Commentary for Makkot 3:19

אלו הן הלוקין – not exactly these, for the Mishnah taught and left out many of those who were to be flogged, but since the Mishnah taught those who were liable for extirpation, to teach us that there is flogging with those liable for extirpation, and the Mishnah taught a widow and a divorcee, to teach us that a widow who is also a divorcee is liable upon her two titles. , And it is taught [in Mishnah 2 of this chapter] that eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts and First Tithe when priest’s due had not been taken, but it doesn’t explain their explicit prohibition clearly, and similarly, property dedicated to the Temple that had not been redeemed, for since the Mishnah taught about property dedicated to the Temple, it taught [about] the Second Tithe, for both of them [are punishable] by flogging because of lack of redemption, and similarly with most of them there is a side that is novel.

Introduction The final chapter of Makkoth discussed those who are liable to be flogged. There are three reasons that a person is flogged: 1) one who transgresses a Biblical law for which the penalty is kareth (heavenly excommunication). According to the Rabbis one who was flogged is not penalized by kareth, considered to be a more serious punishment. 2) One who transgresses a Biblical law which is punishable by death by the hands of Heaven. 3) One who transgresses a Biblical negative commandment, provided the transgression was active. Our chapter lists many categories of those who are to flogged but the list is not exhaustive.

נתינה – She is from the Gibeonites, and her flogging is from (Deuteronomy 7:3): “You shall not intermarry with them.”

And these are liable to be flogged:
One who had relations with his sister, or his father's sister, or his mother's sister, or his wife's sister, or his brother's wife, or his father's brother's wife, or a menstruant; This mishnah lists sexual offenses which are not punishable by death. In each of these cases both offenders, the man and the woman will be flogged. These forbidden relations are discussed in Leviticus chapters eighteen and twenty.

אלמנה – She became widowed from another man, and she is a divorcee, and one is liable upon her two [sets] of floggings.

A high priest who marries a widow, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee or a halutzah; This section lists marriages forbidden to high priests and ordinary priests. They are listed in Leviticus 21:7, 13-15.

משום שני שמות – because of two explicit prohibitions, for both of them are explained in Scripture, and the explicit prohibitions for both of them are stated.

An Israelite who marries a mamzereth or natinah, or an Israelite woman who is married to a mamzer or a natin. This section lists marriages forbidden to ordinary Israelites. A mamzer or mamzereth (a female mamzer), mentioned in Deuteronomy 23:3, is one born of a forbidden union which carries with it a punishment of kareth or death. A natin or natina (a female natin) is a descendent of the Gibeonites, those who tricked Joshua into accepting them as converts, upon which he declared them to be woodchoppers and water-drawers and forbade them to marry ordinary Israelites (Joshua 9:27).

גרושה – and she is a woman released from leviratical marriage, and he is not liable concerning her for two titles, for the woman released from leviratical marriage has no Jewish marriage contract, other than through extension of scope/amplification [of the Biblical passage] we bring it to her, as it is taught in a Baraita: “I don’t know anything about a divorcee other than the divorcee itself; a woman released from leviratical marriage, from where do I know it, as we learn, “and a woman” (Leviticus 18:18).

In the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a widow [a high priest] is liable on two counts. But in the case of a [woman who is both] a divorcee and a halutzah, an ordinary priest is liable only on one count. A widow who is also a divorcee, i.e. her first husband died and her second husband divorced her, is forbidden to a high priest on two counts. If he were to marry such a woman he would be obligated to be flogged for each transgression, even though he did only one act. A divorcee and a halutzah (one who has been rejected by her levir, her dead husband’s brother) are forbidden to an ordinary priest. However, the prohibition of the halutzah to an ordinary priest is only a Rabbinic prohibition, not Biblical, as is the prohibition to a divorcee Therefore, an ordinary priest who marries a divorcee who is also a halutzah is only flogged for one transgression.

המפטם את השמן – He who makes oil sample of the anointing out.

An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4);
One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13);
One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27);
Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8);
Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18);
Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19);
One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4);
One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15, 19);
One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31);
One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28):
One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21);
Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30);
Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11, 40).
One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property.
How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”
The first fourteen sections of our mishnah mostly lists different types of forbidden foods and a few other Temple related prohibitions for which one is to be flogged. Section fifteen discusses the amount of untithed produce that if one eats he is liable for a transgression.
Section fifteen: According to Rabbi Shimon one is liable for flogging if he eats any amount of untithed produce, even a single grain. The Sages disagree and state that only if one eats an olive’s size of untithed produce is he liable for flogging. Less than that and he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon attempts to prove his point by making an analogy to eating an entire ant. All agree that if one eats an entire ant (on purpose) he is liable to be flogged, even though the ant is smaller than an olive. The Sages respond that one is liable for eating an ant since it is an entire creature. Since it is a distinct, full entity it is enough to make one who consumes it liable for punishment. Rabbi Shimon responds that a single grain is also a whole entity, and therefore one who eats a single grain of untithed produce is liable to be flogged as well.

והסך בשמן המשחה – that Moses our teacher of blessed memory, made.

אכל טבל – Its explicit prohibition is from (Leviticus 22:15): “But [the priests] must not allow the Israelites to profane the sacred donations that they set aside for the LORD.” The verse speaks of what they will donate in the future.

ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו – and even he is [punished] with death, as it is written (Numbers 18:27): “This shall be accounted to you as your gift. As with the new grain from the threshing floor [or the flow from the vat].”

ומעשר שני שלא נפדה – Second Tithe that became defiled and even if he is in Jerusalem, it is prohibited to eat it until it is redeemed, but a person who eats it in Jerusalem while it is not yet redeemed, is flogged. And its explicit prohibition is from (Deuteronomy 26:14): “I have not cleared out any of it while impure,” whether I am defiled and it is ritually pure, whether I am ritually pure and it is ritually impure. And from where do we learn that Second Tithe which was defiled – that we redeem it in Jerusalem? As it states (Deuteronomy 14:24): “…should you be unable to transport them,” is explained as you are unable to eat it, as it is written (Genesis 43:34): “Portions were served them from the table…”

והקדש שלא נדפה – There is no prohibition written directly, but its explicit prohibition comes from an analogy of [the words] "חטא"\"חטא" /”sin,” “sin” – from the priest’s due, but even though the All-Merciful (i.e., God), excluded [the words] (Leviticus 22:9): “and they die for it,” but not through religious sacrilege, from death, [Scripture] excluded him, but not from an explicit prohibition.

באוכל נמלה שהוא חייב – because (Leviticus 11:29): “…from among the things that swarm on the earth,” and even though it lacks according to the measure.

אף חטה אחת כברייתה – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon. And we don’t call it a creature – other than that which has in it a soul alone.

עד שלא קרא עליהם – “My father was a wandering Aramean, etc.” (Deuteronomy 26:5). But after he recited [the formula/declaration – Deuteronomy 26:5-10] he is not flogged if he eats of it, because it is the money of the Kohen. And these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. But the Sages state: First Fruits, laying them down is indispensable for them, the recitation [of the declaration/formula] is not indispensable. As one who consumes them (i.e., First Fruit) after laying them down in the Temple courtyard, even though he had not yet recited [the formula/declaration], is not flogged. And the Halakha is according to the Sages. And their explicit prohibition is from as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:17): “You may not partake in your settlements of the tithes of your new grain [or wine or oil, or of the firstlings of your herds and flocks….] or of your contributions.” And the Master said: “your contributions” – these are the First Fruits, for the Priest’s Due/Terumah does not require being brought into the Place (i.e., the Temple). And regarding First Fruits also, one is not flogged on them other than if one ate them after they saw the “face” of Jerusalem before they are placed down in the Temple court, but if he ate them outside of Jerusalem prior to their being entered into Jerusalem, one is not flogged.

Introduction Mishnah continues to discuss which transgressions are punishable by flogging.

קדשי קדשים חוץ לקלעים קדשים קלים חוץ לחומה – All of these, their explicit prohibition is from (Deuteronomy 12:17): “You may not partake in your settlements, ….or of any of the votive offerings that you vow…,” for all consumption outside of the fixed place for it is called “eating in your settlements.”

One who eats of first fruits previous to the recital over them (Deut. 26:3-10); First fruits were to be brought to Jerusalem and given as a gift to the priests. The bearer of the first fruits was supposed to recite a liturgical text contained in Deuteronomy 26:3-10, which contained a brief history of Israel (the text is now part of the Passover Haggadah). A priest who ate of the first fruits before the recitation was made was punished by flogging.

ומעשר שני – it is taught [in the Mishnah] above (Mishnah 2), that impure Second Tithe that was not redeemed, as we have explained. And here, the Mishnah teaches that Second Tithe that is consumed outside the wall [of Jerusalem]. And specifically, that they ate outside the wall after it saw the “face” of Jerusalem is when he is flogged. But the individual who eats Second Tithe outside of Jerusalem before it enters into Jerusalem is not flogged, as it is written (Deuteronomy 12:18): “These you must consume before the LORD our God…” and afterwards (verse 17): “You may not partake in your settlements.”

Of most holy things outside of the Temple curtains (Exodus 27:9); Certain sacrifices were only to be eaten within the curtains of the Temple. These included sin offerings and guilt offerings. One who ate them outside of this area was punished by flogging.

המותיר – is not flogged, as it is written (Exodus 12:10): “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.” The verse comes to bring a positive command after a negative command, to state that if you transgressed the negative commandment, you have fulfilled the positive commandment connected with it, and you are not flogged. And furthermore, “you shall not leave any of it” is a negative commandment which lacks a positive commandment [associated with it], and every negative commandment that lacks with it a positive commandment, one is not flogged [for its violation].

Of lesser holy things or of second tithe, outside the city wall (Deut. 12:17-18). Other sacrifices could be consumed anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem. These included thanksgiving offerings, offerings of wellbeing and the Passover offering. The second tithe was to be brought to Jerusalem and consumed there. One who ate any of these things outside of the walls was punished by flogging.

השובר – a bone of an impure Passover offering is not flogged, as the All-Merciful (i.e., God) states (Exodus 12:46): “…nor shall you break a bone of it,” with a kosher/fit [sacrifice], not an invalid one.

One who breaks a bone of a ritually clean Passover offering receives forty [lashes] (Exodus 12:46); But one who leaves over a clean [Passover offering] (Exodus 12:10), or breaks a bone of an unclean [Passover offering], is not given forty [lashes]. The Torah forbids breaking a bone of the Passover sacrifice. The mishnah limits this law to a Passover sacrifice brought by a ritually clean person. Usually unclean people could not bring the Passover sacrifice and they were to wait a month and celebrate what is called Pesach Sheni, or The Second Passover (see Numbers 9:4-13). However, if most of the congregation was impure at the time of the first Passover (the 14th of Nissan) they were allowed to sacrifice the Passover offering while impure. Our mishnah teaches that one who breaks a bone of a Passover offering brought while the congregation is impure is not liable to be lashed. The Torah also states that the Passover offering must be consumed that very night. One who does not consume the Passover offering, while having violated a commandment, is nevertheless not flogged. We will learn why in the next mishnah.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think a person who breaks the bone of an impure Passover offering is not to liable for flogging?

לוקה ואינו משלם – for Rabbi Yehuda holds that (Deuteronomy 22:7) "שלח תשלח" /”Let [the mother] go” is implied from the outset, and even though, it is written,” let [the mother] go” after (verse 6) “do not take [the mother together with the young],” it is not to say that if you took it, you should let it go, but rather, do not take [the mother] but send her prior to the taking. And this is not a prohibitive law the transgression of which must be repaired by a succeeding [positive] act.

If one takes the mother bird with the young (Deuteronomy 22:6-7): Rabbi Judah says he is flogged and need not [then] send the mother free; But the Sages say: “He lets the mother go and is not flogged.”
This is the general principle; any negative commandment which involves a positive deed, one is not liable (for transgressing over.
Mishnah four discusses the prohibition of taking a mother bird with her young.
The last section of the mishnah states the principle that will explain the Sages’ position in the previous section as well as the last section of the previous mishnah. According to the mishnah any negative commandment which can be immediately remedied by a positive deed is not punishable by lashing. Our two mishnayoth illustrate commandments of this nature. Deuteronomy 22:6-7 states: “Do not take the mother (bird) with the young, Let the mother go”. The Sages understand the first half of this statement to be a negative commandment and the second half a positive deed which would remedy the violation of the negative commandment. In other words one who violates the negative commandment by taking the mother and the young can remedy it by doing a positive deed, namely by releasing the mother. Therefore, the Sages say that since he released the mother, he is not liable to be flogged.
Rabbi Judah reads the verse differently. He understands the second half to mean “Let the mother go” before you take her and the young. Once the person has taken the mother bird while the young are together with her in the nest he is immediately punishable by flogging, since he cannot remedy the situation. Since the commandment has already been violated and cannot be remedied, he is not obligated to release the mother bird.
This same general rule is also applicable with regards to the end of the previous mishnah which discussed leaving the Passover offering until morning. Exodus 12:10 states: “You shall not leave any of it until morning; if any of it is left until morning you shall burn it.” Again the first half of the verse is a negative commandment and the second half contains a remedy to the violation of that commandment. Therefore one who violates the prohibition of leaving the sacrifice until morning is not flogged.

וחכמים אומרים משלח ואינו לוקה – for they hold, “let [the mother] go” after taking, is implied, and it is a prohibitive law the transgression of which must be repaired by a succeeding act. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

כל מצוה לא תעשה ישי בה קום עשה – for the Torah stated, if you transgressed on the negative commandment, fulfill the positive commandment, such as (Deuteronomy 22:6): “Do not take the mother together with her young.” But if you took it, “let [the mother] go” (verse 7); [and another example] (Deuteronomy 24:10): “[When you make a loan of any sort to your countryman], you must not enter his house to seize his pledge.” But if you seized his pledge, “you must restore the pledge to him” (verse 13). All of these, if he fulfilled the positive commandment, he is not flogged. But if he did not fulfill the positive commandment, such as the case where he took the mother [animal] with her young and slaughtered it or it died, or he took the pledge from his house (i.e. the home of the person who had borrowed something) and it was burned and he cannot fulfill the positive commandment, behold, that person is flogged.

הקורח קרחה – because he is liable for each act of making a bald spot (Tractate Makkot 20a) and for each act of making an incision for a dead person and for every corner of his head that he mars, which is not the case when one eats forbidden fat repeatedly, and because of this, it is taught in our Mishnah, but the rest of the mere negative commandments which lack a novel [lesson], it did not teach.

Introduction Mishnah five discusses the various prohibitions of shaving one’s head either as a sign of mourning (Leviticus 21:5, Deuteronomy 14:1) or in general (Leviticus 19:26). These prohibitions are punishable by flogging.

קרחה – of the dead, as it is written (Deuteronomy 14:1): “or shave the front of your heads because of the dead.” And even though that concerning the Kohanim, it is not written, “on the dead,” we have already learned through an analogy from [the repetition of the word]: "קרחה" "קרחה" (see Leviticus 21:5 –“They shall not shave smooth any part of their heads, or cut the side-growth of their beards, or make gashes in their flesh” together with Deuteronomy 14:1); just as Israelites are commanded because of the dead, so too are Kohanim, and the measure of the “shaving smooth” is the size of a bean.

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Making a baldness on one’s head as a sign of mourning is prohibited in Deuteronomy 14:1 and Leviticus 21:5. Rounding the corner of one’s head and marring the corner of one’s beard are prohibited in Leviticus 19:27. Cutting one’s flesh for the dead is prohibited in Leviticus 19:28. All of these transgressions are punishable by flogging. Our mishnah now proceeds to list how many violations are contained in each of these commandments.

המקיף את ראשו – He who makes his temples as hairless as the spot back of his ears (Makkot 20b), and his forehead, and even on shaving with scissors where there is no destruction [of the head], he is liable regarding the corner of his head, and specifically on his beard (i.e., “or cut the side-growth of their beards” – Leviticus 21:5 and Leviticus 19:27: “You shall not round off the side-growth on your head”), it is written “destroy” only with a razor, but regarding the corner of the head, [the word] "הקפה"/”rounding” is written (Leviticus 21:5 – “they shall not shave smooth any part of their heads”), in every matter in which he “rounds” – he is liable.

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause a: With regards to cutting one’s flesh, each cut for each dead counts as a violation. If he cuts once for five dead he receives five sets of lashes. Likewise, if he cuts five times for one dead he receives five sets of lashes.

שריטה אחת על חמשה מתים או חמש שריטות על מת אחד – as it is written (Leviticus 19:28): “You shall not make gashes in your flesh for the dead” to be liable for each and every gash and for each and every dead person, and even though there wasn’t anything other than one warning, all five gashes at one time, one is liable [for each and every one].

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause b: Rounding one’s head is considered two violations, one for each side of the head. Therefore he will receive two sets of lashes.

על הראש שתים – one on the right and one on the left

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause c: Marring the corners of one’s beard is considered five violations, two for marring each side and one for marring the chin. Therefore he will receive five sets of lashes.

ועל הזקן שתים מכאן ושתים מכאן – the place of the attachment of the jaw to the bone, one on the right of the chin and the other on its left, and the pointed ends of the chin (i.e., the lower jawbones and the chin proper) in the middle, that makes “three.” And the attachment of the temples from one side and the other makes “five.” The upper cheekbone which is attached to the temples and the lower cheekbone on the right, and the upper cheekbone and the lower cheekbone on the left – these are two from here and two from there, and finally the beard and the hair coming out from it like a spike/ear of corn; therefore, it is called "שיבולת"/like an ear of corn/a spike, that makes “five.”

If a man makes a baldness on his head, or rounds the corner of his head, or mars the corner of his beard, or makes one cutting [in his flesh] for the dead, he is liable [to a flogging]. If he makes one cutting for five dead, or five cuttings for one, he is liable for each one. On [rounding] the head [he is liable] for two corners, one for one side and one for the other; On [marring] the beard [he is liable] for two [corners] on one side, for two on the other side, and for one lower down. Rabbi Eliezer says: “If they were all taken off at the same time he is liable only on one count.” Section one, clause d: Rabbi Eliezer disagrees with the previous opinion. In his opinion just because there are separate areas of the head to round or beard to mar does not mean that one is obligated lashes for each section. What causes a person to receive multiple sets of lashes is his having violated the prohibition on different occasions. If he mars one part of the beard today and another at a later time, for instance tomorrow, he will be obligated for two sets of lashes. However, if he violates the prohibition in one sitting he is only obligated for one set of lashes.

אינו חייב אלא אחת – for since it is one negative commandment, it is like someone who eats two olives of forbidden fat with [only] one warning.

And he is only liable if he takes off with a razor; Rabbi Eliezer says: “Even if he picks off the hairs with tweezers, or with pincers, he is liable. According to the first opinion in the mishnah he is only liable for having marred his beard if he does so with a razor. Rabbi Eliezer holds that marring even with pincers or tweezers is a violation of the commandment.

עד שיטלנו בתער – it refers to the corner of the beard, as it is written [in the Torah] concerning shaving and destroying (Leviticus 19:27 – “nor destroy the side-growth of your beard” and Leviticus 21:5 – “or cut the side-growths of their beards”).

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section two: What might be the basis of Rabbi Eliezer’s disagreement with the previous opinion?

מלקט – an instrument that is made like tongs, to remove the hair.

רהיטני – in the language of the Bible, it is an adze. It is an instrument that a carpenter uses to separate the face of the board.

כתבת קעקע – to scrape with a knife on his skin like letters (i.e., marking the outline of letters by abrasion), and afterwards, he fills in the abrasions with ink or powder used for painting the eye-lids/stibium.

He who writes an incision on his skin [is flogged].
If he writes [on his flesh] without incising, or incises without writing, he is not liable, until he writes and incises with ink, eye-paint or anything that lasts.
Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: “He is not liable until he has written there the name [of a god], as it is says: “Nor shall you incise any marks on yourselves; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 19:28).
This mishnah is a continuation of the previous mishnah which discussed the prohibitions in Leviticus 19:27-28.
The last half of verse Lev. 19:28 prohibits tattooing, defined in our mishnah as incising with a knife and making a permanent mark. If he were to incise without using permanent ink, or write on himself with permanent ink without first incising he would not be liable for lashes.
The first opinion in the mishnah understood that one is liable to be flogged no matter what he writes. Rabbi Shimon ben Judah disagrees and states that one is obligated only if he writes the name of another god. This is learned from the end or verse 28, “I am the Lord”. Rabbi Shimon understands this to mean God saying, “I am the Lord” and therefore you may not write any other god’s name.

כתב – on his skin with ink or with ink or powder used for painting the eye-lids but he did not scrape with a knife [on his skin] , or he scraped with a knife but did not fill it with ink or powder used for painting the eye-lids, he is not liable.

עד שיכתוב ויקעקע – he took the language of the Bible, as it is written (Leviticus 19:28): “or incise any marks;” writing at the beginning and incision at the end, but always, it is the incision first and the writing afterwards, and the Bible implies this, and the writing within the incision “incise [any marks] on yourselves.”

שיכתוב שם השם – In the Gemara (Makkot 21a) that it is the name of idolatry is mentioned, and that is how the Biblical verse is interpreted: “on yourselves,” the name of idolatry, “for I am the LORD,” and others cannot form a partnership with me, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

אינו חייב אלא אחת – on what he drank within as much time as is needed for an utterance (i.e., a greeting traditionally understood as the ability to say to his Rabbi, "שלום עליך רבי ומורי" /“peace to you, my teacher and Rabbi”) of a warning, and if there was before him a utensil that contained several quarter Logs of wine (i.e., a Log is equal to the volume of six eggs), and they said to him: “Don’t drink this utensil which has such-and-such measurements for you will be flogged such-and-such floggings, and he is liable for each and every measurement, even though they did not wan him other than once.

Introduction Mishnah seven discusses a nazirite who violates the prohibition of drinking wine.

If a nazirite has been drinking wine all day, he is liable for only one lashing. If they said to him, “Don’t drink wine”, “Don’t drink wine”, and he kept drinking, he is liable for each instance. A nazirite is forbidden to shave his hair, drink wine or become impure (Numbers 6:1-21). Our mishnah asks the question about a nazirite who drinks wine all day long. Is this considered one violation or many violations? In other words, what splits one act of violation from another, in order to make him liable on multiple counts? The mishnah states that it is his awareness of his crime, proven by others warning him to cease drinking, that separates counts of violations. If he drinks all day long yet no one warns him, it is only considered one violation. If others warn him, it is considered a violation every time he continues to drink.

Questions for Further Thought:
• How does this mishnah compare to Rabbi Eliezer’s statement at the end of mishnah five? Does this mishnah go according to his opinion or not?

והוא פושט ולובש – but not stretching completely, but since he stuck out his head and returned it, he is liable. And in the Gemara (Talmud Makkot 21b), he did not actually stretch out, but delayed between each warning to take it off and to put on [clothing of mixed seeds] , and he is like someone who takes them off and ten once again puts them on, and he is liable for each and every warning.

If he has been defiling himself for the dead all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not defile yourself! Do not defile yourself!” and he did defile himself [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was shaving all day he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not shave, Do not shave” and he did shave [each time], he is liable on each instance.
If he was wearing a garment of mixed linen and wool all day, he is liable for only one set of lashes. If they said to him, “Do not put it on! Do not put it on!” and he takes it off and puts it on, he is liable on each instance.
Mishnah eight is a continuation of mishnah seven which discussed the punishment for the continuous violation of a negative commandment.
All three sections of this mishnah teach the same ruling, which we learned already in the end of mishnah seven. If a person is violating a prohibition continuously over an entire day he is only punished for one violation. In other words, even though he may have violated the prohibition several times, it is considered one continuous violation and he is only punished once. However, if he is warned by others and continues to violate the prohibition he is obligated for each violation. Since he was warned he cannot claim that he didn’t realize what he was doing.
The first two sections deal with two of the prohibitions placed by the Torah on the nazirite: ritually defile himself through contact with a dead body or shave his hair. The other prohibition for the nazirite, drinking wine, was the subject of mishnah seven.
The final section of the mishnah deals with the wearing of a garment which contains wool and linen. This is prohibited in Leviticus 19:19.

תלם אחת – one row of a field (when one ploughs one furrow)

Introduction Mishnah nine discusses a case where one can perform one act and thereby violate eight or nine negative commandments and therefore receive eight or nine sets of lashes.

וחייב עליו משום שמונה לאוין – and he had been warned on all of them.

Our mishnah lists a situation where a person plows one furrow in the ground and yet has violated eight different negative commandments. We will describe all eight and their Biblical precedents. (1) It is forbidden to plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together (Deuteronomy 22:10). (2+3) If the animals were sanctified to the Temple then one is forbidden to use them for other purposes. Since there are two animals that were both sanctified, he has violated two negative commandments not to use sanctified property. (4) It is forbidden to sew ones vineyard with other types of seeds (Deuteronomy 22:9). If by plowing he overturns seeds in a vineyard, this is considered as if he is sewing them anew and he thereby violates this commandment. (5) It is forbidden to plow the land during the Sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:4). (6) It is forbidden to plow on the Festival (see for instance Leviticus 23:7). It is also forbidden to plow on the Sabbath. However, violations of the Sabbath are not punished by lashes, as are the other violations in our mishnah, but rather by death. Since there is a principle that if one violates two commandments with one act he receives the more serious punishment, if this plowing were to have taken place on the Sabbath he would be executed and not flogged. Hence our mishnah lists the Festival and not the Sabbath. (7) A priest is forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead or with a cemetery (Leviticus 21:1). If the plowing was done in a cemetery he will be obligated for this violation as well. (8) A nazirite is also forbidden to defile himself by contact with the dead (Numbers 6:6).

והן מקודשים – the ox which is dedicated for sacrifice, and a donkey which is of the offerings of Temple repair (see Mishnah Temurah, Chapter 1, Mishnah 6). And the ox has the negative commandment [associated with it] of (Deuteronomy 15:19): “you must not work your firstling ox,” and regarding the donkey, there is a warning of religious sacrilege and we derive it from the [repetition of the word]: חטא "חטא" – from Priest’s Due/Terumah, and the negative commandment (Deuteronomy 22:10): “You shall not plow with an ox and an ass together.” We have here three negative commandments.

Hanania ben Hakinai says: “He may also have been wearing a garment mixed of wool and linen.” They said too him: “This is not of the same category.” He said to them: “Even the nazirite is not in the same category.” Hananiah ben Hakinai adds another possible violation to the list. If, while performing all of these activities, he wears the forbidden mixture of wool and linen, he has now violated a ninth prohibition. The Sages respond that this ninth violation has nothing to do with the plowing and therefore they did not list it in the first section of our mishnah. Hananiah ben Hakinai responds that being a nazirite (or a priest) who defiles himself is also not a violation that is a result of the plowing, since a nazirite and a priest are forbidden even to enter the cemetery. Since according to Hananiah the list already includes violations that are not a direct result of plowing, it may be expanded to other violations that are not a result of the plowing, such as wearing wool and linen. In this way Hananiah ben Hakinai has found a way that a person can be obligated for having violated nine prohibitions in one act.

וכלאים בכרם – on account that he ploughs, he covers up the wheat and barley and pomace of kernels (or shell of grapes) in the dust, and transgresses because of [the Biblical verse] (Deuteronomy 22:9): “You shall not sow your vineyard with a second kind of seed,” and we have established that he who covers up mixed seeds is flogged, and even though he did not sow them, but ploughs dust on them, that is four negative commandments. But Maimonides thought that mixed seeds in a vineyard is two negative commandments: one because of mixed seeds, which are two kinds of seeds – wheat and barley, and one because of mixed seeds in a vineyard because of the shell of grapes, but the Holy Things of an ox and a donkey are not considered other than being one negative commandment.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why would the authors of the mishnah want to list all of the possible violations involved in plowing one furrow? What principle does this teach us? How does it relate to the subject of the previous mishnah?
• Section two: What might the Sages respond to Hananiah ben Hakinai, who received the last word in the mishnah?

שביעית – (Leviticus 25:4): “A sabbath of the LORD: you shall not sow your field…”

ויו"ט – (Leviticus 23:36): “You shall not work at your occupations” (see also: Leviticus 23: 7,21,25 for similar usage of this phrase).

כהן ונזיר – and he is in a cemetery, and he is transgressing (Leviticus 21:2): “None shall defile himself for any [dead] person among his kin” that is mentioned in [the chapter of the laws concerning] the Kohanim (Leviticus chapter 21)., and (Numbers 6:6): “He shall not go in where there is a dead person” which is stated in regard to the Nazirite (Numbers, chapter 6).

אף הלובש כלאים – at the time when he is ploughing.

אינו מן השם – the negative of commandment of wearing [garments made] of mixed seeds is not for the one who ploughs a furrow.

אף כהן ונזיר – which is considered a negative commandment, is not for ploughing, but for walking to an impure place. However, the first Tanna considers them included in the negative commandments of the person who ploughs a furrow, because he cannot plow with oxen other than if he walks with them and leads them.

מנין שהוא סמוך לארבעים – that causes to say afterwards “forty,” which is thirty nine. If the Torah had written: “Forty in number,” I would think that forty is the number. Now that it is written (Deuteronomy 25:2-3): “by count” (verse 2) and “Up to forty” (verse 3), it is the number that causes one to say after it “forty,” that is, “thirty-nine.”

Introduction Mishnah ten discusses the number of lashes a transgressor is to receive.

והיכן הוא לוקה את היתירה – that is not worthy to be divisible by three, for thirty-nine is worthy of being divided by three, one third in his front, and two thirds – one on this shoulder and one on the other shoulder. And this of forty – how would he flog it?

How many lashes is he given? Forty save one, as it says, “By number forty” (Deuteronomy 25:2-3) which means, a number close to forty. Rabbi Judah says: “He is given forty [lashes] in full.” And where does he receive the additional lash? Between his shoulders. Through a clever midrash our mishnah learns from Deuteronomy 25:2-3 that a person can receive up to 39 lashes for a single crime. The simple reading of those verses is actually that he can receive 40 lashes. Verse 3 states explicitly, “He may be given up to forty lashes.” The Rabbis derive 39 from the fact that verse 2 ends with the word “by number” and verse 3 with the word “forty”. The midrash is that the “number” is before “forty” and therefore he is lashed 39 times. Interestingly, the Rambam thinks that the midrash in our mishnah is not the derivation of the law but rather merely a Biblical support. The real reason that he only receives a maximum of 39 lashes is that if the person counting the lashes makes a mistake of one, he will still have only received 40 lashes. In this way the court will not violate the explicit prohibition in verse 3 not to give more than 40 lashes. Rabbi Judah reads the verse literally, and therefore does prescribe forty full lashes. In mishnah thirteen we will learn that the person receives a third of the lashes on his front and two-thirds on his back. The end of our mishnah asks where does he receive the fortieth lash, according to Rabbi Judah who says that he gets 40 full lashes. The mishnah teaches that the fortieth lash is between his shoulders.

בין כתפיו – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

אין אומדין אותו וכו' – for all who are flogged in the Jewish court, it was necessary to estimate at the beginning so that he would not die as a result of the beatings, since it is written (Deuteronomy 25:3): “He may be given up to [forty lashes], but not more, lest being flogged further” for if he must lessen it, they lessen it.

Introduction Mishnah ten continues to discuss the number of lashes a person is to receive.

אלא במכות הראויות להשתלש – and we never add to the estimate.

Our mishnah assumes that when the Torah states that a person is to be lashed 40 (39) times, the meaning is that this is the maximum number of lashes any person can receive. Before a person is lashed, he is to be examined by doctors who will estimate how many lashes he can receive without his life being endangered. This estimate is the number of lashes that he will actually receive.

אמדוהו לקבל ארבעים – minus one, but he used the language of the Bible.

When they estimate the number of lashes he can stand it must be a number divisible by three. As we will learn in mishnah thirteen the lashes are divided into three sets, one set on his front and two on his back. Since they are divided into three sets, the number of lashes that the doctors say that the person can receive must be divisible by three.

אמדוהו אומד אחד – for two sets of floggings, such as they estimated for him to receive forty-two [floggings].

If they estimated him capable of receiving forty, and after receiving some they said he cannot receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. If they estimated him fit to receive eighteen, and after he was lashed they said he could receive forty, he is exempt [from the rest]. Estimates made by the doctors are not necessarily going to be accurate. If the doctors err the criminal always receives the benefit of the doubt. If they prescribe a high number of lashes, and as he is being lashed they see that he will not be able to withstand the prescribed number, they stop lashing him. If the doctors prescribe a low number, and after having finished lashing him they see that he can withstand more, they do not give him more lashes. In other words the criminal can never receive more than the prescribed number nor more than they think he can withstand.

ואם לאו – that they only estimated for him to received only for one set of floggings.

If he committed a transgression which violated two prohibitions and they made one estimate [for the lashes for both prohibitions], he is lashed and then exempt [from more]. And if [they had] not [made one estimate for both], he is lashed [for one transgression], is allowed to recover and then is lashed again. If a person committed two violations with one act then there is the possibility that the lashes he receives for both will be joined together. If the doctors give one estimate as to how many lashes he can receive, for instance they say he can receive 42, 39 for the first violation and then 3 more for the second, then he receives the 42 lashes and is not lashed any more. However, if they make separate evaluations, for instance they say he can receive 39 for the first crime and do not state a number for the second, then he receives the lashes for the first crime, is allowed to heal, and then receives the prescribed number of lashes for the second crime. In other words, since the lashes were not estimated together, they are considered separate sets of lashes, and he must be allowed to recuperate in between.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section three: Do you think that the ruling might be different if instead of performing one act whereby he violated two prohibitions, he instead violated two prohibitions by performing two separate acts?

על העמוד – which is stuck in the ground upright and tall in order to lean upon it.

Introduction Mishnayoth twelve describes where and how the one being lashed and the one lashing should stand. It also describes the whip itself.

וחזן – the sexton who is the agent of the Jewish court.

How do they lash him? His two hands are tied to a pillar on either side of it and the minister of the synagogue grabs his clothing, if they are torn, they are torn; if they are ripped open, they are ripped open, until he exposes the offender’s chest. And a stone is placed behind the offender, the minister of the synagogue stands on it, a strap of cowhide in his hands, doubled over into two, and redoubled, and two straps that rise and fall attached to it. While being lashed the victim is tied to a post with his hands spread apart. The “minister of the synagogue”, who was responsible for most of the administrative duties, would open the offender’s garments, even if this would cause them to rip. The minister would then stand upon a stone and hold a whip in his hand. The whip was made of cowhide folded twice to make it thicker, and thereby stronger. From the central piece came out two other straps. According to the Talmud these two other straps were made of donkey’s hide, which was not as thick as the cowhide.

נפרמו – the threads of the seam were torn.

מאחוריו – of the person being flogged.

ורצועה של עגל – as it states (Deuteronomy 25:3): “He may be given up to forty lashes” and near it (Deuteronomy 25:4): “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing.”

כפולה לשנים ושנים לארבעה – four straps sewed on one top of the other.

ושתי רצועות – thin of a donkey

עולות ויורדות בה – like the horse-cover of a saddle, and the reason is because it is written (Isaiah 1:2): “An ox knows its master, an ass its master’s crib; [Israel does not know, My people takes no thought].” God said (Makkot 23a) that a person who recognizes his master’s crib should settle with him who does not recognize his master’s crib.”

ידה טפח – the handle that the strap is hanging from, is the length of a hand-breadth.

Introduction Mishnah thirteen continues to describe the whip and how the lashes are to be administered.

ורחבה – of the strap of the calf is a hand-breadth.

The handle is a handbreadth long and a handbreadth wide, its tip reaching to the edge of the [offender’s] abdomen. Our mishnah continues to describe the whip used for lashing. Its handle was one handbreadth by one handbreadth. The tip of the whip, meaning the extra straps, should be long enough to reach the offender’s abdomen when the minister strikes him. The offender will be struck by the tip and not by the body of the whip, made of the cowhide.

וראשה מגעת על פי כריסו – for that reason, there must be in the handle of the strap a hole, that the sexton who flogs can lengthen or shorten the strap as he wishes, for we do not flog a person other than with a strap whose head reaches the belly which is his navel.

He administers one-third [of the lashes] in front and two-thirds behind. He lashes him not in a standing or sitting position but stooping, as it says, “And the judge shall cause him to fall [stoop] down” (Deut. 25:2). He who administers the lashes lashes with his one hand and with his whole force. As we learned previously, one-third of the lashes are on his front and two-thirds on his back. The offender, when he is being lashed, is not to stand nor to sit but to lean over. This is learned from the verse which states that the judge should cause him to fall over. The verse is understood not to mean that the judge should cause him to fall all the way down but to stoop down. The person lashing can use only one hand but he should use all of his force.

שליש מלפניו – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:2): “and be given lashes in his presence, [by count] as his guilt warrants” – “in his presence (i.e., in his front) as his guilt warrants” – one, and from his back – two. מלפניו – on his heart. מאחריו – one-third on this shoulder and one-third on the other shoulder.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Why do you think that two-thirds of the lashes are given on the back and one-third on the front?

מכה בידו אחת – but when he lifts the strap, he lifts it with his two hands.

כבל כחו – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:3): “to excess, [your brother be degraded before your eyes].”

והקורא קורא – as it is written (Leviticus 19:20): “there shall be indemnity; [they shall not, however, be put to death…”through reading it shall be, for we read about him (Deuteronomy 28:58): “If you fail to observe faithfully [all the terms of this Teaching that are written in this book]…etc.” The greatest of the judges reads [the Biblical text of Deuteronomy 28:58-59) and the one next to him counts and the third states after each beating [what has occurred]. And it is a Mitzvah upon the reader to shorten and to complete the Biblical verses following the flogging, and if he didn’t shorten, he returns and reads it a second time and hurries to read and to complete when the flogger completes his floggings (Makkot 23a).

Introduction The first half of mishnah fourteen lists the Biblical verses that are called out while the lashes are being administered. The second half of the mishnah discusses the offender either dying or befouling himself while being lashed.

ואם מת תחת ידו פטור – because he beats him with permission

And the one who recites, says: “If you fail to observe faithfully all the terms of this Teaching…the Lord will inflict upon you extraordinary plagues (” (Deut. 25:58-59) And then (if time he returns to the beginning of the section. While the lashes are being administered Biblical verses are read out loud. These verses function as a warning to the person being lashed and to those witnessing. The verse in Deuteronomy warns that if Israel fails to observe the Torah (“Teaching”) God will punish Israel with plagues. In Hebrew the word plagues (makkoth) is the same word as lashes. This verse can be read to say that one who does not observe the Torah will be punished with lashes. If the reader has finished reciting the verses and there remains more lashes to be administered, the reader begins again to recite the verse from the beginning.

הוסיף לו – such as the case where he made an error in the counting.

[“Therefore observe faithfully all the terms of this covenant” (Deut. 28:9) and he completes by saying, “And He is merciful, forgiving iniquity” (Psalms 78:38).] This line is missing in many versions of the mishnah, hence it is in brackets. Those manuscripts which do contain this line do not contain the previous line, section 2a. According to this version, a different verse is also recited and when close to finishing the lashes, the reader calls out a verse which mentions God’s mercy.

נתקלקל – as a result of the beatings, feces came out.

If the offender dies under his hand, he is exempt [from penalty]. If he gave him one more lash and the offender died, he goes into banishment. If the offender dies while being lashed the one administering the lashes is not responsible, not even as an accidental killer. This law was already learned in chapter two, mishnah two. Our mishnah adds that if the one lashing mistakenly added one lash more than was prescribed, and then the offender died, he is considered a manslayer and hence must go into banishment. The assumption is that the one lashing did not kill the offender on purpose and therefore he is not judged as an intentional killer but as an accidental one.

פטור – as it is written (Deuteronomy 25:3): “your brother be degraded before your eyes,” for he became degraded when he became soiled.

If the offender befouled himself either with feces or urine, he is exempt. Rabbi Judah says: “Feces in the case of a man and [even] urine in the case of a woman. If the offender befouls himself, either by defecating or urinating, while being lashed, the lashing ends. This is a remarkable law, teaching that even at the time when the court is by definition punishing and humiliating the criminal, we are still to be concerned for his honor. By befouling himself in public the criminal is overwhelmingly shamed, and therefore the court cannot continue to punish him. Rabbi Judah states that there is a difference between men and women. Since women are more easily shamed, if they either defecate or urinate while being flogged they are immediately exempt from further lashes. Men, on the other hand, are exempt only if they defecate, which is for obvious reasons considered to be a greater embarrassment.

ואשה אף במים – since her shame is greater. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

Questions for Further Thought:
• What is the context of the verse in Deuteronomy, quoted in section one? How might this context effect how the verse is understood when recited during the lashing?
• Why do some versions have the reader call out the verse from Psalms? What message does this verse convey?

נפטרו מידי כריתתן – if they did returned in repentance.

Introduction The final two mishnayoth of Makkoth are in essence the final two mishnayoth of a long tractate, which at one time included both Sanhedrin and Makkoth, a total of 14 chapters. As is typical of the Mishnah, long tractates are completed with words of “aggadah”, sermonic material, not usually of a legal nature. Both of these mishnayoth teach how great will be the reward of those who fulfill the commandments and deal with some weighty theological issues.

העושה מצוה אחת על אחת כמה וכמה – there are those who interpret this – that it is speaking of all those who are liable for extirpation who were flogged, for whomever accepted upon himself the judgement and performed a Mitzvah when he was flogged, all the more so that his soul will be saved for him and that he will be exempt from extirpation, for he has one good measure [in his favor] over and above the measure for retribution. And there are those who interpret that this is for itself – to inform the giving of reward [for the performance] of the commandments, all the more so, from the punishment for transgressions.

All who have incurred [the penalty of] kareth, on being flogged are exempt from their punishment of kareth, for it says, “[He may be given up to forty lashes, but not more] ... lest your brother shall be dishonored before your eyes” (Deut. 25;3) once he has been lashed he is [considered] “your brother”, the words of Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel. The punishment of kareth, being cut off from one’s people, while not enforced by a court of law, was considered to be a very serious punishment, one with dire consequences. The Rabbis taught that by receiving lashes one is expiated from the punishment of kareth. This is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which calls the person being lashed “your brother”. After he has been lashed his punishment of kareth is erased and he returns to his full status as a member of Israel.

ממקומו הוא למד – from those liable for extirpation, that we speak about them we learn that he who sits and does not commit a sin, we credit him for a reward as one who performs a Mitzvah (see Mishnah Avot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 2), as it is written concerning the laws of incest (Leviticus 18:29): “such persons shall be cut off [from their people].” And it states (Leviticus 18:5): “[You shall keep My laws and My rules,] by the pursuit of which man shall live: [I am the LORD].” And near it (verse 6): “None of you shall come near anyone of his own flesh [to uncover nakedness: I am the LORD].” Behold that a person who sits and does not uncover the nakedness [of one of his forbidden relations], the Written Torah calls him that he has performed a Mitzvah, and it is written concerning him (verse 5), “of which a man shall live.” In the same manner that [the Torah] punishes with extirpation for someone who commits a transgression, and this specifically regarding one who has the opportunity to sin and he conquers his [negative] impulse and doesn’t do it, is like Joseph the Righteous and others like him.

Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel said: “Just as one who transgresses one transgression forfeits his life, how much more does one who performs one commandment have his life granted him.” All throughout our tractate and tractate Sanhedrin we have been learning about punishments, including such serious punishments as lashings, kareth and execution. Rabbi Hananiah ben Gamaliel finds hope in the seriousness of these punishments. If a person can be so harshly punished for merely one sin, all the more great will be the reward for one who fulfills even one commandment.

Rabbi Shimon says: “You can learn this from its own passage; as it says: “[All who do any of those abhorrent things] such persons shall be cut off from their people” (Lev. 18:29), and it says: “You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances which if a man do, he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), which means that one who desists from transgressing is granted reward like one who performs a precept. Rabbi Shimon claims that an even greater principle can be learned from a verse dealing with kareth itself. The end of chapter 18 in Leviticus states that one who does one of these sins will be punished by kareth, i.e. cut off from his people. The beginning of the chapter states that if one performs the commandments he will live through them. In other words, the end of the chapter discusses those who transgress and the beginning of the chapter mentions those who perform the commandments. Rabbi Shimon concludes that these are flip sides to the same coin. By merely not transgressing a person is considered as if he had actively performed a commandment and will receive his just reward.

Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi says: Behold [the Torah] says, “But makes sure that you do not partake of the blood; for the blood is the life, and you must not consume the life with the flesh…[that it may go well with you and with your descendents to come..” (Deut. 12:23-25”-- now, if in the case of blood which a person’s soul loathes, anyone who refrains from it receives reward, how much more so in regard to robbery and sexual sin for which a person’s soul craves and longs shall one who refrains from them acquire merit for himself and for generations and generations to come, to the end of all generations! Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi continues to discuss how great the reward is for performing the commandments. Deuteronomy states that one who refrains from eating the blood of an animal will merit reward, as will all of his descendents. Rabbi Shimon bar Rabbi points out that if a person receives such a great reward for refraining from doing something that he wouldn’t want to do anyway, since most people are disgusted by blood, how much greater will be his reward for refraining from stealing and transgressing sexually, sins which most people crave. In other words, rewards are based on resistance to evil temptations. The greater the temptation the greater the reward for resistance.

It is among the fundamental principles of the Torah that when an individual fulfills one of the 613 commandments in a fit and proper manner, not combining with it any aspect of worldly intent but rather doing it for its own sake, out of love, then they merit the World to Come through this single act. This is what R' Hananya meant - being that the Holy One have us so many commandments it is impossible that in a lifetime one not do a single one in a full and proper manner, and in doing so their soul will live through that act. When R' Hananya ben Tradiyon's asked 'will I merit to life in the coming world' and received the response 'have you ever done anything?' this also indicated the same principle. The answer he received meant 'have you ever had the chance to do one of the commandments properly?' His answer was that he once had the chance to give tzedaka in a wholehearted fashion, as much as is possible, and it was through this that he merited to life in the World to Come.

לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות – such as the portions of forbidden animals and reptiles (i.e., all kinds of forbidden foods – see Mishnah Sanhedrin Chapter 8, Mishnah 2 and Mishnah Niddah Chapter 3, Mishnah 2), in order to increase the reward when they abstain from them, for even though without that, they would not eat them since the soul of man detests them.

Introduction The final mishnah of the tractate is a continuation of mishnah fifteen.

למען צדקו – to make the Jewish people virtuous and to make them worthy [of Divine favor].

Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: “The Holy Blessed One, desired to make Israel worthy, therefore gave He gave them much Torah [to study] and many commandments [to perform]: for it is says, “The Lord desires [his servant’s] vindication, that he may magnify and glorify [His] teaching.” This oft-quoted mishnah responds to an important theological question regarding the performance of commandments. Why does God care, or how is God affected, by Israel performing ritual commandments, for instance, kashruth, the dietary laws? Many have asked, what does God care how I eat my meat, whether I eat it with milk or not? The answer that Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashiah gives is that by performing God’s commandment, Israel accrues merit with God. It is a way for Israel to live up to a covenant, entered into with the infinite divine. The mitvoth, the commandments, and the learning of Torah, are not magical rites, performed in order to manipulate God into treating us better. Rather they are a symbol God’s grace to Israel, a means by which Israel can act out the will of the divine. They are means by which Israel can show God how much they love God. While there are other answers to this question, this answer is one of the most meaningful and often quoted one’s that I have seen. Congratulations! We have finished Makkoth. It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us to finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For those of you who have learned with us the entire tractate, a hearty Yasher Koach (congratulations). You have accomplished a great deal and you should be proud of yourselves. Indeed we have now finished together five tractates of Mishnah, and are more than halfway through the entire order of Nezikin. Of course, we have much more to learn. We will begin Shevuoth tomorrow!