(Devarim 25:1) "If there be a quarrel among men": Peace cannot result from a quarrel. And thus is it written (Bereshith 13:17) "And there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Abraham's cattle and those of Lot's cattle." What is it that caused Lot to separate from that tzaddik (Abraham)? A quarrel. Here, too, what is it that caused this one to receive stripes (in beth-din)? [see verse 2]) A quarrel.
"among men": Whence do I derive (the same for) women (quarreling with each other), or a woman quarreling with a man? From "and they (men or women) shall draw near to judgment."
"and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one": I might think that all the wicked receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one" — Sometimes he does receive stripes; sometimes not. But I still would not know which acts receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 4) "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being a negative commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so, transgression of all negative commandments is subject to stripes. I might then think that all negative commandments linked to (remedial) positive commandments are (also) subject to stripes. It is, therefore, written "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being unlinked to a (remedial) positive commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so transgression of all negative commandments unlinked to (remedial) positive commandments is subject to stripes. R. Shimon says: "and they vindicate the righteous one": Vindicate him so that he not receive stripes.
5
וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֵין מַלְקִים מֵעוֹמֵד.
(Ibid. 2) "then the judge shall bend him down": whence we derive that he is not smitten standing.
"before him": He smites him with his eyes upon him and not upon something else. I might think that he is smitten and put to death or that he is smitten and pays; it is, therefore, written "according to his (one) wickedness" — he is not (both) smitten and put to death; he is not smitten and made to pay.
(Ibid. 3) "Forty shall he smite him": I might think "forty," literally; it is, therefore, written "in number. Forty" — a number that is close to forty (i.e., thirty-nine). R. Yehudah says: Forty, literally. And where is he smitten (the other two-thirds)? Between his shoulders. "shall he smite him": and not the ground (together with him).
"and not more": If he does smite more, he transgresses a negative commandment. This tells me only of his going beyond the Torah's number (i.e., thirty-nine). Whence do we derive (the same for his going beyond) the court's assessment (of how many he can bear)? From "and not more. Lest he smite him more" — in any event.
"a great blow": This tells me only of a great blow (as being forbidden). Whence do I derive (the same for) a negligible one? From ("lest he smite him more) than these." If so, why is it written "a great blow"? To teach that the first ones are great blows (i.e., given with all his strength.)
"and he be demeaned" — whence they ruled that if he was soiled either by excrement or urine (while being smitten), he is exempt (from the remaining stripes). R. Yehudah said: a man, by excrement; a woman, by urine.
"your brother": We are hereby taught that all those liable to kareth (cutting off), who receive stripes, are absolved from their kareth, it being written "and your brother be demeaned before your eyes" — Once he has been smitten," regard him as your brother.
R. Chanina b. Gamla says: The entire day Scripture calls him "wicked," viz. (Ibid. 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one." But once he has been smitten Scripture calls him "your brother," viz.: "and your brother be demeaned." Now if a man commits one transgression, his soul is taken from him (i.e., he receives kareth), then, if he does one mitzvah (after being smitten), how much more so (is it to be inferred that) his soul is restored to him.
R. Shimon says: From its place (i.e., from the place where Scripture makes him liable to kareth), it is to be inferred (that once he is smitten he is exempt from kareth), it being written (Vayikra 18:29) "For all who commit any of these abominations (in illicit relations) — the souls that do it are to be cut off (i.e., kareth) from their people," and (Ibid. 18:5) "And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which, if a man do, he shall live by them," (— followed by (6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh you shall not come near to uncover nakedness.") From this ("he shall live by them") we infer that if one sits (passively) and does not commit transgression, (in this instance, the kareth transgression of illicit relations), he receives the reward of one who (actively) performs a mitzvah ([How much more so is the smitten one exempt from kareth!)].
(R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit reward for himself and for his succeeding generations until the end of all the generations!)
R. Yehudah says: It is written (Psalms 18:1-5) "Who will sojourn in Your tent? —- one who walks in innocence and works righteousness … who has no slander on his tongue … who despises the shameful one … who does not lend his money on interest." And elsewhere it is written (Ezekiel 18:15) "And if a man would be a tzaddik — he did not eat of (the idolatries of) the mountains, and he did not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and he did not defile his neighbor's wife, and he did not come near a niddah, etc. … (Ibid. 9) he is a tzaddik; he will live!" Now what did this man do, (aside from what he did not do)? We are hereby apprised that if one sits (passively) and does not transgress, he is given the reward of the doer of a mitzvah. R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit (reward) for himself and for his (succeeding) generations until the end of all the generations!
(דברים כה א) כִּי יִהְיֶה רִיב בֵּין אֲנָשִׁים, אֵין שָׁלוֹם יוֹצֵא מִתּוֹךְ מְרִיבָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (בראשית יג ז): ״וַיְהִי רִיב בֵּין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה אַבְרָם וּבֵין רֹעֵי מִקְנֵה לוֹט״, מִי גָרַם לְלוֹט לִפָּרֵשׁ מִן הַצַּדִּיק? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר מְרִיבָה. וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר: כִּי יִהְיֶה רִיב בֵּין אֲנָשִׁים, מִי גָרַם לָזֶה לִלְקוֹת? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ מְרִיבָה.
(Devarim 25:1) "If there be a quarrel among men": Peace cannot result from a quarrel. And thus is it written (Bereshith 13:17) "And there was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Abraham's cattle and those of Lot's cattle." What is it that caused Lot to separate from that tzaddik (Abraham)? A quarrel. Here, too, what is it that caused this one to receive stripes (in beth-din)? [see verse 2]) A quarrel.
בֵּין אֲנָשִׁים, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא אֲנָשִׁים, אִישׁ עִם אִשָּׁה וְאִשָּׁה עִם אִישׁ וּשְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים זוֹ עִם זוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְנִגְּשׁוּ אֶל הַמִּשְׁפָּט מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"among men": Whence do I derive (the same for) women (quarreling with each other), or a woman quarreling with a man? From "and they (men or women) shall draw near to judgment."
וּשְׁפָטוּם, בְּעַל כָּרְחָם.
"and they judge them": (even) against their will.
וְהִצְדִּיקוּ, יָכוֹל כָּל הַמֻּרְשָׁעִים לוֹקִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים כה ב): וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע, פְּעָמִים לוֹקֶה פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. וַעֲדַיִן אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אֵלּוּ הֵם הַלּוֹקִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים כה ד): ״לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר בְּדִישׁוֹ״, מַה חֲסִימַת שׁוֹר מְיֻחֶדֶת מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַהֲרֵי הוּא לוֹקֶה, כָּךְ כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה הֲרֵי הוּא לוֹקֶה. אוֹ כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה יְהֵא לוֹקֶה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תַחְסֹם שׁוֹר״, מַה חֲסִימַת שׁוֹר מְיֻחֶדֶת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה וַהֲרֵי הוּא לוֹקֶה, כָּךְ כָּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה הֲרֵי הוּא לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וְהִצְדִּיקוּ אֶת הַצַּדִּיק, צַדְּקֵהוּ כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לוֹקֶה. וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע, פְּעָמִים לוֹקֶה פְּעָמִים אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
"and they vindicate the righteous one and incriminate the wicked one": I might think that all the wicked receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one" — Sometimes he does receive stripes; sometimes not. But I still would not know which acts receive stripes; it is, therefore, written (verse 4) "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being a negative commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so, transgression of all negative commandments is subject to stripes. I might then think that all negative commandments linked to (remedial) positive commandments are (also) subject to stripes. It is, therefore, written "You shall not muzzle an ox in its threshing." Just as muzzling is distinct in being unlinked to a (remedial) positive commandment, transgression of which is subject to stripes, so transgression of all negative commandments unlinked to (remedial) positive commandments is subject to stripes. R. Shimon says: "and they vindicate the righteous one": Vindicate him so that he not receive stripes.
וְהִפִּילוֹ הַשֹּׁפֵט, אֵין מַלְקִים מֵעוֹמֵד.
(Ibid. 2) "then the judge shall bend him down": whence we derive that he is not smitten standing.
וְהִכָּהוּ, מַלְקֶה שְׁלִישׁ לְפָנָיו וּשְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת מֵאַחֲרָיו.
"and he shall smite him before him according to his wickedness in number.": one-third (the number of stripes) in front, and two-thirds on his back.
לְפָנָיו, שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹקֶה וְעֵינָיו בּוֹ, וְלֹא שֶׁיְּהֵא לוֹקֶה וְעֵינָיו בְּדָבָר אַחֵר. יָכוֹל יְהֵא לוֹקֶה וָמֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ, אֵין לוֹקֶה וָמֵת. יָכוֹל יְהֵא לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ, אֵין לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם.
"before him": He smites him with his eyes upon him and not upon something else. I might think that he is smitten and put to death or that he is smitten and pays; it is, therefore, written "according to his (one) wickedness" — he is not (both) smitten and put to death; he is not smitten and made to pay.
(דברים כה ג) אַרְבָּעִים, יָכוֹל אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵמוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אַרְבָּעִים בְּמִסְפָּר, מִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא סוֹכֵם אֶת הָאַרְבָּעִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַרְבָּעִים שְׁלֵמוֹת, הֵיכָן הוּא לוֹקֶה אֶת הַיְּתֵרָה? בֵּין כְּתֵפָיו.
(Ibid. 3) "Forty shall he smite him": I might think "forty," literally; it is, therefore, written "in number. Forty" — a number that is close to forty (i.e., thirty-nine). R. Yehudah says: Forty, literally. And where is he smitten (the other two-thirds)? Between his shoulders. "shall he smite him": and not the ground (together with him).
יַכֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא עַל הַקַּרְקַע. יַכֶּנּוּ, וְלֹא עַל כְּסוּתוֹ. יַכֶּנּוּ, אֵין מַלְקִים שְׁנַיִם כְּאֶחָד.
"shall he smite him": and not his garment. "shall he smite him": Two are not smitten as one.
לֹא יֹסִיף, אִם הוֹסִיף עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בִּזְמַן שֶׁמּוֹסִיף עַל הַמִּנְיָן עַל כָּל אֹמֶד וְאֹמֶד שֶׁאֲמָדוּהוּ בֵּית דִּין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: פֶּן יֹסִיף מִכָּל מָקוֹם.
"and not more": If he does smite more, he transgresses a negative commandment. This tells me only of his going beyond the Torah's number (i.e., thirty-nine). Whence do we derive (the same for his going beyond) the court's assessment (of how many he can bear)? From "and not more. Lest he smite him more" — in any event.
מַכָּה רַבָּה, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מַכָּה רַבָּה, מַכָּה מוּעֶטֶת מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: עַל אֵלֶּה. אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר מַכָּה רַבָּה? מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין הָרִאשׁוֹנָה מַכָּה רַבָּה.
"a great blow": This tells me only of a great blow (as being forbidden). Whence do I derive (the same for) a negligible one? From ("lest he smite him more) than these." If so, why is it written "a great blow"? To teach that the first ones are great blows (i.e., given with all his strength.)
וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: נִתְקַלְקֵל בֵּין בִּרְעִי בֵּין בְּמַיִם פָּטוּר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הָאִישׁ בִּרְעִי וְהָאִשָּׁה בְּמַיִם.
"and he be demeaned" — whence they ruled that if he was soiled either by excrement or urine (while being smitten), he is exempt (from the remaining stripes). R. Yehudah said: a man, by excrement; a woman, by urine.
דָּבָר אַחֵר: וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ לְעֵינֶיךָ, מִשֶּׁלָּקָה הֲרֵי הוּא אָחִיךָ. מִכָּן אָמְרוּ: כָּל חַיָּבֵי כְרֵתוֹת שֶׁלָּקוּ נִפְטְרוּ מִידֵי כְּרֵתָם.
"your brother": We are hereby taught that all those liable to kareth (cutting off), who receive stripes, are absolved from their kareth, it being written "and your brother be demeaned before your eyes" — Once he has been smitten," regard him as your brother.
רַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַיּוֹם הַכָּתוּב קוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ב): וְהָיָה אִם בִּן הַכּוֹת הָרָשָׁע, אֲבָל מִשֶּׁלָּקָה הַכָּתוּב קוֹרֵא אוֹתוֹ אָחִיךָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה ג): וְנִקְלָה אָחִיךָ.
R. Chanina b. Gamla says: The entire day Scripture calls him "wicked," viz. (Ibid. 2) "Then it shall be, if liable to stripes is the wicked one." But once he has been smitten Scripture calls him "your brother," viz.: "and your brother be demeaned." Now if a man commits one transgression, his soul is taken from him (i.e., he receives kareth), then, if he does one mitzvah (after being smitten), how much more so (is it to be inferred that) his soul is restored to him.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר מִמְּקוֹמוֹ הוּא מֻכְרָע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא יח כט): ״כִּי כָּל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה מִכֹּל הַתּוֹעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְרְתוּ הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הָעֹשׂוֹת מִקֶּרֶב עַמָּם״, וְאוֹמֵר (ויקרא יח ה): ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם״. וַהֲלֹא דְּבָרִים קַל וָחֹמֶר: אִם מִדַּת פֻּרְעָנוּת מוּעֶטֶת, הַנִּטְפָּל בְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה הֲרֵי הוּא עוֹשֶׂה דִּינוֹ כְּעוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה, הַנִּטְפָּל לְעוֹשֵׂי מִצְוָה עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.
R. Shimon says: From its place (i.e., from the place where Scripture makes him liable to kareth), it is to be inferred (that once he is smitten he is exempt from kareth), it being written (Vayikra 18:29) "For all who commit any of these abominations (in illicit relations) — the souls that do it are to be cut off (i.e., kareth) from their people," and (Ibid. 18:5) "And you shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which, if a man do, he shall live by them," (— followed by (6) "A man, a man, to all the kin of his flesh you shall not come near to uncover nakedness.") From this ("he shall live by them") we infer that if one sits (passively) and does not commit transgression, (in this instance, the kareth transgression of illicit relations), he receives the reward of one who (actively) performs a mitzvah ([How much more so is the smitten one exempt from kareth!)].
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּרַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (דברים יב כג): ״רַק חֲזַק לְבִלְתִּי אֲכֹל הַדָּם״, מָה הַדָּם שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם חָתָה מִמֶּנּוּ, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מִמֶּנּוּ מְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר טוֹב, גֵּזֶל וַעֲרָיוֹת שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם מִתְאַוָּה לָהֶם וּמְחַמַּדְתָּן, הַפּוֹרֵשׁ מֵהֶם עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁיִּזְכֶּה לוֹ וּלְדוֹרוֹתָיו עַד סוֹף כָּל הַדּוֹרוֹת.
(R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit reward for himself and for his succeeding generations until the end of all the generations!)
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים טו א-ה): ״ה׳ מִי יָגוּר בְּאָהֳלֶךָ, הוֹלֵךְ תָּמִים וּפֹעֵל צֶדֶק, לֹא רָגַל עַל לְשׁוֹנוֹ, נִבְזֶה בְעֵינָיו נִמְאָס, כַּסְפּוֹ לֹא נָתַן בְּנֶשֶׁךְ״, וּבְמָקוֹם אַחֵר הוּא אוֹמֵר (יחזקאל יח ה): ״וְאִישׁ כִּי יִהְיֶה צַדִּיק״ וְגוֹ׳, וּבְסוֹף הָעִנְיָן הוּא אוֹמֵר (יחזקאל יח ט): ״צַדִּיק הוּא חָיֹה יִחְיֶה״, וְכִי מַה עָשָׂה זֶה? הָא כָּל הַיּוֹשֵׁב וְאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵר עֲבֵרָה נוֹתְנִים לוֹ שָׂכָר כְּעוֹשֶׂה מִצְוָה.
R. Yehudah says: It is written (Psalms 18:1-5) "Who will sojourn in Your tent? —- one who walks in innocence and works righteousness … who has no slander on his tongue … who despises the shameful one … who does not lend his money on interest." And elsewhere it is written (Ezekiel 18:15) "And if a man would be a tzaddik — he did not eat of (the idolatries of) the mountains, and he did not lift his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, and he did not defile his neighbor's wife, and he did not come near a niddah, etc. … (Ibid. 9) he is a tzaddik; he will live!" Now what did this man do, (aside from what he did not do)? We are hereby apprised that if one sits (passively) and does not transgress, he is given the reward of the doer of a mitzvah. R. Shimon Berebbi says: If one who keeps from (eating) blood, which a man's soul despises, is rewarded — then, if he separates himself from theft and illicit relations, for which he lusts and which he desires — how much more so will he merit (reward) for himself and for his (succeeding) generations until the end of all the generations!