## Makkot Daf 15a

###### Makkot 15a:1
[Makkot 15a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:1)

אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אָמַרְתָּ? אֲמַר לְהוּ: לָא. אָמַר רַבָּה: הָאֱלֹהִים! אַמְרַהּ, וּכְתִיבָא וּתְנֵינָא: כְּתִיבָא – ״וִישַׁלְּחוּ מִן הַמַּחֲנֶה [וְגוֹ׳]״ ״וְלֹא יְטַמְּאוּ אֶת מַחֲנֵיהֶם״. תְּנֵינָא – הַבָּא לַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They said to** Rabbi Yoḥanan: **Did you say** this *halakha*? Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to them: No. Rabba** bar bar Ḥana **said** in the form of an oath: **By God, he said it, and** this *halakha* **is written** in the Torah **and we learn** it in the mishna. **It is written: “And they shall send from the camp** any man who is leprous, and any *zav*…**and they shall not render their camp impure”** (Numbers 5:2–4). There is a prohibition against rendering the camp impure, and there is a positive mitzva to send them out of the camp. Since the positive mitzva precedes and is independent of the prohibition, one is flogged for the violation of that prohibition, as **we learn** in the mishna among those liable to receive lashes: **One who entered the Temple** while ritually **impure.**


###### Makkot 15a:2
[Makkot 15a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:2)

אֶלָּא מַאי טַעְמָא קָא הָדַר בֵּיהּ? מִשּׁוּם דְּקַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ אוֹנֶס. דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹנֵס שֶׁגֵּירַשׁ, אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא – מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. אִם כֹּהֵן הוּא – לוֹקֶה וְאֵינוֹ מַחְזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, what is the reason he retracted** his statement and claimed he did not say it? The Gemara answers: It is **due to** the fact **that** the *halakha* concerning one who **rapes** a virgin young woman, who is required by Torah law to marry her and for whom it is prohibited to divorce her as long as he lives, **is difficult for him, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a rapist who divorced** the woman he raped, **if he is a non-priest, he remarries** her, **and he is not flogged** for violating the prohibition: “He may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29). **If he is a priest,** he is **flogged** for violating the prohibition, **and he does not remarry** her because it is prohibited for him to marry a divorcée.


###### Makkot 15a:3
[Makkot 15a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:3)

אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא – מַחְזִיר וְאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה, אַמַּאי? לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁקְּדָמוֹ עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְלִילְקֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **If he is a non-priest, he remarries** her, **and he is not flogged. Why? It is a prohibition that** has **a positive mitzva** which **preceded it,** as the positive mitzva: “And she shall be his wife” (Deuteronomy 22:29), precedes the prohibition “He may not send her away.” **But let him be flogged,** since he violated the prohibition by divorcing her. Apparently, one is not flogged even if the positive mitzva precedes the prohibition.


###### Makkot 15a:4
[Makkot 15a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:4)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לוֹ תִּהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, בְּאוֹנֵס, וְלִיגְמַר מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע: וּמָה מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה – אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, אוֹנֵס לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla says** in response: The positive mitzva in the case of a rapist is not a mitzva that precedes the prohibition. Rather, it follows the prohibition and rectifies it, as it is referring to a case of one who married his victim and then divorced her. **Let** the verse **not state: “And she shall be his wife,” in** the case of **a rapist, and let us derive** it by means of an *a fortiori* inference **from** the case of **one who defames** his bride, claiming that she was not a virgin when he consummated the marriage: **If** in the case of **a defamer, who did not perform an action** but sinned through speech, **the Merciful One states: “And she shall be his wife”** (Deuteronomy 22:19), then in the case of **a rapist,** who performed an action, **is it not all the more so** that he is obligated to take her as a wife?


###### Makkot 15a:5
[Makkot 15a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:5)

לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְפָנָיו תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאַחֲרָיו, שֶׁאִם גֵּירַשׁ יַחֲזִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ulla continues: **Why,** then, **is** the mitzva **stated** in the case of the rapist? **If it is not** relevant to the **matter of before** the rapist marries the victim, **apply it** to the **matter of after** the rapist marries the victim, teaching **that if he divorced** her **he must remarry** her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition “He may not send her away,” it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.


###### Makkot 15a:6
[Makkot 15a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:6)

וְאַכַּתִּי, אוֹנֵס מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע לָא גָּמַר, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, שֶׁכֵּן לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** this affords no proof, as **one cannot derive** the case of **a rapist from** the case of **a defamer, as** the *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted: What** is notable **about** the case of **a defamer,** which is more stringent than the case of a rapist? It is notable **in that he is flogged and** is liable to **pay** retribution, which is contrary to the principle that in general, two punishments are not administered for one transgression.


###### Makkot 15a:7
[Makkot 15a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:7)

אֶלָּא: לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״ בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, וְלִיגְמַר מֵאוֹנֵס: וּמָה אוֹנֵס שֶׁאֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם, אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא ״וְלוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״, מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? וְלָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לָאוֹנֵס, אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְפָנָיו – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather, let** the verse **not state: “And she shall be his wife,” in** the case of the **defamer, and let us derive** it by means of an *a fortiori* inference **from** the case of **a rapist: And if** in the case of **a rapist, who is not** both **flogged and** liable to **pay** restitution, but is liable to receive only one punishment, **the Merciful One states: “And she shall be his wife,”** in the case of **a defamer,** who is flogged and liable to pay retribution, **is it not all the more so** that he is obligated to take her as a wife? **And why,** then, **is it stated** in the case of the defamer? Rather, **if** the mitzva **is not** relevant to the **matter of** the **defamer, apply it** to the **matter of** the **rapist, and if** the mitzva **is not** relevant to the **matter of before** the rapist marries the victim, **apply it** to the **matter of after** the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although in the verse it appears prior to the prohibition “He may not send her away,” it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.


###### Makkot 15a:8
[Makkot 15a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:8)

וּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע מֵאוֹנֵס נָמֵי לָא גָּמַר, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאוֹנֵס – שֶׁכֵּן עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** this affords no proof, as **one cannot derive** the case of **a defamer from** the case of **a rapist either, as** the *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted: What** is notable **about** the case of **a rapist?** It is notable in **that he performed an action,** while the defamer performed no action.


###### Makkot 15a:9
[Makkot 15a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:9)

אֶלָּא: לֹא יֵאָמֵר ״לוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה״ בְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי אִשְׁתּוֹ הִיא. לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר? אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לָאוֹנֵס, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְפָנָיו – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאַחֲרָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Rather, let** the verse **not state: “And she shall be his wife,” in** the case of the **defamer** because the expression is redundant, **as she is** already **his wife.** It would have been sufficient for the verse to state that it is prohibited for him to send her away. **Why,** then, **is it stated** in the case of the defamer? Rather, **if** the mitzva **is not** relevant to the **matter of** the **defamer, apply it** to the **matter of** the **rapist, and if** the mitzva **is not** relevant to the **matter of before** the rapist marries the victim, **apply it** to the **matter of after** the rapist marries the victim, teaching that if he divorced her he must remarry her. Although the positive mitzva appears in the verse prior to the prohibition “He may not send her away,” it actually serves to rectify that prohibition.


###### Makkot 15a:10
[Makkot 15a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:10)

וְאֵימָא, וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְפָנָיו דְּמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע – תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְאַחֲרָיו דִּידֵיהּ, דְּלָא לָקֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions that derivation: **And say** instead: **And if** the mitzva **is not** relevant to the **matter of** the **defamer before** he marries his bride, as they are married, **apply it** to the **matter of** the defamer **himself after** they are married, teaching that if he divorced her and violated the prohibition against divorcing her, he is obligated to remarry her, and it teaches **that he is not flogged,** as the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition. But in the case of a rapist, the mitzva is to marry her after the rape but there is no mitzva to marry her after he divorces her, and nevertheless, he is not flogged.


###### Makkot 15a:11
[Makkot 15a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:11)

אִין הָכִי נָמֵי, וְאָתֵי אוֹנֵס וְגָמַר מִינֵּיהּ. בְּמַאי גָּמַר מִינֵּיהּ? אִי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר אִי בְּ״מָה מָצִינוּ״ – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ כִּדְפָרְכִינַן: מָה לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא עָשָׂה מַעֲשֶׂה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes, it is indeed so;** the *halakha* is derived with regard to the defamer himself, teaching that if he divorces his bride he is obligated to remarry her. **And** the case of the **rapist comes and is derived from** the case of the defamer, and the same *halakha* applies there as well. The Gemara asks: **With what** derivation is the case of a rapist **derived from** the case of a defamer? **If** it is **by means of an *a fortiori*** inference or **if** it is **by means of** the inductive hermeneutical principle: **What do we find,** those derivations **can be refuted, as we refuted** the derivations earlier in the Gemara: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a defamer?** It is notable **in that he did not perform an action.**


###### Makkot 15a:12
[Makkot 15a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כׇּל יָמָיו בַּעֲמוֹד וְהַחְזֵר. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל יָמָיו בַּעֲמוֹד וְהַחְזֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says:** From where is it derived that a rapist must remarry his victim if he divorced her because the positive mitzva rectifies the prohibition “He may not send her away”? It is derived from the superfluous phrase: “All his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29), indicating that **all his days,** even after he marries and divorces her, he is obligated **to arise and remarry** her and is consequently not liable to receive lashes. The Gemara adds: **And likewise, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All his days** he is obligated **to arise and remarry** her.


###### Makkot 15a:13
[Makkot 15a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:13)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְרָבָא: וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי לָאוֵיהּ לְלָאו דַּחֲסִימָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתַב בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא עֲשֵׂה יַתִּירָא מִגְרָע גָּרַע?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Rava** that a question arises with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva: **But isn’t its prohibition dissimilar to the prohibition of muzzling** an ox while it is threshing grain (see Deuteronomy 25:4), which is the paradigm for all prohibitions for whose violation one is flogged, as no positive mitzva is stated in conjunction with the prohibition of muzzling? Rava **said to him:** Is it reasonable to say that **due to** the fact **that the Merciful One wrote in its** regard **an additional positive mitzva,** the stringency of the prohibition **lessens,** so that no lashes are administered?


###### Makkot 15a:14
[Makkot 15a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:14)

אִי הָכִי, לָאו שֶׁנִּיתָּק לַעֲשֵׂה נָמֵי, לֵימָא: מִשּׁוּם דִּכְתַב בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא עֲשֵׂה יַתִּירָא מִגְרָע גָּרַע? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא לְנַתּוֹקֵי לָאו הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Pappa objected to this claim: **If so,** with regard to **a prohibition that entails** fulfillment **of a positive mitzva as well, let us say:** Is it reasonable to say that **due to** the fact **that the Merciful One wrote in its** regard **an additional positive mitzva,** the stringency of the prohibition **lessens,** so that no lashes are administered? Rava **said to him:** In **that** case, the transgressor is not flogged because the mitzva **comes to sever the prohibition** from the punishment of lashes.


###### Makkot 15a:15
[Makkot 15a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:15)

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר בִּיטְּלוֹ וְלֹא בִּיטְּלוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the statement of Rava, who said with regard to the rapist: All his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her, and that is why he is not flogged for violating the prohibition “He may not send her away,” and asks: **This works out well according to the one who says** that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether **he nullified** the mitzva **or did not nullify** the mitzva. According to this opinion, one is flogged only if fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible, e.g., a priest who divorced the woman whom he raped. By contrast, a non-priest would not be flogged, because the option of remarriage remains viable.


###### Makkot 15a:16
[Makkot 15a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/15a:16)

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to the one who says** that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether **he fulfilled** the mitzva **or did not fulfill** the mitzva, and if he did not immediately fulfill the mitzva he is flogged, **what can be said?** Even in the case of a non-priest who divorced the rape victim, once he fails to remarry her immediately, he is liable to receive lashes.