Makkot 21: כל מקום שיש שם מכה – מכתו מוכיח עליו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learn about tattoos in a new Mishna. It states that one who imprints a tattoo by inserting dye into the recesses carved into the skin is liable to receive lashes. However, if one receives a tattoo without carving the skin, or without imprinting with a dye - ink, kohl, or any other lasting substance, he is not liable. However, Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that one is only liable if G-d's name is written in the tattoo based on Leviticus (19:28). That verse suggests that G-d is concerned that people do not inscribe anyone else's name of the Lord.

We explore the Torah attitude for the prohibition and the struggle these days for those wishing to beautify with skin art.

Makkot 20: שֶׁרִיבָּה בָּהֶן הַכָּתוּב מִצְוֹת יְתֵירוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Among the negative commandments in the Torah, we find that Jewish men need to be careful about the way that they cut their hair. According to the Torah (Lev 19:27) – lo takifu pe’at roshkhem ve-lo tash’ḥit et pe’at zekanekhah – a man cannot round off the edges of his head, nor can he destroy the growth of his beard.

The Mishna on our daf teaches that the prohibition against rounding off the edges of one’s hair applies to the two sides of his head, while the prohibition regarding the beard relates to five different points – two on each side and one on the chin. The former forbids cutting the hair at the temples so that the back of the ear and the forehead are “evened out”; the latter forbids the points on the face where there is an accumulation of hair.

It should be noted that these are among the few negative prohibitions in the Torah that do not apply to women.

We explore shaving and the modern day dispensations thereof.

Makkot 19: ״כי ירחק ממך המקום״ – ממילואך

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, one of the tithes that was separated by the farmer is ma’aser sheni – a portion of the harvest that is taken by its owner to Jerusalem, where he can eat it on his own or give it to others, but it must be kept tahor and only eaten within the precincts of the city.

That was true during Temple times. What would the halakha be today, when the Temple is no longer standing?

The Gemara on our daf brings a baraita where Rabbi Yishmael rules that the law of separating ma’aser sheni still exists, but that it is no longer eaten in Jerusalem. Rather, after separating the tithe, we apply the biblical law that allows the farmer to redeem the ma’aser sheni. When the Temple stood, the money was taken to Jerusalem where it would be exchanged for food that had to be eaten in the city. Today, since the tithe cannot be eaten, the coin that was exchanged for the tithe is destroyed.

We explore the centralization of cult worship in Jerusalem form a literary historical and theological viewpoint.

Makkot 18 :בכורים הנחה מעכבת בהן

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Rebbi Eliezer states that one must place the fruits of Bikurim next to the Mizbe'ach in order to fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikurim. In contrast, reading the Parshah of Bikurim, although it is a Mitzvah, is not essential to fulfilling the Mitzvah of Bikurim; if one fails to read the Parshah of Bikurim, one still fulfills the Mitzvah of Bikurim.

In a different statement, Rebbi Eliezer says that if a person separates his Bikurim before Sukos but does not bring the fruit to the Beis ha'Mikdash until after Sukos, he should leave them to rot. Apparently, this is because one cannot read the Parshah of Bikurim after Sukos. This statement implies that the reading of the Parshah is an integral part of the Mitzvah, and without it one cannot fulfill the Mitzvah of Bikurim at all.

The Mishna (17a) discusses situations where people eat these tithes in a forbidden manner or a forbidden place. For example, if a kohen eats bikkurim before they were formally presented with the appropriate formula (see Devarim 26:3-10) he has transgressed a negative commandment and will be liable to receive malkot (lashes).

We explore the bikkurim ritual and differences between Ex and Deut.

Makkot 17: דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְתִימְתָּאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna teaches us that some certain acts are punished with forty lashes:

· Food sanctified as bikurim, first fruits brought to feed the priests, called kodshei kodoshim cannot be given to a zar and cannot be taken outside of the Temple courtyard

· Kodshei kalim are permitted in all of Jerusalem even to common people

· One must recited a specific set of kriah, verses, before eating bikurim

· Bikurim must be eaten within its permitted boundaries

· The pesach, main animal sacrifice, cannot have a bone broken

· Those who break these laws and those who leave the sacrifice overnight are not punished with lashes

· One who takes a mother bird from her chicks or eggs is lashed

The Gemara questions why we would be stringent with some halachot and not with others. Those who eat certain categories of food outside of the wall of the city will be punished with lashes. Why wouldn't others be punished similarly for an equivalent transgression?

Makkot 16: נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Among the people listed in the Mishna as deserving the punishment of malkot (lashes) are people who eat animals that are not kosher, including animals that were killed improperly, those that were sick when they were slaughtered, as well as insects and other creepy-crawly creatures.

The most basic prohibition appears in Sefer Vayikra (20:25) lo teshaktzu et nafshoteikhem (“you shall not make your souls detestable”). While the passage in the Torah clearly relates to eating shekatzim – insects and similar disgusting creatures – some of the Sages applied the prohibition to other settings, as well.

Makkot 15: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf records two arguments between Reish Lakish and Rebbi Yochanan which, it says, are dependent upon each other. The first argument involves a case in which a person transgresses a "Lav ha'Nitak l'Aseh." One opinion maintains that in order to be guilty of transgressing the Lav in the fullest extent, the transgressor must never perform the Mitzvas Aseh associated with it. If the transgressor eventually does the Mitzvas Aseh, then he rectifies his transgression.

Therefore, as long as he can still perform the Aseh, he will never receive Malkus for transgressing the Lav ("Bitlo v'Lo Bitlo"). The other opinion argues that the person is in full violation of the Lav the moment that he transgresses, and he can receive Malkus for it. However, if he rushes to atone for his transgression he can avoid the punishment of Malkus ("Kiyemo v'Lo Kiyemo”).

Makkot 14: בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה מוֹחֲלִין

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Mishna (13a) someone who engages in a variety of incestuous relationships is liable to receive malkot. The Gemara on our daf tries to establish whether someone who engaged in a number of different forbidden unions would receive a separate punishment for each one, or, perhaps, a single punishment would suffice for all.

The Gemara quotes a baraita that relates that this question was not raised in the beit midrash, rather that Rabbi Akiva posed the matter to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua when he chanced upon them in the itliz in the city of Emmaus (the city was situated about 30 kilometers west of Jerusalem and was a popular vacation spot thanks to its thermal pools). According to the baraita, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua could not answer this question directly, and their attempts to cite comparable cases with clear rulings as precedent were rejected.

Makkot 13: ״יָשׁוּב״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

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.

Makkot 12: כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have been discussing the laws of an accidental killer who is exiled to an ir miklat – a City of Refuge – which serves both as a punishment and as a haven of protection from the go’el ha-dam, the “blood avenger” who would otherwise kill him. What status does the go’el ha-dam have? Is the Torah sanctioning the murder of an accidental killer for reasons of revenge?

We discuss sanctuary cities and the social order therein.

Makkot 11: שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל דּוֹרָ

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Until when will an accidental killer be required to remain in exile in the City of Refuge?

The Torah is clear on this point. As taught in Sefer Bamidbar (35:25, 28), the killer must remain in the ir miklat until the death of the kohen gadol. The Mishna on our daf notes that this leads to an interesting custom – the mothers of the kohanim would supply food and clothing to those exiled killers so that they would not pray that the kohen would die – or, according to some versions, to encourage them to pray that the kohen would have a long life.

The Gemara asks why there would be any reason for the kohen’s mother to be concerned that the accidental killers would pray that her son would die when Sefer Mishlei (26:2) clearly teaches that a baseless curse will have no effect.

Makkot 10: מַאי קוֹלְטִין – מִמַּלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When describing the escape of an accidental killer to a City of Refuge, the Torah says that he will run to one of the cities and live (see Devarim 4:42). The Gemara on today’s daf understands that the idea that he will “live” implies an active life and not just avoidance of death at the hands of the “blood avenger.” Thus, we learn that when a student is exiled to an ir miklat, his teacher must accompany him there. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches that when a teacher is exiled to an ir miklat, his students must go into exile with him, as well.

The Iyun Ya’akov suggests that although at first appearance we might think that a teacher brings his students with him because without the interaction of study his life would become bleak and void of meaning, this cannot be the case, since we do not find that the Torah requires other friends to join the accidental killer in exile. He suggests that this must be a punishment of sorts for the students who chose to study with a teacher whose morals must be lacking inasmuch as he became involved in this killing, albeit accidental.

Makkot 9: הא באוהב, והא בשונא

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned, the Torah requires that someone who kills accidentally must exile himself to an ir miklat – a City of Refuge. What was the procedure for being accepted into an ir miklat? Where were these cities?

As the Rambam explains the Mishna on our daf, everyone who killed would run to one of these cities in order to protect himself from revenge at the hands of the go’el ha-dam – the relative who serves as a “blood avenger.” The perpetrator would be taken to trial and would either be found guilty and put to death, would be found innocent and set free, or declared an accidental killer and returned to the ir miklat in the company of two guards who would be charged with protecting him from the go’el ha-dam.

According to the Mishna, the biblical commandment to establish six cities of refuge (see Bamidbar 35:13-14) requiring three on each side of the Jordan River, was first fulfilled by Moshe (see Devarim 4:41) on the eastern side of the river.

Makkot 8: שלא ימכור ברחוק ויגאול בקרוב

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The second perek of Massekhet Makkot focuses on the punishment of galut – exile – for a person who killed his fellow accidentally (see Bamidbar 35:24-29 and Devarim 19:2-7).

According to the Mishna on our daf, any Jewish person may be sent into exile for accidentally killing his fellow; similarly, any Jewish person who is accidentally killed will cause the killer to be sent into exile.

We explore corporal punishment its history efficacy and current legal issues.

Makkot 7: מפני זכותה של ארץ ישראל

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

In Massekhet Sanhedrin and Massekhet Makkot we have been learning about the various punishments meted out by the beit din. In point of fact, how often was capital punishment carried out by the Jewish court system?

According to the Mishna on today’s daf if the Sanhedrin killed a single individual in the course of seven years, it was considered to be a destructive, or violent, beit din. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says that this is true if the court killed someone every 70 years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva claimed that had they been on the Sanhedrin (during the last 40 years of the Second Temple period the Sanhedrin no longer ruled on capital cases, so neither of them ever served as judges on the high court) no one would have ever been killed. In response Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said that such behavior would have led to a proliferation of murderers.

In his authoritative talmudic dictionary, 19th-century scholar Marcus Jastrow renders the word chovlanit, employed by the mishnah to describe a court that executes a prisoner once in 70 years, as not merely “destructive,” but rather “tyrannical,” noting that such a court “does not spare human lives.

Makkot 6: הרוג יציל! כשהרגו מאחוריו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

False plotting witnesses are liable only if the judgment has been pronounced, but the victim has not been executed, since the law is "do to them as they plotted to do to their brother", and not as they actually did to him. Logic would dictate that if the defendant has been executed, all the more so the false witnesses should be executed, now that they have caused an actual loss of life. However, there is an overriding rule that one cannot derive capital punishments by logic - only those that are explicitly mentioned in the Torah are to be followed.

What does the phrase "by the word of two witnesses or three witnesses shall the one who is to die be put to death" teach? That the law of three witnesses is the same as the law of two witnesses: to be established as false plotting witnesses, all three have to be established thus.

Makkot 5: מהו דתימא ליחוש לגמלא פרח

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The Mishna on our daf offers a greater insight into the rules of edim zomemin – conspiring witnesses.

According to the Mishna we need the second group of witnesses to deny the edim zomemin themselves, and not simply negate their testimony. Thus, if the second group of witnesses come to court and insist that the testimony of the first witnesses cannot be true because the accused was with them at that time, or because they saw the incident and it happened differently than the way it was described by the first group of witnesses, then we discount the testimony.

Such witnesses are called edei hakḥashah – witnesses who refute testimony – and recognizing that there are different versions of the story we discount them both. Neither the accused nor the witnesses will be punished.

Makkot 4: לא מן השם הוא זה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

As we have learned, Massekhet Makkot opens with a discussion of edim zomemin – conspiring witnesses whose testimony will condemn the accused to receive punishment. Others come and testify that these witnesses were with them in another place at the time that the crime took place, proving that they could not have been at the scene of the incident. According to the Torah (see Sefer Devarim 19:15-21), the punishment for edim zomemin is that they will receive the punishment that would have been given to the defendant based on their testimony.

In the Mishna on our daf we find a disagreement between Rabbi Meir and the Hakhamim on this point. Rabbi Meir believes that these are two separate issues and that the edim zomemin will pay – if their testimony would have made the accused pay – and also receive lashes for their false testimony.

Makkot 3: לא תיתיב אכרעיך עד דמפרשת לה

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Can a person make a condition that negates a Torah obligation?

One example that is brought by our dad is the case of ona’a (exploitative business practices).

According to the Torah (Lev 25:14, 17) business transactions must be fair and one side cannot take advantage of another. Thus, overcharging or underpaying is forbidden by the Torah, and the forbidden profits will need to be returned, or the transaction voided. What would be the halakha if someone said to his friend “I am selling this to you on the condition that the rule forbidding ona’a does not apply”?

Here we find a disagreement between Shmuel who permits such a condition, permitting the sale and Rav who insists that ona’a still applies.

We explore such situations.

Makkot 2: אין אומרים: יגלה זה תחתיו

For the source text click/tap here: Makkot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in Massekhet Makkot deals with a situation of edim zomemin – false witnesses whose testimony will condemn the accused to receive punishment, even though they could not have been at the scene of the incident, given that others testify that these witnesses were with them in another place at the time that the crime took place.

According to the Torah (see Sefer Devarim 19:15-21), the punishment for edim zomemin is that they will receive the punishment that would have been given to the defendant based on their testimony.

Our Mishna teaches that this is not always the punishment that is given. In cases where the false testimony accused the defendant of something that would change his personal status – e.g., having questionable parenthood – we would not change the personal status of the edim zomemin, rather they would receive lashes as a punishment.

We get introduced to the concepts in this masechta.