When there is a dispute between two parties and they go to law, and a decision is rendered declaring the one in the right and the other in the wrong—

if the guilty one is to be flogged, the magistrate shall have the person lie down and shall supervise the giving of lashes, by count, as warranted by the offense.

The guilty one may be given up to forty lashes, but not more, lest being flogged further, to excess, your peer be degraded before your eyes.

A person sometimes unknowingly passes judgment on himself [by being asked to select a fitting punishment for someone else].

And God created humankind in the divine image,creating it in the image of God—creating them male and female.

One who strikes another must give him a sela. Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that he must give him one hundred dinars. If he slapped another on the cheek, he must give him two hundred dinars. If he slapped him on the cheek with the back of his hand, which is more degrading than a slap with the palm, he must give him four hundred dinars. If he pulled his ear, or pulled out his hair, or spat at him and his spittle reached him, or if he removed the other’s cloak from him, or if he uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace, in all of these cases, he must give the injured party four hundred dinars. This is the principle of assessing payment for humiliation caused to another: It is all evaluated in accordance with the honor of the one who was humiliated, as the Gemara will explain. Rabbi Akiva said: Even with regard to the poor among the Jewish people, they are viewed as though they were freemen who lost their property and were impoverished. And their humiliation is calculated according to this status, as they are the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are all of prominent lineage. The mishna relates: And an incident occurred involving one who uncovered the head of a woman in the marketplace, and the woman came before Rabbi Akiva to request that he render the assailant liable to pay for the humiliation that she suffered, and Rabbi Akiva rendered the assailant liable to give her four hundred dinars. The man said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, give me time to pay the penalty, and Rabbi Akiva gave him time. The man then waited for her until she was standing by the opening of her courtyard, and he broke a jug in front of her, and there was the value of about an issar of oil inside the jug. The woman then exposed her own head and she was wetting [metapaḥat] her hand in the oil, and placing her hand on her head to make use of the oil. The man set up witnesses to observe her actions, and he came before Rabbi Akiva, and he said to him: Will I give four hundred dinars to this woman for having uncovered her head? By uncovering her head for a minimal benefit, she has demonstrated that this does not cause her humiliation. Rabbi Akiva said to him: You did not say anything, i.e., this claim will not exempt you. One who injures himself, although it is not permitted for him to do so, is nevertheless exempt from any sort of penalty, but others who injured him are liable to pay him. In this case as well, the man was liable to compensate the woman for shaming her, despite the fact that she did the same to herself. Similarly, one who cuts down his own saplings, although it is not permitted for him to do so, as this violates the prohibition of: “You shall not destroy” (see Deuteronomy 20:19), is exempt from any penalty, but others who cut down his saplings are liable to pay him.

(25) But if the man comes upon the engaged girl in the open country, and the man lies with her by force, only the party who lay with her shall die,

but you shall do nothing to the girl. The girl did not incur the death penalty, for this case is like that of one party attacking and murdering another.

One assesses the number of lashes that the one being punished is capable of withstanding only with a number of lashes fit to be divided into three equal groups. If the assessment was that he can survive twenty lashes, he is flogged with eighteen. Likewise, if doctors assessed concerning him that he is able to receive forty lashes and survive, and he is then flogged some of those forty lashes, and then they assessed him again and concluded that he cannot receive forty lashes and survive, he is exempt from the additional lashes. If the doctors initially assessed concerning him that he is able to receive only eighteen lashes, and once he was flogged eighteen times they assessed that he is able to receive forty, he is exempt from receiving additional lashes. If one performed a transgression that involves two prohibitions, and they assessed concerning him a single assessment of the number of lashes that he could withstand in punishment for both transgressions, he is flogged in accordance with their assessment and is exempt from any additional lashes. And if not, if he was assessed with regard to the lashes that he could withstand for one transgression, he is flogged and is allowed to heal, and then is flogged again for violating the second prohibition.

The many restrictions on admissible evidence and procedural handling of witnesses that flow from the attempt to arrive at absolute justice create the potential for abuse by various types of transgressors, who could use utilize these restrictions to escape justice and thereby undermine the very foundations of society and the economy. In order to prevent a situation of anarchy, the courts made widespread use of the administrative authority granted them by the verse: “You shall remove the evil from your midst” (e.g., Deuteronomy 13:6). On the basis of this authority the court has the power to impose significant punishments, including monetary fines and the confiscation of property, lashes, and even the death penalty, in order to maintain law and order and to force evildoers into submission. In addition, the courts at times waived some of the strict requirements of admissible evidence in relation to various monetary matters, in order to enable the lawful and orderly functioning of the economy.

[Compensation for] a broken bone [in exchange] for a broken bone, [compen-sation for] the loss of an eye [in exchange] for the loss of an eye, [compensation for] the loss to a tooth [in exchange] for the loss of a tooth; just as he maimed the man, so shall it be done to him [monetarily].

In the first chapter of Makkot (7a), we learn [in the Mishnah]: A High Court [Sanhedrin] that executes [someone] once in seven years is called destructive. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says, "Once in seventy years." Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, "If we had been in the court, no person would have ever been executed." And this is as we said — that since it issues the death penalty once in seven years, something that happens once in seven years, which is a continuous cycle, is not called uncommon. Rather, it is called common and is not an incidental thing. And that is why it is called destructive. Whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says, "Once in seventy years." And in the Gemara (7a), it is asked whether the meaning is that [if it is] once in seventy years, it is called destructive. For anything that happens once in a person's life, which is seventy years, such that they would execute [someone] in each generation, is called common, such that they are destructive. Or is it that it is appropriate to execute [someone] once in seventy years. Otherwise, it will not be said that they are a court at all, since they clearly do not issue the death penalty. And the Gemara leaves this unresolved. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say, "If we had been in the court, no person would have ever been executed," as they would have argued the defense to so great an extent, as it is explained there. But about this, they answered them, "You would increase the number of murderers," when they would see that everyone was judged as innocent, such that they would not have any fear of the court at all when there would not be a single conviction. And it is worthwhile to bring all these things near to oneself with both hands; they are words of truth and righteousness.

§ With regard to repentance, the Gemara asks: What are the circumstances that demonstrate that one has completely repented? Rav Yehuda said: For example, the prohibited matter came to his hand a first time and a second time, and he was saved from it, thereby proving that he has completely repented. Rav Yehuda demonstrated what he meant: If one has the opportunity to sin with the same woman he sinned with previously, at the same time and the same place, and everything is aligned as it was that first time when he sinned, but this time he overcomes his inclination, it proves his repentance is complete, and he is forgiven.