How is it possible for a quarrel between two people to lead to Malkos?
Why does the Torah iinsert the (otherwise superfluous) word "ha'Rasha"?
Sanhedrin, 33b: To teach us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha" "Rasha" from Chayvei Misah, that just as it is a Mitzvah to try and save the defendant from Misah, so too is it a Mitzvah to save him from Malkos. 1
Makos, 5a: To teach us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Rasha" "Rasha" from Chayvei Misah, that just as there is no such thing as partial Misah, so too, is there sno such thing as partial Malkos, and that therefore - as opposed to Mamon, which is divided equally among the Eidim - each of the Eidim Zom'min, must receive the full thirty-nine Malkos. 2
What are the implications of "Vehipilo ha'Shofet ... "?
Rashi and Targum Yonasan: It implies that one receives Malkos, (neither standing nor sitting, but) bending over the Amud. 1
Seforno: It implies that Beis-Din stretch him over the stand.
Targum Onkelos: It implies that Beis-Din cast him down.
Makos, 23a: It teaches us - since the Torah did not write 'Veyateihu' - that the strap should bee doubled and doubled again. 2
Why does the Torah insert the word "Vehikahu Lefanav K'dei Resha'im be'Mispar"?
Rashi: In order to extrapolate 'in front, according to his evil, and behind, double' 1 - one third (thirteen Malkos) in front and two-thirds (twenty-six) between the shoulder-blades. 2
Sifri: The Torah writes "Vehikahu Lefanav" and not 'Vehipilo Lefanav' to teach us that the Shali'ach Beis-Din who strikes the sinner must keep his eyes on him for the duration of the Malkos. 3
What are the implicatons of the (otherwise superfluous) words "K'dei Rish'aso"?
Makos, 4b: It implies that a person can only receive one punishment. Consequently, whenever a person is Chayav Mamon he cannot be Chayav Malkos as well. 1
Refer to 25:2:3:1.
Oznayim la'Torah: "K'dei Rish'aso" hints at the Pesukim that one of the Dayanim recite - "Im Lo Sishmor ... Vehiflah Hashem es Makoscha", "be'Mispar" at the Dayan who counts the lashes and "Arba'im Yakenu" - in the following Pasuk - at the Dayan who shouts 'Strike!'
See Torah Temimah, note 16.
Why does the Torah write "be'Mispar" and not "ba'Mispar"?
Rashi: In order to read it Samuch [next] to "Arba'im", and to Darshen 'be'Mispar Arba'im' - the number leading to forty (thirty-nine). 1
See Sifsei Chachamim and Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates.
What is the significance of the forty Malkos?
Ramban (citing the Tanchuma): Since he transgressed a command in the Torah that was given in forty days, thereby causing death to himself, who was formed in forty days, he receives forty lashes as a punishment.
Rosh: They correspond to the forty curses that Adam, Chavah, the snake and the land received [after the sin of Eitz ha'Da'as] - ten each.
If the sinner deserves forty Malkos, why does the Torah detract one?
Targum Yonasan: Because more than thirty-nine constitutes life-danger. 1
Rosh: Because the number of Malkos must be divisible by three (to allow one third in front and two, at the back). 2
Gur Aryeh: Because Hashem in His mercy detracts a little from the punishment. Whilst delivering the Malkos, they recite "ve'Hu Rachum? ve'Lo Ya'ir Kol Chamaso" (Tehilim, 78:38).
Oznayim la'Torah #1: In order to avoid the Shali'ach Beis-Din erroneously adding one too many, thereby transgressing "Lo Yosif", causing the sinner to die and having to flee to the Ir Miklat.
Oznayim la'Torah #2 (citing Yesh Omrim): To enable him to merit the 'Tal - gematriyah thirty-nine - shel Techiyah' (the dew with which Hashem will revive the dead when the time arrives).
Nosei K'lei Yonasan: The Torah assessed that an average person cannot endure more than thirty-nine. (This is a big Chidush. Surely the number of Malkos one can endure varies from person to person! Beis Din evaluates each person individually! There are sins for which one is liable two or more sets of Malkos. He must say that this is only for exceptional people! (PF)
The Torah could have left the obligation to be forty, and indeed, one would receive thirty-nine for one La'av, but one who deserves three sets of Malkos, a hundred and twenty (PF). This sounds like a Chelm joke - thirty-nine for one, a hundred and twenty for three! In any event, if "Arba'im" is La'av Davka for one regular set of Malkos, why would we even think that it is Davka for three sets, which the Torah does not discuss?
How will we reconcile the current Pasuk which rules that Eidim Zom'min are subject to Malkos (Makos, 2b). with the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim, 19:19, where the Torah rules that they receive the same punishment as they planned to mete out to the defendant or to the litigant?
Ramban #1 (in Pasuk 1, citing Makos, 2b): Because the Torah is referring to Eidim Zom'min who testified that Shimon is an Eved, a Mamzer or a ben Gerushah (a Pasul Kohen), on whom it is impossible to carry out 'Ka'asher Zamam.' 1
Ramban #2 (in Pasuk 1): Eidim Zomemin testified that Shimon transgressed a La'av (for which one receives Malkos).
Makos, 2a & 2b: Because their testimony would have affected also Shimon's wife and children. Consequently, since the Torah said to punish only the witnesses but not their families, it is not posssible to punish them just like they plotted - without punishing also their families. See also Oznayim la'Torah who adds three more cases where 'Ka'asher Zamam' is not applicable and who will therefore receive Malkos and who elaborates in general.
