Makkot 22b — the Talmud in English

And

then

the physicians assessed

him and determined

that he cannot receive forty, he is exempt.

That is, we do not say that he should be flogged after some time, when he recovers, with the remaining lashes, because since he has already received part of the lashes and has been humiliated, the matter is considered for him as though he had received the obligation of lashes. But if he has not yet received part of the lashes, and before he was flogged the assessment changed, he is not exempted by the partial lashes from the first assessment; rather, he is flogged with all of them after some time, when he recovers.

And the law is likewise in the opposite case: if

the physicians assessed

him initially as being able

to receive

only

eighteen

lashes,

and once he was flogged

with all eighteen lashes [and left the court], the physicians again

assessed

him

as being able to receive

all the

forty

lashes less one, he is

exempt,

because since he has already been flogged, the matter is considered for him as though he had received the entire obligation of lashes.

But if he has not yet been flogged, the court is permitted to add to the first assessment if they assessed him again as being capable of receiving more lashes.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that he is flogged with forty lashes less one.

And the Gemara asks:

What is the reason

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

And it answers:

If

it had been

written, “forty in number,”

indeed

I would have said

that he is flogged

with forty as the count

[forty in number], as the verse states.

But

now that it is written

the reverse,

“in number forty,”

we learn from this that he is flogged only with

a number that totals forty.

Rava said: How foolish are

the rest of the people

[most people]

who stand

[who stand at their full height]

before

[in front of]

a Torah scroll

to honor it,

but do not stand

[and do not stand]

before a great man

[before a person great in Torah] to honor him.

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

And the proof is:

for if in the Torah scroll it is written

the number of

“forty”

lashes,

and the Sages came

[and the Sages came],

they reduced one

[they reduced one blow from the count of forty, thereby changing the simple meaning of the words of the verse].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says: forty

lashes

complete

he receives.

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: What is the reason of Rabbi Judah

who holds that he is flogged with forty?

Because

it is written

[Zechariah 13:6]:

“What are these blows

between your hands

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

And he says: ‘Those with which I was struck in the house of my lovers.’”

And it implies that there is one additional lashing between the shoulders beyond the thirty-nine lashes divided into sets of three lashes [which are: two lashes, one on each shoulder, and one lashing from in front].

And the Sages

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

Because they hold that that verse

is written concerning the children of the elementary school,

and not concerning lashes administered by the court.

We learned in the Mishna:

One assesses only with regard to lashes that are fit, etc. They assessed him

the physicians initially as being able

to receive forty

lashes less one. He began

to receive part

of the lashes

and

afterward

they assessed

him, the physicians,

as unable to receive forty; he is exempt.

And likewise in the opposite case, if

the physicians assessed

him initially as being able

to receive

only

eighteen

lashes,

and once he had been flogged

with all eighteen lashes, the physicians again

assessed

him

as being able to receive

all the lashes of

forty,

the law is that he is

exempt.

And it is precise from the Mishna that specifically if he

was flogged

with part of the lashes,

yes,

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

he was not flogged

yet,

he is not

exempt.

And we raise an objection:

But it was contradicted,

for we learned in another beraita a contradiction to this: for it was taught, if

the physicians assessed

him as being able

to receive

all the lashes of

forty, and they reassessed him

even before he began to receive lashes,

as unable to receive

all the lashes of

forty, he is exempt.

And likewise in the opposite case, if

the physicians assessed

him as being able

to receive

only

eighteen

lashes,

and they reassessed him

even before he began to receive lashes,

as able to receive

all the lashes of

forty, he is

exempt

from receiving all forty, since they had already assessed him at the lesser amount; it is sufficient that he receive the lesser amount.

And we resolve:

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna.

This

the Mishna speaks of a case

in which they assessed him for the day,

that they reassessed him a second time on that same day.

And since it is not reasonable that his body weakened or recovered in so short a time, it is therefore clear that the first assessment was in error.

Therefore the Mishna says that if they assessed him in a first assessment as being able to receive all the lashes, and afterward, on that same day, assessed him in a second assessment as unable to receive all the lashes, then the law is that if he has already received part of the lashes, they exempt him, because he has already been humiliated. But if he was not flogged, he is considered as though they had not assessed him at all in the first assessment, but only in the second. And since they assessed him in the second assessment as currently unable to receive lashes, they wait for him until he recovers, and they will make a new assessment of him.

And likewise in the opposite case, if they assessed him in a first assessment as unable to receive more than eighteen lashes, and on that same day they reassessed him as able to receive all the lashes, it became clear that they had erred in the first assessment. Therefore the law is that if he has already received all eighteen lashes that they assessed him for in the first assessment and left the court, they exempt him, and they do not bring him back to court, for it is a humiliation of the court to bring him back. But if he has not yet completed receiving the lashes, the court is permitted to add to the first assessment.

This

the beraita speaks of a case

in which they assessed him for the following day

or

for another day

[that they reassessed him a second time on the following day or on another day],

for in such a case the first assessment remains a complete assessment, and we say that at the time when they assessed him in the first assessment he was capable of receiving the number of lashes for which they assessed him, and now [on the day after the first assessment or after several days], in the second assessment, his body has changed.

Therefore they said in the beraita that if they assessed him in a first assessment as being able to receive all the lashes, and afterward, on another day, assessed him as unable to receive all the lashes, we say that the first assessment was a complete assessment, except that afterward his body changed and weakened, and he is no longer capable of receiving all the lashes that he had previously been capable of receiving. Therefore the law is that he is exempt from receiving all the lashes; and even though he was not flogged at all, we do not wait with him until he recovers and becomes capable of receiving all the lashes, since he has already been humiliated through that assessment.

And likewise in the opposite case, if they assessed him in a first assessment as unable to receive more than eighteen lashes, and afterward, when they assessed him on another day in a second assessment, they assessed him as being capable of receiving all the lashes, the law is that he receives only according to the first assessment, since the first assessment was a complete assessment.

Mishna:

If he committed a transgression involving 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 of him

for the two prohibitions, that he is capable of receiving altogether at least forty-two lashes, he

is flogged,

and these lashes count for him toward the two prohibitions,

and he is exempt,

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

And all this applies specifically if they initially assessed him for lashes on account of both prohibitions.

But if not,

if they did not initially assess him except for the sake of one prohibition, he

is flogged

for the first prohibition,

and

they wait until he

recovers, and

then he

returns and is flogged

for the second prohibition.

Gemara:

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

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita

, one does not make one assessment for two prohibitions!

One assessment does not count for him for two prohibitions; rather, he is flogged for one prohibition, and they wait until he recovers, and only then do they give him lashes for the second prohibition.

If so, there is a contradiction between the Mishna and the beraita. For the Mishna says that one assessment counts for him for the two prohibitions, and there is no need to wait until he recovers in order to give him lashes for the second prohibition.

And we resolve:

Rav Sheshet said: It is not difficult.

There is no contradiction between the beraita and the Mishna.

This

the beraita speaks of a case

in which they assessed him

in one assessment as capable

of

receiving 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 threes [sets of three], and since there are only two lashes in addition to the thirty-nine lashes, these lashes are not administered to him at all. It follows that he received no lashing for the second prohibition [beyond the thirty-nine lashes that are for the first prohibition], and therefore he must wait until he recovers, so that they can flog him for the second prohibition.

But

this

the Mishna speaks of a case

in which they assessed him

in one assessment as capable

of

receiving

forty-two

[forty-two] lashes or more. In such a case they flog him with all forty-two lashes, since there is a set of three lashes in addition to the thirty-nine lashes. And since they add lashes for the second prohibition, even though they add only three lashes to him, those lashes count for him toward the second prohibition.

Mishna:

How do they flog him?

There is a wooden post in the court, fixed in the ground, whose height is between two cubits and one and a half cubits. The attendant of the court takes the person sentenced to lashes, bends him, and inclines him downward until he leans with his body against the post; and the two hands of the person sentenced are hung downward, on the two sides of the post.

He binds,

he ties,

his two hands to the post, on this side and on that side,

on the two sides of the post.

And the attendant of the congregation

[the attendant of the community ]

takes hold of his garments,

by the collar of the garment of the person sentenced, in order to expose his heart.

If they were torn

when he exposed his heart,

they were torn.

And if they were ripped

so that the threads of the stitching came apart,

they were ripped.

Until he exposes his heart

so that the lashes will be upon his flesh.

And the stone

upon which the synagogue attendant stands,

is placed behind

the one being flogged.

And

the synagogue attendant stands upon it,

upon the stone,

and a strap is 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.

And together, there were two straps folded

into four

straps,

and two straps

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

And the ends of the two straps extended beyond the folds of the first straps, until they were

rising and descending upon it

from above and below.

And

its handle,

the handle of the strap was in length

a handbreadth,

and its width [

and the width of the strap] along its entire length was

a handbreadth.

And its upper end

of the strap was

reaching the opening of his belly,

so that, when he struck him upon his shoulders, the upper end of the strap had to reach opposite the navel of the one being flogged [and the Gemara will explain how they made the strap so that it would fit each person according to his measurements].

And

he would

strike him,

in sets of three lashes:

One-third in front of him,

that is, one blow from each set [which is one-third of all the blows] was upon the abdomen ,

and two portions

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

behind him,

one upon this shoulder and one upon that shoulder.

And he does not strike him while standing and not while sitting, but inclined, as it is stated, “and the judge shall cause him to fall” [

Deuteronomy 25:2]].

And the one who strikes—

strikes

the one being judged

with one hand, with all his strength,

lifting the strap with both his hands and striking with one of them, as it is written [there, verse 3], “a great blow.”

And there must be a reading at the time of the lashes, because it is stated, “There shall be a scrutiny,” and they expound from this in Keritot [11a] that the striking of the lashes shall be accompanied by a reading.

And the reader

that is, the senior of the judges,

reads:

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

there, 28:58–59].

And he returns to the beginning of the verse. [

And 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 [

there, 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.

For it is a mitzva to complete the verses together with the striking. Therefore, if the one striking has not yet finished administering the lashes, he reads a second time, and he hastens to read 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.

And 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 he dies

the one being judged

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 for him one additional strap [

one additional lash] more than what they had assessed him as able to receive, such as when the judge erred in the count ,

and the one being judged died

because of the additional blow,

he must go into exile because of him.

And if

the one being judged was soiled,

that is, an excretion issued from his orifices because of fear when they began to flog him—even if he was soiled with the first raising, when the court attendant raised his hand to strike him, before he flogged him—

whether

he was soiled

with feces, whether with water [

urine],

he is

exempt

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

Rabbi Judah

disagrees with the first tanna, and

says:

The man

is exempt from lashes only if he was soiled

with feces,

which is a greater disgrace than urine.

But the woman,

even if she was soiled

with urine,

is exempt, because her shame is greater.