Study Makkot folio 8A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
והאמר רב יצחק ברבי יוסף אמר רבי יוחנן: רבי, ורבי יהודה בן רועץ, ובית שמאי, ורבי שמעון, ורבי עקיבא, כולהו סבירי להו יש אם למקרא! היינו דקאמר להו ״ועוד״.
But doesn’t Rav Yitzḥak, son of R' Yosef, say that R' Yoḥanan says: R' Yehuda HaNasi, and R' Yehuda ben Roetz, and Beit Shammai, and R' Shimon, and R' Akiva all hold that the vocalization of the Torah is authoritative, not the manner in which it is written? How can Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi ascribe R' Yehuda HaNasi’s ruling to the contrary opinion? The Talmud answers: That is the reason that R' Yehuda HaNasi said to the Rabbis: And furthermore. R' Yehuda HaNasi said to them: If the tradition of the manner in which the verses in the Torah are written is authoritative, that supports my interpretation of the verse; if not, there is an additional proof.
Rav Pappa said: In the case of one who cast a clod of earth onto a palm tree, and he severed dates from the tree, and the dates went upon a person and killed him, we have arrived at the dispute between R' Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis in a case where one was splitting wood and a wood chip flew through the air and killed a person. In that case, R' Yehuda HaNasi deems him liable to be exiled, and the Rabbis deem him exempt from exile. The Talmud asks: Isn’t that obvious? The cases are identical. What novel element is Rav Pappa introducing? The Talmud answers: The parallel between the cases drawn by Rav Pappa is necessary. Lest you say that these severed dates were not propelled by the force of his action but are like an item propelled by a force generated by the force of his action, and even R' Yehuda HaNasi would concede that in that case he is exempt from exile, Rav Pappa teaches us that the dates are considered to have been severed by the force of his action.