Hello, the beraisa says that if a person is assessed for makkot on one day and then again on a second day they don't get makkot at all; they are considered to have been disgraced through being assessed by beis din alone.
My question is according to this logic wouldn't we never give makkot? We see later that if a person soils themselves the makkot stop since they've been disgraced. If the assessment by itself is enough to disgrace, doesn't that stop the process even before it starts?
Thank you and good shabbos.
Josh
Sholom Rav.
If, as the Gemara says in the very last statement in the Sugya - at the foot of 23a, even soiling himself is only Patur if it occurs due to terror caused by the first stroke, or at least by the sight of the lasher raising the whip, but not if it occurs prior to that, it is obvious that the assessment that took place prior to that will not exempt the sinner.
Be'Virchas Kol Tuv
Eliezer Chrysler
Thank you, but then on what basis does the beraisa exempt him by virtue of being assessed on one day and then again another?
Rav Chrysler, respectfully, in the case of the beraisa no lashes are received at all. The assessment alone is enough to "disgrace him". See the rivan dh veberaita.
Perhaps it's because once he's assessed 40 if his condition deteriorated and he can no longer withstand that amount he's exempt? I'm told there's an aruch laner on it but I've never seen inside.
Thank you!
You are quite right with regard to where the assessment was correct, in which case there is an element of disgrace which exempts him from Makos, as the Rivan explains. On the other hand, it does not exempt him from Makos outright, as he explicitly states.
What emerges from the Rivan is that as long as the assessment was correct, we always rely on it, irrespective of whether he subsequently became stronger (when we do not give him more lashes) or whether he became weaker, where we give him less, or even none, because the initial assessment was valid and he is considered shamed. In any event, it is clear that as long as he is able to receive the fixed amount of Makos, the assessment does not exempt from Makos.
Clearly then, the assessment is not considered an absolute disgrace to exempt him from Makos at all costs, in the way that soiling oneself is, and it must be carried out wherever possible, because, as correctly posited, how could the Torah otherwise obligate Makos?
B'Virchas Kol Tuv,
Eliezer Chrysler
Josh,
I'd like to suggest a Sevara to deal with your excellent question.
The Chiyuv Malkos consists of two components: the Omed and the actual Malkos, both of which have an element of disgrace.
The Rasha is only required to undergo one Omed and one set of Malkos. The Omed of the Mishnah was invalid, yet the disgrace he underwent when he received the Malkos exempts him from having to undergo another Omed.
On the other hand, the Omed of the Beraisa was a valid Omed, and he suffered the accompanying disgrace of that Omed. He therefore cannot be given a second Omed, and by default he is Patur from Malkos.
Avraham Phillips