41 Makkot 22a

for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire on a Festival. And if it is so, that there is no division of labors on a Festival, he is not liable for violating the prohibition of kindling a fire, as he is already liable for violating the prohibition of cooking the sciatic nerve on a Festival. Rava said: Remove kindling from the list of five prohibitions for which he is flogged, as he is not liable for violating that prohibition, and insert the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya teach a baraita that summarizes the prohibitions listed in this mishna: One is flogged with two sets of lashes for his eating and three sets of lashes for his cooking? And if it is so, that the prohibition of kindling a fire is replaced with the prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve of an unslaughtered animal carcass, he is liable to receive three sets of lashes for his eating; for eating a sciatic nerve, for eating meat cooked in milk, and for eating an unslaughtered animal carcass. Rather, say: Remove kindling from the list of prohibitions, and insert the prohibition of using wood of a tree worshipped as part of idolatrous rites [ashera], whose prohibition is derived from here: “And nothing of the dedicated item shall cleave to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18), indicating that it is forbidden to derive benefit from accouterments of idol worship. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If the reference is to the wood of an ashera, let him also be flogged for violating the prohibition: “You shall not bring an abomination into your house” (Deuteronomy 7:26), in addition to the other prohibitions enumerated. Rather, say: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where one cooked the sciatic nerve with wood consecrated for use in the Temple, whose warning, the source of its prohibition, is from here: “And their asherim you shall burn in fire…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4), indicating that one who destroys a consecrated item violates a prohibition. § The Gemara provides a mnemonic: Shin, nun, beit, alef, yod; shin, nun, zayin; representing the amora’im who suggest additions to the eight prohibitions violated by the person in the mishna who plows the field with diverse kinds: Hoshaya; Ḥananya; Abbahu; Abaye; Ashi; Ravina; Zeira. Rav Hoshaya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate in his list the prohibition of sowing in a forceful stream, the land where a heifer’s neck is broken by the Elders of the city closest to the corpse of a murder victim whose murderer is unknown, and its prohibition is from here: “And the Elders of that city shall bring the heifer down to a forceful stream, which will be neither plowed nor sown” (Deuteronomy 21:4). The verse is written in the future tense as a prohibition for the future: It is prohibited to work the land there after the heifer’s neck is broken. Rav Ḥananya objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who erases the name of God in the course of his walking and plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “And you shall destroy their names…you shall not do so to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). Rabbi Abbahu objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who severs his snow-white leprous mark in the course of his plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “Take heed of the plague of leprosy” (Deuteronomy 24:8), indicating the prohibition against severing the mark. Abaye objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who loosens the breastplate from upon the ephod in the course of plowing, or one who removes the staves of the Ark of the Covenant. And its prohibition is from here: “The staves shall be in the rings of the Ark; they shall not be removed from it” (Exodus 25:15), while the relevant verse with regard to the breastplate is: “And the breastplate shall not be loosened from the ephod” (Exodus 28:28). Rav Ashi objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who plows with a plow crafted from the wood of an ashera, and its prohibition is from here: “And there shall cleave nothing of the dedicated item to your hand” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Ravina objects to this: And let the tanna also enumerate one who chops down beautiful fruit trees in the course of plowing, and its prohibition is from here: “For you may eat of it, and you shall not chop it down” (Deuteronomy 13:18). Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Mani: And let the tanna also enumerate a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow on the Festival, and then proceeds to violate his oath. Rabbi Mani said: There, the oath does not take effect, as he is already under oath from Mount Sinai not to plow on a Festival, and an oath does not take effect when another oath is already in effect. Rabbi Zeira said to him: The oath can take effect in a case where one says: On my oath I will not plow whether during the week or on a Festival, as in that case, since the oath takes effect in his regard during the week, it takes effect in his regard on a Festival as well. Rabbi Mani replied: The mishna did not include that prohibition because the tanna is not teaching a matter that is in the category of those matters subject to dissolution by means of posing a request to a Torah scholar. As oaths fall into that category, this case is not enumerated in the mishna. Rabbi Zeira asked: And did the tanna not teach matters subject to dissolution by means of a Torah scholar? But isn’t there the matter of consecrated animals, whose sanctity can be repealed by means of dissolution of the vow by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The tanna is referring to a firstborn animal, which is consecrated from the womb. Since it was not consecrated by means of a vow, the sanctity cannot be dissolved by a Torah scholar. Rabbi Zeira asked: But isn’t there the matter of the impurity of a nazirite, whose vow of naziriteship can be dissolved by a Torah scholar, which was included in the mishna? Rabbi Mani answered: The reference in the mishna is to one who is a nazirite like Samson, for whom there is no dissolution. Rabbi Zeira asked: Is a nazirite like Samson subject to the prohibition of contracting impurity imparted by corpses? He is not. As the tanna enumerated the prohibition of a nazirite becoming impure with impurity imparted by a corpse, clearly he is not a nazirite like Samson. Rather, the tanna does not enumerate the case of one who violated an oath not to plow both during the week and on a Festival, because this tanna is not of the opinion that a more inclusive prohibition takes effect when the standard prohibition does not take effect. Just as with regard to one who takes an oath not to perform labor on a Festival, the oath does not take effect, so too, even if he adds to it an oath not to plow during the week, it does not take effect, because he is already under oath from Sinai not to plow on a Festival. Rabbi Hoshaya says: One who breeds a disqualified consecrated ox with a female even of the same species is flogged with two sets of lashes, one for labor with a disqualified consecrated animal, and one for breeding two animals of diverse kinds. Even after the animal is desacralized through redemption, it remains prohibited to perform labor with it. It is considered diverse kinds because the Torah accorded disqualified consecrated animals the status of two animals, one consecrated and one non-sacred. If one breeds such an animal with an ox, it is as though he bred it with an animal of a different species, thereby violating the prohibition. Likewise, Rabbi Yitzḥak says: One who drives a disqualified consecrated ox to plow the field is flogged, as it is one body, and the verse accorded it the status of two bodies. One who plows with two different species of animals together is liable to receive lashes. MISHNA: With how many lashes does one flog a person sentenced to receive lashes? One flogs him with forty lashes less one, as it is stated: “And he shall strike him before him, in accordance with his wickedness, by number. Forty he shall strike him, he shall not add” (Deuteronomy 25:2–3). The mishna joins the end of the first verse and the beginning of the second, forming the phrase: “By number, forty,” which is interpreted as: A sum adjacent to forty. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged with a full forty lashes. And where is he flogged the extra lash? As the mishna proceeds to explain, the thirty-nine lashes are divided into three and administered in three places on the body of the person being flogged; according to Rabbi Yehuda there is one lash that remains. That lash is administered between his shoulders. One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes,