lashes

R' Akiva says, No. This isn't the source, rather it's from the fact that there is no forbidden action, and a sin without an action has no lashes [as a punishment]. It seems from what R' Yehudah explained that a sin without action, there are lashes. From where is this?

R' Akiva says, No. This isn't the source, rather it's from the fact that there is no forbidden action, and a sin without an action has no lashes [as a punishment]. It seems from what R' Yehudah explained that a sin without action, there are lashes. From where is this?

Ulah said, ... It is derived from the defaming husband; just as the defaming husband is a sin without action, so too here all sins without action are liable to lashes. [This cannot be correct.] What do we find regarding the defaming husband? He receives lashes and still pays.

Ulah said, ... It is derived from the defaming husband; just as the defaming husband is a sin without action, so too here all sins without action are liable to lashes. [This cannot be correct.] What do we find regarding the defaming husband? He receives lashes and still pays.

Rather Reish Lakish said, is is derived from false witnesses. Just as false witnesses is a sin without action, so too here a sin without action is liable to lashes. What [is the connection] to false witnesses, that does not require a warning?

The sin of a defaming husband does require a warning. And the argument will resume, neither sin is similar to the other. The common characteristic of them is that they are both sins without action and liable to lashes. So too all sins without action are liable to lashes.

The sin of a defaming husband does require a warning. And the argument will resume, neither sin is similar to the other. The common characteristic of them is that they are both sins without action and liable to lashes. So too all sins without action are liable to lashes.

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

MISHNA: [The false witnesses] divide the monetary payment but not the lashes. How is this? If they testified that a person was obligated to pay 200 zuz [a unit of currency] to his fellow and were then found to be false, they split the payment between them, but if they testified that a person was liable to forty lashes and were then found to be false, each [of the false witnesses] gets forty lashes.

GEMARA: From where is this known [that lashes can not be divided]? Abaye says, The word "rasha" (wicked person) is said by the laws of lashes (Deuteronomy 25, 2) and the word "rasha" is said by the laws of the death penalty (Numbers 35, 31). Just as there is no half of a death penalty, so too there is no half of lashes.

GEMARA: From where is this known [that lashes can not be divided]? Abaye says, The word "rasha" (wicked person) is said by the laws of lashes (Deuteronomy 25, 2) and the word "rasha" is said by the laws of the death penalty (Numbers 35, 31). Just as there is no half of a death penalty, so too there is no half of lashes.

GEMARA: From where is this known [that lashes can not be divided]? Abaye says, The word "rasha" (wicked person) is said by the laws of lashes (Deuteronomy 25, 2) and the word "rasha" is said by the laws of the death penalty (Numbers 35, 31). Just as there is no half of a death penalty, so too there is no half of lashes.

Rava says, We need to fulfill the requirement of (Deuteronomy 19, 19) "as he plotted to do his brother" and we can not. [He plotted to make his fellow liable a full forty lashes.] If so, than money should also [not be able to be divided]. Money combines, while lashes do not combine.

Rava says, We need to fulfill the requirement of (Deuteronomy 19, 19) "as he plotted to do his brother" and we can not. [He plotted to make his fellow liable a full forty lashes.] If so, than money should also [not be able to be divided]. Money combines, while lashes do not combine.

From where do we learn this rule [that zomemim aren't liable if the victim had no verdict] by lashes? The Torah uses a gezariah shava of Rasha Rasha

Shimon ben Shatach said to him, I will not seek comfort if you continue to spill innocent blood. That the sages say, zommemim witnesses aren't executed until they both become zommemim, and they also don't receive lashes until they both become zomemim.

This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]

Rather, Rav Aha son of Yaakov said: It's a case where he [the Israelite] testified against him [the Samaritan that he would be liable for lashing] and he was found guilty of falsely testifying [so whatever punishment he tried to give the Samaritan, he would suffer]. Similarly regarding a slave who testified against [an Israelite that would be punished with lashes] and was found to be a false witness—can a slave even give testimony?! [Therefore, this solution must be wrong because this half of the baraita doesn't make sense]. Rather, Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: Here is what we are dealing with [where slave and Samaritan are lashed because of Israelite]: a case where he struck him with a wound

And there are others whom teach it [differently], "In order that they [the murderers] would pray that their children would not die". The reason [that the high priests don't die] is that they pray for them. This implies that if they wouldn't pray for them then they would die. But what should [the high priest] have done?! Here [in Babylonia] we say, "Tuvia sinned and Zigud gets lashes?!"

MISHNA: And these are the ones who receive lashes. One who cohabits with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister with his brother' wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with his father's brother's wife, or with a nidda [i.e. a menstruating lady]. A widow with a high priest, a divorcee or a arkham who received chalutzah with a regular priest, a mamzeres [i.e. illegitimate woman] or nasina [i.e. a Gibeonite woman] with an Israelite, the daughter if a priest with a nasan or a mamzer. [All of these aforementioned cohabitations are subject to lashes.]

MISHNA: And these are the ones who receive lashes. One who cohabits with his sister, with his father's sister, with his mother's sister with his brother' wife's sister, with his brother's wife, with his father's brother's wife, or with a nidda [i.e. a menstruating lady]. A widow with a high priest, a divorcee or a arkham who received chalutzah with a regular priest, a mamzeres [i.e. illegitimate woman] or nasina [i.e. a Gibeonite woman] with an Israelite, the daughter if a priest with a nasan or a mamzer. [All of these aforementioned cohabitations are subject to lashes.]

Are subject to forty lashes. These are the words of Rebbi Yishmael,

Rabbi Akiva says liabilities of kares are subject to forty lashes for if he repents the heavenly court will forgive him. liabilities of court execution[, however,] are not subject to forty lashes for if he repents the earthly court can not forgive him.

Rabbi Akiva says liabilities of kares are subject to forty lashes for if he repents the heavenly court will forgive him. liabilities of court execution[, however,] are not subject to forty lashes for if he repents the earthly court can not forgive him.

They asked him [Rebbi Yochanon] Did you say this? [that any prohibition preceded by a positive commandment is subject to flogging i.e. a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah]... He responded to them, No. [I retract what I said.] Rabbah said, By God! He said it. And it is backed by a posuk [verse] and a mishnah. It is written (Numbers 5,2) "And they shall send forth from the camp. etc. And they shall not defile their camps" [which is a lo saseah s'kedmu asseah] and it was taught in a mishna "One who enters the temple whilst impure [receives lashes].

And Reish Lakash as expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a lav sh'ein bo maiseh is subject to lashes.

MISHNA: One who eats bikorim [first fruits] before the verses are recited; [or eats] kadshai kadshim [offerings of greater sanctity] outside the curtain [of the temple courtyard; or one who eats] kadshai kalim [offerings of lesser sanctity] or maiser sheni outside the wall [of Jerusalem]; or one who breaks the bone of a pure Pesach offering. All of these incur forty lashes. But one who leaves over from [even a tahor i.e. a pure] offering, or one who breaks a bone of a tamai [impure] offering does not incur malkus.

And the incisor who makes one incision: Our rabbis taught (from Leviticus 19:28) an incision- could the rule [that this is forbidden] apply even if [one made] the incision because of one's house that fell or one's ship that sank at sea? What the verse (Leviticus 19:28) comes to teach is "for a person" (La-nefesh)- one is not culpable [for having violated the injunction of Leviticus 19:28) until one has made the incision because of one who has died. From where do we learn that one who makes 5 incisions for 1 is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each individual incision? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "incision" (seret)- that each individual incision is warranting of punishment.

Rebbi Yosi says, From where do we learn that one who makes 1 incision for 5 dead is culpable [for the punishment of lashes] for each person [incised for]? It is learned [from Leviticus 19:28 in the word] "for a person" (La-nefesh) that a person is culpable for each individual dead person.

Shmuel said: "One of makes an incision with a tool (kli) is culpable [for the punishment of lashes]." But there's a contradiction here: [it has just been said that] an incision (serita) and a gash (gedidah) are one in the same, but an incision is made by hand and a gash is made by a tool. This one who spoke in accordance with Rabi Yossi,

a Tanna who taught before Rabi Yochanan: [if one made an incision/gash] for the dead, whether it was by hand or by a tool, the person is culpable [for the punishment of lashes]. If the person did it for idolatry, by hand- the person is culpable, by a tool- the person is exempt (patoor) [from the punishment of lashes]. But isn't the opposite written (I Kings 18:28): "And they gashed themselves according to their practices, with knives and spears"? Rather, one should say: if it [the incision/gash] is done by hand, one is exempt [from the punishment] but if done with a tool one is culpable.

a Tanna who taught before Rabi Yochanan: [if one made an incision/gash] for the dead, whether it was by hand or by a tool, the person is culpable [for the punishment of lashes]. If the person did it for idolatry, by hand- the person is culpable, by a tool- the person is exempt (patoor) [from the punishment of lashes]. But isn't the opposite written (I Kings 18:28): "And they gashed themselves according to their practices, with knives and spears"? Rather, one should say: if it [the incision/gash] is done by hand, one is exempt [from the punishment] but if done with a tool one is culpable.

MISHNA: How much do we flog him? Forty minus one, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 25,2) "In the count of forty" the number which is next to forty. Rebby Yehudah says, He is administered forty full lashes, and where is he lashes the extra one? Between his shoulders.

MISHNA: How much do we flog him? Forty minus one, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 25,2) "In the count of forty" the number which is next to forty. Rebby Yehudah says, He is administered forty full lashes, and where is he lashes the extra one? Between his shoulders.

We only evaluate him for an amount of lashes which can be divided into three. If we evaluated him to be able to withstand forty, and flogged some of them,

GEMARA: What is the reason [that a sinner only receives thirty-nine lashes]? If the Torah would have written "forty in number" I would have said that it means exactly forty. Now, however, that it says "in the number of forty" I would say the number which counts to forty [i.e. thirty-nine]. Rava said, How foolish are people that they stand up for a Sefer Torah, but do not stand up for a Torah scholar [lit: great man]. For in the Torah it is said "forty", and the Rabbis came and subtracted one.

Rav Sheises said, it is not a contradiction. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-one lashes [which would be rounded down to thirty-nine - only one set]. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-two lashes [which would include three of the second set as well].

Rav Sheises said, it is not a contradiction. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-one lashes [which would be rounded down to thirty-nine - only one set]. Here is where they evaluated him to be able to withstand forty-two lashes [which would include three of the second set as well].

And if he dies under his hand, [the agent of court] is exonerated. If he added one additional lash and he died, then [the agent] is exiled on his account. If he soiled himself, whether with excrement or urine, he is exempt [from any further lashes]. Rebbi Yehuda says, A man [is exempt only with] excrement, but a woman with [is even exempt with] urine. GEMARA:

And the reader reads. etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], The greatest of the judges reads, the second counts, and the third one says "strike him". In times when the lashes are many, he lengthens [the recital]. In times when the lashes are few, he shortens [the recital]. But we learned in our mishna, that he returns the beginning of the verses. [Why then does the baraisa say to adjust the length]? The mitzvah is to be precise, but if one is not precise then he returns to the beginning of the verses.

And the reader reads. etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], The greatest of the judges reads, the second counts, and the third one says "strike him". In times when the lashes are many, he lengthens [the recital]. In times when the lashes are few, he shortens [the recital]. But we learned in our mishna, that he returns the beginning of the verses. [Why then does the baraisa say to adjust the length]? The mitzvah is to be precise, but if one is not precise then he returns to the beginning of the verses.

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"

The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], From (Deuteronomy 25,3) "many lashes", I only know [that it is prohibited for the attendant to add] many lashes. From where do I learn out also few lashes? The Torah says "do not add" If so, the why does the Torah say "many lashes"? to teach us a bout the first [extra lashes] that they are considered "many lashes"