## Arakhin Daf 7a

###### Arakhin 7a:1
[Arakhin 7a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:1)

מִכְּלָל דְּתַנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: נִיתַּן לַחֲזָרַת עֲמִידַת בֵּית דִּין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, can one conclude **by inference that the first *tanna* holds** that one who is being taken to be executed **can be brought back to stand** before **the court** for judgment? This is clearly erroneous, as the court is not permitted to delay his execution.


###### Arakhin 7a:2
[Arakhin 7a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:2)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּמִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין קָמִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef says:** Everyone agrees that his execution may not be delayed. Rather, they **disagree as** to whether or not one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement can **collect from the heirs. The first *tanna* holds** that one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement can **collect from the heirs,** and therefore the injured party can collect from the heirs after the execution. **But Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds** that one who is owed money from a loan by oral agreement **cannot collect from the heirs,** and therefore the heirs are exempt from payment for the injury.


###### Arakhin 7a:3
[Arakhin 7a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:3)

רַבָּה אָמַר: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִלְוָה עַל פֶּה אֵינוֹ גּוֹבֶה מִן הַיּוֹרְשִׁין, וְהָכָא בְּמִלְוָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַּתּוֹרָה כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר קָמִיפַּלְגִי, תַּנָּא קַמָּא סָבַר: כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא, וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר סָבַר: לָאו כִּכְתוּבָה בִּשְׁטָר דָּמְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said:** Actually, **everyone** agrees that one who is owed money from **a loan by oral** agreement **cannot collect from the heirs; and here** the *tanna’im* **disagree with regard to** whether **a loan that is written in the Torah,** e.g., one’s obligation to pay if he causes damage, is considered **as though it is written in a document. The first *tanna* holds** that a loan that is written in the Torah is considered **as though it is written in a document,** and may be collected from the heirs. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds** that it **is not considered as though it is written in a document,** and therefore it may not be collected.


###### Arakhin 7a:4
[Arakhin 7a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַחוֹפֵר בּוֹר בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וְנָפַל עָלָיו שׁוֹר וַהֲרָגוֹ — פָּטוּר, וְלֹא עוֹד, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם מֵת הַשּׁוֹר — יוֹרְשֵׁי בַּעַל הַבּוֹר חַיָּיבִין לְשַׁלֵּם דְּמֵי שׁוֹר לִבְעָלָיו!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** against the opinion that one cannot collect a loan that is written in the Torah from the heirs, from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Kamma* 6:2): If **one was digging a pit in the public thoroughfare, and an ox fell on** the digger of the pit **and killed him,** the owner of the ox is **exempt** from paying damages, as the digger of the pit should not have dug the pit. **Moreover, if the ox died** as a result of the fall, **the heirs of the owner of the pit are liable to pay the value of** the **ox to its owner.** This shows that an obligation that is written in the Torah, such as compensation for damage, is collected from heirs.


###### Arakhin 7a:5
[Arakhin 7a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר רַב: כְּשֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין, וְהָא ״הֲרָגוֹ״ קָתָנֵי! אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: כְּשֶׁעֲשָׂאוֹ טְרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Ila said** that **Rav said:** The *baraita* is dealing with a case **where** the digger of the pit **stood trial** for the damage before he died, and once judgment is rendered by a court the resulting financial obligation is comparable to a written loan, not one that is written in the Torah. The Gemara raises an objection: **But it is taught** in the *baraita* that the ox **killed him. Rav Adda bar Ahava said:** The *baraita* does not mean that the ox literally killed him, rather, **that it rendered him as one who has a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** and there was enough time before his death to sentence him to pay damages.


###### Arakhin 7a:6
[Arakhin 7a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:6)

וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, תָּנֵי חַגָּא: מֵת וּקְבָרוֹ! וְהִילְכְתָא דְּיָיתְבִי דַּיָּינֵי אַפּוּמָּא דְבֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection: **But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Ḥagga teaches** a slightly different version of the *baraita*, that if the digger of the pit **died** from the impact of the ox, **and** the ox effectively **buried him** in the ground at the bottom of the pit, his heirs have to pay damages to the owner of the ox? In this scenario, how could it be possible for the digger to stand trial? The Gemara answers: The ***halakha*** in the *baraita*, that the owner of the ox collects from the heirs of the digger, is dealing with a case **where judges sat at the opening of the pit** and rendered the digger liable to pay damages before he died.


###### Arakhin 7a:7
[Arakhin 7a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:7)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַיּוֹצֵא לֵיהָרֵג — מַזִּין עָלָיו מִדַּם חַטָּאתוֹ וּמִדַּם אֲשָׁמוֹ, חָטָא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאֵין מְעַנִּין אֶת דִּינוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** another *baraita* on the same topic: With regard to **one taken to be executed, they sprinkle for his** sake on the altar **from the blood of his sin offering and from the blood of his guilt offering,** which he brought earlier. But if he **sinned at that time,** obligating him to bring a sin offering or a guilt offering, the court **does not attend to his** obligation, and his execution is not delayed so that he can sacrifice the offering. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **Rav Yosef said:** It is **because** the court **may not afflict** him by forcing him to wait for **his judgment,** his execution, until the offering is sacrificed.


###### Arakhin 7a:8
[Arakhin 7a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:8)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ רֵישָׁא נָמֵי! כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיָה זִבְחוֹ זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **If so,** if the offering is not sacrificed in order to avoid afflicting the sentenced by delaying his execution, then this should apply **even** in the **first clause as well,** where he had already brought the offering. Why does the court delay his execution until the blood is sprinkled? Rav Yosef answered: The first clause is referring to a case **where his offering** was already **slaughtered at that time,** and all that remained to be done was the sprinkling of the blood. Delaying the execution for such a short time is not a problem.


###### Arakhin 7a:9
[Arakhin 7a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:9)

אֲבָל אֵין זִבְחוֹ זָבוּחַ, מַאי? לָא? אַדְּתָנֵי ״חָטָא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ״, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידַהּ: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ — לֹא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But then in a case where he set aside **his offering** but it was **not** yet **slaughtered, what** is the *halakha*? Is it true that they do **not** delay his execution in order to sacrifice the offering? If so, **instead of teaching** a new case and stating: But if he **sinned at that time** and thereby became obligated to sacrifice a sin offering or a guilt offering, the court **does not attend to his** obligation, **let** the *baraita* **distinguish and teach** a distinction **within the** case of where he already brought the offering **itself: In what** case **is this statement,** that the blood is sprinkled, **said? When** his **offering was** already **slaughtered at that time. But if** his **offering was not** yet **slaughtered,** his execution is **not** delayed.


###### Arakhin 7a:10
[Arakhin 7a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:10)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁהָיָה זֶבַח זָבוּחַ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, אֲבָל אֵין זֶבַח זָבוּחַ — נַעֲשָׂה כְּמִי שֶׁחָטָא בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, וְאֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is indeed what he is saying: In what** case **is this statement said? When** his **offering was** already **slaughtered at that time. But if** his **offering was not** yet **slaughtered, it is** considered **as though** he **sinned at that time, and** therefore the court **does not attend to his** obligation.


###### Arakhin 7a:11
[Arakhin 7a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:11)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּצְאָה לֵיהָרֵג, אֵין מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר, מַמְתִּינִין לָהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּלֵד. הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה, נֶהֱנִין בִּשְׂעָרָהּ. בְּהֵמָה שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגָה, אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of a pregnant **woman who is taken** by the court **to be executed,** the court **does not wait to** execute **her until she gives birth.** Rather, she is killed immediately. But with regard to **a woman** taken to be executed **who sat on the travailing chair [*hamashber*]** in the throes of labor, the court **waits to** execute **her until she gives birth.** In the case of **a woman who was killed** through court-imposed capital punishment, **one may derive benefit from her hair.** But in the case of **an animal that was killed** through court-imposed execution, e.g., for goring a person, **deriving benefit** from the animal **is prohibited.**


###### Arakhin 7a:12
[Arakhin 7a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:12)

**גְּמָ׳** פְּשִׁיטָא, גּוּפַהּ הִיא! אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה״, מָמוֹנָא דְבַעַל הוּא, וְלָא לַיפְסְדֵיהּ מִינֵּיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** Isn’t it **obvious** that the court executes the pregnant woman rather than waiting? After all, **it is** part of **her body.** The Gemara answers: It **was necessary** for the mishna to teach this, as it might **enter your mind to say** that **since it is written:** “And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her offspring depart…he shall be fined, **as the woman’s husband shall place upon him”** (Exodus 21:22), the fetus **is** considered to be the **property of the husband.** If so, the court should wait until she gives birth before executing her, **and not** cause **him to lose** the fetus. Consequently, the mishna **teaches us** that the court does not take this factor into account.


###### Arakhin 7a:13
[Arakhin 7a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:13)

וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָמַר קְרָא ״וּמֵתוּ גַּם שְׁנֵיהֶם״ — לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַוָּולָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** why not **say** that **indeed** the court should delay her execution until she gives birth? **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** The **verse states:** “If a man be found lying with a woman married to a husband, then **they shall also both of them die,** the man that lay with the woman, and the woman” (Deuteronomy 22:22). The amplifying term “both of them” serves **to add** her **fetus,** teaching that it dies together with her.


###### Arakhin 7a:14
[Arakhin 7a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:14)

וְהַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן שָׁוִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה! כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן מִ״גַּם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But this** phrase is **required for** the following *halakha*: Neither of the two adulterers mentioned in the verse is punished **until both of them are equal,** i.e., they have both reached majority. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.** The Gemara answers: **When you say** that the child also dies, it is derived from the word **“also,”** whereas the *halakha* that they must be equal is learned from the term “both of them.”


###### Arakhin 7a:15
[Arakhin 7a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:15)

יָשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּעָקַר, גּוּפָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to a woman taken to be executed who **sat on the travailing chair** in the throes of labor, the court waits to execute her until she gives birth. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for delaying the execution in this case? The Gemara answers: **Once** the fetus **uproots** from its place and begins to leave the woman’s body, **it is** considered **an independent body** and may not be killed together with the mother.


###### Arakhin 7a:16
[Arakhin 7a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:16)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאִשָּׁה הַיּוֹצְאָה לֵיהָרֵג, מַכִּין אוֹתָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הֵרָיוֹן, כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּמוּת הַוָּולָד תְּחִילָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִידֵי נִיוּוּל. לְמֵימְרָא דְּהִיא קָדְמָה וּמֵתָה בְּרֵישָׁא? וְהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּוָולָד מָיֵית בְּרֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says:** In the case of a pregnant **woman who is taken** by the court **to be executed, one strikes her opposite the womb,** i.e., on the abdomen, **so that the fetus dies first** and **so that she not suffer disgrace** as a result of publicly bleeding from labor. The Gemara asks: Is this **to say that** according to Shmuel if a pregnant woman dies, **she dies first, before** the fetus? It is clear that this is Shmuel’s assumption, as he mandates killing the fetus before the mother, lest the live fetus bring about the onset of labor as a reaction to the woman’s death. Were the fetus to perish first, before the woman, there would be no need for this. **But** this is difficult, as **we maintain that** the **fetus dies first.**


###### Arakhin 7a:17
[Arakhin 7a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:17)

דִּתְנַן: תִּינוֹק בֶּן יוֹמוֹ נוֹחֵל וּמַנְחִיל, וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: נוֹחֵל בְּנִכְסֵי הָאֵם לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As we learned** in a mishna (*Nidda* 43b–44a): **A baby boy, one day old, inherits** the estate of his relatives who died on the day of his birth, **and** if he dies, **he bequeaths** that inheritance to his relatives. **And Rav Sheshet says:** This mishna is teaching that a day-old child **inherits his mother’s property** when she died after he was born, **to bequeath** it **to** his heirs who are not the mother’s heirs, e.g., **to** his **paternal brothers.**


###### Arakhin 7a:18
[Arakhin 7a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:18)

דַּוְוקָא בֶּן יוֹם אֶחָד, אֲבָל עוּבָּר — לָא, דְּהוּא מָיֵית בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאֵין הַבֵּן יוֹרֵשׁ אֶת אִמּוֹ בְּקֶבֶר לְהַנְחִיל לָאַחִין מִן הָאָב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty: It is **specifically** in a case where the boy is **one day old** that he inherits and bequeaths, **but a fetus** who died while still in the womb does **not** inherit and bequeath. The reason is **that** we presume that the fetus **died first,** before its mother, **and a son does not inherit through his mother** while **in the grave, in order to bequeath** her property **to** his **paternal brothers.**


###### Arakhin 7a:19
[Arakhin 7a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:19)

הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְגַבֵּי מִיתָה, אַיְּידֵי דְּוָולָד זוּטְרָא חַיּוּתֵיהּ, עָיְילָא טִיפָּה דְּמַלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת וּמְחַתֵּךְ לְהוּ לְסִימָנִין, אֲבָל נֶהֶרְגָה — הִיא מֵתָה בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **This matter,** i.e., the presumption that the fetus dies first, applies only **in** a case of natural **death.** In such a situation, **since** the **fetus’s vitality is minimal, the Angel of Death’s drop** of poison **enters** his body and **cuts the two organs that must be severed in ritual slaughter,** i.e., the windpipe and the gullet [*simanim*], thereby killing him before his mother. **But** in a case where the mother **was killed,** e.g., if she was executed, **she dies first.**


###### Arakhin 7a:20
[Arakhin 7a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:20)

וְהָא הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא, וּפַרְכֵּיס עַד תְּלָת פִּרְכּוּסֵי! מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵי אַזְּנַב הַלְּטָאָה דִּמְפַרְכֶּסֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is it true that the fetus always dies first when the mother dies naturally? **But there was an incident** where the mother died naturally **and** the fetus **made three spasmodic motions** afterward. The Gemara answers: That is **just as it is with the tail of the lizard, which jerks** after being severed from the lizard; it is just a spasmodic motion, which does not indicate that it is still alive.


###### Arakhin 7a:21
[Arakhin 7a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Arakhin/r/7a:21)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה עַל הַמַּשְׁבֵּר וּמֵתָה בְּשַׁבָּת, מְבִיאִין סַכִּין וּמְקָרְעִים אֶת כְּרֵיסָהּ, וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַוָּולָד. פְּשִׁיטָא, מַאי עָבֵיד?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Naḥman says** that **Shmuel says:** In the case of **a woman who sat on the travailing chair** in the throes of labor, **and died on Shabbat, one brings a knife, and tears** open **her abdomen, and removes the fetus,** as it might still be alive, and it could be possible to save its life. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it **obvious** that this is permitted? After all, **what is** the person who cuts her abdomen **doing?**