua says: There are four cases where a person

is exempt from paying damages in Beis Din, but b'dinei

Shamayim, he is liable.

We have circled Rebbe Yehoshua's name, since the Gemara

will spend the entire sugya - covering a full amud -

discussing his statement. And since the Baraisa is going

to list four things that are "Patur m'dinei adam, v'chaiv

b'dinei Shamayim," we have conveniently numbered each

of the four items in the Baraisa. This list of 4 will appear

two more times in this sugya, and we will also number

them 1-through-4. So here they are (colon):

urhcj ,nvc hbpc rsd .rupv

Number 1 - Someone who breaks a fence or a wall, in the

presence of an animal. As Rashi explains, this enables his

neighbor's animal to escape.

vehksv hbpc urhcj ka u,ne ;pufvu

Number 2 - Someone bends another person's sheaves of

grain in the direction of an oncoming fire. By bending the

sheaves, the fire will now destroy the grains - whereas if

he had not bent the sheaves, the fire would not have been

expected to destroy the grains.

shgvk rea hsg rfuavu

Number 3 - Someone who hires witnesses to testify falsely

against another person.

/uk shgn ubhtu urhcjk ,usg gsuhvu

Number 4 - Someone who knows useful testimony on behalf

of another person, but remains silent and does not testify.

Each of these 4 actions causes a financial loss. But as Rashi

explains, the damage in all these cases is indirect, and

thus cannot be prosecuted in Beis Din.

The Gemara is now going to analyze each of the 4 cases

mentioned by Rebbe Yehoshua in the Baraisa. This analysis

begins at the bottom of 55b and continues through the top

of 56a. Each of these 4 cases is marked with a triangle,

and numbered in the thin margin space immediately to

the right of the Gemara text, for quick and easy reference.

The numbers 1-through-4 correspond to the numbers 1-

through-4 in Rebbe Yehoshua's Baraisa. To the right of the

Gemara text is a gray box explaining the structural purpose

of these triangles.

The Gemara begins:

s"v 'urhcj ,nvc hbpc rsd .rupv :rn rnt

Notice the 5 words in right-angles, indicating a direct quote

from the original Baraisa: Someone who breaks a wall,

enabling his friend's animal to escape: What are the specific

circumstances of this case that would make him liable only

B'dinei Shamayim?

For each of these 4 cases, the Gemara will suggest the

circumstance of Rebbe Yehoshua's case, then reject that

suggestion, and conclude with a different set of

circumstances. So what are the circumstances of the first

case? The Gemara says:

chhjhb hnb ost hbhsc 'thrc k,ufc tnhkht

If we're discussing a sturdy wall, why does Rebbe Yehoshua

say there is financial liability only B'dinei Shamayim? Rather

even Beis Din should require a person to pay for the

destruction of a perfectly good wall.

[In the text of the Gemara itself, above the words

chhjhb hnb, we've added in small print "Al Harisat haGeder".

The Gemara leaves those words unstated, but these three

words help us to stay clear on the pshat, and aid a smoother

reading of the Gemara.]

/gugr k,ufc tkt

Sample Sugya • GemaraMarkings.com • Baba Kama 55b-56a • page 3

The Gemara answers that Rebbe Yehoshua was referring

to the case of a shaky wall. Since this wall was destined to

be destroyed anyway, it had no real financial value, and

therefore if someone broke the wall, Beis Din cannot obli-

gate him to pay. [Period - end of this point.]

The Gemara now moves on to Rebbe Yehoshua's second

case [indicated by a triangle with the number 2].

:rn rnthns hfhv 'vehksv hbpc urhcj ka u,ne ;pufv

The Master said in a Baraisa: Someone who bends over

sheaves of grain in the direction of an oncoming fire: What

are the specific circumstances that would make him liable

only b'dinei Shamayim? [Six words have been marked in

right angles to indicate a direct quote from the Baraisa.]

chhjb hnb ost hbhsc 'vhumn jurc vhk thyns tnhkht

If we're talking about a situation where a normal wind will

cause the fire will reach the grains, then even in Beis Din

he should be liable to pay for damages.

[Above the word tnhkht is marked TOS' to indicate: Look

in Tosfos for pshat. The key part of Tosfos is underlined.]

Tosfos explains that this is not a case of "indirect" damage,

because

'atv kmt rcs cren ihc eukhj ihtrcsv kmt atv cren ihc

Tosfos says there is no difference between repositioning

the object into a fire, or "repositioning the fire." And here,

since a normal wind is destined to carry the fire, when

someone bends sheaves of grains in the direction of the

fire, it is considered as if he directly burned the grain. So

in such a case, even in Beis Din he is liable to pay for

damages.

So what are the circumstances that would make him liable

only b'dinei Shamayim?

At this point, the Gemara gives two separate answers,

which we've marked as A and B, to make clear that these

are two distinct answers. Here's the first answer:

/vhumn vbhta jurc thyns tkt

The case where he is liable only b'dinei Shamayim, is where

the fire will reach the bent-over grains only if there is an

unusually strong wind.

Above the words thyns tkt is an 'R' to indicate: Look in

Rashi for pshat. That Rashi is underlined to help find it

quicker. (Some prefer to write some of the key Rashi text

right into the Gemara, which may make going through

the Gemara even smoother.) Rashi explains that in such a

case, although bending over the sheaves is a reckless

act, he could not have anticipated this unusually strong

wind - and is therefore liable to pay for damages only

b'dinei Shamayim.

Rav Ashi will now offer a second answer to explain the

case of the grains. [This is marked with the letter B, to

show that it is a new answer, distinct from the previous

answer "A."]

[Note also that Rav Ashi's name is underlined, to highlight

his name. This is because Rav Ashi will be referred to

again later on the page. In the margin, an arrow appears

to the right of Rav Ashi's name. Looking down the margin,

about halfway down the page, another arrow appears,

also on the line with Rav Ashi's name. The two arrows link

together these two lines of Gemara, because the Gemara

will later tie these two references together.]

So what is another possible scenario in the case of bending

the grains, where Rebbe Yehoshua would exempt any

damages in Beis Din?

/atc iuny vhuas ouan 'rn,t iuny :rnt hat cru

Rav Ashi says that we're discussing a situation where the

perpetrator concealed the grains and atc iuny vhua - he

gave them the halachic status of "a concealed object

destroyed by fire."

[Above the word iuny is marked the letter ‘R,’ to indicate:

Look in Rashi for the explanation.] Halacha L'Moshe M'Sinai

says that if a fire destroys an item which is covered or

concealed, then the one who lit the fire is exempt from

paying damages. So in this case, the act of concealing the

grains caused an indirect loss to the owner of the grains.

Why? Because the owner is no longer able collect damages

from the person who lit the fire. Therefore, by causing

this indirect loss, the person who did the act of concealing

is deemed liable B'dinei Shamayim.

The Gemara now moves on to Rebbe Yehoshua's third

case [indicated by a triangle with the number 3].

s"v 'rea hsg rfuav :rn rnt

The Master said in a Baraisa: Someone who hires witnesses

to testify falsely: What are the circumstances that would

make him liable only b'dinei Shamayim? [Three words

have been marked in right angles to indicate a direct quote

from the Baraisa.]


'vhapbk tnhkhtchhjhb hnb ost hbhsc 'hnuka hgc tbunn

If we're talking about someone who hired witnesses to

testify falsely for his own self-gain [dash] then even Beis

Din would require him to refund the money that he

extracted illegally!

The end of the line is marked with a "connector" - a loop

that indicates: keep reading whereas you might otherwise

stop.

So what is Rebbe Yehoshua's case where one is liable only

b'dinei Shamayim?

/vhrcjk tkt

[An 'R' is marked to indicate: Look in Rashi for pshat.]

Rashi explains the case is where (for example) Mr. A hired

witnesses to testify falsely that Mr. B owed money to Mr.

C. Through this false testimony, C will be able to extract

money illegally from B.

(Tosfos discusses why C himself is not obligated to return

the ill-gotten money.) But in focusing on Mr. A's behavior,

the Gemara says that since A did not receive any financial

gain personally, he is exempt in Beis Din. However, since

A causes an indirect loss to B, he is liable b'dinei Shamayim.

The Gemara now discusses Rebbe Yehoshua's fourth and

final case, indicated by a triangle with the number 4. [Six

words have been marked in right angles to indicate a direct

quote from the Baraisa.]

ibhexg htnc 'uk shgn ubhtu urhcjk ,usg gsuhvu

Someone who knows useful testimony on behalf of another

person, but remains silent and does not testify: What are

the circumstances that would make him liable only b'dinei

Shamayim? The Gemara offers one suggestion, and then

immediately rejects it:

'tyhap 'hr, hcc tnhkht/ubug tabu shdh tk ot :tuv t,hhruts

If we're talking about someone who could have potentially

coupled with a second witness to produce a legally binding

testimony, then the Gemara says tyhap - it is obvious

that by remaining silent he is causing an indirect loss, and

would be liable b'dinei Shamayim.

[Unlike the previous three triangles where the Gemara

suggested that the case is ost hbhsc chhj, here the Gemara

suggests a case where it's obviously ohna hbhsc chhj. This

key point is written directly into the Gemara, above the

word tyhap/]

Why is this obvious? Because we have a black-and-white

verse in the Torah, Vaykira 5:1, which states: "If he does

not testify, then he will bear a sin." [A connector indicates:

keep reading whereas you might otherwise stop, and the

verse is marked off with quotes.]

[An 'R' is marked to look in Rashi, who points out that

although the language of the verse is singular, it really

refers to "one" pair.]

So what in fact is Rebbe Yehoshua's case where one is

liable only b'dinei Shamayim?

/sjc tkt

The testimony of a single witness cannot cause any

definitive monetary obligation. Rather, all that one witness

can do is obligate the accused party to take an oath

declaring his innocence. And the halacha is that if the

accused party refuses to take that oath, then he has to

pay.

Now here's the catch: Many people prefer to avoid taking

an oath, and would simply rather pay instead. So in the

event that one witness testifies about a monetary

obligation, what often happens is that the accused party

will pay, rather than take an oath. So when that one witness

refrains from testifying, he is - rather indirectly - causing

a monetary loss to the person who would have been the

recipient of the payment. But don't forget: One witness

cannot force direct payment; he can only force another

person to take an oath. So in the event that the witness

remains silent, he is held liable only b'dinei Shamayim.

[All this is explained in Rashi, dibur hamaskil sjc tkt,

which we have double-underlined to indicate that the words

of Rashi are crucial for understanding pshat.]

At this point, let's summarize: Rebbe Yehoshua stated in

a Baraisa 4 cases that are patur m'dinei adam v’chayav

b'dinei Shamayim. The Gemara then analyzed the

circumstances of each of these 4 cases. And to highlight

the structure of the Gemara, we put triangles around each

of these 4 cases, and numbered them 1-through-4 in the

margin.

At this point, look inside the Gemara and notice that in

the margin between the Gemara text and Rashi, is a circled

letter Kuf, with a broken vertical line that extends down

11 lines. Kuf is an abbreviation for kasha, and the dashes

indicate that this is a long question that will continue until

the end of the dashes.

The long question that the Gemara asks is:

!?tfhk u,u


The Gemara asks in dismay: Are there not more cases

that we can describe as patur m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei

Shamayim? Apparently there are, as the Gemara proceeds

to brings 5 new cases.

Notice that the words tfhk u,u have a squiggle-underline.

This is to highlight the beginning of the long kasha. Now

look down 11 lines where 3 words are squiggle-underlined

- indicating the beginning of a long teretz. The squiggle-

underline markings make it easier to see the structure of

the Gemara.

For ease of reference, we've marked each of these 5 cases

with a diamond, and lettered them A-through-E in the thin

margin between the Gemara and Tosfos. The reason we've

used diamonds is because this represents a new series,

and contrasts with the original triangles repeating the 4

cases brought by Rebbe Yehoshua. But now the diamonds

indicate 5 new cases that the Gemara brings. And with

these 5 new cases comes the implicit question: Why did

Rebbe Yehoshua only mention 4 cases, but not these

additional 5?

At this point, we could summarize the Gemara as a 4/5

structure. These markings also assist in referring back to

one particular example or another: If you're in a shiur,

you can easily say: "Take a look at Diamond-C, and

everyone knows exactly where you are, and can locate it

quickly. This saves time, and ensures that no one is left

behind.

There are different approaches for where to put the key

word - here we put all the diamonds on tfhtv, whereas

previously the triangles did not go on Amar Mar, but rather

on the specific key word. There are no hard-and-fast rules;

whatever will be most effective, according to your personal

preference.

It's interesting that, in this instance, the Gemara itself

adds some extra text to help us along:

(rcab urhcj jhkau oxc vaugv 'inhx)

These words in parentheses serve as a mnemonic device,

representing the 5 additional cases that the Gemara will

now mention.

Notice as well that immediately after each diamond we've

put a box around the tannaic source that the Gemara

brings. And within each boxed source, you can easily see

the repeating phrase that is the thrust of the Gemara's

kasha: patur m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim.

Let's begin with the first source, the first diamond:

- ,tyj ,rpcu ,tyj hnc vftkn vaugv :tfhtvuohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp

The topic here involves the para aduma - the red heifer

whose ashes are used to purify people and utensils from

the tuma of a human corpse. And the halacha is that

someone who uses either the ashes of the para aduma, or

the para aduma itself, for any activity other than what it is

designated for, thereby disqualifies it. This of course causes

significant loss to the owner of the para aduma. But as

Rashi says: the damage is not discernable, so this action

is patur m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim.

So the Gemara wants to know: Why is this example not

mentioned along with Rebbe Yehoshua's other 4 cases?

Take a look at Rashi, about halfway down the page, where

we have dot-underlined 5 words:

uvbhb t,hhb,n h,cuh, hbv uvkufu

Rashi points out that all these 5 Tannaic sources which

we've marked with diamonds are one long kasha against

Rebbe Yehoshua. So essentially what the markings do is

to take this important comment of Rashi, and transfer it

visually to the body of the Gemara itself. Why does Rashi

go out of his way to mention this? Because whether it's in

your "mind's eye" (as a Talmid Chacham would do) or boxed

in with pencil, this is how Rashi wants us to look at this

Amud. This point is brought out by the circled-Kuf and the

vertical-dash line in the margin between the Gemara text

and Rashi.

The Gemara now brings the second in this series, again

marked with a diamond:

- urhcj ,nvc hbpc ,unv ox i,ubv :tfhtvuohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp

This is the case of someone who places poison in front of

his friend's animal. If the animal eats the poison and dies,

the person who placed it there is patur m'dinei adam

v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim. That's because this action is

considered indirect damage - after all, the animal did eat

the poison of his own accord. So why didn't Rebbe Yehoshua

include this case?

Continuing with this long kasha, the Gemara now brings

the third in this series, again marked with a diamond:

- iyeu vyua arj shc vrgcv ,t jkuav :tfhtvuohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp


The Gemara describes the case of someone who puts a

flaming torch into the hands of a deaf-mute, an insane

person, or a child. These people are considered not fully

responsible for their actions. So if you gave a flame to a

child, for example, and then the child uses that flame to

cause damage, the person who gave him the flame -

although exempt from paying damages in Beis Din - is

liable b'dinei Shamayim. So why didn't Rebbe Yehoshua

include this case?

Now the fourth case, again marked with a diamond:

- urhcj ,t ,hgcnv :tfhtvuohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsn ruyp

The Gemara describes the case of someone who frightens

his friend. Above the word ,hgcnv is the letter ‘R’, indicating

to look in Rashi for pshat. Rashi explains that someone

shouted suddenly into his friend's ear, which caused some

type of deafness. Since he did not actually strike the other

person physically, the damage is regarded as indirect -

and he is exempt from paying damages in Beis Din, but

still liable b'dinei Shamayim. So why didn't Rebbe Yehoshua

include this case?

Now the Gemara brings the fifth and final case in this long

kasha against Rebbe Yehoshua, again marked with a

diamond:

'vekx tku r"vrc usf vrcab :tfhtvu- vshngv tku uknd vkpb

'iehzvc chhjn n"rohna hbhsc chhju ost hbhsc ruyp t"fju

The Gemara brings the case of someone whose container

broke in the public domain (Reshus Harabim) and he did

not remove it. Or if his camel fell in the Reshus Harabim

and he didn't stand it up - thereby causing people to trip

over these things.

True, Rebbe Meir obligates the owner of these items to

pay for any damage caused; however, the Chachamim

say that he is patur m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei

Shamayim. So why didn't Rebbe Yehoshua include this

case?

At this point we've come to the end of our long kashe. It is

interesting to appreciate the long marking used here,

contrasted with the typical line-by-line "trial-and-error"

method of learning. With the markings, it's easy to review:

there is a series of 5 diamonds, each followed by a Tannaic

source which indicates additional examples of "patur

m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim." So why did

Rebbe Yehoshua list only 4 cases and not the additional 5

cases!

The Gemara answers:

tcuy tfht tvhn 'iht

Yes, in fact there are additional cases. And Rebbe Yehoshua

never meant to imply otherwise. The Gemara explains

that Rebbe Yehoshua's 4 cases were uniquely necessary:

vhk tfhrymt hbvu/k"ne 'chhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhsc :tnh,s uvn

Rebbe Yehoshua's 4 cases were necessary because in these

instances you might have otherwise thought that the

perpetrator should not be liable even b'dinei Shamayim!

So Rebbe Yehoshua specifically taught these 4 cases to

dispel that possible misunderstanding.

As for the additional 5 cases brought in the long kasha,

Rebbe Yehoshua did not teach those because he felt that

in those cases the halacha would obviously be: "patur

m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim." Rebbe

Yehoshua only taught those cases where he felt the halacha

was not obvious.

And again, the three words - vhk tfhrymt hbvu - are

marked with a squiggle-underline, to indicate the start of

the long teretz. This contrasts with the squiggle-underlined

words 11 lines earlier, which marked the start of the long

kasha.

Now the Gemara is going to do something very logical

vis-à-vis the structure and flow. It is going to re-discuss

each of Rebbe Yehoshua's 4 cases, and show how you

might have mistakenly thought that the halacha in these

cases is exempt even b'dinei Shamayim.

In terms of the markings, there are four triangles,

numbered 1-though-4. These four triangles correspond

exactly to the four triangles that we've had already twice

previously in this sugya. The same 4 words are highlighted,

the same 4 cases. As we said, the Gemara is now going

back to re-examine why each of these 4 cases were

specifically chosen by Rebbe Yehoshua to be mentioned

in his Baraisa. The markings make the structure and flow

of the Gemara crystal clear.

This is all really one long teretz for Rebbe Yehoshua. So in

the margin between the Gemara text and Rashi, we've

inserted a long, vertical dashed-line, with a circled-tav at

the top, indicating that this will be a long teretz.

The Gemara says:

urhcj ,nvc hbpc rsd .rupv


Case Number 1 - The first word is marked by a triangle,

and the rest of the phrase is underlined for easy reference.

The case is someone who breaks a fence or a wall, in the

presence of his neighbor's animal, enabling it to escape.

:tnh,s uvn

If Rebbe Yehoshua had not mentioned this case, why might

you have mistakenly thought that this case is exempt even

b'dinei Shamayim?

?shcg vn hte vhr,xnks iuhf

The Gemara established, as we indicated before, that this

case is referring to a shaky wall which is destined to be

destroyed anyway, and therefore has no monetary value.

Notice the marking between hte and vn - a "comma-

connector," indicating to pause briefly, but continue reading.

'chhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhsc

So one might think that breaking down such a wall causes

no actual damage, and should be exempt even b'dinei

Shamayim.

/k"ne

Rebbe Yehoshua comes to teach us that b'dinei Shamayim,

he is held accountable (for the value of the animal). Why?

Because by breaking the shaky wall, there was an indirect

damage, in that the animal was able to escape.

The Gemara now turns to case Number 2, marked by

triangle #2:

:tnh,s uvn 'hnb urhcj ka u,ne ;pufv

Someone who bends over sheaves of grain in the direction

of a fire. If Rebbe Yehoshua had not mentioned this case,

why might you have mistakenly thought that this case is

exempt even b'dinei Shamayim?

'vhumn vbhta jur th,ts tbgsh vuv hn tnhk 'chhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhscu

We've marked a letter-A in the text, as this is the first of

the two scenarios that the Gemara spoke about previously,

which was marked with a letter-A previously as well, on

the fourth line from the top of the Amud. Recall that this is

talking about a case where an unexpectedly strong wind

came along and fed the fire into the grains. One might

think that someone who bent the sheaves should be exempt

even b'dinei Shamayim, because people aren't expected

to anticipate such strong winds.

/k"ne

Rebbe Yehoshua comes to teach that even so, he shouldn't

have done such a thing, and b'dinei Shamayim, he is held

accountable for the value of the grains.

'rn,ht iuny hnb rnts hat crku

[At this point the Gemara mentions Rav Ashi, which we've

marked with a letter-B. This is the second of the two

scenarios that the Gemara spoke about previously. Notice

the arrow in the margin, which refers us back to Rav Ashi,

on the fifth line from the top of the Amud. This type of

marking is invaluable in a shiur setting, where this section

of the Gemara may be learned days later than the beginning

of the amud. These arrows enable the maggid shiur to

easily indicate this corresponding reference, and refresh it

in everyone's mind.]

Rav Ashi's interpretation of this case was that someone

covered up the grains, thereby precluding the owner from

collecting damages when the fire consumed them.

:tnh,s uvn

In such a case, why might I have mistakenly thought that

the perpetrator is completely exempt, even b'dinei

Shamayim?

'lkvhb vh,hxf hhuxf tbt'chhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhscu

The person who covered the grains could argue that he

was trying to do a good deed, by protecting the grains

from the approaching fire. And therefore he should be

exempt, even b'dinei Shamayim.

/k"ne

Rebbe Yehoshua comes to informs us that, even still, the

act of covering the grains caused the owner a loss, and

therefore, b'dinei Shamayim, he is held accountable for

the value of the grains.

Now case Number 3, marked by triangle #3:

:tnh,s uvn 'hnb rea hsg rfuavu

This is where someone hires witnesses to falsely testify, in

order to enable his friend to collect money illegally. Why

would we think that such a person should be exempt even

b'dinei Shamayim?

?ihgnua hn hrcs 'shnk,v hrcsu crv hrcs tnhkchhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhscu


The Gemara explains: We might have thought that the

person who hired the false witnesses could claim as follows:

"I instructed these witnesses to testify falsely, while

Hashem instructs them to testify truthfully. I didn't expect

them to listen to me and not to Hashem. So really, the

witnesses who lied did so of their own accord." That's why

we would have thought this is a valid claim, and patur

B'dinei Shamayim.

/k"ne

Rebbe Yehoshua comes to informs us that, even still, the

one who paid these witnesses to testify falsely is held

accountable B'dinei Shamayim for the financial loss they

caused.

Now case Number 4, marked by triangle #4:

:tnh,s uvn 'hnb uk shgn ubhtu urhcjk ,usg gsuhvu

In the case where someone knows useful testimony on

behalf of another person, but remains silent and does not

testify, why would we have thought that he is exempt,

even b'dinei Shamayim?

?vsun vuv vhk tbhsvxn (tbh,t) vuv hfs rnhh hn'treak gc,an vuv tnkschhjhk tk hnb ohna hbhscu

The Gemara explains: We might have thought that the

person who remained silent could claim as follows: "Who

is to say that had I testified as a single witness, the fellow

against whom I was testifying would have confessed to

owing money? Maybe he would have taken a false oath,

thereby denying all obligation, and would be legally exempt

from any payment. In which case the litigant anyway would

not have collected any money. So by me failing to testify,

I didn't cause any financial loss at all, and I should therefore

be exempt, even b'dinei Shamayim."

/k"ne

Rebbe Yehoshua comes to informs us that, even still, when

somebody knows testimony on behalf of another person,

they are obligated to testify, irrespective of whether the

fellow against whom they were testifying might have later

taken a false oath. Therefore, there is accountability B'dinei

Shamayim for the financial loss caused.

The Gemara is marked with a double-dash, indicating the

conclusion of this sugya.

By looking at the markings, we can now get a bird's eye

view of what took place. We began with Rebbe Yehoshua's

Baraisa at the bottom of 55b. He brought 4 cases of "patur

m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim." We numbered

these cases 1-through-4, as they occurred in the Baraisa.

Then the Gemara discussed these four cases in greater

detail, which we indicated using a series of 4 triangles,

and numbered them, in the margin, 1-through-4.

After that, the Gemara raised a long kasha, which we

indicated by a long vertical marking. The thrust of the kasha

was to cite 5 additional examples of "patur m'dinei adam

v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim," and to question why Rebbe

Yehoshua did not include these additional 5 cases. We

indicated these with a series of 5 diamonds, and numbered

them in the margin, 1-through-5.

Next, we indicated - with a long Teretz marking - the

Gemara's answer: Indeed, there are many examples of

"patur m'dinei adam v'chayav b'dinei Shamayim." But

Rebbe Yehoshua chose the 4 particular cases where one

might have mistakenly thought that the perpetrator should

be exempt from paying damages, even b'dinei Shamayim.

Since these are the same 4 cases marked as 1-through-4

in Rebbe Yehoshua's Baraisa, so too here the 4 cases are

numbered 1-through-4, with the now-familiar triangles.

This one amud had a lot of sources, and back-and-forth

arguments. But with the markings, we have a clear,

streamlined structure that solidifies our understanding of

pshat. And if the Gemara is being learned in the context of

a shiur, the markings provide a quick point of reference,

so that everyone can follow along.

What about chazara? The feeling of apprehension and

intimidation that many people feel when sitting down to

chazara is greatly alleviated. It's not just starting all over

again with a blank daf - which can be demoralizing and

deflate one's energy. With the markings, in a matter of

seconds you can become re-oriented with the content and

structure. And the chazara itself is so much more

productive, because instead of spending lots of time trying

to rebuild the structure and figure out pshat, the markings

make the initial chazara goes much quicker, freeing up

more chazara time to delve more deeply into the

commentaries.

And the markings make the Gemara so much easier to

remember. It's Rebbe Yehoshua and the 4/5/4 structure.

For every student, mastering the shakla v'tarya is a realistic

goal.

With thanks to Oz Vehadar for permission to use the

Gemara pages.


Gemara Marking · PDF filePlace the first two pages side by side, just as they appear in a...

Documents

Transcript of Gemara Marking · PDF filePlace the first two pages side by side, just as they appear in a...