because

<<it is

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action,

<<and any

<<prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<they do not

<<flog

<<for it.

<<Reish Lakish

<<says:

<<he is not

<<flogged,

<<because

<<it is

<<a doubtful warning,

<<and any

<<doubtful warning

<<is not

<<called

<<a warning.

And both of them

<<are according to

<<Rabbi Yehuda.

<<As it is taught:

<<‘and you shall not

<<leave over

<<of it

<<until

<<morning,

<<and what is left over

<<of it

<<until

<<morning’

<<and so on —

<<came

<<the verse

<<to give

<<a positive commandment

<<after

<<a prohibition,

<<to say

<<that they do not

<<flog

<<for it —

<<the words of

<<Rabbi Yehuda.

<<Rabbi Yochanan

<<infers

<<thus:

<<the reason is

<<that came

<<the verse;

<<but had

<<not

<<come

<<the verse,

<<he would be flogged —

<<apparently:

<<a doubtful warning

<<is called

<<a warning.

And Reish Lakish

<<infers

<<thus:

<<the reason is

<<that came

<<the verse;

<<but had

<<not

<<come

<<the verse,

<<he would be flogged —

<<apparently:

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action —

<<they flog

<<for it.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

<<too —

<<but this

<<certainly

<<a doubtful warning

<<is!

He holds it

<<like the other

<<tanna

<<of Rabbi Yehuda.

<<As it is taught:

<<[if] he struck

<<this one

<<and then

<<struck

<<that one,

<<cursed

<<this one

<<and then

<<cursed

<<that one,

<<struck

<<both of them

<<at once,

<<or

<<cursed

<<both of them

<<at once —

<<he is liable.

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<at once —

<<liable;

<<one after another —

<<exempt.

And Rabbi Yochanan

<<too —

<<but this

<<certainly

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action

<<is!

He holds it

<<like

<<this [statement]

<<that Rav Idi bar Avin said in the name of Rav Amram in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak in the name of Rabbi Yochanan:

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says

<<in the name of

<<Rabbi Yosei HaGelili:

<<every

<<prohibition

<<in the Torah —

<<a prohibition

<<that has

<<in it

<<action,

<<they flog

<<for it;

<<a prohibition

<<that has no

<<in it

<<action,

<<they do not

<<flog

<<for it —

<<except

<<for

<<one who swears [falsely],

<<and one who substitutes [an offering],

<<and one who curses

<<his fellow

<<with the Name.

There is a contradiction

<<of Rabbi Yehuda

<<against Rabbi Yehuda!

Whether

<<according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish —

<<two

<<tanna'im

<<according to

<<Rabbi Yehuda;

<<or

<<according to Rabbi Yochanan —

<<it is not a difficulty:

<<this

<<is his own [view],

<<this

<<is his teacher's.

We learned

<<there:

<<one who takes

<<the mother

<<with

<<the young —

<<Rabbi Yehuda

<<says:

<<he is flogged

<<and does not

<<send [her] away.

<<And the Sages

<<say:

<<he sends [her] away

<<and is not

<<flogged.

<<This is

<<the rule:

<<any

<<commandment

<<of a prohibition

<<that has

<<in it

<<‘arise and act’ —

<<they are not

<<liable

<<for it.

<<Rabbi Yochanan said:

<<we have nothing

<<but

<<this

<<and one

<<other.

Said

<<to him

<<Rabbi Elazar:

<<where?

<<He said

<<to him:

<<go and find it.

<<He went out,

<<examined

<<and found it,

<<as it is taught:

<<a rapist

<<who divorced [her] —

<<if

<<a Jew

<<he is,

<<he takes her back

<<and is not

<<flogged;

<<and if

<<a kohen

<<he is,

<<he is flogged

<<and does not

<<take her back.

This works well

<<according to the one who teaches

<<‘he fulfilled it

<<or did not

<<fulfill it.’

But

<<according to the one who teaches

<<‘he nullified it

<<or did not

<<nullify it’ —

<<granted,

<<regarding

<<sending away the nest

<<you can find it;

<<but

<<a rapist —

<<‘he nullified it

<<or did not

<<nullify it’ —

<<how

<<can you find it?

If

<<he killed her,

<<he is subject to

<<the greater [penalty]

<<than it!

<<Rav Shimi of Mechoza said:

<<such as

<<where he accepted

<<for her

<<betrothal

<<from another.

<<Rav said:

<<if

<<she made him

<<an agent,

<<she

<<is the one nullifying

<<it;

<<if

<<not

<<she made him

<<an agent,

<<does anything depend on him?

<<It is nothing!

Rather,

<<Rav Shimi of Nehardea said:

<<such as

<<where he made her vow

<<in public.

<<This works well

<<according to the one who says

<<a vow

<<that was vowed

<<in public

<<has no

<<for it

<<annulment;

<<but

<<according to the one who says

<<there is

<<for it

<<annulment,

<<what

<<is there

<<to say?

<<(That he made her vow)

<<[Such as where he made her vow]

<<with the consent of

<<the public.

<<For Ameimar said:

<<the halacha is:

<<a vow

<<that was vowed

<<in public

<<has

<<for it

<<annulment;

<<with the consent of

<<the public,

<<there is no

<<for it

<<annulment.

And there are no more?

<<But

<<there is

<<(Mnemonic:

<<robbery,

<<collateral,

<<and pe'ah.)

<<Robbery,

<<for the Merciful One

<<said

<<‘you shall not

<<rob,’

<<‘and he shall return

<<the stolen item.’

<<Collateral,

<<for the Merciful One

<<said

<<‘you shall not

<<enter

<<into

<<his house

<<to take

<<his collateral,’

<<‘you shall surely return

<<to him

<<the collateral

<<when comes

<<the sun [down].’

and you can find it

<<with ‘he fulfilled it

<<or did not

<<fulfill it’

<<and ‘he nullified it

<<or did not

<<nullify it’!

<<There,

<<since

<<he is liable

<<for payment,

<<one is not

<<flogged

<<and pays.

Objected to it

<<Rabbi Zeira:

<<but

<<there is

<<the collateral

<<of

<<a convert,

<<and died

<<the convert!