Daf 24

Thank you to dafyomi.co.il 

THE NUMBER OF MITZVOS TO FOCUS ON

(a) David gave 11 Mitzvos for people to focus on (Ramah - through these, Hash-m will help them guard all the Mitzvos; others explain, these have exceedingly great reward) - "... Holech Tamim..."

1. Avraham exemplified "Holech Tamim" - "His'halech Lefanai v'Hye Samim";

2. Aba Chilkiya illustrates "u'Fo'el Tzedek" (he would not even answer 'Shalom' while working);

3. Rav Safra illustrates "v'Dover Emes bi'Lvavo" (he was offered a certain price for something, and intended to accept. Before he was able to speak, he was offered more. Nevertheless, he sold it for the price he mentally agreed to);

4. Yakov illustrates "Lo Ragal Al Leshono" - he was reluctant to deceive Yitzchak (to get the blessings), even though Rivka told him to do so based on a prophecy;

5. "Lo Asah l'Re'ehu Ra" - he did not adopt another's profession (where this would be unfair competition);

6. "V'Cherpah Lo Nasa Al Kerovo" - he draws his relatives close;

7. Chizkiyah illustrates "Nivzeh b'Einav Nim'as" - he dragged his father's bones on a bed of ropes (to atone for him). (Rashi (Sanhedrin) - Chizkiyah was lowly in his own eyes, and he was willing to disgrace himself; Rivan - Chizkiyah scorned even his father, because his father was disgraceful to Hash-m).

8. King Yehoshafat illustrates "'Es Yire'ei Hash-m Yechaved." When he would see a Chacham, he would rise from his throne, kiss him and say 'Avi Avi Rebbi... '

9. R. Yochanan illustrates "Nishba Lehara v'Lo Yamir" - he would accept to fast until he reached home (merely to evade eating with the Nasi. In any case, he kept his oath);

10. "Kaspo Lo Nasan b'Neshech" - he would not take interest from a Nochri (lest he come to take from a Yisrael);

11. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi illustrates "v'Shochad Al Naki Lo Lakach" (his sharecropper brought R. Yishmael's normal share a day early because he had to come for judgment. R. Yishmael refused to take it, and did not judge his case.)

(b) Raban Gamliel would cry when he read "Ose Eleh Lo Yimot l'Olam." One who does all these will not falter, but one who only does one will fall!

(c) Rabanan: It does not say 'Ose Kol Eleh', rather, "Ose Eleh." One who does even one will not falter!

(d) Support: It says "Al Titam'u b'Chol Aleh", but you cannot say that only one who transgresses all of the Arayos is corrupt!

1. Rather, one who transgresses any one of them is corrupt. Likewise, one who has any one of the above merits will live.

(e) Yeshayah gave six Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Holech Tzedakos..."

1. Avraham exemplified "Holech Tzedakos" - "Yetzaveh (Es Banav... La'asos Tzedakah u'Mishpat)";

2. "V'Dover Meisharim" - no one is pained by his words in public (Maharsha; Aruch l'Ner - if he must rebuke someone, he does so in private).

3. R. Yishmael ben Elisha illustrates "Mo'es b'Vetza Ma'ashakos" - (he was a Kohen, yet he refused to take Reishis ha'Gez (first shearings) from a party who came for judgment, for this would deprive the Kohen who normally received the man's gifts).

4. R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi (brought above) illustrates "No'er Kapav mi'Tmoch ba'Shochad";

5. "Otem Azno mi'Shmo'a Damim" - if he hears a Chacham shamed, he is not silent;

i. (R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon was normally very careful about this. Once, he was not, and he was punished.)

6. (R. Chiya bar Aba): "V'Otzem Einav me'R'os b'Ra" - he shuts his eyes to avoid looking at women doing laundry (at the river, for they are barefoot);

7. It says about one who fulfills these "Hu Meromim Yishkon..."

(f) Michah gave three Mitzvos for people to focus on - "Asos Mishpat..."

1. "Asos Mishpat" is monetary laws;

2. "Ahavas Chesed" is bestowing Chesed;

3. "V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha" is escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah;

i. Even though these are normally done in public, they should be done modestly. All the more so, things that are normally done covertly should be done modestly!

(g) Yeshayah later gave two primary Mitzvos - "Shimru Mishpat va'Asu Tzedakah."

(h) Amos gave one primary Mitzvah - "Dirshuni vi'Chyu."

(i) Objection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Perhaps Amos instructs to expound the entire Torah!

1. Rather, Chabakuk gave one primary Mitzvah - "v'Tzadik be'Emunaso Yichyeh."

EXILE AND REDEMPTION OF YISRAEL

(a) (R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): Moshe made four enactments, and four Nevi'im annulled them:

1. Moshe said "v'Yishkon Yisrael Betach Badad Ein Yakov" (Rivan - Yisrael will be secure when they are Tzadikim like Yakov; Ramah - only the elite of Yakov will have serenity) but Amos said "Chadal Na Mi Yakum Yakov Ki Katan Hu (we cannot (all) be like Yakov, but still, we should have serenity);

i. "Nichem Hash-m Al Zos" (Hash-m agreed).

2. Moshe said "uva'Goyim ha'Hem Lo Sargi'a" (Yisrael will not rest in Galus), but Yeshayah said "Haloch Lehargi'a Yisrael."

3. Moshe said "Poked Avon Avos Al Banim", but Yechezkeil said "ha'Nefesh ha'Chotas Hi Samus."

4. Moshe said "va'Avadtem ba'Goyim" (Yisrael will be lost in exile), Yeshayah said "Yitaka b'Shofar u'Va'u ha'Ovdim..."

(b) (Rav): I fear "va'Avadtem ba'Goyim"!

(c) Objection (Rav Papa): Perhaps it means that Yisrael will be like a lost object that the owner is seeking - "Ta'isi k'Seh Oved Bakesh Avdecha"!

(d) Correction: Rather, Rav feared (the end of the verse) "v'Achlah Eschem Eretz Oyveichem."

(e) Objection (Mar Zutra): Perhaps Yisrael will be only partially consumed, like gourds (which are not totally eaten)!

(f) Raban Gamliel, R. Elazar ben Azaryah, R. Yehoshua and R. Akiva were walking. They heard the clamor of Romi from 120 Mil away. (The other) Chachamim cried, and R. Akiva laughed.

1. Chachamim: Why are you laughing?!

2. R. Akiva: Why are you crying?

3. Chachamim: They bow and bring incense to idols, yet they are serene. The footstool of Hash-m (the Mikdash) was burned. How can we not cry?!

4. R. Akiva: That is why I laugh. If Hash-m gives such reward to those who transgress His will, how much greater will be the reward of those who do His will!

Question:

Michah gives the three mitzvot of Ahavat Chesed, Asos Mishpat (monetary laws), and V'Hatzne'a Leches Im Elokecha (escorting the dead and bringing a Kalah to Chupah) for people to focus on. Why do you think Michah chose these specific mitzvot? What makes them unique and important from the other mitzvot?

daf 23a

thank you to Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz and Point by Point Summary

4 statements from Rav Sheshet in the name of R’ Elazar ben Azarya

1. the whip that the lashes are given with is from a cow

2. If a yavam is leprous, the yavmah is allowed to demand chalitzah

3. anyone who disresprects the Jewish holidays is as if he is doing avodah zara

4. anyone who speaks or accepts lashon hara or gives false testimony deserves to be thrown to the dogs

The Whip used for lashing:

Mishnah: it has two straps

Beraita: the straps are made of donkey skin (the sinner, who does not recognize his Master will be punished through a donkey who does recognize his master.)

Mishnah: the whip handle is a tefach (it will reach the sinner’s stomach)

Abaye: this teaches that they made a whip for each sinner so that it would be the right size

Rava: But then Beit Din would have so many whips! Rather, it was adjustable

Mishnah: One third of his lashes on his stomach, 2/3 on his back

Gemara (Rav Kahana): source for this is “ViHIkahu lifanav kedei rishato bimispar”

Rav Chisda: “Vihipilu” teaches that the whip is folded.

It also teaches us that he is whipped leaning

The Whipping:

Mishnah: he is lashed with one hand

Beraita: we pick a weak person with a lot of intelligence

Rav Yehuda: we may even pick a strong person who is not so intelligent

Rava: Presumably we follow R Yehuda

Beraita: He lifts the whip with two hands and lashes with one hand

Beraita: the greatest judge reads, the next best judge counts and the third judge encourages the lasher to continue. If many lashes will be given, the reader reads slowly. If few lashes will be given, the reader reads fast. They try to be precise, but if the reader finishes the reading early, he just starts again.

Beraita: an extra “maka rabah” or even small blow is forbidden

Humility exempts from lashing:

Beraita (Rabbi Meir): if a man or woman excreted they are exempt, but not if they urinated

Rabbi Yehuda: a man is exempt only if he excreted, a woman is exempt if she urinated or excreted.

Beraita (Rabbi Yehuda): A woman and man are the same if they excreted or urinated

Rav Nachman: resolves the contradiction—a man and woman are the same for excretion but not for urination (a woman would be exempt but not a man)

Shmuel: if he was tied to be lashed and then fled, he is exempt

Beraita: if he excreted on the first or second time he is exempt. If the whip broke the second time he is exempt but not if it broke the first time

Question: But according to Shmuel he should be exempt either way!

Answer: Shmuel exempts him because he was fleeing. Here, he did not flee

Beraita: if they estimate that he will excrete immediately when lashed, he is exempt.

                If they estimate that he will excrete after he leaves Beit Din, he is lashed

                Even if he excreted the first time (but before the overseer raised his hand), he is lashed

I have two qestions, feel free to answer either one, or both!

1. Rav Sheshet states that a person wo disrespects the Jewish holidays is as if he did avodah zara, and a person who is involved with lashon hara or gives false testimony deserves to be thrown to the dogs. Why do you think these two specific aveirot are so severe that Rav Sheshet makes such harsh statements?

2. The Mishnah and Gemara discuss a person who is exempt from lashes because he was humiliated. Why do you think the sinner can get away without being lashed just because he was humiliated, especially if it was humiliation he brought on himself, for example if he ran away? Is the pain of the lashes and the humiliation equal enough that if he is humiliated, he is exemt from the lashes?

Makkot Daf 22a summary

Big thank you to dafyomi.co.il for their help in outlining this daf!

(Abaye - Mishnah): One who cooks Gid ha'Nasheh in milk on Yom Tov, and eats it, is lashed five times - for eating Gid ha'Nasheh, for cooking unnecessarily on Yom Tov, for cooking meat and milk, for eating meat and milk, and for burning on Yom Tov.

(Question) But here he is lashed twice for Melachos on Yom Tov! Why would we punish for the same thing twice?

Answer (Rava): The text of the Mishnah is mistaken. It should not mention the  burning on Yom Tov, and instead it should say that the Gid was of a Neveilah (the fifth lashes are for eating Neveilah).

(Question) R. Chiya taught that he is lashed twice for eating and three times for cooking!

Answer (Rava): Rather, it should omit burning, and instead it should say that the wood was from an Asherah, and he therefore transgressed "v'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah Min ha'Cherem"!

Objection (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): If so, he also transgresses "v'Lo Savi To'evah El Beisecha"!

Answer (Rav Acha brei d'Rava): Rather, the wood was Hekdesh, and he transgressed "va'Ashereihem Tisrefun ba'Esh...; Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem."

Question (why our Mishnah (21b) say that he is lashed only eight times - R. Hoshaya): He can transgress also planting in a Nachal Eisan (a valley where an Eglah Arufah was beheaded) - "Asher Lo Ye'aved Bo v'Lo Yizare'a"!

Question (R. Chananya): He can transgress also erasing Hash-m's name (by plowing through it) - "v'Ibadtem Es Shemam... Lo Sa'asun Ken la'Shem."

Question (R. Avahu): He can transgress also cutting off Tzara'as - "Hishamer b'Nega ha'Tzara'as"!

Question (Abaye): He can transgress also displacing the Choshen from the Efod (garments of the Kohen Gadol), and removing the poles that carry the Aron from the rings on the Aron! (Ritva - if he plows with the poles while wearing the Choshen, he is liable for not returning them.)

Question (Rav Ashi): He can transgress also plowing with wood of an Asherah - "v'Lo Yidbak b'Yadcha Me'umah Min ha'Cherem"!

Question (Ravina): He can transgress also cutting good trees - "Ki Mimenu Sochel v'Oso Lo Sichros."

Question (R. Ze'ira): He can transgress also a false oath, if he had sworn not to plow on Yom Tov!

Objection (R. Mani): That oath does not take effect, for the oath of Sinai (when Yisrael accepted the Torah) already forbids this!

Answer (1) : The case is, he swore not to plow on Chol or Yom Tov. Since the oath takes effect regarding Chol, it also takes effect regarding Yom Tov.

Answer (#1 to R. Zei'ra's Question): The Mishnah does not list transgressions that can be annulled (he can permit his oath).

Question: the Mishnah lists Hekdesh. He can annul his Hekdesh!

Answer: The case is, it is a Bechor. (It is Hekdesh due to birth. He cannot annul it!)

Question: The Mishnah lists Tum'ah of a Nazir. He can annul his Nezirus!

Answer: The case is, he is a Nazir Shimshon (which cannot be annulled).

Objection: A Nazir Shimshon may become Tamei!

Answer (#2 to R. Zei'ra's Question): The Tana holds that Isur Kolel does not take effect. (Normally, another Isur does not take effect on something already forbidden. Some say that it does if it is Kolel, i.e. it also forbids things that were permitted, therefore, it takes effect also on what was already Asur. Our Tana disagrees. Therefore, the oath not to plow on Chol takes effect, but it does not take effect regarding Yom Tov. Answer (1) is not true, so R. Mani's objection answers R. Zei'ra's Question.)

(R. Hoshaya): One who mates a blemished Korban (after it was redeemed) is lashed (even if he mates it with its own species. It is like two species, Chulin (one may eat it, like Chulin) and Kodshim (one may not shear it or work with it). Therefore, one is lashed for crossbreeding diverse species. Our text says that he is lashed twice. Mating is considered work, so he is lashed also for working with a blemished Korban. Many delete this from the text.)

(R. Yitzchak): One who conducts (works with) a blemished Korban (after it was redeemed) is lashed (for working with diverse species);

-Even though it is one animal, the Torah considers it like two species.

---------------------------------------------

(Mishnah): One who is lashed receives 39 lashes. "B'Mispar Arba'im" means the number followed by 40;

R. Yehudah says, he receives a full 40 lashes;

(The Mishnah on 22B teaches that the lashes are evenly divided among three places.) The extra (40th) lash is between his shoulders.

We estimate (how many lashes he can survive) only a number divisible by three.

If we estimated that he can survive 40 (really, 39) and after he was lashed some of them we estimate that he cannot bear them, he is exempt (for he was already humiliated).

________________________________________

Question: The Mishnah in 21b talks about how it is possible for a person to plow a single furrow and thereby transgress eight Torah prohibitions, which the Mishnah then lists. The Amora'im then continue to add more prohibitions that they felt the Mishnah should have listed, which the person could transgress through his act of plowing. Why do you think a person can get punished so many times for one mistake. That does not see fair. You do one thing wrong, and all of a sudden your getting 100 punishments. You probably learned your lesson from just getting punished for one. Why do you have to continue to get punished, when chances are you have already learned your lesson. Also, didn't we learn last year the idea that when a person does two things wrong in the same act, you only get punished for the worst one? Even if that is not exactly the case, is it not the same idea?

Makkot 21
My thanks to Artscroll.

R' Yose: A "seritah" cut and a "gedidah" cut are the same and therefore both prohibited, as it says, "lameit"-- you may not cut yourself for "a dead person" (in mourning).
Shmuel: Someone who makes a "seritah" cut with a kli is chayav (Artscroll: for two lavim).
Challenge: "Seritah" and "gedidah" are the same, but a "seritah" is done by hand and a "gedidah" is with a kli. This contradicts Shmuel.
Answer: No, Shmuel agrees with R' Yose, who believes they are the same.

They taught before R' Yochanan: If someone cuts themselves with a kli or by hand in mourning, they are chayav. If they do it as a form of avodah zarah, by hand, they are chayav, and with a kli, they are patur.
Challenge: There is a pasuk that says that cutting oneself with a kli was a form of avodah zarah!
Correction: The Braita should have said by kli, they are chayav, and by hand, they are patur.

R' Sheshet: the parts of the head where men can't remove hair are the temples.

R' Sheshet: the five points of the beard where men can't remove hair are the joints of the beard.

R' Eliezer: shaving the five points is one lav.

Rabanan: You might think that if he shaved with scissors (not a razor), he would still be chayav, because the Torah says, "lo yigalechu", and you might think that if he shaved with planes (not a razor), he would still be chayav, because the Torah says, "lo tashchit", but each pasuk exists so both are fine.
Question: How could they both be ok when both pesukim exist??
Answer: The lav is only "shaving with destruction", which is a razor.

(Mishnah) R' Eliezer: Even if he removed the corners with planes, he is chayav.
Question: What is he saying? If he learned it from a gezeirah shavah, he should require a razor to be chayav, and if he learned it from just the pasuk, then scissors should also make him chayav.
Answer: He learns it from the gezeirah shavah, but he holds that planes also count as shaving.

---------------------------------------------------------
MISHNAH:
Someone who writes a tattoo is chayav, but if s/he writes on top of the skin without breaking it or breaks the skin without making a tattoo. S/he is chayav if there is a mark made, such as with black or blue ink.
R' Shimon: S/he is only chayav if they tattoo God's name.

----------------------------------------------------------
GEMARA:
R' Acha: Does R' Shimon really limit the lav to God's name?!
R' Ashi: No, he holds like Bar Kappara-- the lav is tattooing the name of an avodah zarah god.
R' Malkiya: A person can't heal a wound with mikleh ashes because it leaves a tattoo-like mark.

(Digression) R' Nachman: R' Malkiyo ruled on the cases of a spit, maidservants, and pores, while R' Malkiya ruled on the cases of locks of hair, ashes, and cheese.
R' Papa: R' Malkiya is the author of statements concerning Mishnayot or Braitot, while R' Malkiyo is the author of statements concerning Amoraic statements.
Question: What is the difference between R' Nachman and R' Papa's opinions here?
Answer: The case of the maidservants.

R' Bibi agrees with R' Malkiya regarding the ashes, even for a tiny cut.
R' Ashi: You can use the ashes, because the wound will allow people to know that it is not a tattoo.

---------------------------------------------------------
MISHNAH:
A nazir who drinks wine all day is only chayav for one makkot penalty, unless he was warned before every drink (if so, he is chayav for every warning). The same goes for a nazir and tumat meit, as well as a nazir who shaves all day. It also applies to a regular person who wears kilayim (shaatnez) all day.
Case: A person plows one furrow and incurs eight sets of makkot. How? He a) uses an ox and donkey yoked together, b+c) they are both hekdesh, d) the furrow covers kilayim in a vineyard, e) during Shemittah, f) on Yom Tov, g+h) he is a kohen and a nazir in a tumah place.
R' Chananya: There can be nine if he's wearing shaatnez.
Chachamim: That's a different kind of lav!
R' Chananya: So is nazir!!

---------------------------------------------------------
GEMARA:
R' Bibi: In regards to the person who removed and then put on a shaatnez garment over and over: does this include someone who merely put his/her arm in and out of the sleeve?
<R' Acha demonstrates this to his students>
R' Ashi: Even if s/he just stood still while being warned for the amount of time it takes to take it off and put it on, s/he is chayav.

R' Yannai: They decided that covering kilayim with earth is the chiyuv-equivalent of actually sowing those seeds.
R' Yochanan: Isn't that what the Mishnah is saying? Why do we need to "decide" it? Otherwise, what lav would the Mishnah be counting?
R' Yannai: <Mashal that means...> if I hadn't said my statement, you would have understood the Mishnah differently.
Reish Lakish (defends R' Yannai): Without R' Yannai's statement, I would have thought the Mishnah was the opinion of R' Akiva, who says that someone who maintains kilayim is chayav makkot, because of the pasuk "kilayim sad'cha lo."

Ulla: If covering is like sowing, then it should be nine lavim-- sowing on Yom Tov (in addition to plowing on Yom Tov)!
R' Nachman: The Mishnah was only giving some of the prohibitions.
Ulla: How could it only be some?!? It lists *eight*!!
Rava: Sowing and plowing count as one melacha here because it's Yom Tov, not Shabbat.
Ulla: agrees.
Challenge to Rava: Abaye: Is there really no separation of melachot on Yom Tov?! Mishnah: If you cook a gid hanasheh in milk on Yom Tov and eat it, you get five sets of makkot: a) eating gid hanasheh, b) cooking unnecessarily on Yom Tov, c) cooking the gid hanasheh in milk, d) eating milk and meat that was cooked together, and e) for lighting an unnecessary fire on Yom Tov.


---------------------------------------------------------
QUESTION:
The Gemara discusses the prohibition against self-harm in mourning. This practice was one often done by idol worshipers, but could also be seen as a very human reaction to intense grief. In cases such as the latter, one could posit that the shorashim of this mitzvah are to preserve human health and well-being during difficult times. Can you think of another time that the Torah makes something assur that is a harmful but human action, so that the Torah is actually keeping us safe?

Makkot 20b

Makkot 20b (thank you Daf Yomi!)Sima Zand

Question: What is the case of four or five Karachos? (If he did one after the other and he was warned before each one, obviously he is lashed for every one!)Suggested answer: Rather, he was warned only once. Rejection: If so, he is liable only once! Quotes (Mishnah): If a Nazir drank wine all day, he gets only 40 lashes. If he was warned repeatedly, he gets 40 lashes for each warning he transgressed.Answer: Rather, he put Nasa (a potion that makes hair fall out and prevents it from growing back) on his fingers and applied it to different parts of his head at the same time; The warning applies to each application.
Question: What is the size of a Korchah to be liable?Rav Huna: It is big enough to make the scalp visible.R. Yochanan: It is the area of a bean. Tana'im argue as Rav Huna and R. Yochanan do.         Breisa: The size of a Korchah to be liable is big enough to make the scalp visible; Others say, it is the area of a bean.Rav Yehudah bar Chaviva: There is a third Tana, who says that one is liable for two hairs; Some say that the third Tana obligates for the area of a lentil.(Beraisa): One who shaves the length of a scissors blade on Shabbos is liable. Question: How long is this? Answer (Rav Yehudah): It is two hairs (i.e. twice the distance between adjacent hair follicles in an average person).Question from a Beraisa: The length to be liable for regarding Korchah is two hairs (implying that this is different from the length of a scissors blade)!Answer: It means that the length to be liable for regarding Korchah is also two hairs.Support from a Beraisa: One who shaves the length of a scissors blade on Shabbos is liable. This is two hairs; R. Eliezer says, he is liable for one hair. Chachamim admit that one is liable for removing a single white hair among black ones (because this is important to him); Men may not do so even on a weekday - "v'Lo Yilbash Gever Simlas Ishah" (do not adorn yourself like a woman. Rambam - he is lashed even for one hair; Ra'avad - it is forbidden only if he removes enough to make a recognizable difference; Ritva - our Tana holds that this is forbidden only mid'Rabanan due to "Simlas Ishah").Mishnah: If he rounds Pe'as ha'Rosh...Beraisa: Pe'as ha'Rosh is the end of the head. (From the jaws and below is not called Rosh, rather, the beard.)Question What does it mean to round the end of the head?Answer He cuts the sideburn even with the hairlines on the forehead and in back of the ears.A reciter of Beraisos: The one who cuts and the one being trimmed are both lashed. Rejection: Rav Chisda says Why is the one being trimmed lashed? He did not do anything! Your teaching is like R. Yehudah, who says that one is lashed for a Lav she'Ein Bo Ma'aseh (but the Halachah does not follow him)! Answer 1: Rava says It is even like Chachamim. It teaches that one who cuts his own Pe'os is lashed twice (for each).Answer 2: Rav Ashi says It is even like Chachamim. The case is, he moves his head to help the one cutting. This is an action.Mishnah: If he shaves Pe'as ha'Zakan...Beraisa: Pe'as ha'Zakan is the end of the beard, i.e. Shiboles ha'Zakan (Rivan - the five places where it sticks out. Most Meforshim holds that this refers only to the chin. The Rosh explains that R. Chananel holds that it is the Adam's apple, but the Beis Yosef and Gra refute this.)
Mishnah: If he made one scratch (due to five Mesim)...Beraisa Suggestion: Perhaps "v'Seret" applies even if he scratches because his house burned down or his ship sank!Rejection: "La'Nefesh" teaches that he is liable (some explain - transgresses) only due to a Mes.Question: What is the source that if he made five scratches due to a Mes, he is lashed five times?Answer: "V'Seret" obligates for each one.R. Yosi: What is the source that if he made one scratch due to five Mesim, he is lashed five times?Answer: "La'Nefesh" obligates for each Mes.Question: We used this to exempt one who scratches due to monetary loss!Answer: R. Yosi holds that Seritah and Gedidah are the same (both apply whether he used his hand or an instrument). It says "Lo Sisgodedu... la'Mes", so "la'Nefesh" is extra to obligate for each Mes.
QUESTION: In this Daf, " Pe'as ha'Rosh" is discussed. If they are cut short, the person can be punished. Do we still keep this halacha today? If so, does everyone keep it (Why or why not)? Why do we even have this halacha?

1. 
   

Makkot 20a 

Braita: If one has a tevel fig, and he declares that the stem of the fig is for terumah, the northernmost tenth of the fig is for ma’aser rishon, the bottom part of the fig is for ma’aser sheni (or Ma’aser Ani, depending on the year) and then eats it. If he is a Cohen, he gets lashed once for eating fruit without designating terumat ma’aser. If he is a non-Cohen, he gets lashed twice for eating tevel and for eating terumah.

Attack: It is implied that the reason the non-Cohen gets lashed twice is because he is in Yerushalyim and therefore he did not do anything wrong by eating Ma’aser Sheni. If he would have been outside Yerushalyim, then he would have been lashed three times, once for tevel, once for terumah, and once for ma’aser sheni. This would mean that the non-Cohen would have been punished for ma’aser sheni even if the fruit had never been brought into Yerushalyim!

Answer: The case in the Braita is a case where the fig was brought into Yerushalyim first,

Question: What are we supposed to learn from this? It seems as though it doesn’t teach anything new.

Answer:  The scenario here is that the fruit was brought into Yerushalyim but was taken out before ma’aser sheni was designated. The author of the Braita holds that even if the portions were not yet separated, it is as if they were separated.

Question: Both Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel agree that fruit that entered Yerushalyim and then left before the final processing, were able to be redeemed and eaten anywhere. They did disagree, though, on fruits that had entered Yerushalyim after the final process. Beit Shamai says that their ma’aser sheni must be eating in Yerushalyim while Beit Hillel says the ma’aser sheni can be eaten anywhere. The braita agrees with Beit Hillel so therefore, why is the fruit allowed to be eaten after it has entered Yerushalyim?

Answer #1: Rava- Midoraitta, ma’aser sheni may only be eaten within Yerushalyim. However, midiraban, once the ma’aser has entered Yerushalyim, it can no longer be eaten. The rule dirabanan only applies if the fruit has already been designated. If it has not yet been designated, then it can still be eaten.

Answer #2: Ravina- the third set of lashes for eating ma’aser sheni outside of Yerushalyim apply in a case where the person is carrying the ma’aser on a stick outside of Yerushalyim. Even if the fruit technically hasn’t entered Yerushalyim, it is as if it has entered.    

Mishna

1.       A person is liable for lashes if they make a bald patch on their head in mourning for a dead person, cut their sideburns, destroy the corners of their beard, or cut themselves in mourning for a dead person.

a.       If a person makes one cut for five people, or five cuts for one person, he gets a separate lashing for each person or cut (five in total).

b.      For cutting ones sideburns, he is liable to two slashes, one for each side of the head.

c.       For destroying the corners of one’s beard, he is liable to five lashes for the five corners of the beard. However, R’ Eliezer says that if all the corners were destroyed at the same time, then one only gets one lash.

                                                         i.            The Tana Kama says that one is only liable if they use a razor to cut off their beard but R’ Eliezer says he is liable even if he used a planning tool.

Gemara   

Braita: The Torah says “Lo Yikrechu”- do not make a bald spot- to teach that each spot is another prohibition. “Brosham”- on their head- teaches that this prohibition applies to the full head, not only to between the eyes.

Question: This posuk is the source that it is prohibited for Cohanim. What it is the source that it is prohibited for non-Cohanim?

Answer: We learn it from a Gezarah Sheva between “Korchah”. Just as a Cohen is punished for each bald spot he creates, so to a non-Cohen is punished for each bald spot he makes.   

Question to think about: Ravina says that fruit that is being carried on a stick and has not yet entered Yerushalyim, even if the person holding it has entered, is considered to already be in Yerushalyim. Do you think that it makes sense that the status of food is strict? Would it not make more sense to be lenient so people have more food to eat?     

Makkot 19a

Question: Rava bar Adda in the name of R’ Yitzchak: From what point does one get a penalty for eating Bikkurim?

Answer: When they enter the courtyard of the Beit HaMikdash.

Support: R’ Eliezer taught in a Baraita: if Bikkurim were found partly inside the courtyard and partly outside (some fruits were inside the courtyard, and some were not) – the fruits that are inside are like regular fruits, and the fruits that are outside are considered Hekdesh.

Statement: Rav Sheishet: For Bikkurim, the placement before the Mizbeach is essential, while the reading of the Pesukim is not.

Question: Which Tanna does this agree with?

Introduction to Answer: In a Baraita: R’ Yose taught three things in the name of three elders, here is one of them: R’ Yishmael says: You might think that you could bring your Maaser Sheni to Jerusalem and eat it, even when there is no Beit HaMikdash. This argument is refuted, though. We can form a connection between the Bechor offering and Maaser Sheni – just as Bechor offering requires going to Jerusalem, so too Maaser Sheni requires going to Jerusalem; therefore, just as Bechor can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash, so too Maaser Sheni can only be brought during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. However, this connection is refuted because how can you connect Maaser Sheni to the Bechor offering, which requires placing blood and sacrificial parts on the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not require that? Therefore we cannot say through this connection that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Perhaps, maybe we can say that we can learn this from a connection to Bikkurim – since they also are only eaten during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. However, this connection is also refuted because Bikkurim require one to place them before the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni does not. Therefore we cannot say through this connection either that Maaser Sheni can only be brought to Jerusalem/eaten during the times of the Beit Hamikdash. Instead, let us derive this rule from a textual source. The Pasuk says “And you shall eat before HaShem, your G-d…the Maaser [Sheni] of your grain…and the first-born of your cattle and your flocks”. There is a Hekeish between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering here because the Torah states their requirement together in the same pasuk. This Hekeish teaches us that just as the Bechor offering can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash, so too the Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash. Answer: If R’ Yishmael holds that recitation of the verses is essential, then he would have said that we can not connect Maaser Sheni to Bikkurim because of the requirement to place them before the Mizbeach AND to recite the verses. Therefore, since he did not mention the requirement to recite the verses as a reason we can’t connect them, we can infer that R’ Yishmael thinks that the placement before the Mizbeach is essential and not the recitation of the verses.

Attack: Rav Ashi: Even if the recitation is not essential, there is still a mitzvah to recite the verses. Therefore, let R’ Yishmael say that there is a mitzvah to recite the verses before eating the Bikkurim, and then Bikkurim and Maaser Sheni would be different because of that mitzvah!

Answer: Rav Ashi: R’ Yishmael could not state the requirement to recite the verses because there could be a case where a convert brings Bikkurim, and then he would have to say the pasuk about the land “that HaShem has promised to our fathers”, which he would not be able to say since HaShem did not promise it to his fathers. Therefore, R’ Yishmael did not mention the recitation.

Question: Why didn’t R’ Yishmael learn this rule about Maaser Sheni from the Bechor offering and Bikkurim together? Even though both have an individual difference with Maaser Sheni, they should be able to teach the rule together. 

Answer: R’ Yishmael still needed a textual source because Maaser Sheni is different than Bechor offering and Bikkurim together – both the Bechor offering and Bikkurim have involvement with the Mizbeach, while Maaser Sheni has no involvement with the Mizbeach. Therefore, we can’t learn the rule from here; we need a textual source to prove that Maaser Sheni can only be eaten/brought during the times of the Beit HaMikdash.

Question: Why does R’ Yishmael assume that are not allowed to eat the Bechor offering when it is not during the times of the Beit HaMikdash? If it is the site of the Beit HaMikdash that makes the offering holy from then on, then we should be able to eat it now in Jerusalem. And if it is only for that time that it is holy, then why would we be able to eat it now anyway?

Answer: Ravina: R’ Yishmael holds that the holiness of the site of the Beit HaMikdash is what makes the offering holy for its time only. But here, this is a case where the Beit HaMikdash was already destroyed, but the meat of the offering was not eaten yet. Therefore, according to R’ Yishmael the meat can not be eaten anymore because we connect the meat of the Bechor offering to its blood through a Hekeish. Just as the service of the blood is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach, so too the eating of the meat is dependent upon there being a Mizbeach. And in the Baraita R’ Yishmael connects Maaser Sheni to Bechor offering through the Hekeish and shows that just as with the Bechor offering you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash, so too with Maaser Sheni you can not eat it without the Beit HaMikdash.

Question: But with regard to ‘sacrificial matters’, can something be derived from a double Hekeish?

Answer: Maaser Sheni is not a sacrificial matter.

QUESTION: R’ Yishmael rejected the (non-textual) connections between Maaser Sheni and Bechor offering/Bikkurim because Maaser Sheni is different than them in certain ways. But why should this be a reason not to learn one thing from another? Of course they are going to be different - no two mitzvot are ever going to be exactly the same. So how can we say that you can only learn one thing from another if there are no differences between them if that is not going to happen?