The Mishna says its possible to be punished with many malkos for one act of plowing... I have two problems with this.
1. What happened to the shas wide rule of "Ein Issur chal al Issur" . I checked the Rambam, whio seems to touch on this problem, in Pirush Hamishna...not sure what he means. I also noticed the Yuchim U'boaz deals with this at length....is there any simple answer. This is something the Gemora should address, but amazingly ignores it.
2. We learned in the first Perek that only Rav Meir allows for multiple malkos. The Rabbana apply the rule of "Keday Rishosow" that one can only recieve one punishment.... otherise known as Kum Leh Bderaba meneh. Is this Mishnah following the opinion of Rav Meir ?
Tzvi Wainhaus, chicago
Shalom Tzvi,
Excellent questions.
1) At its core, "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" means the Torah does not need to add a new Isur onto something that is already Asur. If the item is already prohibited, a second Isur generally does not take effect. But if, at the moment of onset, the item is not yet Asur, multiple Isurim can take effect together, and even when one Isur is already in place a later Isur can still take hold if it broadens what is forbidden ("Isur Kolel") or adds a new dimension such as people, objects, or time ("Isur Mosif"). See Yevamos 32b-33a and Kerisos 14a-15a.
In our Mishnah (Makos 21a), the case is built specifically as "b'Vas Achas." The act of plowing under the described conditions triggers several Lavim simultaneously, so each Lav takes effect and "Ein Isur Chal Al Isur" does not apply. This is exactly how the Rambam explains the Mishnah: multiple liabilities here arise because the Isurim take effect b'Vas Achas. See the Rambam in Perush ha'Mishnayos to Makos 3:1.
2) As for the second question: "Kedei Rish'aso" and "Mishum Rish'ah Achas" (Makos 13b) teach that when one act carries two different punishment types, we administer only one; if one is more severe, then "Kim Lei bed'Rabah Minei" gives the greater and drops the lesser. Tosfos (Moed Katan 2b, DH Chayav Shtayim) explains why multiple sets of lashes do not collide with that rule: all of the liabilities for lashes count as one "Rish'ah," because "Rish'ah" there refers to the punishment type (Malkos), not to the number of Lavim or reasons. Therefore, our Mishnah in Makos 21a can be consistent with the Chachamim: it tallies many simultaneous Lavim from one act, but since they all yield the same punishment type (Malkos), they aggregate under one "Rish'ah" and do not trigger "Kedei Rish'aso" or "Kim Lei bed'Rabah Minei."
Kol Tuv,
Aharon Steiner