Makkot
Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka “who instilled in us a lifelong love of learning” and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, “our first Talmud teacher, who was one of the pioneers to open the doors of Talmud study to women.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Does one get multiple punishments for an act on yom tov that involves multiple melachot (as is the case for sacrifices for one who violates Shabbat)? If so, why isn’t planting also listed in the Mishna?
The Mishna listed a case where one plowed and received eight sets of lashes because of unique circumstances. Seven other suggestions are made to cases that could have been brought in the Mishna that would have added an additional set of lashes. Cases are brought regarding cross breeding with animals that are considered both hekdesh and chulin.
How many lashes does one receive? If one cannot receive that many, the court assesses how many they can handle (must be a number divisible by 3). What if they change the assessment? Does it depend on whether they already starting giving the person lashes or not? On what else does it depend? How does an assessment work when there are multiple sets of lashes?
How does the actual giving of lashes take place? What type of whip do they use? Where does the person receive the whipping?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Makkot
Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka “who instilled in us a lifelong love of learning” and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, “our first Talmud teacher, who was one of the pioneers to open the doors of Talmud study to women.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Makkot 22
מִשּׁוּם הַבְעָרָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, מִשּׁוּם הַבְעָרָה לָא מִחַיַּיב, דְּהָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלוֹ! אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה וְעַיֵּיל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵילָה.
for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival. And if it is so, that there is no division of labors on a Festival, he is not liable for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire, as he is already liable for violating the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival. Rava said: Remove kindling from the list of five prohibitions for which he is flogged, as he is not liable for violating that prohibition, and insert the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ וְשָׁלֹשׁ עַל בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וְאִי אִיתָא, שָׁלֹשׁ עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ הוּא חַיָּיב! אֶלָּא: אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה וְעַיֵּיל עֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that summarizes the prohibitions listed in this mishna: One is flogged with two sets of lashes for his eating and three sets of lashes for his cooking? And if it is so, that the prohibition of kindling a fire is replaced with the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass, he is liable to receive three sets of lashes for his eating; for eating a sciatic nerve, for eating meat cooked in milk, and for eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. Rather, say: Remove kindling from the list of prohibitions, and insert the prohibition of using wood of a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], whose prohibition is derived from here: “And nothing of the dedicated item shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), indicating that it is forbidden to derive benefit from accoutrements of idol worship.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״! אֶלָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ בַּעֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ… לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the reference is to the wood of an ashera, let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), in addition to the other prohibitions enumerated. Rather, say: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one cooked the sciatic nerve with wood consecrated for use in the Temple, whose warning, the source of its prohibition, is from here: “And their asherim you shall burn in fire…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4), indicating that one who destroys a consecrated item violates a prohibition.
סִימָן. שנבא״י שנ״ז
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic: Shin, nun, beit, alef, yod; shin, nun, zayin; representing the amora’im who suggest additions to the eight prohibitions violated by the person in the mishna who plows the field with diverse kinds: Hoshaya; Ḥananya; Abbahu; Abaye; Ashi; Ravina; Zeira.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַזּוֹרֵעַ בְּנַחַל אֵיתָן, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵעָבֵד בּוֹ וְלֹא יִזָּרֵעַ״!
Rav Hoshaya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate in his list the prohibition of sowing in a forceful stream, the land where a heifer’s neck is broken by the Elders of the city closest to the corpse of a murder victim whose murderer is unknown, and its prohibition is from here: “And the Elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a forceful stream, which will be neither plowed nor sown” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The verse is written in the future tense as a prohibition for the future: It is prohibited to work the land there after the heifer’s neck is broken.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חֲנַנְיָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַמּוֹחֵק אֶת הַשֵּׁם בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם וְגוֹ׳ (וְ)לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״!
Rav Ḥananya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who erases the name of God in the course of his walking and plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “And you shall destroy their names…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַקּוֹצֵץ אֶת בַּהַרְתּוֹ, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת״!
Rabbi Abbahu objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who severs his snow-white leprous mark in the course of his plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “Take heed of the plague of leprosy” (Deuteronomy 24:8), indicating the prohibition against severing the mark.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַמֵּזִיחַ הַחוֹשֶׁן מֵעַל הָאֵפוֹד, וְהַמֵּסִיר בַּדֵּי אָרוֹן, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״(וְ)לֹא יָסֻרוּ״, ״וְלֹא יִזַּח הַחֹשֶׁן״!
Abaye objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who loosens the breastplate from upon the ephod in the course of plowing, or one who removes the staves of the Ark of the Covenant. And its prohibition is from here: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), while the relevant verse with regard to the breastplate is: “And the breastplate shall not be loosened from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַחוֹרֵשׁ בַּעֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה וְגוֹ״!
Rav Ashi objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who plows with a plow crafted from the wood of an ashera, and its prohibition is from here: “And there shall cleave nothing of the dedicated item to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַקּוֹצֵץ אִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת״!
Ravina objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who chops down beautiful fruit trees in the course of plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “For you may eat of it, and you shall not chop it down” (Deuteronomy 20:19).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְעֵירָא לְרַבִּי מָנִי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶחְרוֹשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב״! הָתָם לָא קָא חָלָה שְׁבוּעָה, מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶחְרוֹשׁ בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בְּיוֹם טוֹב״, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּחָלָה עֲלֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה בְּחוֹל – חָלָה עֲלֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּיוֹם טוֹב! מִידֵּי דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁאֵילָה לָא קָתָנֵי.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Mani: And let the tanna also enumerate a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow on the Festival, and then proceeds to violate his oath. Rabbi Mani said: There, the oath does not take effect, as he is already under oath from Mount Sinai not to plow on a Festival, and an oath does not take effect when another oath is already in effect. Rabbi Zeira said to him: The oath can take effect in a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow whether during the week or on a Festival, as in that case, since the oath takes effect in his regard during the week, it takes effect in his regard on a Festival as well. Rabbi Mani replied: The mishna did not include that prohibition because the tanna is not teaching a matter that is in the category of those matters subject to dissolution by means of posing a request to a Torah scholar. As oaths fall into that category, this case is not enumerated in the mishna.
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ! בִּבְכוֹר. וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר! בִּנְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Zeira asked: And did the tanna not teach matters subject to dissolution by means of a Torah scholar? But isn’t there the matter of consecrated animals, whose sanctity can be repealed by means of dissolution of the vow by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The tanna is referring to a firstborn animal, which is consecrated from the womb. Since it was not consecrated by means of a vow, the sanctity cannot be dissolved by a Torah scholar. Rabbi Zeira asked: But isn’t there the matter of the impurity of a nazirite, whose vow of naziriteship can be dissolved by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The reference in the mishna is to one who is a nazirite like Samson, for whom there is no dissolution.
נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי לְמֵתִים הוּא? אֶלָּא, הַאי תַּנָּא אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל לֵית לֵיהּ.
Rabbi Zeira asked: Is a nazirite like Samson subject to the prohibition of contracting impurity imparted by corpses? He is not. As the tanna enumerated the prohibition of a nazirite becoming impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, clearly he is not a nazirite like Samson. Rather, the tanna does not enumerate the case of one who violated an oath not to plow both during the week and on a Festival, because this tanna is not of the opinion that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect when the standard prohibition does not take effect. Just as with regard to one who takes an oath not to perform labor on a Festival, the oath does not take effect, so too, even if he adds to it an oath not to plow during the week, it does not take effect, because he is already under oath from Sinai not to plow on a Festival.
אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַמַּרְבִּיעַ שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – לוֹקֶה שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הַמַּנְהִיג בְּשׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – לוֹקֶה, שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּף אֶחָד הוּא, וַעֲשָׂאוֹ הַכָּתוּב כִּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִים.
Rabbi Hoshaya says: One who breeds a disqualified consecrated ox with a female even of the same species is flogged with two sets of lashes, one for labor with a disqualified consecrated animal, and one for breeding two animals of diverse kinds. Even after the animal is desacralized through redemption, it remains prohibited to perform labor with it. It is considered diverse kinds because the Torah accorded disqualified consecrated animals the status of two animals, one consecrated and one non-sacred. If one breeds such an animal with an ox, it is as though he bred it with an animal of a different species, thereby violating the prohibition. Likewise, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who drives a disqualified consecrated ox to plow the field is flogged, as it is one body, and the verse accorded it the status of two bodies. One who plows with two different species of animals together is liable to receive lashes.
מַתְנִי׳ כַּמָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּמִסְפַּר אַרְבָּעִים״ – מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵימוֹת הוּא לוֹקֶה, וְהֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְּתֵירָה – בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו.
MISHNA: With how many lashes does one flog a person sentenced to receive lashes? One flogs him with forty lashes less one, as it is stated: “And he shall strike him before him, in accordance with his wickedness, by number. Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3). The mishna joins the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second, forming the phrase: “By number, forty,” which is interpreted as: A sum adjacent to forty. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes. And where is he flogged the extra lash? As the mishna proceeds to explain, the thirty-nine lashes are divided into three and administered in three places on the body of the person being flogged; according to Rabbi Yehuda there is one lash that remains. That lash is administered between his shoulders.
אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמַכּוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, וְלוֹקֶה מִקְצָת,
One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes,
וְאָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וּמִשֶּׁלָּקָה אָמְדוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר.
and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי כְּתִיב ״אַרְבָּעִים בְּמִסְפָּר״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַרְבָּעִים בְּמִנְיָינָא, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמִסְפַּר אַרְבָּעִים״ – מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סוֹכֵם אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אָמַר רָבָא: כַּמָּה טַפְשָׁאֵי שְׁאָר אִינָשֵׁי, דְּקָיְימִי מִקַּמֵּי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, וְלָא קָיְימִי מִקַּמֵּי גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, דְּאִילּוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה כְּתִיב ״אַרְבָּעִים״, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן בְּצַרוּ חֲדָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins with a discussion of the number of lashes. What is the reason that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say that it means forty as a precise sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” the reference is to a sum that approaches forty. Likewise, Rava said: How foolish are the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll that passes before them, and yet they do not stand before a great man, when a Sage passes before them; as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came and subtracted one, establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵימוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דִּכְתִיב ״מָה הַמַּכּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה בֵּין יָדֶיךָ וְאָמַר אֲשֶׁר הֻכֵּתִי בֵּית מְאַהֲבָי״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא בְּתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that this verse is written with regard to schoolchildren struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.
אֵין אוֹמְדִין אֶלָּא בְּמַכּוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת וְכוּ׳. לָקָה – אִין, לֹא לָקָה – לָא.
The mishna teaches: One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If he was flogged in practice, yes, he is exempt; if he was not flogged, no, he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, וְחָזְרוּ וְאָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וְחָזְרוּ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt. Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְיוֹמֵי, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לִמְחַר וּלְיוֹמָא אוּחְרָא.
Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this case in the mishna is one where doctors assessed his fitness to receive lashes for that day, and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. That case in the baraita is one where doctors assess his fitness to receive lashes for the next day or for a different day. In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt.
מַתְנִי׳ עָבַר עֲבֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, אֲמָדוּהוּ אוֹמֶד אֶחָד – לוֹקֶה וּפָטוּר, וְאִם לָאו – לוֹקֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא, וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֶה.
MISHNA: If one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition.
גְּמָ׳ וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹמֶד אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵי לָאוִין!
GEMARA: The case in the mishna is one where there is one assessment performed for two sets of lashes. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים וַחֲדָא. הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים וְתַרְתֵּי.
Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult; this ruling in the baraita that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-one lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. That ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-two lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ? כּוֹפֶה שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל הָעַמּוּד הֵילָךְ וְהֵילָךְ, וְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדָיו, אִם נִקְרְעוּ – נִקְרְעוּ, וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ – נִפְרְמוּ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבּוֹ. וְהָאֶבֶן נְתוּנָה מֵאַחֲרָיו. חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת עוֹמֵד עָלָיו וּרְצוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ, שֶׁל עֵגֶל, כְּפוּלָה אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת שֶׁל חֲמוֹר עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת בָּהּ. יָדָהּ טֶפַח וּרְחָבָה טֶפַח, וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגַּעַת עַל פִּי כְרֵיסוֹ.
MISHNA: How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind.
וּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּפָנָיו וּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מִלְּאַחֲרָיו. וְאֵינוֹ מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ לֹא עוֹמֵד וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב, אֶלָּא מוּטֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט״,
And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down.
וְהַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת בְּכׇל כֹּחוֹ, וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא: ״אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, ״וְהִפְלָא ה׳ אֶת מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת וְגוֹ׳״ וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ׳״ וְחוֹתֵם: ״וְהוּא רַחוּם יְכַפֵּר עָוֹן״, וְגוֹ׳, וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא.
And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covenant, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”
וְאִם מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ – פָּטוּר. הוֹסִיף לוֹ עוֹד רְצוּעָה אַחַת וּמֵת – הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. נִתְקַלְקֵל, בֵּין בְּרֵיעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם – פָּטוּר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאִישׁ – בְּרֵיעִי, וְהָאִשָּׁה – בְּמַיִם.
If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Makkot 22: Not 40 Lashes, But 39 – And More Difficult Details
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Blacksburg, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Makkot 22
מִשּׁוּם הַבְעָרָה. וְאִם אִיתָא, מִשּׁוּם הַבְעָרָה לָא מִחַיַּיב, דְּהָא אִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם בִּשּׁוּלוֹ! אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה וְעַיֵּיל גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה שֶׁל נְבֵילָה.
for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival. And if it is so, that there is no division of labors on a Festival, he is not liable for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire, as he is already liable for violating the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival. Rava said: Remove kindling from the list of five prohibitions for which he is flogged, as he is not liable for violating that prohibition, and insert the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass.
וְהָתָנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא: לוֹקֶה שְׁתַּיִם עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ וְשָׁלֹשׁ עַל בִּשּׁוּלוֹ. וְאִי אִיתָא, שָׁלֹשׁ עַל אֲכִילָתוֹ הוּא חַיָּיב! אֶלָּא: אַפֵּיק הַבְעָרָה וְעַיֵּיל עֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ וְגוֹ׳״.
The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that summarizes the prohibitions listed in this mishna: One is flogged with two sets of lashes for his eating and three sets of lashes for his cooking? And if it is so, that the prohibition of kindling a fire is replaced with the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass, he is liable to receive three sets of lashes for his eating; for eating a sciatic nerve, for eating meat cooked in milk, and for eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. Rather, say: Remove kindling from the list of prohibitions, and insert the prohibition of using wood of a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], whose prohibition is derived from here: “And nothing of the dedicated item shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), indicating that it is forbidden to derive benefit from accoutrements of idol worship.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִילְקֵי נָמֵי מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תָבִיא תוֹעֵבָה אֶל בֵּיתֶךָ״! אֶלָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁבִּישְּׁלוֹ בַּעֲצֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וְאַזְהַרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וַאֲשֵׁרֵיהֶם תִּשְׂרְפוּן בָּאֵשׁ… לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the reference is to the wood of an ashera, let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), in addition to the other prohibitions enumerated. Rather, say: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one cooked the sciatic nerve with wood consecrated for use in the Temple, whose warning, the source of its prohibition, is from here: “And their asherim you shall burn in fire…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4), indicating that one who destroys a consecrated item violates a prohibition.
סִימָן. שנבא״י שנ״ז
§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic: Shin, nun, beit, alef, yod; shin, nun, zayin; representing the amora’im who suggest additions to the eight prohibitions violated by the person in the mishna who plows the field with diverse kinds: Hoshaya; Ḥananya; Abbahu; Abaye; Ashi; Ravina; Zeira.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַזּוֹרֵעַ בְּנַחַל אֵיתָן, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֵעָבֵד בּוֹ וְלֹא יִזָּרֵעַ״!
Rav Hoshaya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate in his list the prohibition of sowing in a forceful stream, the land where a heifer’s neck is broken by the Elders of the city closest to the corpse of a murder victim whose murderer is unknown, and its prohibition is from here: “And the Elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a forceful stream, which will be neither plowed nor sown” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The verse is written in the future tense as a prohibition for the future: It is prohibited to work the land there after the heifer’s neck is broken.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב חֲנַנְיָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַמּוֹחֵק אֶת הַשֵּׁם בַּהֲלִיכָתוֹ, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְאִבַּדְתֶּם אֶת שְׁמָם וְגוֹ׳ (וְ)לֹא תַעֲשׂוּן כֵּן לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵיכֶם״!
Rav Ḥananya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who erases the name of God in the course of his walking and plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “And you shall destroy their names…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַקּוֹצֵץ אֶת בַּהַרְתּוֹ, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר בְּנֶגַע הַצָּרַעַת״!
Rabbi Abbahu objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who severs his snow-white leprous mark in the course of his plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “Take heed of the plague of leprosy” (Deuteronomy 24:8), indicating the prohibition against severing the mark.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַמֵּזִיחַ הַחוֹשֶׁן מֵעַל הָאֵפוֹד, וְהַמֵּסִיר בַּדֵּי אָרוֹן, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״(וְ)לֹא יָסֻרוּ״, ״וְלֹא יִזַּח הַחֹשֶׁן״!
Abaye objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who loosens the breastplate from upon the ephod in the course of plowing, or one who removes the staves of the Ark of the Covenant. And its prohibition is from here: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), while the relevant verse with regard to the breastplate is: “And the breastplate shall not be loosened from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַחוֹרֵשׁ בַּעֲצֵי אֲשֵׁירָה, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״וְלֹא יִדְבַּק בְּיָדְךָ מְאוּמָה וְגוֹ״!
Rav Ashi objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who plows with a plow crafted from the wood of an ashera, and its prohibition is from here: “And there shall cleave nothing of the dedicated item to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18).
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי הַקּוֹצֵץ אִילָנוֹת טוֹבוֹת, וְאַזְהָרְתֵּיהּ מֵהָכָא: ״כִּי מִמֶּנּוּ תֹאכֵל וְאֹתוֹ לֹא תִכְרֹת״!
Ravina objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who chops down beautiful fruit trees in the course of plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “For you may eat of it, and you shall not chop it down” (Deuteronomy 20:19).
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זְעֵירָא לְרַבִּי מָנִי: וְלִיחְשׁוֹב נָמֵי כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶחְרוֹשׁ בְּיוֹם טוֹב״! הָתָם לָא קָא חָלָה שְׁבוּעָה, מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶחְרוֹשׁ בֵּין בַּחוֹל בֵּין בְּיוֹם טוֹב״, דְּמִגּוֹ דְּחָלָה עֲלֵיהּ שְׁבוּעָה בְּחוֹל – חָלָה עֲלֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּיוֹם טוֹב! מִידֵּי דְּאִיתֵיהּ בִּשְׁאֵילָה לָא קָתָנֵי.
Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Mani: And let the tanna also enumerate a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow on the Festival, and then proceeds to violate his oath. Rabbi Mani said: There, the oath does not take effect, as he is already under oath from Mount Sinai not to plow on a Festival, and an oath does not take effect when another oath is already in effect. Rabbi Zeira said to him: The oath can take effect in a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow whether during the week or on a Festival, as in that case, since the oath takes effect in his regard during the week, it takes effect in his regard on a Festival as well. Rabbi Mani replied: The mishna did not include that prohibition because the tanna is not teaching a matter that is in the category of those matters subject to dissolution by means of posing a request to a Torah scholar. As oaths fall into that category, this case is not enumerated in the mishna.
וְלָא? וַהֲרֵי הֶקְדֵּשׁ! בִּבְכוֹר. וַהֲרֵי נָזִיר! בִּנְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Zeira asked: And did the tanna not teach matters subject to dissolution by means of a Torah scholar? But isn’t there the matter of consecrated animals, whose sanctity can be repealed by means of dissolution of the vow by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The tanna is referring to a firstborn animal, which is consecrated from the womb. Since it was not consecrated by means of a vow, the sanctity cannot be dissolved by a Torah scholar. Rabbi Zeira asked: But isn’t there the matter of the impurity of a nazirite, whose vow of naziriteship can be dissolved by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The reference in the mishna is to one who is a nazirite like Samson, for whom there is no dissolution.
נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן בַּר אִיטַּמּוֹיֵי לְמֵתִים הוּא? אֶלָּא, הַאי תַּנָּא אִיסּוּר כּוֹלֵל לֵית לֵיהּ.
Rabbi Zeira asked: Is a nazirite like Samson subject to the prohibition of contracting impurity imparted by corpses? He is not. As the tanna enumerated the prohibition of a nazirite becoming impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, clearly he is not a nazirite like Samson. Rather, the tanna does not enumerate the case of one who violated an oath not to plow both during the week and on a Festival, because this tanna is not of the opinion that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect when the standard prohibition does not take effect. Just as with regard to one who takes an oath not to perform labor on a Festival, the oath does not take effect, so too, even if he adds to it an oath not to plow during the week, it does not take effect, because he is already under oath from Sinai not to plow on a Festival.
אָמַר רַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הַמַּרְבִּיעַ שׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – לוֹקֶה שְׁנַיִם. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: הַמַּנְהִיג בְּשׁוֹר פְּסוּלֵי הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים – לוֹקֶה, שֶׁהֲרֵי גּוּף אֶחָד הוּא, וַעֲשָׂאוֹ הַכָּתוּב כִּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִים.
Rabbi Hoshaya says: One who breeds a disqualified consecrated ox with a female even of the same species is flogged with two sets of lashes, one for labor with a disqualified consecrated animal, and one for breeding two animals of diverse kinds. Even after the animal is desacralized through redemption, it remains prohibited to perform labor with it. It is considered diverse kinds because the Torah accorded disqualified consecrated animals the status of two animals, one consecrated and one non-sacred. If one breeds such an animal with an ox, it is as though he bred it with an animal of a different species, thereby violating the prohibition. Likewise, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who drives a disqualified consecrated ox to plow the field is flogged, as it is one body, and the verse accorded it the status of two bodies. One who plows with two different species of animals together is liable to receive lashes.
מַתְנִי׳ כַּמָּה מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״בְּמִסְפַּר אַרְבָּעִים״ – מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סָמוּךְ לְאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵימוֹת הוּא לוֹקֶה, וְהֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְּתֵירָה – בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו.
MISHNA: With how many lashes does one flog a person sentenced to receive lashes? One flogs him with forty lashes less one, as it is stated: “And he shall strike him before him, in accordance with his wickedness, by number. Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3). The mishna joins the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second, forming the phrase: “By number, forty,” which is interpreted as: A sum adjacent to forty. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes. And where is he flogged the extra lash? As the mishna proceeds to explain, the thirty-nine lashes are divided into three and administered in three places on the body of the person being flogged; according to Rabbi Yehuda there is one lash that remains. That lash is administered between his shoulders.
אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹתוֹ, אֶלָּא בְּמַכּוֹת רְאוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּלֵּשׁ. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, וְלוֹקֶה מִקְצָת,
One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes,
וְאָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וּמִשֶּׁלָּקָה אָמְדוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל הוּא לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר.
and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אִי כְּתִיב ״אַרְבָּעִים בְּמִסְפָּר״ הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אַרְבָּעִים בְּמִנְיָינָא, הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמִסְפַּר אַרְבָּעִים״ – מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סוֹכֵם אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. אָמַר רָבָא: כַּמָּה טַפְשָׁאֵי שְׁאָר אִינָשֵׁי, דְּקָיְימִי מִקַּמֵּי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה, וְלָא קָיְימִי מִקַּמֵּי גַּבְרָא רַבָּה, דְּאִילּוּ בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה כְּתִיב ״אַרְבָּעִים״, וַאֲתוֹ רַבָּנַן בְּצַרוּ חֲדָא.
GEMARA: The Gemara begins with a discussion of the number of lashes. What is the reason that the Rabbis said that he receives forty lashes less one? If it had been written: Forty by number, I would say that it means forty as a precise sum; now that it is written: “By number, forty,” the reference is to a sum that approaches forty. Likewise, Rava said: How foolish are the rest of the people who stand before a Torah scroll that passes before them, and yet they do not stand before a great man, when a Sage passes before them; as in a Torah scroll, forty is written and the Sages came and subtracted one, establishing the number of lashes as thirty-nine. Apparently, the authority of the Sages is so great that they are able to amend an explicit Torah verse.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵימוֹת וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דִּכְתִיב ״מָה הַמַּכּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה בֵּין יָדֶיךָ וְאָמַר אֲשֶׁר הֻכֵּתִי בֵּית מְאַהֲבָי״. וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא בְּתִינוֹקוֹת שֶׁל בֵּית רַבָּן הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes, with the additional lash administered between his shoulders. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written: “And one shall say to him: What are these wounds between your arms? Then he shall answer: Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends” (Zechariah 13:6). Rabbi Yehuda understands that this verse is referring to one with wounds from lashes administered between his arms, indicating that there is one lash administered between the shoulders. And how do the Rabbis, who hold that one is flogged only thirty-nine lashes, explain this verse? They explain that this verse is written with regard to schoolchildren struck by their teacher for laxity in their studies, and is not referring to lashes administered by the court.
אֵין אוֹמְדִין אֶלָּא בְּמַכּוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת וְכוּ׳. לָקָה – אִין, לֹא לָקָה – לָא.
The mishna teaches: One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from any additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged with eighteen lashes they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving further lashes. The Gemara infers: If he was flogged in practice, yes, he is exempt; if he was not flogged, no, he is not exempt from the rest of the forty lashes.
וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים, וְחָזְרוּ וְאָמְדוּ שֶׁאֵין יָכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר. אֲמָדוּהוּ לְקַבֵּל שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, וְחָזְרוּ וַאֲמָדוּהוּ שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְקַבֵּל אַרְבָּעִים – פָּטוּר.
And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: If doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and they then assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and they then assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt. Apparently, even if he did not receive any lashes, if the assessment changes, it is as though he was flogged.
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְיוֹמֵי, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לִמְחַר וּלְיוֹמָא אוּחְרָא.
Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this case in the mishna is one where doctors assessed his fitness to receive lashes for that day, and there was no change in his condition; rather, it was discovered that the initial assessment was mistaken. He is exempt only if he was already flogged; if not, another assessment is performed. That case in the baraita is one where doctors assess his fitness to receive lashes for the next day or for a different day. In that case, the initial assessment was accurate; it is his condition that changed. Therefore, if it is determined that he is unable to receive lashes, he is exempt.
מַתְנִי׳ עָבַר עֲבֵירָה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, אֲמָדוּהוּ אוֹמֶד אֶחָד – לוֹקֶה וּפָטוּר, וְאִם לָאו – לוֹקֶה וּמִתְרַפֵּא, וְחוֹזֵר וְלוֹקֶה.
MISHNA: If one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition.
גְּמָ׳ וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵין אוֹמְדִין אוֹמֶד אֶחָד לִשְׁנֵי לָאוִין!
GEMARA: The case in the mishna is one where there is one assessment performed for two sets of lashes. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: One does not perform one assessment for two prohibitions?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים וַחֲדָא. הָא – דַּאֲמָדוּהוּ לְאַרְבָּעִים וְתַרְתֵּי.
Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult; this ruling in the baraita that one does not perform a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-one lashes, two lashes beyond a full set. Since those two additional lashes are not divisible by three, which is a requirement based on the previous mishna, he receives only thirty-nine lashes. That constitutes just one set of lashes. He remains liable to receive another set of lashes after he recovers, requiring another assessment and another set of lashes. That ruling in the mishna that one performs a single assessment for two prohibitions is in a case where doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty-two lashes. In that case, it is possible to ascribe thirty-nine lashes to one prohibition and three additional lashes to the second prohibition. That is tantamount to two separate assessments, although in practice only one assessment was performed.
מַתְנִי׳ כֵּיצַד מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ? כּוֹפֶה שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עַל הָעַמּוּד הֵילָךְ וְהֵילָךְ, וְחַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדָיו, אִם נִקְרְעוּ – נִקְרְעוּ, וְאִם נִפְרְמוּ – נִפְרְמוּ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבּוֹ. וְהָאֶבֶן נְתוּנָה מֵאַחֲרָיו. חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת עוֹמֵד עָלָיו וּרְצוּעָה בְּיָדוֹ, שֶׁל עֵגֶל, כְּפוּלָה אֶחָד לִשְׁנַיִם וּשְׁנַיִם לְאַרְבָּעָה, וּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת שֶׁל חֲמוֹר עוֹלוֹת וְיוֹרְדוֹת בָּהּ. יָדָהּ טֶפַח וּרְחָבָה טֶפַח, וְרֹאשָׁהּ מַגַּעַת עַל פִּי כְרֵיסוֹ.
MISHNA: How do they flog him? He ties the two hands of the person being flogged on this side and that side of a post, and the attendant of the congregation takes hold of his garments to remove them. If they were ripped in the process, they were ripped, and if they were unraveled, they were unraveled, and he continues until he bares his chest. And the stone upon which the attendant stands when flogging is situated behind the person being flogged. The attendant of the congregation stands on it with a strap in his hand. It is a strap of calf hide, and is doubled, one into two, and two into four, and two straps of donkey hide go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. The length of its handle is one handbreadth, and the width of the straps is one handbreadth, and the strap must be long enough so that its end reaches the top of his abdomen, i.e., his navel, when he is flogged from behind.
וּמַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ שְׁלִישׁ מִלְּפָנָיו וּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מִלְּאַחֲרָיו. וְאֵינוֹ מַכֶּה אוֹתוֹ לֹא עוֹמֵד וְלֹא יוֹשֵׁב, אֶלָּא מוּטֶּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט״,
And the attendant flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him, on his chest, and two one-third portions from behind him, on his back. And he does not flog him when the one receiving lashes is standing, nor when he is sitting; rather, he flogs him when he is hunched, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him” (Deuteronomy 25:2), which indicates that the one receiving lashes must be in a position that approximates lying down.
וְהַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת בְּכׇל כֹּחוֹ, וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא: ״אִם לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, ״וְהִפְלָא ה׳ אֶת מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת וְגוֹ׳״ וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא: ״וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת דִּבְרֵי הַבְּרִית הַזֹּאת וְגוֹ׳״ וְחוֹתֵם: ״וְהוּא רַחוּם יְכַפֵּר עָוֹן״, וְגוֹ׳, וְחוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא.
And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs [makeh] him with one hand with all his strength, and the court crier recites the verses: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this law that are written in this book, that you may fear this glorious and awesome name, the Lord your God. And the Lord will make your plagues [makkotekha] outstanding, and the plagues of your descendants, and even great plagues, and of long continuance, and severe sicknesses, and of long continuance” (Deuteronomy 28:58–59). And then he returns to the beginning of the verse. He also recites: “And you shall observe the matters of this covenant, and do them, that you may make all that you do to prosper” (Deuteronomy 29:8), and concludes with the verse: “And He is merciful and shall atone for transgression, and destroys not; and many a time does He turn His anger away, and does not stir up all His wrath” (Psalms 78:38), and then returns to the beginning of the verse that starts: “If you do not observe to perform.”
וְאִם מֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ – פָּטוּר. הוֹסִיף לוֹ עוֹד רְצוּעָה אַחַת וּמֵת – הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה עַל יָדוֹ. נִתְקַלְקֵל, בֵּין בְּרֵיעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם – פָּטוּר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאִישׁ – בְּרֵיעִי, וְהָאִשָּׁה – בְּמַיִם.
If the one being flogged dies at the hand of the attendant, the latter is exempt, because he acted at the directive of the court. If the attendant added for him an additional lash with a strap and he died, the attendant is exiled to a city of refuge on his account, as an unwitting murderer. If the one being flogged involuntarily sullies himself, due to fear or pain, whether with excrement or with urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says that the threshold of shame for men and women is different: The man is exempted if he sullies himself with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine.
