Rambam - 1 Chapter a Day

I.e., the court makes an estimation how many lashes he personally can bear as the Rambam continues to explain.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Makkot 3:12, according to Rav Kappach’s translation in contrast to the version of the standard text), the Rambam explains that this wording indicates that an individual assessment should be made for each person.

Sanhedrin 10b states: “The Torah says (Deuteronomy 25:3): ‘And your brother will be humiliated before your eyes.’ [Implied is that] even after he is lashed [and ‘humiliated’], ‘your brother’ will remain alive ‘before your eyes.’”

Makkot 22a. The Rambam’s wording indicates that the reduction of the number of lashes to 39 is a Rabbinic decree. According to Scriptural Law, according to this understanding, a person capable of bearing the full measure of 40 lashes would be given that amount, our Rabbis, however, reduced that number. This interpretation is strengthened by the continuation of that passage (ibid.b) which states: “How foolish are people? They rise before a Torah scroll, but do not rise before a sage of stature. For the Torah states: ‘Strike him 40 [times],’ and our Sages came and reduced the number by one.” This quote indicates that the Sages made the reduction on their own initiative.
The commentaries, however, question that interpretation, noting that the Sages (Makkot, ibid.) base their ordinance on the phrase: “by number 40...” which they interpret to mean: “a number close to 40.” [Had the verse stated “40 by number,” the implication would have been exactly 40. The reverse order leaves the matter open to interpretation.] The implication is that the reduction is mandated by Scriptural decree.
The Radbaz explains that, according to the Rambam, the Sages are explaining the rationale for the Torah’s ruling. The Kessef Mishneh explains that the exegesis is merely an asmachta, i.e., an allusion created by the Sages, but the ordinance is their own. Alternatively, the intent is that the Rambam refers to any concept derived through the principles of exegesis as midivrei sofrim, “from the words of the Sages,” even though concepts derived in that manner have the strength of Scriptural decree, as explained with regard to the consecration of a woman through a gift of money (see Hilchot Ishut 1:1 and commentaries).

For this reason, if the person is given a fortieth blow and dies, the attendant is not exiled (see the conclusion of the previous chapter), for he did not give him more than he was originally ordained to receive by the Torah (Radbaz).

This is one of the reasons why, as stated in Chapter 2, Halachah 1, it is desirable for the judges to have a certain amount of medical knowledge (Radbaz in his gloss to that halachah).

For lashes are administered in sets of three, one on his front and one on each of his shoulders, as stated in Chapter 16, Halachah 9.

For the extra lash might endanger his life.

In all cases, the number is rounded off to the lower figure, lest giving him the greater number of lashes endanger his life.

I.e., 39.

In this instance, as well, the additional lashes endanger his life. Moreover, we do not say that he should be given time for his wounds to heal and then be given the remainder of the lashes. Instead, he is released entirely.

Once he has already been humiliated by being lashed, his sin is atoned. There is no need for a second estimation and lashing (Makkot 22b).

Even if he was not lashed at all, since he was judged to be lashed on that day, that judgment is binding (Makkot, ibid.). This explanation follows the Kessef Mishneh’s understanding of the way the Rambam interprets that passage. Other commentaries differ with the Rambam and offer alternative explanations.

Hence it is implicit that if his physical state changes, the ruling should also be adjusted. Needless to say, this ruling also applies if he becomes weaker and fewer lashes must be administered.

E.g., he ate non-kosher meat and shaved his beard. Alternatively, he shaved his beard several times.

E.g., he plowed a field with a donkey and ox together in the Sabbatical year.

But instead, they considered each transgression individually.

The commentaries note that the Rambam changes the wording of his source, Makkot 22b which speaks of 42 lashes. Significantly, in his Commentary to the Mishnah (Makkot 3:12), the Rambam follows the wording of that source.
Among the explanations offered is that the Rambam does not accept that number, because he maintains that according to Scriptural Law, a person is obligated to receive 40 lashes for a transgression; it is only Rabbinic decree that caused the number to be reduced to 39 (see the notes to Halachah 1). Therefore when 40 is deducted from 42, only 2 are left. Now two lashes cannot be divided in groups of 3. Hence no additional lashes would be given him. Similarly, with regard to 43 and 44, since they cannot be divided into groups of three, they could not be the number of lashes the Sages intended. Instead, the lowest number which allows for a set of three above 40 and is itself divisible by three is 45 (Or Sameach).

I.e., not only two, but as many sets of lashes for which he is obligated.

I.e., the shame he feels at losing control of his excretory functions in public is sufficient for him to receive atonement.

I.e., we do not say that since he lost control of his faculties because of weakness, he will certainly not be able to bear the lashes. Instead, we give him the amount of lashes it was estimated that he could bear (Radbaz).

The verse cited states: “And he shall be beaten... and your brother shall be degraded....” Implied is that only when the degradation comes about because of the beating itself is he absolved (Makkot 23a). The Radbaz explains the rationale for this concept. There are certain people who cannot control themselves because of fright. That, however, is not proof that they are unable to bear the pain of lashes.

As explained in the previous halachah.

He is not given any further lashes. Even though one might think that he would be absolved for only one transgression, since the two were combined together, once he is discomfited, he is absolved for both.

For by being lashed, he has already been publicly disgraced. If Divine Providence saw to it that the lash became severed, we assume that he has already received sufficient punishment.

In this instance, we do not say that both sets of lashes are considered as a single unit.

See Chapter 16, Halachah 8.

For his fleeing in disgrace and fear is sufficient degradation to atone for his transgression. Even though the lashing had not started before he fled, he is absolved entirely. The fact that he fled is shameful enough to absolve him.

The commentaries question what is the “state of acceptability” to which the Rambam is referring. It would appear that the intent is that the person is now considered as acceptable as a witness or to take an oath. There is, however, a question if repentance is also required for him to become acceptable for these matters. See Hilchot Edut 12:4 and notes.

On the above verse, the Sifri comments: “Throughout the entire day, [the Torah] calls him ‘the wicked one.’ After he is lashed, he is called ‘your brother.’”

Premature death in this world and the soul being "cut off' in the world to come, as stated in Hilchot Teshuvah 8:2.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Makkot 3:16), the Rambam writes: “Lashes and repentance atone for [a sin punishable by] kerait.

We do not say that as a measure of respect for his position, he should be judged by a court of 23 judges. For if he is held liable, he will be lashed in their presence and this will be a public dishonor [Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 2:1)].

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) explains that this comes as a result of the holiness with which the High Priest is endowed. It is a microcosm of God’s holiness and hence, like His holiness cannot be nullified.

The nasi (see Chapter 1, Halachah 3).

The Jerusalem Talmud (loc. cit.) suggests that this is because he will take revenge and kill the judges who ordered his punishment. The Kessef Mishneh advances a different version of that text which states that they will be killing him, i.e., the shame of having to stand before the judges who humiliated him will be too great.
The Radbaz (Responsum 2001) cites one of the Rambam’s responsa which states that a judge from the Sanhedrin is never removed from his position unless he violates a prohibition in public. The Radbaz, however, explains that for a nasi, any transgression is equivalent to a transgression in public.

Hence he should not be given the lesser position. This principle applies, not only in this context, but in others. See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 3:16, Hilchot Klei HaMikdash 4:21.