## Makkot Daf 16b

###### Makkot 16b:1
[Makkot 16b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:1)

הָתָם, גַּבְרָא בַּר תַּשְׁלוּמִין הוּא, וְשִׁיעְבּוּדָא דְּגֵר הוּא דְּקָא פָקַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There, the man** who appropriated the collateral **is liable to** remit monetary **payment, and it is** only **that the lien of the convert** on the property **has lapsed,** as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution.


###### Makkot 16b:2
[Makkot 16b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:2)

וְהָא אִיכָּא פֵּאָה, דְּרַחֲמָנָא אָמַר ״לֹא תְכַלֶּה פְּאַת וְגוֹ׳״ ״לֶעָנִי וְלַגֵּר תַּעֲזֹב אֹתָם וְגוֹ׳״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t there** the case of ***pe’a*,** where there is a prohibition, **as the Merciful One states: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of** your field” (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: **“To the poor and the convert you shall leave them”** (Leviticus 23:22)?


###### Makkot 16b:3
[Makkot 16b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:3)

דְּמַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּקִיְּימוֹ וְלֹא קִיְּימוֹ, בִּיטְּלוֹ וְלֹא בִּיטְּלוֹ! דִּתְנַן: מִצְוַת פֵּאָה לְהַפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּמָה. לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִן הַקָּמָה – מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָעוֹמָרִין. לֹא הִפְרִישׁ מִן הָעוֹמָרִין – מַפְרִישׁ מִן הַכְּרִי, עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵירַח. מֵירְחוֹ – מְעַשֵּׂר וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And **you find** one liable to receive lashes **in** those cases both if the criterion is whether **he fulfilled** the mitzva **or did not fulfill** the mitzva, **and** if the criterion is whether **he nullified** the mitzva **or he did not nullify it, as we learned** in a *baraita*: The **mitzva of *pe’a*** is **to separate** it **from the standing grain** still growing from the ground. If **he did not separate** it **from the standing grain,** but reaped the entire field, **he separates** a portion **from the sheaves** as *pe’a*. If he did **not separate** it **from the sheaves, he separates** it **from the pile** where one places the kernels after threshing, **before he smooths** the pile. Once he smooths the pile, the produce is considered grain from which one is obligated to separate *terumot* and tithes. If he already **smoothed** the pile before designating the *pe’a*, **he tithes** the grain in the pile **and** then **gives** the *pe’a* **to** the poor person. Once he grinds the kernels into flour, he no longer separates *pe’a*.


###### Makkot 16b:4
[Makkot 16b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:4)

כִּדְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּאָמַר: אַף מַפְרִישׁ מִן הָעִיסָּה. וּלְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ, דַּאֲכַל עִיסָּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving *pe’a* by grinding the grain; why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan holds **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yishmael, who says:** One **separates** *pe’a* **even from the dough.** He maintains that the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of *pe’a* is never nullified, as one may separate *pe’a* even after grinding and kneading. The Gemara challenges: **And** according **to Rabbi Yishmael, you also find** a way to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva, in a case **where one ate** the **dough.**


###### Makkot 16b:5
[Makkot 16b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:5)

אֶלָּא, ״זֹאת וְעוֹד אַחֶרֶת״ – אַהָא, אֲבָל אוֹנֵס – לָא. דְּהֵיכָא אָמְרִינַן עַל דַּעַת רַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה – לִדְבַר הָרְשׁוּת, אֲבָל לִדְבַר מִצְוָה – יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara retracts its previous understanding of the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: **This,** is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, **and** the term: **Another,** is in reference **to this** *halakha* of *pe’a*. **But** in the case of **a rapist, no,** the possibility of remarrying the rape victim whom he divorced is not nullified, even if he vows on the basis of the consent of the public. **Where do we say** that a vow **on** the basis of **the consent of the public has no nullification?** It is only in a case where one seeks nullification of the vow **for** the purpose of **a matter** that is **optional,** i.e., not a mitzva; **but** if one seeks nullification of the vow **for** the purpose of **a matter** that is **a mitzva,** even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public **has** the possibility of **nullification.** In the case of the rapist, he could seek nullification of his vow to enable him to fulfill the mitzva of remarrying his divorcée, and therefore the vow can be nullified.


###### Makkot 16b:6
[Makkot 16b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:6)

כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי דַּהֲוָה פָּשַׁע בְּיָנוֹקֵי, אַדְּרֵיהּ רַב אַחָא, וְאַהְדְּרֵיהּ רָבִינָא, דְּלָא אִשְׁתְּכַח דְּדָיֵיק כְּווֹתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates an incident that proves this point. **As** this happened in **that** incident **where** there was **a certain teacher of children who was negligent in** his supervision of the **children,** and **Rav Aḥa vowed** on the basis of the consent of the public that **he** would no longer be allowed to teach children. **And** nevertheless **Ravina restored him** to his position, **because no** other teacher **was found who was as accurate as he.** Apparently, even a vow taken on the basis of the consent of the public has the possibility of nullification, if that nullification is sought in order to fulfill a mitzva.


###### Makkot 16b:7
[Makkot 16b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:7)

וְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הַאי מַאן דַּאֲכַל בִּינִיתָא דְּבֵי כְרָבָא – מַלְקִינַן לֵיהּ מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״. הָהוּא דַּאֲכַל בִּינִיתָא דְּבֵי כְרָבָא וְנַגְּדֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **And one who eats unslaughtered** animal or bird **carcasses, or *tereifot*,** or **repugnant creatures, or creeping animals,** is liable to receive lashes. **Rav Yehuda says: One who eats a fish-**like creature found **in** the furrows of a field formed by **a plow [*binnita devei kerava*], we flog him due to** violation of the prohibition: **“Creeping animals that creep on the ground…**shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41). The Gemara relates: There was **a certain** person **who ate a fish-**like creature found **in** the furrows of a field formed by **a plow, and Rav Yehuda flogged him.**


###### Makkot 16b:8
[Makkot 16b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:8)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: אָכַל פּוּטִיתָא – לוֹקֶה אַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye says:** One who ate **a *putita*,** a creeping animal found in the sea, **is flogged** with **four** sets of lashes. There are two prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in the sea: “And any that do not have fins and scales in the seas and in the rivers…you shall not eat of their flesh” (Leviticus 11:10–11), and: “And any that do not have fins and scales you shall not eat” (Deuteronomy 14:10). In addition, there are two other prohibitions stated with regard to creeping animals in general: “You shall not render yourselves detestable with any creeping animal that creeps, neither shall you render yourselves impure with them” (Leviticus 11:43), for a total of four.


###### Makkot 16b:9
[Makkot 16b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:9)

נְמָלָה – לוֹקֶה חָמֵשׁ, מִשּׁוּם ״שֶׁרֶץ הַשֹּׁרֵץ עַל הָאָרֶץ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one ate **an ant, he is flogged** with **five** sets of lashes. In addition to the two prohibitions stated with regard to repugnant creatures in general, he is also flogged **for** violating the prohibitions: **“Creeping animals that creep on the ground…**shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 11:41), and: “And all creeping animals that creep on the ground, you shall not eat them” (Leviticus 11:42), and: “Neither shall you render yourselves impure with any manner of creeping things that crawls upon the ground” (Leviticus 11:44).


###### Makkot 16b:10
[Makkot 16b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:10)

צִרְעָה – לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁרֶץ הָעוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one ate **a wasp, he is flogged** with **six** sets of lashes. In addition to the five prohibitions violated by one who eats an ant, he is flogged with an additional set of lashes **due to** violation of the prohibition with regard to **winged creeping creatures:** “And all winged creeping creatures are impure for you, they may not be eaten” (Deuteronomy 14:19).


###### Makkot 16b:11
[Makkot 16b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:11)

אָמַר רַב אַחַאי: הַמְשַׁהֶה אֶת נְקָבָיו עוֹבֵר מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ״. אָמַר רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי: הַאי מַאן דְּשָׁתֵי בְּקַרְנָא דְּאוּמָּנָא קָא עָבַר מִשּׁוּם ״לֹא תְשַׁקְּצוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai says: One who delays** relieving himself through **his orifices** when the need arises **violates** the prohibition **of: “You shall not make** your souls **detestable”** (Leviticus 20:25). **Rav Beivai bar Abaye says: One who drinks from the horn of a bloodletter** through which blood has passed **violates** the prohibition **of: “You shall not make** your souls **detestable.”**


###### Makkot 16b:12
[Makkot 16b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:12)

אָמַר רָבָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא: רִיסֵּק תִּשְׁעָה נְמָלִים וְהֵבִיא אֶחָד חַי וְהִשְׁלִימָן לִכְזַיִת – לוֹקֶה שֵׁשׁ, חָמֵשׁ – מִשּׁוּם בְּרִיָּה, וְאֶחָד – מִשּׁוּם כְּזַיִת נְבֵילָה. רָבָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֲפִילּוּ שְׁנַיִם וְהוּא. רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ אַחַד וְהוּא. וְלָא פְּלִיגִי, הָא – בְּרַבְרְבֵי, וְהָא – בְּזוּטְרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava bar Rav Huna says:** If one **crushed nine ants and brought** another **one** that was **alive and** thereby **completed** their measure **to an olive-bulk** and ate them, he is **flogged** with **six** sets of lashes: **Five for** eating **an entity** for which one is flogged five times as stated above with regard to one who eats an ant, **and one for** eating **an olive-bulk of an unslaughtered carcass** all together. **Rava** says that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Even** if **he ate two** crushed ants **and** the ant that was alive, he is flogged with six sets of lashes. **Rav Yosef says: Even** if **he ate one** crushed ant **and** the ant that was alive. The Gemara comments: **And they do not disagree; this** case, where Rava and Rav Yosef say that he is flogged for eating one or two crushed ants and one that is alive, is referring **to large** ants, which together amount to an olive-bulk. **And that** case, where Rava bar Rav Huna mentions nine ants, is referring **to small** ants, as a greater number of ants is required to constitute an olive-bulk and render him liable. Consequently, there is no halakhic dispute in this case.


###### Makkot 16b:13
[Makkot 16b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:13)

״אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן״ כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב: אָכַל טֶבֶל שֶׁל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי – לוֹקֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that among those flogged is one who **ate untithed produce or first-tithe** produce whose *teruma* of the tithe was not taken. **Rav says:** If one **ate untithed produce** from which *teruma* and first tithe were separated and **poor man’s tithe** was not separated, he is **flogged.**


###### Makkot 16b:14
[Makkot 16b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/16b:14)

כְּמַאן – כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב אֶלָּא עַל הַטֶּבֶל שֶׁלֹּא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ כׇּל עִיקָּר; הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמָה גְּדוֹלָה וְלֹא הוּרַם מִמֶּנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן וְלֹא מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וַאֲפִילּוּ מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, מִנַּיִן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Rav issue this ruling? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **this *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Yosei says:** One **might** have thought **that one is liable for** eating **only untithed produce from which no** gifts **were taken at all;** but if ***teruma gedola* was taken from** the produce, **but first tithe was not taken from it,** or if the **first tithe** was separated **but not second tithe, or even** if only **poor man’s tithe** was not separated, **from where** is it derived that the halakhic status of the produce is that of untithed produce and one is liable for eating it?


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

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״ וּלְהַלָּן הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאָכְלוּ בִשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְשָׂבֵעוּ״, מָה לְהַלָּן מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, אַף כָּאן מַעְשַׂר עָנִי, וְאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא: ״לֹא תוּכַל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: It is derived as **the verse states: “You may not eat within your gates** the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil” (Deuteronomy 12:17), **and there it states:** “And you shall give to the Levite, to the convert, to the orphan, and to the widow, **and they shall eat within your gates and be satisfied”** (Deuteronomy 26:12). **Just as there,** with regard to the phrase “and they shall eat within your gates,” it is referring to **poor man’s tithe, here too,** “you may not eat within your gates” is referring to produce in which there is **poor man’s tithe,** as it has not yet been separated, **and the Merciful One states** a prohibition: **You may not** eat it.


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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: כְּתַנָּאֵי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת אֶת הַשֵּׁם עַל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef said:** This matter is **subject to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*. Rabbi Eliezer says: One need not** separate by means of **calling the name upon poor man’s tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [*demai*].** With regard to produce purchased from an *am ha’aretz*, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to tithes, there is a rabbinic ordinance requiring one to separate first and second tithe and *teruma* of the tithe from it. Nevertheless, one is not required to separate poor man’s tithe from that produce, because poor man’s tithe is a monetary debt owed to the poor, and in a case of uncertainty, the principle is: The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Rabbi Eliezer holds that failure to separate poor man’s tithe does not accord the produce the status of untithed produce. **And the Rabbis say:**