Makkot

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’.