## Makkot Daf 15b

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

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן? הָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא, תְּנִי: בִּטְּלוֹ – חַיָּיב, וְלֹא בִּטְּלוֹ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The only reason** Rava stated his explanation, that all his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her and that is why the rapist is not flogged even though it is a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva, **is to** explain the opinion of **Rabbi Yoḥanan,** who said that for any prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation. **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say to** the ***tanna*** who would recite the *mishnayot* and *baraitot* in the study hall: **Teach** that if he **nullified** the mitzva, he is **liable** to receive lashes, and **if he did not nullify** the mitzva, he is **exempt** from lashes? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, it works out well.


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

דְּתָנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כׇּל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ קוּם עֲשֵׂה, קִיֵּים עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ – פָּטוּר, בִּיטֵּל עֲשֵׂה שֶׁבָּהּ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
What is the dispute to which the Gemara is alluding? **The *tanna* taught** a *baraita* **before Rabbi Yoḥanan:** With regard to **any prohibition that entails** a command to **arise** and **perform** a mitzva, if **he fulfilled the positive** mitzva **that** is entailed **therein,** he is **exempt** from lashes, and if he **nullified the positive mitzva that** is entailed **therein,** he is **liable** to receive lashes.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי קָא אָמְרַתְּ? קִיֵּים – פָּטוּר, לֹא קִיֵּים – חַיָּיב, בִּיטֵּל – חַיָּיב, לֹא בִּיטֵּל – פָּטוּר! תְּנִי: בִּיטְּלוֹ וְלֹא בִּיטְּלוֹ. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: קִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Yoḥanan **said to** the *tanna*: **What** is it that **you are saying?** The *baraita* that you recited is self-contradictory, as based on the first clause: If **he fulfilled** the mitzva he is **exempt,** apparently, if **he did not fulfill** the mitzva he is **liable.** Yet based on the latter clause: If **he nullified** the mitzva, he is **liable,** apparently, if **he did not nullify** the mitzva he is **exempt,** even though he failed to fulfill the mitzva. Rather, **teach:** If he **nullified** the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, **and** if **he did not nullify** the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes. **And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:** The formulation of the *baraita* must be consistent; therefore, teach: If **he fulfilled** the mitzva, he is exempt, **and** if **he did not fulfill** the mitzva he is liable.


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

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? בְּהַתְרָאַת סָפֵק קָא מִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **With regard to what** matter **do they disagree? They disagree with regard to uncertain forewarning,** i.e., forewarning concerning a transgression with regard to which it will not be clarified whether or not his action will render him liable to receive lashes. One **Sage,** Rabbi Yoḥanan, **holds: Uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning;** therefore, even if it is unclear whether the action that the transgressor is about to perform will render him liable to receive lashes, he can be forewarned, and if he violates the prohibition in a manner that will render him liable, he is flogged.


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

וּמָר סָבַר: הַתְרָאַת סָפֵק לֹא שְׁמָהּ הַתְרָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one **Sage,** Reish Lakish, **holds: Uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.** According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, the rapist is forewarned when he is about to divorce his wife, even though there is uncertainty whether he will nullify the mitzva. If he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he vows that deriving benefit from his ex-wife is forbidden to him, thereby ensuring that he cannot remarry her, he is flogged. Reish Lakish holds that if one’s liability to receive lashes was dependent upon the nullification of the mitzva, the rapist would never be flogged, as in that case the forewarning would of necessity be uncertain. Therefore, he explains that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged is whether he fulfilled the mitzva immediately. Violating the prohibition renders him liable to receive lashes; he may then choose to be flogged or to fulfill the mitzva. Therefore, when he is forewarned that he will be flogged if he divorces her, it is not uncertain forewarning.


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

וְאָזְדוּ לְטַעְמַיְיהוּ, דְּאִיתְּמַר: ״שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל כִּכָּר זֶה הַיּוֹם״, וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא אֲכָלָהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ דְּאָמְרִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And they follow their** standard lines of **reasoning, as it was stated** that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish disagreed in a case where one said: On my **oath I will eat this loaf today, and the day passed and he did not eat it. Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish both say: He is not flogged** for taking a false oath. They disagree with regard to the reason that he is not flogged. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is not flogged,**