Study Sanhedrin folio 63B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
to say that one is not flogged for transgressing the prohibition, as any prohibition that can be rectified by the performance of a positive mitzva does not carry a punishment of lashes. This is the statement of R' Yehuda.
R' Ya’akov says: This is not for that reason. Rather, it is because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. The transgression is simply the failure to consume all the meat during the allotted time rather than the performance of an action. And one is not flogged for the violation of an
The Talmud concludes: By inference, R' Yehuda holds that in general, one is flogged for the violation of a prohibition that does not involve an action. It can therefore be inferred that one who vows or takes an oath in the name of an idol is liable to be flogged according to R' Yehuda’s opinion, eve
§ The Mishnah teaches with regard to one who vows in the name of an idol and one who affirms his statement by an oath in its name, that this person is in transgression of a prohibition. The Talmud asks: From where do we derive that one who vows in the name of an idol and one who affirms his statem
The Talmud answers: As it is taught in a baraita that the meaning of the verse: “And make no mention of the name of the other gods, neither let it be heard out of your mouth” (Exodus 23:13), is that a person may not say to another: Wait for me next to such and such an object of idol worship. The m