json/Mishnah/Seder Nezikin/Mishnah Makkot/English/The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein.json

{
    "language": "en",
    "title": "Mishnah Makkot",
    "versionSource": "http://www.sefaria.org/shraga-silverstein",
    "versionTitle": "The Mishna with Obadiah Bartenura by Rabbi Shraga Silverstein",
    "status": "locked",
    "license": "CC-BY",
    "versionNotes": "To enhance the quality of this text, obvious translation errors were corrected in accordance with the Hebrew source",
    "versionTitleInHebrew": "המשנה עם פירושי רבי עובדיה מברטנורא, רבי שרגא זילברשטיין",
    "versionNotesInHebrew": "כדי לשפר את איכות הטקסט הזה, שונו שגיאות תרגום ברורות בהתאם למקור העברי",
    "actualLanguage": "en",
    "languageFamilyName": "english",
    "isBaseText": false,
    "isSource": false,
    "direction": "ltr",
    "heTitle": "משנה מכות",
    "categories": [
        "Mishnah",
        "Seder Nezikin"
    ],
    "text": [
        [
            "\tHow are the witnesses made zomemin? [This is the intent: Those witnesses who are found to be zomemin (\"scheming\"), and in whom the law of hazamah is not implemented, i.e., in whom (Deuteronomy 19:19): \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother\" cannot be satisfied, how do they become zomemin?] (If they say:) We testify about this man [a Cohein] that he is the son of a divorcée  [i.e., his mother was divorced before us before he was born, and he is a challal (unfit for the priesthood)], or the son of a chalutzah, we do not say [if they were proved zomemin, and they were Cohanim], let this one be considered the son of a divorcée or the son of a chalutzah instead of him, [for it is written: \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed\" — to him, and not to his seed. And if you render him a challal and he is a Cohein, you have rendered his seed unfit (for the priesthood) forever. And if you say let us render him alone unfit and not his seed — we require \"as he schemed to do,\" and this does not obtain, for he schemed to render both the adjudged and his seed unfit], but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 28:1): \"…and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one, if liable to stripes be the wicked one, etc.\": Now, is it because they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one that the wicked one is liable to stripes! It is, rather, (intimated) that if witnesses incriminate one who is (really) righteous, and other witnesses come and vindicate the one who was righteous all along, rendering the (first) witnesses wicked (i.e., zomemin), then: \"if liable to stripes be the wicked one\" (in the event that what they intended for the righteous one cannot be done to them)]. (If they say:) We testify about this man that he is liable to exile, we do not say let them be exiled in his stead, but he receives forty stripes, [it being written (Ibid. 19:5): \"…he shall flee\" — he, and not his zomemin.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he divorced his wife [before us on this and this day] and did not give her her kethubah, [and the other says: I did not divorce her and I do not owe her a kethubah] — now, either today or tomorrow, will he not give her a kethubah? [i.e., What shall they pay him? If you say the entire kethubah, might he not die or divorce her today or tomorrow, in which instance she will receive it anyway, so that they would have caused him no loss whatsoever!] (Rather) We estimate how much one would want to give for the kethubah of this woman [on the possibility that] if she is widowed or divorced, [he will receive the kethubah] and if she dies, her husband will inherit her [and he will lose the money that he gave. And it is this amount that the witnesses give to the husband.] (If they say:) We testify about this man that he owes his neighbor a thousand zuz, which he must pay within thirty days; and he says: within ten years, we estimate how much one would give to have a thousand zuz in his hand for ten years rather than for thirty days.",
            "\t(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive stripes and they pay. For it is not the verse that brings one to stripes which brings him to payment. [Stripes, from (Exodus 20:13): \"You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony\"; payment, from \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do.\"] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Whoever pays does not receive stripes, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2): \"according to his wickedness\" — For one wickedness you make him liable, and not for two. And since the rabbis say that he pays and does not receive stripes, and not that he receives stripes and does not pay, we infer that wherever there are two, stripes and payment, we do not say that he receives stripes and does not pay, but that he pays and does not receive stripes. And this is the halachah.]",
            "\t(If witnesses say:) We testify about that man that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, they receive eighty stripes, because of (Exodus 20:13): \"You shall not testify against your neighbor false testimony\" and because of (Deuteronomy 19:19) \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother.\" These are the words of R. Meir. [For since when it is not possible to satisfy in the witnesses \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed\" (as when they testify that one is the son of a divorcée) they receive stripes by reason of \"You shall not testify\" — here, where there is an exhortation of \"You shall not testify,\" and also one of \"as he schemed,\" he receives eighty stripes. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] The sages say: He receives only forty stripes. They \"third\" in money [Scheming witnesses who are liable for payment pay the money according to the number of witnesses. If they were three and they were rendered zomemin, each pays a third of the sum that they desired to impose], and they do not \"third\" in stripes. [Each one of the witnesses does not receive a third of the stripes, but each receives forty in order to satisfy \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed.\" For each of the witnesses desired to impose a complete (forty) stripes on the adjudged. Money \"adds up,\" so that when each gives a third, he receives what they wished to make him liable to among all of them; but stripes does not \"add up.\"] How so? If they testified about him that he owes his neighbor two hundred zuz and they were found to be zomemin, they \"third\" among them. But if they testified against him that he is liable to forty stripes, and they were found to be zomemin, each one of them receives forty stripes.",
            "\tWitnesses do not become zomemin until they themselves are rendered zomemin, [i.e., in respect to what concerns them, and not what concerns the killer or the killed, as explained below. This is derived from (Deuteronomy 19:18): \"And, behold, a false witness is the witness\" — until the falsehood inheres in the persons of the witnesses themselves.] How so? If they said: We testify about this man that he killed another, and they are refuted — How can you say this when the (alleged) victim or murderer was with us that day in a different place? — they are not rendered zomemin. But if they said: How can you say this when you were with us that day in a different place? they are rendered zomemin, and they are killed by their (the refuters') testimony.",
            "\tIf others came and they (the refuters) rendered them zomemin; if others came, and they rendered them zomemin — even if they were a hundred [sets of witnesses, giving the same testimony one after the other, and all refuted by the same set], they are all killed. R. Yehudah says: \"This (refuting) set is istasith\" [perverse and devious, having taken counsel between themselves to refute whoever comes to give this testimony. Another interpretation: \"Is this (refuting set a vat of) isatis\" (a dye), (which dyes all who touch it)]! And only the first set of witnesses is killed. [R. Yehudah holds that after the first set is refuted, the succeeding set is not accepted; and if they do testify and are refuted, they are not killed, not satisfying: \"Then you shall do to him, etc.\", for he (the adjudged) is not killed by their testimony. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tScheming witnesses are not killed until judgment has been passed [upon the adjudged to be killed by their testimony, after which they are refuted]. For the Sadducees were wont to say: (Scheming witnesses are not killed) until he (the adjudged) is killed, it being written (Leviticus 24:18): \"A life for a life\" — whereupon the sages said to them: But is it not already written: \"Then you shall do to him as he schemed to do to his brother\" — \"his brother\" connoting his living brother! If so, how is \"A life for a life\" to be satisfied? I might think that they could be killed as soon as their testimony was accepted; we are, therefore, apprised: \"A life for a life\" — They are not killed until judgment has been passed (on the life of the adjudged).",
            "\t(Deuteronomy 17:6): \"By the word of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the dead one be put to death.\" If the testimony stands with two, why does Scripture indicate three? To liken three to two, viz. Just as three can render two, zomemin, so two can render three, zomemin. And whence do we derive [that two can render zomemin] even a hundred? From (Ibid.): \"witnesses\" (i.e., any number). R. Shimon says: Just as two are not killed until both are rendered zomemin, [it being written (Ibid. 19:18): \"And, behold, a false witness is the witness,\" concerning which the master said: Wherever \"witness\" is written, two (witnesses) are understood, unless it is explicitly stated \"one\"], so, three are not killed until the three are rendered zomemin. [This, if each testifies immediately upon the conclusion of the other's testimony. But if two testify and after some time, the others do, they are two distinct sets of witnesses in all respects.] And whence do we derive (that this is so) even (with) a hundred? From: \"witnesses.\" R. Akiva says: The third (i.e., \"three witnesses\") comes only to (tell us to) be stringent with him and to equate his judgment with that of the others, [that one not say: Since even without the third, the testimony (of the others) would stand, the judgment of hazamah should not apply to him. The verse apprises us (that this is not so) that he, too, is judged.]. If Scripture thus punished the accessory to transgressors as the transgressors themselves, how much more so will the accessories to the doers of a mitzvah be rewarded as the doers of the mitzvah themselves! [For \"His measure for good is greater than that for punishment.\"]",
            "\tJust as with two (witnesses), if one of them were found to be kin or pasul (unfit to testify), their testimony is void, so with three; if one of them were found to be kin or pasul, their testimony is void. Whence is it derived (that this is so) even with a hundred? From \"witnesses.\" R. Yossi said: When is this so? With capital cases, [it being written in that regard (Numbers 35:25): \"And the congregation shall rescue, etc.\" They should seek to find something in his favor.], but in monetary cases, the testimony stands through the others (who are not kin or pasul). Rebbi says: Both in monetary cases and in capital cases [the testimony is void]. When [do we say in capital cases that the testimony is void?] When they warned them [i.e., when the kin or pasul joined (the others) originally to be one of the warners of the transgressors]; but if they did not warn them, [and they had no intent to be witnesses to the deed, the testimony of the others is not voided because of what they saw, for] what should two brothers do who saw one man kill another?",
            "\tIf two saw him from one window and two saw him from another, and one warned him in the middle — When some see each other, they become one set of witnesses [The warner combines with the set of witnesses that he sees and who see him at the time of the warning. Therefore, if the two sets in the two windows see him, they combine with each other and all become one set.]; and if not, they are two sets. Therefore, if one of the sets were rendered zomemin, he (the adjudged) and they are killed. [He is killed, for there is still another set who were not rendered zomemin; and they, the refuted ones, are killed, having been rendered zomemin], and the second set are not liable. R. Yossi says: He (the accused one) is not killed unless his two witnesses had warned him, it being written (Deuteronomy 17:6): \"By word of two witnesses, etc.\" Another interpretation: \"By word of two witnesses\" — that Sanhedrin not hear it from an interpreter [i.e., The judges must understand the language of the witnesses and not find it necessary to place an interpreter between them. And this is the halachah.]",
            "\tIf one's judgment (for execution) were completed, and he fled, and he came before that beth-din (that had sentenced him), his judgment is not overturned. Wherever two arise and say: We testify about that man that his judgment was completed in that beth-din, and so and so were his witnesses, he is killed. Sanhedrin officiates both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it. [The Sanhedrin ordained in Eretz Yisrael is authorized to adjudicate penalty (knass) cases and capital cases both in Eretz Yisrael and outside it, so long as the great beth-din presides in the chamber of hewn stone, viz. (Deuteronomy 17:12): \"not to listen to the Cohein … or to the judge\": When there is a Cohein sacrificing upon the altar, there is a judge adjudicating capital cases. When there is no Cohein, there is no judge.] A sanhedrin that performs one execution in seven years is called \"destructive.\" [For they must be patient in judgment and probe all possibilities of acquittal in capital cases.] R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: [Even] one in seventy years. R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say: If we were on the sanhedrin, no man would ever be killed. [For they would cross-examine the witnesses with questions that they could not answer. In murder cases: \"What did you see? Did he kill a treifah (one with a fatal organic condition) or a 'whole' man? And if you say a whole man, perhaps there was a hole (making him treifah) in the place of the sword!\" In cases of arayoth (illicit relations): \"Did you see it 'as a dauber in the tube'?\" R. Shimon b. Gamliel says: They themselves multiply spillers of blood in Israel! [For, as a result, the wicked are not eradicated, and they spill more blood.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tThese are the ones who are exiled: one who kills another unwittingly (e.g.,): If one were rolling with a ma'agilah [a smooth round stone rolled over lime or plaster on the roof to even cracks], and it fell upon someone and killed him; or if he were letting down a jug, and it fell on someone and killed him; or if he were climbing down a ladder and fell on someone and killed him — he is exiled. But if he were pulling up a ma'agilah, and it fell on someone and killed him; or if he were pulling up a jug, and the rope snapped, and it (the jug) fell upon someone and killed him; or if he were climbing up a ladder and fell on someone and killed him — he is not exiled. This is the rule: Whenever (someone is killed) through one's downward action, he is exiled; not through his downward action, he is not exiled, [it being written (Numbers 35:23): \"…and he cause it to fall upon him\" — it must be by way of \"falling.\" \"Whenever\" (\"kol\") comes to include even a downward motion for the sake of an upward one.] If the blade slips from its haft and kills — Rebbi says: He is not exiled; the sages say: He is exiled. If it slips from the wood he is chopping, Rebbi says: He is exiled; the sages say: He is not exiled. [Rebbi holds that \"wood\" in (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"…and the blade slips from the wood\" refers to the wood that is being chopped, and not the haft. And the rabbis hold that \"the wood\" is the haft. The halachah is in accordance with the sages. For (the blade slipping from) the wood that is being chopped is \"the power of his power,\" for which one is not exiled.]",
            "\tIf one threw a stone into the public domain and killed someone, he is exiled. [Even though this sounds close to \"witting,\" for one should take into account that there are always people in the public domain, we are speaking here of a refuse heap in the public domain where people are wont to relieve themselves at night, but rarely in the daytime (when he threw the stone). For this reason, he is exiled; for he is neither a willful offender nor completely blameless.] If, after the stone left his hand, the other stuck out his head and was struck by it (and killed), he is not liable, [it being written (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"…and it find his neighbor\" — to exclude his presenting himself.] If he threw the stone into his own domain and killed someone, if the latter had permission [from the owner] to enter there, he is exiled; if not, he is not exiled, it being written (Deuteronomy 19:5): \"And one who comes upon his neighbor in the forest to chop wood, etc.\": Just as a forest is a place that the slayer and the slain were permitted to enter, (so all such places are subsumed in this halachah) — to exclude the slayer's courtyard where both did not have the right to enter (but only the owner). Abba Shaul says: Just as the chopping of wood is a (merely) permitted activity, [i.e., if he wishes, he goes to chop; if not, not], so all (merely permitted activities are subsumed in the halachah) — to exclude a father beating his son, [the father doing a mitzvah], a teacher chastising his student, and a bailiff of beth-din (beating someone at beth-din's behest.)",
            "\tA father is exiled through his son [if he were not beating him to teach him Torah, or to chastise him, or to teach him a trade (and he died).], and a son is exiled through his father. All [even a bondsman or a Cuthite] are exiled through an Israelite, and an Israelite is exiled through them, except a ger toshav (a \"resident-stranger\"). [If he kills an Israelite unwittingly, he is not exiled, but killed.] And a ger toshav is not exiled except through (another) ger toshav. A blind man is not exiled, [it being written (Numbers 35:23): \"without seeing\" — to exclude one who is blind.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: He is exiled: [\"without seeing\" — to include one who is blind. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: A \"hater\" [one who did not speak with him for three days out of hatred] is killed, for he is like a mued (one who has been forewarned). R. Shimon says: There is a hater who is exiled and a hater who is not exiled. This is the rule: Wherever it may be presumed that he killed wittingly, he is not exiled; (and wherever it may be presumed) that he did not kill wittingly, he is exiled. [The halachah is neither in accordance with R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah nor with R. Shimon; but a hater is neither killed nor \"absorbed\" (in the cities of refuge), for he is close to \"witting.\"]",
            "\tWhither is one exiled to the cities of refuge? To the three across the Jordan and the three in the land of Canaan, as it is written (Numbers 35:14): \"The three cities shall you provide across the Jordan; and the three cities shall you provide in the land of Canaan.\" And as long as the three in Eretz Yisrael had not been designated, the three across the Jordan did not grant refuge, it being written (Ibid. 13): \"Six cities of refuge shall there be\" — they must all be capable of granting refuge as one. [And forty-two cities of the Levites also all granted refuge. It is just that these six cities granted refuge whether or not the slayer entered there with the intent that they do so, whereas the forty-two cities granted refuge only where there was intent, but not otherwise; and if the blood-redeemer killed him there (in the absence of such intent), he is not liable.]",
            "\tAnd roads led from one to the other, [i.e., they made roads leading to the cities of refuge, so that the slayer not stray on the road. And \"Refuge\" signs were posted on the crossroads for the slayer to see and to follow], viz. (Deuteronomy 19:3): \"Prepare for yourself the way, and divide in thirds, etc.\" And two Torah scholars were provided them, lest they be slain on the way; and they would speak to him. [They would speak to the blood-redeemer, viz.: \"Do not be a spiller of blood; he did this unwittingly.\" R. Meir says: He could also speak for himself, viz. (Ibid. 4): \"And this is the 'word' of the slayer [i.e., It was not necessary to provide him with Torah scholars to speak to the blood-redeemer on his behalf, but he could do so himself. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.]",
            "\tR. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: Initially, both one who kills unwittingly and one who kills willfully proceed to the cities of refuge and beth-din send and bring them from there. One who is liable to execution by beth-din is put to death, and one who is not, is acquitted. One who is liable to exile is returned to his place, as it is written (Numbers 35:25): \"And the congregation shall return him to the city of his refuge, etc.\" Both the priest anointed with the anointing oil, and the priest of the \"manifold vestments\" [(For after the cruse of anointing oil was secreted, one was inaugurated into the high-priesthood only through the donning of the eight vestments)], and the priest whose anointment was rescinded [(if the high-priest had an emission on Yom Kippur and another was appointed in his stead)], \"return\" the slayer (from the city of refuge). [With the death of either of these he returns, even if the other is alive, \"high-priest\" being written three times in this section.] R. Yehudah says: The priest anointed for war (mashuach milchamah), too, returns the slayer, [it being written (Numbers 35:32): \"…to return to dwell in the land until the death of the priest.\" And the rabbis do not expound it, it not being written \"the high-priest.\" The halachah is in accordance with the sages.] Therefore, the mothers of the priests would supply them (the slayers in the city of refuge) with food and clothing, so that they not pray that their sons die (so that they can leave the city.) [And they (the priests) were at fault, for they should have implored mercy for their generation that misfortunes not occur, and they failed to do so.] If after he were sentenced [to exile] the high-priest died, he is not exiled. [For once he has been sentenced and is awaiting exile, it is as if he has already been exiled.] If before he were sentenced, the high-priest died, and another were appointed in his stead, after which he was sentenced, he returns with the death of the second.",
            "\tOne whose judgment was concluded without a high-priest, [i.e., if there were no high-priest], one who kills a high-priest, and a high-priest who kills, never leaves (his city of refuge), and (one who is exiled) goes out neither for testimony of mitzvah, nor for testimony in monetary litigation, nor for testimony in a capital case. Even if Israel needed him; even if he were a commander in Israel, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, he never leaves, it being written (Numbers 35:25): \"…that he had fled there\" — there shall be his dwelling; there shall he die; there shall he be buried. Just as the city grants refuge, so does its tchum (its bound, two thousand cubits around the city) grant refuge. A slayer who went outside the tchum and was found by the blood-redeemer — R. Yossi says: It is a mitzvah for the blood-redeemer (to kill him), and everyone else is permitted to do so. R. Akiva says: The blood-redeemer is permitted to do so, and all others are not liable if they do so. [All others, aside from the blood-redeemer, who killed him outside his city of refuge, are not liable, it being written (Numbers 35:27): \"He has no blood\"; and the blood-redeemer is permitted to kill him (ab initio)]. If a tree stands in the midst of the bounds (of the city of refuge), and its boughs extend outside the bounds; or if it stands outside the bounds and its boughs extend within the bounds, all goes according to the boughs. [The Gemara explains that \"also according to the boughs\" is what is meant, i.e., If its trunk were within the bounds of the city of refuge, and its boughs extend outside the bounds, if he stands under the boughs, he is \"absorbed,\" since its main part is within, and its boughs are regarded as an extension of the main part. And if the main part is outside, and the boughs, within, so that he may not kill him under the boughs, he may also not kill him near the main part, the main part being regarded as an extension of its bows for stringency (in this regard). If he killed within that city, he is exiled from one neighborhood to another (within that city). A Levite is exiled from one city to another.",
            "\tSimilarly, if a slayer fled to his city of refuge, and the people of that city wished to honor him, he must tell them: \"I am a slayer\"; and, if they persist, he may accept their homage, viz. (Deuteronomy 19:4): \"And this is the word of the slayer\" (i.e., He must say, in the above instance: \"I am a slayer.\") They would pay rent to the Levites. [In the forty-two (Levite) cities, which also grant refuge, the slayer pays rent to the man with whom he lodges.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: They would not pay rent to them. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir. (The disagreement obtains) only with the forty-two (Levite) cities, but with the six cities of refuge, all agree that no rent was paid.] And (upon leaving the city of refuge) he returns to his former eminence. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He would not return to his former eminence, [it being written (Leviticus 25:41): \"And he shall return to his family, and to the holding of his fathers shall he return\" — He returns to his family, but not to the station held by his fathers. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]"
        ],
        [
            "\tAnd these are the ones who receive stripes [Not only \"these.\" For the tanna teaches (these) and omits many who receive stripes. But he teaches us those liable to kareth to apprise us that stripes obtain with those liable to kareth. And he teaches us a widow-divorcée to apprise us that there is stripes liability in that instance by reason of two exhortations. And he teaches us tevel and first-tithe whose terumah was not separated, because their exhortation is not explicitly stated. Likewise, hekdesh (dedicated food) which was not redeemed. And since he teaches hekdesh, he teaches second-tithe, stripes obtaining with both because of non-redemption. Similarly, with all, there is some novelty (of which we are being apprised)]: one who lives with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister, with his wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with the wife of his father's brother, with a niddah ( a woman in her menstrual state), a high-priest who lives with a widow, a regular priest who lives with a divorcée or with a chalutzah, an Israelite who lives with a mamzereth (the issue of illicit relations) or with a Nethinah [a descendant of the Giveonites, (a relationship) subject to stripes by reason of (Deuteronomy 7:3): \"Do not intermarry with them.\"], and an Israelite woman who lives with a Nathin or a mamzer. (A high-priest who lives with) a widow-divorcée who had been widowed from another man] is liable to stripes by reason of two exhortations, both (divorcée and widow) being indicated in Scripture, and both being exhorted against.] (A Cohein who lives with) a divorcée-chalutzah [i.e., a chalutzah who had been divorced] is liable to stripes by reason of one exhortation alone. [He is not liable by reason of two exhortations, for chalutzah is not explicitly stated, but derived from the addition (\"and\"), viz. (Leviticus 21:7): \"A woman divorced\" — This tells me only of a divorcée. When do I derive a chalutzah (as likewise interdicted)? From: \"and a woman divorced.\"]",
            "\t(And these are the ones who receive stripes, etc.\":) one who eats hekdesh in a state of uncleanliness, one who enters the sanctuary in a state of uncleanliness, one who eats forbidden fats, blood, nothar (portions of sacrifices left over beyond the prescribed time of eating), pigul (sacrifices invalidated through improper intent), and unclean food, one who slaughters or sacrifices (an offering) outside (the Temple), one who eats chametz on Pesach, one who eats or performs labor on Yom Kippur, one who compounds oil [as the oil of anointment was compounded], one who compounds the incense (as the Temple incense was compounded), one who anoints himself with the oil of anointment [compounded by Moses], one who eats carrion, treifah, forbidden animals and reptiles, one who eats tevel (untithed food) [The exhortation is from (Leviticus 22:15): \"And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel which they will lift to the L rd.\" Scripture speaks of what will be lifted (i.e., tevel, from which terumah will be lifted)], and first-tithe whose terumah has not been taken, [this, too, involving death liability, viz. (Numbers 18:27): \"And your terumah will be accounted for you as corn from the threshing floor, etc.\"] and second tithe and hekdesh which were not redeemed. [One may not eat second-tithe that became unclean, even if he is in Jerusalem, unless it is redeemed. And if one eats it in Jerusalem before it is redeemed he receives stripes. His exhortation is from (Deuteronomy 26:14): \"I did not consume of it in uncleanliness\" — whether I were unclean and it clean, or I were clean and it unclean. And whence is it derived that second-tithe that became unclean is redeemed in Jerusalem? From (Deuteronomy 14:24): \"that you not be able se'etho,\" \"se'eth\" referring to eating, as in (Genesis 43:34): \"And he took (food) portions (ma'asoth) from before him.\" (\"and hekdesh which was not redeemed\":) This is not explicitly stated, but its exhortation is derived by identity: \"sin\" (Leviticus 5:15) - sin (Ibid. 22:9), from terumah. And even though Scripture indicates (Ibid.): \"and they will die for it (terumah),\" and not for me'ilah (abuse of hekdesh), it (me'ilah) is excluded from death, but not from the exhortation.] How much must he eat of tevel in order to be liable? R. Shimon says: Any amount. The sages say: The size of an olive. R. Shimon said to them: Will you not concede to me that if one eats any amount of an ant he is liable? [by reason of (Leviticus 11:423): \"…creeping things that creep upon the earth,\" regardless of the amount] They said to him: Because it is as created. He said to them: One grain is also as created! [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon, only something which has an (animating) soul being called a \"creature.\"]",
            "\t(\"And these are the ones who receive stripes:\") one (a Cohein) who eats bikkurim (first-fruits) before the invocation has been recited over them [viz. (Deuteronomy 26:5): \"An Aramean would destroy my father, etc.\" But after the invocation, he does not receive stripes if he eats of them because they are (then) the property of the Cohein. These are the words of R. Akiva. But the sages hold that \"placing\" (in the azarah) is a prerequisite for the eating of bikkurim, but not the invocation; so that if he eats them after they have been placed in the azarah, even if the invocation has not yet been recited, he does not receive stripes. And the halachah is in accordance with the sages. The exhortation is from (Deuteronomy 12:17): \"You shall not be able to eat in your gates the tithes of your corn … and the offering of your hands,\" concerning which the master said: \"and the offering (terumah) of your hands\" — this is bikkurim. For, if terumah per se, that does not require \"bringing to the place (Jerusalem).\" And for eating bikkurim, too, he does not receive stripes unless he ate them after they \"saw the face of Jerusalem,\" before being placed in the azarah. But if he ate them outside Jerusalem, he does not receive stripes.], (and one who eats) holy of holies outside the (Temple) partitions, or lower-order offerings and second-tithe outside the wall. [The exhortation for all of these is from: \"You shall not be able to eat in your gates … and all of your vows that you vow.\" For every eating outside its assigned place is called \"eating in the gates.\" (\"second-tithe\":) Above, we learned of unclean, unredeemed second-tithe, as we explained, and here we learn of clean second-tithe which was eaten outside the wall. And it is only if he ate it outside the wall after \"it saw the face of Jerusalem\" that he receives stripes; but if one eats second-tithe outside Jerusalem, he does not receive stripes, it being written (Ibid. 18): \"Before the L rd your G d shall you eat it,\" and afterwards (i.e., only after this applies, is there stripes violation of) \"You shall not be able to eat it in your gates.\"] If one breaks a bone of a clean Pesach offering, he receives forty stripes, but if he leaves over of a clean one or breaks a bone of an unclean one, he does not receive stripes. [(\"if he leaves over\":) it being written (Exodus 12:10): \"And do not leave over anything of it until morning; and what is left over of it until morning, in fire shall you burn it.\" Scripture states a positive commandment after a negative one by way of saying: If you have transgressed the negative commandment, fulfill the positive one and you will not receive stripes. Also, \"And do not leave over\" is a negative commandment not involving an act, for which there is no stripes liability. (\"or breaks a bone of an unclean one, etc.\":) it being written: (Ibid. 46): \"And a bone shall you not break in it\" — in one that is kasher, and not in one that is pasul (unfit)].",
            "\tIf one takes the mother bird together with the fledglings — R. Yehudah says: He receives stripes and does not send (the mother) away. [R. Yehudah holds that (Deuteronomy 22:7): \"Send shall you send\" connotes ab initio (i.e., if you have not taken it). And even though \"Send shall you send\" is written after (Ibid. 6): \"You shall not take,\" the connotation is not: If you have taken it, send it away, but: Do not take it; rather, send it away. So that this is not a negative commandment linked to a positive one (for which there is no stripes liability)]. And the sages say: He sends it away and does not receive stripes. [They hold that \"Send it away after you have taken it\" is connoted, so that it is a negative commandment linked to a positive one. The halachah is in accordance with the rabbis.] This is the rule: There is no stripes liability for any negative commandment accompanied by a positive one, [where the Torah states, as it were: If you have transgressed the negative commandment, fulfill the positive one, e.g.: \"You shall not take the mother bird together with the fledglings\" — and if you did, \"Send shall you send, etc.\"; (Deuteronomy 24:10): \"Do not enter his house to claim his pledge\" — and if you did, (Ibid. 13): \"Return shall you return to him the pledge.\" In all such instances, if he fulfills the positive commandment, he does not receive stripes. But if he does not fulfill the positive commandment, as when he takes the mother together with the fledglings, and he slaughters it or it dies; or if he takes the pledge from his house and it is burned, in which case he cannot fulfill the positive commandment, he receives stripes.]",
            "\tOne who makes a bald spot on his head, one who rounds off the corners of his head, one who destroys the corners of his beard, and one who makes one laceration (in his flesh) for a dead person are liable to stripes. [These are adduced in our Mishnah, for there is liability for each bald spot, each cutting, and each corner, as opposed to eating forbidden fats one piece after the other. But other (transgressions of) negative commandments alone, where there is no novelty, are not adduced. (\"a bald spot\":) for a dead person, viz. (Deuteronomy 14:1): \"And do not make baldness between your eyes for the dead.\" And even though in respect to Cohanim (Leviticus 21:5), it is not written \"for the dead,\" this is derived by identity: \"baldness\" - \"baldness\" — Just as with an Israelite, for the dead, so with Cohanim, for the dead. And the size of \"baldness\" is as a garis ( a bean). (\"one who rounds off the corners of his head\":) aligning the hair of one's temples with that behind his ears and that of his forehead. Even for cutting with scissors, where there is no \"destruction,\" one is liable for the corners of the head. For \"destruction\" (hashchathah) is written only re the beard, and obtains only with a razor. But re the corners of the head, \"rounding off\" (hakafah) is written; he is liable for any manner of rounding off.] If one makes one laceration for five dead persons or five lacerations for one dead person, he is liable for each one individually, [it being written (Leviticus 19:28): \"And a laceration for a (dead) person you shall not make,\" implying liability for each laceration and for each person, even if there were only one warning and all five lacerations were made at the same time.] For (rounding off the corners of) the head, he is liable (to stripes) twice, once for one side [the right], once for the other [the left]. For (destroying the corners of) the beard, (he is liable to stripes) twice for one side, twice for the other, and once for the bottom. [the juncture of the chin and the bone: one to the right of the chin, one to the left, and the beard-point in the middle —- three; and the temple junctures on either side — five. The upper cheekbone attached to the temples, and the lower cheekbone on the right; and the upper and lower cheekbone on the left — two on one side, two on the other, and the point of the beard, from which the hair issues like an ear (of corn, shibboleth, for which reason it is called \"the shibboleth of the beard\") — five.] R. Eliezer says: If he takes it off all at once, he is liable (to stripes) only once. [For since it is only one negative commandment, it is as if he eats two olive-sizes of forbidden fats at one warning.] And he is not liable unless he shaves it with a razor. [This refers to the corners of the beard, in respect to which \"shaving\" and \"destruction\" are written.] R. Eliezer says: Even if he took it off with pinchers or with a plane he is liable.",
            "\tIf one writes with engraving (in the skin, i.e., tattooing), if he writes [on his skin with ink or bluing], but does not engrave [with a knife]; or if he engraves [with a knife], but does not write, [i.e., he does not fill it in with ink or bluing], he is not liable. (He is liable) only when he writes and engraves: with ink, bluing, or anything else that leaves an impression. [The language of Scripture is being followed, viz. (Leviticus 19:28): \"writing that is engraved\"; first writing, then engraving. But, in practice, the engraving is first, and then the writing. And the verse implies this: \"Writing (in the midst of) engraving you shall not make upon yourselves.\"] R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: He is not liable until he writes the name there, it being written: \"And writing that is engraved you shall not make upon yourselves; I am the L rd.\" [(\"until he writes the name there\":) The Gemara explains that the name of idolatry is meant, the verse being understood thus: \"Do not make upon yourselves the name of idolatry, for I am the L rd\" — Do not join others unto Me. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Shimon.]",
            "\tIf a Nazirite drank wine the entire day, he is liable (to stripes) only once, [for what he drank immediately after the warning. And if there were before him a vessel containing several revi'ioth of wine, and he were told: \"Do not drink from this vessel, which contains so many and so many (forbidden) quantities (i.e., revi'ioth), for you will receive so many and so many stripes,\" he is liable for each quantity, even if he received only one warning.] If he were told: \"Do not drink; do not drink,\" and he drank, he is liable for each one.",
            "\tIf one made himself unclean to the dead the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not become unclean; do not become unclean,\" and he became unclean, he is liable for each act. If he shaved the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not shave; do not shave,\" and he shaved, he is liable for each act. If he clothed himself in kilayim the entire day, he is liable only once. If he were told: \"Do not put it on; do not put it on,\" and he took it off and put it on, he is liable for each act. [(\"if he took it off and put it on\":) He need not take it off entirely, but once he sticks his head out and puts it back in, he is liable. The Gemara explains that he does not actually take it off, but that there is enough time from warning to warning for him to take it off and put it on, in which instance he is liable for each warning.]",
            "\tIt is possible for one to plow a single furrow and to be liable for (transgression of) eight negative commandments. [This, if he were warned against (transgression of) all of them]: plowing with an ox and an ass (together), when they are sanctified, [the ox, for (sacrifice upon) the altar; the ass, for Temple maintenance. With the ox, there is transgression of (Deuteronomy 15:19): \"You shall not work with the firstling of your bullock.\" With the ass, an exhortation against me'ilah (abuse of Temple property), derived by identity \"sin\" (Leviticus 5:15) - sin (Ibid. 22:9), from terumah. And the negative commandment (Deuteronomy 22:10): \"You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together\" — (transgression of) three negative commandments], with kilayim ( a forbidden admixture) of the vineyard [In plowing, he covers over wheat and barley and (grape) kernels with soil, thereby transgressing (Deuteronomy 22:9): \"You shall not sow your vineyard with kilayim,\" it being ruled that one who \"covers over\" kilayim receives stripes — even though he does not sow them, but only covers them over with soil. This gives us four negative commandments. Rambam reckons kilayim of the vineyard as two negative commandments, one (transgression) by reason of seed kilayim, there being two varieties of seed — wheat and barley — and another by reason of vineyard kilayim, because of the kernels. He reckons \"sanctified ox and ass\" as (transgression of) only one negative commandment.], on shevi'ith (the sabbatical year), [viz. (Leviticus 25:4): \"…a Sabbath to the L rd; your field you shall not sow.\"], on a festival, [viz. (Ibid. 23:7): \"All manner of work you shall not do.\"], and a Cohein and a Nazirite in the place of uncleanliness, [i.e., the cemetery, where he transgresses (Leviticus 21:1): \"To a dead person he shall not become unclean among his people,\" stated in respect to Cohanim, and (Numbers 6:6): \"Upon the soul of a dead one he shall not come,\" stated in respect to Nazirites.] Chanania b. Chachinai says: Also, (there can be included) one clothed in kilayim [as he is plowing.] They countered: This is not by reason of the name [i.e., The negative commandment against wearing kilayim does not obtain by reason of the furrow.] He countered: \"Cohein and Nazirite,\" too, [which you included as (transgressions of) negative commandments] are not by reason of the name! [i.e., They do not obtain by reason of plowing, but by reason of going to a place of uncleanliness. Still, the first tanna includes them because he cannot plow with oxen unless he goes with them and leads them.]",
            "\tHow many stripes does he receive? Forty less one, it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): \"in number. Forty\" — a number which is next to forty, [i.e., which causes \"forty\" to be said after it; that is, thirty-nine. If \"forty in number\" were written,\" I would understand it as \"a count of forty.\" Now that it is written \"in number forty,\" (I understand it as) a number which causes \"forty\" to be said after it, viz.: thirty-nine.] R. Yehudah says: He receives forty complete lashes. And where does he receive the additional one [(the fortieth) which cannot be \"thirded\"? For thirty-nine can be thirded: one-third in front, and two-thirds, one-third each on each shoulder. But where is the fortieth administered?] Between his shoulders. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tHe is assessed to receive only (a number of) stripes that lend themselves to \"thirding.\" [For with all who received stripes in beth-din, it was first necessary to assess (how many lashes they could bear) so that they not die because of them — it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"He shall not add,\" implying that if he must diminish, he does so. (\"that lend themselves to thirding\":) and the assessment is never exceeded.] If he were assessed at forty, [i.e., at thirty-nine; the language of the verse is used] — If after he received part, they said that he could not bear forty, he is exempt (from the rest). If he were assessed at eighteen — If after he were smitten, they said that he could bear forty, he is exempt. If he committed a transgression involving two negative commandments — If they made one assessment [for the two lashings, e.g., forty-two lashes], he is smitten (that number) and he is exempt (from more). And if not, [i.e., If they assessed him for only one lashing], he is smitten, and recovers, and is smitten again.",
            "\tHow is he smitten? His two hands are tied on either side to a post [stuck standing in the ground and high enough to lean upon], and the beadle of the congregation [the deputy of beth-din] takes hold of his garments. If they are torn, they are torn; and if they are rent [at the seam], they are rent — until he exposes his heart. And the stone is placed behind him [the one to be smitten.] The beadle of the congregation stands upon it with the thong of a calf in his hand, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"Forty shall he smite him,\" followed by (4): \"You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing.\"], doubled, one to two and two to four, [i.e., four thongs sewn one atop the other], and two [thin] thongs of an ass, running up and down through it [as a saddle band. The rationale: It is written (Isaiah 1:3): \"The ox knows its owner, and the ass, its master's crib.\" The Holy One Blessed be He said: \"Let that (the ass) which recognizes its master's crib come and exact punishment of him who did not recognize his Master's crib.\"]",
            "\tIts handle [i.e., the handle to which the thong is attached] is a handbreadth [long], and its breadth (that of the calf thong) is a handbreadth and its tip (that of the thong) reaches his navel. [For this reason there must be a hole in the handle whereby the beadle can lengthen or shorten the thong as required; for one is smitten only with a thong whose tip reaches his navel.] And he is smitten, one-third in front and two-thirds behind, [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:2): \"And he shall smite him before him according to his wickedness.\" \"Before him\" according to one wickedness (i.e., one-third) and behind him, one-third on one shoulder and one-third on the other.] And he smites him neither standing nor sitting, but bent over, it being written (Ibid.): \"Then the judge shall bend him over.\" And the one who smites does so with one hand [(but when he raises the thong, he does so with both hands)], with all his strength, [it being written (Ibid. 3): \"a great blow.\"]",
            "\tAnd the reader reads, [it being written (Leviticus 19:20): \"bikkoreth tihyeh\" — \"She shall be subject to the reading (kriah),\" it being read over the smitten one: \"If you shall not heed to do, etc.\" The senior judge reads, the second counts, and the third \"calls\" each stroke. And it is a mitzvah for the reader to complete the reading with the completion of the stripes. Failing to do that, he repeats the reading quickly, to make its ending coincide with the completion of the stripes.] (\"The reader reads\":) (Deuteronomy 28:58): \"If you shall not heed to do … then the L rd will make wondrous your smitings and the smitings, etc.\", and he returns to the beginning of the verse. (Ibid. 29:8): \"And you shall keep the words of this covenant, etc.\" And he concludes (Psalms 78:38): \"and He, being merciful, will atone for the sin, etc.\", and he returns to the beginning of the verse. And if he dies under his hand, he is not liable, [having smitten him by authority]. If he added a lash, [erring in the number], and he died, he is exiled. If he soils himself, whether with excrement or with urine [while being smitten], he is except (from the remaining stripes), [it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"and your brother be demeaned before your eyes\" — and he is thus demeaned.] R. Yehudah says: A man, with excrement; a woman, [even] with urine, [her shame being greater. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]",
            "\tAll those liable to kareth (cutting-off), who have received stripes, are absolved of their kareth [if they have repented], it being written (Deuteronomy 25:3): \"…and your brother be demeaned before your eyes\" — Once he has been demeaned, he is as your brother. These are the words of R. Chanania b. Gamliel. R. Chanina b. Gamliel said: Now if one who commits one (kareth) transgression has his soul taken from him, then one who performs one mitzvah, how much more so (does it follow) that his soul will be \"granted\" unto him! [Some understand this as referring to those liable to kareth, who were smitten, viz.: \"…then one who accepts his judgment and does a mitzvah in being smitten, how much more so (does it follow) that his soul will be \"granted\" unto him and he will be absolved of kareth!\" For \"His measure for reward is greater than His measure for punishment.\" And others understand it as an independent statement to apprise us of the reward for mitvoth, a fortiori, from the punishment for transgressions.] R. Shimon says: It is derived from its place [i.e., from kareth liability, that we are dealing with, that if one sits and does not transgress, he receives reward as if he had done a mitzvah], it being written [in respect to illicit relations], (Leviticus 18:29): \"And the souls who do it shall be cut off,\" and (Ibid. 5): \"…and he (who observes the statutes against illicit relations) shall live in them\" [followed by (6): \"A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh shall not draw near to uncover nakedness\"], whereby it is derived that if one sits and does not transgress [by \"uncovering nakedness\"], he receives reward as if he had done a mitzvah. [Scripture states: \"and he shall live in them\" — just as kareth is indicated for one who transgressed. This, only where the transgression \"presented itself\" and he conquered his evil inclination and resisted it, as Yosef Hatzaddik (with the wife of Potiphar) and the like.] R. Shimon b. Rebbi says (Deuteronomy 12:23): \"Only strengthen yourself not to eat the blood, for the blood is the soul … so that it shall be good for you and for your children after you, etc.\": Now if blood, from which a man's soul recoils, still, if he abstains from it, he receives reward — then theft and illicit relations, for which a man's soul lusts, how much more so does one who abstains from them merit reward for himself, his generations, and his generations' generations to the end of all generations!",
            "\tR. Chananya ben Akashya says: The Holy One Blessed be He desired to accord merit to Israel, wherefore He multiplied for them Torah and mitzvoth, as it is written (Isaiah 42:21): \"The L rd desired for his [Israel's] righteousness sake, [to vindicate them and to confer merit upon them], that Torah be aggrandized and glorified.\" [(\"He multiplied for them, etc.\":) such as the section on forbidden (\"detestable\") animals and reptiles, to \"multiply reward\" for their abstaining from them. For even if they had not been forbidden, they would not eat them, a man naturally recoiling from them.]"
        ]
    ],
    "sectionNames": [
        "Chapter",
        "Mishnah"
    ]
}