Gemara Clarity

Makkos 15b

מכות ט״ו ע״ב

Makkot 15b

Learn Makkos 15b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Makkos 15b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

A לאו that comes with an עשה: is the sinner liable for מלקות when he 'nullifies' the עשה, or when he 'does not fulfill' it? This is the argument between רבי יוחנן and רבי שמעון בן לקיש, and it depends on התראת ספק.

Overview

Just before this, the גמרא explained (in the name of רבא) why an אונס who sends away his wife gets no מלקות: all his life he can still take her back. Now the גמרא says this reason works only according to רבי יוחנן. It brings the ברייתא that a תנא recited before him, about a לאו that comes with an עשה. רבי יוחנן showed that its wording contradicts itself and fixed it to 'nullified / did not nullify'. רבי שמעון בן לקיש fixed it the other way, to 'fulfilled / did not fulfill'. The גמרא explains that their argument is about התראת ספק, a warning given when we can't yet know whether the act will make him liable. רבי יוחנן says such a warning counts, and ריש לקיש says it does not. The גמרא then shows they are consistent: in the case of someone who swore to eat a loaf today and didn't, both say he gets no lashes but for different reasons. רבי יוחנן's reason continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן?

Is the reason anything other than according to Rabbi Yochanan?

הָאָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְתַנָּא,

Didn't Rabbi Yochanan say to the tanna,

תְּנִי: בִּטְּלוֹ – חַיָּיב,

Teach: if he nullified it, he is liable,

וְלֹא בִּטְּלוֹ – פָּטוּר.

and if he did not nullify it, he is exempt.

The steps (9)

  1. Resolutionרבא's reason fits רבי יוחנן's view
  2. StatementThe ברייתא the תנא recited
  3. Challengeרבי יוחנן shows the ברייתא contradicts itself
  4. Resolutionרבי יוחנן's fix: 'nullified / did not nullify'
  5. Resolutionרבי שמעון בן לקיש's fix: 'fulfilled / did not fulfill'
  6. QuestionWhat are they really arguing about?
  7. ResponseThe argument is about an uncertain warning
  8. Responseריש לקיש's view: an uncertain warning is not a warning
  9. ProofThe same argument appears in the case of an oath to eat a loaf today