Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Makkos 2:8 - 3:1

The Mishnah Yomi for Saturday, February 1, 2025 is Makkos 2:8 - 3:1

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Makkos Perek 2 Mishnah 8

מכות פרק ב׳ משנה ח׳

8
Similarly, in the case of a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city sought to honor him due to his prominence, he shall say to them: I am a murderer. If the residents of the city say to him: We are aware of your status and nevertheless, we wish to honor you, he may accept the honor from them, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4), from which it is derived that the murderer is required to say [ledabber] to them that he is a murderer. He is not required to tell them any more than that. The unintentional murderers would pay a fee to the Levites as rent for their living quarters in the cities of refuge, which were Levite cities; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They would not pay a fee to them, but would reside rent free, as they are required to live there by Torah law. They also disagreed with regard to the status of the unintentional murderer when he returns home after the death of the High Priest. He returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied.
כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ, רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ, יֹאמַר לָהֶם רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵן, יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ. מַעֲלִים הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר. וְחוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לַשְּׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ:
ח׳

מעלים היו שכר ללוים – In the forty-two cities [of the Levites] that also absorb, the murderer accounts a reward to the owner who dwells in it.

ורבי מאיר אומר וכו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir, and specifically in the forty-two [Levitical] cities, but in the six Cities of Refuge, everyone admits that we do not account a reward to the owner.

לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה – as it is written (Leviticus 25:41): “…he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding.” To his family he returns, but he does not return to what his family held. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.

מעלים היו שכר ללוים. בארבעים ושתים עיר שגם הם קולטות, מעלה הרוצח שכר לבעה״ב שהוא דר בו:

רבי מאיר אומר וכו׳ ואין הלכה כר׳ מאיר. ודוקא במ״ב עיר, אבל בשש ערי מקלט כולי עלמא מודו שאין מעלה שכר לבעה״ב:

לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה. דכתיב (ויקרא כ״ה:מ״א) ושב אל משפחתו ואל אחוזת אבותיו ישוב, למשפחתו הוא חוזר, ואינו חוזר למה שהוחזקו אבותיו. ואין הלכה כר״י:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Makkos Perek 3 Mishnah 1

מכות פרק ג׳ משנה א׳

1
After enumerating in tractate Sanhedrin those liable to be executed and in the previous chapter those liable to be exiled, the mishna proceeds to enumerate those liable to receive lashes. These are the people who are flogged by Torah law for violating a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. Likewise, one is flogged in the case of a widow who married a High Priest, a divorcée or a ḥalutza who married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret, i.e., a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman who married a Jew of unflawed lineage, and a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer, i.e., a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship. The mishna elaborates: If a woman was both a widow and a divorcée, as after she was widowed she remarried and was divorced, a High Priest is liable to receive two sets of lashes for marrying her due to the violation of two different prohibitions, that of his marrying a widow and that of his marrying a divorced woman. If a woman was both a divorcée and a ḥalutza, from two different men, an ordinary priest who marries her is liable to receive only one set of lashes, due to the violation of one prohibition alone.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין, הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה, אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה, חַיָּבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשֵּׁם אֶחָד בִּלְבָד:
א׳

אלו הן הלוקין – not exactly these, for the Mishnah taught and left out many of those who were to be flogged, but since the Mishnah taught those who were liable for extirpation, to teach us that there is flogging with those liable for extirpation, and the Mishnah taught a widow and a divorcee, to teach us that a widow who is also a divorcee is liable upon her two titles. , And it is taught [in Mishnah 2 of this chapter] that eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts and First Tithe when priest’s due had not been taken, but it doesn’t explain their explicit prohibition clearly, and similarly, property dedicated to the Temple that had not been redeemed, for since the Mishnah taught about property dedicated to the Temple, it taught [about] the Second Tithe, for both of them [are punishable] by flogging because of lack of redemption, and similarly with most of them there is a side that is novel.

נתינה – She is from the Gibeonites, and her flogging is from (Deuteronomy 7:3): “You shall not intermarry with them.”

אלמנה – She became widowed from another man, and she is a divorcee, and one is liable upon her two [sets] of floggings.

משום שני שמות – because of two explicit prohibitions, for both of them are explained in Scripture, and the explicit prohibitions for both of them are stated.

גרושה – and she is a woman released from leviratical marriage, and he is not liable concerning her for two titles, for the woman released from leviratical marriage has no Jewish marriage contract, other than through extension of scope/amplification [of the Biblical passage] we bring it to her, as it is taught in a Baraita: “I don’t know anything about a divorcee other than the divorcee itself; a woman released from leviratical marriage, from where do I know it, as we learn, “and a woman” (Leviticus 18:18).

אלו הן הלוקין. אלו לאו דוקא, דתנא ושייר לוקין טובא. אלא תנא חייבי כריתות, לאשמועינן דיש מלקות בחייבי כריתות. ותנא אלמנה וגרושה, לאשמועינן אלמנה והיא גרושה חייבין עליה משום שני שמות. ותנא טבל ומעשר ראשון שלא נטלה תרומתו, דלא מפרשא אזהרה דידהו בהדיא. וכן הקדש שלא נפדה. ואיידי דתנא הקדש, תני מעשר שני, דתרווייהו מלקות דידהו משום מחוסרי פדייה. וכן ברובן איכא צד חידוש:

נתינה. מן הגבעונים היא. ומלקות דידה מלא תתחתן בם:

אלמנה. שנתאלמנה מאיש אחר, והיא גרושה, חייב עליה שני מלקיות:

משום שני שמות. משום שני אזהרות. ששניהם מפורשות במקרא, ואזהרה אתרווייהו קאמר:

גרושה. והיא חלוצה, אינו חייב עליה משום שני שמות. שהחלוצה אינו כתובה, אלא מרבויא מייתינן לה, דתניא, גרושה אין לי אלא גרושה חלוצה מנין, תלמוד לומר ואשה:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us