Talmud - Makkot 16b מכות ט״ז ב׳

The Gemara answers: There, the man who appropriated the collateral is liable to remit monetary payment, and it is only that the lien of the convert on the property has lapsed, as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t there the case of pe’a, where there is a prohibition, as the Merciful One states: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: “To the poor and the convert you shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22)?

And you find one liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, as we learned in a baraita: The mitzva of pe’a is to separate it from the standing grain still growing from the ground. If he did not separate it from the standing grain, but reaped the entire field, he separates a portion from the sheaves as pe’a. If he did not separate it from the sheaves, he separates it from the pile where one places the kernels after threshing, before he smooths the pile. Once he smooths the pile, the produce is considered grain from which one is obligated to separate terumot and tithes. If he already smoothed the pile before designating the pe’a, he tithes the grain in the pile and then gives the pe’a to the poor person. Once he grinds the kernels into flour, he no longer separates pe’a.

Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving pe’a by grinding the grain; why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who says: One separates pe’a even from the dough. He maintains that the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of pe’a is never nullified, as one may separate pe’a even after grinding and kneading. The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, you also find a way to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva, in a case where one ate the dough.

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: This, is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, and the term: Another, is in reference to this halakha of pe’a. But in the case of a rapist, no, the possibility of remarrying the rape victim whom he divorced is not nullified, even if he vows on the basis of the consent of the public. Where do we say that a vow on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification? It is only in a case where one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is optional, i.e., not a mitzva; but if one seeks nullification of the vow for the purpose of a matter that is a mitzva, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification. In the case of the rapist, he could seek nullification of his vow to enable him to fulfill the mitzva of remarrying his divorcée, and therefore the vow can be nullified.

The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. As this happened in that incident where there was a certain teacher of children who was negligent in his supervision of the children, and Rav Aḥa vowed on the basis of the consent of the public that he would no longer be allowed to teach children. And nevertheless Ravina restored him to his position, because no other teacher was found who was as accurate as he. Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.

§ The mishna teaches: And one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes. Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow [binnita devei kerava], we flog him due to violation of the prohibition: “Creeping animals that creep on the ground…shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who ate a fish-like creature found in the furrows of a field formed by a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him.

Abaye says: One who ate a putita, a creeping animal found in the sea, is flogged with four sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: “And any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers…you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11), and: “And any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general: “You shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, neither shall you render yourselves impure with them” (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.

If one ate an ant, he is flogged with five sets of lashes. In addition to the two prohibitions stated with regard to repugnant creatures in general, he is also flogged for violating the prohibitions: “Creeping animals that creep on the ground…shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and: “And all creeping animals that creep on the ground, you shall not eat them” (Leviticus 11:42), and: “Neither shall you render yourselves impure with any manner of creeping things that crawls upon the ground” (Leviticus 11:44).

If one ate a wasp, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. In addition to the five prohibitions violated by one who eats an ant, he is flogged with an additional set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition with regard to winged creeping creatures: “And all winged creeping creatures are impure for you, they may not be eaten” (Deuteronomy 14:19).

Rav Aḥai says: One who delays relieving himself through his orifices when the need arises violates the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable” (Leviticus 20:25). Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter through which blood has passed violates the prohibition of: “You shall not make your souls detestable.”

Rava bar Rav Huna says: If one crushed nine ants and brought another one that was alive and thereby completed their measure to an olive-bulk and ate them, he is flogged with six sets of lashes: Five for eating an entity for which one is flogged five times as stated above with regard to one who eats an ant, and one for eating an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass all together. Rava says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even if he ate two crushed ants and the ant that was alive, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. Rav Yosef says: Even if he ate one crushed ant and the ant that was alive. The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree; this case, where Rava and Rav Yosef say that he is flogged for eating one or two crushed ants and one that is alive, is referring to large ants, which together amount to an olive-bulk. And that case, where Rava bar Rav Huna mentions nine ants, is referring to small ants, as a greater number of ants is required to constitute an olive-bulk and render him liable. Consequently, there is no halakhic dispute in this case.

§ The mishna teaches that among those flogged is one who ate untithed produce or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken. Rav says: If one ate untithed produce from which teruma and first tithe were separated and poor man’s tithe was not separated, he is flogged.

The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion did Rav issue this ruling? It is in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: One might have thought that one is liable for eating only untithed produce from which no gifts were taken at all; but if teruma gedola was taken from the produce, but first tithe was not taken from it, or if the first tithe was separated but not second tithe, or even if only poor man’s tithe was not separated, from where is it derived that the halakhic status of the produce is that of untithed produce and one is liable for eating it?

The baraita continues: It is derived as the verse states: “You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil” (Deuteronomy 12:17), and there it states: “And you shall give to the Levite, to the convert, to the orphan, and to the widow, and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied” (Deuteronomy 26:12). Just as there, with regard to the phrase “and they shall eat within your gates,” it is referring to poor man’s tithe, here too, “you may not eat within your gates” is referring to produce in which there is poor man’s tithe, as it has not yet been separated, and the Merciful One states a prohibition: You may not eat it.

Rav Yosef said: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer says: One need not separate by means of calling the name upon poor man’s tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai]. With regard to produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, there is a rabbinic ordinance requiring one to separate first and second tithe and teruma of the tithe from it. Nevertheless, one is not required to separate poor man’s tithe from that produce, because poor man’s tithe is a monetary debt owed to the poor, and in a case of uncertainty, the principle is: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to separate poor man’s tithe does not accord the produce the status of untithed produce. And the Rabbis say:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Makot 16b examines the laws of pe’a for the poor and the convert, exploring when this obligation can still be fulfilled before grain becomes dough.