The Smicha Controversey

If so, what benefit did the beatings serve, and what is its novelty? We hear the teaching of a Tanna in the Mishnah that they are exempt from their karet through repentance. Yet, isn't it the case that nothing stands in the way of repentance, even for more severe transgressions, such as those involving capital punishment? Repentance is effective in exempting the transgressor from heavenly punishment. The explanation for this is simple, and it is what we uphold daily in the order of the four divisions:

Acts of atonement: One who transgresses karet and capital offenses, repentance, Yom Kippur, suffering, and death penalties await him. Repentance and Yom Kippur provide atonement, suffering purifies, and death penalties cleanse. We have been informed here by the Tanna that the sufferings of beatings imposed by the court alone serve the purpose of purification. If one repents, his sins are atoned for in their entirety, whether the transgression involves any of the mentioned punishments.

(translation by Chat GPT)

'All those liable to karet, who were given lashes, are exempt from karet.' And he will derive it from the verse that says, 'And your brother will be humiliated.' Once he was beaten, he is your brother. This is if they were warned at the time of the transgression to be beaten, and they were beaten afterward by the Beit Din. And if there was no warning, there is no beating by the Beit Din. And if the lashes were not by the court, he is not exempt from karet through those lashes.

Regarding the verse, 'And your brother will be humiliated by the beating,' is through the Beit Din, and so it is written in the Halachot of the Rif, and Nimukei Yosef, and this is his language: 'All those liable to karet, if they were warned regarding lashes because of the Torah prohibition, and were lashed, they are exempt from karet.'

Mahari Beirav

[A sin] which requires lashes due to a lo-taaseh that incurs karet, and also a lo-taaseh that incurs lashes, according to all the sinner cannot be forgiven if he did not do teshuva either before or after the lashes. If he did repent, repentance and Yom Kippur will suspend his sins. Also with a sin liable to karet, if he repented but did not receive lashes, repentance and Yom Kippur will suspend, and affliction (lashes) will absolve as explained in Yoma (above). And perhaps these specific categories of sin are only if one did not receive lashes, but if he did receive lashes he is not forgiven until he receives lashes. And Hashem knows, and this requires more investigation.

Therefore, I say that the great difficulty the Rabbi is heading toward is that he believes that if all the sages of the Land of Israel gather, they can decide to authorize whomever they want. Now, when they make a determination and say, 'On such and such a day is Rosh Chodesh (the New Moon),' or 'On such and such a day is the festival,' it's as if everyone agrees that their sages will be authorized to deal with the matter of sanctifying the new month and establishing the festivals. They can authorize someone for some matters but not for others. Undoubtedly, in such a situation, there is no consensus in all the Land of Israel, neither among the sages nor among the general population. They will not agree that their sages should be authorized in this matter.

However, Rabbi Hillel and his court, who were ordained, instituted and fixed it in the beginning of their institution, according to the accepted calculation, stating that in a particular year, a specific day would be sanctified, and in another year, a different day would be sanctified. This ruling is as if the day itself arrives, and one says, "This day is sanctified." It doesn't matter if they sanctified it earlier than its actual arrival or declared, "On such and such day, it will be sanctified." The Ramban wrote similarly in his critiques on the Rambam

All of this is written in the book Yesod Olam, and it states that on this, the sages and elders agreed, providing us with a great wisdom and tradition that they received from the prophets and the early sages. They established the correct and adjusted calculation, which is now in our hands. I have already written all of this above, and I have returned to its writing a second time to instruct you that it is impossible for this calculation to be nullified until Morah Tzedek comes, and Israel will be united.

And similarly, he [Ramban] wrote in his commentary, may he rest in peace, and according to his interpretation, the proof has been nullified among us because we do not have a competent court to accept testimonies and sanctify based on them. It is their error, according to the opinion of the heretics, not in line with the words of the Rabbi. Up to here is his expression. For whenever the Sanhedrin, according to the opinion of the Rambam, and the ordained scholars, according to the opinion of the Ramban, are reinstated, we are obligated to sanctify based on evidence and their directives. Both verses are interpreted harmoniously: "From this new moon for you..." Mr. [Rambam] holds, "for you and for the standing court are considered as one," and Mr. [Ramban] holds, "for you and for the ordained are considered as one." As long as there were either the Sanhedrin or the ordained scholars, we were obligated to sanctify based on evidence.

translated by Chat GPT