Makkot 22b (כב:) — the Talmud in English

And

then

the physicians assessed him

and determined

that he cannot withstand forty lashes, he is exempt.

That is, we do not say that he should be flogged after some time, when he recovers, with the remaining lashes. Since he has already received part of the lashes and been humiliated, this is considered as though he had received the full liability of lashes. But if he has not yet received any of the lashes, and the assessment changed before he was flogged, he is not exempt from part of the lashes on the basis of the first assessment; rather, he is flogged with all of them later, when he recovers.

The reverse is also true: if

the physicians assessed him

at first as being capable

of withstanding

only

eighteen

lashes,

and after he received

all eighteen lashes [and left the court], the physicians reassessed him and

assessed

him

as capable of withstanding

all

forty

lashes less one, he is

exempt,

because, since he has already been flogged, this is considered as though he had received the entire liability of lashes. [

But if he has not yet been flogged, the court may add to the first assessment if, upon reassessing him, they determine that he can withstand more lashes ].

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that he receives forty lashes less one.

The Gemara asks:

What is the reason

that we do not learn from the verse that he receives a full forty lashes, as it is written: “Forty shall he strike him”?

And it answers:

If

it had

been written, “forty by number,”

then

it would have been understood

that he receives

forty in the count

[forty by number], as stated in the verse.

But

now that it is written

in the reverse order,

“by number forty,”

we learn from this that he receives only

a number that totals forty.

Rava said: How foolish are

the other people

[most people]

who stand

[who rise to their full height]

before

[in the presence of]

a Torah scroll

to honor it,

but do not stand

[and do not rise]

before a great man

[before a great Torah scholar] to honor him.

For a person who studies Torah is more important than the Torah itself.

The proof is:

For had it been written in the Torah scroll

the number of

“forty”

lashes,

and the Sages came

[and the Sages came]

and reduced one

[they reduced one lash from the count of forty, thereby altering the plain meaning of the verse].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty

lashes

complete

are administered to him.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda

who maintains that he receives forty lashes?

It is because

it is written

[Zechariah 13:6]:

“What are these blows

between your arms,”

[at the place where they join, that is, between your shoulders, where transgressors are flogged]?

And he will say: Those with which I was struck in the house of my lovers.”

This indicates that there is one additional blow between the shoulders, beyond the thirty-nine lashes divided into sets of three [namely, two blows, one on each shoulder, and one blow in front].

And the Rabbis

why did they not learn from there that there is one additional blow between the shoulders?

Because they maintain that

that verse was written with regard to schoolchildren,

and not with regard to lashes administered by the court.

We learned in the Mishna:

They assess him only with regard to lashes that are fit, etc. If the physicians assessed him

at first as being capable

of withstanding forty

lashes less one, he began

to receive part

of the lashes,

and

afterward the physicians

assessed

him

as unable to withstand forty lashes, he is exempt.

And the reverse is also true: if

the physicians assessed him

at first as being capable

of withstanding

only

eighteen

lashes,

and after he received

all eighteen lashes, the physicians reassessed him and

assessed

him

as capable of withstanding

all the

forty

lashes, the law is that he is

exempt.

It is precise from the Mishna that specifically if he

received

part of the lashes,

yes,

then he is exempt from receiving all forty, since he has already received some of the lashes and been humiliated. But if they made a second assessment before he began to be flogged, and he

has not received any lashes

yet,

he is not

exempt.

And we raise an objection:

But it was contradicted,

for a different beraita teaches a contradiction to this: If

the physicians assessed him

as being capable

of withstanding

all the

forty lashes, and they reassessed him

even before he began to receive lashes,

as unable to withstand

all the

forty lashes, he is exempt.

And the reverse is also true: if

the physicians assessed him

as being capable

of withstanding

only

eighteen

lashes,

and they reassessed him

even before he began to receive lashes,

as capable of withstanding

all the

forty lashes, he is exempt

from receiving all forty, since he had already been assessed at the lower amount, and it is sufficient for him to receive that lower amount.

It is demonstrated from the beraita that there is no difference whether the second assessment was made before he began to be flogged or after he began to be flogged. Rather, one always follows the first assessment, and if he cannot withstand it, he is exempt. This is difficult for our Mishna, from which it is precise that it distinguishes between these cases and maintains that if he was reassessed before he began to be flogged, he is not exempt, and the second assessment takes effect.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna.

This

the Mishna is speaking of a case

where they assessed him on the same day,

that is, they made a second assessment of him on that same day.

Since it is not plausible that his body weakened or recovered within so short a time, it is evident that the first assessment was erroneous.

Therefore, the Mishna states that if they first assessed him as capable of withstanding all the lashes, and afterward, on that same day, assessed him as unable to withstand all the lashes, then if he has already received part of the lashes, he is released, because he has already been humiliated. But if he has not been flogged, he is considered as though he had not been assessed at all in the first assessment, but only in the second. Since in the second assessment they determined that he is currently unable to withstand lashes, they wait until he recovers and make a new assessment.

And the reverse is also true: if they first assessed him as unable to withstand more than eighteen lashes, and on that same day they reassessed him as capable of withstanding all the lashes, it becomes clear that they erred in the first assessment. Therefore, if he has already received all eighteen lashes specified in the first assessment and left the court, they release him and do not return him to court, since returning him would constitute a humiliation of the court. But if he has not yet completed the lashes, the court may add to the first assessment.

This

the beraita is speaking of a case

where they assessed him the next day

or

on another day

[that is, they made a second assessment on the following day or on another day],

for in such a case the first assessment remains a genuine assessment. We say that at the time of the first assessment he was capable of withstanding the number of lashes specified then, whereas now [on the day after the first assessment or several days later], at the time of the second assessment, his physical condition has changed.

Accordingly, the beraita states that if they first assessed him as capable of withstanding all the lashes, and afterward, on another day, assessed him as unable to withstand all the lashes, we say that the first assessment was a genuine assessment, but afterward his physical condition changed and weakened, and he is no longer capable of withstanding all the lashes that he had previously been able to withstand. Therefore, he is exempt from receiving all the lashes. Even though he has not received any lashes at all, they do not wait with him until he recovers and becomes capable of withstanding all the lashes, since he was already humiliated by that assessment.

And the reverse is also true: if they first assessed him as unable to withstand more than eighteen lashes, and afterward, when they assessed him on another day, the second assessment determined that he was capable of withstanding all the lashes, the law is that he receives only the amount stated in the first assessment, since the first assessment was a genuine assessment.

Mishna:

If one committed a transgression carrying two prohibitions,

such as plowing with an ox and a donkey together, or sowing diverse kinds in a vineyard, for which he must receive two sets of lashes, and

they made one assessment

for both prohibitions, determining that altogether he could withstand at least forty-two lashes, he

is flogged,

and those lashes count for both prohibitions,

and he is exempt

from receiving additional lashes for the second prohibition. This is so even if, on account of the second prohibition, he received only three lashes in addition to the thirty-nine lashes he received for the first prohibition.

All this applies specifically when they initially assessed him for lashes on account of both prohibitions.

But if not,

if they initially assessed him only for one prohibition, he

is flogged

for the first prohibition,

and

they wait until he

recovers, and

then he

is flogged again

for the second prohibition.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If they made one assessment for both prohibitions, he is flogged and exempt, and the lashes count for both prohibitions, even if they assessed him as capable of withstanding less than the full amount required for two sets of lashes.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita

, “One does not make a single assessment for two prohibitions!”

A single assessment does not count for both prohibitions. Rather, he is flogged for one prohibition, and they wait until he recovers; only then do they administer lashes for the second prohibition.

If so, there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita. For the Mishna states that one assessment counts for both prohibitions, and it is unnecessary to wait until he recovers in order to administer lashes for the second prohibition.

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna.

This

the beraita is speaking of a case

where they assessed him

in one assessment as capable

of

withstanding at most

forty-one

lashes. In such a case, he receives only thirty-nine lashes, since one administers only lashes that are fit to be divided into sets of three [sets of three]. Since there are only two lashes in addition to the thirty-nine lashes, those lashes are not administered at all. It follows that he received no lashes for the second prohibition [beyond the thirty-nine lashes that count for the first prohibition], and therefore they must wait until he recovers, so that they can flog him for the second prohibition.

But

this

the Mishna is speaking of a case

where they assessed him

in one assessment as capable

of

withstanding

forty-two

[forty-two] lashes or more. In such a case, they administer all forty-two lashes, since there are [a set of] three lashes in addition to the thirty-nine. Since they add lashes on account of the second prohibition, even though they add only three lashes, those lashes count for the second prohibition.

Mishna:

How do they flog him?

There is a wooden post planted in the ground on the court premises. It is between two cubits and one and a half cubits high. The attendant of the court takes the person liable to lashes, bends him over, and inclines him downward until he rests his body against the post. The person’s two hands hang downward on the two sides of the post.

He binds,

ties,

his two hands to the post, this way and that,

on the two sides of the post.

And the attendant of the synagogue

[the communal attendant ]

takes hold of his garments,

by the collar of the person’s garment, in order to expose his chest.

If they are torn

when he exposes his chest,

they are torn.

And if they are ripped open

so that the threads of the stitching come loose,

they are ripped open.

Until he exposes his chest

so that the lashes will strike his flesh.

And the stone

upon which the attendant stands

is placed behind him,

of the one receiving lashes.

And

the attendant of the synagogue stands upon it,

upon the stone,

with a strap in his hand,

made of the hide

of a calf,

which was

folded

in its middle

one into two.

And

another strap was in his hand, which likewise was folded into

two.

Together, then, there were two straps folded

into four

straps,

and two additional straps,

made from donkey hide, were placed within the calf-hide straps: one was placed between the folds of one calf-hide strap, and the other between the folds of the second calf-hide strap.

The ends of the two straps extended beyond the folds of the first straps, so that they were

rising and descending within it

from above and below.

And

its handle,

the strap’s handle was

a handbreadth long,

and its width [

the width of the strap] along its entire length was

a handbreadth.

And its upper end

of the strap

reached the opening of his abdomen,

for when he struck him on his shoulders, the upper end of the strap had to reach opposite the navel of the one receiving lashes [and the Gemara will explain how they made the strap fit each person according to his measurements].

And

he

would strike him

in sets of three lashes:

One-third from the front,

that is, one blow from each set [which is one-third of all the lashes] was delivered to the abdomen ,

and two-thirds

and two blows from each set [which are two-thirds of all the lashes] were

from behind,

one on this shoulder and one on that shoulder.

And he is struck neither standing nor sitting, but bent over, as it is stated: “And the judge shall cast him down” [

Deuteronomy 25:2].

And the one who strikes —

strikes

the one receiving lashes

with one hand, with all his strength,

raising the strap with both hands and striking with one hand, as it is written [there, verse 3]: “a great beating.”

There must be recitation at the time of the lashes, as it is stated: “with scrutiny it shall be,” and this is expounded in tractate Keritot [11a] to mean that the striking with lashes must take place with recitation.

And the reader,

that is, the senior of the judges,

reads:

“If you will not observe to do” and so on, “then the Lord will make your plagues astonishing, and the plagues” and so on. [

Deuteronomy 28:58–59].

And he returns to the beginning of the verse. [

There is another version, according to which the following verses are also added:]

“And you shall observe the words of this covenant,” and so on [

Deuteronomy 29:8].

And he concludes: “But He, being compassionate, shall forgive iniquity,” and so on [

Psalms 78:38].

And he returns to the beginning of the verse.

It is a mitzva to complete the verses together with the striking. Therefore, if the one reading has not yet finished the lashes, he reads a second time, and hastens his reading so that he will finish together with the one striking. And if they assessed him as able to receive only a small number of lashes, he shortens the verses.

The second judge counts the lashes,

and the third judge says for each and every blow: “Strike him!” And the attendant strikes according to his instructions.

And if

the one receiving lashes

dies under his hand,

of the attendant who strikes,

the one administering the lashes is exempt

from execution and exile, since he struck him with the authorization of the court and as its agent.

But if

he added one additional strap for him [

one additional lash] beyond what they had assessed him as able to receive—for example, the judge erred in the count—

and the one receiving lashes died

as a result of the additional blow,

he must go into exile on his account.

And if

the one receiving lashes became soiled,

that is, he had a bowel movement as a result of the fear he experienced when they began lashing him—even if he became soiled when the court agent first raised his hand to strike him, before he actually struck him—

whether

he became soiled

with feces or with urine [

urine],

he is

exempt

from lashes, as it is stated in the passage concerning lashes: “and your brother shall be degraded before your eyes” [there, Deuteronomy 25:3]. He has indeed been degraded [humiliated], having become soiled.

Rabbi Yehuda

disagrees with the first tanna, and

says:

A man

is exempt from lashes only if he became soiled

with feces,

which is a greater humiliation than urine.

But a woman,

even if she became soiled

with urine,

is exempt, because her humiliation is greater.