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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 28, 2017 | ื™ืณ ื‘ื›ืกืœื• ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • 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 23

How were the lashes administered?ย  What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment?ย  Why was the whip made from a calf andย a donkey?ย  An opinionย is brought that one who is obligated to receive karet and thenย receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atoneย for one’s sin and the person will no longer receive karet.ย  The value of keeping mitzvot and not doing transgressions is discussed by a number of rabbis in various types of statements in the mishna.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืงืœื”

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: โ€œForty he shall flog himโ€ฆand your brother shall be debased before youโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3), as tearing his garments debases him.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฆื•ืขื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ืชื—ืกื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื•

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: โ€œForty he shall flog him,โ€ and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox in its threshingโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:4), indicating that the strap is from the hide of an ox.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืกืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชื—ืกื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing,โ€ and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œWhen brothers dwell togetherโ€ (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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืžื‘ื–ื” ืืช ื”ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื”ื™ ืžืกื›ื” ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืช ื—ื’ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืชืฉืžืจ

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: โ€œMolten gods you shall not make for yourselfโ€ (Exodus 34:17), and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œThe festival of Passover you shall observeโ€ (Exodus 34:18).

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืžืกืคืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืžืขื™ื“ ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉืงืจ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื• ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื›ืœื‘ ืชืฉืœื›ื•ืŸ ืืชื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ืชืฉื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชืฉื™ื

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: โ€œTo the dog you shall cast itโ€ (Exodus 22:30), and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œYou shall not accept [lo tissa] a false report; do not join with the wicked to be a false witnessโ€ (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.

ื•ืฉืชื™ ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื›ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ืœื™ืœืื” ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื™ื“ืข ืฉื•ืจ ืงื ื”ื• ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื™ื‘ื ืžื™ ืฉืžื›ื™ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื™ืคืจืข ืžืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื™ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื•

ยง 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 แธคisda: It is written: โ€œThe ox knows its owner, and the donkey its masterโ€™s trough; but Israel does not know, My people does not considerโ€ (Isaiah 1:3). The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Let the one who recognizes its masterโ€™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 Masterโ€™s trough and performs transgressions.

ื™ื“ื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคื•ื ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ืคื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืช ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื‘ืงืชื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžืจืคื” ื‘ื”

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.

ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื• ื”ืฉืคื˜ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืจืฉืขืชื• ื‘ืžืกืคืจ ืจืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืžืœืคื ื™ื• ืฉืชื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื•ืช ืžืื—ืจื™ื•

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him before him in accordance with his wickedness, by numberโ€ (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.

ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฆื•ืขื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืžื•ื›ืคืœืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื• ื•ื”ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื˜ื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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: โ€œAnd the judge shall cause him to lie down.โ€ Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 doesnโ€™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: โ€œShall cause him to lie downโ€? Conclude two conclusions from it: The halakha that the person being flogged must be hunched, and the allusion to the doubling of the strap.

ื”ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื–ื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ื›ื— ื•ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ื•ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ื›ื—

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืคืŸ ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื–ื”ื•ืจื™ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื–ื”ื•ืจื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื–ืจื–ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžื–ืจื–

Rava said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is written: โ€œForty he shall flog him; he shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat himโ€ (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.

ืชื ื ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžื’ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

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.

ื•ื”ืงื•ืจื ืงื•ืจื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืงื•ืจื ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžื›ื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืืจื™ืš ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžื›ื” ืžื•ืขื˜ืช ืžืงืฆืจ ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœืชื—ืœืช ื”ืžืงืจื ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืฆืžืฆื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืฆืžืฆื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœืชื—ืœืช ื”ืžืงืจื

ยง The mishna teaches: And the court crier recites the verse beginning: โ€œIf you do not observe to perform,โ€ 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 didnโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืžื›ื” ืžื•ืขื˜ืช ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื”

The Gemara cites another baraita with regard to the number of lashes. The Sages taught: From the verse: โ€œHe shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat him beyond these, a great floggingโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall not exceed,โ€ at all. The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: โ€œA great floggingโ€? This teaches that the initial lashes must be administered as a great flogging, with all of the attendantโ€™s strength.

ื ืชืงืœืงืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื•ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืžื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื

ยง 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™

The Gemara asks with regard to the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda: But isnโ€™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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืคืชื•ื”ื• ื•ืจืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื ืคืกืงื” ืจืฆื•ืขื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืžืื™ ืœื”ื•ื™ ื›ืจืฅ ื”ืชื ืจืฅ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืจืฅ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืœืงื” ืงืœื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืงืœื” ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืœื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื ืงืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉืœืงื” ื›ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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: โ€œAnd strike himโ€ฆand your brother shall be debasedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:2โ€“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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœืงื• ื ืคื˜ืจื• ื™ื“ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชืชื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืงืœื” ืื—ื™ืš ืœืขื™ื ื™ืš ื›ืฉืœืงื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืื—ื™ืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ

MISHNA: All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: โ€œAnd your brother shall be debased before your eyesโ€ (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 แธคananya ben Gamliel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžื” ืื ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืื—ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื ืคืฉื• ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืฆื•ื” ืื—ืช ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉืชื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื ืคืฉื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ืžื• ื”ื•ื ืœืžื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ื›ืจืชื• ื”ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื”ืขืฉืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื•ืžืจ

And Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as oneโ€™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: โ€œAnd the souls that perform them shall be excisedโ€ (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter:

ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื ื”ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ ื‘ื”ื ื”ื ื”ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื›ืจ ื›ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืฆื•ื”

โ€œThat a person shall perform and live by themโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ (ืืช) ื”ื“ื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืžื” ืื ื”ื“ื ืฉื ืคืฉื• ืฉืœ ื”ืื“ื ืงืฆื” ืžืžื ื• ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืคืฉื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชืื•ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืžื“ืชืŸ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉื™ื–ื›ื” ืœื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื• ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื“ื•ืจื•ืช

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: โ€œOnly be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soulโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a personโ€™s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: โ€œYou shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after youโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a personโ€™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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฆื” ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื–ื›ื•ืช ืืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื”ืจื‘ื” ืœื”ื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื—ืคืฅ ืœืžืขืŸ ืฆื“ืงื• ื™ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืื“ื™ืจ

Rabbi แธคananya 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: โ€œIt pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and gloriousโ€ (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื‘ืจื™ื• ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืืœื ืฉื–ื” ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื–ื” ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ืจืช ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื•ื

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™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 แธคananya 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 แธคananya ben Gamliel.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืœืงื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืœื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืืช ื›ืจืช ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ืœื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื›ืจืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืœืงื•ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: There is no proof from here that Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, who says: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of forbidden relations were included in the principle: โ€œFor whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their peopleโ€ (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet in the case of relations with oneโ€™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 Yitzแธฅak (see 13b).

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื–ื” ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzแธฅak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืืŸ ืกืœื™ืง ืœืขื™ืœื ื•ืืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืกื›ื™ืžื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื ืžืืŸ ืกืœื™ืง ืœืขื™ืœื ื•ืืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืœื ืงืจืื™ ืงื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืงืจืื™ ืงื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ

Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคananya 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 Leviโ€™s conclusion we homiletically interpret verses. Here too, with regard to lashes and karet, we homiletically interpret verses.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืกื›ื™ืžื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื [ืืœื• ื”ืŸ] ืžืงืจื ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืื™ืœืช ืฉืœื•ื [ื‘ืฉื] ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืžืขืฉืจ

ยง 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?

ืžืงืจื ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงื™ืžื• ื•ืงื‘ืœื• ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืฉืงื‘ืœื• ืœืžื˜ื”

Reading the Scroll of Esther is derived from a verse, as it is written: โ€œThe Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselvesโ€ (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.

ื•ืฉืื™ืœืช ืฉืœื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ื” ื‘ืขื– ื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืงื•ืฆืจื™ื ื”ืณ ืขืžื›ื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืณ ืขืžืš ื’ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื•ืขื– ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืžืฉืžื™ื ืœื ืืกื›ื™ืžื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืณ ืขืžืš ื’ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ืœ

And greeting another with the name of God is derived from a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless youโ€ (Ruth 2:4). And it states: โ€œAnd the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: The Lord is with you, mighty man of valorโ€ (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 Boazโ€™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: โ€œThe Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.โ€ The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.

ื”ื‘ืืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ืืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื•ืฆืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื˜ืจืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ื‘ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ื ื ื‘ื–ืืช ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืฆื‘ืื•ืช ืื ืœื ืืคืชื— ืœื›ื ืืช ืืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ืงืชื™ ืœื›ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ืขื“ ื‘ืœื™ ื“ื™ ืžืื™ ืขื“ ื‘ืœื™ ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ืœื• ืฉืคืชื•ืชื™ื›ื ืžืœื•ืžืจ ื“ื™

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: โ€œBring 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]โ€ (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 โ€œad beli daiโ€? 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].

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื”ื•ืคื™ืข ืจื•ื— ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื›ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืฆื“ืงื” ืžืžื ื™ ืžื ื ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื–ืœ ืื™ื”ื• ืœื’ื‘ื” ืื–ืœ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื [ืœื’ื‘ื”] ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ืžืžื ื™ ื™ืฆืื• ื›ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื

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: โ€œAnd Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]โ€ (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamarโ€™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.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื ื™ ืขื ื• ื‘ื™ ื ื’ื“ ื”ืณ ื•ื ื’ื“ ืžืฉื™ื—ื• ืืช ืฉื•ืจ ืžื™ ืœืงื—ืชื™ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื ืขืฉืงืชื ื• ื•ืœื ืจืฆื•ืชื ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืขื“ ื”ืณ ื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื™ื—ื• ื›ื™ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืžืื•ืžื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืขื“ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ืื ื™ ืขื“ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”

Likewise, this occurred in the court of Samuel, as it is written: โ€œHere I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I takenโ€ฆAnd they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed usโ€ฆAnd 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 witnessโ€ (Iย Samuel 12:3โ€“5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: โ€œAnd he said,โ€ the plural: And they said, should have been written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuelโ€™s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: I, God, am witness to this matter.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืœืžื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืŸ ื”ืžืœืš ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืชื ื• ืœื” ืืช ื”ื™ืœื“ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื”ืžืช ืœื ืชืžื™ืชื”ื• (ื›ื™) ื”ื™ื ืืžื• ืžื ื ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืขืจื•ืžื ืžื™ืขืจืžื ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ื”ื™ื ืืžื•

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: โ€œAnd the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his motherโ€ (Iย 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืจื—ื™ ื•ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ืŸ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ืŸ ืœื ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงืจื™ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื”ืณ

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.: โ€œThe Jewish people is saved by the Lordโ€ (Isaiah 45:17).

ืฉืœืžื” ื ืžื™ ืžื“ื”ื ืงื ืžืจื—ืžืชื ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงื ืžืจื—ืžืชื ืืœื ื’ืžืจื

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.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืœืื™ ืฉืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื•ืช ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืžืฉื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื ื™ืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืขืฉื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื” ืฆื•ื” ืœื ื• ืžืฉื” ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื

ยง 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 personโ€™s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the verse that alludes to this? It is written: โ€œMoses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacobโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word Torah, in terms of its numerical value [gimatriyya],

  • 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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 23

ื’ืžืณ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื ืงืœื”

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: โ€œForty he shall flog himโ€ฆand your brother shall be debased before youโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:3), as tearing his garments debases him.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฆื•ืขื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉืœ ืขื’ืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื›ื ื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ืชื—ืกื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื•

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: โ€œForty he shall flog him,โ€ and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox in its threshingโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:4), indicating that the strap is from the hide of an ox.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ืžื” ืฉื ืคืœื” ืœืคื ื™ ืžื•ื›ื” ืฉื—ื™ืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื•ืกืžื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ืชื—ืกื ืฉื•ืจ ื‘ื“ื™ืฉื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืื—ื™ื ื™ื—ื“ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ

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: โ€œYou shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing,โ€ and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œWhen brothers dwell togetherโ€ (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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืžื‘ื–ื” ืืช ื”ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื ื›ืื™ืœื• ืขื•ื‘ื“ ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืืœื”ื™ ืžืกื›ื” ืœื ืชืขืฉื” ืœืš ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืืช ื—ื’ ื”ืžืฆื•ืช ืชืฉืžืจ

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: โ€œMolten gods you shall not make for yourselfโ€ (Exodus 34:17), and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œThe festival of Passover you shall observeโ€ (Exodus 34:18).

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ืžืกืคืจ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ืจืข ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืžืขื™ื“ ืขื“ื•ืช ืฉืงืจ ืจืื•ื™ ืœื”ืฉืœื™ื›ื• ืœื›ืœื‘ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื›ืœื‘ ืชืฉืœื›ื•ืŸ ืืชื• ื•ืกืžื™ืš ืœื™ื” ืœื ืชืฉื ืฉืžืข ืฉื•ื ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืงืจื™ ื‘ื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืชืฉื™ื

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: โ€œTo the dog you shall cast itโ€ (Exodus 22:30), and juxtaposed to it is written: โ€œYou shall not accept [lo tissa] a false report; do not join with the wicked to be a false witnessโ€ (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.

ื•ืฉืชื™ ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืช ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื ืฉืœ ื—ืžื•ืจ ื›ื“ื“ืจื™ืฉ ื”ื”ื•ื ื’ืœื™ืœืื” ืขืœื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื™ื“ืข ืฉื•ืจ ืงื ื”ื• ื•ื—ืžื•ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ื™ื‘ื ืžื™ ืฉืžื›ื™ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื™ืคืจืข ืžืžื™ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื›ื™ืจ ืื‘ื•ืก ื‘ืขืœื™ื•

ยง 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 แธคisda: It is written: โ€œThe ox knows its owner, and the donkey its masterโ€™s trough; but Israel does not know, My people does not considerโ€ (Isaiah 1:3). The Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Let the one who recognizes its masterโ€™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 Masterโ€™s trough and performs transgressions.

ื™ื“ื” ื˜ืคื— ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืœ ื—ื“ ื•ื—ื“ ืœืคื•ื ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ืคื™ืฉ ืœื”ื• ืจืฆื•ืขื•ืช ื˜ื•ื‘ื ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื‘ืงืชื ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ืงื˜ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžืจืคื” ื‘ื”

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.

ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื• ื”ืฉืคื˜ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื• ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ื“ื™ ืจืฉืขืชื• ื‘ืžืกืคืจ ืจืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืžืœืคื ื™ื• ืฉืชื™ ืจืฉืขื™ื•ืช ืžืื—ืจื™ื•

ยง 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: โ€œAnd the judge shall cause him to lie down, and strike him before him in accordance with his wickedness, by numberโ€ (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.

ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืจืฆื•ืขื” ืฉื”ื™ื ืžื•ื›ืคืœืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ืคื™ืœื• ื•ื”ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืงืจื ื™ื˜ื™ื”ื• ืžืื™ ื”ืคื™ืœื• ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

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: โ€œAnd the judge shall cause him to lie down.โ€ Rav แธคisda says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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 doesnโ€™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: โ€œShall cause him to lie downโ€? Conclude two conclusions from it: The halakha that the person being flogged must be hunched, and the allusion to the doubling of the strap.

ื”ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืžื™ื“ื™ืŸ ื—ื–ื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ื›ื— ื•ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ื•ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ื›ื—

ยง 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืคืŸ ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ื—ืกื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื“ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื–ื”ื•ืจื™ ืืœื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ืžื“ืข ืžื™ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืื–ื”ื•ืจื™ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžื–ืจื–ื™ืŸ ืืœื ืœืžื–ืจื–

Rava said: It is reasonable to rule in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is written: โ€œForty he shall flog him; he shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat himโ€ (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.

ืชื ื ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื’ื‘ื™ื” ืžื’ื‘ื™ื” ื‘ืฉืชื™ ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื›ื” ืžื›ื” ื‘ื™ื“ื• ืื—ืช ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื ืžื“ื™ื“ื™ื”

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.

ื•ื”ืงื•ืจื ืงื•ืจื ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื“ื™ื™ื ื™ืŸ ืงื•ืจื ื”ืฉื ื™ ืžื•ื ื” ื•ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื›ื”ื• ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžื›ื” ืžืจื•ื‘ื” ืžืืจื™ืš ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืžื›ื” ืžื•ืขื˜ืช ืžืงืฆืจ ื•ื”ื ืื ืŸ ืชื ืŸ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœืชื—ืœืช ื”ืžืงืจื ืžืฆื•ื” ืœืฆืžืฆื ื•ืื™ ืœื ืฆืžืฆื ื—ื•ื–ืจ ืœืชื—ืœืช ื”ืžืงืจื

ยง The mishna teaches: And the court crier recites the verse beginning: โ€œIf you do not observe to perform,โ€ 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 didnโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืžื›ื” ืžื•ืขื˜ืช ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ื•ืกื™ืฃ ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื” ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื”ืจืืฉื•ื ื•ืช ืฉื”ืŸ ืžื›ื” ืจื‘ื”

The Gemara cites another baraita with regard to the number of lashes. The Sages taught: From the verse: โ€œHe shall not exceed, lest he continue to beat him beyond these, a great floggingโ€ (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: โ€œHe shall not exceed,โ€ at all. The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: โ€œA great floggingโ€? This teaches that the initial lashes must be administered as a great flogging, with all of the attendantโ€™s strength.

ื ืชืงืœืงืœ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื•ืœื ื‘ืžื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื•ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืžื™ื ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžื™ื

ยง 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.

ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื—ื“ ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ื“ ื”ืืฉื” ื‘ืจื™ืขื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืฉื•ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืขื™

The Gemara asks with regard to the opinion attributed to Rabbi Yehuda: But isnโ€™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 Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื›ืคืชื•ื”ื• ื•ืจืฅ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ ืงืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื ืคืกืงื” ืจืฆื•ืขื” ื‘ืฉื ื™ื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื‘ืจืืฉื•ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืืžืื™ ืœื”ื•ื™ ื›ืจืฅ ื”ืชื ืจืฅ ื”ื›ื ืœื ืจืฅ

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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืžื“ื•ื”ื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืœืงื” ืงืœื” ืคื•ื˜ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืœื›ืฉื™ืฆื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืงืœื” ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ื•ืœื ืขื•ื“ ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืงืœื” ื‘ืชื—ืœื” ืžืœืงื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื”ื›ื”ื• ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ื ืงืœื” ื•ืœื ืฉืœืงื” ื›ื‘ืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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: โ€œAnd strike himโ€ฆand your brother shall be debasedโ€ (Deuteronomy 25:2โ€“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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืฉืœืงื• ื ืคื˜ืจื• ื™ื“ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชืชื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ืงืœื” ืื—ื™ืš ืœืขื™ื ื™ืš ื›ืฉืœืงื” ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืื—ื™ืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ

MISHNA: All those liable to receive karet who were flogged are exempted from their punishment of karet, as it is stated: โ€œAnd your brother shall be debased before your eyesโ€ (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 แธคananya ben Gamliel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืžื” ืื ื”ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ืื—ืช ื ื•ื˜ืœ ื ืคืฉื• ืขืœื™ื” ื”ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืฆื•ื” ืื—ืช ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉืชื ืชืŸ ืœื• ื ืคืฉื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืžืงื•ืžื• ื”ื•ื ืœืžื“ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ื ื›ืจืชื• ื”ื ืคืฉื•ืช ื”ืขืฉืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืื•ืžืจ

And Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamliel says: And if for one who performs one transgression his soul is taken for it, as oneโ€™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: โ€œAnd the souls that perform them shall be excisedโ€ (Leviticus 18:29), and it states toward the beginning of that chapter:

ืืฉืจ ื™ืขืฉื” ืืชื ื”ืื“ื ื•ื—ื™ ื‘ื”ื ื”ื ื”ื™ื•ืฉื‘ ื•ืœื ืขื‘ืจ ืขื‘ื™ืจื” ื ื•ืชื ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืฉื›ืจ ื›ืขื•ืฉื” ืžืฆื•ื”

โ€œThat a person shall perform and live by themโ€ (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.

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืจืง ื—ื–ืง ืœื‘ืœืชื™ ืื›ืœ (ืืช) ื”ื“ื ื›ื™ ื”ื“ื ื”ื•ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื•ืžื” ืื ื”ื“ื ืฉื ืคืฉื• ืฉืœ ื”ืื“ื ืงืฆื” ืžืžื ื• ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžืžื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ืฉื›ืจ ื’ื–ืœ ื•ืขืจื™ื•ืช ืฉื ืคืฉื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืžืชืื•ื” ืœื”ืŸ ื•ืžื—ืžื“ืชืŸ ื”ืคื•ืจืฉ ืžื”ืŸ ืขืœ ืื—ืช ื›ืžื” ื•ื›ืžื” ืฉื™ื–ื›ื” ืœื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื• ื•ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื“ื•ืจื•ืชื™ื• ืขื“ ืกื•ืฃ ื›ืœ ื”ื“ื•ืจื•ืช

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that as the verse states: โ€œOnly be steadfast to not eat the blood, as the blood is the soulโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:23), it can be derived a fortiori: And if with regard to the blood, which a personโ€™s soul loathes, one who abstains from its consumption receives a reward for that action, as it is written in a subsequent verse: โ€œYou shall not eat it, so that it shall be good for you and for your children after youโ€ (Deuteronomy 12:25); then concerning robbery and intercourse with forbidden relatives, which a personโ€™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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ืขืงืฉื™ื ืื•ืžืจ ืจืฆื” ื”ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืจื•ืš ื”ื•ื ืœื–ื›ื•ืช ืืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื”ืจื‘ื” ืœื”ื ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืžืฆื•ืช ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื—ืคืฅ ืœืžืขืŸ ืฆื“ืงื• ื™ื’ื“ื™ืœ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื™ืื“ื™ืจ

Rabbi แธคananya 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: โ€œIt pleased the Lord for the sake of His righteousness to make the Torah great and gloriousโ€ (Isaiah 42:21). God sought to make the Torah great and glorious by means of the proliferation of mitzvot.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื—ื‘ืจื™ื• ืขืœ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ ืชื ื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืืœื ืฉื–ื” ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื–ื” ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื”ื›ืจืช ื•ืื ืื™ืชื ืื™ื“ื™ ื•ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื•ื

GEMARA: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™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 แธคananya 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 แธคananya ben Gamliel.

ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ืžืจ ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืœืงื•ืช ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ืœื™ื›ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื”ื™ื• ื•ืœืžื” ื™ืฆืืช ื›ืจืช ื‘ืื—ื•ืชื• ืœื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื›ืจืช ื•ืœื ื‘ืžืœืงื•ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak says: There is no proof from here that Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™s colleagues disagree with him, as in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, who says: There are no lashes in cases of those liable to receive karet. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says: All those liable to receive karet in cases of forbidden relations were included in the principle: โ€œFor whoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the people who commit them shall be cut off from among their peopleโ€ (Leviticus 18:29). And why was karet in the case of relations with oneโ€™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 Yitzแธฅak (see 13b).

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื–ื” ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ื–ื” ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื“ื•ื ื• ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

Rav Ashi said: Even if you say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yitzแธฅak and hold that there are lashes even in cases where there is liability for karet, there is no proof that Rabbi แธคananya ben Gamlielโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื ื™ื ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืืŸ ืกืœื™ืง ืœืขื™ืœื ื•ืืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืœื ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืกื›ื™ืžื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื ืžืืŸ ืกืœื™ืง ืœืขื™ืœื ื•ืืชื ื•ืืžืจ ืืœื ืงืจืื™ ืงื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ืงืจืื™ ืงื ื“ืจืฉื™ื ืŸ

Rav Adda bar Ahava says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi แธคananya 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 Leviโ€™s conclusion we homiletically interpret verses. Here too, with regard to lashes and karet, we homiletically interpret verses.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืขืฉื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžื˜ื” ื•ื”ืกื›ื™ืžื• ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืœ ืžืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื [ืืœื• ื”ืŸ] ืžืงืจื ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื•ืฉืื™ืœืช ืฉืœื•ื [ื‘ืฉื] ื•ื”ื‘ืืช ืžืขืฉืจ

ยง 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?

ืžืงืจื ืžื’ื™ืœื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืงื™ืžื• ื•ืงื‘ืœื• ื”ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืœืžืขืœื” ืžื” ืฉืงื‘ืœื• ืœืžื˜ื”

Reading the Scroll of Esther is derived from a verse, as it is written: โ€œThe Jews confirmed, and they took upon themselvesโ€ (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.

ื•ืฉืื™ืœืช ืฉืœื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื”ื ื” ื‘ืขื– ื‘ื ืžื‘ื™ืช ืœื—ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืงื•ืฆืจื™ื ื”ืณ ืขืžื›ื ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืณ ืขืžืš ื’ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ื‘ื•ืขื– ื”ื•ื ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืžื“ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืžืฉืžื™ื ืœื ืืกื›ื™ืžื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื• ืชื ืฉืžืข ื•ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืณ ืขืžืš ื’ื‘ื•ืจ ื”ื—ื™ืœ

And greeting another with the name of God is derived from a verse, as it is written: โ€œAnd presently Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, and they said to him: May the Lord bless youโ€ (Ruth 2:4). And it states: โ€œAnd the angel of the Lord appeared to him and said to him: The Lord is with you, mighty man of valorโ€ (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 Boazโ€™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: โ€œThe Lord is with you, mighty man of valor.โ€ The angel greeted Gideon with the name of God, indicating that there is agreement in Heaven that this is an acceptable form of greeting.

ื”ื‘ืืช ืžืขืฉืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื‘ื™ืื• ืืช ื›ืœ ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ืืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื•ืฆืจ ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื˜ืจืฃ ื‘ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื•ื‘ื—ื ื•ื ื™ ื ื ื‘ื–ืืช ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืฆื‘ืื•ืช ืื ืœื ืืคืชื— ืœื›ื ืืช ืืจื‘ื•ืช ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ื”ืจื™ืงืชื™ ืœื›ื ื‘ืจื›ื” ืขื“ ื‘ืœื™ ื“ื™ ืžืื™ ืขื“ ื‘ืœื™ ื“ื™ ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืขื“ ืฉื™ื‘ืœื• ืฉืคืชื•ืชื™ื›ื ืžืœื•ืžืจ ื“ื™

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: โ€œBring 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]โ€ (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 โ€œad beli daiโ€? 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].

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืฉืœืฉื” ืžืงื•ืžื•ืช ื”ื•ืคื™ืข ืจื•ื— ื”ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืจืžืชื™ ื•ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืœืžื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื›ืจ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืฆื“ืงื” ืžืžื ื™ ืžื ื ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืื–ืœ ืื™ื”ื• ืœื’ื‘ื” ืื–ืœ ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ืฉ ืื—ืจื™ื ื [ืœื’ื‘ื”] ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ืžืžื ื™ ื™ืฆืื• ื›ื‘ื•ืฉื™ื

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: โ€œAnd Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I [mimmenni]โ€ (Genesis 38:26). How did Judah know that Tamarโ€™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.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื”ื ื ื™ ืขื ื• ื‘ื™ ื ื’ื“ ื”ืณ ื•ื ื’ื“ ืžืฉื™ื—ื• ืืช ืฉื•ืจ ืžื™ ืœืงื—ืชื™ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืœื ืขืฉืงืชื ื• ื•ืœื ืจืฆื•ืชื ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืขื“ ื”ืณ ื•ืขื“ ืžืฉื™ื—ื• ื›ื™ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืžืื•ืžื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืขื“ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื•ื™ืืžืจื• ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ืื ื™ ืขื“ ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื–ื”

Likewise, this occurred in the court of Samuel, as it is written: โ€œHere I am; testify against me before the Lord and before His anointed: Whose ox have I takenโ€ฆAnd they said: You have neither defrauded us nor oppressed usโ€ฆAnd 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 witnessโ€ (Iย Samuel 12:3โ€“5). Based on the context, instead of the singular: โ€œAnd he said,โ€ the plural: And they said, should have been written, as the verse appears to be the reply of the Jewish people to Samuelโ€™s challenge, attesting to the truth of his statement. Rather, a Divine Voice emerged and said: I, God, am witness to this matter.

ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉืœืžื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืขืŸ ื”ืžืœืš ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืชื ื• ืœื” ืืช ื”ื™ืœื“ ื”ื—ื™ ื•ื”ืžืช ืœื ืชืžื™ืชื”ื• (ื›ื™) ื”ื™ื ืืžื• ืžื ื ื™ื“ืข ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืขืจื•ืžื ืžื™ืขืจืžื ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืช ืงื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจื” ื”ื™ื ืืžื•

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: โ€œAnd the king answered and said: Give her the living child, and do not slay him; she is his motherโ€ (Iย 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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืžืื™ ื“ืœืžื ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ื—ืฉื™ื‘ ื™ืจื—ื™ ื•ื™ื•ืžื™ ื•ืื™ืชืจืžื™ ื“ื—ื–ื™ื ืŸ ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื—ื–ื™ื ืŸ ืœื ืžื—ื–ืงื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืžื™ ื›ื•ืœื”ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืงืจื™ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื ื•ืฉืข ื‘ื”ืณ

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.: โ€œThe Jewish people is saved by the Lordโ€ (Isaiah 45:17).

ืฉืœืžื” ื ืžื™ ืžื“ื”ื ืงื ืžืจื—ืžืชื ื•ื”ื ืœื ืงื ืžืจื—ืžืชื ืืœื ื’ืžืจื

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.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืœืื™ ืฉืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืœืฉ ืขืฉืจื” ืžืฆื•ืช ื ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืžืฉื” ืฉืœืฉ ืžืื•ืช ื•ืฉืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืœืื•ื™ืŸ ื›ืžื ื™ืŸ ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืขืฉื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ืื™ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ืžืื™ ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื” ืฆื•ื” ืœื ื• ืžืฉื” ืžื•ืจืฉื” ืชื•ืจื” ื‘ื’ื™ืžื˜ืจื™ื

ยง 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 personโ€™s limbs. Rav Hamnuna said: What is the verse that alludes to this? It is written: โ€œMoses commanded to us the Torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacobโ€ (Deuteronomy 33:4). The word Torah, in terms of its numerical value [gimatriyya],

Scroll To Top