Makkot

are alike subject to the sanction of ‘forty lashes’; these are the words of R. Ishmael.1 R. Akiba says that only those who are liable to kareth are subject to the sanction of ‘forty lashes’, because, if the offenders should betake themselves to repentance [before God], the Heavenly Tribunal would grant them remission;2 whereas those who have become liable to death by sentence of the [human] Court are not subject to the punishment of ‘forty lashes’ because, [even] if they should do penance, the Earthly Tribunal would not grant them remission.3 R. Isaac says: Seeing that Holy Writ had [already] comprehensively declared all the offenders [in unlawful relations to be] liable to kareth,4 what object was there in reiterating that penalty [solely] in the case of [the brother with] his sister?5 To show that kareth is their penalty, not a flogging.6 What is R. Ishmael's reason? — It is written: If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law . . . and it is further written, then the Lord will make thy strokes pronounced.7 I should not have known what is [really] meant by this ‘pronouncement’ but when it states elsewhere: [If the wicked man deserve to be beaten] the judge shall cause him to lie down and to be beaten [before his face according to the measure of his misdeed by number . . . forty stripes]8 then I say that the expression, this ‘pronouncement’ has some bearing on the [judicial] flogging; and that passage is introduced by, if thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law.9 But if so, why not impose a [judicial] flogging also for [the neglect of] a positive precept?10 — It says, if thou wilt not observe to do, and this is the sense given by R. Abin as reporting R. Elai; for R. Abin reported R. Elai to have said that wherever the expression ‘observe’,11 ‘lest’,12 or ‘do not’13 occur [in Holy Writ], it is an indication of a prohibited action.14 Then why not [give a flogging] for the contravention of a prohibition attended by no action?15 — It is written, ‘If thou wilt not observe to do.’ [Then again, why not give a flogging] also for [offending against] a prohibition which can be remedied by a [subsequent] action?16 — [An act entailing a flogging] must conform with the prohibition of ‘Muzzling’.17 And what is R. Akiba's reason?18 — [It says,] ‘according to the measure of his misdeed’19 [which means that] you make him liable to punishment for one misdeed, but you cannot hold him liable [in two ways as] for two misdeeds.20 And R. Ishmael?21 — This objection applies only to such [diverse punishments] as a death-sentence and pecuniary compensation, or a flogging and pecuniary compensation; but death and a flogging [are cognate] as [flogging] is but a protracted death.22 But why should not R. Akiba, if [he] so [interprets the wording], exclude [from a flogging] also even those liable in kareth?23 And if you argue: Suppose the offenders should betake themselves to repentance [before God], then [I retort], Now, after all, they have not yet done so?24 — Said R. Abbahu: The Torah distinctly includes those who have incurred kareth among those who may receive a flogging; for we derive ‘before the eyes’25 from ‘before thine eyes’.26 To this R. Abba b. Memel demurred strongly: If so, why not include as well those liable to death by sentence of the Court among those who may receive a flogging, by deriving ‘from the eyes’27 from ‘before thine eyes’?26 — It is admissible to interpret ‘before the eyes’25 in the light of ‘before thine eyes’,26 but hardly to interpret ‘from the eyes’ in the light of ‘before thine eyes’. But what matters [such a slight variation in form]? Was it not taught in the school of R. Ishmael that the [variant expressions] and the priest shall come again,28 and, and he shall go in [and see],29 have the same import there [for the purpose of deduction]?30 Nay, furthermore, one ought to be able to interpret, ‘from the eyes of’27 in the light of, ‘before the eyes of their people,’25 after having already been allowed to interpret, ‘before the eyes,’25 in the light of, ‘before thine eyes’?26 The explanation that R. Samuel son of R. Isaac [later] personally received from him31 on [the difficulty arising from R. Akiba's interpretation of] the text ‘according to the measure of his misdeed’ as meaning ‘that you make him liable to punishment for one misdeed, but you cannot hold him liable [in two ways as] for two misdeeds’, was that the verse refers only to penalties that are entrusted to Beth din. 32 Raba said:33 Where the forewarning [to the would-be offender] was in respect of a death penalty, opinion would be unanimous that the offender should not be both flogged, and put to death.34 The difference, however, arises where the forewarning was only in respect of a flogging. [In that case] R. Ishmael35 holds that ‘a prohibition which [has been stated to] serve as a forewarning to a capital sentence’36 is [sufficient] warrant for the infliction of a flogging; while R. Akiba37 holds that ‘a prohibition which [has been stated to] serve as a forewarning to a capital sentence’ is no warrant for a flogging.38 But if so then even those liable to kareth should also be excluded [by him from the liability to flogging], since the prohibition [in regard to such transgressions has in each case been stated to] serve as a forewarning to kareth? — Said R. Mordecai to R. Ashi: Thus said Abimi of Agrunia39 in the name of Raba, that [would-be] offenders in a case of kareth do not require forewarning; the proof is that kareth is imposed for neglecting the rite of the Paschal lamb40 and the rite of circumcision,41 although there is no [other] warning [in Holy Writ].42 Maybe the forewarning is [inscribed in the Torah in case of kareth] for the purpose of a sacrifice,43 as [might be proved from the fact that] the neglect of the Paschal lamb or circumcision, for which no forewarning is inscribed in the Torah, does not entail an atoning sacrifice? — [No,] this is not a correct reason [for the absence of sacrificial-atonement] in those two instances, but [there is another reason altogether]. It is because we find the sin of idolatry set in the balance against the entire [body of commandments in the] Torah,44 and [from this we argue]: Just as the precept relating to idolatry is of the type ‘Sit still and don't do it,’ so any precept which is of the type ‘Sit still and don't do it’ [entails a sin-offering for its unintentional transgression], and we exclude these which are of the type ‘Get up and do it’.45 Rabina said: After all [the various explanations offered] we must come back leaving the rest between Heaven and the offender's conscience. souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. contends — shows clearly that each offence has its appropriate punishment (B C D K or Execution by Court) as indicated in detail in the parallel passage. Lev. XX. Flogging, in his view, is not warranted by the written law where another penalty is definitely prescribed. surprising, and (b) pronounce, speak out clearly. Cf. Lev. XXVII, 2 and Num. VI, 2. one of the judges present at the flogging. Cf. infra 22b. (Num. IX, 13 KB). type of offence, namely as one involving action, and which cannot be remedied by a subsequent action. flogging them they may thus have inflicted a twofold penalty!] days. kareth, if warned in respect of lashes, are flogged.] not’, is explicitly stated in the Bible., v. p. 18, n. 5. penalty of flogging.] you by the hand of Moses, from the day that the Lord gave commandment, and onward throughout your generations . . . [This verse is explained in Hor. 8a, as referring to idolatry.] the reason why no sin-offering is entailed by neglect of these precepts, and not because there is no explicit prohibition stated in regard to them, as the obligation of bringing an offering for a transgression is not determined by a forewarning being stated in the Bible.]