Makkot

— Here too the man is [in fact] liable to [pay] compensation; only the title of the proselyte has lapsed [with his death]. And is there not the instance of the ‘Corner of the Field’, where the All-Merciful ordained, Thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest, [and then continues,] Thou shalt leave them for the poor and for the stranger?1 And, this too, fits equally well [if we say that the flogging depends on] whether the transgressor has carried out, or has not carried out [the act of redress], or on whether he had nullified, or not nullified [his chance of making redress],2 as [is to be gathered from what] we learnt: The ordinance of the ‘Corner [of the field]’ is [in the first instance] to leave apart some of the standing corn [for the poor]; if he neglected to leave some of the corn standing, he sets apart some of the sheaves; if he failed to set apart some of the sheaves, he leaves apart some of the grain in the heap before winnowing; having winnowed, he should tithe the grain [first]3 and then give to the poor [his due]!4 — [No. R. Johanan holds] according to R. Ishmael, who said: He can also give it in part of the dough.5 But even according to R. Ishmael, there is still the case where the transgressor has already consumed the bread!6 — Hence this [indeed] is the only other instance that R. Johanan had in mind when he said, ‘We have only this instance [of the Bird's Nest] and one other’ — But it is not that of the Ravisher [who pledged himself publicly not to live with her], because it is only in an optional matter that we say that a vow made dependent on the consensus of the public is not subject to [formal] rescission; but where the matter involved is one in the nature of religious obligation7 it is subject to [formal] rescission, as for instance in the case of a certain elementary teacher treating the children harshly so that R. Aha made him pledge himself [on the consensus of the public8 not to teach]; but Rabina reinstated him, because no other teacher could be found who was equally reliable.9 ONE WHO EATS OF NEBELAH, OR TREFA, OR ANY CREATURE ABOMINABLE AND TEEMING [INCURS A FLOGGING]. Said Rab Judah: If one eats [knowingly] a worm in a cabbage10 he incurs a flogging. A certain fellow [once deliberately] ate a worm in a cabbage and Rab Judah had him chastised.11 Abaye observed that if one eats an eel12 he [technically] incurs a flogging on four13 counts; if an ant, on five counts, [the extra count being] for Any swarming [crawling] thing that swarmeth upon the earth [ye shall not eat them];14 if a hornet, on six counts [the extra count being] for [And all] winged swarming things [are unclean] to you; [they shall not be eaten].15 Raba16 observed that anyone confining his faeces sins against And ye shall not make your souls detestable.17 R. Bibi son of Abaye observed that anyone drinking out of a cupping-horn sins against Ye shall not make your souls detestable [by . . . what I have set apart for you to hold unclean].17 Rabbah the son of R. Huna said that if one crushed nine ants [into a mash] adding thereto another live one, thus bringing up the quantity to [the requisite] an olive's size [and ate them], he renders himself liable on six counts; five for the [live ant as a] separate creature,18 and one for [the mass as amounting to] an olive's size of nebelah.19 Rabbah reporting R. Johanan said [it would be the same], even with only two [mashes] and one other whole. R. Joseph [reporting R. Johanan]20 said even only one [mashed] and one alive. And there is no disagreement between them [in principle], for one is thinking of larger and the other of smaller sized [insects]. ONE WHO EATS OF TEBEL, OR A FIRST TITHE FROM WHICH ITS TERUMAH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN, OR OF SECOND TITHE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REDEEMED. Rab said that one who eats of tebel-produce from which its poor tithe21 has not been taken is flogged.22 Whose view is followed [in this statement of Rab's]? — That of the Tanna [in the following passage,] where it is taught: R. Jose says:23 It might be supposed that one is liable [to a flogging] only on eating tebel-produce from which no due whatsoever has yet been set apart; but where [for instance] terumah gedolah24 has been separated, but not yet the first tithe, or the first tithe, but not yet the second tithe, or [say] even the poor tithe [has not yet been separated] — whence [is derived the prohibition of] eating such produce? From the following instructive texts: Thou mayest not eat within thy gates25 the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil;26 and later it says, that they may eat within thy gates and be satisfied.27 What is the reference in the latter [text]? To the poor tithe. So likewise in the former [text] reference is to the poor tithe, and the All-Merciful enjoins ‘Thou mayest not eat of ...’28 Joseph said: [Rab's point has been debated already] by Tannaim: R. Eliezer says that in the case of demai29 there is no need even to designate [and assign]30 the poor tithe; but the Sages say to tithes, provided it was assigned to the poor before the winnowing when tithes become due. which he can no longer fulfil the command of the corner, and is consequently flogged.] negative ordinance, namely, not to defile the holy Camp — the Sanctuary), is different in nature from the others, as the positive command can be fulfilled before the actual violation of the negative command; his coming away is thus not considered (an act of) redress, and the flogging is incurred. R. Tam (Tosaf.) suggested (instead of a cabbage-grub) a small fish found alive on the field (such as a tadpole or young eel; v. next note). Being found on dry land (not in the water, its usual habitat,) it comes under the category of a ‘swarming thing’ — .rav .ra — forbidden in Lev. XI, 43. (Eisenstein) s.v.,uekn. Vol. VI, p. 229b. B.M. Lewin, Otzar ha-Gaonim III (Pes.) No. 42). Young eels — glass eels — are often found in thousands (2 to 2 1/2 inches in size) travelling at night overland to get to the sea. ibid. 43. Cf. Rashi ‘Er. 28a. once more forbidden as an insect crawling on the ground (44). been set apart. It is implied in Deut. XXVI, 13 (cf. Sifre a.l.); but not openly prohibited. No judicial flogging (of ‘forty’ lashes) is inflicted except the offence is explicitly prohibited in Holy Writ. No punishment is warranted on logical inference, hence the search for the basis of Rab's assertion. Levites in thy gates’. set apart by the vendor before selling. An ancient tradition has it that Johanan the High Priest (the Maccabean John Hyrcanus I), discovered (after investigation) that while the priests’ terumah (v. Glos.) was being given regularly, the ‘amme ha-arez (v. Glos.) throughout the land were none too observant about the several other tithes. To meet the scruples of the pious (and to preserve the laws regulating the tithes from extinction), he promulgated that the several tithes should be set apart by the purchaser from an ‘am ha-arez. But, as this practice would evidently fall heavily on the purchasers, it was agreed that after setting the prescribed dues apart, the buyer might retain them for his own consumption, as, firstly these tithes were not forbidden to a lay-Israelite, and secondly the claim of any particular priest (or Levite) to the first tithe, or of any particular poor man to the poor tithe was uncertain. ‘designate’ and ‘assign’ them by saying: ‘Let the terumah of this bin be located in the east; the first tithe in the west; the second tithe in the north, or (in the 3rd and 6th year) the poor tithe in this or that particular spot,’ and then take his temporary supply from any other part. Later he would attend to these dues.