Makkot

The Rabbis’ view here is perfectly in order since, as it is written there, according to his misdeed,1 can penalize him [once only], for a [single] ‘misdeed,’ but not [twice as] for two misdeeds. But as to R. Meir, what is his reason [for imposing two penalties for a single offence]? — ‘Ulla said that R. Meir inferred the principle [by analogy] from the case of the ‘Defaming husband’.2 What do we find in the law of the ‘Defaming husband’? He is flogged and also made to pay compensation; the same should obtain in every case where the offender made himself liable to a flogging and compensation. [No!] This is no analogy, because what is that law of the ‘Defaming husband’? It is [essentially] a case of kenas!3 — [Admitted;] but R. Meir is of the same opinion as R. Akiba, that is that the punishment of zomemim is [likewise] one of kenas.4 Some introduce this Mishnah-comment of ‘Ulla in connection with that which has been taught: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire.5 Now Scripture came and provided here a [remedial] act to follow a [disregarded] prohibition;6 this [provision] is to convey that no flogging is inflicted for the transgression. These are the words of R. Judah. R. Jacob7 says: [No!] this interpretation is not relevant,8 as it is rather an instance of a prohibition contravened without action, and any prohibition contravened without action entails no flogging.9 Now, the general import of the above statement seems to imply that R. Judah is of [the] opinion that a prohibition contravened without Action does entail a flogging: whence does he obtain this principle? — ‘Ulla submitted that R. Judah derived it from the [law of the] Defaming husband. What do we find in [the case of] the Defaming husband? It is a prohibition10 contravened without action,11 and yet the offender receives a flogging! [No, your conclusion falls short, as] what do we find in the law of the Defaming husband? He is flogged and also pays [one hundred shekels of silver], But, said Resh Lakish, R. Judah derived it from the [case of] zomemim. Now what do we find [in the case of] zomemim? — It is a prohibition contravened without action, and yet the offenders are flogged; the same obtains wherever there is a prohibition contravened without action. [But, can you argue that from the zomemim, as] what do we find in [the case of] zomemim? They need not be cautioned!12 Then [I say] let the case of the Defaming husband13 enforce my argument. And thus the argument turns to and fro, the characteristics of one case not being quite those of the other; but they are alike in this, that they are cases of a Prohibition contravened without action, and [in each case] the offender is flogged; the same [I submit] obtains in all cases of a Prohibition contravened [even] without action — that the offender is flogged. [But yet, note] what is their common characteristic? They are both [cases of] kenas!14 — This presents no difficulty, as R. Judah does not take the same view as R.Akiba.15 But yet [the argument might be carried on], what they both have in common is that they have each some singular trait of severity.16 — R. Judah does not raise this point.17 [BUT THE SAGES SAY THAT THEY RECEIVE ONLY FORTY LASHES.] And what lesson do the Rabbis derive from the text, ‘Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour’? — They must needs utilize it as the [statutory] admonition18 to zomemim. And where does R. Meir find that [requisite Scriptural] admonition? — Said R. Jeremiah that R. Meir found the same in the context, And those that remain shall hear and fear and shall henceforth commit no more such evil in the midst of thee.19 And why do not the Rabbis also adopt the same? — They apply it to another principle, suggestion, from keep thee free from every wicked thing (Deut. XXIII, 10), v, Keth. 46a. contact. Some, however, consider that the movement of the lips in speech constitutes action, cf. infra 16a. for, zomemim caught in fictitious evidence could not possibly have been so warned, and yet they are flogged, which shows that their treatment is exceptional and cannot, therefore, be used for fixing a standard rule. 200 shekels shows. But in regard to the primary instance of zomemim, the Sages, including R. Judah, differ from R. Akiba in considering the compensation pecuniary (mamon), not penal (kenas), as the amount is not a fixed sum, but assessed according to the damage threatened by their perfidy. V. B.K. 5a (Rashi, top), kenas = poena and mamon = multa. only flogged, but also has to pay a fine (100 shekels) and may not send away his wife (Deut. XXII, 19). admonition (vrvzt)’. Cf. Mek. on Ex. XX, 13.