This Week's Article

Karet and Lashes

Chulin (5:1) | Yisrael Bankier | 2 days ago

The fifth perek of Chulin opens by discussing oto ve'et beno -- the prohibition of slaughtering the mother animal and its offspring on the same day. After the Mishnah teaches that the oto ve'et beno can apply to regular animals as well as korbanot, the Mishnah raises different cases where, depending on where the two animals were slaughtered, different punishments would be applied. One case is where both the animals were korbanot and both were slaughtered outside the Beit HaMikdash.

Other than the prohibition of oto ve'et beno, it is also prohibited to slaughter a korban outside the Beit HaMikdash -- a prohibition that is punishable with karet. The Mishnah teaches that for slaughtering the first animal one would be liable to karet. This makes sense as already explained. One however would not be liable to karet for slaughtering the second animal on that day. That is because after the first animal was slaughtered, the second one is not fit to be brought as a korban that day due to the prohibition of oto ve'et beno. Consequently, the prohibition of offering a korban outside would not be violated. The Mishnah continues that one would however be liable to lashes for each of the korbanot that were slaughtered. The first for offering a korban outside, and the second due to oto ve'et beno.

To explain, one would be liable to lashes if they were forewarned against violating a prohibition that is normal punishable with karet. A difficultly raised on this Mishnah is that in Makkot (3:15) we learn that if one received lashes for such a prohibition, then they would not be liable to karet. If that is the case, how then can our Mishnah teach that one would be liable to both karet and lashes for slaughtering the first animal, this korban outside the beit ha'mikdash?

The Tosfot Yom Tov cites the Tosfot who explains that our Mishnah simply argues with the one in Makkot. The Tosfot Yom Tov however cites the Rambam that cites both these rulings. In other words that one exempt from karet if they received lashes as well as the ruling in our Mishnah. He therefore suggests that the Mishnah is discussing two situations. If the person was warned then he is liable to lashes, otherwise it would be karet. One or the other. This is also how the Tifferet Yisrael explains that Mishnah.

The Achiezer (20:6) however cites the Rambam's position (Peirush Mishnayot, Makkot 3) that if one received lashes, they are only exempt from karet if they did teshuva. With this explanation he answers our question. The individual that slaughters the first korban outsides is indeed liable to both lashes and karet until he does teshuva.

The Achiezer however continues that the Rambam in the Mishnah Torah appears to have changed his position from his commentary on the Mishnah. In Hilchot Sanhedrin (17:7) he rules that once he received lashes he would return to his original kashrut and be exempt from karet. There is no mention of teshuva in that halacha. In Hilchot Teshuva (1:1) however he explains that one that is liable to lashes does not achieve a kapara after receiving lashes unless they performed teshuva. How do we explain this apparent contradiction?

The Achiezer therefore differentiates but the sin being wiped away and removing the punishment. They are two separate things. In other words, one how is liable to karet, if they received lashes, whilst the punishment of karet is removed, they sin remains until teshuva is performed.¹

¹ The Chatam Sofer (Chulin 79b) explains our Mishnah in a similar way. However, with respect to the Rambam, the Chatam Sofer (Shut OC 174) explains that there is no contradiction, and it is assumed that he is only exempt from karet with teshuva. He however adds that if he has done teshuva, why then should he still receive malkut? He explains, referring to the arbah chilukei kapara, that for an issur karet, full kapara is only achieved with yissurim. Malkut would satisfy for that.

Download

Calendar