Makkot

YE SHALL THEREFORE KEEP MY STATUTES AND MINE ORDINANCES WHICH IF A MAN DO, HE SHALL LIVE BY THEM,1 WHICH MEANS THAT ONE WHO DESISTS FROM TRANSGRESSING IS GRANTED REWARD LIKE ONE WHO PERFORMS A PRECEPT. R. SIMEON B. RABBI SAYS: BEHOLD HOLY WRIT SAYS, ONLY BE STEADFAST IN NOT EATING THE BLOOD . . . AND THOU SHALT NOT EAT THE LIFE WITH THE FLESH . . . [THAT IT MAY GO WELL WITH THEE AND WITH THY CHILDREN AFTER THEE WHEN THOU SHALT DO WHAT IS RIGHT IN THE EYES OF THE LORD].2 NOW, IF IN THE CASE OF BLOOD FOR WHICH MAN'S SOUL HAS A LOATHING, ANYONE WHO REFRAINS THEREFROM RECEIVES REWARD, HOW MUCH MORE SO IN REGARD TO ROBBERY AND INCEST FOR WHICH MAN'S SOUL HAS A CRAVING AND LONGING SHALL ONE WHO REFRAINS THEREFROM ACQUIRE MERIT FOR HIMSELF AND FOR GENERATIONS AND GENERATIONS TO COME, TO THE END OF ALL GENERATIONS! R. HANANIAH B AKASHIA SAYS: THE HOLY-ONE, BLESSED BE HE, DESIRED TO MAKE ISRAEL WORTHY, THEREFORE GAVE HE THEM THE LAW [TO STUDY] AND MANY COMMANDMENTS [TO DO]: FOR IT IS SAID: THE LORD WAS PLEASED, FOR HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS’3 SAKE. TO MAKE THE LAW GREAT AND GLORIOUS.4 GEMARA. Said R. Johanan: R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel's colleagues disagree with him.5 Said R. Adda b. Ahaba: At Rab's college they used to say: We learn [in a Mishnah].6 ‘There is no difference [in sanctity] between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement, save that in the case of the former, a deliberate desecration is punishable by human agency,7 while in that of the latter, a deliberate desecration is punished by kareth.’8 Now, were this [doctrine of R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel] generally accepted, [the Mishnah would have said that] the punishment of deliberate desecration in either case [of Sabbath or Day of Atonement] is [practically] left to human agency?9 — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac:10 Whose view may that [Mishnah] express? It is R. Isaac's,11 for he says that there is no penalty of flogging for those liable to kareth, as it was taught: Seeing that Holy Writ has [already] comprehended in a single verse all the offenders in unlawful relations as being liable to kareth,12 what object was there in singling out that penalty in the case of [the brother with] his sister?13 Only to show that kareth is their penalty, not flogging.14 R. Ashi said: You might even say that [the cited Mishnah expresses the opinion of] the Rabbis [by explaining that it states] that in one case [the Sabbath]15 its main punishment is delegated to human authority, whereas in the other [the Day of Atonement] it is left to the Celestial Authority. R. Adda, as citing Rab, said that halachah rests with R. Hananiah b. Gamaliel. Said R. Joseph: Who has gone up [to Heaven] and come [back with this information]?16 — Said Abaye to him: But then, in regard to what R. Joshua b. Levi said: ‘Three things were enacted by the [mundane] Tribunal below, and the Celestial Tribunal on high have given assent to their action’; [we might also exclaim,] who has gone up [to Heaven] and come [back with this information]? Only, we [obtain these points by] interpreting certain texts; and, in this instance too, we so interpret the texts. [To turn to] the main text: ‘R. Joshua b. Levi said that three things were enacted by the [mundane] Tribunal below and the [Celestial] Tribunal on high gave assent to their action.’ These were: The [annual] recital of the Scroll [of Esther];17 saluting with the Divine Name;18 and the [Levite's] tithe to be brought [to the Temple-chamber].19 ‘The [annual] recital of the Scroll [of Esther],’ as it is written, They confirmed,20 and the Jews took upon them and their seed, etc.:21 they ‘confirmed’ above what they had ‘taken upon themselves’ below. ‘Saluting with the Divine Name,’ — as it is written, And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘The Lord be with you’;22 and [furthermore] it says, The Lord bless thee, thou mighty man of valour.23 What is the purport of, ‘And [furthermore] it says’? — Lest you should say that Boaz did this of his own idea and that this action of his was not approved by Heaven, come and hear what it says, The Lord be with thee, thou mighty man of valour.24 ‘The [Levite's] tithe to be brought [to the Temple-chamber].’ — as it is written, Bring ye the whole tithe unto the store house that there may be food in My house, and try Me herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven and pour you out a blessing, until there be no enough.25 What means, ‘until there be no enough’? — Said Rami b. Rab: [It means], until your lips weary of saying ‘Enough, enough’! R. Eleazar said: The Holy Spirit manifested itself in three places; at the Tribunal of Shem,26 at the Tribunal of Samuel of Ramah, and at the Tribunal of Solomon. At the Tribunal of Shem,27 as it is written, And Judah acknowledged them,28 and he said, She is right, it is from me.29 How did he know [for certain]? Maybe, just as he had come to [consort with] her, some other man had come to [consort with] her? [But] it was a Bath Kol30 that came forth and said, ‘She is right, constrained by Me these things came about.’31 ‘At the Tribunal of Samuel,’32 — as it is written, Here I am; witness against me before the Lord and before His anointed, whose ox have I taken? or whose ass . . . and they said, Thou hast not defrauded us nor oppressed us, neither hast thou taken aught of any man's hand. And he said unto them, The Lord is witness against you and His anointed is witness this day that ye have not found aught in my hand,’ and He33 said, [He is] witness.34 ‘And He said’; should it not be ‘And they said’? [But] it was a Bath Kol that came forth and said, ‘I am witness in this matter.’ ‘At the Tribunal of Solomon,’ — as it is said, And the king answered and said, Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it; she is his mother:35 ‘She is his mother’; whence knew he [for certain]? Maybe, she had been acting craftily? [But] it was a Bath Kol that came forth and said, ‘She is his mother’. Said Raba: How [can we be sure of this?] Maybe Judah had reckoned the days and months and found them to coincide,36 — for what we see we may presume; but we presume not what we see not.37 Again, Samuel may have taken all Israel collectively, using the singular38 expression [verb], as it is written [elsewhere]: O Israel, thou art saved by the Lord with an everlasting salvation, Ye shall not be ashamed?39 And Solomon likewise, because he saw one woman was compassionate and the other was not compassionate! Only [of course], these [interpretations] are points of traditional lore. [THEREFORE GAVE HE THEM TORAH (TEACHINGS) AND MANY COMMANDMENTS . . . ] R. Simlai when preaching said: Six hundred and thirteen precepts were communicated to Moses, three hundred and sixty-five negative precepts, corresponding to the number of solar days [in the year], and two hundred and forty-eight positive precepts, corresponding to the number of the members40 of man's body. Said R. Hamnuna: What is the [authentic] text for this? It is, Moses commanded us torah, an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob,41 ‘torah’ being in letter-value, equal to puts the Law in opposition to innocence and spiritual law and considers it a source of sin and wrath. Here it is asserted that the Law was given, not as a mark of divine wrath in order to increase sin so as to make all the greater the need of divine mercy, but as a mark of divine love designed to train Israel in moral holiness in order to make them all the more worthy in the eyes of the Holy One, blessed be He.] than in punishment. making, however, this distinction, there seems to be an implied rejection of R. Hananiah's doctrine of complete remission? Mishnah does not really show the attitude of Hananiah's colleagues to his doctrine of remission. necessary implication that Hananiah's colleagues thereby disagree with his view of remission. was considered immune from further legal prosecution, it could hardly be confidently asserted that he was no longer answerable to Heaven. ‘taken in vain’ and in many languages the Divine Names have become vulgar asseverations. them according to Num. XVIII, 21 ff, and gave it entirely to the priests (instead of 1/10th only). because the Levites had not responded to his call for the return to Palestine. V. Yeb. 86a-b and Keth. 26a and Tosaf. there. Others say R. Joshua b. Levi refers rather to the view that Scripturally, tithes were due to be given only of corn, wine and oil (Num. XVIII, 27,30), but that tithes on all other produce of the soil, of fruits, legumina and vegetables, were a voluntary contribution imposed by the mundane Authorities (cf. Sifre on Deut. XIV, 22) which the statement of Malachi confirmed as approved of by the Tribunal above. V. J. Ber. IX, end. An attempt was made to restore the tithe to the Levites (instead of to priests) and R. Joshua b. Levi was invited to give his support to that movement, but he did not concur on textual grounds. V. J. M. Sh. V, 3, 56b. as an ordinance for all time to come and ‘never to pass away’ (Esth. IX, 27). Cf. Meg. 7a on the canonicity of Esther. Pseudo-Jonathan (Targum) a.l., and Gen. XIV, 18. presume that she had consorted with another man about the same time.] Anatomy, p. 565a, and J. Preuss, Biblisch-Talmudischemedizin (2nd ed.) Berlin, 1921. p. 66 ff.