Makkot 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

In a harsh expression,

as the verse deviated from its usual wording throughout the Book of Joshua, where it says, “And the Lord said,” and in this passage it uses the language of speech, which is an expression of harshness -

as it is written “

And the Lord spoke to Joshua, saying: Speak to the children of Israel, saying: Designate for yourselves the cities

of refuge that I spoke to you about,”

and so on.

And the reason for this

is because

the mitzvot stated in this passage to Joshua were mitzvot

that are of Torah origin.

Whereas in the other places where the Lord spoke with Joshua, He did not instruct him to fulfill mitzvot of Torah origin.

And we raise an objection to this:

Does this mean

that you intend to say

that every

place where the expression

“speech”

is stated

means an expression of harshness?

And we answer:

Yes,

indeed, that is so!

And the proof of this is

as it is written

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

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

This proves that “speech” is an expression of harshness [and severity].

And we challenge this:

But wasn’t it taught:

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

those who feared the Lord spoke

with one another.”

“Those who spoke”

means

nothing other than an expression of serenity.

And similarly it says

in the Book of Psalms [chapter 47]: “

He will speak of peoples beneath us,”

meaning that the nations will submit beneath Israel and dwell in tranquility.

And these verses indicate that speech is not an expression of harshness.

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

Rather,

“speak,”

as stated with regard to Joshua and Joseph’s brothers, is a matter

unto itself,

and its meaning is an expression of harshness.

Whereas “spoke,” stated in the Book of Malachi with regard to those who fear the Lord, or

“He will speak

of peoples beneath us,” stated in the Book of Psalms with regard to the nations, is a matter

unto itself,

whose meaning is a matter of serenity.

The mnemonic: “Rabbis dispute concerning ‘He delayed’ and ‘His book.’”

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree

concerning the reason that the passage about murderers was stated in a harsh expression [and severity]:

One says: Because he delayed them,

because Joshua delayed the designation of the cities of refuge in the Land of Israel until the Holy One, blessed be He, returned and instructed him to designate them; therefore He spoke to him in a harsh expression.

And one says: Because they are of Torah origin,

as stated above.

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

And Joshua wrote these words -

in the Book of the Torah of God.”

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah disagree

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

One says:

Joshua wrote at the end of the Torah scroll

the eight

of the

verses

at the end of the Torah, beginning with “And Moses the servant of the Lord died” and continuing to 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 this:

Granted, according to the one who says

that Joshua wrote in the Torah scroll

the eight verses

at the end of 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 meant by “in the Book of the Torah of God”?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: “

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 Torah scroll

of Torah

whose sections were sewn together,

whose sheets he joined by sewing them together

with

threads of

flax -

Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree about it.

One says it is valid, and one says it is invalid.

And we explain what they disagree about:

According to the one who says it is invalid,

it is because

it is written

“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 likened to phylacteries.

And the verse comes to teach us:

Just as phylacteries are a halakha transmitted to Moses at Sinai,

that one must

sew them with sinews

of a kosher animal and not with flax threads -

so too, all

the Torah must

be sewn

to the sheets of the Torah scroll

with sinews,

and not with flax threads.

And we inquire:

But what about the other one,

the tanna who permits sewing the sheets of a Torah scroll with flax: why does he not take into account the comparison of the Torah to phylacteries?

And we explain:

When it was likened,

the fact that the verse likened the Torah to phylacteries 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 this we learn that phylacteries may be written only on parchment made from the hide of a kosher animal, which is

permitted to your mouth,

meaning that its flesh is permitted for consumption, and not on the hide of a non-kosher animal, whose flesh is forbidden for consumption.

And only with regard to this matter was a Torah scroll likened to phylacteries, because this matter is explicit in the Torah.

But

with regard to its laws,

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

the Torah was not likened

to phylacteries.

Rav Huna said: I saw the phylacteries of my beloved uncle,

those of my uncle, Rabbi Hiyya,

that were sewn with flax,

with flax threads.

And the halakha does not follow him,

but they must be sewn 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 categories of High Priest whose death causes the exiles to 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 served during the period after the anointing oil had been concealed ], but was only

one with many garments,

who served in eight garments, unlike an ordinary priest, who served in only four garments.

And one

is a priest

who had passed from his priesthood,

who served as the substitute for the High Priest when a disqualification occurred to the permanent High Priest, until the High Priest recovered and became pure and resumed serving -

these are the priests whose deaths

return the murderer

from the city of refuge to his home.

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

Rabbi Yehuda 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. The role of that priest, called “the one anointed for war,” was to state before those going out to war all the laws of war mentioned in the passage in Deuteronomy, beginning, “Let your hearts not be faint,” and so on. And although that priest did not serve in the Temple as High Priest, since he was anointed with the anointing oil like a High Priest, his status is that of a High Priest, and when he dies he returns the murderer.

Therefore,

since the death of the High Priests caused the exiles to return to their homes -

The mothers of High Priests

would

would provide them,

the unintentional murderers,

with food and clothing, so that they would not pray

the murderers

for their sons to die,

and thereby be able to return home.

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

Gemara:

And we inquire:

From where are these matters derived,

that all the High Priests listed in the Mishna cause the murderer to return?

Rav Kahana said:

Since

the verse says

[Numbers 35] three times that the murderer leaves upon the death of the High Priest. From this the first tanna learned that the three priests who bore the title of High Priest cause the murderer to leave when they die.

And these are the verses:

a. “

And he shall dwell there -

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 the position of Rabbi Yehuda:

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who adds the priest anointed for war, derives it from

another verse,

the fourth [in that passage], 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 derive a teaching from this verse, maintains:

Since it is not written

in this verse

“the great” (116) -

it necessarily refers to the High Priest mentioned above, and not

to one of these,

the three High Priests;

it is not.

That is, since the verse did not mention “the High Priest,” but merely “the priest,” it necessarily did not come to include a fourth priest, namely, the priest anointed for war. Rather, the verse refers to one of the three High Priests mentioned above.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And the Gemara proves:

The reason is that they did not pray;

this implies that only because the mothers of the High Priests provided water and food, and therefore the murderers did not pray for the priest to die, did he not die.

Had they prayed -

he would die!

If the unintentional murderers residing in the city of refuge prayed for the death of the High Priest, their prayers would be accepted, and he would indeed die before his time.

And we challenge this: Could the prayers of the murderers that the High Priests should die be accepted, when the priests were without any guilt?

But it is written

in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 26]: “

As a bird wandering, as a swallow flying -

so is an undeserved curse

[which has no cause] -

it will not

come!”

And we resolve this:

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

this is not an undeserved curse; rather, there is indeed a claim against the priests,

because they should have sought mercy for

the members of

their generation,

that they should not come to harm, such as unintentional killing,

but they did not seek mercy.

And there are those who teach

a different version of the Mishna’s wording: that the mothers of the High Priests provided water and food

so that the murderers would pray

the murderers

for their sons not to die.

And we inquire:

The reason is that they prayed;

this implies that only if the murderers prayed for the priests not to die did the priests live by virtue of this.

Had they not prayed -

he would die!

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

And

what could he have done

for the priest

to do?

What was he supposed to have done, such that there should be a claim against him for the sin of these men?

Here,

in Babylonia,

we say

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

“Tuvya sinned, and

then

Zigud is flogged?!”

The source of the proverb is an incident that occurred: Zigud testified before Rav Pappa’s court that Tuvya had sinned. But his testimony was that of a single witness and was therefore not accepted. Rav Pappa consequently ordered that he be flogged for the slander he had uttered.

And from then on, this matter became a proverbial expression: even though Tuvia was the sinner, nevertheless Zygod was the one who was flogged, because he testified that Tuvia had sinned. For wherever a person's testimony offers no benefit, and he comes to testify to his fellow's disgrace, the matter is considered an offense of lashon hara.

Whereas

there—

in Eretz Yisrael—

they say

, it is customary to state this proverb in a different form:

“Shekhem married, and Mavgai should be circumcised?!”

That is, Shekhem son of Hamor married Dina and benefited, while the rest of the city's inhabitants, such as Mavgai [a person's name], were forced to suffer and to circumcise themselves [literally, “to cut” themselves], even though they had not benefited along with him.

Here too we ask: Why should the kohanim be punished for the sin of those who killed inadvertently?

And we answer:

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

that there is a claim against the kohanim from Heaven,

because they should have sought mercy for their generation

so that they would not sin,

but they did not seek it.

And we find that such a claim is considered an accusation against a person, for which he is punished,

as in the case of a certain man whom a lion ate

whom a lion ate,

at a distance of

three

parasangs from him

from the place

of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

And Elijah did not speak

Elijah the Prophet did not appear or speak

with him

with Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

for three days.

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

It follows that one who can prevent a mishap through his prayer, but does not prevent it, is considered culpable for it and is punished on its account. Therefore, the High Priests were required to seek mercy for them—that they should live and not die.

Rab Yehuda said that Rav said: The curse of a sage, even when undeserved, comes to pass!

That is, if a sage curses a person, the curse takes effect even if there was no reason for the curse.

From where do we derive this? —

From Ahitophel.

When David dug the foundations

for the Temple,

the depths rose up.

The subterranean waters surged and rose, and

sought to flood the entire world.

The subterranean waters stood ready to wash over and flood the world.

David said

: Is there anyone who knows the halakha—

whether it is permitted to write the Name

of God

on a potsherd and throw it into the depths, so that they will return to their place!

The question was whether it is permitted to write the Name of God on a potsherd and cast it into the depths, since the potsherd sinks and does not float; the potsherd would descend and come to rest over the place of the opening, sealing the place from which the subterranean waters surged and rose.

The question was whether one must be concerned that the water might erase the Name written on the potsherd, thereby violating 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 to answer David's question.

David

said:

“Whoever knows this matter and does not say it—

may he be strangled in his throat!”

Ahitophel derived a kal va-chomer on his own,

and

said:

And if

in order

to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: “My Name

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

that was written in sanctity

in a scroll

shall be erased in water,”

as we find in the section of the Sotah, where the entire passage concerning the Sotah is written and erased into the bitter waters, despite its containing the Name of God, in order to clarify whether she had become impure; and if she is pure, peace will return between her and her husband.

To make peace

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

permitted to erase the Name of God!

And once he had derived this from a kal va-chomer,

he said to him

Ahitophel said to David:

“It is permitted,”

it is permitted to write the Name on a potsherd and cast it into the water.

David did so:

he wrote the Name on a potsherd, saying, “Subdue the depths,”

and cast it into the depths. Then

it descended and stood in its place.

The subterranean waters descended and stood in their place.

And

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

even so,

David's curse took effect upon Ahitophel.

The proof is that later, in the episode of Absalom, when he rebelled against David,

it is written

(II Samuel 17): “

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

the counsel he had given Absalom concerning how to wage war against David.

Since Absalom did not act according to his words, Ahitophel understood that David would return and reign, and would then kill him as one who rebels against the king. Likewise, his possessions would go into the king's treasury, for that is the law concerning one who rebels against the king, and no inheritance would remain for his sons.

Therefore,

“he saddled

Ahitophel

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

[he left instructions for his family],

“and strangled himself,”

and so on.

Ahitophel strangled himself to death in order to anticipate the king's decree, thereby leaving his possessions to his sons. For once he had died, he would no longer be judged, and they would not take the property he had left to his sons.

Thus David's curse that he be strangled in his throat was fulfilled upon him, even though that curse had not been stated on the assumption that he would eventually say what he knew. From here it follows that the curse of a sage, even when undeserved, comes to pass.

Rabbi Abbahu said: The curse of a sage, even

when it is stated

conditionally,

and the condition is not fulfilled,

comes to pass.

From where do we derive this? —

From Eli!

For Eli said to Samuel

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

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

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

“if you conceal any matter from me.”

And

we find that

although it is written, “

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

even so, it is written

about Samuel: “

And his sons did not follow his ways.”

And so on.

From here it follows that the curse of a sage takes effect even when the condition on which it was uttered was not fulfilled.