Makkot 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

There—

at the moment when he nullified the positive mitzva by burning the collateral—

the man—

is subject to monetary payment!

At that point, he is not liable to receive lashes for his actions, because he can still rectify his actions at that moment by making payment to the convert.

And the reason that ultimately he does not pay is that afterward, with the death of the convert—

the lien of the convert,

his debt to the convert,

is what becomes void

on its own. But the lender who took the collateral did not then actively nullify the possibility of rectification. Therefore, he is exempt from lashes.

c. Pe'a

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Rabbi Yohanan:

But there is

another negative mitzva that is severed by a positive mitzva, for which it is possible to receive lashes, in the context of the mitzvot of

pe'a, as the Torah said

[Leviticus 23]: “

You shall not completely harvest the corner of your field

when you reap.” And the verse severs this negative mitzva by means of the positive mitzva—“

For the poor and the stranger you shall leave them.”

That is, if one completed harvesting the entire field and did not leave in it a field-corner for the poor containing standing, unharvested grain, he should leave part of the harvest for the poor, and thereby rectify the negative mitzva.

And you can find it

both

in “

when he fulfills it and does not fulfill it,”

if he did not leave pe'a for the poor at the time of harvesting, and

in “

when he nullifies it and does not nullify it,”

for example, if he ground the grain, because once the grain has changed and become flour, he is no longer obligated in the mitzva of pe'a—

as it was taught

in tractate Bava Kamma [94a], in the discussion of “change effects acquisition”:

The mitzva of pe'a

initially is

to separate it from the standing grain,

leaving at the edge of his field standing, unharvested grain for the mitzva of pe'a.

And if he

did not separate it from the standing grain—

he separates it from the sheaves

that have been harvested and bound into bundles.

And if he

did not separate it from the sheaves—

he separates it from the grain heap

[the pile of grain]

before he smooths it

[levels it and completes the processing of] the grain heap.

Until that point, he may separate pe'a, and it will be exempt from tithe, since as long as the smoothing of the grain heap has not been completed, the status of tevel has not yet applied to the grain.

But if he has already

smoothed

the grain heap, at which point the heap became liable for tithe because its processing was completed, he

first tithes

the grain heap

, and

only afterward

gives it

to the poor person as the portion of pe'a.

This is so that the poor person will not have to separate tithe from the pe'a [which became tevel when the processing was completed, upon the smoothing of the grain heap], thereby losing part of his share of the pe'a.

For gleanings and pe'a are exempt from tithe, and the poor may acquire them and eat them without tithing them. But when the owner of the field did not separate pe'a immediately, as required, but waited to separate it until after the smoothing, thereby causing the grain to become liable for tithe, he must rectify the situation so that the poor person will not have to separate tithe from his portion.

It follows from this Mishna that the mitzva of giving pe'a applies only until the stage at which the processing of the field’s produce is completed.

But if afterward the owner of the grain continued and ground the grain, so that it changed and became flour, he is exempt from the mitzva of pe'a; consequently, by grinding it, he actively nullifies the positive mitzva.

If so, we find an additional negative mitzva severed by a positive mitzva for which one receives lashes when he actively nullifies the possibility of rectifying the positive mitzva. This is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan.

And we answer: Rabbi Yohanan holds

in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who said

that grinding the grain does not exempt one from the mitzva of pe'a,

and

according to him,

he may even separate

pe'a

from the dough and give it to him!

But the Gemara still raises a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Yishmael as well,

even if Rabbi Yohanan holds like him, Rabbi Yohanan still faces a difficulty:

For

you can find

a case in which one nullifies the positive mitzva of pe'a, in a manner

that he eats

the

dough

without separating pe'a from it. At that point, there is nothing left to give to the poor person through which he could rectify the negative mitzva of “You shall not completely harvest the corner of your field when you reap.” Consequently, by eating it, he actively nullifies the possibility of fulfilling the positive mitzva and thereby rectifying the negative mitzva. If so, we have found another negative mitzva severed by a positive mitzva for which one receives lashes, contrary to Rabbi Yohanan!

By force of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its previous explanation and explains Rabbi Yohanan’s statement differently—

Rather,

the intent of Rabbi Yohanan, who said that we find only

“this and another case,”

is

this,

with regard to the mitzva of pe'a.

But

the positive mitzva concerning

a woman raped—

is not

considered “possible to nullify,” and therefore we find no circumstance in which one receives lashes for the negative mitzva, not even if he renders her forbidden to him by a vow made with the consent of many, so that he cannot take her back—

Where do we say that “a vow made

by vow

with the consent of many

cannot be dissolved”?

Only when the dissolution is

for a voluntary matter.

But for

the sake of

a mitzva—

it can be dissolved!

If so, in the case of a woman raped, since he is commanded throughout his life to “remain and take her back,” they can permit his vow.

And the proof is:

as in this case,

like the incident involving

that tutor of children,

a teacher of young children,

who was negligent,

for he would strike

the children

excessively.

Rav Aḥa imposed a vow upon him,

Rav Aḥa rendered him forbidden by a vow

with the consent of many,

so that he would not continue teaching children.

Nevertheless,

Ravina restored him,

returning him to his profession of teaching children by dissolving his vow, because

it was not found

that there was another tutor of children

who was as precise

in reviewing the discussions

as he was.

Thus, for the sake of a mitzva, even a vow made with the consent of many may be dissolved.

If so, we find no way to actively nullify the positive mitzva to take back the woman raped: even if he renders her forbidden to him by a vow made with the consent of many, his vow can be permitted, since he is commanded to take her back. Therefore, one does not receive lashes for the negative mitzva concerning a woman raped.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who eats unslaughtered carcasses, animals with a fatal defect, creeping things, and crawling creatures

and so on

.

Rav Yehuda said: One who eats a worm found in cabbage,

a worm found in cabbage—

we administer lashes to him on account of “

a creeping creature that creeps upon the ground.”

a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth.”

The Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda acted in this manner in practice as well—

A certain

man

who ate a worm found in cabbage, and Rav Yehuda had him lashed

and administered lashes to him

Rav Yehuda.

Abaye said:

One who

eats a tiny water-creature,

swallowing a water-creature whole—

receives lashes

for it

four

sets of lashes.

For four negative mitzvot are stated in the Torah concerning a water-creature—

Two negative mitzvot are written concerning the water-creature itself:

The first is in Leviticus [chapter 11]: “And whatever does not have fins and scales … is an abomination … from their flesh you shall not eat.”

The second is in Deuteronomy [chapter 14]: “And whatever does not have … you shall not eat; it is impure for you.”

The two additional negative mitzvot appear at the conclusion of the passage concerning the signs of purity [Leviticus, chapter 11], where two general negative mitzvot are stated concerning all creeping creatures:

The first: “Do not make your souls abominable with every creeping creature that creeps.”

The second: “And you shall not defile yourselves through them.”

One is liable for these prohibitions with regard to every type of creeping creature.

And if one swallows a living

ant,

even though it is not the measure of an olive-bulk, since it is an entire creature, one is liable for it regardless of its quantity, and

receives five sets of lashes.

Since it possesses the two general negative mitzvot stated concerning a creeping creature, as explained above,

and, in addition, for the three negative mitzvot specific to a land-creature [Leviticus 11:41, 42, 44]—

on account of “

a creeping creature that creeps upon the ground.”

And if one swallows a

hornet,

which is a creeping creature considered both a land-creature and a winged creeping creature—

he receives lashes

six.

He receives two sets of lashes for the two general negative mitzvot concerning creeping creatures, and an additional three sets of lashes for the three negative mitzvot specific to a land-creature.

And he receives one further set of lashes for the additional negative mitzva

on account of a winged creeping creature

[Deuteronomy 14]: “And every winged creeping creature—it is impure for you; they shall not be eaten.”

Rav Ashi said: One who restrains his bodily functions

violates “

Do not make yourselves abominable

with regard to your souls” [in the passage of Shemini, Leviticus, chapter 20].

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: One who drinks

that is, one who drinks

from the bloodletter’s horn,

the horn from which bloodletters suck, which is a repulsive utensil—

violates “

Do not make yourselves abominable.”

Rabba bar Rav Huna said: If one crushed nine ants,

thereby removing their status as whole creatures, and together they still did not amount to an olive-bulk,

and brought

another

one, alive, and completed them

with this tenth, intact ant,

to an olive-bulk,

and ate it together with them—

he receives six

sets of lashes:

Five

sets of lashes he receives on account of the five negative mitzvot concerning eating creeping creatures, for eating the one intact ant,

on account of its being a whole creature.

And one is flogged for eating all of them together, on account of an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass.

For at the moment he swallows it, the creeping creature dies and it too becomes an unslaughtered carcass; it then combines with the nine to form an olive-bulk.

Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

If the ants are large, and together with it they contain an olive-bulk,

even

if there are only

two, and it—

they combine

to form an olive-bulk.

Rav Yosef said: Even

if there was only

one, and it

and together they contain an olive-bulk, they combine.

And they do not disagree,

as Rabba and Rav Yosef did not disagree with Rabba bar Rav Huna.

Because

this—

the statement that it combines with one or two—refers to

large ones,

large ants.

Whereas

this—

Rabba bar Rav Huna’s statement, “ten ants”—refers to

small ones,

small ants.

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who ate untithed produce, and first tithe, etc.”

Rav said: If one ate untithed produce from which the poor tithe

had not been separated, although teruma and first tithe had been separated from it—

he is flogged.

Rav’s novel teaching concerning produce that is subject to the poor tithe is that although the poor tithe itself contains no sanctity—for it may be eaten by non-kohanim, and it may be eaten anywhere, even in a state of ritual impurity—nevertheless, if it was not separated from the produce, the produce is untithed, and one is flogged for eating it.

The Gemara explains Rav’s view:

In accordance with whom,

does Rav hold that the poor tithe renders the produce forbidden to eat before its separation?—

In accordance with this tanna:

As it was taught in a beraita, Rabbi Yosei said: One might have thought that one is liable to punishment

for eating untithed produce

only

for

produce from which

teruma and tithes had not been raised

at all.

But if

teruma gedola was raised from it, but first tithe was not raised from it,

or if

first tithe was raised from it, but

the following was not raised from it:

second tithe —

And even if

teruma and first tithe were raised from it, but the following was not raised from it:

the poor tithe—

From where

do we know that it still retains the status of untithed produce, and that one is flogged for eating it?

The verse states [Deuteronomy 12:17–18]: “

You may not eat within your gates

the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil; but you shall eat it before the Lord your God.”

The straightforward meaning of the verse concerns second tithe, which must be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, for first tithe and the poor tithe need not be eaten specifically in Jerusalem.

Rather, the Sages learned by means of a gezera shava from the word “within your gates” that this verse refers to the poor tithe.

And below [Deuteronomy 26:12]

it says: “When you have finished tithing all the tithes of your produce in the third year, and you have given

the first tithe to the Levite, and you shall give the poor tithe to the stranger, the orphan, and the widow,

and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied.

Just as there,

where it says, “and they shall eat within your gates,” it refers to

the poor tithe.

So too here,

where it is written, “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain,” it refers to

the poor tithe.

And the Merciful One said, “

You may not

eat within your gates”! But it is impossible to say that the verse prohibited eating the poor tithe within all one’s gates. Necessarily, the intention of the verse concerns produce subject to the poor tithe: As long as one has not removed the poor tithe from it—“you may not eat”!

Rav Yosef said: This law—whether the poor man’s tithe renders produce forbidden until it is separated—is

You may not

eat within your gates”! But it is impossible to say that Scripture prohibited eating the tithe for the poor in all your gates. Necessarily, the intention of the verse concerns untithed produce subject to the tithe for the poor, to say that as long as one has not removed the tithe for the poor from it—“you may not eat” it!

Rav Yosef said:

This law—whether the poor tithe renders produce forbidden to eat before its separation—is

a dispute between tanna’im,

as it is a dispute between tanna’im.

For we learned in tractate Demai [4:3]:

The Sages decreed that the produce of an am ha’aretz be prohibited as demai—that is, the prohibition of untithed produce, due to uncertainty, lest the amei ha’aretz had not tithed it. Therefore, the Sages required that tithes be separated from it [but not teruma, for they were not suspected with regard to it; rather, it was certain to us that they separated it].

And this is what a ḥaver does when he purchases produce from amei ha’aretz:

With regard to first tithe, he designates it by name as tithe in the northern or southern part of the heap, separates the teruma of the tithe from it, and eats the first tithe himself. For first tithe is permitted to non-kohanim and contains only the mitzva of giving it to a Levite; in a case of uncertainty, he need not give it, because the burden of proof rests upon the claimant.

With regard to second tithe, he separates it and eats it in Jerusalem.

But with regard to the poor tithe, the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagree as to whether it must be separated at all:

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is not necessary

for one who purchases produce from an am ha’aretz

even to designate the poor tithe of demai by name.

But the Sages

disagree with him and

say: