Pisqa’ 2861
1
“Should there be a quarrel between men” (Dt.25:1).
No peace can come from conflict!
And so He says:
“Now, there was a quarrel between the herders of Abram’s cattle, and the herders of Lot’s cattle” (Gn.13:7).
What exactly caused Lot to part ways with the Righteous?
I would say—conflict!
And, similarly, He says:
“Should there be a quarrel between men” (Dt.25:1).
What exactly caused
the wicked party to be beaten (cf. Dt.25:2)?
I would say—conflict!
2
“Between men” (Dt.25:1)—
I might infer only that
men [come into conflict].
How do I know that
[the parties in conflict might be]
a man and a woman, a women and a man,
or two women—each against the other?
The Teaching states:
“And they shall resort to a judgment” (Dt.25:1)—
whoever they may be
“Which shall impose judgment” (Dt.25:1)—
even against the will of the parties.
3
“And they shall exonerate the one in the right” (Dt.25:1).
Is it possible to say that
all those in the wrong shall be beaten?
No!
For the Teaching states:
“If the one in the wrong deserves a beating” (Dt.25:2)—
for some offenses he is beaten, and for others he is not beaten.
But I’m still unclear about who gets beaten
[and for which transgressions]!2
The Teaching states:
“You may not muzzle an ox during his threshing” (Dt.25:4).
Just as muzzling an ox is distinctive—
being a proscription punishable by judicial beating—
so, too, might transgressions of all proscriptions
be punishable by judicial beating?
Or [perhaps]:
should every proscription that
can be remedied by a reparative act
be punishable by beating
[unless the reparative act is performed]?
The Teaching states:
“You may not muzzle an ox during his threshing” (Dt.25:4).
Just as muzzling an ox is distinctive—
for it may not be remedied by a reparative act,
yet the act of muzzling is punishable by judicial beating—
so, too, shouldn’t every proscription that
may not be remedied by a reparative act,
also be punishable by judicial beating?3
R. Shimon says:
“And they shall exonerate the one in the right” (Dt.25:1).
Does this mean that
they should exonerate [the one in the wrong]
in order to spare him his beating?
[No!
For the Teaching states:]
“If the one in the wrong deserves a beating” (Dt.25:2)—
for some offenses he is beaten, and for others he is not beaten.
“Then the justice shall force him down” (Dt.25:2)—
they don’t administer a beating while the person is standing.
“And he must beat him” (Dt.25:2)—
such that one-third [of the lashes] strike his front
and another two-thirds his back. 4
“In his presence” (Dt.25:2)—
the official must beat him while looking him in the face,
but he may not whip him while his gaze is focused elsewhere.
Is it possible to say that
he should be beaten to death?
The Teaching states:
“Sufficiently for his wickedness” (Dt.25:2)—
so he is not beaten to death!
Is it possible to say that
he should be beaten and then pay a fine?
The Teaching states:
“Sufficiently for his wickedness” (Dt.25:2)—
he should not be beaten and then pay a fine!
4
“He shall administer forty lashes” (Dt.25:3).
Is it possible to say that
the justice should administer exactly forty lashes?
The Teaching states:
“By number, forty”5 (Dt.25: 2-3).
How do I know that
the official administers lashes up to
the number that approximates forty, [i.e., thirty nine]?
R. Judah says:
Exactly forty lashes
[consisting of three groups of thirteen, plus one].
Where is the extra [fortieth] beating administered?
Between the shoulders—
[that is, neither the front nor the back].6
“He shall beat him” (Dt.25:3)—
him implies that no lash may strike the ground.
“He shall beat him” (Dt.25:3)—
him implies that no lash may strike his clothing.
“He shall beat him” (Dt.25:3)—
him implies that two cannot be whipped at one time.
5
“He shall not add to them” (Dt.25:3)—
if the official adds lashes, he has transgressed a proscription.
I might infer only that
[he transgresses] when he exceeds the total number of forty lashes.
How do I know that this applies to any number the court may stipulate?
The Teaching states:
“Lest he add to these lashes” (Dt.25:3)—
however many [there may be].
“A heavy blow” (Dt.25:3)—
I might infer only that
[he may not] increase the severity of the final blow.
How do I know that
[he may not even] decrease its severity?
The Teaching states:
“To these” (Dt.25:3)—
[all the lashes should be of equal severity].
If so, why does it state:
“A heavy blow” (Dt.25:3)—
this teaches that the first lash
should not be heavier [than the others].
“And your brother is demeaned in your eyes” (Dt.25:3).
On this basis they taught:
If he demeaned himself
—either with feces or with urine—
he is exempt [from the remaining lashes].
R. Judah says:
as for a man—with feces;
as for a woman—with urine.7
Another word:
“And your brother is demeaned in your eyes” (Dt.25:3).
Once he has been beaten,
he is again regarded as your brother.
On this basis they taught:
All who are liable to excision
[for intentionally violating a proscription]
are released from their excision
once they have been beaten.8
6
R. Hananiah b. Gamliel says:
All day long, Scripture proclaims him wicked,
As it is said:
“If the one in the wrong deserves a beating” (Dt.25:2).
However, once he is beaten,
Scripture proclaims him your brother,
as it is said:
“And your brother is demeaned in your eyes” (Dt.25:3).9
R. Shimon says:
From the context of its own verse,
we can determine that
[a beating averts excision].
For it is said
[of incestuous sexual relations]:
“Those souls who perform any of these abominations
will be cut off from among their people” (Lv.18:29).
And it says as well:
“Which a person shall perform, and, through them, achieve life” (Lv.18:5)—
[the life-giving power of the commandments
averts the decree of excision].
Now, isn’t it a simple matter of logic?
Where punishment is reduced from excision to beating,
[due to the sinner’s confession, and acceptance of the beating],
yet one associated with transgressors
receives the judgment meted out to them—
all the more so do we expect that
one associated with observers of commandments
[should have his punishment reduced from excision to beating]!
7
R. Shimon b. Rabbi says:
Look at what He says!
“Only be scrupulous not to eat the blood” (Dt.12:23).
In the case of blood,
from which a person instinctively recoils,
one who abjures it is greatly rewarded!
Now, in the case of theft and incest,
which a person instinctively craves,
shouldn’t we expect
all the more so that
one who abjures them
shall be a source of merit
for himself and his offspring,
through all the generations?10
Rabbi says:
Look at what He says!
“HASHEM, who can abide in your tent? . . .
One who walks in innocence and acts justly . . .with no slander on his tongue . . .
The degraded are loathsome to his eyes . . .
and his money he has not lent for exploitation” (Ps.15:1-5).
And, in another place, He says:
“But a man who is righteous, working justice and righteousness” (Ezek.18:5).
And, at the end of the passage, He says:
“He is righteous; he shall surely live!” (Ezek.18:9)
But, what has this guy actually done?
Draw this conclusion:
whoever sits without committing a transgression—
they reward him as if he’d performed a commandment!11