*25.6 Makkos Daf 16 B (3 lines Up)*Rav: There is malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani [ terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].*Summary**Rav Yosef: There is a disagreement* among the tannaim on this matter. The following mishna discusses Demai; although most amei ha’aretz keep the laws of maaser, Chazal instituted the laws of demai requiring food purchased from an am ha’aretz to be maasered again, in case the am ha’aretz was not careful with the laws. Maaser only has to be separated; since it is only a monetary obligation and there is no proof that it is owed (the am ha’aretz may have already given it), it need not be given to the levi. Terumah must be given because eating terumah is a torah prohibition. *Rabbi Elazar: Maaser ani need not be separated* from demai. *Chachomim: It must be designated* but it need not be separated.It would seem that *the opinion of the Chachomim is* that until maaser ani is separated *the produce remains tevel, * while *Rabbi Elazar* holds that *there is no tevel with regard to maaser ani. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)*Rav: There is malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani [terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].Rav Yosef: There is a disagreement among the tannaim on this matter.Rabbi Elazar: Maaser ani need not be separated from demai.Chachomim: It must be designated but it need not be separated.It would seem that the opinion of the Chachomim is that until maaser ani is separated the produce remains tevel, while Rabbi Elazar holds that there is no tevel with regard to maaser ani.SummaryAbayye to Rav Yosef: If that is their argument, why are they discussing demai? They can discuss tevel.Both Rabbi Elazar and the Chachomim agree with Rav’s premise. Their argument is only regarding demai.Rabbi Elazar holds that an am ha’aretz is not suspected of withholding maaser ani; since there is no penalty for keeping it. He thus separates it, and his demai is not tevel.The Chachomim suspect the am ha’aretz of being too lazy to bother with maaser ani even though there is no monetary loss involved.Mishna (20.3): How much tevel grain must one eat in order to be liable?Rabbi Shimon: Any amount.Chachomim: A kezayis.Rabbi Shimon to the Chachomim: “Wouldn’t you agree that one is liable for eating an ant, even though it’s very small?”Chachomim: One ant is a biryah [a complete creation].Rabbi Shimon: Even one kernel is a biryah.Rav Bivi quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: They argue over wheat kernels, but if it was ground into flour, Rabbi Shimon agrees that one must eat a kezayis.Rabbi Yirmiyah quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Rabbi Shimon holds that one is always liable for malkos for any amount. (The shiur of kezayis may be relevant to the laws of korbanos chattas, but not to receiving malkos). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.2 Makkos Daf 17 A (6 lines after spreads)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Mishna:* A kohen who *eats bikkurim before the parsha * was read.A kohen who *eats kodshei kodshim * [such as a chatas] *outside the curtain* [of the mishkan , or outside the wall of the beis hamikdash ].One who *eats kodshim kalim or [unredeemed] maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim.*If one *breaks a bone in a tahor Pesach* offering.These are all *liable for malkos. *If one leaves over of a * tahor Pesach offering (nosar) * or *breaks a bone in a tamei Pesach* offering; he does *not get malkos. *One who *takes a mother bird* together with its eggs or hatchlings;*Rabbi Yehuda: He receives malkos * (it is not a lav hanitak l’eseh). *Chachomim:* He can send them away and be *absolved from malkos. *The rule is: *Any lav that is followed by an eseh is absolved from malkos. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.3 Makkos Daf 17 A (11 lines after spreads)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=A kohen who eats bikkurim before the parsha was read is liable for malkos. *Summary**Gemara:**Rabbah bar bar Chana amar Rabbi Yochanan:* This is an *anonymous record of Rabbi Akiva’s words.*The opinion of the *Chachomim* is that only *placing the bikkurim * in the beis hamikdash is necessary before they can be eaten, not reading the parsha. *Challenge: This can be attributed to Rabbi Shimon* [who says so openly, 26.4]?*Resolution:* Rabbi Yochanan attributes this to Rabbi Akiva, thus teaching that *he agrees with the principle (later) taught by Rabbi Shimon* even though we do not have it recorded anywhere. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.4 Makkos Daf 17 A (15 lines after spreads)**“Today when you come home, break the ice and make a beginning! Take a gemara and say the words of the gemara aloud for a few minutes! It will transform the atmosphere of your homes!”*A kohen who eats bikkurim before the parsha was read isliable for malkos. This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon.*Summary**Question: Where do we find Rabbi Shimon expressing this opinion?**Answer: In the following Beraisa* . (Here Rabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk, but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk, he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses). [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Terumas Yadcha refers to bikkurim * [which is lifted up by the hand].*Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten until the parsha was read.**V’nidvosecha refers to todah and shelamim * [these are voluntary korbanos].*Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten before zerikas hadam. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.5 Makkos Daf 17 A (10 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored* as a zechus for the speedy recovery of *Reb. Elazer ben Mirel**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk , but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk , he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses. [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Summary**Beraisa Continued:**Ubechoros refers to bechor. **Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten by a Yisroel* [even in Yerushalayim, after zerikah ].*Ubekorcha V’tzoncha refers to chatas and asham.**Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten after zerikas hadam by a Yisroel because *even the more lenient bechor * may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten outside the azarah * [even by a kohen, in Yerushalayim after zerikah ]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*26.6 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Up)*Rabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk , but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk , he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses. [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Summary**Beraisa Continued:**Nedarecha refers to olah * [ todah and shelamim were already mentioned].It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten after zerikas hadam by a Yisroel because *even the more lenient bechor* may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside the azarah because *even the more lenient chatas and asham * may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that it cannot be eaten at all [even by a kohen, in the azarah after zerikah ]. (All the halachos mentioned in this beraisa were already known. Rabbi Shimon is providing a lav for all these prohibitions based on this possuk) *Rava: Rabbi Shimon employs such remarkable methodology in this beraisa * that a woman who is having a child shouldn’t settle for less than Rabbi Shimon! (In ancient times Jewish mothers would pray and make vows to merit a child who is among the Chachomim, we thus find that Shlomo’s mother referred to him as “child of my vows”). *Even though I can logically refute everything* that was said. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.1 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Dn)*Rava praised Rabbi Shimon’s explanation of a possuk (26.4-26.6) although the entire explanation does not hold up logically.*Summary*Rabbi Shimon said (26.4) that *maaser sheini is more lenient than bikkurim. * Maaser sheini is permissible for zarim (any Jew) while * bikkurim can only be eaten by kohanim. **However, maaser sheini is forbidden for onenim * (a person whose close relative died on that day), but not bikkurim. Maaser sheini is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.4) that * maaser sheini is more lenient than todah and shelamim. * Maaser sheini is not brought onto the mizbeach while *parts of the todah and shelamim are burned on the mizbeach * [and they cannot be eaten by onenim]. *However, maaser sheini can only be redeemed with kesef tzurah * (coins stamped by the government), but not todah and shelamim which can be redeemed with anything of value. Maaser sheini is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.5) that * todah and shelamim are more lenient than bechor. * Todah and shelamim must be sanctified while *the bechor is sanctified by birth.**However, todah and shelamim require semicha, nesachim and tenufah, * but not bechor. Todah and shelamim are thus not necessarily more lenient. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.2 Makkos Daf 17 B (12 lines Dn)*Rava praised Rabbi Shimon’s explanation of a possuk (26.4-26.6) although the entire explanation does not hold up logically.*Summary*Rabbi Shimon said (26.5) that * bechor is more lenient than chatas and asham. * Bechor is kodshim kalim while * chatas and asham are kodshei kodshim. **However, bechor acquires kedusha from birth* but not chatas and asham. Bechor is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.6) that * chatas and asham are more lenient than olah. * Chatas and asham are only partly burned on the mizbeach while *the olah is entirely burned on the mizbeach. **However, chatas and asham wipe out aveiros, * but not olah. Chatas and asham are thus not necessarily more lenient.Additionally, *all korbanos have an advantage over olah in that they can be eaten* by kohanim , but not olah. *Question:* Since Rava refuted everything Rabbi Shimon said; *why did he praise Rabbi Shimon* (26.6) so strongly?*Answer:* Rava was praising *Rabbi Shimon’s methodology* in dissecting the possuk not his logic.Rabbi Shimon derived certain lavin from a possuk (24.4-24.6) based on logical arguments.*Challenge: A lav cannot be derived from logic!* [“Ein mazhirin min hadin” A lav must be openly stated by the Torah]. *Even those who hold that we can punish* based on logic [onshin min hadin, 7.3, 21.6] agree that a lav cannot be derived from logic.*Resolution:* Rabbi Shimon did not derive a lav, only a prohibition (The Rov spoke about laws of burial here). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.3 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rav Shaul Yechezkel Schwartz Shlita* for his selfless dedication to the klalSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Shimon derived certain lavin from a possuk based on logical arguments. Since lavin cannot be established by logic, we understand that he derived ‘prohibitions’ not actual ‘lavin’. *Summary**Challenge: Rabbi Shimon is referring to a lav. **Rava:* If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for *five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon* [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah]. *Resolution:* Rava does not mean five lavin, *he actually means five prohibitions.**Challenge:* The mishna states *“These are liable for malkos” * [and two of Rabbi Shimon’s lavin are mentioned, it seems they’re bona fide lavin]. *Resolution:* The lavin are not derived by logic but by the *superfluity of the verse.*Earlier in Devarim 12, all of these admonishments are detailed; in our possuk they’re repeated as prohibitions. But the possuk could have said “You may not eat them in your gates”. *From the possuk’s repetition of all the details we learn a lav on each detail.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.4 Makkos Daf 18 A (5 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored by*Yerachmiel and Shoshana Weiss* in honor of *Binyomin’s Bar Mitzvah*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURava: If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah]. *Summary**Challenge: But there is another lav; * “A zar should not eat kodesh”. *Resolution:* That possuk refers to * kodesh that is being eaten by kohanim, * but it cannot be applied to olah. *Challenge: But there is another lav; * “basar basadeh treifah lo socheilu” (this lav is not necessary for treifah, and the word basadeh is superfluous) which means that *meat “outside of its proper place* (basadeh)” should not be eaten.*Resolution:* That lav refers to *meat that may be eaten inside its proper place,* but it cannot be applied to olah. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.5 Makkos Daf 18 A (2 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored by*Pinny Tzinner* and *Yanky Borger* in honor of *Reb Yoel Lax*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURava: If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah].*Summary**Challenge: But there is another lav * as quoted by Rabbi Eliezer:*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “Kodesh should not be eaten”; This is a lav against eating kodesh that became possul. [An olah that eaves the azarah becomes possul]. *Resolution:* That possuk refers to * kodesh that was fit to be eaten before it became possul, * but it cannot be applied to olah. *Challenge: But there is another lav * quoted by Rabbi Eliezer.*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “Kalil sihiyeh lo sei’achel”; This is a * lav against eating of an olah. **Resolution: Indeed, Rava would quote this possuk * for a sixth lav, Rava was referring to the lavin taught by Rabbi Shimon [Maharam]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*27.6 Makkos Daf 18 B (7 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored by* Sunday Kollel Darkei Avigdor *Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Rav Gidal amar Rav: A kohen who eats of chatas and asham before zerikah, gets malkos. *This is based on the possuk “V’ochlu osam asher kupar bahem” - one may only eat from a korban after the kapparah was affected by means of zerikah. *A lav that is inferred from an eseh is considered a lav. **Challenge: Rava:* If an inferred lav suffices, *why is there a lav specifying the forbidden animals?**Resolution:* We must amend the statement by Rav Gidal amar Rav.*Rav Gidal amar Rav: A zar * who eats of chatas and asham before zerikah, *is pattur. *This is based on the possuk “V’ochlu osam asher kupar bahem, * v’zar lo yochal” * - A kohen may eat from a korban after the kapparah was affected by means of zerikah but a zar may not.The lav addressing the zar only applies to a korban that a kohen can eat, but *the lav does not apply before zerikah. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.1 Makkos Daf 18 B (24 lines Dn)**Summary* In 26.3 we learned a difference of opinion regarding what permits the kohen to eat bikkurim, reading the parsha or placing it in the beis hamikdash. *Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya: Placing the bikkurim * in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, *not reading the parsha. * [The parsha of bikkurim which mentions “simcha” can only be read until Sukkos.] *Challenge: Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya:* “If one separated bikkurim but neglected to bring it until after Sukkos, *it cannot be eaten.”*It seems that the *reading of the parsha is a requirement,* and since in this case it cannot be read, it cannot be eaten.*Resolution:* Up until Sukkos, when it is *possible* to read the parsha, the bikkurim may be eaten without reading. But after Sukkos *when it cannot be read, it cannot be eaten.**In keeping with Rabbi Zeira’s principle.**Rabbi Zeira:* Any mincha that is *capable* of being mixed, need not be mixed. *But if it cannot be mixed, it is not kosher.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.2 Makkos Daf 18 B (15 lines before spreads)*Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya: Placing the bikkurim in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, not reading the parsha. *Summary**Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov* repeated the statement of “Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya” but he credited it to *“Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan”**Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov: Challenge:* This contradicts another statement by Rabbi Yochanan.*Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Yochanan:* When may bikkurim be eaten by kohanim? *Rabbi Yochanan:* If it was separated before Sukkos, *from the reading.* After Sukkos; *from when it was placed* in the beis hamikdash. Above he said, Reading is not what permits the bikkurim, and yet here he says that it is. Above he said that Placing is what permits the bikkurim, and yet here he says that it is not?*Resolution:* When Rabbi Yochanan says that it depends on the Reading, he is expounding *according to Rabbi Shimon* (26.3). When he says it does not depend on the Reading *he is following the Rabbanan* (26.3).When he says it does not depend on the Placing he is expounding *according to Rabbi Yehuda* (in the following beraisa). When he says that it depends on the Placing, *he is following the Rabbanan.**Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: “V’hinachto” refers to tenufah, * there is another possuk that states “v’hinicho” which refers to Placing. [If there were two pessukim that mentioned Placing, it would be a necessary part of the Bikkurim process.] *Question: Who are the Rabbanan* who argue against this?*Answer: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:**Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: “V’lakach hakohen” refers to tenufah * [not v’hinachto, thus it refers to Placing, and we have two pessukim that require Placing]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.3 Makkos Daf 18 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored* by*Mr. & Mrs. Dovid Dukelsky*As an Iluy Neshomo for *Shifra Bas Yeshayahu A"H**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: “V’lakach hakohen haTene miyadecha” refers to tenufah. *Summary**Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reasoning* for selecting this possuk as the source for tenufah? *Answer: Since the word Yad is mentioned here.* Regarding tenufah of shelamim we also find the word yad.Yad regarding bikkurim refers to the Yisroel’s hand and Yad regarding shelamim refers to the kohen’s hand. This teaches that in both cases the tenufah must be done by the hand of both, the Kohen and Yisroel. This is possible in practice when the kohen places his hands under the yisroel’s hands and guides him in the tenufah. *Rava bar Ada quoting Rav Yitzchok:* When does bikkurim become prohibited to a zar? When it comes into the azarah [Regarding when it becomes permitted for the kohen see 26.3, 28.1, 28.4]. This follows this Tanna:*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* Bikkurim that was placed at the doorway to the azarah and it is partly inside and *partly outside; what’s outside* is considered chullin and what’s inside is kodesh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.4 Makkos Daf 19 A (6 lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Sheishes: Placing the bikkurim* in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, *not reading the parsha. *This follows this Tanna:Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi repeated three things from three sages. The first;*Rabbi Yishmael: Maaser Sheini does not become permissible nowadays in Yerushalayim.*A Bechor needs to be brought to a specific place [the beis hamikdash] just like maaser sheini [needs to be brought to yerushalayim]. A bechor cannot be brought nowadays.But perhaps the reason for that is since *a bechor needs to be brought as a korban? **Bikkurim is not brought as a korban * and it still cannot be brought nowadays?*Bikkurim requires Placing* [perhaps maaser sheini which does not, can still be brought nowadays].The possuk compares maaser sheini to bechor, this teaches that * maaser sheini is compared to bechor and cannot be brought nowadays.*It seems from this beraisa that *only placing is necessary, not reading.* If reading were necessary the beraisa would have said “Bikkurim requires placing and reading”. This is then *the source of Rav Sheishes.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.5 Makkos Daf 19 A (Middle)*Rav Sheishes said that only Placing is required in order to permit Bikkurim. A source for this was found in a beraisa forbidding the consumption of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. It could not deduced logically from Bechor (which is a korban ), nor from Bikkurim (which requires Placing); it was deduced from a hekesh in a possuk. Since the beraisa only mentions that Bikkurim requires Placing and not Reading, it seems that only Placing is required.*Summary**Rav Ashi:* Even according to the opinion that Reading is not “required”, *it is certainly part of the Bikkurim procedure.* Why was Reading not mentioned?*Rav Ashi: Since a ger who brings bikkurim cannot read* a parsha that discusses “our fathers”, Reading was not mentioned. *This beraisa is thus not a proof to Rav Sheishes.**Challenge:* Why is the *“Tzad Hashaveh”* method not employed by this beraisa? (When you can refute two sources for a law in different ways, you combine the two, and deduce from both together), *Resolution:* Both sources share *a common denominator that is absent* in the case of maaser sheini. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*28.6 Makkos Daf 19 A (12 lines Up)*We learned a beraisa (28.4) regarding the permissibility of eating maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. In 28.6 it was explained that since the zerikah of a bechor requires a mizbeach, we learn a hekesh that eating the bechor also requires a mizbeach *Summary**Challenge:* If we hold *“Kedusha rishona kidsha l’asid lavo”* that Yerushalayim maintains its kedusha even after the churban, then Bechor *would* be permissible nowadays [we can build a mizbeach and bring it as a korban]. If we hold * “Kedusha rishona kidsha l’shaata'' * that Yerushalayim lost its kedusha after the churban, then the permissibility of Bechor *is the same question* as maaser sheini! *Ravina:* We hold that *Yerushalayim lost its kedusha. * But there is no question that the bechor is forbidden, because we’re discussing a specific case of *a bechor which had zerikah before the churban. * Since the zerikah was with a mizbeach we learn by means of a hekesh that it must also be eaten with a mizbeach [which is no longer possible]. (Our question is; may we eat maaser sheini in Yerushalayim nowadays when there is no mizbeach? But maaser sheini doesn’t need a mizbeach. We thus compare it to a case of a bechor which doesn’t need a mizbeach either - because any avodah was already done before the churban. Since that bechor is forbidden, we learn that maaser is also forbidden). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.1 Makkos Daf 19 A (2 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored by**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) For only 50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUWe learned a beraisa (28.4) regarding the permissibility of eating maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. In 28.6 it was explained that since the zerikah of a bechor requires a mizbeach, we learn a hekesh that eating the bechor also requires a mizbeach.*Summary**Challenge:* A (kodshim) law derived by hekesh cannot be applied elsewhere by means of a hekesh! *Resolution:* Maaser sheini is not kodshim so there are no limitations to what laws can be derived there.*Challenge:* That works only if we look at the learner [maaser] which is not kodshim. But the teacher [bechor] is kodshim. *Resolution:* Actually the law is not derived from eating the bechor which is derived from zerikas hadam of the bechor. Rather the law of maaser is derived from bechor , by means of only one hekesh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.2 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Dn)**Today’s learning sponsored by*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary*Mishna (26.2): One who eats kodshim kalim or [unredeemed] maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim is liable for malkos. *Challenge: This law was already taught* in the beginning of our perek (20.2): “One who eats maaser sheini which was not redeemed - one who eats hekdesh which was not redeemed.”*Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina:* Our mishna discusses a case of maaser sheini which is eaten in purity outside of Yerushalayim. The other mishna discusses *a case of maaser sheini eaten in tumah. **Question: Where is it taught* that maaser sheini cannot be eaten in tumah? *Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon:**The possuk says “I didn’t consume it tamei” * - Neither when I was tahor and it was tamei, nor when I was tamei and it was tahor. *Where is the azhara? * I don’t know. (Later the beraisa will bring a source). *Challenge: There is a clear azhara against a tamei * individual eating maaser: “He shouldn’t eat of the sacred fare until he immerses in the mikvah” (this must refer to maaser because all other hekdesh requires more than just immersion). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.3 Makkos Daf 19 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary**Clarification: Where is it taught* that maaser sheini cannot be eaten when *it is tamei?* (When the eater is is tamei is a clear possuk, the question is when the maaser is tamei). *Answer:* The possuk says “You cannot eat maaser sheini *in your cities”.* Another possuk states: *“In your cities* you can eat (a baal mum ) one who is tamei together with one who is tahor”. *Tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael: They can eat together from the same plate* (even though the meat will become tamei). The similar words “in your cities” teach that what is permissible regarding a baal mum (eating tamei food) is *forbidden regarding maaser sheini * (it cannot be eaten when it becomes tamei). Thus it is established that when the mishna (20.2) states: “One who eats maaser sheini which was not redeemed”, it is referring to maaser that is in Yerushalayim [the mishna 26.2 refers to maaser that is outside of Yerushalayim] but has not been redeemed. *Challenge: How do we know that it can be redeemed?* [The possuk says “lo suchal se’eiso” - If one cannot carry up all his maaser to Yerushalayim, he may redeem it and take its monetary value instead. But here we’re learning that even if it was already carried up to Yerushalayim he can still redeem it, if it is tamei and cannot be eaten]. *Resolution: Rabbi Elazar:* Maaser sheini which became tamei can be redeemed even in Yerushalayim based on the possuk * “lo suchal se’eiso”. The word se’eis can mean eating as well,* as we find it regarding the meal Yosef served his brothers. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.4 Makkos Daf 19 B (9 lines before spreads)**“It’s a good idea when you get home, some time during the day, take a gemara and review before it fades away. Even if you’re not learning, just to hold the gemara open to impress your family is also a big mitzvah!”*Today’s learning sponsored bySponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Rav Bivi quoting Rav Asi:* Maaser sheini can be redeemed even one step outside the walls of Yerushalayim based on the possuk *“lo suchal se’eiso”.* [The possuk states “if the place is distant from you and you cannot carry it”. The added words ‘and you cannot carry it’ teach that even if the place is not ‘distant from you’ it is still possible to redeem]. *Challenge: This verse comes to teach the law of Rabbi Elazar* (29.3) and is not available for any other drashos. *Resolution: Both laws can be derived from the peculiar wording of the verse.* If it were only to teach Rabbi Elazar’s law, the possuk should have said “lo suchal l’ochlo”. If it were only to teach Rav Asi’s law, the possuk should have said “lo suchal litlo”. * ‘Se’eiso’ includes both teachings.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.5 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines before spreads)**Summary**Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshaya (at the gateway to Yerushalayim):*If someone is not in Yerushalayim but the sack of maaser that he is carrying is already in Yerushalayim, it is obvious that it can no longer be redeemed.But *what is the law when he inside* and his sack has not yet crossed the boundary?*Hahu Sobo b’dbei Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai:* The possuk says “mimcha” it means * “from you and all that is connected to you”. * Thus if either he, or his maaser [which he is carrying. Tosfos] is in Yerushalayim, he can no longer redeem it.*Rav Papa: What if he’s holding it at the end of a long stick?**Teiku.* (The question stands). *Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan:* One is only liable for eating unredeemed maaser sheini if *it was already brought up to Yerushalayim.* [It wouldn’t be permissible to eat it before it was brought to Yerushalayim, only the lav wouldn’t apply]. One possuk says “ *Eat it* before Hashem [in Yerushalayim]”, and one possuk says “You cannot *eat it* in your cities”. The second possuk only applies where the first possuk is applicable. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*29.6 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Up)*Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan: One is only liable for eating unredeemed maaser sheini if it was already brought up to Yerushalayim.*Summary**Challenge:**Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi:* A kohen *in Yerushalayim,* during a year of maaser sheini who wishes to eat a tevel fig and he separates *Terumah, Maaser Rishon and Maaser Sheini, gets malkos * [because he didn’t separate terumas maaser]. *A zar would receive malkos twice* [for eating terumah and terumas maaser]. If he hadn’t said anything he would only receive malkos once, for eating tevel. This is only because he is in Yerushalayim, *outside of Yerushalayim he would be liable for three sets of malkos * [for eating maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim - even though it was never in Yerushalayim - contrary to the ruling of Rabbi Yochanan] ?!*Resolution: True. He would have only been liable for a third malkos if he had taken it out of Yerushalayim.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.1 Makkos Daf 20A (5 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: One is only liable for eating unredeemed maaser sheini if it was already brought up to Yerushalayim.This seems to be contradicted by a beraisa delineating the liabilities for one who separates terumah and then eats it in Yerushalayim (according to Rabbi Yosi). We understand that had it been eaten outside of Yerushalayim, there would be another liability - for eating maaser, even though it had not yet been brought to Yerushalayim?The gemara explains that the beraisa would only add a malkos if the food had in fact been brought into Yerushalayim first.*Summary**Challenge: What then is the beraisa teaching?* [The laws of liability for terumah themselves are very clear cut].*Resolution:* The beraisa discusses a case where produce *was brought to Yerushalayim* [and taken out (Rashi)] *in a tevel state.* [Thus when we infer that there would be liability for maaser as well when eaten outside, we are learning that] *“Potential matanos are considered separated”.* [So although it cannot be said that the maaser was brought into Yerushalayim before being eaten outside, because it was not actually maaser yet, one would still be liable].*Challenge: Rabbi Yosi disagrees* with the idea that “Potential matanos are considered separated”.*Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda quoting Rabbi Yosi: Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel agree regarding unprocessed produce* that passed through Yerushalayim, that its maaser can still be redeemed.They disagree however regarding *processed tevel: **Beis Shammai:* It can no longer be redeemed [Potential matanos are considered separated].*Beis Hillel:* It can still be redeemed *[Potential matanos are not considered separated].* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.2 Makkos Daf 20A (5 lines before spreads)*The gemara inferred from one beraisa that according to Rabbi Yosi: One is liable for eating maaser outside of Yerushalayim, even though it had only been brought into the city in a tevel state. This is in keeping with the rule that “Potential matanos are considered separated”.However, another beraisa quoted Rabbi Yosi recording the opinion of Beis Hillel that one can still redeem maaser that had been in Yerushalayim while stillin a tevel state. This is in keeping with the rule that “Potential matanos are not considered separated”.*Summary**Rabbah: Eating maaser * outside of Yerushalayim is a Torah prohibition. *Redeeming maaser * that was once in Yerushalayim is a rabbinic prohibition.*With regard to the Torah law, we’re strict* and follow the opinion that “Potential matanos are considered separated”. With regard to the rabbinic law, we’re lenient. [The gemara’s inference from the first beraisa that “Potential matanos are considered separated”, was a way to explain the chiddush of that beraisa. Ravina now offers to explain the inference differently, thus leaving no contradiction between the beraisas] *Ravina:* The beraisa is discussing a case where *the maaser is on a long stick* (29.5) protruding outside the walls of Yerushalayim and its owner is within the walls. [That’s why there is a malkos liability, not because “Potential matanos are considered separated”.] *The question of Rav Papa (29.5) has thus been resolved* based on our inference from this beraisa. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.3 Makkos Daf 20A (The Mishnah)*The following mishna deals with four laws:1. Pulling out one’s hair in mourning a death2. To cut a wound in mourning a death3. Cutting off the peios (The Rambam says this is only a problem with a razor, but other poskim say that it is forbidden even with a close scissors cut)4. Shaving the beard (This everyone holds is only a problem with a razor)*Summary**Mishna:*[These are liable for malkos] *One who tears out hair* from his head in mourning.*Or he surrounds his head with baldness* (he cuts off his peios). *Or he shaves off the edges of his beard.**Or he makes a wound in himself, in his mourning.*If he made one gash for five dead people, or five gashes for one death, he gets *five sets of malkos. **For ‘surrounding the head’ there are two malkos, * one for each peiah [from the top of the ear until the hole in the ear]. *For shaving the edges of the beard there are five malkos * for five edges, two on one side [one from the hole in the ear until where the cheek juts out, and one on the side of the chin], two on the other side and one on the bottom [the tip of the chin]. *Rabbi Eliezer: If he removed the entire beard at once* there is only one malkos. One is only liable for shaving the beard with a razor.*Rabbi Eliezer:* He is liable even if he picked it, or planed it off. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.4 Makkos Daf 20 A (7 lines after spreads)**Summary**Beraisa:*It is written: “They [the kohanim] should not *tear a tearing* (yikrechu karcha) in [the hair *on] their heads”.*There is another possuk [referring to all of Yisroel]: “Do not make a tearing ( karcha ) between your eyes for *[mourning] a death”.**The repetition* in the first possuk teaches that there is a liability for *each tearing.**“Their heads”* teaches that tearing hair from *any spot on the head* is forbidden (even though the second possuk seems to be limited to only part of the head).We might think that these laws apply *only to kohanim * who were given more mitzvos, but the word karcha, teaches by gezeirah shaveh that *all laws derived from each possuk apply to the other one as well.**The second possuk * limits the prohibition to tearing hair *as an act of mourning.*Between the two pessukim we learn *three laws that apply equally to a kohen or a Yisroel.**1. There is a liability for each tearing. 2. Tearing from any spot on the head is forbidden. 3. Only tearing in mourning is forbidden.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.5 Makkos Daf 20 A (Bottom line)*If someone tears out his hair in mourning four or five times, there is a liability for each tearing.*Summary**Question: What is meant by four or five tearings?**It cannot mean* five separate acts, with *five warnings,* a possuk is not necessary for that.*It cannot mean* separate acts with *only one warning,* there is only one liability for that, as we learned in a *mishna:* If a nazir was drinking wine *all day there is only one liability, if he was warned several times, there are multiple liabilities.**Answer:* The case here is where one smeared his fingers with a depilatory salve, and placed his hand on his head, creating five bald spots. *Thus one warning suffices for five tearings.* ( *Tosfos:* This answer would not be sufficient if not for the possuk. See extra recording for full Tosfos) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*30.6 Makkos Daf 20 B (6 lines Dn)**Summary**Question: What qualifies as a tearing?**Rav Huna:* It must be noticeable.*Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon* (some say: Ben Shamua): The size of a pea.*The Tannaim discuss this subject:**Tanna Kamma:* The size of a pea.*Acherim:* It must be noticeable.*Rabbi Yehuda bar Chaviva:* There are three opinions on the matter.1. The size of a pea.2. It must be noticeable.3. Two hairs. Some substitute:4. The size of a lentil.The siman [to remember that “a lentil” is not supplanted by “a pea”, *“a lentil supplants only “two hairs”]* is the mishna: “Baheres, the size of a pea. Michya, the size of a lentil” [since these two sizes coexist in Masichta Negaim, they coexist here as well].*Beraisa:* One who cuts hair on Shabbos, is liable* even for *the small amount that fits in between the tip of the scissors.**Question: How much is that?**Rav Yehuda: Two hairs.* *[Tosfos:* This is only in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, see separate recording] *Challenge:* The above beraisa continues: For tearing hair, one is liable for tearing two hairs. [It seems then that the first part of the beraisa is a different amount of hair]? *Resolution:* The beraisa should read, *“And similarly* for tearing hair, one is liable for tearing two hairs.”We learned this in a * beraisa: *One who cuts the amount of hair that fits between the tips of a scissors on Shabbos is liable. *How much is that? Two hairs.**Rabbi Eliezer:* Just one hair.*The Chachamim agree to Rabbi Eliezer in a case where one plucks a single white hair* (in order to look young. Ordinarily, one hair is insignificant, but since he is accomplishing something by plucking one white hair, he is liable). *Plucking white hairs is forbidden even in the weekdays* because it is a womanly matter to be concerned with one’s appearance and the possuk forbids a man from wearing a woman’s clothing. * *Tosfos:* This is only in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, see separate recording. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.1 Makkos Daf 20 B (21 lines Up)**Summary*We learned in the mishna 30.3 that there is malkos for cutting one’s peios.*Beraisa:* “The peios of the head” means “The edges of the head”. This is someone who smooths *the area between his temples and the back of his ears* (hair doesn’t grow in both places, but hair grows in between, by removing those hairs, he has “smoothed” that area and “surrounded the crown” of his head). *A learner learned a beraisa in front of Rav Chisda: Both* the makif (the one who cuts hair) and the nikaf (the one whose hair was cut) *are liable.**Rav Chisda:* One who eats dates out of a sieve is punished with malkos?! (Dates should be eaten out of a dish. It doesn’t make sense to put them in a sieve. But still, it’s not a crime!) The barber’s client was passive, *he didn’t do anything!* This must *follow the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda* (see 24.4) that there is malkos for a passive lav. *Rava:* The beraisa refers to one who cuts his own hair. [He is liable twice because the possuk says “Sakifu” in plural; teaching that there is malkos for both the makif and the nikaf]. *Rav Ashi:* This is discussing a case where the nikaf is helping the makif. [He is not just sitting passively]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.2 Makkos Daf 20 B (12 lines Up)**Summary*We learned in the mishna 30.3 that there is malkos for destroying the end of one’s beard.*Beraisa:* “The end of the beard” means *“The plume of the beard”* (see 30.3 for a discussion of where the ends of the beard are). We learned in the mishna 30.3 that there is malkos for making a scratch in one’s body as a sign of mourning.*Beraisa:* “A scratch for a soul” teaches that *one is not liable if he makes a scratch while grieving for his home or his ship,* only for a death.The superfluous word “A scratch” teaches that *one is liable for each scratch* (see 30.5 for a similar discussion regarding tearing out hair). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.3 Makkos Daf 20 B (4 lines Up)*Today's learning sponsored by*Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 click herehttps://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=Beraisa: “A scratch for a soul” teaches that one is not liable if he makes a scratch while grieving for his home or his ship, only for a death.The superfluous word “A scratch” teaches that one is liable for each scratch.*Summary**Beraisa continued:**Rabbi Yosi:* “A soul” teaches that *one is liable for each death he is mourning.* If he made one scratch while grieving for five deaths, he is liable for each one.*Challenge:* But the word “A soul” teaches that *one is liable only when his grief was brought on by a death* and not for other reasons.*Resolution:* Rabbi Yosi doesn’t differentiate between “scratching” (seritah) and “gashing” (gedidah). *Regarding gedidah the possuk says openly that it is only for a death.**Shmuel: One who does seritah with a knife is liable.* (The difference between a “scratch” and a “gash” is that the former is made by hand, while the latter is made by an instrument. Shmuel is teaching that if one does any of the two actions he is liable for both lavin). *Challenge: Beraisa:* Seritah and gedidah seemingly have the same meaning, but *one is [only] by hand, and one is [only] with an instrument.**Resolution: Shmuel follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosi.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.4 Makkos Daf 21 A (5 lines Dn)*Beraisa: Seritah and gedidah seemingly have the same meaning, but one is by hand, and one is with an instrument.*Summary**A Learner learned a beraisa in the presence of Rabbi Yochanan:* One is liable for scratching himself out of grief for a death, whether he does it by hand or by instrument. One is only liable for scratching himself as a service to an idol if he does it by hand.*Challenge:* The possuk states, “The made gashes *with knives* as per their [idolatrous] custom”.*Resolution: The beraisa needs to be corrected:* “One is only liable for scratching himself as a service to an idol if he does it with an instrument”. [If the way of serving any particular idol is by scratching, then one would certainly be liable for that. This beraisa is discussing the law of an idol who has no particular custom. *Rashi]* The mishna (30.3) taught that *one is liable for removing his beard and peios. **Rav Sheishes demonstrated* the exact spots to his talmidim. *Rabbi Eliezer* taught in the mishna (30.3): If he removed the entire beard at once there is *only one malkos. **He holds there is only one lav. * But the Chachomim hold that there are five lavin. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.5 Makkos Daf 21 A (11 lines Dn)**Summary*The mishna (30.3) taught that one is *only liable for shaving the beard with a razor.**Beraisa: There are two pessukim regarding shaving a beard.* “It should not be shaved” (giluach). And “It should not be destroyed” (hashchasa). The possuk about giluach alone *would have included a prohibition against cutting with a scissors* [when we say scissors it means that only the top blade cuts, and the bottom remains stationary], but a scissors cannot be included under hashchasa. The possuk about hashchasa alone *would have included a prohibition against picking with tweezers,* but tweezing cannot be included under giluach. Thus we learn that only *a shaving that destroys* falls under the prohibition. *This is possible with a razor.* [This is why a shaver must be kosher; it must have a guard with fine holes that do not allow the blade to come in contact with the skin]. *Rabbi Eliezer* taught in the mishna (30.3): He is liable *even for tweezing off his beard.**Challenge:* If he learns that both pessukim are connected; he should require both conditions [ giluach and hashchasa ]. *If the pessukim are not connected,* one would be liable even for scissors. *Why only with a tweezer ?**Resolution:* Rabbi Eliezer holds that *a tweezer can be included under giluach. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*31.6 Makkos Daf 21 A (10 lines after spreads)*Today’s learning sponsored by*Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Kesoves Kaaka [writing and cutting into the skin; tatooing] is forbidden by the Torah.*Summary**Mishna:**One is liable for malkos for kesoves kaaka. *If one wrote [even with permanent ink] but did not make an incision. Or he made an incision but did not fill it with ink: He is not liable unless *he makes an incision and fills it with ink, bluestone or anything that leaves a permanent mark.**Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda quoting Rabbi Shimon: He is only liable for writing a Name* [of an idol]. As it states “Do not tatoo yourself, I am Hashem [I and no other]”.*Gemara:**Rav Acha son of Rava to Rav Ashi:* According to Rabbi Shimon one is only liable for writing the words “I am G-d”?*Rav Ashi:* No, as *Bar Kapara* taught in a beraisa: He is only liable for writing a Name of an idol. As it states “Do not tattoo yourself, I am Hashem.” I and no other. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*32.1 Makkos Daf 21 A (13 lines Up)**Summary**Rav Malkia quoting Rav Ada bar Ahava:* One should not put eifer mikleh - ash from a woodfire on a wound, because it gets inside the wound and looks like a tattoo. Six statements in Shas are attributed to Rav Malkia or Rav Malkio, the gemara attempts to attribute each statement to its originator. *Rav Nachman brei D’rav Ikka:**Shpud, Shfachos and Gumos; Rav Malkio Bluris, Eifer and Gevinah; Rav Malkia**Rav Papa: If it’s a comment on a mishna or beraisa, it should be attributed to Rav Malkia.* If it’s just a halachic statement, it’s Rav Malkio. [So it seems that our statement about Eifer should actually be attributed to Rav Malkio]. The way to remember this: *Malkia sounds similar to Malkesa* - Queen. When we have a statement from a mishna, like a queen, it takes precedence over any Amora’s statement.*Rav Nachman and Rav Papa differ regarding Shfachos* . According to Rav Papa, since it’s based on a mishna, it should be attributed to Rav Malkia. [Tosfos elsewhere explains that “Shfachos” means that it should be switched with Eifer, so there are actually two differences]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*32.2 Makkos Daf 21 A (8 lines Up)*Rav Ada bar Ahava: One should not put eifer mikleh on a wound, because it gets inside the wound and looks like a tattoo.*Summary**Rav Bivi bar Abayye* was particular not to put eifer mikleh *even on the wound of the bloodletter* [which is permanent, and obviously a bloodletting wound and not a tattoo] (they would go once a month to relieve blood pressure). *Rav Ashi: A wound is obvious.* There are no grounds to forbid placing eifer mikleh on a wound.*Mishna:**If a nazir was drinking wine all day,* there is only one liability [because malkos depends on hasra’ah and he received only one hasra’ah]. (Regarding a korban chatas, brought by a shogeig, each “yediah” [knowledge of wrong] makes one liable for another korban, but here it is a case of a meizid, and he needs a hasra’ah in order to be punished by beis din). If he was warned several times, (even though he drank nonstop), *he is liable for each hasra’ah. **If a nazir was in contact with corpses all day,* there is only one liability. If he was warned several times, he is liable for each hasra’ah. *If a nazir was cutting his hair all day,* there is only one liability. If he was warned several times, he is liable for each hasra’ah. *If somebody was wearing shaatnez all day,* there is only one liability. If he was warned several times, “Don’t wear, don’t wear” and he took it off and put it on again, he is liable for each hasra’ah. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*32.3 Makkos Daf 21 B (Top line)**Summary**Mishna* continued:*There’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos * (provided he got eight hasra’os), 1. He is plowing with *a donkey and an ox* (the Torah prohibition of kilayim) . 2. The animals are * hekdesh * (if the ox is a bechor, or the donkey is kodshei bedek habayis*, or a peter chamor) . 3. He is plowing over * kilayim bikerem * (it is a vineyard where he planted forbidden seeds and he is plowing over them) . 4. He is plowing over * kilayim * (two types of seeds are forbidden in Eretz Yisroel even without a vineyard) **. 5. On a * shemittah * year. 6. During *Yom Tov.* 7. In a cemetery, and he is *a kohen* (who must abstain from tumas meis). 8. And *a nazir.**Chananiah ben Chachinai:* 9. He is *wearing shaatnez * at the same time.*Chachamim:* Wearing shaatnez is *not related* to the work he is doing.*Chananiah ben Chachinai:* The fact that he is a * nazir has no bearing* on his work either.*Gemara:**Rav Bivi amar Rav Asi:* When the mishna (32.2) says *“he took it off and put it on again” it means even putting his hand in and out of the sleeve.**Rav Acha brei d’Rav Ikka demonstrated* sticking his hand in and out of the sleeve.*Rav Ashi:* When the mishna (32.2) says “he took it off and put it on again” it means *even if he left the garment on for the amount of time* it takes to take it off and put it on again. (Tosfos elsewhere explains that it’s not a lav she’ein bo maaseh because the liabiility results from the original maaseh.) *A separate recording with Tosfos is available* * Tosfos: It cannot be referring to bedek habayis whose kedusha may be rescinded. The Ri says that only the ox was hekdesh. ** This is in accordance with the Ri’s opinion. According to Rashi, #2 - hekdesh is split in two, one lav for the ox and one for the donkey and #4 is kilayim is passed over as it is not mentioned in the mishna. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*32.6 Makkos Daf 21 B (12 lines Dn)**Summary*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that one is liable for plowing over kilayim (covering kilayim seeds with earth). *Rabbi Yannai:* A vote was taken in the Sanhedrin of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia (a grandson of Rebbi, his sanhedrin was called Rabboseinu, or *Chabura)* *and it was decided that: One is liable for covering kilayim. **Rabbi Yochanan:* Isn’t that stated *explicitly in our mishna? * “One who plows where kilayim is present”, which obviously means that he is covering over kilayim! *Rabbi Yannai: If I hadn’t raised the shard, would you have discovered the pearl?**Reish Lakish* to Rabbi Yochanan: If not for the praise you received from a great man, Rabbi Yannai, I would have said it’s an error - there’s no pearl at all. *There’s a different meaning to our mishna; it follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva* that demonstrating your approval of kilayim, by allowing it to remain is considered a transgression.*Beraisa:*If one pulls out weeds where kilayim are growing, or he throws dirt over kilayim seeds, he is liable. *Rabbi Akiva explained: Even for just allowing kilayim to remain, he is liable.* We learn this from the combination of pessukim “kilayim sadcha lo”. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.1 Makkos Daf 21 B (8 lines Up)**Summary*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos. *Ulla to Rav Nachman: There should be another malkos for planting on Yom Tov?* [Plowing (malkos #3) is considered “kilayim” because covering the seeds with earth is like planting them. Since the mishna is discussing a case of Yom Tov (malkos #6) there should be another malkos for planting on Yom Tov]. *Rav Nachman: Some cases may have been left out of the mishna.**Ulla: The tanna specifies a number* of possible transgressions and you say that some may have been left out?*Rava: Only with regard to Shabbos there is a principle of chiluk melacha * (each of the 39 melachos is a separate liability), but we do not have this principle for Yom Tov (all 39 melachos are forbidden, but they are all lumped together as one prohibition. There would only be additional liabilities if there would be additional hasra’os, but it makes no difference whether the hasra’ah is for plowing or planting). [Here the Rov learned some chiddushim of Rabbi Akiva Eiger] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.2 Makkos Daf 21 B (5 lines Up)*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos. Ulla asked Rav Nachman why planting on Yom Tov was not included.*Summary**Rava: Only with regard to Shabbos there is a principle of chiluk melacha * (each of the 39 melachos is a separate liability), but we do not have this principle for Yom Tov (all 39 melachos are forbidden, but they are all lumped together as one prohibition. There would only be additional liabilities if there would be additional hasra’os, but it makes no difference whether the hasra’ah is for plowing or planting). *Ulla: This is a good explanation!**Abayye: How can you say there is no chiluk melacha on Yom Tov?**Mishna:* If one cooks and eats gid hanashe with milk on Yom Tov, he is liable for five malkos. (According to some, “Ein b’giddin b’nosein taam” a gid is not considered a food at all, it’s like cooking a rope. The idea here is that “Yeish b’giddin b’nosein taam”, a gid is considered a food). *1. Eating Gid Hanashe. 2. Cooking on Yom Tov* (since gid hanashe is assur b’hana’ah, it cannot be cooked on Yom Tov). *3. Cooking meat and milk. 4. Eating meat and milk. 5. Lighting a fire on Yom Tov.*If there is no chiluk melacha for Yom Tov, *why should there be two liabilities for Yom Tov* (#2, #5)?*Resolution:* #5 should be amended to read “The * gid hanashe was of neveilah”. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.3 Makkos Daf 22 A (3 lines Dn)*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos. Rava explained that there are only eight because “ein chiluk melachos b’yom tov”. Abayye referenced a different mishna which teaches that one who cooks and eats gid hanashe on yom tov can be liable for five malkos. However according to the principle of “ein chiluk melachos b’yom tov” there should only be four malkos . To resolve this challenge “Lighting a fire on yom tov” was replaced with “Eating neveilah”. *Summary**Challenge: In Rabbi Chiya’s beraisa* it states regarding this case: “Two liabilities for eating and three for cooking.'' However, if we replace lighting a fire with eating neveilah, *there are three liabilities for eating and two for cooking?**Resolution:* Replace “Lighting a fire on Yom Tov” with *“Lighting a fire with Asherah twigs”* which is forbidden based on the possuk “Nothing [of avodah zarah ] should cling to your hands”.*Rav Acha brei D’Rava to Rav Ashi:* If we’re discussing using avodah zarah objects *there should be a sixth lav * : “Do not bring an abomination into your house”.*Resolution:* Replace “Lighting a fire with Asherah twigs” with *“Lighting a fire with Hekdesh twigs”* which is forbidden* based on the possuk “Destroy all avodah zarah, do not do so to Hashem”.*Challenge***: Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“One who sows in Nachal Eisan”* (The place where the eglah arufah ceremony was performed, which must remain desolate as a memorial to the murdered man) which is forbidden based on the possuk “Nothing should be planted there”.*Challenge:* Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“He erased Hashem’s name while plowing”* (Hashem’s name was engraved on a rock which he broke up while plowing) which is forbidden based on the possuk “Destroy the names of avodah zarah, do not do so to Hashem”. **Tosfos* explains why the lav of meilah is not counted (based on 33.5), see separate recording.** The gemara asks several questions with no answers, we are thus forced to admit that some possible cases may have been left out of the mishna. While this was rejected by Ulla (33.1), that was with regard to “Yom Tov” cases. Since yom tov was mentioned in the mishna, it is inconceivable that the mishna would not mention all cases of yom tov. However now we are raising new scenarios which are in fact likely to have been left out. *Tosfos.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.4 Makkos Daf 22 A (18 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored bySponsor a day's learning *(thousands of minutes!)* for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos. *Summary**Rabbi Abahu:* Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“One who cuts off his tzara’as” * which is forbidden based on the possuk “Be careful with regard to your nega tzara’as”. (According to Rashi and Tosfos this is referring to an unusual case of a man who has a nega on his foot which is removed by the way he is pushing the plowshare. According to the Rambam the question is separate from the case of one who is liable eight times for one act of plowing. Rather it is a general question: Why is this lav not mentioned in our perek which enumerates various lavin that carry a malkos liability). *Abayye:* Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“One who wears the choshen without the eifod”* (see 32.3 as to why this is not considered a lav she’ein bo maaseh) or “one who removed the staves from the aron” which are forbidden based on the pessukim “They may not be removed” and “The choshen shall not be moved from upon the eifod”. *Rav Ashi:* Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“One who plows with Asheirah wood”* (Since ‘plowing’ is mentioned, this seems to support Rashi and Tosfos over the Rambam) which is forbidden based on the possuk “Nothing of Avodah Zarah should remain in your possession”.*Ravina:* Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted *“One who chops down a fruit tree”* [while he is plowing] which is forbidden based on the possuk “It must be used for eating, you cannot cut it down”. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.5 Makkos Daf *33.5 Makkos Daf 22 A (3 lines befor spreads)*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos.SummaryRabbi Zeira to Rabbi Mony: Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted “One who swore not to plow on Yom Tov”!Rabbi Mony: Such an oath is ineffective since he already swore [not to plow] at Sinai.Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps he made an oath not to plow ever, such an oath would be effective Yom Tov since it is effective all year.Resolution: The mishna does not concern itself with prohibitions that can be rescinded. (Since the malkos is avoidable, the mishna does not mention it).Challenge: Hekdesh is enumerated in the mishna [and it too can be rescinded].*Resolution: The hekdesh mentioned in our mishna means bechor* which cannot be rescinded.*Challenge:* Nazir is enumerated in the mishna [and it too can be rescinded].*Resolution: The nazir mentioned in our mishna means nazir Shimshon * which cannot be rescinded. [It’s a lifelong nezirus which according to some can be imposed by a child’s father before he is born, and according to others, can be accepted by the nazir himself]. *Challenge: A Nazir Shimshon may become tamei to a meis * [and the mishna discusses nazir in the context of tumas meis]. *Resolution:* Our Tanna does not mention “oath”, because according to him *even an issur kollel ** [such as suggested by Rabbi Zeira “He made an oath not to plow ever”] *is ineffective.* [Pesulei Mukdashim is a hekdesh animal that was found to have a blemish and rendered possul, it is then redeemed. This animal now has a special status, it still has some kedusha in the sense that it cannot be used nor shorn. However it is like an ordinary animal in that it may be slaughtered and eaten anywhere by anyone. In a sense, it’s like two animals]. *Rabbi Hoshaya: If one breeds a Pesulei Mukdashim bull with another animal, he is liable for two malkos. * [Because it is considered a separate species, and is thus kilayim. There’s a second liability because using the bull as a stud is considered working with it]. *Rabbi Yitzchok: One who causes a Pesulei Mukdashim bull to pull a wagon is liable* for working with two animal species. Although it is one animal, the Torah** considers it as two. * See separate recording for Rashi’s elaboration on the concepts of “issur kollel” and “issur mosif”. ** *Tosfos* explains that this refers to a specific possuk, see separate recording.22 A (3 lines befor spreads)*We learned in the mishna (32.3) that there’s a case where a man can plow one row and be liable for eight malkos.SummaryRabbi Zeira to Rabbi Mony: Our mishna (32.3) could have also counted “One who swore not to plow on Yom Tov”!Rabbi Mony: Such an oath is ineffective since he already swore [not to plow] at Sinai.Rabbi Zeira: Perhaps he made an oath not to plow ever, such an oath would be effective Yom Tov since it is effective all year.Resolution: The mishna does not concern itself with prohibitions that can be rescinded. (Since the malkos is avoidable, the mishna does not mention it).Challenge: Hekdesh is enumerated in the mishna [and it too can be rescinded].*Resolution: The hekdesh mentioned in our mishna means bechor* which cannot be rescinded.*Challenge:* Nazir is enumerated in the mishna [and it too can be rescinded].*Resolution: The nazir mentioned in our mishna means nazir Shimshon * which cannot be rescinded. [It’s a lifelong nezirus which according to some can be imposed by a child’s father before he is born, and according to others, can be accepted by the nazir himself]. *Challenge: A Nazir Shimshon may become tamei to a meis * [and the mishna discusses nazir in the context of tumas meis]. *Resolution:* Our Tanna does not mention “oath”, because according to him *even an issur kollel ** [such as suggested by Rabbi Zeira “He made an oath not to plow ever”] *is ineffective.* [Pesulei Mukdashim is a hekdesh animal that was found to have a blemish and rendered possul, it is then redeemed. This animal now has a special status, it still has some kedusha in the sense that it cannot be used nor shorn. However it is like an ordinary animal in that it may be slaughtered and eaten anywhere by anyone. In a sense, it’s like two animals]. *Rabbi Hoshaya: If one breeds a Pesulei Mukdashim bull with another animal, he is liable for two malkos. * [Because it is considered a separate species, and is thus kilayim. There’s a second liability because using the bull as a stud is considered working with it]. *Rabbi Yitzchok: One who causes a Pesulei Mukdashim bull to pull a wagon is liable* for working with two animal species. Although it is one animal, the Torah** considers it as two. * See separate recording for Rashi’s elaboration on the concepts of “issur kollel” and “issur mosif”. ** *Tosfos* explains that this refers to a specific possuk, see separate recording. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*33.6 Makkos Daf 22 A (4 lines up)**Summary**Mishna:*How many lashes are administered? *Thirty nine.* (This number is divisible by three, and the lashes are given in sets of three, one on each shoulder, and one on the chest). As it states (in two adjacent pessukim) “In the number of forty”, it means *‘a number leading up to forty’.**Rabbi Yehuda:* Forty. This extra lash is on the back; between the shoulders. [Before lashes are administered, the condemned man must be assessed to see if he can take it]. He is only assessed for *a number of lashes divisible by three.*If one was assessed for the full forty (it means thirty nine) and he received part of it, and then in the middle, the experts standing there said *that he cannot take forty; he’s pottur. *If one was assessed at eighteen lashes, and after he was whipped, they said *that he can take the full forty; he’s pottur. **Gemara:**Question: Why do we say that “forty” means “thirty nine”?**Answer:* If it would say “forty in number” it would mean forty. Since it says “In the number of forty”, it means *a number that adds up to forty* [but does not include forty.*Rava:* Other people are so foolish, that they stand for a sefer Torah but not for a great man. *The Torah says “forty” but our great men redefined the number.* Their authority is greater than the Torah and they must surely be honored.*Rabbi Yitzchok: Rabbi Yehuda says forty lashes, based on the possuk: “What are these blows between your arms?* These are what I received in the house of my friends” [Beis Din are the friends of mankind when they mete out punishment in this world. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the final blow is to the back between the arms. Since the final blow is most painful, only it is mentioned]. *The Chachomim* who argue on Rabbi Yehuda explain this possuk as referring to blows *children receive while learning Torah.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*34.1 Makkos Daf 22 B (1 lines befor spreads)**Summary*We learned in the mishna: If one was assessed for the full forty (it means thirty nine) and he received part of it, and then *in the middle,* the experts standing there said that he cannot take forty; he’s pottur. If one was assessed at eighteen lashes, and *after he was whipped,* they said that he can take the full forty; he’s pottur. It seems that he is only pottur because he already received some of the malkos. *Challenge: Beraisa:* If one was assessed for the full forty (it means thirty nine) and then *he was reassessed (before he was whipped) * as being unable to take malkos; he’s pottur. If one was assessed at eighteen lashes, and then *he was reassessed (before he was whipped) * as being capable of withstanding the full forty; he’s pottur. From the beraisa we see that the new assessment matters, even if no whipping was done.*Rav Sheishes:* In the case of our mishna, both assessments were done on the same day (thus we understand that *one of them must be erroneous,* and so we would have to redo the assessment. In the cases discussed by our mishna, since he was already whipped, we don’t redo the assessment, and he’s pottur). In the case of the beraisa, the assessments were done on different days (both of the assessments are thus considered valid. Since there is a valid assessment saying that he can’t take anything, we don’t make him return for another assessment because *there was already a valid sentence of malkos passed on him,* and that indignity is a kaparah for him. In the second half of the beraisa; *we follow the more lenient* assessment [of eighteen], since it is a valid one, even though he wasn’t whipped yet). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate

*34.2 Makkos Daf 22 B (4 lines after spreads)**Summary**Mishna: If he did one aveirah for which there are two lavin, and he was assessed once,* he’s given malkos and he is pottur. *If he was only assessed for one lav, * he’s given malkos and after his wounds heal, he is assessed again, and given malkos again.*Gemara:**Challenge: Beraisa: One assessment for two lavin is unacceptable.**Rav Sheishes:* The beraisa is referring to a case where he was assessed for forty one malkos. *The mishna is referring to a case where he was assessed for forty two malkos. * (Since there is a set of three malkos besides for thirty nine, we say that thirty nine [the maximum penalty] is for one lav, and three [the minimum penalty, 33.6] for the second lav). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate