Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

Sefer HaMitzvot (positive commandment 224) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 594) consider this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

See Chapter 5, Halachah 4.

I.e., the judges must have semichah. The witnesses must have given a warning to the transgressor before he violated the commandment, and the witnesses are thoroughly questioned and cross-examined (Kessef Mishneh). Note the explanation in Halachah 4.

I.e., the matter is not dependent on whether or not the Temple is standing, or whether or not the High Court holds session in the Chamber of Hewn Stone.
This concept is not accepted by all authorities. The Sefer Mitzvot Gadol and the Sefer Yirayim differ and maintain that lashes are administered only during the time the High Court holds session.

I.e., not only in Eretz Yisrael.

For the prooftext cited in the previous verse speaks of “the judge,” i.e., a judge who has been granted semichah. See also the Introduction to the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah which explains the order of the tractates of the Talmud and states that Sanhedrin is followed by Makkot, “for it is not within the province of any man other than the judges to administer punishment and lashes.”

I.e., judges who did not receive semichah. Thus in the present age, lashes are not administered, because there are no longer any judges who have been granted semichah, as explained in Chapter 4.

I.e., judges who have not received semichah.

As reflected by the Rambam’s statements in Chapter 24, Halachot 4-9, all judges have the right to administer punishments that are not mandated by the Torah if they think that it is necessary to do so. One of the punishments that was traditionally given by the Rabbis - even during the time when the judges possessed semichah was “stripes for rebellious conduct.” This punishment is given to individuals who violate a Scriptural commandment without acknowledging a warning, disobey a Rabbinic commandment, fail to fulfill a positive commandment, or perform other undesirable acts. Unlike the lashes administered by Scriptural decree, there are no firm and fast rules governing this Rabbinic punishment.

In a manner similar to the warning issued for transgressions punishable by execution. See Chapter 12, Halachah 2.

See Hilchot Edut 3:2.

To cite an example of a negative commandment that can be corrected by a positive commandment: It is forbidden to take a mother bird while she is sitting on her chicks. Instead, one must first drive the mother bird away and then take the chicks. Even if one transgresses and takes the mother bird together with the chicks, it is possible to correct one’s transgression by fulfilling the positive commandment and sending the mother bird away. If the transgressor in fact corrects his violation, he is not punished by lashes (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., the witnesses administering the warning can never be certain that the violator will receive punishment.

The Kessef Mishneh notes that in Hilchot Sh’vuot 5:2, the Rambam issues an opposite ruling concerning an instance when a warning that is delivered with uncertainty. For example, a person takes an oath dependent on the actions of others, in which instance, the witnesses can never give a warning with certainty, because the others may carry out the actions mentioned in the oath. The Rambam explains the distinction between the two cases as follows. In the instance mentioned in this halachah, the prohibition is explicitly mentioned in the Torah. With regard to Hilchot Sh’vuot, by contrast, there is no such explicit prohibition. The Kessef Mishneh questions the Rambam’s source for making such a distinction.
The Radbaz explains the Rambam’s position as follows: In other cases, when a warning is delivered with uncertainty, the uncertainty involves whether the transgression will be violated or not. In this instance, the transgression will certainly be violated, the question is whether the person will correct the violation or not.

As Leviticus 22:28 states, it is forbidden to sacrifice an animal and its offspring on the same day. That prohibition is punishable by lashes. When, however, the animal(s) are sacrificed to a false divinity, the same act involves a greater transgression. See also Hilchot Shechitah 12:7.

Makkot 13b interprets Deuteronomy 25:2 as teaching that a person is responsible for only one type of punishment for every transgression he performs.

Since he was not given a warning for execution, that punishment cannot be administered. Hence, it is as if he performed an act that was punishable only by lashes.

Which is forbidden by Leviticus 3:17 in contrast to other types of fat that may be eaten.

In which they are forbidden, as stated in Deuteronomy 22:9.

The term zonah refers to a woman who engaged in relations with a person prohibited to her. A priest is forbidden to engage in relations with such a woman, as stated by Leviticus 21:7.

For as Gittin 2b states, the word of one witness is accepted with regard to prohibitions. See also Hilchot Shegagot 3:2.

Whenever there is a contradiction, the testimony of two witnesses is necessary to establish a prohibition.

After his transgression, his denial of the prohibition is of no consequence. If, however, he remains silent originally, but afterwards protests before he transgresses, the protest is of consequence (Kessef Mishneh).

The pillar was two cubits (a little more than a yard) high. Thus the transgressor is required to bend over when receiving the lashes as stated in Halachah 10. See Makkot 22b.

At the collar.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Sotah 1:5). Others translate nifrimu as “bursts at the seams.”

Makkot 23a derives this concept from the fact that directly after mentioning the obligation to give lashes, the Torah mentions the prohibition against muzzling an ox.

Makkot, loc. cit., derives this from Isaiah 1:3: “An ox knows its owner and a donkey, its master’s feeding trough.” Let one who recognizes his master’s feeding trough take retribution from one who does not.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah, the Rambam writes that the person administering the lashes should not be an abuser with sadistic tendencies.

Makkot 23a derives this concept from the exegesis of Deuteronomy 25:2: “He shall strike him before him according to his wickedness with the appropriate number.” Lifanav translated as “before him” can also mean “on his front.” And bimispar, translated as “with the appropriate number” can be interpreted as “with a double number.” Thus the verse can be understood as intimating that the person receives lashes on his front and twice that number elsewhere, i.e., on his back (see Torah Temimah).

Some have explained that this is required for the safety of the person receiving the lashes. The judge must pay attention and make sure that the person receiving the lashes is not endangered. Others explain this as a measure of empathy. Even though the punishment the judge ordained is justified, he must himself see the pain it causes.

For then, the judge would not be able to focus on either of them.
Our translation and explanation follow the standard printed texts of the Mishneh Torah. There are, however, other versions of the text which view this as a separate clause. They read: “‘And he shall strike him’ - This teaches....” According to this version, the concept is derived from the use of a singular form for the object. Significantly, the Sifri derives this concept through a similar process of exegesis, but focuses on a different verse.

Keritot 11a derives this concept from the exegesis of Leviticus 19:20. That verse refers to lashes. One of the words in it, bikoret, can be interpreted as meaning “while reciting.”

The passage begins with the verse the Rambam cites and continues, concluding at Deuteronomy 29:8. In the standard published text of the Talmud, the Mishnah (Makkot 22b) also mentions that the judge should recite the verse (Psalms 78:38): “He, being merciful, pardons sin....” The Rambam does not mention this concept here and it is not included in his version of the Mishnah. (Nor is it present in the version of the Mishnah found in the Jerusalem Talmud.)

By the time he finishes the passage.

Needless to say, he is not liable for intentional murder, for he had no intent to kill him. He is not even liable for exile for unintentional killing. As Makkot 8a explains, from Deuteronomy 19:5, it is evident that a person is liable for exile when he performs an activity that he has the choice to perform or not. Implied is that if he is commanded to perform that activity - as in the present instance - he is not liable if a person dies as a result.

See the first halachot of the following chapter.

Since he is not commanded to administer this blow, the principle stated in the previous halachah does not apply. He is nevertheless only exiled and not judged for capital punishment, because he did not intend to kill the person receiving the lashes. Hence, it is a case of accidental death.

Sefer HaMitzvot (negative commandment 300) and Sefer HaChinuch (mitzvah 495) count this as one of the 613 mitzvot of the Torah.

But not a gentile. Since a servant is obligated to perform some of the mitzvot, he is placed in this category (Hilchot Chovel UMazik 5:3).

A p’rutah is the smallest amount of money that is considered significant. The court will not deal with any smaller amount of funds (see Hilchot Gezeilah 7:3; Hilchot Toen ViNitan 3:6). Hence if the damages are not worth that amount, there is no financial penalty and the offender receives lashes instead.

Of the two penalties, Ketubot 32b states that he should be required to make financial restitution rather than receive lashes. This concept is derived from the exegesis of Leviticus 24:19 which uses the term yinatein, meaning “be given.” Implied is that the punishment involves “something given from hand to hand,” i.e., money. This concept applies not only in this instance, but in every case where a person is liable for both lashes and financial payment for the same act.
This is a Scriptural decree. Even if the victim states: “I don’t desire financial reimbursement. I want to see him receive lashes,” the offender must make financial reimbursement and is not lashed (Radbaz).

Hilchot Na’arah Betulah 1:11; Hilchot Chovel UMazik 4:9.