Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2017 | 讘壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Makkot 15

This week’s shiurim are聽sponsored for refuah shleima for Avraham Moshe ben Pesha Etel. The Gemara brings Rabbi Yochanan’s opinions regarding a negative commandment that is preceded by a positive one.聽 Does one get lashes or not.聽 How is it different from a negative commandment that has a positive commandment written after it to”correct it”聽 (lav hanitak l’asei).聽 On what points does Reish Lakish disagree with him.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专讛 讜讻转讬讘讗 讜转谞讬谞讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜讬砖诇讞讜 诪谉 讛诪讞谞讛 [讜讙讜壮] 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 诪讞谞讬讛诐 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讟诪讗

They said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Did you say this halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to them: No. Rabba bar bar 岣na said in the form of an oath: By God, he said it, and this halakha is written in the Torah and we learn it in the mishna. It is written: 鈥淎nd they shall send from the camp any man who is leprous, and any zavand they shall not render their camp impure鈥 (Numbers 5:2鈥4). There is a prohibition against rendering the camp impure, and there is a positive mitzva to send them out of the camp. Since the positive mitzva precedes and is independent of the prohibition, one is flogged for the violation of that prohibition, as we learn in the mishna among those liable to receive lashes: One who entered the Temple while ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜谞住 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜谞住 砖讙讬专砖 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason he retracted his statement and claimed he did not say it? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that the halakha concerning one who rapes a virgin young woman, who is required by Torah law to marry her and for whom it is prohibited to divorce her as long as he lives, is difficult for him, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a rapist who divorced the woman he raped, if he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). If he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her because it is prohibited for him to marry a divorc茅e.

讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖拽讚诪讜 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讬诇拽讬

The Gemara elaborates: If he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged. Why? It is a prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, as the positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), precedes the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away.鈥 But let him be flogged, since he violated the prohibition by divorcing her. Apparently, one is not flogged even if the positive mitzva precedes the prohibition.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讜诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗讜谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Ulla says in response: The positive mitzva in the case of a rapist is not a mitzva that precedes the prohibition. Rather, it follows the prohibition and rectifies it, as it is referring to a case of one who married his victim and then divorced her. Let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of a rapist, and let us derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of one who defames his bride, claiming that she was not a virgin when he consummated the marriage: If in the case of a defamer, who did not perform an action but sinned through speech, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), then in the case of a rapist, who performed an action, is it not all the more so that he is obligated to take her as a wife?

诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 砖讗诐 讙讬专砖 讬讞讝讬专

Ulla continues: Why, then, is the mitzva stated in the case of the rapist? If it is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讜谞住 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讙诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But still, this affords no proof, as one cannot derive the case of a rapist from the case of a defamer, as the a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a defamer, which is more stringent than the case of a rapist? It is notable in that he is flogged and is liable to pay retribution, which is contrary to the principle that in general, two punishments are not administered for one transgression.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讗讜谞住 讜诪讛 讗讜谞住 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讜谞住 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of the defamer, and let us derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a rapist: And if in the case of a rapist, who is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution, but is liable to receive only one punishment, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of a defamer, who is flogged and liable to pay retribution, is it not all the more so that he is obligated to take her as a wife? And why, then, is it stated in the case of the defamer? Rather, if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer, apply it to the matter of the rapist, and if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讗讜谞住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗讜谞住 砖讻谉 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: But this affords no proof, as one cannot derive the case of a defamer from the case of a rapist either, as the a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a rapist? It is notable in that he performed an action, while the defamer performed no action.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讛专讬 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讜谞住 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of the defamer because the expression is redundant, as she is already his wife. It would have been sufficient for the verse to state that it is prohibited for him to send her away. Why, then, is it stated in the case of the defamer? Rather, if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer, apply it to the matter of the rapist, and if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although the positive mitzva appears in the verse prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讚诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽讬

The Gemara questions that derivation: And say instead: And if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer before he marries his bride, as they are married, apply it to the matter of the defamer himself after they are married, teaching that if he divorced her and violated the prohibition against divorcing her, he is obligated to remarry her, and it teaches that he is not flogged, as the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition. But in the case of a rapist, the mitzva is to marry her after the rape but there is no mitzva to marry her after he divorces her, and nevertheless, he is not flogged.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗转讬 讗讜谞住 讜讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; the halakha is derived with regard to the defamer himself, teaching that if he divorces his bride he is obligated to remarry her. And the case of the rapist comes and is derived from the case of the defamer, and the same halakha applies there as well. The Gemara asks: With what derivation is the case of a rapist derived from the case of a defamer? If it is by means of an a fortiori inference or if it is by means of the inductive hermeneutical principle: What do we find, those derivations can be refuted, as we refuted the derivations earlier in the Gemara: What is notable about the case of a defamer? It is notable in that he did not perform an action.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝专

Rather, Rava says: From where is it derived that a rapist must remarry his victim if he divorced her because the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away鈥? It is derived from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淎ll his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that all his days, even after he marries and divorces her, he is obligated to arise and remarry her and is consequently not liable to receive lashes. The Gemara adds: And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讗讜讬讛 诇诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 注砖讛 讬转讬专讗 诪讙专注 讙专注

Rav Pappa said to Rava that a question arises with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva: But isn鈥檛 its prohibition dissimilar to the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it is threshing grain (see Deuteronomy 25:4), which is the paradigm for all prohibitions for whose violation one is flogged, as no positive mitzva is stated in conjunction with the prohibition of muzzling? Rava said to him: Is it reasonable to say that due to the fact that the Merciful One wrote in its regard an additional positive mitzva, the stringency of the prohibition lessens, so that no lashes are administered?

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 注砖讛 讬转讬专讗 诪讙专注 讙专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诇谞转讜拽讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

Rav Pappa objected to this claim: If so, with regard to a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva as well, let us say: Is it reasonable to say that due to the fact that the Merciful One wrote in its regard an additional positive mitzva, the stringency of the prohibition lessens, so that no lashes are administered? Rava said to him: In that case, the transgressor is not flogged because the mitzva comes to sever the prohibition from the punishment of lashes.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜

The Gemara returns to the statement of Rava, who said with regard to the rapist: All his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her, and that is why he is not flogged for violating the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 and asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he nullified the mitzva or did not nullify the mitzva. According to this opinion, one is flogged only if fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible, e.g., a priest who divorced the woman whom he raped. By contrast, a non-priest would not be flogged, because the option of remarriage remains viable.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the one who says that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if he did not immediately fulfill the mitzva he is flogged, what can be said? Even in the case of a non-priest who divorced the rape victim, once he fails to remarry her immediately, he is liable to receive lashes.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讘讟诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: The only reason Rava stated his explanation, that all his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her and that is why the rapist is not flogged even though it is a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva, is to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that for any prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna who would recite the mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall: Teach that if he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes? According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, it works out well.

讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 拽讬讬诐 注砖讛 砖讘讛 驻讟讜专 讘讬讟诇 注砖讛 砖讘讛 讞讬讬讘

What is the dispute to which the Gemara is alluding? The tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, if he fulfilled the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is exempt from lashes, and if he nullified the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is liable to receive lashes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 讗诪专转 拽讬讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讬讟诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 讘讬讟诇 驻讟讜专 转谞讬 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the tanna: What is it that you are saying? The baraita that you recited is self-contradictory, as based on the first clause: If he fulfilled the mitzva he is exempt, apparently, if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable. Yet based on the latter clause: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable, apparently, if he did not nullify the mitzva he is exempt, even though he failed to fulfill the mitzva. Rather, teach: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The formulation of the baraita must be consistent; therefore, teach: If he fulfilled the mitzva, he is exempt, and if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛转专讗转 住驻拽 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara inquires: With regard to what matter do they disagree? They disagree with regard to uncertain forewarning, i.e., forewarning concerning a transgression with regard to which it will not be clarified whether or not his action will render him liable to receive lashes. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds: Uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning; therefore, even if it is unclear whether the action that the transgressor is about to perform will render him liable to receive lashes, he can be forewarned, and if he violates the prohibition in a manner that will render him liable, he is flogged.

讜诪专 住讘专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds: Uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the rapist is forewarned when he is about to divorce his wife, even though there is uncertainty whether he will nullify the mitzva. If he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he vows that deriving benefit from his ex-wife is forbidden to him, thereby ensuring that he cannot remarry her, he is flogged. Reish Lakish holds that if one鈥檚 liability to receive lashes was dependent upon the nullification of the mitzva, the rapist would never be flogged, as in that case the forewarning would of necessity be uncertain. Therefore, he explains that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged is whether he fulfilled the mitzva immediately. Violating the prohibition renders him liable to receive lashes; he may then choose to be flogged or to fulfill the mitzva. Therefore, when he is forewarned that he will be flogged if he divorces her, it is not uncertain forewarning.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

And they follow their standard lines of reasoning, as it was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagreed in a case where one said: On my oath I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it. Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say: He is not flogged for taking a false oath. They disagree with regard to the reason that he is not flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 15

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 15

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗诪专转 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讗诇讛讬诐 讗诪专讛 讜讻转讬讘讗 讜转谞讬谞讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜讬砖诇讞讜 诪谉 讛诪讞谞讛 [讜讙讜壮] 讜诇讗 讬讟诪讗讜 讗转 诪讞谞讬讛诐 转谞讬谞讗 讛讘讗 诇诪拽讚砖 讟诪讗

They said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Did you say this halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to them: No. Rabba bar bar 岣na said in the form of an oath: By God, he said it, and this halakha is written in the Torah and we learn it in the mishna. It is written: 鈥淎nd they shall send from the camp any man who is leprous, and any zavand they shall not render their camp impure鈥 (Numbers 5:2鈥4). There is a prohibition against rendering the camp impure, and there is a positive mitzva to send them out of the camp. Since the positive mitzva precedes and is independent of the prohibition, one is flogged for the violation of that prohibition, as we learn in the mishna among those liable to receive lashes: One who entered the Temple while ritually impure.

讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 拽讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讗讜谞住 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜谞住 砖讙讬专砖 讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the reason he retracted his statement and claimed he did not say it? The Gemara answers: It is due to the fact that the halakha concerning one who rapes a virgin young woman, who is required by Torah law to marry her and for whom it is prohibited to divorce her as long as he lives, is difficult for him, as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a rapist who divorced the woman he raped, if he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged for violating the prohibition: 鈥淗e may not send her away all his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29). If he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her because it is prohibited for him to marry a divorc茅e.

讗诐 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖拽讚诪讜 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讬诇拽讬

The Gemara elaborates: If he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged. Why? It is a prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, as the positive mitzva: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), precedes the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away.鈥 But let him be flogged, since he violated the prohibition by divorcing her. Apparently, one is not flogged even if the positive mitzva precedes the prohibition.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘讗讜谞住 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讜诪讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讗讜谞住 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Ulla says in response: The positive mitzva in the case of a rapist is not a mitzva that precedes the prohibition. Rather, it follows the prohibition and rectifies it, as it is referring to a case of one who married his victim and then divorced her. Let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of a rapist, and let us derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of one who defames his bride, claiming that she was not a virgin when he consummated the marriage: If in the case of a defamer, who did not perform an action but sinned through speech, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:19), then in the case of a rapist, who performed an action, is it not all the more so that he is obligated to take her as a wife?

诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 砖讗诐 讙讬专砖 讬讞讝讬专

Ulla continues: Why, then, is the mitzva stated in the case of the rapist? If it is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜讗讻转讬 讗讜谞住 诪诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讙诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Gemara asks: But still, this affords no proof, as one cannot derive the case of a rapist from the case of a defamer, as the a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a defamer, which is more stringent than the case of a rapist? It is notable in that he is flogged and is liable to pay retribution, which is contrary to the principle that in general, two punishments are not administered for one transgression.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 讜诇讬讙诪专 诪讗讜谞住 讜诪讛 讗讜谞住 砖讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讜诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讜谞住 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of the defamer, and let us derive it by means of an a fortiori inference from the case of a rapist: And if in the case of a rapist, who is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution, but is liable to receive only one punishment, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of a defamer, who is flogged and liable to pay retribution, is it not all the more so that he is obligated to take her as a wife? And why, then, is it stated in the case of the defamer? Rather, if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer, apply it to the matter of the rapist, and if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 诪讗讜谞住 谞诪讬 诇讗 讙诪专 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗讜谞住 砖讻谉 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara asks: But this affords no proof, as one cannot derive the case of a defamer from the case of a rapist either, as the a fortiori inference can be refuted: What is notable about the case of a rapist? It is notable in that he performed an action, while the defamer performed no action.

讗诇讗 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗砖讛 讘诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讛专讬 讗砖转讜 讛讬讗 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讜谞住 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜

The Gemara suggests: Rather, let the verse not state: 鈥淎nd she shall be his wife,鈥 in the case of the defamer because the expression is redundant, as she is already his wife. It would have been sufficient for the verse to state that it is prohibited for him to send her away. Why, then, is it stated in the case of the defamer? Rather, if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer, apply it to the matter of the rapist, and if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of before the rapist marries the victim, apply it to the matter of after the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although the positive mitzva appears in the verse prior to the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬讜 讚诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 转谞讛讜 注谞讬谉 诇讗讞专讬讜 讚讬讚讬讛 讚诇讗 诇拽讬

The Gemara questions that derivation: And say instead: And if the mitzva is not relevant to the matter of the defamer before he marries his bride, as they are married, apply it to the matter of the defamer himself after they are married, teaching that if he divorced her and violated the prohibition against divorcing her, he is obligated to remarry her, and it teaches that he is not flogged, as the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition. But in the case of a rapist, the mitzva is to marry her after the rape but there is no mitzva to marry her after he divorces her, and nevertheless, he is not flogged.

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗转讬 讗讜谞住 讜讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 讻讚驻专讻讬谞谉 诪讛 诇诪讜爪讬讗 砖诐 专注 砖讻谉 诇讗 注砖讛 诪注砖讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so; the halakha is derived with regard to the defamer himself, teaching that if he divorces his bride he is obligated to remarry her. And the case of the rapist comes and is derived from the case of the defamer, and the same halakha applies there as well. The Gemara asks: With what derivation is the case of a rapist derived from the case of a defamer? If it is by means of an a fortiori inference or if it is by means of the inductive hermeneutical principle: What do we find, those derivations can be refuted, as we refuted the derivations earlier in the Gemara: What is notable about the case of a defamer? It is notable in that he did not perform an action.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝专 讜讻谉 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 讬诪讬讜 讘注诪讜讚 讜讛讞讝专

Rather, Rava says: From where is it derived that a rapist must remarry his victim if he divorced her because the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away鈥? It is derived from the superfluous phrase: 鈥淎ll his days鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that all his days, even after he marries and divorces her, he is obligated to arise and remarry her and is consequently not liable to receive lashes. The Gemara adds: And likewise, when Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讜讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 诇讗讜讬讛 诇诇讗讜 讚讞住讬诪讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 注砖讛 讬转讬专讗 诪讙专注 讙专注

Rav Pappa said to Rava that a question arises with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva: But isn鈥檛 its prohibition dissimilar to the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it is threshing grain (see Deuteronomy 25:4), which is the paradigm for all prohibitions for whose violation one is flogged, as no positive mitzva is stated in conjunction with the prohibition of muzzling? Rava said to him: Is it reasonable to say that due to the fact that the Merciful One wrote in its regard an additional positive mitzva, the stringency of the prohibition lessens, so that no lashes are administered?

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讗讜 砖谞讬转拽 诇注砖讛 谞诪讬 诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讘 讘讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 注砖讛 讬转讬专讗 诪讙专注 讙专注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诇谞转讜拽讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

Rav Pappa objected to this claim: If so, with regard to a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva as well, let us say: Is it reasonable to say that due to the fact that the Merciful One wrote in its regard an additional positive mitzva, the stringency of the prohibition lessens, so that no lashes are administered? Rava said to him: In that case, the transgressor is not flogged because the mitzva comes to sever the prohibition from the punishment of lashes.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜

The Gemara returns to the statement of Rava, who said with regard to the rapist: All his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her, and that is why he is not flogged for violating the prohibition 鈥淗e may not send her away,鈥 and asks: This works out well according to the one who says that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he nullified the mitzva or did not nullify the mitzva. According to this opinion, one is flogged only if fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible, e.g., a priest who divorced the woman whom he raped. By contrast, a non-priest would not be flogged, because the option of remarriage remains viable.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

But according to the one who says that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if he did not immediately fulfill the mitzva he is flogged, what can be said? Even in the case of a non-priest who divorced the rape victim, once he fails to remarry her immediately, he is liable to receive lashes.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇转谞讗 转谞讬 讘讟诇讜 讞讬讬讘 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讜 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: The only reason Rava stated his explanation, that all his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her and that is why the rapist is not flogged even though it is a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva, is to explain the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said that for any prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say to the tanna who would recite the mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall: Teach that if he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes? According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, it works out well.

讚转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 拽讬讬诐 注砖讛 砖讘讛 驻讟讜专 讘讬讟诇 注砖讛 砖讘讛 讞讬讬讘

What is the dispute to which the Gemara is alluding? The tanna taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, if he fulfilled the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is exempt from lashes, and if he nullified the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is liable to receive lashes.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗 讗诪专转 拽讬讬诐 驻讟讜专 诇讗 拽讬讬诐 讞讬讬讘 讘讬讟诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讗 讘讬讟诇 驻讟讜专 转谞讬 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to the tanna: What is it that you are saying? The baraita that you recited is self-contradictory, as based on the first clause: If he fulfilled the mitzva he is exempt, apparently, if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable. Yet based on the latter clause: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable, apparently, if he did not nullify the mitzva he is exempt, even though he failed to fulfill the mitzva. Rather, teach: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The formulation of the baraita must be consistent; therefore, teach: If he fulfilled the mitzva, he is exempt, and if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable.

讘诪讗讬 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讛转专讗转 住驻拽 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara inquires: With regard to what matter do they disagree? They disagree with regard to uncertain forewarning, i.e., forewarning concerning a transgression with regard to which it will not be clarified whether or not his action will render him liable to receive lashes. One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, holds: Uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning; therefore, even if it is unclear whether the action that the transgressor is about to perform will render him liable to receive lashes, he can be forewarned, and if he violates the prohibition in a manner that will render him liable, he is flogged.

讜诪专 住讘专 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

And one Sage, Reish Lakish, holds: Uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning. According to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the rapist is forewarned when he is about to divorce his wife, even though there is uncertainty whether he will nullify the mitzva. If he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he vows that deriving benefit from his ex-wife is forbidden to him, thereby ensuring that he cannot remarry her, he is flogged. Reish Lakish holds that if one鈥檚 liability to receive lashes was dependent upon the nullification of the mitzva, the rapist would never be flogged, as in that case the forewarning would of necessity be uncertain. Therefore, he explains that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged is whether he fulfilled the mitzva immediately. Violating the prohibition renders him liable to receive lashes; he may then choose to be flogged or to fulfill the mitzva. Therefore, when he is forewarned that he will be flogged if he divorces her, it is not uncertain forewarning.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖讗讜讻诇 讻讻专 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讗讻诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛

And they follow their standard lines of reasoning, as it was stated that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish disagreed in a case where one said: On my oath I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it. Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish both say: He is not flogged for taking a false oath. They disagree with regard to the reason that he is not flogged. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: He is not flogged,

Scroll To Top