Makkot 11b — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: nidui

that was made

conditionally—

requires

that nidui

annulment

by a sage, even when it does not take effect because the condition was not fulfilled.

From where do we know

this matter?

From Yehuda.

For it is written,

that Yehuda obligated himself to Yaakov our father when he took Binyamin with him to Egypt: “

If I do not bring him to you,

I shall have sinned against you all the days.”

Yehuda accepted upon himself that he would be under nidui to his father if he did not return Binyamin to him from Egypt. And although Yehuda returned Binyamin to his father Yaakov, nevertheless we find that the nidui took effect upon him. This is so even though Yehuda accepted the nidui upon himself only on the condition that he would not bring him, as follows—

And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan:

What is the meaning of that which is written

in the portion “And this is the blessing,” in the blessings with which Moshe blessed the Children of Israel before his death: “

Let Reuven live and not die,”

and afterward Scripture said

“And this for Yehuda”—

why did Scripture juxtapose Yehuda’s blessing to Reuven’s blessing?

To teach you that from the fact that Yehuda’s blessing was juxtaposed to Reuven’s blessing, and it began with Yehuda using the expression “And this,” there is a connection between the blessing given to Yehuda and the blessing said for Reuven.

For

all those forty years that Israel were in the wilderness,

they carried the coffins of the tribes for burial in the Land of Israel, and their skeletons remained intact, whereas

Yehuda’s bones

were

broken apart, and

rolling in the coffin

when they carried it, because of the nidui that Yehuda had accepted upon himself, to be under nidui even after his death, in the World to Come.

Until Moshe arose and pleaded for mercy for him.

Moshe said

to

before Him,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

Master of the universe!

“Let Reuven live”; may it be Your will that his skeleton remain intact, as though he were alive.

For

who caused

him,

Reuven, to confess

publicly that he had disturbed his father’s bed, in the matter of Bilhah?

Yehuda

caused this, when he confessed concerning the matter of Tamar.

For this is how Rabbi Tanhuma expounded: When Yehuda confessed concerning the matter of Tamar and said, “She is more righteous than I,” Reuven then stood and confessed that he had disturbed his father’s bed.

And if so, why

“And this”

shall be

“for Yehuda,”

so that his bones would roll in the coffin?

And Moshe pleaded:

“Hear, O Lord, the voice of Yehuda!”

And immediately,

his limbs entered their place of joining.

His limbs entered the place of their attachment, from which they had been dislocated.

And still

they were not bringing him in,

they did not bring Yehuda up

to the heavenly academy,

because of the nidui.

Until Moshe added and said:

“And You shall bring him to his people.”

And still

it was not the case that

Yehuda

knew how to take and give in discussion of a matter together with the Sages,

to engage in the give-and-take of the battle of Torah in the academy above.

Until Moshe said:

“His hands shall contend for him,”

that he should have the strength to conduct his dispute in shakla ve-tarya with his companions.

And still

he did not know how to resolve a difficulty [in Sotah 7b and Bava Kamma 92a the reading is: “It was not the case that the matter came to him according to the halakha”].

Until Moshe said: “And You shall be his help against his adversaries.”

It was asked of them:

This that the Mishna said that these three priests, when they die, “return the killer”—does it intend to say that only

with the death of

the three High Priests

all of them,

only then

does he return,

but if even one of the three remains alive, he does not return?

Or perhaps,

it is sufficient

with the death of one of them

to return him.

Come and hear,

a proof to resolve the question, from what we learned nearby:

If his judgment was concluded

for the unintentional killer to go into exile

without

there being at that time

a High Priest —

he never leaves there.

And if it is so, that he leaves upon the death of one of them, what difference does it make to us that there was no serving High Priest at the time of the conclusion of the judgment? Surely

serving at that time, he never leaves there.

let him return through these,

that he should return upon the death of the other priests, when the priest of many garments dies, or the priest who was removed from his office.

Necessarily, he does not leave until all three die. Therefore, if a High Priest did not serve at the time of the conclusion of the judgment, there are not three priests who will cause him to leave at the time of their deaths, since only a priest who was present at the conclusion of the judgment and died afterward causes him to leave.

And this killer had only two priests at the time of the conclusion of his judgment, and the death of the two alone does not cause him to leave, because only the death of three causes him to leave.

And we reject this: This Mishna is speaking

where there is none, even a High Priest, at the time his judgment was concluded. But in fact, he leaves upon the death of one of them if he existed at the time his judgment was concluded.

Mishna: a. If, after the killer’s judgment was concluded for exile,

where there is none, meaning that there was not even a High Priest when his verdict was finalized. But in fact, he leaves through the death of one of them if that priest was present when his verdict was finalized.

High Priest even at the time his judgment was concluded. But in fact, he leaves upon the death of one of them if that priest was alive when his judgment was concluded.

the High Priest died—

he does not go into exile,

since he was atoned for through the priest’s death after he became liable to exile.

b. But if, before his judgment was concluded, the High Priest died and they appointed a High Priest in his place,

the High Priest dies,

he does not go into exile,

since he is atoned for by the High Priest’s death after he became liable to exile.

and afterward his judgment was concluded—he

returns

only

through the death of the second one.

and afterward his verdict was finalized,

then he

returns

only

c. And if

his judgment was concluded at the time when the High Priest died, and still not was another High Priest

appointed.

And

likewise,

one who kills

unintentionally

a High Priest,

and another had still not been appointed in his place, and his judgment was concluded for exile.

And

likewise,

a High Priest who killed—

In all these cases,

the killer does not leave there

ever.

d.

And

the killer who went into exile—he

does not leave

the city of refuge,

not to

testify

testimony of a mitzva,

and not to testify in monetary matters, and not to testify in capital matters.

the killer who went into exile

does not leave

the city of refuge

even to

testify

as a witness for a mitzva,

or as a witness concerning property, or as a witness in capital cases.

And even Israelites need him, and even the commander of the Israelite army, such as Joab son of Zeruiah, never leaves there!

As it is stated

Numbers 35:25, “And the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge

to which he fled.

And he shall dwell in it until the death of the great kohen.”

And since “there” is mentioned three times in the verse, we expound:

There shall be his dwelling; there shall be his death,

there shall be his burial.

5.

Just as the city receives, so

all

its boundary

of the city, which is two thousand cubits around the city, also

receives.

6.

A murderer who went outside the boundary and the blood-avenger found him—

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: It is a mitzva for the blood-avenger

to kill him,

and it is permitted for every person

to kill him.

Rabbi Akiva says: It is permitted for the blood-avenger

to kill him.

But every person,

if he killed him—

they are liable on his account.

The Rambam’s version is: They are not liable on his account.

Gemara:

And we raise an objection concerning it:

What is the reason

that one whose judgment was concluded, and before he was exiled the great kohen died, is not exiled?

Abaye said: It is a kal va-chomer.

If

one who had already been exiled

now leaves,

when the great kohen dies,

one who was not exiled,

since the great kohen died immediately upon the conclusion of his judgment,

is it not all the more so that he should not be exiled?

For he is in an easier position than the one who is exiled: the one who is exiled must be removed and released from a punishment that has already taken effect upon him, whereas this one, who has not yet been exiled, does not have the punishment imposed upon him.

And we refute it: This is not a kal va-chomer.

For

perhaps, this one who was exiled,

perhaps the exiled one, since he has already been exiled,

his sin has been atoned for

by this, and it is easy to release him now.

But

this one, who was not exiled,

and still

not

atonement has come to him; perhaps he must be exiled, and only after he is exiled will he leave his exile through the death of the great kohen who succeeds him.

And we reject the refutation: This is not a refutation! For

is it the case that

does

exile atone?

For he is not released from the punishment of exile even when he stays in the city of refuge for a long time.

And the length of his exile depends only on the death of the kohen.

And necessarily, only

the death of the kohen atones,

for then he leaves the city of refuge and returns to his place.

And if the death of the great kohen is effective to atone for him and remove him from the city of refuge after the punishment has taken effect upon him, certainly the death of the great kohen atones for him to exempt him so that the punishment should not take effect upon him, when he has not yet been exiled.

We learned in the Mishna:

If [it happened] before his judgment was concluded, etc.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

From where are these matters derived,

that he leaves only upon the death of the second great kohen?

Rav Kahana said:

Because

the verse says, “

And he shall dwell in it until the death of the great kohen who anointed him with the anointing oil.”

And the wording of the verse, “who anointed him,” requires explanation:

Is it he,

the murderer,

who anoints him,

the great kohen?

Rather,

the verse comes to tell you that he leaves only upon the death of the great kohen

who was anointed in his days,

after his judgment was concluded that he should be exiled.

If you should ask:

What could he have done

the great kohen who was anointed after this murderer’s judgment was concluded

to do?

What could he have done to prevent the deeds of this murderer? Here, after all, there is no claim against him that he did not request mercy for his generation, since this mishap occurred before he was appointed great kohen; it is only that the murderer’s judgment was not concluded until he became great kohen!

Your answer is:

He should have requested mercy that the judgment

of this murderer

should conclude favorably, but he did not request it,

and therefore the latter leaves upon his death.

Abaye said: We have established

that such is the halakha:

If his judgment was concluded,

and he did not manage to become exiled,

and he died—

they bring his bones there,

to bury him in the city of refuge.

For it is written, “

To return to dwell in the land, until the death of the kohen.”

And

what is the dwelling that is “

in the land,”

whose meaning is within the ground?

You must say: This is burial.

A tanna

in a beraita:

If

the murderer who was exiled

died before the great kohen died

in his city of refuge, and they buried him in the city of refuge, then when the great kohen subsequently dies—

they bring his bones to

the

graves of his ancestors.

For it is written, “

The murderer shall return to the land of his inheritance.”

What is the dwelling that is in the land of his inheritance?—

You must say: This is burial.

And if

his judgment was concluded,

and afterward witnesses came and testified that the great kohen was an invalid kohen, and that his priesthood was based on an error, and as a result of their testimony

the

great

kohen

who was serving at that time

became

invalid because he was a

son

of a divorced woman or a son of a woman released through ḥalitza —what is the murderer’s law?

Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Isaac the Smith disagreed about it.

One says: The priesthood died.

It is as though the kohen died after the conclusion of the judgment, and the murderer is not exiled.

And one says: The priesthood was annulled.

It has now become clear retroactively that this man was never a great kohen, and it follows that the murderer’s judgment was concluded at a time when there was no great kohen, and he never leaves.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

Shall we say

that Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Isaac the Smith

disagree in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua!?

For we learned: If

If

there was

a kohen

standing and offering upon the altar,

and witnesses came,

and it became known

now from their testimony that he was invalid,

that he was a son of a divorced woman or a son of a woman released through ḥalitza—

Rabbi Eliezer says: All the offerings that he offered

are invalid.

For it became clear retroactively that he was a ḥalal, who is invalid for service.

And Rabbi Joshua declares them valid.

And the Gemara assumes that they disagreed concerning the reason for the earlier dispute. Therefore, we associate the dispute of Rabbi Ammi and Rabbi Isaac the Smith with this dispute.

The one who says “

the priesthood

died” holds

like Rabbi Joshua,

who declared his offerings valid.

And the one who says “

the priesthood

was annulled” holds

like Rabbi Eliezer,

who invalidated all the offerings retroactively.