Makkot 23

גמ׳ מאי טעמא משום נקלה

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the attendant rips the garments of the person about to be flogged. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? It is due to the verse: “Forty he shall flog him…and your brother shall be debased before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3), as tearing his garments debases him.

אמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מנין לרצועה שהיא של עגל דכתיב ארבעים יכנו וסמיך ליה לא תחסם שור בדישו

Rav Sheshet says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where is it derived with regard to the strap used for flogging that it is a strap from the hide of a calf? It is as it is written: “Forty he shall flog him,” and juxtaposed to it is written: “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing” (Deuteronomy 25:4), indicating that the strap is from the hide of an ox.

ואמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מנין ליבמה שנפלה לפני מוכה שחין שאין חוסמין אותה דכתיב לא תחסם שור בדישו וסמיך ליה כי ישבו אחים יחדו וגו׳

And Rav Sheshet says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where is it derived with regard to a yevama who happened before a yavam afflicted with boils, that one does not compel her to enter into that levirate marriage? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing,” and juxtaposed to it is written: “When brothers dwell together” (Deuteronomy 25:5), which is the passage dealing with levirate marriage. The yevama is not muzzled, as it were, when she states that she does not want to enter into levirate marriage with him.

ואמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה כל המבזה את המועדים כאילו עובד עבודה זרה דכתיב אלהי מסכה לא תעשה לך וסמיך ליה את חג המצות תשמר

And Rav Sheshet says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Concerning anyone who treats the Festivals with contempt, it is as though he is worshipping idols, as it is written: “Molten gods you shall not make for yourself” (Exodus 34:17), and juxtaposed to it is written: “The festival of Passover you shall observe” (Exodus 34:18).

ואמר רב ששת משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה כל המספר לשון הרע וכן המקבל לשון הרע וכל המעיד עדות שקר ראוי להשליכו לכלבים דכתיב לכלב תשלכון אתו וסמיך ליה לא תשא שמע שוא וגו׳ קרי ביה נמי לא תשיא

And Rav Sheshet says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Concerning anyone who speaks malicious speech, and any-one who accepts malicious speech as the truth, and anyone who testifies a false testimony, it is fit to throw him to the dogs, as it is written: “To the dog you shall cast it” (Exodus 22:30), and juxtaposed to it is written: “You shall not accept [lo tissa] a false report; do not join with the wicked to be a false witness” (Exodus 23:1). In addition to prohibitions against false testimony and against accepting malicious speech, Rav Sheshet also reads into the verse the meaning: You shall not relate [lo tassi] a false report.

ושתי רצועות וכו׳ תנא של חמור כדדריש ההוא גלילאה עליה דרב חסדא ידע שור קנהו וחמור אבוס בעליו ישראל לא ידע וגו׳ אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא יבא מי שמכיר אבוס בעליו ויפרע ממי שאינו מכיר אבוס בעליו

§ The mishna teaches: And two straps go up and down the doubled strap of calf hide. The Sage taught: And they are straps of donkey hide. As a certain Galilean interpreted before Rav Ḥisda: It is written: “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master’s trough; but Israel does not know, My people does not consider” (Isaiah 1:3). The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Let the one who recognizes its master’s trough, an ox and donkey, come and exact retribution, through lashes with a strap of ox and donkey hide, from one who does not recognize his Master’s trough and performs transgressions.

ידה טפח וכו׳ אמר אביי שמע מינה כל חד וחד לפום גביה עבדינן ליה אמר ליה רבא אם כן נפיש להו רצועות טובא אלא אמר רבא אבקתא אית ליה כי בעי מיקטר ביה כי בעי מרפה בה

The mishna teaches: 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. Abaye said: Conclude from it that for each and every one, we craft the strap according to the size of their back. Rava said to him: If so, there will be numerous straps in court for them. Rather, Rava said: It has loops; when the attendant wants, he ties the loops to shorten the strap, and when the attendant wants, he loosens the loops to lengthen the strap. The length of the strap can be adjusted to correspond to the height of the person being flogged.

מלקין אותו וכו׳ מנא הני מילי אמר רב כהנא דאמר קרא והפילו השפט והכהו לפניו כדי רשעתו במספר רשעה אחת מלפניו שתי רשעיות מאחריו

§ The mishna teaches: One flogs him with one-third of the lashes from the front of him and two one-third portions from behind him. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him before him in accordance with his wickedness, by number” (Deuteronomy 25:2), indicating that the attendant strikes him in accordance with one portion of wickedness from the front of him, and two portions of wickedness from behind him.

אין מלקין אותו וכו׳ אמר רב חסדא אמר רבי יוחנן מנין לרצועה שהיא מוכפלת שנאמר והפילו והא מיבעי ליה לגופיה אם כן לכתוב קרא יטיהו מאי הפילו שמע מינה תרתי

The mishna teaches: 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.” Rav Ḥisda says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: From where is it derived with regard to the strap that it is doubled? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: And he shall cause him to lie down [vehippilo], which is interpreted based on the similar Aramaic root ayin, peh, peh, meaning double. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t he require that verse for the fundamental halakha itself, as the mishna teaches: He flogs him when he is hunched. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse write: Shall bend him. What is the meaning of: “Shall cause him to lie down”? Conclude two conclusions from it: The halakha that the person being flogged must be hunched, and the allusion to the doubling of the strap.

המכה מכה בידו תנו רבנן אין מעמידין חזנין אלא חסירי כח ויתירי מדע רבי יהודה אומר אפילו חסירי מדע ויתירי כח

§ The mishna teaches: And the attendant flogging the one receiving lashes flogs him with one hand with all his strength. The Sages taught: For the administration of lashes, the court appoints only attendants who are lacking in strength and are exceedingly knowledgeable in Torah. Rabbi Yehuda says: The court may appoint even those who are lacking in knowledge and are exceedingly strong.

אמר רבא כוותיה דרבי יהודה מסתברא דכתיב לא יוסיף פן יוסיף אי אמרת בשלמא חסירי מדע היינו דצריך לאזהורי אלא אי אמרת יתירי מדע מי צריך לאזהורי ורבנן אין מזרזין אלא למזרז

Rava said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is written: “Forty he shall flog him; he shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat him” (Deuteronomy 25:3). He explains: Granted, if you say that even people lacking in halakhic knowledge are appointed, that is why it is necessary to warn him not to add lashes. But if you say only people who are exceedingly knowledgeable are appointed, does the Torah need to warn the attendant? Apparently, even a person lacking in knowledge can be appointed as an attendant. And according to the Rabbis, that is no proof, as there is an expression that one implores only one who is already implored. In other words, only one who is already cognizant of a halakha can be effectively warned to observe it.

תנא כשהוא מגביה מגביה בשתי ידיו וכשהוא מכה מכה בידו אחת כי היכי דליתא מדידיה

It is taught: When the attendant raises the strap to administer the lashes, he raises it with both hands, and when he flogs the one receiving lashes, he flogs with one hand, so that the lashes will come from him in a deliberate manner.

והקורא קורא וכו׳ תנו רבנן הגדול שבדיינין קורא השני מונה והשלישי אומר הכהו בזמן שמכה מרובה מאריך בזמן שמכה מועטת מקצר והא אנן תנן חוזר לתחלת המקרא מצוה לצמצם ואי לא צמצם חוזר לתחלת המקרא

§ The mishna teaches: And the court crier recites the verse beginning: “If you do not observe to perform,” as well as other verses. The Sages taught: The most prominent of the judges recites the verses, the second most prominent judge counts the lashes, and the third most prominent says to the attendant: Strike him. When the lashes are numerous, the one reciting the verses extends his recitation; when the lashes are few, he curtails his recitation by reciting it faster. In both cases, he does so to coordinate the recitation with the duration of the lashes. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: And then he returns to the beginning of the first verse, indicating that one could read the passage several times? The Gemara answers: The mitzva is to precisely coordinate recitation of the verses with the flogging, and if he did not precisely coordinate between them, and he completed the recitation of the verses before completing the lashes, he returns to the beginning of the first verse.

תנו רבנן מכה רבה אין לי אלא מכה רבה מכה מועטת מנין תלמוד לומר לא יוסיף אם כן מה תלמוד לומר מכה רבה לימד על הראשונות שהן מכה רבה

The Gemara cites another baraita with regard to the number of lashes. The Sages taught: From the verse: “He shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat him beyond these, a great flogging” (Deuteronomy 25:3), I have derived only a prohibition with regard to a great flogging; from where do I derive that even a minimal excessive flogging is prohibited? I derive it from the verse that states: “He shall not exceed,” at all. The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: “A great flogging”? This teaches that the initial lashes must be administered as a great flogging, with all of the attendant’s strength.

נתקלקל וכו׳ תנו רבנן אחד האיש ואחד האשה בריעי ולא במים דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר האיש בריעי והאשה במים וחכמים אומרים אחד האיש ואחד האשה בין בריעי בין במים

§ The mishna teaches: If the one being flogged sullies himself, with excrement or urine, he is exempt from further lashes. Rabbi Yehuda says: The man is exempted with excrement, and the woman is exempted even with urine. The Sages taught in a baraita: For both a man and a woman, they are exempted if they sully themselves with excrement, but not if they do so with urine; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: The man with excrement, and the woman even with urine. And the Rabbis say: Both a man and a woman are exempt from further lashes whether they sullied themselves with excrement or with urine.

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר אחד האיש ואחד האשה בריעי אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שניהם שוין בריעי

The Gemara asks with regard to the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: Both a man and a woman are exempted with excrement, indicating that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a woman is not exempted with urine. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There is no contradiction; that baraita is merely stating that according to Rabbi Yehuda both are equal with regard to excrement. That does not mean that Rabbi Yehuda holds that a woman is not exempted with urine.

אמר שמואל כפתוהו ורץ מבית דין פטור מיתיבי קלה בין בראשונה בין בשניה פוטרין אותו נפסקה רצועה בשניה פוטרין אותו בראשונה אין פוטרין אותו אמאי להוי כרץ התם רץ הכא לא רץ

Shmuel says: If they bound him to be flogged and he fled from the court, he is exempt. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If he was debased with excrement, whether during the first lash or during the second lash, the court exempts him. But in a case where the strap was severed during the course of the flogging, if this occurred during the second lash they exempt him, but if it happened during the first lash, they do not exempt him. Why is he not exempted during the first lash? Let his status be like one who fled from the court before the flogging began, in which case he is exempt. The Gemara answers: There, in that case, he fled from the court and he is not compelled to return; here, he did not flee, and therefore he is not exempted without being flogged.

תנו רבנן אמדוהו לכשילקה קלה פוטרין אותו לכשיצא מבית דין קלה מלקין אותו ולא עוד אלא אפילו קלה בתחלה מלקין אותו שנאמר והכהו וגו׳ ונקלה ולא שלקה כבר בבית דין

The Sages taught: If they assessed concerning him that when he is flogged he will be debased with excrement, they exempt him, as the court does not administer a punishment that will lead to debasing the one being flogged beyond the shame generated by the lashes themselves. But if they assessed concerning him that it is only when he will leave the court that he will be debased with excrement, they flog him. Moreover, even if he was debased initially, before any lashes were administered, they nevertheless flog him, as it is stated: “And strike him…and your brother shall be debased” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3), indicating that the reference is to one debased as a result of the lashes, and not to one who was already debased in court prior to being flogged.

מתני׳ כל חייבי כריתות שלקו נפטרו ידי כריתתם שנאמר ונקלה אחיך לעיניך כשלקה הרי הוא כאחיך דברי רבי חנניה בן גמליאל

MISHNA: All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: “And your brother shall be debased before your eyes” (Deuteronomy 25:3), indicating: Once he is flogged he is as your brother, as his sin has been atoned and he is no longer excised from the Jewish people; this is the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel.

ואמר רבי חנניה בן גמליאל מה אם העובר עבירה אחת נוטל נפשו עליה העושה מצוה אחת על אחת כמה וכמה שתנתן לו נפשו רבי שמעון אומר ממקומו הוא למד שנאמר ונכרתו הנפשות העשת וגו׳ ואומר

And Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as one’s soul can be uprooted from the world for one transgression, for one who performs a single mitzva, it is all the more so the case that his soul will be given to him, as the reward for performing mitzvot is greater than the punishment for performing transgressions. Rabbi Shimon says: It is derived from its own place in the Torah, as it is stated at the conclusion of the passage discussing intercourse with forbidden relatives, which is punishable with karet: “And the souls that perform them shall be excised” (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter:

אשר יעשה אתם האדם וחי בהם הא היושב ולא עבר עבירה נותנין לו שכר כעושה מצוה

“That a person shall perform and live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). It is inferred that with regard to one who sits and did not perform a transgression, God gives him a reward like that received by one who performs a mitzva.

רבי שמעון בר רבי אומר הרי הוא אומר רק חזק לבלתי אכל (את) הדם כי הדם הוא הנפש וגו׳ ומה אם הדם שנפשו של האדם קצה ממנו הפורש ממנו מקבל שכר גזל ועריות שנפשו של אדם מתאוה להן ומחמדתן הפורש מהן על אחת כמה וכמה שיזכה לו ולדורותיו ולדורות דורותיו עד סוף כל הדורות

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: “Only be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soul” (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a person’s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: “You shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you” (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a person’s soul desires and covets, one who abstains from their performance and overcomes his inclination, all the more so that he and his descendants and the descendants of his descendants until the end of all generations will merit a reward.

רבי חנניא בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקדוש ברוך הוא לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר

Rabbi Ḥananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, sought to confer merit upon the Jewish people; therefore, He increased for them Torah and mitzvot, as each mitzva increases merit, as it is stated: “It pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and glorious” (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot.

גמ׳ אמר רבי יוחנן חלוקין עליו חבריו על רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמרי בי רב תנינן אין בין שבת ליום הכפורים אלא שזה זדונו בידי אדם וזה זדונו בהכרת ואם איתא אידי ואידי בידי אדם הוא

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues are in disagreement with him and hold that lashes do not exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Adda bar Ahava said that this is so, as they say in the school of Rav that we learned in a mishna (Megilla 7b): The difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur with regard to the labor prohibited on those days is only that in this case, Shabbat, its intentional desecration is punishable by human hands, as he is stoned by a court based on the testimony of witnesses who forewarned the transgressor, and in that case, Yom Kippur, its intentional desecration is punishable at the hand of God, with karet. And if the statement of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel is so, in both this case, Shabbat, and that case, Yom Kippur, the punishment would be by human hands. Apparently, the tanna of the mishna, the Rabbis, disagrees with Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel.

רב נחמן בר יצחק אומר הא מני רבי יצחק היא דאמר מלקות בחייבי כריתות ליכא דתניא רבי יצחק אומר חייבי כריתות בכלל היו ולמה יצאת כרת באחותו לדונו בכרת ולא במלקות

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: There is no proof from here that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzḥak, who says: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzḥak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of forbidden relations were included in the principle: “For whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their people” (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet in the case of relations with one’s sister excluded from this verse and mentioned independently (Leviticus 20:17)? It is to sentence one who transgresses a prohibition punishable with karet to be punished with karet alone, and not with lashes. Other Sages disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak (see 13b).

רב אשי אמר אפילו תימא רבנן זה עיקר זדונו בידי אדם וזה עיקר זדונו בידי שמים

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzḥak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel’s colleagues disagree with him. The mishna can be understood as follows: In this case, Shabbat, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is by human hands, and in that case, Yom Kippur, the primary punishment for its intentional desecration is karet, which is a punishment at the hand of Heaven. If he was flogged, he is exempt from karet.

אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב הלכה כרבי חנניא בן גמליאל אמר רב יוסף מאן סליק לעילא ואתא ואמר אמר ליה אביי אלא הא דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שלשה דברים עשו בית דין של מטה והסכימו בית דין של מעלה על ידם מאן סליק לעילא ואתא ואמר אלא קראי קא דרשינן הכא נמי קראי קא דרשינן

Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Gamliel, who ruled that lashes exempt the sinner from karet. Rav Yosef said: Who ascended on high and came and said to you that one who is flogged is exempted from karet? That is not dependent upon the decision of an earthly court. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: But according to your reasoning, then with regard to that which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, the same question applies: Who ascended on high and came and said to him that this is so? Rather, in arriving at Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s conclusion we homiletically interpret verses. Here too, with regard to lashes and karet, we homiletically interpret verses.

גופא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שלשה דברים עשו בית דין של מטה והסכימו בית דין של מעלה על ידם [אלו הן] מקרא מגילה ושאילת שלום [בשם] והבאת מעשר

§ With regard to the matter itself, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: There are three matters that the earthly court implemented and the heavenly court agreed with them, and these are they: Reading the Scroll of Esther on Purim, and greeting another with the name of God, and bringing the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem. From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed with them?

מקרא מגילה דכתיב קימו וקבלו היהודים קיימו למעלה מה שקבלו למטה

Reading the Scroll of Esther is derived from a verse, as it is written: “The Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselves” (Esther 9:27). The verse could have simply said: They took upon themselves. From the formulation of the verse it is interpreted: They confirmed above in Heaven that which they took upon themselves below on earth.

ושאילת שלום דכתיב והנה בעז בא מבית לחם ויאמר לקוצרים ה׳ עמכם ואומר ה׳ עמך גבור החיל מאי ואומר וכי תימא בועז הוא דעביד מדעתיה ומשמיא לא אסכימו על ידו תא שמע ואומר ה׳ עמך גבור החיל

And greeting another with the name of God is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless you” (Ruth 2:4). And it states: “And the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” (Judges 6:12). The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Gemara cites the additional source about Gideon, introduced with the phrase: And it states? Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters insufficient? The Gemara explains: And if you would say: It is Boaz who did so on his own, and from Heaven they did not agree with him; come and hear proof, and it says: “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.” The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.

הבאת מעשר דכתיב הביאו את כל המעשר אל בית האוצר ויהי טרף בביתי ובחנוני נא בזאת אמר ה׳ צבאות אם לא אפתח לכם את ארבות השמים והריקתי לכם ברכה עד בלי די מאי עד בלי די אמר רמי בר רב עד שיבלו שפתותיכם מלומר די

From where is it derived that the heavenly court agreed to the bringing of the first tithe to the Temple treasury in Jerusalem? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “Bring you the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in My house, and try Me now with this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, that there shall be more than sufficiency [ad beli dai]” (Malachi 3:10). This indicates that the heavenly court agreed that the first tithe should be brought to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of “ad beli dai”? Rami bar Rav says: It means that the abundance will be so great that your lips will be worn out [yivlu], from saying enough [dai].

אמר רבי אלעזר בשלשה מקומות הופיע רוח הקודש בבית דינו של שם ובבית דינו של שמואל הרמתי ובבית דינו של שלמה בבית דינו של שם דכתיב ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני מנא ידע דלמא כי היכי דאזל איהו לגבה אזל נמי אינש אחרינא [לגבה] יצאת בת קול ואמרה ממני יצאו כבושים

The Gemara cites a somewhat similar statement. Rabbi Elazar says: In three places the Divine Spirit appeared before all to affirm that the action taken was appropriate: In the court of Shem, in the court of Samuel the Ramathite, and in the court of Solomon. The Gemara elaborates: This occurred in the court of Shem, as it is written in the context of the episode of Judah and Tamar: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]” (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamar’s assertion that she was bearing his child was correct? Perhaps, just as he went to her and hired her as a prostitute, another person went to her and hired her as well, and he is not the father. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: It is from Me [mimmenni] that these secrets emerged. God affirmed that her assertion was correct and that it was His divine plan that Judah would father a child from Tamar.

בבית דינו של שמואל דכתיב הנני ענו בי נגד ה׳ ונגד משיחו את שור מי לקחתי ויאמרו לא עשקתנו ולא רצותנו ויאמר עד ה׳ ועד משיחו כי לא מצאתם בידי מאומה ויאמר עד ויאמר ויאמרו מיבעי ליה יצאת בת קול ואמרה אני עד בדבר זה

Likewise, this occurred in the court of Samuel, as it is written: “Here I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I taken…And they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed us…And he said to them: The Lord is witness against you, and His anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand. And he said: He is witness” (I Samuel 12:3–5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: “And he said,” the plural: And they said, should have been written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuel’s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: I, God, am witness to this matter.

בבית דינו של שלמה דכתיב ויען המלך ויאמר תנו לה את הילד החי והמת לא תמיתהו (כי) היא אמו מנא ידע דלמא איערומא מיערמא יצאת בת קול ואמרה היא אמו

This occurred in the court of Solomon, when the Divine Spirit appeared in the dispute between two prostitutes over who was the mother of the surviving child, as it is written: “And the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his mother” (I Kings 3:27). How did Solomon know that she was the mother? Perhaps she was devious and was not the mother of the surviving child at all. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: She is his mother.

אמר רבא ממאי דלמא יהודה כיון דחשיב ירחי ויומי ואיתרמי דחזינן מחזקינן דלא חזינן לא מחזקינן

Rava said: From where do you draw these conclusions? None of these proofs is absolute. Perhaps in the case of Judah, once he calculated the passage of the months and the days from when he engaged in intercourse with Tamar and it happened to correspond with the duration of her pregnancy, he realized that her assertion is correct. There is no room to suspect that another man was the father, as the principle is: Based on that which we see, we establish presumptive status; based on that which we do not see, we do not establish presumptive status.

שמואל נמי כולהו ישראל קרי להו בלשון יחידי דכתיב ישראל נושע בה׳

With regard to Samuel too, no proof may be cited from the use of the singular, as on occasion the entire Jewish people is referred to in the singular, as it is written, e.g.: “The Jewish people is saved by the Lord” (Isaiah 45:17).

שלמה נמי מדהא קא מרחמתא והא לא קא מרחמתא אלא גמרא

With regard to Solomon too, perhaps he reasoned that due to the fact that this woman is merciful and seeks to spare the baby and this woman is not merciful, it is evident that the former is its mother. Rather, Rava concludes: There is no proof from the verses that a Divine Spirit appeared in those circumstances; rather, there is a tradition that this is the case.

דרש רבי שמלאי שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם אמר רב המנונא מאי קרא תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה תורה בגימטריא

§ Rabbi Simlai taught: There were 613 mitzvot stated to Moses in the Torah, consisting of 365 prohibitions corresponding to the number of days in the solar year, and 248 positive mitzvot corresponding to the number of a person’s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the verse that alludes to this? It is written: “Moses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word Torah, in terms of its numerical value [gimatriyya],