Makkot

— Has not this [explanation been given] as reason for R. Johanan's view?1 But surely it was R. Johanan [himself] who told a tanna:2 If he has nullified [his chance of making redress], he is liable; and if he has not nullified it, he is exempt! Because [once] a tanna recited3 in the presence of R. Johanan: Whenever a negative precept involves the fulfilment of a positive action,4 then, if the offender has carried out the positive action he is exempt; if he has nullified [his chance of carrying out] the positive action he is liable. [Thereupon] R. Johanan [corrected him] saying: What did you say? ‘That if he carried out the positive act he is exempt’, [which implies that] if he did not carry it out he is liable [and that] ‘if he has nullified [his chance of carrying out] the positive act he is liable’, which implies that if he has not nullified [his chance of carrying out] the positive act he is exempt?5 [Not so]. Teach thus: ‘If he has nullified it [he is liable], and if he has not nullified it [he is exempt].’6 And Resh Lakish, [on the other hand,] says that [the flogging depends on] whether he [the transgressor] has carried out, or has not carried out [the requisite act of redress]. What is the point at issue between them? — The question of a dubious warning,7 one Master taking the view that a dubious warning may be called [in law] a warning,8 while the other Master takes the view that a dubious [warning] is not called [in law] a warning.9 And they follow each his point of view [in several discussions], for it has been stated: [If one said, ‘I take] an oath that I shall eat this loaf to-day,’ and the day passed and he ate it not, both R. Johanan and Resh Lakish concur that he is not [to be] flogged. R. Johanan says he is not flogged command that gave rise to the question from a Ravisher and it was in reply to this question that Raba gave the explanation. Var. lec. reverse the reading: ‘That is in order according to the view (that flogging is determined by whether) he has or has not carried out (the act of redress) but what is there to say on the view (that it depends on whether) he has or has not nullified (his chance of making redress)?’ The question will accordingly refer to the last statement of Raba that the positive command comes to remove (the effects of the contravention of) the prohibition. Now this answer of Raba to R. Papa's question will be in accord with the former view, but on the latter view that although he has actually carried out the act of redress, but provided he has not cut off all chance of doing so, there is no flogging, the reason being that the prohibition does not conform to that of muzzling, the question of R. Papa remains unanswered. According to this variant preserved by R. Han., among others the statement of R. Johanan to the tanna which follows on should run: ‘Teach, If he has carried it out he is liable, if he has not carried it out he is exempt.’] inference that if he carried it out immediately, he is exempt, while delay means a flogging; while the second yields the opposite conclusion, that as long as the prescribed course of redress is possible, he is exempt from a flogging. pious remonstrance against some breach which may happen sometime, sooner or later, is dubious, indefinite and ineffective legally. warning to be a warning, and consequently although at the time of the transgression it is not known whether he will cut off his chance of remedying the offence, he is nevertheless flogged when the circumstance arises.] when he is confronted by the order of the court to carry out the act of redress and refuses to do so. According to variant given p. 109. n. 1, interpret thus: R. Johanan holds that a dubious warning is considered a warning, and the transgressor can accordingly be warned at the time of the transgression, making him liable to the penalty on his failure to carry out the act of redress; whereas Resh Lakish holds that a dubious warning is considered no warning, consequently it is only when he is warned as he is about to nullify his chance of making redress that the warning is effective in making him liable to flogging.]