Makkot

GEMARA. [HOW DO THEY SCOURGE HIM? HIS TWO HANDS ARE TIED TO A POST...HIS GARMENTS IF THEY ARE TORN THEY ARE TORN . . . UNTIL HE EXPOSES THE OFFENDER'S CHEST.] What is the reason for this? — The implication of [the words, And thy brother] become debased.1 [A STRAP OF CALF-HIDE.] Said R. Shesheth in the name of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah:2 Whence may it be deduced that the strap is to be of calf-hide? It is written, Forty [lashes] shall he strike him,1 and in proximity to it, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth the corn.3 R. Shesheth said also, in the name of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah: Whence may it be shown that a yebamah4 who has become liable to marry a yabam5 smitten with boils should not be ‘muzzled’ [to voice her dissent from the marriage]? It is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox . . .3 and in proximity to it, If brethren dwell together etc.6 And this also said R. Shesheth in the name of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah: To disregard the Appointed Seasons7 is like practising idolatry, because it is written, Thou shalt make thee no molten gods8 and next to it [is the ordinance of the Festivals] — The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep, etc.9 And R. Shesheth further said in the name of R. Eleazar b. ‘Azariah: Whosoever bears evil tales and whosoever receives evil tales, or whosoever bears false witness deserves to be cast to the dogs; for it is written, Ye shall cast it to the dogs,10 and next to it [is the warning], Thou shalt not raise a false report: [put not thine hand with the wicked to be an unrighteous witness],11 read [not only tissa,12 but] also tasshi13 [‘beguile not another’]. TWO [OTHER] THONGS RUNNING [AS IT WERE] UP AND DOWN. A Tanna taught [that one thong was]14 of ass's hide, as a certain Galilean once expounded, in the presence of R. Hisda,15 [the following text]: The ox knoweth his owner and the ass his master's crib; but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider.16 The Holy One, blessed be He, said, Let there come one that recognises its master's crib and exact punishment from him that recognises not his master's crib. THE HAFT IS A HANDBREADTH [ . . . THE ABDOMEN]. Said Abaye: That seems to imply that each person should have a lash corresponding to his back. Said Raba to him: That would mean that they would have [to keep a good] many different thongs! But no, said Raba, the lash was provided with a clasp by means of which it could be tightened [shortened] or loosened [lengthened] as required. HE ADMINISTERS [ONE-THIRD (OF THE LASHES) IN FRONT AND TWO-THIRDS BEHIND]. What [Scriptural] ground is there for this? — Said R. Kahana: The words of the text, And the judge shall cause him to fall and have him beaten before him according to the measure of his wickedness by number,17 [that is], one [-third of ‘his] wickedness’ on the front18 and two [-thirds] on his back. THEY LASH HIM NOT [STANDING OR SITTING BUT STOOPING]. Said R. Hisda as reporting R. Johanan: Whence may it be shown that the strap is to be folded?19 From the wording in the text, And the judge shall cause it20 to fall [and cause it20 to strike him].21 But is that passage not needed to tell us about [the posture of] the man himself? — If [only] that, [the more appropriate expression] yattehu [‘and he shall cause him to bend’] might have been written there; what then is the import of [the peculiar expression] hippilo [‘he shall cause it to fall’]? To indicate both [instructions]. HE WHO ADMINISTERS THE LASHES DOES IT WITH ONE HAND, etc. Our Rabbis taught: Only men lacking in physical vigour and abounding in knowledge are appointed as ‘superintendents’; R. Judah says: Even men lacking in knowledge and abounding in physical vigour. Said Raba: R. Judah's view seems the more logical, because it is written there, Forty he shall have him beaten, he shall not exceed; lest he exceed. Now, if you say that [the superintendents are men] lacking in knowledge, then [I understand that] such a warning is necessary; but if you say that only men abounding in knowledge [may be appointed as superintendents], is such a warning necessary? And [what say] the Rabbis [to this]? — [They say:] We caution only those who are cautious of themselves. A Tanna taught: When he raises [the lash] he raises it with both hands [so as to raise it all the higher],22 and when he smites he smites with one hand so that it comes [down] of itself [vehemently].23 AND HE WHO RECITES THE SCRIPTURAL VERSES SAYS, etc. Our Rabbis taught: The most prominent of the judges recites [the Scriptural verses]; the second counts [the strokes], and the third says, Strike him! When the ‘beating’ is of many strokes, he lengthens the recital; and when the beating is less, he shortens the recital. But do we not learn, HE GOES BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF THE VERSE? — [The rule is that] he should [time the recital] to correspond precisely [with the lashing]; but if he has not been so precise, he goes back again to the beginning of the verse. Our Rabbis taught: It is written, (He shall not exceed . . .) an ample beating.24 From this I gather that only ‘an ample beating’ [is forbidden]; whence do I learn that [not even] a slight beating [in excess of the determined number of strokes] is permissible? From the instructive words, ‘He shall not exceed’. If so, what is the import of the phrase ‘an ample beating’? — This phrase implies that the former [imposed number of] strokes were [in themselves] ‘an ample beating’.25 IF HE BEFOULED HIMSELF etc. Our Rabbis taught: The offender, whether man or woman, is discharged on losing faeces, but not urine; these are the words of R. Meir. R. Judah says: A man is discharged on losing faeces and a woman on losing urine; but the Sages say man and woman alike are discharged on losing faeces or urine. But then, is it not [also] taught: R. Judah says: The offender, whether man or woman, is discharged on losing faeces? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: [There is no contradiction, as the latter citation merely states that] in regard to faeces, it is the same in the case of man or woman. Samuel said: If they had tied him [down to the post] and he [broke away and] escaped from the Court, he is exempt.26 (What is the reason? — Because of [the text], lest he be dishonored,27 and he has been dishonoured.)28 An objection was raised: If he befouled himself either at the first or at the second stroke, they let him go. If the thong snapped at the second stroke,29 they let him go, but at the first stroke30 they do not let him go. Now why [not at the first stroke]?31 Why [not let him go] as if he had escaped?32 — [Because] there he [actually] ran away,33 whereas here he has not run away.34 Our Rabbis taught: If they estimate him that he would befoul himself as soon as they applied the lash; they let him go; if that he would befoul himself on coming away from the Court, they give the flogging.35 Not only this, but even if he broke down at the very first,36 they flog him, because the text reads, And he shall cause him to be beaten [ . . . he shall not exceed . . . ] lest thy brother be dishonoured [before thine eyes],37 [implying,] but not if he had already been dishonoured while at Court.38 MISHNAH. ALL WHO HAVE INCURRED [THE PENALTY OF] KARETH, ON BEING FLOGGED OBTAIN REMISSION FROM THEIR PUNISHMENT OF KARETH; FOR IT IS SAID, FORTY HE SHALL HAVE HIM BEATEN HE SHALL NOT EXCEED . . . LEST THY BROTHER SHALL BE DISHONOURED BEFORE THINE EYES,39 WHICH SHOWS THAT ON HAVING RECEIVED THE FLOGGING HE IS [CONSIDERED] ‘THY BROTHER’:40 THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. HANANIAH B. GAMALIEL.41 AND, SAID R. HANANIAH B. GAMALIEL, IF IN ONE TRANSGRESSION A TRANSGRESSOR FORFEITS HIS SOUL, HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD ONE WHO PERFORMS ONE PRECEPT HAVE HIS SOUL GRANTED HIM? R. SIMEON42 SAYS THAT YOU CAN LEARN THIS FROM ITS OWN PASSAGE;43 FOR IT IS SAID [THERE]: [FOR WHOSOEVER SHALL DO ANY OF THESE ABOMINATIONS,] EVEN THE SOULS THAT DO THEM SHALL BE CUT OFF FROM AMONG THEIR PEOPLE;44 AND THERE [IN THE PREAMBLE] IT SAYS: determined number of lashes lest he become too degraded: yet the humiliation of an offender for his offence is the main purpose of the lashing by order of the Court. [MS.M. omits this passage. Cf. also Tosaf. Sot. 8a s.v. ivfvu where this reason is given as their own.] the former's teachings. suggests no less consideration for the woman who for her protection is required to marry her late husband's brother. Although he has a legal claim to her, she is not to be coerced when he is likely to be loathsome. Her objection to the union is (on textual grounds) not to be considered as offending against the law. Passover and Tabernacles, when work is restricted though not forbidden. V. Hag. 18a: M. Kat. 12a-b. This Eleazar, however, may refer to the Festivals themselves, like the other R. Eleazar of Modin (Aboth III, 11), who seemingly refers to those who are misled by the allegorical misinterpretations and the abrogation of the Jewish observances by Paul and other later Christian teachers such as are found in the Epistle of Barnabas, a contemporary of Eleazar of Modin. ukhpfvu vhc hre be dishonoured’, shows that the purpose of the ‘beating’ is rather corrective than punitive, and therefore, as soon as the offender has lost morale and self-control, or acts in a scared manner, the moral object has been attained. reading v.commentary of Riban.