- אלו הן הלוקין (for transgressing a לא תעשה, including those with kares)
The third Perek begins: ואלו הן הלוקין – and these are the ones who receive malkus (Rashi notes that this is not a complete list). The Mishnah proceeds to list relations with relatives which carry the penalty of כרת, and teaches that they incur malkus as well. The Mishnah then lists numerous relations which only receive malkus, and that two sets of malkus would be incurred for relations violating two independent prohibitions. The Mishnah lists numerous other prohibitions of kares, such as someone tamei who ate kodashim meat or entered the Mikdash. It concludes with several prohibitions of eating which receive malkus, such as נבילות, or tevel. The Gemara infers that although our Mishnah holds a kares prohibition incurs malkus, there is no malkus for transgressing חייבי מיתות בית דין – [prohibitions] which carry the death penalty through Beis Din. This is the opinion of Rebbe Akiva, but Rebbe Yishmael says there is even malkus for חייבי מיתות בית דין, as the Gemara will explain. Rebbe Yitzchak holds one does not even receive malkus for a kares violation.
- First explanation of machlokes about מלקות for חייבי מיתות בית דין: כדי רשעתו
Rebbe Yishmael derives that violating any לאו incurs malkus (there are several exceptions, such as לאו הניתק לעשה, because the לאו must be דומיא דלאו דחסימה – similar to the prohibition against muzzling a threshing animal). Rebbe Akiva holds חייבי מיתות בי"ד cannot also receive malkus, because the passuk says "כדי רשעתו" – according to his wickedness, teaching: משום רשעה אחת אתה מחייבו – you can punish him for one wickedness, ואי אתה מחייבו משום שתי רשעיות – but you cannot punish him for two wickednesses for one act. Rebbe Yishmael holds that execution and malkus are מיתה אריכתא היא – like one long death. Rebbe Shmuel bar Yitzchak explains why Rebbe Akiva does not exempt kares from malkus as a second punishment: ברשעה המסורה לבית דין הכתוב מדבר – the passuk (banning double-punishments) is discussing a punishment given to Beis Din to carry out; since kares is not administered by Beis Din, giving malkus is not a “second punishment.” On the next Daf, Ravina explains differently, based on Rebbe Akiva’s words: שאם עשו תשובה ב"ד של מעלה מוחלין להן – that if they repented, the Heavenly court forgives their [kares penalty]. Although this person may not have repented, since he can repent and avoid kares, malkus is not definitively a second punishment.
- Second explanation of machlokes: לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת בי"ד
Rava explains the machlokes differently. If the עדים had warned the transgressor of the מיתה penalty, all agree that since he is executed, he does not additionally receive malkus. They argue in a case דאתרו ביה למלקות – where they only warned him that he would receive malkus, so he cannot be executed. Rebbe Yishmael holds: לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד לוקין עליו – one receives malkus even for a prohibition given to warn about the death penalty, when the death penalty cannot be carried out. Rebbe Akiva holds לאו שניתן לאזהרת מיתת ב"ד אין לוקין עליו, because the לאו was written for the death penalty (because every punishment of Beis Din requires an אזהרה – warning in the Torah), and cannot be used for malkus.
Still, Rebbe Akiva holds that a kares violation would receive malkus, and Rava explained: חייבי כריתות לא צריכי התראה – [sins which incur] kares do not require a warning written in the Torah. This can be proven from the fact that one who fails to do the mitzvah of korban pesach or ברית מילה is liable to kares, despite there being no לאו in the Torah (they are positive commandments). Therefore, the לאו written by the other kares prohibitions can be used to impose malkus.
