1

The Mishnah in Makkot 23a says

"All those liable to receive karet who were flogged in court were exempted from their karet

[...]

as it is stated with regard to one liable to receive lashes: “Then your brother shall be dishonored before you” (Deuteronomy 25:3) "

But Devarim 25:2-3 in fact says :

and it shall be, if the guilty one has incurred [the penalty of] lashes, that the judge shall make him lean over and flog him in front of him, commensurate with his crime, in number.

He shall flog him with forty [lashes]; he shall not exceed, lest he give him a much more severe flogging than these [forty lashes], and your brother will be degraded before your eyes.

So it seems like it's only speaking of one who committed a sin liable for lashes (and not for kares). How then can the Mishna use that pasuk to derive that one liable for kares is also exempted by lashes?

1

There is Machloket tanayim in 23b if there is lashes for karet Gemara pasken that there is. So, following the halachic line this verse includes naturally karet and the drasha equally.

Logical explanation.

Lashes set include karet set.

Verse and drasha about Lashes set regardes also karet set. Sources Maccot 23a-b.

MISHNAH: ALL WHO HAVE INCURRED [THE PENALTY OF] KARETH, ON BEING FLOGGED OBTAIN REMISSION FROM THEIR PUNISHMENT OF KARETH; FOR IT IS SAID, FORTY HE SHALL HAVE HIM BEATEN HE SHALL NOT EXCEED.

Gemara

Said Rabbi Johanan: Rabbi Hananiah Ben Gamaliel's colleagues disagree with him...

...It is {the opinion of the Mishna in Megila inplying that there is no punishment by Bet Din for Karet} Rabbi Isaac's, for he says that there is no penalty of flogging for those liable to kareth, as it was taught: Seeing that Holy Writ has [already] comprehended in a single verse all the offenders in unlawful relations as being liable to kareth, what object was there in singling out that penalty in the case of [the brother with] his sister?

...Rav Adda, as citing Rab, said that halachah rests with Rabbi Hananiah Ben Gamaliel.

  • The fact that there is a machloket tanayim on this Mishnah is irrelevant to understanding the Mishnah itself. My question is on the actual Mishnah - according to whoever authored it, how can the pasuk speaking about someone liable to lashes be used to prove something about someone liable to kares? – user9806 Nov 7 at 0:52
  • Not Machloket on the mishna. Machloket in bersytot. And the mishna represents one of those opinions – kouty Nov 7 at 4:03
  • I'm not sure how this answers the question. The Mishnah represents an opinion. An opinion that says lashes exempts someone liable to kares. And the Mishnah supports its opinion by quoting Devarim 25:3. But Devarim 25:3 speaks about someone liable for lashes, not for kares. So how can it be used for support? – user9806 Nov 7 at 7:49
  • Includes caret, logically – kouty Nov 7 at 7:50
  • The context of Devarim 25:3 is Devarim 25:2 "and it shall be, if the guilty one has incurred [the penalty of] lashes, ...". That doesn't sound like it logically includes kares. – user9806 Nov 7 at 7:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .