Makkot 11a — the Talmud in English

In harsh language,

for Scripture deviated from its way throughout the entire Book of Joshua, in which it is stated, “And the Lord said,” whereas in this passage it adopted the language of speech, which is harsh language—

as it is written

“And the Lord spoke to Joshua, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Give yourselves the cities

of refuge that I spoke to you about,”

and so on.

And the reason for this

is because

the mitzvot that were said in this passage to Joshua to fulfill

are those of the Torah.

Whereas in the other places where the Lord spoke with Joshua, Torah mitzvot were not said to him to fulfill.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

Does this mean,

do you wish to say,

that every

place where the expression

“speech”

is stated, its meaning is

harsh language?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, this is so!

And the proof for this is

as it is written

concerning Joseph’s brothers, when they returned to Jacob,

“The man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly with us.”

And it is thereby demonstrated that “speech” is harsh language [strong].

And we challenge:

But it was taught:

It is written in the Book of Malachi [chapter 3]: “Then

those who feared the Lord spoke

with one another.”

The expression “

spoke”

is rather an expression of tranquility.

And so it says

in the Book of Psalms [chapter 47]:

“He will speak of peoples beneath us,”

meaning that the nations will be subdued beneath Israel and will sit in tranquility.

And from these verses it follows that speech is not harsh language.

And we resolve: The expressions in the verses are not equivalent.

Rather,

“speak,”

which is stated concerning Joshua and Joseph’s brothers, is a matter

by itself,

and its meaning is harsh language.

Whereas “spoke,” which is stated in the Book of Malachi concerning those who fear the Lord, or

“He will speak

of peoples beneath us,” which is stated in the Book of Psalms concerning the nations, is a matter

by itself,

whose meaning is a matter of tranquility.

The mnemonic: “Rabbis dispute concerning delay and books.”

Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis dispute

concerning the reason that the passage of murderers was stated in harsh language [strong]:

One says: Because he delayed them,

because Joshua delayed the separation of the cities of refuge in the Land of Israel until the Holy One, blessed be He, returned and told him to separate them; therefore He spoke to him in harsh language.

And one says: Because they are of the Torah,

as above.

And they also dispute concerning another verse in the Book of Joshua [chapter 24]:

“And Joshua wrote these words”—

“in the book of the Torah of God.”

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Nehemiah dispute

which “words” Joshua wrote, and in which book “these words” were written—

One says,

Joshua wrote at the end of the Torah scroll

eight

of the

verses

that are the final ones in the Torah, beginning with “And Moses the servant of the Lord died there,” until the end of the Torah, because these verses concerning Moses’ death were not written by Moses but by Joshua.

And one says,

Joshua wrote in his book [the Book of Joshua] the matter of

the cities of refuge.

And we challenge:

Granted, according to the one who says

that Joshua wrote in the Torah scroll

the eight verses

that are the final ones in the Torah,

this is why it is written

“in the book of the Torah of God,”

which is the Torah scroll.

But according to the one who says

that Joshua wrote in the Book of Joshua the matter of

the cities of refuge—

what is “in the book of the Torah of God”?

And we answer:

This is what it says:

“And Joshua wrote

in his book

these words,

concerning the cities of refuge, which are the words

written

in the book of the Torah of God.”

A scroll

of Torah

whose sheets were sewn together,

that is, he joined its sheets by sewing them

with

threads of

flax—

Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir dispute concerning it.

One says it is fit, and one says it is unfit.

And we explain in what they dispute:

According to the one who says it is unfit,

it is because

it is written

[Exodus 13]: “And it shall be for you as a sign upon your hand and as a memorial between your eyes—

so that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth.”

And here

the entire

Torah was made analogous to tefillin.

And Scripture came to teach us:

Just as tefillin are a halakha given to Moses at Sinai,

that it is necessary

to sew them with sinews

of a pure animal and not with flax threads—

so too all

the Torah, it is necessary

to sew them

for the sheets of the Torah scroll

with sinews,

and not with flax threads.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

But the other one,

the tanna who declares sewing the sheets of a Torah scroll with flax fit, why does he not take into account the analogy of Torah to tefillin?

And we explain:

When it was made analogous,

this analogy by which Scripture made the Torah analogous to tefillin, by saying, “so that the Torah of the Lord shall be in your mouth,” applies only

to

the matter mentioned in that verse, “in your mouth,” from which we learned that tefillin may be written only on parchment made from the hide of a pure animal, which is

permitted by your mouth,

whose flesh is permitted for eating, and not on the hide of an impure animal, whose flesh is forbidden for eating.

And only concerning this matter was the Torah scroll made analogous to tefillin, because this matter is explicit in the Torah.

But

concerning its laws,

the laws that are not explicit in the Torah but are learned from a halakha given to Moses at Sinai, such as that the sewing must be specifically with sinews and not with flax—

the Torah was not made analogous

to tefillin.

Rav Huna said: We saw the tefillin of my beloved uncle

of my uncle, Rabbi Hiyya,

that they were sewn with flax,

with flax threads.

And the halakha is not according to him,

but it is necessary to sew them with sinews.

Mishna:

When the High Priest dies, all the unintentional murderers return from the cities of refuge to their homes.

And the Mishna explains that there are three types of High Priest, upon whose death the exiles return from the cities of refuge to their homes.

One

is a High Priest who is

anointed with the anointing oil.

And one

is a High Priest who was not anointed with the anointing oil [because he lived in the period after the anointing oil had been concealed ], who is only

one with many garments,

who serves in eight garments, and is more than an ordinary koen, who serves only in four garments.

And one

is a

priest who passed from his anointing,

who served as the replacement for the High Priest when a disqualification occurred to the permanent High Priest, until the High Priest recovered and became pure, and returned to serve—

these are the ones who

return the murderer

to his home from the city of refuge, upon their deaths.

For then the verse is fulfilled: “And after the death of the High Priest, the murderer shall return to the land of his possession.”

Rabbi Judah says: Even

the priest who is

anointed for war

returns the murderer.

For by Torah law they would anoint a priest with the anointing oil when they went out to war. And the role of that priest, called “the one anointed for war,” was to say before those going out to war all the laws of war stated in the passage of Shoftim: “Let your heart not be faint,” and so on. And although that priest did not serve in the Temple as a High Priest, since he was anointed with the anointing oil as a High Priest, his law is that of a High Priest, and upon his death he returns the murderer.

Therefore,

since the death of the High Priests returned the exiles to their homes—

The mothers of the High Priests

were

providing them

for the unintentional murderers,

sustenance and clothing, so that they would not pray

the murderers

for their sons to die,

and they would be able to return to their homes.

And the Gemara explains why they feared that the murderers’ prayer would be accepted.

Gemara:

And we raised an objection concerning it:

From where are these words derived

that all the High Priests enumerated in the Mishna return the murderer?

Rav Kahana said:

Since

the verse says

[Numbers 35] this law—that the murderer leaves upon the death of the High Priest—three times. From this the first tanna learned that the three priests who bore the status of High Priest release the murderer upon their deaths.

And these are the verses:

a.

“And he shall dwell in it”—

“until the death of the High Priest.”

b.

And it is written:

“For in his city of refuge he shall dwell”—

“until the death of the High Priest.”

c.

And it is written:

“After the death of the High Priest”

the murderer shall return.

This is the reasoning of the first tanna, and now the Gemara explains Rabbi Judah’s method:

And Rabbi Judah,

who adds the priest anointed for war, expounded

another verse,

a fourth [there], as it is written:

“To return to dwell in the land”—

“until the death of the priest.”

But the other one,

the first tanna, who did not expound this verse, held:

Since it is not written

in this verse

“the great” (116)—

it is necessarily referring to the High Priest mentioned above, and not

one of these,

the three High Priests;

it is.

That is, since Scripture did not mention “the High Priest” concerning him, but merely “the priest,” it is necessarily not coming to include a fourth priest, who is the priest anointed for war; rather, Scripture intends one of the three High Priests mentioned.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Therefore the mothers of the priests, and so on.”

And the Gemara proves:

The reason is that they do not pray,

implying that only by virtue of the fact that the mothers of the High Priests provide water and food, and therefore the murderers do not pray for the priest to die—that is why he does not die.

But if they pray—

he dies!

If the unintentional murderers who are in the city of refuge pray for the death of the High Priest, their prayer will be accepted, and he will indeed die before his time.

And we challenge: Will the prayer of the murderers be accepted, that the High Priests should die, when there is no guilt in their hands?

But it is written

in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 26]:

“As a bird wandering, as a swallow flying—

so is a gratuitous curse

[which has no cause]—

it shall not

come!”

And we resolve:

A certain old man said: I heard it from Rava’s discourse:

This is not a gratuitous curse; rather, there is indeed a claim against the priests, for

they should have requested mercy for

the members of

their generation,

that they not come to a mishap such as unintentional killing,

but they did not request it.

And there are those who teach

that they recite the wording of the Mishna as follows: that the mothers of the High Priests provided water and food

so that they would pray

the murderers

for their sons not to die.

And we raised an objection concerning it:

The reason is that they pray,

implying that only if the murderers pray for the priests not to die do they live by virtue of this.

But if they do not pray—

they die!

And we challenge: Why should the High Priest die because of the sins of these people?

And what

could he have done

for the priest

to do?

What was he required to do, such that there should be a claim against him for the sin of these people?

Here,

in Babylonia,

we say

a proverb concerning such a situation, in which a person is punished for another’s transgression:

“Tuvya sinned, and

this

Zigud is flogged!?”

The source of the proverb is an incident that occurred: Zigud testified before Rav Pappa’s court concerning Tuvya, that he had sinned. But his testimony was that of a single witness, which is not accepted. Therefore Rav Pappa ordered that he be beaten for the slander he had spoken.

And from then on this matter became a proverb: even though Tuvya was the sinner, nevertheless Zigud was the one who was flogged, because he testified that he had sinned. For wherever there is no benefit in his testimony, and he comes and testifies to his fellow’s disgrace, the matter is considered an offense of evil speech.

Whereas

there

, in the Land of Israel,

they say,

it is customary to say this proverb in a different formulation:

Shechem married, Mavgai was circumcised?!

That is, Shechem son of Hamor married Dinah and benefited, while the other inhabitants of the city, such as Mavgai [a person’s name], were compelled to suffer and to circumcise themselves [“to cut”], even though they did not benefit with him.

And here too we ask: Why should the kohanim be punished for the sin of the inadvertent murderers?

And we answer:

A certain old man said: I heard it from Rava’s discourse,

that there is a claim from Heaven against the kohanim,

for they should have requested mercy for their generation

that they should not sin,

but they did not request it.

And we find that this claim is considered a claim against a person, and he is punished for it,

as in the case of that man whom a lion ate

whom a lion ate,

at a distance of

at a distance of

three parasangs from him

from his place,

from Rabbi Joshua ben Levi.

And Elijah did not speak

Elijah the Prophet did not appear and did not speak

with him

with Rabbi Joshua ben Levi,

for three days.

Elijah interrupted his regular practice of speaking with him every day, for three days, because such a mishap had occurred in his place. For had Rabbi Joshua ben Levi prayed for the welfare of the people of his place, this mishap would never have occurred.

And it follows that whoever can prevent the mishap through his prayer, but does not prevent it, is called guilty of it and is punished for it; therefore, the High Priests were required to request mercy for them, that they should live and not die.

Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: The curse of a Sage, even gratuitously, comes to pass!

That is, if a Sage cursed a person, even if there was no reason for the curse, it takes effect.

From where do we know this? —

From Ahithophel.

When David dug the foundations of the cisterns,

the foundations for the Temple,

the abyss froze.

The waters of the deep rose up and ascended, and

it sought to inundate the world.

The waters of the deep stood ready to wash away and inundate the world.

David said,

Does anyone know the halakha

as to what is the law concerning writing the Name

of the Lord

upon a potsherd and throwing it into the abyss, so that it should stand in its place?!

Is it permitted to write the Name of the Lord upon a potsherd and throw it into the abyss, because the potsherd sinks and does not float, and the potsherd will descend and rest upon the place of the opening, and seal the place from which the waters of the deep float and rise?

And the question is whether one must be concerned lest the water erase the Name written upon the potsherd, and he thereby violate the prohibition, “You shall not do so to the Lord your God [by erasing His Name]”.

There was no one who said anything to him.

There was no one who would answer David’s question.

David said

David:

Whoever knows this matter and does not say it —

may he be strangled in his throat!

Ahithophel derived a kal va-chomer by himself,

and

said:

And what

in order

to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My Name [the Name of the Holy One, blessed is He]

[the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He]

which is written in holiness

in a book —

shall be erased upon the water.

As we find in the section of the sotah, that they write and erase into the bitter waters the entire section of the sotah, even though the Name of the Lord is in it, in order to clarify whether she has become impure or not; and if she is pure, domestic peace will return between her and her husband.

To make peace

for the entire world, is it not all the more so

that it is permitted to erase the Name of the Lord'!

And since he learned this through a kal va-chomer,

he said to him

Ahithophel said to David:

It is permitted,

it is permitted to write the Name upon a potsherd and throw it into the water.

And so David did:

he wrote the Name upon the potsherd, saying, “Let the abyss be driven away by it,”

and threw it into the abyss. And then

it descended, and stood in its place.

The waters of the deep descended and stood in their place.

And

although David cursed only one who knew the halakha concerning the matter but would not say what he knew, whereas Ahithophel ultimately did state the halakha,

even so,

David’s curse took effect upon Ahithophel.

And the proof is that afterward, in the incident of Absalom, when he rebelled against David,

it is written [in

Samuel II 17] “

And Ahithophel saw that his counsel had not been followed”,

the counsel that he gave Absalom concerning how to wage war against David.

And since Absalom did not act according to his words, Ahithophel understood that David would return and reign, and would then kill him according to the law concerning one who rebels against the monarchy; likewise, his possessions would go to the royal treasury, for such is the law concerning one who rebels against the monarchy, and no inheritance would remain for his sons.

Therefore, “

And he saddled

Ahithophel

the donkey, and arose and went to his house, to his city, and gave instructions to his household”

he left instructions for his family], “

and he strangled himself”,

and so forth.

Ahithophel strangled himself to death in order to forestall the king’s decree, and thereby leave his possessions to his sons, for once he died they would no longer judge him, nor take the money that he had left behind for his sons.

And David’s curse was fulfilled in him, that he should be strangled in his throat, even though this curse had not been stated concerning the possibility that he would say what he knew. And from here: the curse of a Sage, even gratuitously, comes to pass.

Rabbi Abbahu said: The curse of a Sage, even

when stated

conditionally,

and the condition was not fulfilled,

comes to pass.

From where do we know this? —

From Eli!

For Eli said to Samuel,

when he pressed Samuel to tell him what the Lord had told him, and Samuel was afraid to tell him that it had been decreed against him, because of the sin of his sons, that all his offspring would die at the age of eighteen. Eli cursed him if he would not reveal it, and this is what Eli said to Samuel: “

So may God do to you, and so may He add,

as was done to me, because my sons did not follow my ways, [as explained above there]

if you conceal a matter from me”.

And

we find that

even though it is written, “

And Samuel told him all the matters, and did not conceal anything from him”,

even so it is written

concerning Samuel: “

And his sons did not follow his ways”.

And so forth.

And from here: the curse of a Sage is fulfilled even when the condition concerning which it was stated was not fulfilled.