מכות כ״ג

מכות כ״ג

גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא – מִשּׁוּם ״נִקְלָה״.

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.

אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מִנַּיִן לִרְצוּעָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֵגֶל – דִּכְתִיב ״אַרְבָּעִים יַכֶּנּוּ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ״.

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.

וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: מִנַּיִן לִיבָמָה שֶׁנָּפְלָה לִפְנֵי מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, שֶׁאֵין חוֹסְמִין אוֹתָהּ – דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וְגוֹ׳״.

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.

וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: כׇּל הַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדִים כְּאִילּוּ עוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב ״אֱלֹהֵי מַסֵּכָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה לָּךְ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״אֶת חַג הַמַּצּוֹת תִּשְׁמֹר״.

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).

וְאָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה: כׇּל הַמְסַפֵּר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְכֵן הַמְקַבֵּל לָשׁוֹן הָרָע, וְכׇל הַמֵּעִיד עֵדוּת שֶׁקֶר – רָאוּי לְהַשְׁלִיכוֹ לִכְלָבִים, דִּכְתִיב ״לַכֶּלֶב תַּשְׁלִכוּן אֹתוֹ״, וּסְמִיךְ לֵיהּ ״לֹא תִשָּׂא שֵׁמַע שָׁוְא וְגוֹ׳״, קְרִי בֵּיהּ נָמֵי ״לֹא תַשִּׂיא״.

And Rav Sheshet says in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: Concerning anyone who speaks malicious speech, and anyone 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.

וּשְׁתֵּי רְצוּעוֹת וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: שֶׁל חֲמוֹר. כִּדְדָרֵישׁ הָהוּא גָּלִילָאָה עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: ״יָדַע שׁוֹר קֹנֵהוּ וַחֲמוֹר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יָדַע וְגוֹ׳״, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: יָבֹא מִי שֶׁמַּכִּיר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו, וְיִפָּרַע מִמִּי שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַכִּיר אֵבוּס בְּעָלָיו.

§ 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.

יָדָהּ טֶפַח וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ כֹּל חַד וְחַד לְפוּם גַּבֵּיהּ עָבְדִינַן לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִם כֵּן נַפֵּישׁ לְהוּ רְצוּעוֹת טוּבָא! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אַבְקָתָא אִית לַיהּ, כִּי בָּעֵי מְיקַטַּר בַּיהּ, כִּי בָּעֵי מְרַפֵּה בַּהּ.

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.

מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט וְהִכָּהוּ לְפָנָיו כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ בְּמִסְפָּר״ – רִשְׁעָה אַחַת מִלְּפָנָיו, שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת מֵאַחֲרָיו.

§ 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.

אֵין מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לִרְצוּעָה שֶׁהִיא מוּכְפֶּלֶת – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִפִּילוֹ״. וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְגוּפֵיהּ! אִם כֵּן לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״יַטֵּיהוּ״, מַאי ״הִפִּילוֹ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

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.

הַמַּכֶּה מַכֶּה בְּיָדוֹ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֵין מַעֲמִידִין חַזָּנִין אֶלָּא חֲסֵירֵי כֹחַ וִיתֵירֵי מַדָּע. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ חֲסֵירֵי מַדָּע וִיתֵירֵי כֹּחַ.

§ 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.

אָמַר רָבָא: כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יוֹסִיף… פֶּן יוֹסִיף״, אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא חֲסֵירֵי מַדָּע – הַיְינוּ דִּצְרִיךְ לְאַזְהוֹרֵי. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ יְתֵירֵי מַדָּע – מִי צְרִיךְ לְאַזְהוֹרֵי? וְרַבָּנַן: אֵין מְזָרְזִין אֶלָּא לַמְזוֹרָז.

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.

תָּנָא: כְּשֶׁהוּא מַגְבִּיהַּ – מַגְבִּיהַּ בִּשְׁתֵּי יָדָיו, וּכְשֶׁהוּא מַכֶּה – מַכֶּה בְּיָדוֹ אַחַת, כִּי הֵיכִי (דְּלֵיתֵא) [דְּתֵיתֵי] מִדִּידֵיהּ.

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.

וְהַקּוֹרֵא קוֹרֵא וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבַּדַּיָּינִין קוֹרֵא, הַשֵּׁנִי מוֹנֶה, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר: ״הַכֵּהוּ״! בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכָּה מְרוּבָּה – מַאֲרִיךְ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמַּכָּה מוּעֶטֶת – מְקַצֵּר. וְהָא אֲנַן תְּנַן: חוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא! מִצְוָה לְצַמְצֵם, וְאִי[ם] לֹא צִמְצֵם – חוֹזֵר לִתְחִלַּת הַמִּקְרָא.

§ 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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״מַכָּה רַבָּה״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַכָּה רַבָּה, מַכָּה מוּעֶטֶת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יוֹסִיף״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מַכָּה רַבָּה״? לִימֵּד עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנוֹת שֶׁהֵן מַכָּה רַבָּה.

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.

נִתְקַלְקֵל וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה בְּרֵיעִי וְלֹא בְּמַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאִישׁ בְּרֵיעִי, וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּמַיִם. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה – בֵּין בְּרֵיעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם.

§ 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.

וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה – בְּרֵיעִי! אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין בְּרֵיעִי.

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.

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּפָתוּהוּ, וְרָץ מִבֵּית דִּין – פָּטוּר. מֵיתִיבִי: קָלָה, בֵּין בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה בֵּין בַּשְּׁנִיָּה – פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. נִפְסְקָה רְצוּעָה בַּשְּׁנִיָּה – פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ, בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה – אֵין פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. אַמַּאי? לֶהֱוֵי כְּרָץ! הָתָם רָץ, הָכָא לָא רָץ.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אֲמָדוּהוּ לִכְשֶׁיִּלְקֶה קָלֶה – פּוֹטְרִין אוֹתוֹ. לִכְשֶׁיֵּצֵא מִבֵּית דִּין קָלֶה – מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא, אֲפִילּוּ קָלָה בַּתְּחִלָּה – מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִכָּהוּ וְגוֹ׳ וְנִקְלָה״ וְלֹא שֶׁלָּקָה כְּבָר בְּבֵית דִּין.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ – נִפְטְרוּ יְדֵי כְּרִיתָתָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ״ – כְּשֶׁלָּקָה הֲרֵי הוּא כְּאָחִיךָ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

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.

וְאָמַר רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: מָה אִם הָעוֹבֵר עֲבֵירָה אַחַת נוֹטֵל נַפְשׁוֹ עָלֶיהָ, הָעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה אַחַת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן לוֹ נַפְשׁוֹ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא לָמֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשֹׂת וְגוֹ׳״

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:

״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם״. הָא הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְלָא עָבַר עֲבֵירָה נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שָׂכָר כָּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה.

“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.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בַּר רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל (אֶת) הַדָּם כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״ וּמָה אִם הַדָּם, שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל הָאָדָם קָצָה מִמֶּנּוּ – הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר, גָּזֵל וַעֲרָיוֹת, שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶן וּמְחַמַּדְתָּן – הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶן עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו וּלְדוֹרוֹת דּוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כׇּל הַדּוֹרוֹת.

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.

רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן עֲקַשְׁיָא אוֹמֵר: רָצָה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְזַכּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, לְפִיכָךְ הִרְבָּה לָהֶם תּוֹרָה וּמִצְוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״ה׳ חָפֵץ לְמַעַן צִדְקוֹ יַגְדִּיל תּוֹרָה וְיַאְדִּיר״.

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.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲלוּקִין עָלָיו חֲבֵרָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב, תְּנֵינַן: אֵין בֵּין שַׁבָּת לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם וְזֶה זְדוֹנוֹ בְּהִכָּרֵת. וְאִם אִיתָא, אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּידֵי אָדָם הוּא.

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.

רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי יִצְחָק הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַלְקוֹת בְּחַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת לֵיכָּא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִצְחָק אוֹמֵר: חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת בַּכְּלָל הָיוּ, וְלָמָּה יָצָאת כָּרֵת בַּאֲחוֹתוֹ – לְדוּנוֹ בְּכָרֵת וְלֹא בְּמַלְקוֹת.

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).

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, זֶה – עִיקַּר זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי אָדָם, וְזֶה – עִיקַּר זְדוֹנוֹ בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם.

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.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָא בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאן סְלֵיק לְעֵילָּא וַאֲתָא וַאֲמַר?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַטָּה וְהִסְכִּימוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה עַל יָדָם – מַאן סְלֵיק לְעֵילָּא וַאֲתָא וַאֲמַר? אֶלָּא: קְרָאֵי קָא דָרְשִׁינַן, הָכָא נָמֵי, קְרָאֵי קָא דָרְשִׁינַן.

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.

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים עָשׂוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַטָּה וְהִסְכִּימוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה עַל יָדָם, [אֵלּוּ הֵן]: מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה, וּשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם [בַּשֵּׁם], וַהֲבָאַת מַעֲשֵׂר.

§ 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?

מִקְרָא מְגִילָּה – דִּכְתִיב ״קִיְּמוּ וְקִבְּלוּ הַיְּהוּדִים״ – קִיְּימוּ לְמַעְלָה מַה שֶּׁקִּבְּלוּ לְמַטָּה.

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.

וּשְׁאֵילַת שָׁלוֹם – דִּכְתִיב ״וְהִנֵּה בֹעַז בָּא מִבֵּית לֶחֶם וַיֹּאמֶר לַקּוֹצְרִים ה׳ עִמָּכֶם״, וְאוֹמֵר ״ה׳ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל״. מַאי ״וְאוֹמֵר״? וְכִי תֵּימָא בּוֹעַז הוּא דַּעֲבַד מִדַּעְתֵּיהּ, וּמִשְּׁמַיָּא לָא אַסְכִּימוּ עַל יְדֵיהּ – תָּא שְׁמַע: וְאוֹמֵר ״ה׳ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל״.

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.

הֲבָאַת מַעֲשֵׂר – דִּכְתִיב ״הָבִיאוּ אֶת כׇּל הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֶל בֵּית הָאוֹצָר וִיהִי טֶרֶף בְּבֵיתִי וּבְחָנוּנִי נָא בָּזֹאת אָמַר ה׳ צְבָאוֹת אִם לֹא אֶפְתַּח לָכֶם אֵת אֲרֻבּוֹת הַשָּׁמַיִם וַהֲרִיקֹתִי לָכֶם בְּרָכָה עַד בְּלִי דָי״. מַאי ״עַד בְּלִי דָּי״? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר רַב: עַד שֶׁיִּבְלוּ שִׂפְתוֹתֵיכֶם מִלּוֹמַר ״דָּי״.

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].

אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת הוֹפִיעַ רוּחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ: בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁם, וּבְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי, וּבְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה. בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁם – דִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי״. מְנָא יָדַע? דִּלְמָא כִּי הֵיכִי דַּאֲזַל אִיהוּ לְגַבַּהּ אֲזַל נָמֵי אִינָשׁ אַחֲרִינָא [לְגַבַּהּ]! יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: מִמֶּנִּי יָצְאוּ כְּבוּשִׁים.

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.

בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל – דִּכְתִיב ״הִנְנִי עֲנוּ בִי נֶגֶד ה׳ וְנֶגֶד מְשִׁיחוֹ אֶת שׁוֹר מִי לָקַחְתִּי… וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא עֲשַׁקְתָּנוּ וְלֹא רַצּוֹתָנוּ… וַיֹּאמֶר עֵד ה׳ וְעֵד מְשִׁיחוֹ… כִּי לֹא מְצָאתֶם בְּיָדִי מְאוּמָה וַיֹּאמֶר עֵד״, ״וַיֹּאמֶר״? ״וַיֹּאמְרוּ״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: אֲנִי עֵד בְּדָבָר זֶה.

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.

בְּבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל שְׁלֹמֹה – דִּכְתִיב ״וַיַּעַן הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר תְּנוּ לָהּ אֶת הַיֶּלֶד הַחַי וְהָמֵת לֹא תְמִיתֻהוּ (כִּי) הִיא אִמּוֹ״. מְנָא יָדַע? דִּלְמָא אִיעָרוּמֵא מְיעָרְמָא! יָצָאת בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה: ״הִיא אִמּוֹ״.

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.

אָמַר רָבָא: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא יְהוּדָה, כֵּיוָן דְּחַשֵּׁיב יַרְחֵי וְיוֹמֵי וְאִיתְרְמִי – דְּחָזֵינַן מַחְזְקִינַן, דְּלָא חָזֵינַן לָא מַחְזְקִינַן.

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.

שְׁמוּאֵל נָמֵי, כּוּלְּהוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל קָרֵי לְהוּ בִּלְשׁוֹן יְחִידִי, דִּכְתִיב ״יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹשַׁע בַּה׳״.

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).

שְׁלֹמֹה נָמֵי – מִדְּהָא קָא (מְרַחַמְתָּא) [מְרַחֲמָא] וְהָא לָא קָא (מְרַחַמְתָּא) [מְרַחֲמָא]! אֶלָּא גְּמָרָא.

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.

דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִצְוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים וְחָמֵשׁ לָאוִין כְּמִנְיַן יְמוֹת הַחַמָּה, וּמָאתַיִם וְאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁמוֹנָה עֲשֵׂה כְּנֶגֶד אֵיבָרָיו שֶׁל אָדָם. אָמַר רַב הַמְנוּנָא: מַאי קְרָא – ״תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ מֹשֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה״, ״תּוֹרָה״ בְּגִימַטְרִיָּא

§ 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],