A complex discussion on today’s daf begins with the last lines of yesterday’s, which present the following general principle:
Rabba bar bar Hana says that Rabbi Yohanan says: With regard to any prohibition that has a positive mitzvah that preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation.
Today’s analysis is technical, so please bear with it. Recall that a positive mitzvah is something a person is commanded to do, while a negative mitzvah is something they are commanded not to do. Sometimes, positive and negative mitzvahs come in pairs. For example: Numbers 5:2–3, which we explored yesterday, presents a positive mitzvah to remove those who are impure from the Israelite camp followed by a prohibition against rendering the camp impure. While flogging is the standard punishment for violating a negative mitzvah, such as rendering the camp impure, the rabbis typically assume it can be allayed by following the positive mitzvah — removing the impure people from the camp. However, says Rabbi Yohanan, that is not so: When the positive commandment precedes the negative one in the biblical text, even if the positive mitzvah (in this case, the removal from the camp) is completed, if the negative mitzvah (contamination of the camp) is violated, the punishment (flogging) is administered.
Here’s where things take an interesting turn. Rabbi Yohanan’s ruling is surprising enough that his colleagues question him about it:
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
They said to Rabbi Yohanan: Did you say this halakhah?
Rabbi Yohanan said to them: No.
Rabba bar bar Hana said: By God, he said it, and this halakhah is written in the Torah and we learn it in the mishnah.
When asked directly if he is the source of this statement, Rabbi Yohanan denies having taught it. But Rabba bar bar Hana is adamant and even swears an oath that Rabbi Yohanan is his source.
Interestingly, the Gemara does not choose between the two but takes both rabbis at their word and assumes that Rabba bar bar Hana did indeed learn this principle from Rabbi Yohanan who subsequently changed his mind and stopped teaching it. The Gemara brings us the case that it believes led to Rabbi Yohanan’s change of heart:
Deuteronomy 22:28–29 says that, “If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the party who lay with her shall pay the girl’s father 50 shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife. Because he has violated her, he may not send her away all his days.”
The Torah requires someone who sexually assaults a woman to then marry her, thereby taking responsibility for the financial harm they have done to her in reducing her bride price. In the modern era, in which we expect not just financial justice but also emotional and sexual safety between partners, this is of course deeply troubling. Setting that discussion aside, let’s see how application of this Torah law proves Rabbi Yohanan changed his mind about positive and negative mitzvot and their attendant punishments:
A sexual assaulter who divorced the woman he assaulted, if he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged for violating the prohibition.
If he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her because it is prohibited for him to marry a divorcee.
The fate of an attacker who violates a negative prohibition by divorcing his wife is dependent upon his status. If the attacker was a priest, he is unable to remarry her — because priests are forbidden from marrying divorcees — so in that case he is flogged for violating the negative commandment. If, however, he is a non-priest and remarries the woman, this beraita exempts him from flogging — even though the verses that prohibit him from divorcing her are preceded by the positive commandment to marry her. The general principle taught by Rabbi Yohanan would not afford him the same relief from punishment. In the face of this beraita that contradicts him, Rabbi Yohanan discontinued the teaching of his principlel.
The discussion continues, with Rava suggesting that Rabbi Yohanan may not have needed to stop teaching his principle. Since the verse says, “he may not send her away all his days,” Rabbi Yohanan could have argued the man was allowed to send her away for some of his days. In other words, as long as he remarried her while he still had days yet to live, he could fulfill his requirement and would not be subject to a punishment. In the meantime, although he is temporarily in violation of the verse, it would be premature to flog him until we are certain that he will not remarry her before he dies. By this logic, Rabbi Yohanan’s statement does not contradict the beraita.
The Talmud can become more challenging as it becomes ever more theoretical. There are a stunning number of levels to today’s discussion. On one level, the Gemara explores specific cases — such as the case of someone who renders their encampment impure, or who divorces the woman he was obligated to marry. On another level, there is a more abstract question about twinned positive and negative commandments, and whether fulfilling the positive remedy can cancel the flogging prescribed for violating the negative prohibition. Above that, there is a question about whether Rabbi Yohanan holds a unique view about these twinned mitzvot based upon the order that they appear in the Torah — and whether he ever changed his mind. And even above that, the Gemara asks whether he perhaps should have reasoned differently about changing his mind. Often, the discussion is happening at all these different layers at once, and that is part of what makes Gemara both challenging and rewarding.
Read all of Makkot 15 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on April 23, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
