Makkot

‘he shall be unclean’ — meaning under any circumstances.1 But has not that phrase been claimed for another deduction, namely, as it is taught: ‘He shall be unclean’ means, to include [defiled] persons who had taken their rite of ablution during daytime;2 ‘uncleanness is yet upon him’ means, to include [purified] persons still short of the atonement rite?3 — [Yes,] replied Raba, but I mean to derive my point by stressing the [redundant particle] ‘yet’. 4 Some introduce the discussion in connection with the following: [Six days thou shalt work, but on the seventh day thou shalt rest;]5 in ploughing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.6 Says R. Akiba: This [second part of the] text is not needed as a provision against ploughing or harvesting in the Sabbatical year itself, for that is explicitly dealt with elsewhere: Neither shalt thou sow thy field nor prune thy vineyard etc.;7 but it is a provision to restrict ploughing even in the pre-Sabbatical year, where its effect extends into the Sabbatical period;8 and [similarly] to restrict the harvesting of the [produce partly grown in the] Sabbatical period, which is reaped in the post-Sabbatical year.9 Says R. Ishmael: What is the characteristic of ploughing? It is an optional act;10 so too is the harvesting debarred11 only when it is an optional act. Outside [this restriction], therefore, is the harvesting [of the first barley] for the ‘omer which is prescribed.12 One of the [senior] scholars then asked Raba: What ground has R. Ishmael for assuming that the ploughing [referred to in the text] is an optional act; might it not as well be the ploughing for the omer — barley which is prescribed? And accordingly one might infer that the Divine Law even in such a case enjoins the Sabbath rest! — Said Raba to him: [No,] because if he found the plot already ploughed he would not be required to plough again. The [act of] ploughing cannot therefore be considered obligatory. Rabina thereupon referred him to the Mishnah: OUTSIDE [THIS LAW] IS THE FATHER BEATING HIS SON, OR THE MASTER STRIKING HIS PUPIL, OR THE COMMISSIONER OF THE COURT [ADMINISTERING THE LASH]. Now, might we not argue [similarly] that, since where the son [or pupil] is an accomplished scholar it is no longer obligatory [on the father or master] to punish him, it should therefore not be considered even in the first instance as obligatory?13 — There [he replied], even though the son is accomplished, it is still a duty, because it is written, Correct thy son and he will give thee rest.14 Reconsidering it, however, Raba said: That first argument [I used] was not correct, because [continuing the analogy] I argue: What is the characteristic of ploughing? If he found the plot ploughed he need not plough [again]; so too is the characteristic of reaping; [if he found the corn cut, he need not cut again]. But if you assume that the reaping [mentioned in the text] constitutes an obligatory act, then, employing the analogy, you will conclude that if he found the sheaves cut, he need not cut again. How can this be maintained? Is not the bringing as well as the reaping prescribed?15 MISHNAH. THE FATHER GOES INTO BANISHMENT FOR [THE DEATH OF] HIS SON, AND THE SON GOES INTO BANISHMENT FOR [THAT OF] HIS FATHER. ALL GO INTO BANISHMENT FOR [THE DEATH OF] AN ISRAELITE, AND ISRAELITES GO INTO BANISHMENT ON THEIR ACCOUNT, SAVE FOR A SOJOURNING-STRANGER,16 AND A SOJOURNING-STRANGER GOES INTO BANISHMENT17 FOR [ANOTHER] SOJOURNING-STRANGER. GEMARA. THE FATHER GOES INTO BANISHMENT FOR HIS SON. Did you not say [before], OUTSIDE [THIS LAW] IS THE FATHER BEATING HIS SON?18 — [Here it is a case of] a son who has already learnt enough.19 But did you not [also] say that even if the son has learnt enough, the father is still obliged to teach [his son]? — He was teaching him [only] as a carpenter's apprentice. [Even so] he was teaching him [the means of] a livelihood!20 — He was already accomplished in another craft. AND THE SON GOES INTO BANISHMENT FOR THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER. This statement was contrasted with that which is taught elsewhere: That killeth a person,21 means, to exclude [from banishment] one that killeth his father [or mother]!22 — Said R. Kahana: It is not difficult [to explain the discrepancy]: the passage cited reflects the view of R. Simeon, while the Mishnah reflects that of the Rabbis. According to R. Simeon, execution by strangulation is a severer penalty than by the sword.23 Therefore, in [the ordinary] case of death by error, the [incurred] penalty, of [execution by] the sword, has its appropriate form of remission [when commuted into banishment]; whereas in the case of parricide in error, the [severer] penalty by strangulation has not its appropriate form of remission [when commuted into banishment]. On the other hand, according to the Rabbis, execution by the sword is a severer penalty than by strangulation. Therefore, in the case of a parent-slayer [who committed the deed] in error, the penalty due is [the severer], that of the sword; and the penalty of the sword has its appropriate form of remission [when commuted into banishment]. Raba explained [the Baraitha] thus: ‘That killeth a person [through error may flee there]’, means, to exclude [from banishment] one that woundeth24 his father [or mother] in error. For you might possibly think that, since by deliberately wounding his parent he would incur the death penalty,25 therefore, in the case of error, he also should go into banishment. The deduction, however, drawn from the text points ‘to exclude one that woundeth his father [or mother] in error’. ALL GO INTO BANISHMENT FOR [THE DEATH OF] AN ISRAELITE, AND AN ISRAELITE GOES INTO BANISHMENT ON THEIR ACCOUNT. — ALL GO INTO BANISHMENT’ — What is this ‘all’ intended to include? — It is to include slaves26 or Cutheans.27 We [thus] learn [here] what our Rabbis taught [in the following]: A slave or Cuthean goes into banishment or receives a flogging on account of an Israelite, and an Israelite goes into banishment or receives a flogging on account of a Cuthean or slave. Now, [the statement] ‘a slave or Cuthean goes into banishment or receives a flogging on account of an Israelite’ is perfectly clear, meaning that if he [inadvertently] kills an Israelite, he goes into banishment, or that if he utters [the Divine Name in] an imprecation against an Israelite, he receives a flogging.28 [But as regards the second statement] ‘and an Israelite goes into banishment or receives a flogging, on account of a Cuthean or slave,’ while there is a clear case for the Israelite going into banishment, namely if he kills a slave or Cuthean [inadvertently], how explain his receiving a flogging? [You will perhaps explain,] in case he cursed him. This cannot be, since the text ‘nor curse a ruler of thy people’ limits the offence to a curse uttered against one who acts according to the usages ‘of thy people’? — Said R. Aha b. Jacob: But it might be a case where he [the Cuthean] had given evidence against him [the Israelite as liable to a flogging] and on being found a zomem — witness [is flogged himself].29 And similarly does the slave's liability [to a flogging] likewise arise where he had given evidence against [an Israelite] and was then found to be a zomem — witness? Is a slave [legally] competent to give such evidence? — But no, said R. Aha son of R. Ika, [the flogging] could be explained in a case where an Israelite had struck a [wounding] blow with offerings, Lev. XII, 6ff; XIV, 9ff; XV, 13ff and 28ff. q.v. on the Sabbath day. The special mention here of ploughing and reaping suggests the association of the weekly Sabbath-day with the septennial Sabbath-year (cf. ibid. XXIII, 10-12). In the exposition that follows, R. Akiba stresses the latter; R. Ishmael the former; v, commentaries of Rashi and Maim, on Sheb. I, 1. the seventh year when it matures in the eighth year. reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring the sheaf (‘omer) of the first-fruits of your harvest unto the priest. ‘Omer means ‘sheaf’; it is also the name of a measure, one-tenth part of an epha (Ex. XVI, 36). A.Z. 64b; also Nahmanides, on Ex. XX, 10. and Kid. 30b; more fully Mekil. on Ex. XIII, 13. XXXV, 11. without fatal consequences, the smiter has already incurred the death penalty by strangulation; v. Sanh. 84b. The general manslayer is punished by the sword; if he slays in error, the punishment is commuted into banishment to one of the Cities of Refuge. word vfn by itself means ‘beating’, ‘wounding’ or ‘killing’, hence the interpretation of Raba. Cf. Ex. XXI, 15 (the penalty for wounding parents); ibid. 18 (wounding without killing), and Deut. XXV, 1-3 (beating or lashing). XVII, 12ff), to discard idolatry and abstain from work (for his master) on Sabbath (Ex. XX, 10; XXIII, 12) and who was a member of the household (cf. Lev. XXII, 11; Deut. XVI, 11). professed adherence to the Mosaic Law, but remained outside by their laws and practices, and do so to this day, text with that of Lev. XIX, 14, Thou shalt not curse the deaf the prohibition is taken to have a general application, involving a flogging if the imprecation is accompanied by the mention of God's name. The words ‘of thy people’ however limit the offence, as punishable only when committed against law-abiding Jews, v. Sanh. 66a.