Makkot 22a — the Talmud in English

5.

And he is flogged ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

because of kindling

on a Festival, for having kindled wood for cooking that was not for the needs of the Festival.

And from here Abaye raised an objection to Rava:

And if it is so,

if what you say is correct—that one who performs several labors intentionally on a Festival is flogged only once—why did the beraita say that he is flogged five times, when the fifth flogging is for kindling? After all,

he is not liable because of kindling, for he has already become liable

already

because of his cooking,

for what he cooked on the Festival not for the needs of the day.

Rava said to him:

Remove,

[remove] from the five floggings for these prohibitions the flogging for the prohibition of

kindling

on a Festival, and do not teach it in the Mishna;

and insert,

and insert in its place, in the count of the five floggings, the flogging for the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. The case is one who cooks

the sciatic sinew of an unslaughtered animal carcass

on a Festival and eats it.

But Abaye raised an objection to him:

And Rabbi Hiyya taught

concerning that Mishna, in a beraita: These five floggings that were taught for this eating

he is flogged twice

of them

for his eating,

for eating the sciatic sinew and for eating meat with milk.

And three

of them he is flogged

for his cooking.

For cooking meat with milk, for cooking on a Festival, and for kindling on a Festival.

And if it is so

as you say, that the prohibition of kindling is removed and the prohibition of eating an unslaughtered animal carcass is added in its place, it follows that

three

floggings

he is liable for his eating,

and not two floggings for his eating, as Rabbi Hiyya said, and two floggings for his cooking, and not three, as Rabbi Hiyya said!

Rava said to him another answer:

Rather, remove

from the five prohibitions the labor of

kindling, and insert

in its place the prohibition of using

Asherah wood.

And we shall establish it as a case in which he cooks with Asherah wood [pieces of wood from a tree that was worshipped as idolatry], which is forbidden to benefit from.

And its warning

for the prohibition of benefiting from idolatry is

from here:

as it is written,

“And nothing of the proscribed thing shall cleave to your hand

” [Deuteronomy 13:18].

Rav Aha, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:

If the Mishna is speaking of one who kindles Asherah wood, it is difficult:

And let him also be flogged because of “Nor shall you bring an abomination into your house,” [Deuteronomy 7:26] and why did the Mishna say that he is flogged only five times? Surely he violated six prohibitions.

[Deuteronomy 7:26]. Why, then, did the Mishna say that he is flogged only five times? He violated six prohibitions.

Rather, here, with what are we dealing?

That he did not kindle with Asherah wood, but

for example, he cooked with consecrated wood.

And the fifth prohibition is because he burns consecrated wood.

And its warning

for one who burns consecrated wood is

from here:

as it is written [Deuteronomy 12:3],

“And you shall burn their Asherahs with fire; you shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

From here it follows that it is forbidden to destroy wood consecrated to the Lord your God.

We learned in the Mishna: There is a case in which one plows a single furrow and is liable for eight prohibitions for which there are floggings.

Mnemonic: SHIN-NUN-BET-ALEF-YOD, SHIN-ZAYIN:

Rav Hoshaya raises an objection to him: And let him also count

additional floggings in our Mishna, in a case in which he sowed while plowing on the bank of a perennial stream in which a beheaded heifer had been performed, for then he violates an additional prohibition, that of

one who sows in a perennial stream,

which one is forbidden to sow.

And its warning

for the prohibition against sowing in a perennial stream is

from here:

as it is written concerning the beheaded heifer, which is beheaded in a perennial stream,

“Which shall neither be tilled nor sown” [Deuteronomy 21:4].

[Deuteronomy 21:4].

Rav Hanania raises an objection to him: And let him also count

additional floggings in our Mishna, for he is also liable because of

one who erases the Name, while walking

with the plow.

And its warning

for the prohibition against erasing the Name is

from here:

as it is written [Deuteronomy 12:3],

“And you shall destroy their names, etc.; you shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

From here it follows that it is forbidden to erase the Name of the Lord your God.

Rav Abbahu raises an objection to him: And let him also count,

the Mishna could have established that he is flogged for an additional prohibition in plowing, for he is also liable for

one who cuts off his affliction

with the plow at the time of plowing.

And its warning

for the prohibition against cutting off the affliction is

from here:

as it is written [Deuteronomy 24:8],

“Take heed concerning the plague of leprosy,”

and from here they learn in tractate Shabbat [133a] that it is forbidden to cut off the affliction.

Abaye raises an objection to him: And let him also count

additional floggings, for he was a High Priest and was wearing the breastplate without wearing the ephod, and he is flogged because of

one who displaces

the

breastplate from upon the ephod,

at the time of his plowing.

And

also

one who removes

the

poles of the Ark,

in order to plow with them, and violates and is flogged for an additional prohibition, at every moment.

And its warning

is

from here:

As it is written, “The poles shall be in the rings of the Ark;

they shall not be removed

from it” [Exodus 25:15].

And it is written,

“The breastplate shall not be displaced” [

Exodus 28:28].

Rav Ashi raises an objection to him: And let him also count

an additional prohibition, that of

one who plows with

plowing implements made from

Asherah wood,

for in this manner he violates an additional prohibition.

And its warning

for the prohibition of benefiting from idolatry is

from here:

as it is written,

“And nothing of the proscribed thing shall cleave to your hand,” etc.

[Deuteronomy 13:18].

Ravina raises an objection to him: And let him also count

an additional prohibition, that of

one who cuts down good trees

that produce fruit, while walking.

And its warning

for the prohibition against cutting down a fruit tree is

from here:

as it is written,

“For you may eat of it, but you shall not cut it down” [

Deuteronomy 20:19].

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Mani: And let him also count

an additional prohibition, in a case

such as when he said: “An oath that I shall not plow on a Festival!”

for then he also violates the prohibition of an oath.

Rabbi Mani said to him:

There,

in a case in which he swore that he would not plow on a Festival,

the

oath

does not take effect,

because he is

already sworn

already

and standing from Mount Sinai

not to plow on a Festival. And an oath does not take effect upon an oath!

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: Let us establish the case

such as when he said, “An oath that I shall not plow, neither on a weekday nor on a Festival,”

for since he includes in his oath a time when plowing is permitted together with a time when plowing is forbidden, the oath takes effect upon everything that he included in his oath. Because

since [

from the fact that]

it takes effect upon him [

upon him]

an oath

with regard to plowing

on a weekday, it also takes effect upon him

with regard to plowing

on a Festival.

Rabbi Mani said to him: An oath is

something that is subject to annulment [

a prohibited matter concerning which one can be asked, and thereby nullify it], for a sage uproots the vow from its very beginning, and it turns out that there is no prohibition here at all. And something that is subject to annulment

is not taught [

such a prohibition our Mishna does not teach].

And we raise a difficulty:

Is that so?!

Does the Mishna not bring a prohibition concerning which one can be asked!?

But surely

the Mishna brought the prohibition of

consecration,

and according to Beit Hillel [in tractate Temura], it is possible to be asked concerning consecrations!?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of

the sanctity of a

firstborn,

which is holy because it is a firstborn, and it is impossible to be asked concerning it, since it is holy of itself.

And we raise a difficulty:

But surely

the Mishna brought the prohibition of

a nazirite,

concerning which it is possible to be asked!?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of a nazirite

like

Samson,

who became so through an angel, and it is impossible to be asked concerning it, since it was a command from Above.

And we raise a difficulty: How can the Mishna be established as referring to a nazirite like Samson? After all,

a nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure through the dead [

he is permitted to become impure through the dead], as it is written in tractate Nazir [4b] that Samson was permitted to become impure through the dead, whereas our Mishna also brought the prohibition of impurity through the dead.

And we answer:

Rather,

actually, the Mishna is also speaking of a prohibition concerning which one can be asked,

and the reason that the Mishna did not establish the case as one who swore that he would not plow on a weekday and on a Festival is that

this tanna does not hold of an “inclusive prohibition.”

The tanna in our Mishna maintains that even if one includes in an oath something that is permitted, the oath does not take effect, since an oath cannot take effect upon something that already has a prohibition from the Torah, even if it is an oath in the form of an inclusive prohibition also concerning something permitted.

Rabbi Hoshaya said: One who mates an ox of disqualified consecrated animals

after it was redeemed, even if he mated it with its own species,

is flogged

because of diverse kinds, since he mates an unconsecrated animal with consecrated property. For although they redeemed the ox, it still possesses the status of consecrated property, and the Torah regarded an ox of disqualified consecrated animals as

two,

as two separate bodies, so that this ox after its redemption possesses both the status of unconsecrated property and the status of consecrated property.

It possesses the status of unconsecrated property, for it may be eaten outside the entrance of the Tent of Meeting as though it had never been consecrated.

And it possesses the status of consecrated property, for it is forbidden for shearing and labor. And this is learned in the Sifre from the verse, “According to all the desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat” [Deuteronomy 12]: “You may slaughter”—but not shearing; the verse teaches that it is forbidden for shearing and labor.

Therefore it is forbidden to mate it even with its own species because of diverse kinds, since he mates unconsecrated property with consecrated property, or conversely, consecrated property with unconsecrated property, because the verse made it like two separate bodies.

Rabbi Yitzhak said: One who leads an ox of disqualified consecrated animals,

even if he leads it by itself,

is flogged

because of diverse kinds,

for it is indeed one body, and the verse made it like two bodies,

since it contains both unconsecrated property and consecrated property. Therefore he is liable because of the prohibition, “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” [Deuteronomy 22:10].

Mishna:

1.

How many

is the number of lashes that

they flog him

when he is liable to lashes from the Torah?

Forty

lashes

less one.

That is, thirty-nine lashes.

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 25:2] “

And the judge shall cast him down and flog him before him according to his wickedness

by number.”

And adjacent to it is

“Forty

shall he strike him”,

And they expound as though it is written, “by the number forty”,

and since it is not written, “he shall strike him forty by number,” but rather, “by the number forty,” they learn from this that the intention of the verse is a

count that is

adjacent to

summing the

forty.

That is, a number that completes a sum of forty, causing the number after it to be forty—and that is thirty-nine—for if one counted thirty-nine, he must now count forty.

Rabbi Judah says: Forty

lashes

complete ones he receives.

And since the order of the lashes is performed in groups of three lashes, two from behind him on his two shoulders and one from in front of him, as follows, it follows that according to Rabbi Judah, the fortieth blow is an “extra” blow, for if one divides the forty lashes into groups of three each, one extra blow remains, which does not have a group of three blows.

And where does he receive the

fortieth blow,

the extra one? —

Between

the two

shoulders.

b. When a person becomes liable for lashes, he must be assessed by a doctor as to how many lashes he is capable of receiving, so that he will not die because of the blows, since it is written, “he shall not add”; by inference, if one must subtract, one subtracts.

But since the form of the lashes is in groups of three each, therefore

he is assessed only with blows

that are

fit to be divided into threes.

For example, if they assessed him as capable of receiving twenty lashes, he is given only eighteen lashes, which is a number divisible into groups of three.

c. If

the doctors assessed him

at first as capable of

receiving forty

lashes less one,

and

he began

receiving part of

the lashes,