Makkot 22a (כב.) — the Talmud in English

5.

And he is flogged

because of kindling

on a Festival, for having kindled wood for cooking that was not needed for 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 intentionally performs several labors 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, since he has already become liable

previously

because of his cooking,

for cooking on a Festival when it was not needed for that 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

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

the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal

on a Festival and eats it.

But Abaye raised another difficulty for him:

And Rabbi Hiyya taught

with regard to that Mishna, in a beraita: Of these five floggings that were taught with regard to this act of eating,

he is flogged twice

for two of them

for his eating,

for eating the sciatic nerve and for eating meat and milk.

And three

of them he is flogged for

his cooking.

For cooking meat and 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 is added in its place—then 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, rather than three as Rabbi Hiyya said!

Rava gave him another answer:

Rather, remove

from the five prohibitions the labor of

kindling, and insert

in its place the prohibition against using

Asheira wood.

And we establish the case as one who cooks with Asheira wood [pieces of wood from a tree worshipped as an object of idolatry], which is prohibited for benefit.

And its warning

for the prohibition against benefiting from idolatry is

from here:

as it is written:

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

[Deuteronomy 13:18].

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

If the Mishna is speaking of one who kindles Asheira wood, this 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.

Rather, with what are we dealing here?

Not with one who kindled Asheira wood, but

with a case where he cooked with consecrated wood.

And the fifth prohibition is due to his burning 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 Asherim with fire; you shall not do so to the Lord your God.”

This teaches that it is prohibited 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 that entail floggings.

A mnemonic: ShNBaY ShNZa:

Rav Hoshaia challenged: And let us also count

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

one who sows in a ravine,

which one is prohibited from sowing.

And its warning

for the prohibition against sowing in the ravine is

from here:

as it is written concerning the heifer whose neck is broken, which is performed in a ravine:

“That may neither be worked nor sown” [Deuteronomy 21:4].

[Deuteronomy 21:4].

Rav Ḥananya challenged: And let us also count

additional floggings in our Mishna, as he is also liable for

erasing the Name, through his passing

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.”

This teaches that it is prohibited to erase the Name of the Lord your God.

Rav Abahu challenged: And let us also count,

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

one who cuts off his leprous mark

with the plow during the act of plowing.

And its warning

for the prohibition against cutting off the leprous mark 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 prohibited to cut off the leprosy.

Abaye challenged: And let us also count

additional floggings, in a case where he was the High Priest and wore the breastplate without wearing the ephod, and is flogged for

one who displaces

the

breastplate from the ephod,

during his plowing.

And

likewise

one who removes

the

rods of the Ark,

in order to plow with them, violates an additional prohibition and is flogged each and every time.

And its warning

is

from here:

as it is written: “The rods shall be in the rings of the Ark;”

“They shall not be removed”

from it” [Exodus 25:15].

And it is written:

“And the breastplate shall not be displaced” [

Exodus 28:28]

Rav Ashi challenged: And let us also count

an additional prohibition, that of

one who plows with

plowing implements made from

Asheira wood,

in which case he violates an additional prohibition.

And its warning

for the prohibition against benefiting from idolatry is

from here:

as it is written:

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

Deuteronomy 13:18].

Ravina challenged: And let us also count

an additional prohibition, that of

one who cuts down good fruit trees

as he passes.

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 us also count

an additional prohibition, in a case

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

in which case he also violates the prohibition of an oath.

Rabbi Mani said to him:

There,

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

the

oath

does not take effect,

because he is

already sworn

and

bound from Sinai

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

He said to him,

Rabbi Zeira: Let us establish the case

such as where he said: “An oath that I will not plow, neither on a weekday nor on a Festival,”

in which case, since his oath includes a time when plowing is permitted together with a time when plowing is prohibited, the oath takes effect with regard to everything included in his oath. This is because

since

[through]

the oath takes effect upon him

[upon him]

with regard to an oath

concerning 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 seek a ruling and thereby nullify it], since a Sage uproots the vow from its outset, with the result that there is no prohibition here at all. And something that is subject to annulment,

it does not teach

[our Mishna does not state such a prohibition].

And we challenge this:

Is that so?!

Does the Mishna not include a prohibition that is subject to annulment!?

But

the Mishna included the prohibition of

consecrated property,

and according to Beit Hillel [in tractate Temura], it is possible to seek annulment of consecrations!?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of

the sanctity of

a firstborn animal,

which is sacred because it is a firstborn, and it is impossible to seek annulment of it, since its sanctity arises on its own.

And we challenge this:

But

the Mishna included the prohibition of

a nazirite,

with regard to which it is possible to seek annulment!?

And we answer: The Mishna is speaking

of a nazirite

like

Samson,

whose naziriteship was imposed by an angel, and it is impossible to seek annulment of it, since it was commanded from Above.

And we challenge this: How can the Mishna be established as referring to a Samson nazirite? After all,

a Samson nazirite is permitted to become impure through contact with the dead

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

And we answer:

Rather,

indeed, the Mishna is also speaking of a prohibition that is subject to annulment.

And the reason that the Mishna did not establish the case as one who swore not to plow either on a weekday or on a Festival is that

this tanna does not accept the principle of a “comprehensive prohibition.”

The tanna of our Mishna maintains that even when an oath includes something permitted, the oath does not take effect, since an oath cannot take effect with regard to something that is already subject to a prohibition by Torah law—even when the oath is formulated as a comprehensive prohibition that also includes something permitted.

Rabbi Hoshaia said: One who breeds an ox of disqualified consecrated animals

after it has been redeemed, even if he breeds it with an animal of its own species,

is flogged

for diverse kinds, because he breeds a non-sacred animal with a consecrated animal. For although the ox was redeemed, it still retains the status of consecrated property, and the Torah considered an ox of disqualified consecrated animals to be

two,

as two distinct bodies, so that after its redemption this ox has both the status of non-sacred property and the status of consecrated property.

It has the status of non-sacred property, since it may be eaten outside the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, as though it had never been consecrated.

And it has the status of consecrated property, since it is prohibited to shear it or perform labor with it. This is learned in the Sifrei from the verse “According to all the desire of your soul you may slaughter and eat meat” [Deuteronomy 12]: “‘You may slaughter’—but not shear.” The verse teaches that it is prohibited to shear it or perform labor with it.

Therefore it is prohibited to breed it even with an animal of its own species because of diverse kinds, since one breeds a non-sacred animal with consecrated property, or conversely, a consecrated animal with a non-sacred animal, because Scripture made it like two distinct bodies.

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

even if he leads it by itself,

is flogged

because of diverse kinds,

for although it is one body, Scripture made it like two bodies,

since it contains both non-sacred and consecrated aspects. Therefore he is liable for the prohibition “You shall not plow with an ox and a donkey together” [Deuteronomy 22:10].

Mishna:

1.

How many

lashes are

administered to him

when he is liable for lashes by Torah law?

Forty

lashes

lacking one.

That is, thirty-nine lashes.

As it is stated [

Deuteronomy 25:2] “

And the judge shall have him lie down and strike him before him according to his wickedness,

by number.”

And adjacent to it is

“Forty

shall he strike him”,

and expound it as though it were written: “with a number forty,”

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

number that

is adjacent to [

sums the ]

forty.

That is, a number that completes a total of forty, causing the number after it to be forty; namely, thirty-nine, since when one counts thirty-nine, one must now count forty.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty

lashes

complete he receives.

And since the lashes are administered in sets of three lashes—two from behind him, on his two shoulders, and one in front of him, as explained below—it follows that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the fortieth blow is an “extra” blow. For if one divides the forty lashes into sets of three, one extra blow remains, which does not belong to a set of three lashes.

And where does he receive the

fortieth blow,

the extra one? —

Between

his two

shoulders.

b. When a person becomes liable to lashes, he must be assessed by a physician as to how many lashes he is capable of receiving, so that he will not die as a result of the blows, as it is written, “he shall not add”; this implies that if it is necessary to reduce the number, it is reduced.

But since the lashes are administered in sets of three,

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 sets of three.

c. If the doctors initially

assessed him

as capable of

receiving forty

lashes less one,

and

he began

receiving part

of the lashes,