Makkot 16b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

there—

at the time when he nullified the positive commandment by burning the pledge—

the man—

is he not liable to make payment!

And then he is not liable for lashes for his actions, because at that time he can still rectify his actions by making payment to the convert.

And the fact that ultimately he does not pay is because afterward, upon the death of the convert—

the convert’s lien,

his debt toward the convert,

is what becomes void

on its own. But the lender who took the pledge did not at that time actively nullify the possibility of rectification. Therefore he is exempt from lashes.

c. Peah

And we raise another difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan:

But there is

another prohibition severed to a positive commandment, in which lashes are possible, concerning the commandments of

peah, for the Merciful One said [Leviticus 23]: “

[Leviticus 23]: “

You shall not finish off the corner of your field

when you reap.” And Scripture severs this prohibition to the positive commandment—“

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

That is, if he finished reaping the entire field and did not leave in it a field-corner for the poor, with standing grain that had not been reaped—he shall leave part of the harvest for the poor, and thereby rectify the prohibition.

And you find it

both

in “

he fulfilled it and did not fulfill it,”

if he did not leave peah for the poor at the time of reaping, and both

in “

he nullified it and did not nullify it,”

for example, if he ground the grain, because after the grain changed and became flour, he is no longer obligated in the commandment of peah—

as it was taught

in tractate Bava Kamma (94a), in the discussion of “change acquires”:

The commandment of peah

ideally

is to separate it from the standing grain,

so that he leaves at the edge of his field standing grain that has not been reaped for the commandment of peah.

And if

he did not separate it from the standing grain—

he separates it from the sheaves

that were reaped and bound into bundles.

And if

he did not separate it from the sheaves—

he separates it from the pile [A0044]the pile of grain

[the pile of grain]

before he smooths it [A0046]smooths it and completes the processing of the pile.

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

And until then he can separate peah, and it will be exempt from tithe, since as long as the processing of smoothing the pile has not been completed, the status of tevel has not yet applied to the grain.

But if he has already

smoothed

the pile, so that the pile became liable for tithe through the completion of its processing—then he

tithes

the pile

, and

only afterward

gives it

to the poor as the portion of peah.

This is so that the poor person will not have to separate tithe from the peah [which became tevel when the processing was completed, through the smoothing of the pile], and the poor person will not lose from his portion of peah.

For after all, gleanings and peah are exempt from tithe, and the poor can acquire them and eat them without tithing from them. But when the owner of the field did not separate peah immediately as required, but waited with its separation until after the smoothing, and caused the grain to become liable for tithe, he must rectify it so that the poor person will not have to separate tithe from his portion.

And it follows from this Mishna that the commandment of giving peah applies only until the stage at which the work in the field is completed.

But if afterward the owner of the grain continued and ground the grain, and the grain changed and became flour, he is exempt from the commandment of peah; it follows that by his grinding he actively nullifies the positive commandment.

And if so, we find that one receives lashes for another prohibition severed to a positive commandment, for one receives lashes when he actively nullifies the possibility of rectifying the positive commandment, and this is difficult for Rabbi Yoḥanan.

And we answer: Rabbi Yoḥanan held

in accordance with Rabbi Yishmael, who said:

he does not become exempt from the commandment of peah by grinding the grain,

and

according to his words,

he even separates

peah

from the dough, and gives it to him!

But we still raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Yishmael as well,

even if Rabbi Yoḥanan holds like him, Rabbi Yoḥanan is still difficult:

For

you find it

possible to nullify the positive commandment of peah, in a manner

that he ate

the

dough

without separating peah from it, for then there is already nothing at all to give to the poor person so that he could thereby rectify the prohibition “You shall not finish off the corner of your field when you reap.” It follows that through his eating he actively nullifies the possibility of fulfilling the positive commandment and rectifying the prohibition. And if so, we find another prohibition severed to a positive commandment for which one must receive lashes, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan!

And because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts and explains Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words differently—

Rather,

the intention of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said that we find only “

this, and another,”

is

this,

with regard to the commandment of peah.

But

the positive commandment of

the violated woman—

is not

considered “possible to nullify,” and therefore we do not find any manner in which one receives lashes for the prohibition, not even when he prohibited her to himself by a vow on the condition of the consent of the many, so that he would not return her to him—

Where do we say “a vow

by vow

on the condition of the consent of the many”

has no annulment?—

Only with regard to annulment

for a voluntary matter.

But for

the sake of

a mitzva matter—

it does have annulment!

And if so, in the case of the violated woman, since all his days he is commanded, “Remain and return her,” they can permit his vow.

And the proof is:

like this,

like the incident

of that teacher of children

a teacher of young children,

who was acting improperly,

for he was striking

the children,

the young children, excessively.

Rav Aḥa prohibited him by a vow,

Rav Aḥa prohibited him

on the condition of the consent of the many,

so that he would not continue teaching young children.

And nevertheless

Ravina returned him,

he returned him to his profession of teaching young children, by permitting his prohibition, because

it was not found

that there was another teacher of young children

who was precise

in reviewing the discussions

like him.

Thus, for the sake of a mitzva, they permit even a vow made on the condition of the consent of the many.

And if so, we do not find a way for the active nullification of the positive commandment to return his violated wife, for even if he prohibits her by a vow on the condition of the consent of the many, there is permission for his vow, since he is commanded to return her. Therefore one does not receive lashes for the prohibition concerning the violated woman.

We learned in the Mishna:

And one who eats carcasses, animals with torn limbs, creeping things, and crawling things

and so on

.

Rav Yehuda said: One who eats a cabbage worm,

a worm found in cabbage—

we administer lashes to him because of “

a creeping thing that swarms upon the earth.”

a creeping creature that swarms upon the earth.”

And the Gemara relates that Rav Yehuda also acted this way in practice—

A certain

man

who ate a cabbage worm, and Rav Yehuda administered lashes to him

and flogged him,

Rav Yehuda.

Abaye said:

One who

eats a water flea,

who swallowed a water-creeping thing in its entirety—

receives lashes

for it

four

sets of lashes.

For four prohibitions were stated in the Torah concerning a water-creeping thing—

Two prohibitions are written concerning the water-creeping thing itself:

The first, in the book of Leviticus [chapter 11]: “And everything that has no fins and scales … an abomination … from their flesh you shall not eat.”

And the second, in the book of Deuteronomy [chapter 14]: “And everything that has no … you shall not eat; it is impure for you.”

And the two additional prohibitions are at the conclusion of the section of the signs of purity [Leviticus chapter 11], where two general prohibitions were stated concerning all creeping things:

The first: “You shall not make your souls abominable through every creeping thing that creeps.”

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

And one is liable for them for all types of creeping things.

And if he swallowed

a living ant,

even though it does not contain an olive-bulk, since it is a complete creature, he is liable for it for any amount, and

receives five lashes.

Because it contains the two general prohibitions stated concerning a creeping thing, as explained above.

And in addition, for three prohibitions specific to a land-creeping thing [in Leviticus 11:41, 42, 44]—

because of “

a creeping thing that swarms upon the earth.”

And if he swallowed

a wasp,

which is a creeping thing considered both a land-creeping thing and a bird-creeping thing—

he receives

six [sets of lashes].

He receives two for the two general prohibitions concerning creeping things, and he receives another three sets of lashes for the three prohibitions specific to a land-creeping thing.

And he receives one additional set of lashes for the additional prohibition

because of a bird-creeping thing [Deuteronomy 14]: “And every bird-creeping thing—it is impure for you; they shall not be eaten.”

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

Rav Ashi said: One who holds in his orifices

violates because of “

You shall not make abominable

your souls” [in the section of Shemini, Leviticus chapter 20].

Rav Bibi bar Abaye said: One who drinks,

one who drinks

from the horn of the bloodletter,

the horn through which bloodletters suck, and it is a repulsive utensil—

violates because of “

You shall not make abominable.”

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

and thereby removed from them the status of a creature, and all of them together also did not contain an olive-bulk,

and he brought

another

one, alive, and completed them

this tenth one, the complete one,

to an olive-bulk,

and ate it together with them—

he receives six

sets of lashes:

Five

he receives because of the five prohibitions of eating creeping things, for eating the one complete creature,

because it is a creature.

And for one [of them] he receives lashes for eating all of them together, on account of an olive-sized portion of carrion.

For at the time of his swallowing it, the creeping thing dies and it too becomes carrion; and then it combines with the nine to make an olive-sized portion.

Rabba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

if the ants are large, and together with it there is an olive-sized portion,

even

they are only

two and it—

combine

to make an olive-sized portion.

Rav Yosef said: even

there was only

one and it

and together they contain an olive-sized portion, they combine.

And they do not disagree,

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

For

this,

what they said, that it combines with one or two, refers to

large ones,

large ants.

Whereas

this,

which Rabba bar Rav Huna said, “ten ants,” refers to

small ones,

small ants.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If one ate untithed produce and first tithe, and so forth.”

Rav said: If one ate untithed produce whose [obligation is] first tithe for the poor,

from which teruma and first tithe had been separated, but from which the tithe for the poor had not been separated—

he receives lashes.

Rav’s novelty concerning untithed produce subject to the tithe for the poor is that although the tithe for the poor itself contains no sanctity whatsoever—for it may be eaten by non-kohanim, and it is eaten in every place, even in a state of ritual impurity—nevertheless, if one did not separate it from the grain, it is untithed produce, and one receives lashes for eating it.

The Gemara explains Rav’s position:

According to whom,

like whom does Rav hold that the tithe for the poor renders the produce tevel?—

According to this tanna:

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei said: Could it be that one should not be liable

for punishment for eating untithed produce

except

only

for untithed produce from which there had not been lifted

teruma and tithes

at all?

But if

the great teruma had been lifted from it, but first tithe had not been lifted from it,

or if

first tithe had been lifted from it, but

had not been lifted from it

second tithe —

And even

teruma and first tithe had been lifted from it, but there had not been lifted from it

the tithe for the poor—

From where

[do we know] that the designation tevel still applies to it, and that one receives lashes for eating it?

The verse says [דברים יב, יז - יח]Deuteronomy 12:17–18: “

You may not eat within your gates

You may not eat within your gates

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

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

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

And below [דברים כו יב]Deuteronomy 26:12

the first tithe to the Levite, and the poor man’s tithe you shall give to the convert, the orphan, and the widow,”

it says: “

When you finish tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year, you shall give [the first tithe] to the Levite. [And the tithe for the poor you shall give] 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 tithe for the poor.

So too here,

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

the tithe for the poor.

And the Merciful One said, “

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 tithe for the poor renders the produce tevel—is

[the subject of] a dispute between tannaim,

it is a dispute between tannaim.

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

The Sages decreed concerning the produce of an am ha-aretz that it should be prohibited with the prohibition of “demai,” that is, the prohibition of untithed produce, because of doubt, lest the ammei ha-aretz did not tithe it. Therefore the Sages obligated one to separate tithes from it [but not teruma, for concerning it they were not suspected; rather, it is certain to us that they separate it].

And this is what a haver does when purchasing produce from ammei ha-aretz:

For first tithe, he designates it as tithe in the northern or southern part of the pile, and separates from it the teruma of the tithe, and eats the first tithe himself. For first tithe is permitted to non-kohanim, and it contains only the mitzva of giving it to the Levite; and because of the doubt, he need not give it, for the burden of proof rests upon the one who seeks to extract from another.

Second tithe—he separates it, and eats it in Jerusalem.

But concerning the tithe for the poor, the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed 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 tithe for the poor of demai.

And the Sages

disagree with him and

say: