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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 21, 2017 | 讙壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Makkot 16

Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish’s debates continue regarding whether one gets lashes for a doubtful warning (a warning given when it wasn’t clear whether the person was going to violate the prohibition) and a negative commandment that does not have an action associated with it.聽 Both are derived from the same tanna聽– Rabbi Yehuda and the sources they use to support their opinions are brought.聽 Rabbi Yochanan says that there are only 2 cases where one can get lashes for a negative commandment that has a positive commandment intended to fix it, as he holds that one only gets lashes if one nullifies the possibility for fixing it.聽 One is sending the mother bird away.聽 The other one he leaves to his student to figure out and the student makes various suggestions before arriving at a conclusion that it is Peah – leaving over the corner of the field for the poor.聽 The next part of the mishna is discussed regarding lashes for creepy crawling creatures and it is explained that since there are various negative commandments in the Torah regarding these things, there are various cases where one could receive multiple sets of lashes.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讜讻诇 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. He violates the oath by failing to perform an action, rather than by performing an action, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. Reish Lakish says: He is not flogged, because the forewarning in this case is an uncertain forewarning. One cannot properly forewarn him before he takes the oath, because as long as time remains in the day he can still eat the loaf at a later time and fulfill the oath; and any uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 讛讻讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗诇诪讗 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara adds: And both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to position the positive mitzva of burning the leftover flesh after the prohibition against leaving over the flesh, to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred this from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning, as he can be forewarned not to leave over the flesh of the offering, even though he would not be flogged were he to burn it.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬讬拽 讛讻讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

And Reish Lakish inferred this: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, one is flogged even for violating a prohibition that does not involve an action, as he violates the prohibition without performing an action.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish too, this is certainly a case of uncertain forewarning; why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning?

住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛讻讛 讝讛 拽讬诇诇 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽讬诇诇 讝讛 讛讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讜 拽讬诇诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of the other tanna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman was divorced and remarried soon after, and a son was born seven months after her remarriage and nine months after her divorce, it is unclear whether he is the son of the first husband or of the second husband. In that case, if this son struck this husband of his mother, and then struck that husband, or if he cursed this husband and then cursed that one, and likewise if he struck both of them simultaneously or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable for striking or cursing his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cursed or struck both of them simultaneously he is liable, but if he cursed or struck them one after the other, even if he was forewarned prior to cursing or striking each one, he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not flogged after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably the forewarning is uncertain.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan too, this is certainly a case of a prohibition that does not involve an action. Why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition of that kind?

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛 诇讗讜 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞砖讘注 讜诪讬诪专 讜讛诪拽诇诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖诐

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with that which was cited in his name, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: With regard to any prohibition in the Torah, if it is a prohibition that involves an action, one is flogged for its violation; if it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation, except for one who takes a false oath, one who substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, saying: This animal is substituted for that one, and one who curses another invoking the name of God. In those three instances, the perpetrator is flogged even though he performed no action.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Although the difficulties that were raised with regard to the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish were answered, the apparent contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Yehuda to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult. The Gemara cited contradictory statements of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to lashes both in the case of a prohibition that does not involve an action and in the case of uncertain forewarning.

讗讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: If it is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, the contradiction may be resolved with the explanation that the two sources reflect the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m, who disagree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If it is according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the contradiction is not difficult, as this baraita reflects his opinion, that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action, and that baraita reflects the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that one is not flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛谞讜讟诇 讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖诇讞 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讝讗转 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转

We learned in a mishna there (17a): With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and he does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 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 讜讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Which is that other mitzva? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You will know when you discover it yourself. Rabbi Elazar went out, examined the matter, and discovered the answer, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to 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). And if he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara states: This works out well according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if he does not fulfill the mitzva immediately when he is instructed to do so, he is flogged when he fails to do so.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖讬诇讜讞 讛拽谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讜谞住 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he nullified the mitzva or did not nullify the mitzva, and one is flogged only if he performed an action that renders it impossible to fulfill the mitzva, granted, with regard to the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, you can find a situation where he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he killed the mother bird. But in the case of a rapist, if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, how can you find a situation where the man is flogged because he nullified any possibility of remarrying her?

讗讬 讚拽讟诇讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讚专讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讛 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬 砖讜讜讬转讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 砖讜讜讬转讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

If he cannot remarry her because he killed her, he will be executed, not flogged, based on the principle: He receives the greater punishment. Rav Shimi of Me岣za said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he received, on her behalf, the money for betrothal from another, thereby ensuring that his own remarriage to her is no longer an option. Rav said: That is not a viable solution; if his ex-wife designated him as an agent to receive the money of betrothal on her behalf, it is she who nullifies the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva for him, as a woman is betrothed only with her consent, and he is not liable at all. If she did not designate him as an agent, is it in his power to accept betrothal on behalf of a woman who did not designate him to do so? His action is nothing, and the betrothal does not take effect.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讚讬专讛 讘专讘讬诐 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪讚讬专讛 诇讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he vowed in public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, and it is consequently prohibited for him to marry her. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no nullification; he is flogged, since by taking that vow he has rendered remarriage impossible. But according to the one who says that even a vow taken in public has the possibility of nullification, what can be said? He can nullify the vow and remarry her. The Gemara answers: The reference is to a case where he vows on the basis of the consent of the public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, as Ameimar says that the halakha is: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification; a vow that was taken on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 (住讬诪谉 讙讝诇 诪砖讻谉 讜驻讗讛) 讙讝诇 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讙讝诇 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 诪砖讻讜谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讗 讛砖诪砖

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: And are there no more prohibitions that entail fulfillment of a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? But aren鈥檛 there others? Before stating its challenges, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for the cases that it will cite: Robbery, collateral, and pe鈥檃. The Gemara elaborates: Isn鈥檛 there the case of robbery, where the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not rob鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and also states: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item鈥 (Leviticus 5:23)? Isn鈥檛 there the case of collateral, where the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not come into his house to fetch his pledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), and He then states: 鈥淵ou shall return to him the pledge when the sun sets鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13)?

讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 讜讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Gemara continues: And you find that one is liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it. According to the first criterion, he is flogged if he fails to return the stolen item or the collateral; according to the second criterion, he is flogged if he destroys the stolen item or the collateral. The Gemara answers: There, in both those cases, he is not flogged, since he is liable to remit monetary payment for the stolen item or the collateral, as the principle is: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution for one transgression.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖诇 讙专 讜诪转 讛讙专

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But isn鈥檛 there a case where he is not liable to pay, e.g., if he appropriated the collateral of a convert and the convert died with no heirs. In that case, there is no payment, and nevertheless, he is not flogged.

讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讜砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讚讙专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 驻拽注

The Gemara answers: There, the man who appropriated the collateral is liable to remit monetary payment, and it is only that the lien of the convert on the property has lapsed, as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 驻讗讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讻诇讛 驻讗转 讜讙讜壮 诇注谞讬 讜诇讙专 转注讝讘 讗转诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of pe鈥檃, where there is a prohibition, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: 鈥淭o the poor and the convert you shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22)?

讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 驻讗讛 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬谉 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛讻专讬 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讬专讞 诪讬专讞讜 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

And you find one liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, as we learned in a baraita: The mitzva of pe鈥檃 is to separate it from the standing grain still growing from the ground. If he did not separate it from the standing grain, but reaped the entire field, he separates a portion from the sheaves as pe鈥檃. If he did not separate it from the sheaves, he separates it from the pile where one places the kernels after threshing, before he smooths the pile. Once he smooths the pile, the produce is considered grain from which one is obligated to separate terumot and tithes. If he already smoothed the pile before designating the pe鈥檃, he tithes the grain in the pile and then gives the pe鈥檃 to the poor person. Once he grinds the kernels into flour, he no longer separates pe鈥檃.

讻讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讬住讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讻诇 注讬住讛

Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving pe鈥檃 by grinding the grain; why, then, did Rabbi Yo岣nan omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: One separates pe鈥檃 even from the dough. He maintains that the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of pe鈥檃 is never nullified, as one may separate pe鈥檃 even after grinding and kneading. The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, you also find a way to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva, in a case where one ate the dough.

讗诇讗 讝讗转 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转 讗讛讗 讗讘诇 讗讜谞住 诇讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: This, is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, and the term: Another, is in reference to this halakha of pe鈥檃. But in the case of a rapist, no, the possibility of remarrying the rape victim whom he divorced is not nullified, even if he vows on the basis of the consent of the public. Where do we say that a vow on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification? It is only in a case where one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is optional, i.e., not a mitzva; but if one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is a mitzva, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification. In the case of the rapist, he could seek nullification of his vow to enable him to fulfill the mitzva of remarrying his divorc茅e, and therefore the vow can be nullified.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讚讛讜讛 驻砖注 讘讬谞讜拽讬 讗讚专讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讻讞 讚讚讬讬拽 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. As this happened in that incident where there was a certain teacher of children who was negligent in his supervision of the children, and Rav A岣 vowed on the basis of the consent of the public that he would no longer be allowed to teach children. And nevertheless Ravina restored him to his position, because no other teacher was found who was as accurate as he. Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.

讜讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讻诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讻专讘讗 诪诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讻专讘讗 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow [binnita devei kerava], we flog him due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淐reeping animals that creep on the ground鈥shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who ate a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 驻讜讟讬转讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讛

Abaye says: One who ate a putita, a creeping animal found in the sea, is flogged with four sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: 鈥淎nd any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers鈥ou shall not eat of their flesh鈥 (Leviticus 11:10鈥11), and: 鈥淎nd any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general: 鈥淵ou shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, neither shall you render yourselves impure with them鈥 (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.

谞诪诇讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓

If one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes. In addition to the two prohibitions stated with regard to repugnant creatures in general, he is also flogged for violating the prohibitions: 鈥淐reeping animals that creep on the ground鈥shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41), and: 鈥淎nd all creeping animals that creep on the ground, you shall not eat them鈥 (Leviticus 11:42), and: 鈥淣either shall you render yourselves impure with any manner of creeping things that crawls upon the ground鈥 (Leviticus 11:44).

爪专注讛 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛注讜祝

If one ate a wasp, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. In addition to the five prohibitions violated by one who eats an ant, he is flogged with an additional set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition with regard to winged creeping creatures: 鈥淎nd all winged creeping creatures are impure for you, they may not be eaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:19).

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讛诪砖讛讛 讗转 谞拽讘讬讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转砖拽爪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖转讬 讘拽专谞讗 讚讗讜诪谞讗 拽讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转砖拽爪讜

Rav A岣i says: One who delays relieving himself through his orifices when the need arises violates the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable鈥 (Leviticus 20:25). Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter through which blood has passed violates the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讬住拽 转砖注讛 谞诪诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讞讚 讞讬 讜讛砖诇讬诪谉 诇讻讝讬转 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 讞诪砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专讬讛 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讻讝讬转 谞讘讬诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讛讜讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讜讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬

Rava bar Rav Huna says: If one crushed nine ants and brought another one that was alive and thereby completed their measure to an olive-bulk and ate them, he is flogged with six sets of lashes: Five for eating an entity for which one is flogged five times as stated above with regard to one who eats an ant, and one for eating an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass all together. Rava says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he ate two crushed ants and the ant that was alive, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Rav Yosef says: Even if he ate one crushed ant and the ant that was alive. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree; this case, where Rava and Rav Yosef say that he is flogged for eating one or two crushed ants and one that is alive, is referring to large ants, which together amount to an olive-bulk. And that case, where Rava bar Rav Huna mentions nine ants, is referring to small ants, as a greater number of ants is required to constitute an olive-bulk and render him liable. Consequently, there is no halakhic dispute in this case.

讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻诇 讟讘诇 砖诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诇讜拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches that among those flogged is one who ate untithed produce or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken. Rav says: If one ate untithed produce from which teruma and first tithe were separated and poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated, he is flogged.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讟讘诇 砖诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought that one is liable for eating only untithed produce from which no gifts were taken at all; but if teruma gedola was taken from the produce, but first tithe was not taken from it, or if the first tithe was separated but not second tithe, or even if only poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated, from where is it derived that the halakhic status of the produce is that of untithed produce and one is liable for eating it?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇

The baraita continues: It is derived as the verse states: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and there it states: 鈥淎nd you shall give to the Levite, to the convert, to the orphan, and to the widow, and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, with regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd they shall eat within your gates,鈥 it is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe, here too, 鈥測ou may not eat within your gates鈥 is referring to produce in which there is poor man鈥檚 tithe, as it has not yet been separated, and the Merciful One states a prohibition: You may not eat it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛砖诐 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

Rav Yosef said: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Eliezer says: One need not separate by means of calling the name upon poor man鈥檚 tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. With regard to produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, there is a rabbinic ordinance requiring one to separate first and second tithe and teruma of the tithe from it. Nevertheless, one is not required to separate poor man鈥檚 tithe from that produce, because poor man鈥檚 tithe is a monetary debt owed to the poor, and in a case of uncertainty, the principle is: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to separate poor man鈥檚 tithe does not accord the produce the status of untithed produce. And the Rabbis say:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 16

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讜讻诇 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讜讻诇 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 诇讗 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. He violates the oath by failing to perform an action, rather than by performing an action, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. Reish Lakish says: He is not flogged, because the forewarning in this case is an uncertain forewarning. One cannot properly forewarn him before he takes the oath, because as long as time remains in the day he can still eat the loaf at a later time and fulfill the oath; and any uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.

讜转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讜诇讗 转讜转讬专讜 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讛谞转专 诪诪谞讜 注讚 讘拽专 讜讙讜壮 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讬转谉 注砖讛 讗讞专 诇讗 转注砖讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讬讬拽 讛讻讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗诇诪讗 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 砖诪讛 讛转专讗讛

The Gemara adds: And both Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn in fire鈥 (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to position the positive mitzva of burning the leftover flesh after the prohibition against leaving over the flesh, to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yo岣nan inferred this from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning, as he can be forewarned not to leave over the flesh of the offering, even though he would not be flogged were he to burn it.

讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讬讬拽 讛讻讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 讛讗 诇讗 讘讗 讛讻转讜讘 诇讜拽讛 讗诇诪讗 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜

And Reish Lakish inferred this: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, one is flogged even for violating a prohibition that does not involve an action, as he violates the prohibition without performing an action.

讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 谞诪讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 讛转专讗转 住驻拽 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish too, this is certainly a case of uncertain forewarning; why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning?

住讘专 诇讛 讻讗讬讚讱 转谞讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛讻讛 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜讛讻讛 讝讛 拽讬诇诇 讝讛 讜讞讝专 讜拽讬诇诇 讝讛 讛讻讛 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讜 拽讬诇诇 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘转 讗讞转 讞讬讬讘 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 驻讟讜专

The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of the other tanna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman was divorced and remarried soon after, and a son was born seven months after her remarriage and nine months after her divorce, it is unclear whether he is the son of the first husband or of the second husband. In that case, if this son struck this husband of his mother, and then struck that husband, or if he cursed this husband and then cursed that one, and likewise if he struck both of them simultaneously or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable for striking or cursing his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cursed or struck both of them simultaneously he is liable, but if he cursed or struck them one after the other, even if he was forewarned prior to cursing or striking each one, he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not flogged after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably the forewarning is uncertain.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讗 讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan too, this is certainly a case of a prohibition that does not involve an action. Why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition of that kind?

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 注诪专诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讻诇 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘转讜专讛 诇讗讜 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪注砖讛 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 诇讗讜 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注砖讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇讬讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞砖讘注 讜诪讬诪专 讜讛诪拽诇诇 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 讘砖诐

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with that which was cited in his name, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitz岣k says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: With regard to any prohibition in the Torah, if it is a prohibition that involves an action, one is flogged for its violation; if it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation, except for one who takes a false oath, one who substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, saying: This animal is substituted for that one, and one who curses another invoking the name of God. In those three instances, the perpetrator is flogged even though he performed no action.

拽砖讬讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara asks: Although the difficulties that were raised with regard to the opinions of Rabbi Yo岣nan and Reish Lakish were answered, the apparent contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Yehuda to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult. The Gemara cited contradictory statements of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to lashes both in the case of a prohibition that does not involve an action and in the case of uncertain forewarning.

讗讬 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讛讗 讚专讘讬讛

The Gemara answers: If it is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, the contradiction may be resolved with the explanation that the two sources reflect the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m, who disagree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If it is according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the contradiction is not difficult, as this baraita reflects his opinion, that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action, and that baraita reflects the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that one is not flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讛谞讜讟诇 讗诐 注诇 讛讘谞讬诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖诇讞 讜讗讬谞讜 诇讜拽讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 诪爪讜转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讬砖 讘讛 拽讜诐 注砖讛 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬谉 诇谞讜 讗诇讗 讝讗转 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转

We learned in a mishna there (17a): With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: 鈥淵ou shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:6鈥7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and he does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation. Rabbi Yo岣nan says: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻讬 转砖讻讞 谞驻拽 讚拽 讜讗砖讻讞 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 讜讗诐 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 诇讜拽讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讞讝讬专

Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: Which is that other mitzva? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: You will know when you discover it yourself. Rabbi Elazar went out, examined the matter, and discovered the answer, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to 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). And if he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜

The Gemara states: This works out well according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if he does not fulfill the mitzva immediately when he is instructed to do so, he is flogged when he fails to do so.

讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚转谞讬 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讘砖诇诪讗 讙讘讬 砖讬诇讜讞 讛拽谉 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗诇讗 讗讜谞住 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

But according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he nullified the mitzva or did not nullify the mitzva, and one is flogged only if he performed an action that renders it impossible to fulfill the mitzva, granted, with regard to the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, you can find a situation where he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he killed the mother bird. But in the case of a rapist, if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, how can you find a situation where the man is flogged because he nullified any possibility of remarrying her?

讗讬 讚拽讟诇讛 拽诐 诇讬讛 讘讚专讘讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪讞讜讝谞讗讛 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讘诇 诇讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 诪讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讗讬 砖讜讜讬转讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讗讬讛讬 拽讗 诪讘讟诇讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 砖讜讜讬转讬讛 砖诇讬讞 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讬讗

If he cannot remarry her because he killed her, he will be executed, not flogged, based on the principle: He receives the greater punishment. Rav Shimi of Me岣za said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he received, on her behalf, the money for betrothal from another, thereby ensuring that his own remarriage to her is no longer an option. Rav said: That is not a viable solution; if his ex-wife designated him as an agent to receive the money of betrothal on her behalf, it is she who nullifies the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva for him, as a woman is betrothed only with her consent, and he is not liable at all. If she did not designate him as an agent, is it in his power to accept betrothal on behalf of a woman who did not designate him to do so? His action is nothing, and the betrothal does not take effect.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 诪谞讛专讚注讗 讻讙讜谉 砖讛讚讬专讛 讘专讘讬诐 讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚诪讚讬专讛 诇讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讚讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讛诇讻转讗 谞讚专 砖讛讜讚专 讘专讘讬诐 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde鈥檃 said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he vowed in public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, and it is consequently prohibited for him to marry her. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no nullification; he is flogged, since by taking that vow he has rendered remarriage impossible. But according to the one who says that even a vow taken in public has the possibility of nullification, what can be said? He can nullify the vow and remarry her. The Gemara answers: The reference is to a case where he vows on the basis of the consent of the public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, as Ameimar says that the halakha is: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification; a vow that was taken on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification.

讜转讜 诇讬讻讗 讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 (住讬诪谉 讙讝诇 诪砖讻谉 讜驻讗讛) 讙讝诇 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讙讝诇 讜讛砖讬讘 讗转 讛讙讝诇讛 诪砖讻讜谉 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诇 讘讬转讜 诇注讘讟 注讘讟讜 讛砖讘 转砖讬讘 诇讜 讛注讘讜讟 讻讘讗 讛砖诪砖

The Gemara questions Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: And are there no more prohibitions that entail fulfillment of a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? But aren鈥檛 there others? Before stating its challenges, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for the cases that it will cite: Robbery, collateral, and pe鈥檃. The Gemara elaborates: Isn鈥檛 there the case of robbery, where the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not rob鈥 (Leviticus 19:13), and also states: 鈥淎nd he shall return the stolen item鈥 (Leviticus 5:23)? Isn鈥檛 there the case of collateral, where the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not come into his house to fetch his pledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:10), and He then states: 鈥淵ou shall return to him the pledge when the sun sets鈥 (Deuteronomy 24:13)?

讜诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 讜讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讬讬讘 讘转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讛 讜诪砖诇诐

The Gemara continues: And you find that one is liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it. According to the first criterion, he is flogged if he fails to return the stolen item or the collateral; according to the second criterion, he is flogged if he destroys the stolen item or the collateral. The Gemara answers: There, in both those cases, he is not flogged, since he is liable to remit monetary payment for the stolen item or the collateral, as the principle is: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution for one transgression.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 诪砖讻讜谞讜 砖诇 讙专 讜诪转 讛讙专

Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But isn鈥檛 there a case where he is not liable to pay, e.g., if he appropriated the collateral of a convert and the convert died with no heirs. In that case, there is no payment, and nevertheless, he is not flogged.

讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讘专 转砖诇讜诪讬谉 讛讜讗 讜砖讬注讘讜讚讗 讚讙专 讛讜讗 讚拽讗 驻拽注

The Gemara answers: There, the man who appropriated the collateral is liable to remit monetary payment, and it is only that the lien of the convert on the property has lapsed, as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 驻讗讛 讚专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讻诇讛 驻讗转 讜讙讜壮 诇注谞讬 讜诇讙专 转注讝讘 讗转诐 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 there the case of pe鈥檃, where there is a prohibition, as the Merciful One states: 鈥淵ou shall not wholly reap the corner of your field鈥 (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: 鈥淭o the poor and the convert you shall leave them鈥 (Leviticus 23:22)?

讚诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘拽讬讬诪讜 讜诇讗 拽讬讬诪讜 讘讬讟诇讜 讜诇讗 讘讬讟诇讜 讚转谞谉 诪爪讜转 驻讗讛 诇讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛拽诪讛 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬谉 诇讗 讛驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讜诪专讬谉 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛讻专讬 注讚 砖诇讗 诪讬专讞 诪讬专讞讜 诪注砖专 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜

And you find one liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, as we learned in a baraita: The mitzva of pe鈥檃 is to separate it from the standing grain still growing from the ground. If he did not separate it from the standing grain, but reaped the entire field, he separates a portion from the sheaves as pe鈥檃. If he did not separate it from the sheaves, he separates it from the pile where one places the kernels after threshing, before he smooths the pile. Once he smooths the pile, the produce is considered grain from which one is obligated to separate terumot and tithes. If he already smoothed the pile before designating the pe鈥檃, he tithes the grain in the pile and then gives the pe鈥檃 to the poor person. Once he grinds the kernels into flour, he no longer separates pe鈥檃.

讻讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讗诪专 讗祝 诪驻专讬砖 诪谉 讛注讬住讛 讜诇专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚讗讻诇 注讬住讛

Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving pe鈥檃 by grinding the grain; why, then, did Rabbi Yo岣nan omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yo岣nan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: One separates pe鈥檃 even from the dough. He maintains that the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of pe鈥檃 is never nullified, as one may separate pe鈥檃 even after grinding and kneading. The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, you also find a way to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva, in a case where one ate the dough.

讗诇讗 讝讗转 讜注讜讚 讗讞专转 讗讛讗 讗讘诇 讗讜谞住 诇讗 讚讛讬讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诇 讚注转 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讛驻专讛 诇讚讘专 讛专砖讜转 讗讘诇 诇讚讘专 诪爪讜讛 讬砖 诇讜 讛驻专讛

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: This, is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, and the term: Another, is in reference to this halakha of pe鈥檃. But in the case of a rapist, no, the possibility of remarrying the rape victim whom he divorced is not nullified, even if he vows on the basis of the consent of the public. Where do we say that a vow on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification? It is only in a case where one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is optional, i.e., not a mitzva; but if one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is a mitzva, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification. In the case of the rapist, he could seek nullification of his vow to enable him to fulfill the mitzva of remarrying his divorc茅e, and therefore the vow can be nullified.

讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 讚讛讜讛 驻砖注 讘讬谞讜拽讬 讗讚专讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讛讚专讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讚诇讗 讗砖转讻讞 讚讚讬讬拽 讻讜讜转讬讛

The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. As this happened in that incident where there was a certain teacher of children who was negligent in his supervision of the children, and Rav A岣 vowed on the basis of the consent of the public that he would no longer be allowed to teach children. And nevertheless Ravina restored him to his position, because no other teacher was found who was as accurate as he. Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.

讜讛讗讜讻诇 谞讘讬诇讜转 讜讟专讬驻讜转 砖拽爪讬诐 讜专诪砖讬诐 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讻诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讻专讘讗 诪诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓 讛讛讜讗 讚讗讻诇 讘讬谞讬转讗 讚讘讬 讻专讘讗 讜谞讙讚讬讛 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow [binnita devei kerava], we flog him due to violation of the prohibition: 鈥淐reeping animals that creep on the ground鈥shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who ate a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讻诇 驻讜讟讬转讗 诇讜拽讛 讗专讘注讛

Abaye says: One who ate a putita, a creeping animal found in the sea, is flogged with four sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: 鈥淎nd any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers鈥ou shall not eat of their flesh鈥 (Leviticus 11:10鈥11), and: 鈥淎nd any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general: 鈥淵ou shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, neither shall you render yourselves impure with them鈥 (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.

谞诪诇讛 诇讜拽讛 讞诪砖 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛砖专抓 注诇 讛讗专抓

If one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes. In addition to the two prohibitions stated with regard to repugnant creatures in general, he is also flogged for violating the prohibitions: 鈥淐reeping animals that creep on the ground鈥shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 11:41), and: 鈥淎nd all creeping animals that creep on the ground, you shall not eat them鈥 (Leviticus 11:42), and: 鈥淣either shall you render yourselves impure with any manner of creeping things that crawls upon the ground鈥 (Leviticus 11:44).

爪专注讛 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 诪砖讜诐 砖专抓 讛注讜祝

If one ate a wasp, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. In addition to the five prohibitions violated by one who eats an ant, he is flogged with an additional set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition with regard to winged creeping creatures: 鈥淎nd all winged creeping creatures are impure for you, they may not be eaten鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:19).

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讛诪砖讛讛 讗转 谞拽讘讬讜 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转砖拽爪讜 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚砖转讬 讘拽专谞讗 讚讗讜诪谞讗 拽讗 注讘专 诪砖讜诐 诇讗 转砖拽爪讜

Rav A岣i says: One who delays relieving himself through his orifices when the need arises violates the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable鈥 (Leviticus 20:25). Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter through which blood has passed violates the prohibition of: 鈥淵ou shall not make your souls detestable.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 专讬住拽 转砖注讛 谞诪诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讗讞讚 讞讬 讜讛砖诇讬诪谉 诇讻讝讬转 诇讜拽讛 砖砖 讞诪砖 诪砖讜诐 讘专讬讛 讜讗讞讚 诪砖讜诐 讻讝讬转 谞讘讬诇讛 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 砖谞讬诐 讜讛讜讗 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讛讜讗 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讛讗 讘专讘专讘讬 讜讛讗 讘讝讜讟专讬

Rava bar Rav Huna says: If one crushed nine ants and brought another one that was alive and thereby completed their measure to an olive-bulk and ate them, he is flogged with six sets of lashes: Five for eating an entity for which one is flogged five times as stated above with regard to one who eats an ant, and one for eating an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass all together. Rava says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Even if he ate two crushed ants and the ant that was alive, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Rav Yosef says: Even if he ate one crushed ant and the ant that was alive. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree; this case, where Rava and Rav Yosef say that he is flogged for eating one or two crushed ants and one that is alive, is referring to large ants, which together amount to an olive-bulk. And that case, where Rava bar Rav Huna mentions nine ants, is referring to small ants, as a greater number of ants is required to constitute an olive-bulk and render him liable. Consequently, there is no halakhic dispute in this case.

讗讻诇 讟讘诇 讜诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讗讻诇 讟讘诇 砖诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诇讜拽讛

搂 The mishna teaches that among those flogged is one who ate untithed produce or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken. Rav says: If one ate untithed produce from which teruma and first tithe were separated and poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated, he is flogged.

讻诪讗谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讛讟讘诇 砖诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 讻诇 注讬拽专 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讛讜专诐 诪诪谞讜 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讗 诪注砖专 砖谞讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪注砖专 注谞讬 诪谞讬谉

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought that one is liable for eating only untithed produce from which no gifts were taken at all; but if teruma gedola was taken from the produce, but first tithe was not taken from it, or if the first tithe was separated but not second tithe, or even if only poor man鈥檚 tithe was not separated, from where is it derived that the halakhic status of the produce is that of untithed produce and one is liable for eating it?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讜讻诇 诇讗讻诇 讘砖注专讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗讻诇讜 讘砖注专讬讱 讜砖讘注讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讗祝 讻讗谉 诪注砖专 注谞讬 讜讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 转讜讻诇

The baraita continues: It is derived as the verse states: 鈥淵ou may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil鈥 (Deuteronomy 12:17), and there it states: 鈥淎nd you shall give to the Levite, to the convert, to the orphan, and to the widow, and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied鈥 (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, with regard to the phrase 鈥渁nd they shall eat within your gates,鈥 it is referring to poor man鈥檚 tithe, here too, 鈥測ou may not eat within your gates鈥 is referring to produce in which there is poor man鈥檚 tithe, as it has not yet been separated, and the Merciful One states a prohibition: You may not eat it.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讻转谞讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇拽专讜转 讗转 讛砖诐 注诇 诪注砖专 注谞讬 砖诇 讚诪讗讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

Rav Yosef said: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. Rabbi Eliezer says: One need not separate by means of calling the name upon poor man鈥檚 tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. With regard to produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, there is a rabbinic ordinance requiring one to separate first and second tithe and teruma of the tithe from it. Nevertheless, one is not required to separate poor man鈥檚 tithe from that produce, because poor man鈥檚 tithe is a monetary debt owed to the poor, and in a case of uncertainty, the principle is: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to separate poor man鈥檚 tithe does not accord the produce the status of untithed produce. And the Rabbis say:

Scroll To Top