Makkot — Daf 15a

אמרו לו אמרת אמר להו לא אמר רבה האלהים אמרה וכתיבא ותנינא כתיבא (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה [וגו'] ולא יטמאו את מחניהם תנינא הבא למקדש טמא

אלא מאי טעמא קא הדר ביה משום דקשיא ליה אונס דתניא אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה אם כהן הוא לוקה ואינו מחזיר

אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה אמאי לא תעשה שקדמו עשה הוא ולילקי

אמר עולא לא יאמר לו תהיה לאשה באונס וליגמר ממוציא שם רע ומה מוציא שם רע שלא עשה מעשה אמר רחמנא (דברים כב, יט) ולו תהיה לאשה אונס לא כל שכן

(למה נאמר) אם אינו ענין לפניו תנהו ענין לאחריו שאם גירש יחזיר

ואכתי אונס ממוציא שם רע לא גמר דאיכא למיפרך מה למוציא שם רע שכן לוקה ומשלם

אלא לא יאמר לו תהיה לאשה במוציא שם רע וליגמר מאונס ומה אונס שאינו לוקה ומשלם אמר רחמנא ולו תהיה לאשה מוציא שם רע לא כל שכן ולמה נאמר אם אינו ענין למוציא שם רע תנהו ענין לאונס אם אינו ענין לפניו תנהו ענין לאחריו

ומוציא שם רע מאונס נמי לא גמר דאיכא למיפרך מה לאונס שכן עשה מעשה

אלא לא יאמר לו תהיה לאשה במוציא שם רע שהרי אשתו היא למה נאמר אם אינו ענין למוציא שם רע תנהו ענין לאונס ואם אינו ענין לפניו תנהו ענין לאחריו

ואימא ואם אינו ענין לפניו דמוציא שם רע תנהו ענין לאחריו דידיה דלא לקי

אין הכי נמי ואתי אונס וגמר מיניה במאי גמר מיניה אי בקל וחומר אי במה מצינו איכא למיפרך (כדפרכינן) מה למוציא שם רע שכן לא עשה מעשה

אלא אמר רבא כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר וכן כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר

א"ל רב פפא לרבא והא לא דמי לאויה ללאו דחסימה א"ל משום דכתב ביה רחמנא עשה יתירא מגרע גרע

אי הכי לאו שניתק לעשה נמי לימא משום דכתב ביה רחמנא עשה יתירא מגרע גרע א"ל ההוא לנתוקי לאו הוא דאתא

הניחא למאן דאמר ביטלו ולא ביטלו

אלא למאן דאמר קיימו ולא קיימו מאי איכא למימר

When he was [subsequently] asked whether he had said that, he denied it. Said Rabbah: God! he did say it; and furthermore, this is found in Scripture and we learn it [in the Mishnah, too]. ‘This is written : [Command the children of Israel] that they put out of the camp . . . and that they defile not their camp [in the midst whereof I dwell]. Again, [bearing on this] we learnt: WHO WHILE UNCLEAN ENTERED THE SANCTUARY INCURS A FLOGGING. Why then did he retract [his statement]? — Because he found it difficult [to explain the case of] the Ravisher, as taught [in the following]: A Ravisher who put away his wife [by divorce], if he be a [lay] Israelite, he can take her back without receiving a flogging, but if he be a priest he receives a flogging but does not take her back. Now, ‘if he be a [lay] Israelite he takes her back without receiving a flogging’, why, seeing that this is an instance where a negative command is preceded by a positive command — why should he receive no flogging? — ‘Ulla said’ [that the words], She shall be his wife could have been left out in the case of the Ravisher and have been inferred from the [somewhat analogous] case of the Defaming husband, thus: Since in the case of the Defaming husband, although he did no [tangible] act, the All-Merciful ordained that ‘she shall be his wife,’ is not this injunction even more appropriate in the case of the Ravisher? What then, is the purport of those words [in the case of the Ravisher]? [Consequently] if they are not [strictly] needed at the first stage, make use of them for the latter stage, to indicate that if the Ravisher did put her away [unlawfully], he must take her back. But yet, no inference can be drawn from the case of the Defaming husband to that of the Ravisher because there is a refutation, namely, What is the [penalty of the] Defaming husband? He is flogged as well as amerced [one hundred shekels], [which is not the case with the Ravisher]! — Rather therefore argue thus: The injunction ‘she shall be his wife’ might have been omitted in the case of the Defaming husband, and inferred from the case of the Ravisher, thus: What is the [penalty of the] Ravisher? That although he is not flogged in addition to the amercement [of fifty shekels] the All-Merciful [nevertheless] ordained that, ‘she shall be his wife’; how much more then should this be so in the case of the Defaming husband. Why then were these words inserted? If they are unnecessary in the case of the Defaming husband, utilise them in connection with the Ravisher; [and again], if they are not necessary for the first stage, utilise them in connection with the latter stage [after the Ravisher had put her away]. [Yet again, I say] the case of the Defaming husband could not be inferred from that of the Ravisher, because there is a counter argument, namely, that the Ravisher has done a [tangible] act, [which cannot be said of the Defaming husband]! — Let us then rather [argue thus]: [The words] ‘she shall be his wife’ might have been omitted in the case of the Defaming husband, as she is his wife [already]. Why then, was it inserted there? If it is not essential in the case of the Defaming husband, transfer its application to that of the Ravisher;(*) and if it be not applicable there at first, then it is to be applied to the latter stage [after he unlawfully put her away]. But why not argue thus: As this order is not essential at the first stage of the Defaming husband, let it be referred to himself in the latter stage, so that he [the Defaming husband] receives [therefore] no flogging? — Indeed, you might argue thus, and then apply the same conclusion to the Ravisher [You say, ‘Indeed’? Let us see,] by what [process of argument] is this derived? Whether by an a fortiori or by analogy; there is the counter argument already mentioned; [viz.:] What is the case of the Defaming husband? He has done no [tangible] action, which is not the case with the Ravisher! But [no], said Raba; [the explanation must be sought in] the expression ‘all his days,’ , [which means that] ‘all his days’ he has the Scriptural demand upon him to ‘Get up and take her back.’ Likewise, when Rabin came [from Palestine], he reported R. Johanan to have said that during ‘all his days’ there is the demand upon him to get up and take her back. Said R. Papa to Raba: But [in fact] the prohibition [contained in this combination of a negative command preceded by a positive] does not conform to the [standard] negative [command] against Muzzling [the ox]! — Replied Raba: Why should the additional [charge of a] Do! by the All-Merciful, minimize [the force of the prohibition]? [Said R. Papa:] If that is your view, then why not say likewise, in the case of a prohibition translated into [remedial] action, why should the additional charge of a Do! by the All-Merciful minimize [the force of] the prohibition? — Replied Raba: There, the positive command comes to remove [the effects of the contravention of] the prohibition. That [explanation] harmonizes with the view of those who say that [the flogging depends on] whether the transgressor has nullified, or not nullified [his chance of making redress]; but according to those who say that [the flogging depends on] whether he had carried out, or not carried out [the act of redress],what explanation does it afford?49