## Makkot Daf 4b

###### Makkot 4b:1
[Makkot 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן. ״כְּדֵי רִשְׁעָתוֹ״ כְּתִיב, מִשּׁוּם רִשְׁעָה אַחַת אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ וְאִי אַתָּה מְחַיְּיבוֹ מִשּׁוּם שְׁתֵּי רִשְׁעָיוֹת. אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵאִיר מַאי טַעְמָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the initial dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the mishna whether conspiring witnesses pay and are flogged, the Gemara asks: **Granted,** according **to the Rabbis,** the verse that states: “The judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before him, **according to the measure of his wickedness”** (Deuteronomy 25:2), **is written** concerning one who was liable to receive lashes. From “according to the measure of his wickedness” it is inferred with regard to an individual who commits one transgression: **For one evildoing you can render him liable, but you cannot render him liable for two evildoings,** i.e., one cannot receive two punishments for the same act. **But** according to **Rabbi Meir, what is the reason** that he is punished twice for committing a single transgression?


###### Makkot 4b:2
[Makkot 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:2)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: גָּמַר מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. מָה מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע – לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם, אַף כֹּל – לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם. מָה לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, שֶׁכֵּן קְנָס! סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין – קְנָסָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** Rabbi Meir **derived** this *halakha* **from** the *halakha* concerning **one who defames** his wife, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that she was not a virgin: **Just as the defamer is flogged and pays,** as it is written: “And they shall chastise him and fine him one hundred silver coins” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19), **so too, anyone** who commits a transgression punishable with lashes and a monetary payment **is flogged and pays.** The Gemara questions this derivation: **What** is notable **about** the case of **a defamer?** It is notable **in that** the payment of the defamer is **a fine,** which is a fixed sum that the Torah deems him liable to pay. How can the *halakha* of conspiring witnesses, whose payment is monetary restitution, be derived from there? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir **holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, who says:** The payment that **conspiring witnesses** are liable to pay **is a fine.**


###### Makkot 4b:3
[Makkot 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:3)

אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לְהָא דְּעוּלָּא אַהָא דְּתַנְיָא: ״לֹא תוֹתִירוּ מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר וְהַנֹּתָר מִמֶּנּוּ עַד בֹּקֶר, וְגוֹ׳״ – בָּא הַכָּתוּב לִיתֵּן עֲשֵׂה אַחַר לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **There are those who teach this** statement **of Ulla with regard to that which is taught** in a *baraita*: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: **“And you shall let nothing of it remain until morning, but that which remains of it until morning** you shall burn with fire” (Exodus 12:10). **The verse comes to provide a positive mitzva** to burn the remains **after** it has taught **a prohibition,** which states: “You shall let nothing of it remain,” **to say that one is not flogged for its** violation; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** This is a prohibition whose transgression entails the fulfillment of a positive mitzva, in which the mitzva serves to rectify the violation of the prohibition, and no lashes are administered.


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

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה, וְכׇל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה אֵין לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה סָבַר לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו, מְנָא לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** The fact that one is not flogged **is not for** that **reason; rather,** it is **due to** the fact **that** this prohibition: “And you shall let nothing of it remain,” **is a prohibition that does not involve an action,** as one violates the prohibition through failure to take action, **and** concerning **any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its** violation. The Gemara learns **by inference that Rabbi Yehuda holds** in principle with regard to **a prohibition that does not involve an action,** that **one is flogged for its** violation. **From where does** Rabbi Yehuda derive that one is flogged in that case?


###### Makkot 4b:5
[Makkot 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:5)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: גָּמַר מִמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע. מָה מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו, אַף כׇּל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מָה לְמוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, שֶׁכֵּן לוֹקֶה וּמְשַׁלֵּם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla said:** Rabbi Yehuda **derived** this *halakha* **from the defamer; just as the defamer** violates **a prohibition that does not involve an action,** as it involves only speech, and **one is flogged for its** violation, **so too,** with regard to **any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its** violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: **What** is notable **about** the case of the **defamer?** It is notable **in that he is flogged and pays** for violation of a single prohibition. Due to that stringency, other less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of the defamer.


###### Makkot 4b:6
[Makkot 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: גָּמַר מֵעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. מָה עֵדִים זוֹמְמִין לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו, אַף כׇּל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה – לוֹקִין עָלָיו. מָה לְעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין צְרִיכִין הַתְרָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Reish Lakish says:** Rabbi Yehuda **derives** this principle **from** the case of **conspiring witnesses. Just as the conspiring witnesses** violate **a prohibition that does not involve an action** and an individual **is flogged for its** violation, **so too,** with regard to **any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its** violation. The Gemara questions this derivation: **What** is notable **about** the case of **conspiring witnesses?** It is notable **in that** the witnesses **do not require forewarning** in order to administer their punishment, which is an exception to the principle that corporal punishment may be administered only after forewarning. Due to that stringency, other less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from the case of conspiring witnesses.


###### Makkot 4b:7
[Makkot 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:7)

מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע יוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין: לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה. הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה וְלוֹקִין עָלָיו, אַף כׇּל לָאו שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַעֲשֶׂה לוֹקִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The** case of the **defamer will prove** that the absence of forewarning is not a significant factor, as the defamer requires forewarning and nevertheless is flogged for a prohibition that does not involve an action. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. The defining **characteristic of this** case **is not like** the defining **characteristic of that** case, and the defining **characteristic of that** case is not like the defining **characteristic of this** case. **Their common denominator** is that in both cases there is **a prohibition that does not involve an action and one is flogged for its** violation. **So too,** with regard to **any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is flogged for its** violation.


###### Makkot 4b:8
[Makkot 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:8)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן קְנָס! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this derivation: **What** is notable **about their common denominator?** They are notable **in that** payment in both cases is **a fine,** and therefore other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The Gemara answers: **This** is **not difficult; Rabbi Yehuda does not hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva** that the payment of conspiring witnesses is a fine. In his opinion, therefore, that is not a common denominator.


###### Makkot 4b:9
[Makkot 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:9)

אֶלָּא: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ בָּהֶן צַד חָמוּר! וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? צַד חָמוּר לָא פָּרֵיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara proposes an alternative refutation: **What** is notable **about their common denominator?** They are notable **in that** the cases of the defamer and of conspiring witnesses **both contain a stringent aspect;** therefore, other, less stringent prohibitions cannot be derived from them. The stringency in the case of the defamer is that he both is flogged and pays, and the stringency in the case of conspiring witnesses is that they do not require forewarning. The Gemara answers: **And Rabbi Yehuda does not refute** a derivation from a common denominator based on the fact that both cases contain a different **stringent aspect.** He holds that the mere fact that there is a stringency in each does not serve as a common denominator.


###### Makkot 4b:10
[Makkot 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:10)

וְרַבָּנַן, הַאי ״לֹא תַעֲנֶה בְרֵעֲךָ עֵד שָׁקֶר״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes its analysis of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the case of conspiring witnesses who testify that another is liable to receive lashes. Rabbi Meir holds that they are flogged with eighty lashes, one set of lashes due to violation of the prohibition: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:13), and one set of lashes due to the verse: “And you shall do to him as he conspired” (Deuteronomy 19:19). The Rabbis say: They are flogged with only forty lashes, due to the verse “And you shall do to him as he conspired.” The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **the Rabbis,** concerning **this** verse: **“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor,” what do they derive from it,** if one is not flogged for its violation?


###### Makkot 4b:11
[Makkot 4b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:11)

הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְאַזְהָרָה לְעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין. וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַזְהָרָה לְעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין מְנָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״וְּהַנִּשְׁאָרִים יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ וְלֹא יֹסִיפוּ עוֹד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **They require that** verse **as a prohibition against conspiring witnesses.** Every punishment enumerated in the Torah, including that of conspiring witnesses, is accompanied by an explicit verse prohibiting the action that results in the punishment. The Gemara asks: **And** with regard to **Rabbi Meir,** who holds that conspiring witnesses are flogged for violating this prohibition, **from where does he** derive **a prohibition for conspiring witnesses? Rabbi Yirmeya said: He derives it from** the verse written in the context of conspiring witnesses: **“And those who remain shall hear and fear, and shall not continue** to perform **any more** evil of this kind in your midst” (Deuteronomy 19:20). The verse warns that conspiring witnesses should not continue with their sinful conduct.


###### Makkot 4b:12
[Makkot 4b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/4b:12)

וְרַבָּנַן? הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** concerning **the Rabbis,** what do they derive from that verse? The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is necessary** according to the Rabbis