Study Makkot folio 15B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
מידי הוא טעמא אלא לרבי יוחנן? האמר ליה רבי יוחנן לתנא, תני: בטלו – חייב, ולא בטלו – פטור.
The Talmud answers: The only reason Rava stated his explanation, that all his days he is obligated to arise and remarry her and that is why the rapist is not flogged even though it is a prohibition preceded by a positive mitzva, is to explain the opinion of R' Yoḥanan, who said that for any prohibition that has a positive mitzva which preceded it, everyone agrees that one is flogged for its violation. Didn’t R' Yoḥanan say to the tanna who would recite the mishnayot and baraitot in the study hall: Teach that if he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes? According to R' Yoḥanan, it works out well.
דתני תנא קמיה דרבי יוחנן: כל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה, קיים עשה שבה – פטור, ביטל עשה שבה – חייב.
What is the dispute to which the Talmud is alluding? The tanna taught a baraita before R' Yoḥanan: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, if he fulfilled the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is exempt from lashes, and if he nullified the positive mitzva that is entailed therein, he is liable to receive lashes.
אמר ליה: מאי קא אמרת? קיים – פטור, לא קיים – חייב, ביטל – חייב, לא ביטל – פטור! תני: ביטלו ולא ביטלו. ורבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר: קיימו ולא קיימו.
R' Yoḥanan said to the tanna: What is it that you are saying? The baraita that you recited is self-contradictory, as based on the first clause: If he fulfilled the mitzva he is exempt, apparently, if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable. Yet based on the latter clause: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable, apparently, if he did not nullify the mitzva he is exempt, even though he failed to fulfill the mitzva. Rather, teach: If he nullified the mitzva, he is liable to receive lashes, and if he did not nullify the mitzva, he is exempt from lashes. And R' Shimon ben Lakish says: The formulation of the baraita must be consistent; therefore, teach: If he fulfilled the mitzva, he is exempt, and if he did not fulfill the mitzva he is liable.