Makkot — Daf 22a

משום הבערה ואם איתא משום הבערה לא מחייב דהא איחייב ליה משום בשולו אפיק הבערה ועייל גיד הנשה של נבילה

והתני ר' חייא לוקה שתים על אכילתו ושלש על בשולו ואי איתא שלש על אכילתו הוא חייב אלא אפיק הבערה ועייל עצי אשירה ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יג, יח) ולא ידבק בידך וגו'

א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ולילקי נמי משום (דברים ז, כו) לא תביא תועבה אל ביתך אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שבישלו בעצי הקדש ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואשריהם תשרפון באש (דברים יב, ד) לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם:

סימן שנבא"י שנ"ז:

מתקיף לה רב הושעיא וליחשוב נמי הזורע בנחל איתן ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים כא, ד) אשר לא יעבד בו ולא יזרע

מתקיף לה רב חנניא וליחשוב נמי המוחק את השם בהליכתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם וגו' (ו) לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם

מתקיף לה ר' אבהו וליחשוב נמי הקוצץ את בהרתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים כד, ח) השמר בנגע הצרעת

מתקיף לה אביי וליחשוב נמי המזיח החושן מעל האפוד והמסיר בדי ארון ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כה, טו) (ו) לא יסורו (שמות כח, כח) ולא יזח החושן

מתקיף לה רב אשי וליחשוב נמי החורש בעצי אשירה ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יג, יח) ולא ידבק בידך מאומה וגו'

מתקיף לה רבינא וליחשוב נמי הקוצץ אילנות טובות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים כ, יט) כי ממנו תאכל ואותו לא תכרות

א"ל רבי זעירא לרבי מני וליחשוב נמי כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אחרוש ביום טוב התם לא קא חלה שבועה מושבע ועומד מהר סיני הוא א"ל כגון דאמר שבועה שלא אחרוש בין בחול בין ביו"ט דמגו דחלה עליה שבועה בחול חלה עליה נמי ביו"ט מידי דאיתיה בשאילה לא קתני

ולא והרי הקדש בבכור והרי נזיר בנזיר שמשון

נזיר שמשון בר איטמויי למתים הוא אלא האי תנא איסור כולל לית ליה

אמר רבי הושעיא המרביע שור פסולי המוקדשים לוקה שנים אמר רבי יצחק המנהיג בשור פסולי המוקדשים לוקה שהרי גוף אחד הוא ועשאו הכתוב כשני גופים:

מתני׳ כמה מלקין אותו ארבעים חסר אחת שנא' (דברים כה, ב) במספר ארבעים מנין שהוא סמוך לארבעים ר' יהודה אומר ארבעים שלימות הוא לוקה והיכן הוא לוקה את היתירה בין כתפיו

אין אומדין אותו אלא במכות ראויות להשתלש אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים ולוקה מקצת

and [v] for kindling1 fire. Now, if it is [as you suggested], he should not be flogged for kindling the fire, as he is already held liable for cooking it [the sinew]? — Then [perhaps] remove kindling [from this text] and substitute [eating] sinew of a nebelah instead.2 But then, is it not taught by R. Hiyya [on this same point]: ‘He is flogged for eating it, on two counts, and on three counts for boiling it’? Now, if it be [emended as you suggest], he would be liable on three counts for eating it! — But take out kindling [on festival-day] and put instead [kindling] fire-wood from an asherah, and as to the requisite forewarning [to justify a flogging],3 it is contained in the verse, And there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand.4 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: Should he then not also incur a flogging on account of, And thou shalt not bring an abomination into thy house?5 — But here we deal with a case where he cooked it with fire-wood belonging to the Sanctuary, and as to requisite forewarning it is contained in the following [two texts]: And burn their asherim with fire, and [on the other hand], Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God.6 To this R. Oshaia7 demurred: Why not include [in the list] also one who sows in ‘a rough valley’, the requisite forewarning being contained in the words, Which shall neither be ploughed nor sown?8 R. Hanania demurred: Why not include also if he erased [with plough] the Divine Name [inscribed on something] whilst proceeding with it, the requisite forewarning being found in the words, And ye shall destroy their name out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the Lord your God?9 R. Abbahu demurred: Why not include also one who cuts away a [leprous] ‘bright-spot’10 the requisite forewarning being contained in the words, Take heed in the plague of leprosy that thou observe diligently, and do according to all that the priest the Levites shall teach you?11 Abaye demurred: Why not include also one who loosened the ‘breastplate’ [of the High priest] from the ephod,12 and also one who removed the staves from [their rings] on the ark,13 the requisite forewarnings being, they shall not be taken from it,14 And that the breastplate be not loosed?15 R. Ashi demurred: Why not include also one who ploughed with sticks taken from an asherah tree, the forewarning being, And there shall cleave nought of the accursed thing to thy hand?16 Rabina demurred: Why not include also one who cuts down good [fruit] trees, whilst proceeding17 [with the plough], the forewarning being, for thou mayest eat of them, but thou shalt not cut them down?18 Said R. Ze'ira to R. Mani: Why not include also the case of one who solemnly swore, ‘I shall not plough on the Festival-day’? — In that case the oath has no application, because he stands already adjured19 by the law of Sinai. Then, said he [R. Ze'ira] to him: Supposing he had sworn: ‘I shall not plough [at all], be it week-day or Festival-day,’in which case, as the oath is valid for a week-day, it attaches [incidentally] also to the Festival-day?20 — The Tanna does not mention anything for which absolution may be obtained.21 But [does he] not? Behold there is [the mention of ANIMALS] OF THE SANCTUARY?22 — [I explain that] to refer to a firstling.23 And what about [the mention] of A Nazirite?24 — That refers to a Samson-Nazirite.25 ‘A Samson-Nazirite’! Is he debarred from defiling himself to the dead?26 — But [say]27 that the Tanna [of this Mishnah] does not admit the principle of issur-kolel.28 R. Hoshaia29 said: If a votive-ox that had become disqualified [for sacrifice]30 were to be used for covering a female [for breeding], the person using it so is liable to a flogging on two [counts].31 R. Isaac29 [similarly] observed that if one drives [works] a votive-ox that had become disqualified [for sacrifice],32 he becomes liable to a flogging [for working it]: for, although the animal is [physically] one body, Holy Writ has [by its restrictions legally] placed it in the category of two [‘diverse’] bodies.33 MISHNAH. [AND]34 HOW MANY LASHES ARE GIVEN HIM? FORTY SAVE ONE, AS IT IS SAID: BY NUMBER FORTY,35 WHICH MEANS, A NUMBER COMING UP TO36 FORTY. R. JUDAH SAYS: HE IS GIVEN FORTY [LASHES] IN FULL, AND WHERE IS THE ADDITIONAL LASH37 APPLIED? BETWEEN38 HIS SHOULDERS. WHEN THEY ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF LASHES HE CAN STAND IT MUST BE A NUMBER DIVISIBLE BY THREE. IF THEY ESTIMATED HIM CAPABLE OF RECEIVING FORTY, AND AFTER RECEIVING SOME39 Hanania were brothers (also of Rabbah b. Nahmani), Babylonians, contemporaries of R. Abbahu. R. Johanan wanted to ordain them, but the special occasion was missed V. Sanh. 14a and Makk. 19b. A. Hyman. Toledoth, 116-117. there are two prohibitions involved there, ‘neither to be ploughed nor sown.’ Cf. J. Sot., IX, 5. with it.] Shebu. 27a. ‘Comprehensive Restriction’ — kkuf ruxht, extending over or inclusive of the occasional Festival-day or days, so that the particular incidental restriction not to plough on Festival-day, is embraced in the (more) comprehensive, or general restriction. For a fuller discussion of the various types of restrictions v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) 17b and 24b. Cf. note 10. he was born (Judg. XIII, 5), his nazirite state was not subject to absolution. Nazir, 4a-b. part of the offence. question to R. Mani. (b. Abdimi) mentioned next were contemporaries. Cf. Sanh. 24a. even though unfit for the altar, it may be eaten but not put to work. Cf. M.K. 12a (Tosef. II) and Bek. 15b. [This interpretation assumes that assisting in the mating of a votive-ox or of a firstling is considered work involving the penalty of flogging. This, however, is a moot point: v. Maim. Yad, Me'ilah, I, 9, and Mishneh le-Melek, a.l. MS.M. Rashi and Tosaf. and Maim. Yad, Kil'ayim IX, 11, omit ‘on two counts’, and the liability is in respect of the reason given infra. n. 2 (a)]. put to work. Cf. Tosaf. s.v. hrva were run together so as to read ‘By the number of forty’. ofux ‘coming to a total at forty’.