How were the lashes administered? What situations would provide enough embarrassment for the one getting the lashes that even if some of the lashes were given or in some cases, even if none were yet administered, one would already have fulfilled receiving the punishment? Why was the whip made from a calf and a donkey? An opinion is brought that one who is obligated to receive karet and then receives lashes for that sin, the lashes atone for one’s sin and the person will no longer receive karet. The value of keeping mitzvot and not doing transgressions is discussed by a number of rabbis in various types of statements in the mishna.
The mishna listed a case where one plowed and received eight sets of lashes because of unique circumstances. Does one get multiple punishments for an act on yom tov that involves multiple melachot (as one does on Shabbat)? If so, why isn’t planting also listed in the mishna? Eight other suggestions are made to cases that could have been brought in the mishna that would have added an additional set of lashes. Cases are brought regarding cross breeding with animals that are hekdesh and chulin. How many lashes does one receive? If one cannot receive that many, the court assesses how many they can receive (must be a number divisible by 3). What if they change the assessment? Does it depend on whether they already starting giving the person lashes or not? On what else is it dependent? How does an assessment work when there are multiple sets of lashes? How does the actual giving of lashes take place? What type of whip do they use? Where does the person receive the whipping?
Opinions are brought regarding whether putting the bikkurim beside the alter or reading the text of the bikkurim is critical to fulfilling the mitzva. The case of maaser sheni mentioned in the mishna is analyzed as it seems to also appear in the previous mishna.
Our mishna said that one who doesn’t take truma and maaser gets lashes but did not mention one who doesn’t give the maaser designated for the poor. Rav adds that case to the list and his opinion finds support in another tannitic source. Other sins are listed regarding beit hamikdash type sins that one would get lashes. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion that matches the mishna is brought in detail where he explains the derivation. His derivation is questioned and then reinterpreted.
Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish’s debates continue regarding whether one gets lashes for a doubtful warning (a warning given when it wasn’t clear whether the person was going to violate the prohibition) and a negative commandment that does not have an action associated with it. Both are derived from the same tanna – Rabbi Yehuda and the sources they use to support their opinions are brought. Rabbi Yochanan says that there are only 2 cases where one can get lashes for a negative commandment that has a positive commandment intended to fix it, as he holds that one only gets lashes if one nullifies the possibility for fixing it. One is sending the mother bird away. The other one he leaves to his student to figure out and the student makes various suggestions before arriving at a conclusion that it is Peah – leaving over the corner of the field for the poor. The next part of the mishna is discussed regarding lashes for creepy crawling creatures and it is explained that since there are various negative commandments in the Torah regarding these things, there are various cases where one could receive multiple sets of lashes.
This week’s shiurim are sponsored for refuah shleima for Avraham Moshe ben Pesha Etel
The Gemara brings Rabbi Yochanan’s opinions regarding a negative commandment that is preceded by a positive one. Does one get lashes or not. How is it different from a negative commandment that has a positive commandment written after it to”correct it” (lav hanitak l’asei). On what points does Reish Lakish disagree with him.
The debate between Rabbi Akiva, Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Yitzchak is discussed regarding whether or not one gets lashes for sins that one gets karet or death by the court. The gemara then relates to the source of the next part of the mishna – that one gets lashes for eating kodashim when they are impure. The source for this is a subject of debate.
More details regarding the accidental killer are discussed – Where is he buried? What happens if the kohen gadol if found out to be a chalal (son of a forbidden marriage)? Is the relative of the victim allowed to kill the murderer if he leaves the city? What if he is by a tree on the border where part is inside the border and part is outside?
The accidental killer speaks to the elders when he gets to the city. The gemara derives a number of halachot from here. The section in Yehoshua when he sets up cities of refuge is discussed. The accidental killer leaves the city of refuge at the death of the Kohen Gadol. Who qualifies as a Kohen Gadol? If there are multiple Kohanim Gedolim, do they all need to die or just one of them. Out of concern that the people in the city may pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, their mother’s would provide food and clothing for the accidental killers. The gemara then discusses prayers that have no basis (like praying for the Kohen Gadol to die)- do they come true? Different scenarios are brought regarding the timing of the death of the Kohen Gadol – after the killing but before the court determined that the killer needs to go to the city of refuge or after the court’s ruling but6 before the killer got to the city, etc. and the halacha in each case is determined.
Where were the cities set up? They were chosen for geographical reasons. There are certain criteria for the cities that they not be too small, too large, they have a water supply, a shuk, etc. to allow for proper protection and so that one does not need to leave the city for anything – even one’s rabbi needs to go to the city with him. Weapons can’t be sold there and other implements that could be used to kill the killer. The gemara digresses to discussing the importance of learning Torah and learning as part of a community. Reish Lakish explains a verse in the Torah that God orchestrates things from above that one who kills accidentally and no one knows, and one who kills on purpose without witnesses, will both end up in the same place and the murderer will get killed accidentally by the one who killed accidentally before and each will then get their punishment they are deserving of. If the relative kills the killer on the way to the city of refuge, does he receive a death penalty?