Study Makkot folio 16B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
The Talmud answers: There, the man who appropriated the collateral is liable to remit monetary payment, and it is only that the lien of the convert on the property has lapsed, as there is no one to receive payment. Therefore, he is not flogged, based on the principle: One is not both flogged and li
The Talmud asks: But isn’t there the case of pe’a, where there is a prohibition, as God states: “You shall not wholly reap the corner of your field” (Leviticus 23:22), followed by the mitzva: “To the poor and the convert you shall leave them” (Leviticus 23:22)?
And you find one liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, as we learned in a baraita: The mitzva of pe’a is to separate it from the
Apparently, it is possible to nullify the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva of leaving pe’a by grinding the grain; why, then, did R' Yoḥanan omit this case from his list of prohibitions rectified by a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? The Talmud answers: R' Yoḥanan holds in accordance wit
Rather, the Talmud retracts its previous understanding of the statement of R' Yoḥanan: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva. The term: This, is in reference to the sending away of the mother bird, and the term: Another, is in reference to