action
flogging
מכה · מכות · מלקות · לקה
Bottom line
Makkah is a blow, and from there a wound and a plague; the plural makkot is the Torah's own word for judicial lashes. Malkut is the Mishnaic word for the same punishment, flogging, which the linguist Avraham Even-Shoshan derives from the Aramaic root ל-ק-ה. On Even-Shoshan's account the two mean essentially the same thing in different languages, and the column posits from this that the masechta simply carries a Hebrew name and an Aramaic one. Two other authorities do read a real difference of scope into the pair, in opposite directions; and in any case makkeh is the one who strikes and lokeh the one struck (Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur). Do not render lakah "hit" everywhere; the Tiferes Yisrael holds it can mean impaired rather than struck.
At a glance
| Hebrew | translit | English | what sets it apart |
|---|---|---|---|
| מכה | makkah | blow, wound, plague | Hebrew, active, the striking and its result (Ibn Janach, Radak) |
| מכות | makkot | lashes | the Torah's verb for flogging; rabbinic makkos mardus on one view (Taieb) |
| מלקות | malkut | flogging | Mishnaic, from Aramaic on Even-Shoshan's derivation; Torah-ordained lashes on one view (Taieb) |
| לקה | lakah | be struck, be impaired | passive (HaBachur), and broader than striking (Tiferes Yisrael) |
Where the authorities disagree
Which of the two is the wider word. Three readings, the first two opposed and both prompted by the question of why the masechta is called Makkos, the third denying that there is a difference at all.
- Makkot is the narrower, so the better name. Tiferes Yisrael (Rabbi Yisrael Lipschutz): lakah is not specifically "hit" but a general word for breaking, damaging, or rendering defective, hitting being only one way to produce that. An eclipse is the luminary being lokeh (Sukkah 29a), and black blood is red blood that was lakah (Sukkah 33b). Makkot is therefore the more precise title.
- Makkot is the wider, so the better name. Rabbi Elazar Rokeach of Amsterdam (Maaseh Rokeach): malkut is only physical striking, while makkot covers any painful ordeal. The masechta treats not only flogging but galus, so Makkos is the name that takes in both punishments.
- The two are one word in two languages. Avraham Even-Shoshan, in his dictionary: malkut and makkot essentially mean the same thing, only in Aramaic and in Hebrew respectively. No difference of scope at all.
The Bottom line follows the Tiferes Yisrael on lakah itself, whose eclipse and blood cases are decisive for the word's range; neither of the first two views becomes a translation rule, since both agree the masechta's subject is flogging.
Which term belongs to Torah lashes and which to rabbinic. Rabbi Shmuel Taieb (Shemen Tov): the Gemara commonly uses malkut for lashes ordained by the Torah and makkot for rabbinic ones, as in makkos mardus, lashes of rebellion. On his account the masechta, which treats Biblical lashes, "should" have been called Malkus, which is the question Rabbi Naftali HaKohen Katz answers.
Why the name is Makkos. Rabbi Naftali HaKohen Katz (Semichas Chachamim), two answers: the name follows the Torah's own language, since cognates of makkah occur five times in the flogging passage (Devarim 25:2-3) and malkut nowhere in Tanach; and מכות has the letters of כמות, "like death," alluding to the principle that flogging is in some respects a lesser death (Sanhedrin 10a). Simpler still, the column proposes: in light of HaBachur's and Even-Shoshan's understanding "we may posit" that the masechta has a Hebrew name and an Aramaic one, as Beitzah is also Bei'ah, and many Hungarian and chassidishe Jews indeed have the custom of saying Malkus.
The root of makkah. Menachem Ibn Saruk and Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim: the one-letter root כ, "hitting." Ibn Chayyuj, Ibn Janach, and Radak reject monoliteral roots and give נ-כ-ה, the nun regularly dropping in conjugation.
Distinctions
makkah / makkot (מכה, מכות)
The primary sense is striking another. From the act the word passes to the wound it leaves, and from there to a plague, so that the Ten Plagues are the Eser Makkos, literally ten strikings. This is the word the Torah uses for the court's flogging (Devarim 25:2-3), and hence the masechta's name.
malkut / lakah (מלקות, לקה)
Neither malkut nor lakah occurs in Tanach; both do appear in Mishnaic Hebrew. Avraham Even-Shoshan, in his dictionary, derives the word from the Aramaic root ל-ק-ה, "hit" or "damage," and compares it to the Akkadian laku, "weakened"; he adds that the vocalization malkut is commonly mispronounced malkot. Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur (Meturgaman and Sefer HaTishbi) gives the Targum's rule: wherever the Torah's makkah means striking someone to punish or chastise him, the Targum renders it with a word from lakah; where the striking is meant simply to hurt or even to kill, the Targum uses words unrelated to lakah. He adds that lakah is not a perfect translation of makkeh, the one being struck and the other striking.
The column adds a bracketed aside of its own on the English side: the verb "lick" in "to lick one's enemies" (built on Bamidbar 22:4) means to smite or defeat, and "to lick the whip" is to taste punishment, so the Germanic lick covers both smiting and passing the tongue over something. It notes at once that linguists would say the resemblance to the Semitic ל-ק-ה ("hitting") and ל-ק-ק ("licking") is simply chance.
For completeness, the column closes by noting that Modern Hebrew says leharbitz or marbitz for hitting, spanking, or beating someone up, from ר-ב-צ, which in Biblical Hebrew means crouching, stretching out, and lying down; the sense was later extended to beating a man down so that he is left spread out on the floor.
Rendering guidance
- מכה alone: "blow" for the act, "wound" for the mark, "plague" for a visitation. Eser Makkos = the Ten Plagues; "ten blows" only where a passage plays on the literal sense.
- מכות in a halachic context: "lashes." מלקות: "flogging" or "lashes."
- לקה: "was struck" of a person, but "was impaired," "was defective," or "was eclipsed" where no striking is meant. "The sun was struck" in Sukkah 29a imports a blow the sugya is not describing.
- Trap: English "lashes" covers makkot and malkut both, and usually should. Where it must not is a passage distinguishing Torah lashes from makkos mardus: on Rabbi Shmuel Taieb's reading the choice of word is the ruling, so keep the Hebrew and gloss it. When the two roots meet in one sentence the active/passive split is the guide: makkeh strikes, lokeh receives.
Sources
Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein, "That's a Flogging," What's in a Word?, Ohr Somayach, 6 Shevat 5780 (2020-02-01): https://articles.ohr.edu/articles/thats-a-flogging; raw text in sources/whats-in-a-word/raw/8584-thats-a-flogging.md. Primary loci cited: Devarim 25:2-3; Bamidbar 22:4; Sanhedrin 10a; Sukkah 29a and 33b; Rabbi Eliyahu HaBachur, Meturgaman and Sefer HaTishbi; Rabbi Naftali HaKohen Katz, Semichas Chachamim; Rabbi Shmuel Taieb, Shemen Tov; Tiferes Yisrael; Rabbi Elazar Rokeach, Maaseh Rokeach; Avraham Even-Shoshan's dictionary. Everything the article carries is represented here, including its Akkadian comparison, its bracketed aside on the English "lick," and its closing note on Modern Hebrew leharbitz.