1)

(a)The Amora'im cite many possible La'vin which the Tana could have included in our Mishnah (some of them which have nothing, even remotely, to do with plowing, only according to Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai). Rav Hoshaya asks from 'Zore'a be'Nachal Eisan'. What does this refer to? Where would the sinner then have to be plowing?

(b)Rav Chananya asks from 'Mochek es Hash-m ba'Halichaso', and Rebbi Avahu from 'Kotzetz Baharto' (the prohibition to remove flesh stricken with Tzara'as). What is the source for the latter?

(c)Abaye asks from 'Mezi'ach Choshen me'al ha'Eifod' and from 'Meisir Badei Aron', and Rav Ashi, from 'Choresh ba'Atzei Asheirah'. What is the source of this latter La'v?

1)

(a)The Amora'im cite many possible La'vin which the Tana could have included in our Mishnah (some of them which have nothing, even remotely, to do with plowing, only according to Rebbi Chanina ben Chachinai). Rav Hoshaya asks from 'Zore'a be'Nachal Eisan' - referring to a the valley where the neck of an 'Eglah Arufah' is broken, which may never again be tilled.

(b)Rav Chananya asks from 'Mochek es Hash-m ba'Halichaso', and Rebbi Avahu from 'Kotzetz Baharto' (the prohibition to remove flesh stricken with Tzara'as), whose source is - "Hishamer be'Nega Tzara'as" (since "Hishamer" is always a La'av).

(c)Abaye asks from 'Mezi'ach Choshen me'al ha'Eifod' and from 'Meisir Badei Aron', and Rav Ashi, from 'Choresh ba'Atzei Asheirah', whose source is -"ve'Lo Yidbak be'Yadcha Me'umah" (as we learned above).

2)

(a)Ravina queries our Mishnah from 'Kotzetz Ilanos Tovos' and Rebbi Avira comments to Rebbi Mani that the Tana could have asked from where the sinner had sworn that he would not plow on Yom-tov. On what grounds do we reject this latter query?

(b)How do we nevertheless reinstate it? How is it possible for such a Shevu'ah to take effect?

(c)We refute the suggestion that the Tana does not include the case of Shevu'ah, because he is not concerned with something that can be rescinded, from Hekdesh and Nazir, which the Tana mentions even though both can be rescinded. How do we reinstate the Kashya however, by rejecting the Pircha from ...

1. ... Hekdesh?

2. ... Nazir?

(d)On what grounds do we reject this interpretation of Nazir?

2)

(a)Ravina queries our Mishnah from 'Kotzetz Ilanos Tovos' and Rebbi Avira comments to Rebbi Mani that the Tana could have asked from where the sinner had sworn that he would not plow on Yom-tov. We reject this latter query - because (based on the principle 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah') seeing as we all swore this Shevu'ah already at Har Sinai, a second Shevu'ah, which merely superimposes the first, is not effective.

(b)We nevertheless reinstate it - by establishing our Mishnah when he swore that he would not plow during the week either, in which case the Shevu'ah on Yom-Tov takes effect too (through an Isur Kolel [meaning that since the Shevu'ah is effective regarding the week, it is effective regarding Yom-Tov too).

(c)We refute the suggestion that the Tana does not include the case of Shevu'ah, because he is not concerned with something that can be rescinded, from Hekdesh and Nazir, which the Tana mentions even though both can be rescinded. We reinstate the Kashya however, by rejecting the Pircha from ...

1. ... Hekdesh - by establishing the case by B'chor (which cannot be rescinded).

2. ... Nazir - by attempting to establishing it by a N'zir Shimshon ...

(d)... which we immediately reject, because a N'zir Shimshon is not subject to the Isur of Tum'ah.

3)

(a)How do we finally answer the Kashya from Shevu'ah? Why does the Tana not include it in the Mishnah?

(b)All the Other Kashyos however, remain unaswered. Why in fact, does the Tana omit them (see Tosfos DH 'Maskif'?

3)

(a)We finally answer the Kashya from Shevu'ah - by ascribing the omission to the principle of 'Ein Shevu'ah Chalah al Shevu'ah' as we explained earlier, and by adding that the Tana does not hold of Isur Kolel.

(b)All the other Kashyos however, remain unanswered. In fact, the Tana omits them - due to the principle 'Tana ve'Shiyer' (see Tosfos DH 'Maskif'.

4)

(a)Rebbi Hoshaya rules that someone who breeds a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin is subject to two sets of Malkos. What is a 'Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin'?

(b)What is Rebbi Hoshaya's reason?

(c)On what dual set of Halachos is this dual status based?

(d)What if the cow is a Pesulei ha'Mukdashin too?

(e)And what does Rebbi Yitzchak say about someone who leads a 'Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin' that is hitched to a plow?

4)

(a)Rebbi Hoshaya rules that someone who breeds a Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin - (an ox of Hekdesh that becomes blemished and is subsequently redeemed) is subject to two sets of Malkos ...

(b)... due to the fact that the Torah gives it a double status, of Chulin and of Hekdesh (as if it was two animals).

(c)This dual status is based on the fact that - on the one hand, the animal may be eaten anywhere and even be'Tum'ah (like Chulin), whilst on the other, it may not be worked with or shorn (like Hekdesh [see also Tosfos DH 'she'Harei']).

(d)Rebbi Hoshaya's ruling will apply - even if the cow is a Pesulei ha'Mukdashin too.

(e)In the same vein, Rebbi Yitzchak rules - that someone who leads a 'Shor Pesulei ha'Mukdashin' that is hitched to a plow - is Chayav Malkos for transgressing the La'av of "Lo Sacharosh be'Shor u'va'Chamor Yachdav".

5)

(a)What does our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk "be'Mispar ... Arba'im"?

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, one receives forty lashes. Where is the 'extra' one administered?

(c)The Mishnah requires 'Makos Re'uyos le'Hishtalesh'. What does the Tana mean by that?

5)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "be'Mispar ... Arba'im" - that Malkos comprises thirty-nine lashes (the number that leads up to forty), and not forty.

(b)According to Rebbi Yehudah, one receives forty lashes. The 'extra' one is administered - between the shoulder-blades.

(c)The Mishnah requires 'Makos Re'uyos le'Hishtalesh' - meaning a number of lashes divisible by three (two thirds at the back, and one third, at the front). Consequently, if for example, the Chachamim assess that a person can take twenty lashes, he will receive eighteen.

6)

(a)What does the Tana say about a case where someone is assessed ...

1. ... for 'forty' lashes, and after he has received some of them, it is discovered that he cannot take the full quota?

2. ... for eighteen lashes, and after he has received them, they conclude that he is able to take the full quota?

(b)What will be the Din in a case where he is assessed ...

1. ... for 'forty' lashes, and before he has received any, it is discovered that he cannot take any Malkos at all?

2. ... for eighteen lashes, and before he has received any, they conclude that he is able to take the full quota?

6)

(a)The Tana rules that, in a case where someone is assessed ...

1. ... for 'forty' lashes, and after he has received some of them, it is discovered that he cannot take the full quota - since he was disgraced in Beis-Din, he is Patur from the rest.

2. ... for eighteen lashes, and after he has received them, they conclude that he is able to take the full quota - he is Patur from the rest (for the same reason).

(b)But in a case where he is assessed ...

1. ... for 'forty' lashes, and before he has received any, it is discovered that he cannot take any Malkos at all - then they wait until he becomes stronger, and is able to take the full forty.

2. ... for eighteen lashes, and before he has received any, they conclude that he is able to take the full quota - then he receives the full quota.

22b----------------------------------------22b

7)

(a)Our Mishnah extrapolates from the Pasuk "be'Mispar ... Arba'im" that Malkos comprises thirty-nine lashes. What ought the Torah to have written had it meant the sinner to receive forty?

(b)Based on this D'rashah, why does Rava refer to most people as foolish?

(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah learn from the Pasuk in Zecharyah "Mah ha'Makos ha'Eileh bein Yadecha, ve'Amar asher Hukeisi Beis Me'ahavai"?

(d)How do the Rabbanan interpret this Pasuk?

7)

(a)Our Mishnah extrapolates from the Pasuk "be'Mispar ... Arba'im" that Malkos comprises thirty-nine lashes. Had the Torah meant the sinner to receive forty - it ought to have written "Arba'im ... be'Mispar".

(b)Based on this D'rashah, Rava refers to most people as foolish - because they rise for a Seifer-Torah, but not for a great man (a Talmid-Chacham), seeing as the latter has the power to interpret the former (such as here, where the Torah writes "forty", and the Chachamim change it to 'thirty-nine'.

(c)Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "Mah ha'Makos ha'Eileh bein Yadecha, ve'Amar asher Hukeisi Beis Me'ahavai" - that a sinner receives one extra stroke between his shoulder-blades.

(d)The Rabbanan interpret this Pasuk - with regard to a child in Cheder, getting lashed because he is not learning properly (and not to someone who is Chayav Malkos).

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the Chachamim assessed a sinner to receive a certain amount of lashes and, before having receiving any, they reassessed that he could take more or less than the original assessment, he will receive the higher assessment. How do we reconcile this with the Beraisa which sentences him to the lower amount either way?

(b)We reject the explanation that if Beis-Din assessed him for that day, then we cannot exempt him before he has received at least some of the Malkos for two reasons. One of them is because it would make no sense to give him Malkos on the basis of the original assessment, when now Beis-Din claim that any Malkos that he receives will kill him. What is the other?

(c)What does our Mishnah rule in a case where Beis-Din assessed someone who committed a double-sin (e.g. he plowed with an ox and a donkey, and at the same time, he sowed Kil'ayim in a vineyard), and he received some of the Malkos? When will he receive the outstanding Malkos and when will he not?

(d)How does Rav Sheishes reconcile this with the Beraisa 'Ein Omdin Omed Echad li'Shenei La'vin'?

8)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that if the Chachamim assessed a sinner to receive a certain amount of lashes and before having receiving any, they reassessed that he could take more or less than the original assessment, he will receive the higher assessment. This speaks where they assessed him for that day, and then discovered that he could take more or less that their original assessment, a clear indication that their original assessment was erroneous. Consequently, Beis-Din will wait until he gains strength, and make a fresh assessment then. Similarly, where he was assessed for eighteen and on the same day, they reassessed him for forty, it is clear that their first assessment was made in error, and we go after the second one. Whereas the Beraisa speaks where the assessment was made for a different day, by which time he may well have changed for the better or for the worse, in which case the original assessment stands (even if he did not yet receive anything, either because he is Yotze with the eighteen that he received, or because the assessment itself was a disgrace that rendered him Yotzei).

(b)We reject the explanation that if Beis-Din assessed him for that day, then we cannot exempt him before he has received at least some of the Malkos - because a. it would make no sense to give him Malkos on the basis of the original assessment, when now Beis-Din claim that any Malkos that he receives will kill him, and b. - because the Mishnah says that if he received Malkos, he is Patur, but not that Lechatchilah, he must receive it in order to be Patur.

(c)In a case where Beis-Din assessed someone who committed a double-sin (e.g. he plowed with an ox and a donkey, and at the same time, he sowed Kil'ayim in a vineyard), and he received some of the Malkos. our Mishnah rules - that if the Malkos that he received covered some of the second La'v (e.g. forty-two), then he is Patur from the rest; otherwise, he remains due to receive another thirty-nine.

(d)To reconcile this with the Beraisa 'Ein Omdin Omed Echad li'Shenei La'vin', Rav Sheishes interprets the Beraisa - where they assessed him for forty-one lashes, in which case, he will receive thirty-nine lashes for one of the La'vin, and when he has gained strength, he will receives the full quota for the second La'v (but not if they assessed him for forty-two).

9)

(a)Presumably the post to which they tied the sinner's hands, was the width of a person. How tall was it?

(b)What does the Shali'ach Beis-Din do next? How much of the sinner's body had to be revealed?

(c)Does the Shali'ach Beis-Din have to pay if he inadvertently tears his clothes in the process?

(d)Where does the Shali'ach Beis-Din stand?

9)

(a)Presumably the post to which they tied the sinner's hands, was the width of a person. Its height was - one and a half to two Amos.

(b)The Shali'ach Beis-Din - then takes hold of sinner's clothes from the hem, and pulls them up, to uncover his body as far as the heart.

(c)In the event that his clothes tear in the process - the Shali'ach is not obligated to pay.

(d)The Shali'ach Beis-Din stands - on a stone behind the sinner, but slightly to his left (assuming he is right-handed).

10)

(a)What does the Shali'ach Beis-Din do with the two calf straps with which he is about to lash the sinner?

(b)What does he attach to inside the fold of each of the two doubled calf straps?

(c)What size must the handle be?

(d)How long and how wide is each of the straps?

10)

(a)The Shali'ach Beis-Din folds the two calf straps with which he is about to lash the sinner lengthwise (to make four).

(b)He attaches - a strap of donkey hide to inside the fold of each of the two doubled calf straps.

(c)The size of the handle must be - a Tefach wide and a Tefach thick.

(d)Each strap is - one Tefach wide and sufficiently long to curl round the sinner's back and reach the beginning of his stomach.

11)

(a)How are the thirty-nine lashes divided?

(b)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Vehipilo ha'Shofet"?

(c)How much force does the Shali'ach Beis-Din put into the stroke?

11)

(a)The thirty-nine lashes are divided - one third in front and two-thirds at the back.

(b)We learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "Vehipilo ha'Shofet" - that the sinner has to bend over when receiving Malkos (to enable the lashes to strike him across his back or across his stomach, as we explained).

(c)The Shali'ach Beis-Din strikes the sinner - with full force.

12)

(a)What do we learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim (in connection with a Shifchah Charufah) "Bikores Tih'yeh"?

(b)Which Parshah does he read?

(c)How does he conclude?

(d)What if he finishes reading before the sinner has received all his Malkos?

12)

(a)We learn from the Pasuk in Kedoshim (in connection with a Shifchah Charufah) "Bikores Tih'yeh" - that one Dayan reads a Parshah whilst the Malkos is being delivered.

(b)He reads - the Parshah from Ki Savo "Im Lo Sishmor La'asos ... ve'Hifla Hash-m es Makoscha ... ".

(c)And he concludes - with the Pasuk "ve'Hu Rachum ... ".

(d)If he finishes reading before the sinner had received all his Malkos - he reads the Parshah again.

13)

(a)What happened if the sinner dies ...

1. ... in the course of the Malkos?

2. ... as a result of the Shali'ach Beis-Din adding an extra stroke?

(b)What does our Mishnah learn from the Pasuk "ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha"?

(c)What does Rebbi Yehudah say?

13)

(a)If the sinner dies ...

1. ... in the course of the Malkos - the Shali'ach Beis-Din was Patur.

2. ... as a result of the Shali'ach Beis-Din adding an extra stroke - the latter is Chayav to go into Galus.

(b)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk "ve'Niklah Achicha le'Einecha" - that if the sinner wets or sullies himself during the course of the Malkos, he is Patur (since he has been duly disgraced).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah - agrees with this with regard to a woman, but, in his opinion, a man will only be Patur if he sullies himself.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF