(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Makos 23

MAKOS 21-24 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.



(a) Rav Sheishes in the name of Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah learns from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Arba'im Yakenu" to that of "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" - that the sinner is lashed with a strap of calf leather.
2. ... "Lo Sachsom Shor be'Disho" to that of "Ki Yeishvu Achim Yachdav" - that there are times when we force the Yavam to make Chalitzah (even when he wants to make Yibum), such as when he is a leper (and the Yevamah is repelled by him).
3. ... "Elohei Maseichah Lo Sa'aseh Lach to that of "es Chag ha'Matzos Tishmor" - that if someone despises Chol-ha'Mo'ed (by treating it like a weekday), it is as if he had served Avodah-Zarah.
4. ... "la'Kelev Tashlichun Oso" to that of "Lo Sisa Sheima Shav" (which we can also read as "Lo Sashi ...), Al Tashes Yadcha Im Rasha Liheyos Eid Chamas" - that someone who speaks or accepts Lashon ha'Ra and someone who testifies falsely in Beis-Din, deserve to be thrown to the dogs (who knew how to hold their tongues in Egypt).
(b) We know that the Pasuk "es Chag ha'Matzos Tishmor" refers to the prohibition of Melachah on Chol ha'Mo'ed - because we already have Pesukim in Emor for the first and last days of Yom-Tov.

(c) To explain why they attached a strap of donkey hide to the strap of calf hide, that Galile'an Darshened in front of Rav Chisda - the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Yada Shor Koneihu, *ve'es Chamor Eivus Be'alav*" that 'the one who does recognize the feeding-trough of its master will come and punish the one who doesn't' (see Agados Maharsha).

(a) Rava refutes Abaye's ruling that (based on the fact that the strap had to reach the beginning of the sinner's stomach) each sinner required a made-to-measure whip - on the grounds that this would result in quite a stockpile of whips in Beis-Din's storeroom!

(b) According to Rava therefore - they had one whip, with a strap that could be adjusted by tying and untying the end, according to the required length.

(c) The source that Rav Kahana quotes for our Mishnah, which prescribes one third of the Malkos in front, and two thirds, at the back is - the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "K'dei Rish'aso le'Fanav", implying one lot at the front, and two at the back.

(d) From the fact that the Torah writes "ve'Hipilo ha'Shofet", rather than "ve'Yateihu" (which means "and he shall bend him"), Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yochanan learns - that the strap had to be doubled (as if it had written 've'Hichpilo' [and he shall double it]).

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa requires the floggers to be weak in body but strong in mind (so as to temper the judgment with mercy). According to Rebbi Yehudah - the reverse was also acceptable.

(b) We learn from "Lo Yosif" "Pen Yosif" - that if the flogger administers even one stroke too many, he transgresses two La'avin (as does anybody else who strikes a fellow-Jew).

(c) Rava supports Rebbi Yehudah's view from there - because, if the flogger was 'strong in mind', he would not require such a warning.

(d) The Rabbanan counter this argument however - with the principle "Ein Mezarzin Ela li'Zerezin" ('the Torah only warns those who are careful to begin with').

(a) When administering the lashes - the flogger would raise the whip with both hands, but would strike the sinner using only one hand, in order to apply full force, as our Mishnah prescribes.

(b) The leading Dayan read the Pesukim - the second Dayan would keep count, whilst the third one would order the flogger to administer the stroke.

(c) Based on the ruling of a Beraisa with regard to the reading of the Pesukim, 'Mitzvah Letzamtzem' means - that the Dayan who read the Pesukim had to synchronize his reading, to finish together with the conclusion of the Makos (which meant adjusting his speed according to the number of strokes that the sinner was due to receive).

(d) Our Mishnah 've'Chozer li'Techilas ha'Mikra' - speaks when he did not manage to achieve this, finishing the Pesukim before the flogging was over.

(a) "Pen Yosif" incorporates even a case where the flogger adds strokes to a total assessment that is less than the full quota of thirty-nine lashes. The Torah adds "Al Eileh" - to teach us that the flogger transgresses even if he adds just one stroke more than the sinner is due to receive ...

(b) ... and the Torah writes "Makah Rabah" - to teach us that the initial Malkos are considered a great beating and must be delivered with full force (see also Cheishek Shlomoh).

(c) Our Mishnah already cited the Machlokes between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yehudah whether a man who wets himself is Patur from Malkos or not. The Beraisa repeats the Machlokes, but adds the opinion of Rebbi Meir, who is the strictest of all - and who says that even a woman is only Patur if she sullies herself.

(d) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak reconciles Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah and in the Beraisa, with Rebbi Yehudah in a second Beraisa 'Echad ha'Ish ve'Echad ha'Ishah be'Re'i' - by interpreting the latter statement to mean that both a man and a woman have the same Din should they sully themselves (leaving us to infer perhaps, that their Din will differ in the event that they wet themselves).

(a) When the Beraisa exempts the sinner from Malkos if he disgraced himself 'Bein ba'Rishonah, Bein bi'Sheniyah' - it means that he is Patur even before the first stroke (provided the flogger had already raised his hand, though not before).

(b) In the equivalent two cases in a case where the strap broke, the Tana rules - that he is only Patur if it broke after he had received at least one stroke, but not earlier.

(c) And we reconcile this with Shmuel, who exempts him even if he escapes and runs out of Beis-Din after having been bound to the post - by confining Shmuel's ruling specifically to where he ran out of Beis-Din (but not to where the strap broke [where the element of embarrassment is less]).

(d) The Beraisa rules that if Beis-Din assess that the sinner will disgrace himself ...

1. ... immediately after receiving lashes - he is Patur.
2. ... after he has left the Beis-Din - he is Chayav.
(e) The Tana extrapolates this from the Pasuk "Vehikahu Lefanav ... Veniklah Achicha le'Einecha" - implying that we contend with embarrassment which is caused directly by the Malkos, but not which comes about indirectly, at a later stage.
(a) Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "*Veniklah Achicha le'Einecha" that if someone who is Chayav Kareis receives Malkos, he is Patur from Kareis. His source is - the Pasuk "*Veniklah Achicha le'Einecha" (which implies that once the sinner has received Malkos, he is a brother of every other Jew, and is not therefore subject to any further punishment.

(b) Based on the principle that 'Hashem's measure of good is stronger than His measure of punishment, the same Tana learns from the fact that a person who commits adultery is Chayav Kareis - that if he were to perform a Mitzvah, he would certainly gain life for himself.

(c) Rebbi Shimon learns this from the Pasuk by Chayvei K'risus itself. He interprets the Pasuk (that follows "Venichresu ha'Nefashos ha'Osos") "Asher Ya'aseh Osam ha'Adam va'Chai Bahem" - to mean that if a person who is faced with the opportunity to sin abstains from doing so, then he will live as if he had actually performed a Mitzvah.

(a) And Rebbi Shimon bar Rebbi learns from the Pasuk "Rak Chazak Levilti Achol ha'Dam ... " - that if a person receives reward for desisting from drinking blood (which is abhorrent to begin with), then how much more so will he be rewarded for desisting the urge to steal or to commit adultery, he will earn for himself and his descendants merit ...

(b) ... until the end of time.

(c) Rebbi Chananya ben Akashya interprets the Pasuk "Hashem Chafetz Lema'an Tzidko Yagdil Torahve'Yadir" to mean - that Hashem gave us Mitzvos, which we would have kept anyway (such as not to eat insects and carcasses), in order to reward us for abstaining from eating them (for His sake).




(a) According to Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel learned in our Mishnah, Chayvei Kerisus who receive Malkos are exempt from Kareis. Rebbi Yochanan says - that the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel.

(b) Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amri Bei Rav attempts to prove Rebbi Yochanan's statement from the Mishnah in Megilah 'Ein Bein Shabbos le'Yom ha'Kipurim Ela she'Zeh Zedono bi'Yedei Adam, ve'Zeh Zedono be'Hikares' - implying that Yom Kipur is not punishable at the hand of Beis-Din.

(c) Rav Nachman refutes this proof by establishing the Mishnah like Rebbi Yitzchak (whom we cited earlier) - who holds that Chayvei Kareis are not subject to Malkos.

(d) Rav Ashi dismisses the proof even assuming the author is the Rabbanan - by interpreting the statement 'she'Zeh Zedono bi'Yedei Adam ... ' - to mean that whereas the major punishment of Shabbos is at the hand of Beis-Din, the major punishment of Yom Kipur is at the Hand of Hashem (which does not preclude the possibility of the latter being punishable at the hand of Beis-Din as well).

(e) Rav Ashi cannot mean that the Chiyuv Kareis precedes the Chiyuv Malkos, and will remain intact unless the sinner has received Malkos - because, seeing as the two punishments run concurrently, that is simply not true.

(a) The problem Rav Yosef has with Rav Ada bar Ahavah Amar Rav's ruling like Rebbi Chananyah ben Gamliel is - how he can possibly know this, seeing as he had not visited the Heavenly Court to find out (meaning that whether a person receives Kareis or not, is surely a Divine decision, of which we can have no knowledge).

(b) Abaye counters Rav Yosef's objection however, with a statement of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said - that Mikra Megilah, She'eilas Shalom be'Shem and Ha'va'as Ma'aser - were all instituted by Beis-Din shel Matah, but were condoned by Beis-Din shel Ma'alah (which Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi seems to had privy knowledge).

(c) Abaye therefore attributes the Amora'im's knowledge in both cases - to their interpretation of the Pesukim (all of which will have been quoted by the Sugya's end).

(a) Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns from the Pasuk "Kiymu ve'Kiblu ha'Yehudim" - that they accepted in Heaven what they had decreed on earth (i.e. the decree of Mikra Megilah [in spite of the general prohibition of adding Mitzvos to those of the Torah]).

(b) 'She'ilas Shalom be'Shem' may refer to the concession to use Hashem's real Name when greeting someone. It might also mean - an obligation to greet with the Name of Hashem (like we do when we say "Shalom Aleichem" [since Shalom is a Name of Hashem]).

(c) Even though Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi learns this from the Pasuk "ve'Hinei Bo'az Bo mi'Beis-Lechem Vayomer la'Kotzrim Hashem Imachem", he nevertheless needs to quote the Pasuk in Shoftim "Hashem Imcha Gibor he'Chayil" - because from there we learn that Hashem agreed with the decree.

(d) And he learns from the Pasuk "Havi'u es Kol ha'Ma'aser el Beis ha'Otzar ... " - that they instituted that all Ma'asros should be brought to one of the rooms in the Beis-Hamikdash, instead of the Kohanim and the Levi'im having to go to the granaries to fetch it (because the people used to give their Ma'asros to Kohanim and Levi'im who were unworthy.

(a) Ezra, who instituted this Takanah, also penalized the Levi'im - by granting the Kohanim (who were also basically Levi'im) equal rights to accept Ma'asros.

(b) And he further extended the Takanah of Ma'asros - by incorporating fruit and vegetables (other than the seven species) in the Din of Ma'asros (see Tosfos).

(c) Rami bar Rav (or Rebbi Chiya Amar Rav) learns from the conclusion of the previous Pasuk "Vaharikosi Lachem B'rachah ad B'li Dai" - that if Yisrael would then proceed to give their Ma'asros properly, then they would receive so much B'rachah that their lips would wither from announcing 'enough'.

(a) Two of the Batei-Din listed by Rebbi Elazar in which Ru'ach ha'Kodesh appeared were those of Sheim and of Shmuel. The third, was - that of Shlomoh.

(b) Yehudah declared "Tzadkah Mimeni" (admitting that Tamar was telling the truth, and that she was pregnant from him, and that, under the circumstances, she was not guilty of adultery). We know that Tamar had not in fact, committed adultery with someone else too, and that it was not from him that she was now pregnant - because "Mimeni" was actually said, not by Tamar, but by the Shechinah who appeared in the Beis-Din of Shem.

(c) 'Mimeni Yatz'a Kevushim' means - that the entire episode of Yehudah and Tamar was orchestrated by Hashem, who forced Yehudah to react to Tamar the way he did (or that Peretz and Zerach, from whom would descend David and Melech ha'Mashi'ach, were destined to 'capture the world').

(d) Hashem did that - in order to reward Tamar for the Tzeni'us (modest behavior) that she displayed in her father-in-law (Yehudah)'s house.

(a) Yisrael responded to Shmuel's challenge that he had never robbed or taken anything from any Jew - by corroborating his statement.

(b) Following Shmuel's request "Vayomer Eid Hashem ve'Eid Meshicho ... ", we know that "Vayomer Eid" refers to the Shechinah - because "Vayomer" is in the singular (and had the Pasuk referred to K'lal Yisrael, as it would seem, it should have written "Vayomru").

(c) In the court-case with Shlomoh Hamelech, where Shlomoh gave the baby to the mother who said not to kill the baby, from which Pasuk does Rebbi Elazar extrapolate that the mother did not say that just to impress Shlomoh (and not because she really meant it) - because "Hi Imo" was acually said by the Shechinah (and not by Shlomoh).

(d) Rava disagrees with all of the above proofs. He establishes ...

1. ... "Tzadkah Mimeni" as the words of Yehudah - by pointing out that, based on the fact that her pregnancy had only just become noticeable, Yehudah could have made a simple calculation going back three months in time to work out that he was the man from whom Tamar was pregnant.
2. ... "Vayomer, Eid" as the words of Yisrael, even though it is written in the singular - because the Pasuk sometimes refers to K'lal Yisrael in the singular in this way (such as the Pasuk in Yeshayah "Yisrael Nosha ba'Hashem Teshu'as Olamim").
3. ... "Hi Imo" as the words of Shlomoh - by ascribing Shlomoh's knowledge to a combination of the two women's statements. Because it was the combination of the first woman agreeing to cut up the child and the second woman refusing, that convinced him that the second woman really was the mother.
(e) And Rebbi Elazar's source that the Shechinah appeared on those three occasions was - the tradition that was handed down to him from his Rebbes.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,