Page 183 - Tzurba M'Rabanan Volume1

ןנברמ אברוצ שארה תואפ תוכלה · 181

the nikaf . when his violation is accompanied by an action,
2. Since the phrase ופקת אל is written in the such as removing his own hair (Rava) or assisting
plural, the implication is that it is addressed the makif by proffering his hair (Rav Ashi). This
to two parties, the makif and the nikaf. position is also reflected in Tosafot. 3
There is a general dispute between Rabbi Yehu- A rigorous analysis of the opinion of the Ram-
da and chachamim about the degree of activity bam, however, reveals an entirely different under-
on the part of the violator required in order to standing of this Talmudic passage. The Rambam
administer the punishment of lashes (malkot). (Hilchot Avoda Zara 12:1) codifies the Talmud as
Rabbi Yehuda believes that even one who vio- follows:
lates a negative commandment passively receives ־ תהו תחא תבב וליפא ויעדצ ינש חלגמה ךכיפל
malkot, while the chachamim hold that only one דבלב תואפה חלגמה דחא ,םיתש הקול תחא האר
who actively violates a negative commandment שארה לכ חלגמה דחאו שארה לכ רעיש חינמו
receives malkot. םירבד המב ,תואפה חליגו ליאוה הקול דחאכ
Despite the relative passivity of the nikaf, he וניא חלגתמה שיא לבא חלגמה שיאב םירומא
still receives malkot in violation of ופקת אל, in ac- .חלגמל עייס ןכ םא אלא הקול
cordance with one of the three explanations of
the Talmud: “Therefore one who shaves off the two sides
of his head, even if done simultaneously with
1. One can be lashed for violating a but one warning, receives two sets of lashes, re-
commandment even if no action is taken gardless of whether one removed just the cor-
(Rabbi Yehuda); ners of the head and left the rest of the hair
2. If one removes his own תואפ, he has indeed intact or shaved the entire head. This applies
taken an action and is therefore lashed twice to the one who shaved the hair, but the one
even according to the chachamim, once for whose hair is shaved does not receive lashes
violating the lav of makif and once for violat- unless he assisted the one who shaved.”
ing the lav of nikaf (Rava); A cursory reading of this Rambam does not re-
3. The nikaf is assisting the makif (by proffer- veal anything anomalous about his position; he
ing the hair of his תואפ to the makif) and seems merely to be codifying the opinion of Rav
this constitutes an action such that he can be Ashi that the nikaf receives lashes only when he
lashed even according to chachamim (Rav assists the makif. The Ra’avad’s objection, though,
Ashi). implies otherwise:
It clearly emerges from Rashi’s explanation of רבוע השע ותעדמש ןויכ הקול וניאש יפ לע ףא
this passage that our initial assumption, that the .ואלב
lav of ופקת אל applies only to the makif is incor-
rect. Rather, ופקת אל applies both to the makif “Even though (the nikaf) does not receive
and the nikaf such that even the passive nikaf has lashes, since he was aware of (the makif’s) ac-
violated the commandment. Whether or not the tion, he violates a lav.”
nikaf is lashed is dependent upon the dispute be- The Ra’avad emphasizes that the nikaf violates a
tween Rabbi Yehuda and chachamim. According lav even when he takes no action, implying that
to Rabbi Yehuda, the nikaf is always lashed; ac- he understood that the Rambam would not agree
cording to chachamim, the nikaf is only lashed

3. Bava Metzia 10b, s.v. Akfi

This volume is not to be distributed. Copies are for the personal use of purchaser only.