Makkot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A nidui

that was imposed

conditionally—

requires

that nidui

nullification

by a Sage, even when it did not take effect because the condition was not fulfilled.

From where do we derive

this matter

?— From Judah.

As it is written,

for Judah undertook this obligation to our forefather Jacob when he took Benjamin with him to Egypt:

“If I do not bring him back to you

, I shall have sinned against my father all the days.”

Judah accepted upon himself that he would be under nidui to his father , if he did not bring Benjamin back to him from Egypt. And although Judah did bring Benjamin back to his father Jacob, nevertheless we find that the nidui took effect upon him. This was so even though Judah accepted the nidui upon himself only on the condition that he would not bring Benjamin, as follows:

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

What is the meaning of that which is written

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

“Let Reuben live and not die,”

and afterward Scripture states

“And this is for Judah”—

why did Scripture juxtapose Judah’s blessing with Reuben’s blessing?

It teaches you that, from the fact that Judah’s blessing was juxtaposed to Reuben’s blessing and Judah’s blessing began with the expression “And this,” there is a connection between the blessing given to Judah and the blessing said concerning Reuben.

For

all those forty years during which Israel was in the wilderness,

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

Judah’s bones—

were

disassembled and

rolling about in the coffin

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

Until Moses arose and pleaded for mercy on his behalf.

Moses said

to

Him,

the Holy One, blessed be He:

“O Master of the Universe!

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

For

who caused

him,

Reuben, to confess

publicly that he had disturbed his father’s bed in the incident involving Bilhah?—

Judah

caused this, when he confessed concerning the incident involving Tamar.

[This is in accordance with the teaching of Rabbi Tanḥuma: When Judah confessed concerning Tamar and said, “She is more righteous than I,” Reuben stood up and confessed that he had disturbed his father’s bed.]

If so, why

“And this”

should be

“for Judah,”

so that his bones would roll about in the coffin?

And Moses pleaded:

“Hear, O Lord, Judah’s voice!”

And immediately,

his limbs entered their proper joints.

His limbs entered the places where they belonged, from which they had slipped.

But still

they were not bringing him in;

they did not raise Judah

to the heavenly academy

because of the nidui.

Until Moses added and said:

“And You shall bring him to his people.”

But still

he was not

able

to engage in give-and-take concerning a halakhic discussion with the Sages,

to participate in the give-and-take of the battle of Torah in the heavenly academy.

Until Moses said:

“His hands contend for him,”

that he should have the strength to conduct the give-and-take of shakla vetarya with his colleagues.

But still

he did not know how to resolve a difficulty

[in Sota 7b and Bava Kamma 92a, the reading is: “The halakhic discussion did not ascend for him in accordance with the halakha”].

Until Moses said:

“And You shall be a help against his foes.”

It was asked of them:

The Mishna states that when these three kohanim die, “they cause the killer to return.” Does it mean that only

upon the death of

all three High Priests

together,

only then

does he return,

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

Or perhaps,

it is sufficient

for one of them to die

to cause him to return.

Come and hear

a proof to resolve the question, from that which we learned in the Mishna below:

If his judgment was concluded

that the unintentional killer must go into exile

without

a

High Priest

having served at that time—he never leaves there.

And if it is so,

that he leaves upon the death of one of them, why should it matter that there was no serving High Priest at the time of the conclusion of the judgment? After all,

let him return through these others,

that is, let him return upon the death of the other kohanim, when the High Priest of many garments dies or the High Priest who had been removed from his office dies.

It is necessarily the case that he does not leave until all three die. Therefore, if no High Priest served at the time of the conclusion of the judgment, there are not three kohanim whose deaths can cause him to leave, since only a priest who was present at the conclusion of the judgment and died afterward can cause him to leave.

For this killer, only two kohanim were present at the conclusion of his judgment, and the deaths of those two alone do not cause him to leave, since only the deaths of three cause him to leave.

And we reject this: This Mishna is speaking

where there is no

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.

Mishna:

a. If,

after the killer’s judgment was concluded

that he must go into exile,

the High Priest dies—

he does not go into exile,

since he is atoned for by the death of the priest after he became liable to exile.

b. But

if, before his judgment was concluded, the High Priest died and

another High Priest

was appointed in his place,

and afterward his judgment was concluded—

he

returns

only

upon the death of the second priest.

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

c. And if

his judgment was concluded at

the time when the High Priest died, and still

no

High Priest

had been appointed

another.

And

likewise,

one who unintentionally kills

a

High Priest,

while no replacement had yet been appointed in his place, and his judgment was concluded that he must go into exile.

And

likewise,

a High Priest who killed—

In all these cases,

he does not leave there

the killer

ever.

d.

And

a killer who went into exile—

does not leave

the city of refuge

either to

testify

as a witness concerning a mitzva,

or to testify in monetary cases, or to testify in capital cases.

And even if the Jewish people need him—even an army commander of Israel, like Yoav ben Tzeruya—he may never leave there!

As it is stated [ Numbers 35:25 ]: “And the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge

where he fled

there.

And he shall remain there until the death of the High Priest.”

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

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

there shall be his burial.

e.

Just as the city provides refuge, so

all

its boundary

—which is two thousand cubits around the city—also

provides refuge.

f.

If a killer leaves beyond the boundary and the blood redeemer finds him—

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer

to kill him,

and everyone else is permitted

to kill him.

Rabbi Akiva says: The blood redeemer is permitted

to kill him.

But anyone else,

if he kills him,

is liable for him. [ The version of Rambam reads: “they are not liable for him.” ]

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

Gemara:

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason

that one whose verdict was finalized, and before he was exiled the High Priest died, is not exiled?

Abaye said: It is a kal va-chomer

:

If one who had already been exiled

is released now,

when the High Priest dies,

is it not certainly so that one who was not exiled,

since the High Priest died immediately after his verdict was finalized,

should not be exiled?

For the one who is exiled is in the easier situation: the person already exiled must be removed and released from a punishment that has already taken effect, whereas for this person, who has not yet been exiled, the punishment is not imposed upon him.

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

For

perhaps, this one who was exiled,

since he has already been exiled,

his sin has been atoned for

through this, and it is therefore easy to release him now.

But

this one, who was not exiled,

and

has not

yet attained atonement, perhaps he must still be exiled, and only after he is exiled will he be released from his exile through the death of the next High Priest.

And we reject this objection: This is not a valid refutation! For

does

exile

atone?

After all, he is not released from the punishment of exile even when he remains in the city of refuge for a long time.

The duration of his exile depends solely on the death of the High Priest.

It necessarily follows that only

the death of the High Priest provides atonement,

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

And if the death of the High Priest is effective in atoning for him and releasing him from the city of refuge after the punishment has taken effect, certainly the death of the High Priest atones for him so as to exempt him from having the punishment take effect when he has not yet been exiled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“If it was before his verdict was finalized, and so on.”

And we raise a difficulty:

From where are these matters derived,

that he is released only through the death of the second High Priest?

Rav Kahana said:

because

the verse states: “

And he shall remain there until the death of the High Priest who anointed him with the anointing oil.”

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

Is it he,

the killer,

who anointed

the High Priest?

Rather,

the verse comes to tell you that he is released only through the death of the High Priest

who was anointed in his days,

after his verdict to be exiled had been finalized.

You may ask:

What could he have done

the High Priest who was anointed after this killer's verdict had been finalized

to do?

What could he have done to prevent the actions of this killer? After all, in this case he cannot be held responsible for failing to request mercy for his generation, because this misfortune occurred before he was appointed High Priest; only the verdict was not finalized until he became High Priest!

The answer is:

He should have requested mercy that the verdict

of this killer

be rendered favorable, but he did not request it,

and therefore the latter is released upon his death.

Abaye said: We have established

that this is the halakha:

If his verdict was finalized,

but he did not manage to be exiled,

and he died—

his bones are brought there,

to be buried in the city of refuge.

As it is written: “

to return to dwell in the land, until the death of the High Priest.”

And

what dwelling is

“in the land,”

whose meaning is within the ground?

You must say: This is burial.

A tanna

taught in a beraita:

If

the exiled killer dies in his city of refuge

before the High Priest dies,

and they bury him in the city of refuge, then when the High Priest subsequently dies,

his bones are brought to [ or: to ]

the

the graves of his ancestors.

As it is written: “

The killer shall return to the land of his possession.”

What dwelling is in the land of his possession?

You must say: This is burial.

And if

his verdict was finalized,

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

the

great

High

who was serving at that time

Priest

who had served at that time was disqualified as

the son

of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through ḥalitza —what is the law concerning the killer?

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree about this.

One says: The priesthood has died.

This is as though the priest had died after the verdict was finalized, and the killer is not exiled.

And one says: The priesthood is annulled.

It is now retroactively established that he was never a High Priest, and it follows that the killer's verdict was finalized at a time when there was no High Priest; therefore, he is never released.

And we raise a difficulty:

Shall we say that

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa

disagree in the same dispute as Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua!?

As we learned:

If

there was

a priest

standing and performing the sacrificial service on the altar,

and witnesses came,

and it became known

from their testimony that he was disqualified,

being the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through ḥalitza—

Rabbi Eliezer says: All the offerings that he sacrificed

are disqualified.

For it was retroactively established that he was a ḥalal, disqualified for service.

And Rabbi Yehoshua declares them valid.

The Gemara assumes that they disagree about the reason for the dispute stated above. Therefore, we attribute the dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa to this dispute.

The one who says “

the priesthood has died,”

holds

like Rabbi Yehoshua,

who declared his offerings valid.

And the one who says “

the priesthood is annulled,”

holds

like Rabbi Eliezer,

who disqualified all the offerings retroactively.