Makkot

When he1 was [subsequently] asked whether he had said that, he denied it.2 Said Rabbah:3 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 camp4 . . . and that they defile not their camp5 [in the midst whereof I dwell].6 Again, [bearing on this] we learnt: WHO WHILE UNCLEAN ENTERED THE SANCTUARY INCURS A FLOGGING.7 Why then did he8 retract [his statement]? — Because he found it difficult [to explain the case of] the Ravisher,9 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,10 but if he be a priest11 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,12 seeing that this is an instance where a negative command is preceded by a positive command — why should he receive no flogging?13 — ‘Ulla said’14 [that the words], She shall be his wife15 could have been left out in the case of the Ravisher and have been inferred from the [somewhat analogous] case of the Defaming husband,16 thus: Since in the case of the Defaming husband, although he did no [tangible] act,17 the All-Merciful ordained that ‘she shall be his wife,’18 is not this injunction even more appropriate in the case of the Ravisher?19 What then, is the purport of those words20 [in the case of the Ravisher]? [Consequently] if they are not [strictly] needed at the first stage,21 make use of them for the latter stage, to indicate that if the Ravisher did put her away [unlawfully], he must take her back.22 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’;23 how much more then should this be so in the case of the Defaming husband.24 Why then were these words inserted? If they are unnecessary in the case of the Defaming husband,25 utilise them in connection with the Ravisher; [and again], if they are not necessary for the first stage,26 utilise them in connection with the latter stage [after the Ravisher had put her away].27 [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,28 [which cannot be said of the Defaming husband]!29 — 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,30 then it is to be applied to the latter stage [after he unlawfully put her away]. 31 But why not argue thus: As this order is not essential at the first stage of the Defaming husband,32 let it be referred to himself in the latter stage, so that he [the Defaming husband] receives [therefore] no flogging?33 — Indeed, you might argue thus, and then apply the same conclusion to the Ravisher31 [You say, ‘Indeed’? Let us see,] by what [process of argument] is this derived? Whether by an a fortiori34 or by analogy;35 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 with36 the Ravisher! But [no], said Raba;37 [the explanation must be sought in] the expression ‘all his days,’38 , [which means that] ‘all his days’ he has the Scriptural demand upon him to ‘Get up and take her back.’39 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]!40 — Replied Raba: Why should the additional [charge of a] Do!41 by the All-Merciful, minimize [the force of the prohibition]?42 [Said R. Papa:] If that is your view, then why not say likewise, in the case of a prohibition translated into [remedial] action,43 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 remove44 [the effects of the contravention of] the prohibition.45 That [explanation]46 harmonizes with the view of those who say that [the flogging depends on] whether the transgressor has nullified,47 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 out48 [the act of redress],what explanation does it afford?49 the midst whereof I dwell’ and means the Tabernacle (cf. Ex. XXV, 8, and XXIX, 42-46). which was situated in the centre, there having been three camps: the priests’ in the centre, then the Levites’ and around these the Israelitish camp. V. Num. I, 50 ff; II, 17. nevertheless a flogging, because the former command, to put out of the camp, could be carried out even before the contravention of the negative prohibition, that they defile not the camp, by the unclean man who entered the sanctuary, i.e., by preventing his entry therein — which supports the principle formulated by R. Johanan as reported by Rabbah b. Bar Hanah.] not put her away all his days. Deut. XXII, 29. And it was this difficulty that constrained Rabbah b. Bar Hanah to retract. flogging. the amount! The case can hardly be taken as analogous. [Consequently, the words ‘she shall be his wife’ may still refer to the first stage, affording thus no indication that by remarrying her after the divorce he remedies the offence he committed by putting her away.] flogging. V. supra p. 105. n. 11. rejected.] and is not flogged for divorcing his wife if he remarries her, should not the Ravisher, who receives no flogging (in the first instance) and is amerced only half, fifty shekels be exempted from a flogging for divorcing his wife if he remarries her. (lay) Israelite Ravisher is not flogged if he takes back his wife (for having flouted the prohibition to put her away) is still unexplained according to R. Johanan's principle, Raba offers one. not flogged. verses 2-3, there): (cf. the exposition on this above, 13b) and which is not preceded by a positive command. which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.’ Cf. supra 4b. offence by remarriage. man. (These instances create serious difficulties in other directions, raised later.) But, so long as he has not nullified the chance of remedying the offence, he might defer (the act of) redress to some later time.