Makkot 13a (יג.) — the Talmud in English

They would raise

the exiled murderers

rent for the Levites.

The Levites who lived in the cities of refuge would rent apartments to the murderers,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: They would not raise for them

the murderers

rent,

because the cities of refuge were intended to accommodate the murderers.

The Gemara will explain which cities are being discussed and in what they disagreed.

And he returns

the murderer, after he leaves his city of refuge upon the death of the High Priest,

to the position of authority that he held,

for example, if he had been a nasi or the head of a court,

the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Rambam [Chapter 17 of the Laws of the Sanhedrin, halakha 9] wrote: “But the head of the academy who sins is flogged and does not return to his position of authority.” His source is the Jerusalem Talmud [Sanhedrin, chapter 2], where they said that a High Priest who is flogged returns to his greatness, but a nasi who sins is flogged and is not restored to his position. The Meiri wrote that the head of a court who repents likewise does not return to his position of authority. And in the Magen Avraham [153, subsection 49] it is written that it may be inferred from the Mordekhai [Bava Batra 533] that if one left a position of authority even because of an unintentional transgression, he does not return to it, as we find with regard to a murderer. The Pri Megadim wrote that specifically a murderer does not return, because a great mishap came about through him; but with regard to other transgressions, he does return. He cited the fact that Rashi, in his commentary on Parashat Behar, ruled in accordance with Rabbi Meir that even a murderer returns. See the Makhatzit HaShekel, who shows that it is evident from the Mordekhai that there is no distinction between a murderer and other transgressors, but the Gaon of Vilna wrote that a distinction must be made between a murderer, with regard to whom there is an explicit verse, and whom the scriptural decree applies to alone.

Rabbi Yehuda says: He would not return to the position of authority that he held.

Their sources will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Kahana said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to whether they raise rent for them applies only

with regard to the six

cities of refuge.

As

Rabbi Meir

holds:

What is stated, “And the cities shall be

for you as a refuge,” means that these cities were given to the murderers only

for the

purpose

of

accommodation.

But for the use of the houses in the city, they must pay the owners of the city, namely, the Levites.

And

Rabbi Yehuda

holds that we expound from

“

for you”

that the cities were given

for all your needs,

and even residence in them was provided for the murderers’ needs, and rent may not be taken from them.

But with regard to the forty-two

Levitical

cities, which also serve as cities of refuge, everyone agrees that they would raise rent for them.

For with regard to the Levitical cities, the Torah does not state that they must provide a portion of the city for the needs of the murderers.

Rava said

to Rav Kahana:

Certainly,

when it comes to the giving of the cities of refuge to the murderers, as the verse says,

“for you” -

clearly means for all your needs!

If so, how could Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to the six cities of refuge, when it is explicitly stated in the verse that they do not pay rent?

Rather, Rava said: The dispute

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir applies only

with regard to the forty-two

Levitical cities—

As

Rabbi Meir

holds:

When the verse says, “And the cities that you shall give to the Levites: the six cities of refuge that you shall give for a murderer to flee there,

and in addition to them you shall give

forty-two cities,” the forty-two cities are to be similar to the Levitical cities

as these

six cities of refuge are, only

with regard to

the matter of

accommodating

the murderers alone.

But they are not similar with regard to residence, because the Levitical cities were not given so that murderers could live in them free of charge. Rather, the murderers must pay rent to the Levites for residing in their cities.

And

Rabbi Yehuda

holds that the command,

“

and in addition to them you shall give,”

means that the Levitical cities should be entirely similar

to these

cities of refuge, which were given for the murderers’ residence free of charge.

For Rabbi Yehuda expounds the verse as follows:

Just as these

six cities of refuge were given

for all your needs—

so too these,

the forty-two Levitical cities,

also

were given

for all your needs

of the exiles.

But with regard to the six

cities of refuge themselves, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir did not disagree. Rather,

everyone agrees that the

murderers

did not raise rent

for the Levites.

We learned in the Mishna:

He returns to the position of authority that he held

—the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He would not return to the position of authority that he held.

The Gemara explains the basis of their dispute, and cites their dispute with regard to a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced and who goes free with the Jubilee—

The Sages taught:

It is written with regard to a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced [Leviticus 25]:

“And he shall return to his family, and to the ancestral holding of his fathers he shall return”

in the Jubilee year.

And we expound:

He returns to his family, but he does not return to what his ancestors held.

A Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced and who was released in the Jubilee does not continue to hold the position of authority that he received from his ancestors,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: He too returns to what his ancestors held.

For Rabbi Meir expounds the latter part of the verse,

“to the ancestral holding of his fathers”

“he shall return,” and Rabbi Meir explains that he returns to every holding that he received from his ancestors, including holding a position of authority,

like his ancestors.

And

just as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda disagreed with regard to a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced and who was released in the Jubilee, as to whether he returns to his original position of authority,

so

they disagreed

with regard to the exile—concerning the law of an unintentional murderer who is exiled and leaves upon the death of the High Priest: does he return to the position of authority that he held, like his ancestors?

The source of Rabbi Meir’s view that a murderer returns to his position of authority is learned from the law of the Hebrew slave—

When it says

with regard to a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced,

“he shall return,”

this word is superfluous, as it would have been possible to write, “And he shall return to his family and to the land of his holding.” This verse therefore comes to teach us by means of a

gzera shava: to include the murderer.

The Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

What is meant by

“and likewise with regard to the exile”?

How did they disagree in their expositions of the verse concerning the murderer, as to whether he returns to his position of authority or not?

As it was taught:

It is written, “And after the death of the High Priest,

the murderer shall return to the land of his holding.”

And we expound:

He returns to the land of his holding, but he does not return to what his ancestors held,

to the position of authority that he received from them,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: He too returns to what

his ancestors held.

Although the verse concerning the murderer does not state, “to the ancestral holding of his fathers,”

he derives

this through a

gzera shava, “return, return”—

from there.

Here it says, “the murderer shall return,” and with regard to a slave who was released in the Jubilee it says, “and to the ancestral holding of his fathers he shall return.”

From this Rabbi Meir learned that the law of the murderer is to return to his position of authority, just as we find with regard to a slave who was released.

We have completed the chapter “These Are the Exiles.”

Introduction

A Jew who violates one of the Torah’s negative commandments is liable to receive thirty-nine lashes for it.

The source for the obligation to receive lashes is found in the verses written in the portion of Ki Teitzei [Deuteronomy 25:1–3]: "

And they shall condemn the wicked one. And it shall be, if the judge understands that the wicked one is to be beaten—the judge shall cast him down, and strike him before him according to his wickedness.

By the number forty shall he strike him,

he shall not add," and so on.

However, not every transgression is punishable by lashes.

Since the passage concerning lashes is juxtaposed with the passage concerning “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing” [which is stated in the following verse], the Sages learned from here that lashes are administered only for a transgression resembling the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Therefore—

a. Lashes are administered only for violating a negative commandment, resembling the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it is threshing, which is a negative commandment, and not for failure to fulfill a positive commandment, or for violating a prohibition expressed in the language of a positive commandment.

b. Lashes are not administered for a negative commandment that has a positive commandment designated to rectify it [called a “negative commandment remedied by a positive commandment”], since it does not resemble the prohibition against muzzling an ox while it is threshing, for which no positive commandment was stated to rectify the negative commandment. An example is the transgression of robbery, for which the Torah stated a positive commandment to rectify it—through returning the stolen item.

However, if one nullified the positive commandment intended to rectify the negative commandment, or if one did not fulfill it [the amoraim in the Gemara disagree about this], he receives lashes for violating this negative commandment.

Likewise, there are amoraim who maintain that lashes are not administered for “a negative commandment preceded by a positive commandment,” because it does not resemble the prohibition against muzzling, which was not preceded by a positive commandment.

An example is the mitzva of sending away the mother bird, in which the Torah first commanded one to send away the mother from above the eggs or the chicks before taking them, and then added the negative commandment, “You shall not take the mother together with the young” [Deuteronomy 22:6–7. The order of the verses will be explained in the Gemara].

There is another verse that teaches about the obligation to receive lashes, stated in the portion of rebuke [Deuteronomy 28:58–59]: “If you do not observe to perform all the words of this Torah—you shall marvel at the plagues inflicted upon you by the Lord.”

c. There is likewise a dispute as to whether lashes are administered for a negative commandment that does not involve an action performed with one’s hands, such as a prohibition violated through speech, since it does not resemble the prohibition against muzzling, which involves an action performed with one’s hands.

Mishna:

And these are the ones who receive lashes:

The tanna lists the series of those who receive lashes and divides them into several groups according to subject matter:

a. Those liable for karet receive lashes for violating the negative commandment.

There is a novel point in this matter: Although their punishment is karet, and a person is not punished with two punishments for a single act, nevertheless they receive lashes for violating the negative commandment, since they have the possibility of repenting and thereby being exempted from the punishment of karet. And these are:

One who engages in intercourse with his sister, and

one who engages in intercourse

with his father’s sister, and

one who engages in intercourse

with his mother’s sister, and

one who engages in intercourse

with his wife’s sister, and

one who engages in intercourse

with his brother’s wife, and

one who engages in intercourse

with his father’s brother’s wife, and

one who engages in intercourse

with a menstruating woman.

b. Those liable for violating negative commandments who are disqualified from marrying into the congregation or are disqualified from marrying a kohen.

The novel point concerning them is that at times one receives two sets of lashes for a single act with one woman.

And these are they, in order of the severity of their disqualification:

A widow—

who is prohibited only

to a High Priest.

A divorcee and a woman who performed ḥalitza—

who are prohibited even

to an ordinary kohen.

A mamzeret and a Gibeonite woman [

from the Gibeonites, who converted deceitfully in the days of Joshua and are prohibited by the negative commandment “You shall not marry them,” like the seven nations in the Land of Israel]—who are prohibited even

to an Israelite.

Likewise, a woman who is

an Israelite—

is prohibited from marrying

a Gibeonite or a mamzer.

And among these persons liable for violating negative commandments, we find that concerning one woman who is disqualified on account of two different designations—for example, if she is both

a widow

from one man and also

a divorcee

from another man—

one is liable for her,

if a High Priest engages in intercourse with her, to receive two sets of lashes,

on account of two designations [

widow and divorcee].

For this is what the verse stated concerning a High Priest [Leviticus 21:14]: “A widow, a divorcee, a profaned woman, or a prostitute—these he shall not take!”

And the prohibition “he shall not take” applies both to a widow and to a divorcee, as though two separate prohibitions had been stated, each independently making one liable for lashes.

However, a kohen who engages in intercourse with a woman who is both

a divorcee

and

a woman who performed ḥalitza [

from the yavam]—

is not liable

to receive lashes for her

except on account of

one prohibition

only,

for the transgression involving a divorcee with a kohen, and not for the ḥalutza, because the prohibition against a ḥalutza with a kohen is only a rabbinic prohibition, derived as an asmachta from an amplification of the verse concerning a divorcee. Therefore, with regard to liability for lashes, the ḥalutza is considered like a divorcee.

c. Negative commandments concerning prohibitions of eating and matters relating to consecrated offerings.

One who is impure who ate

the meat of

consecrated property [

a sacrifice].

And

likewise, one

who enters the Temple

while

impure.

And in the Gemara [14b] it will be explained where the prohibition and punishment for these are written.

And

likewise,

one who eats forbidden fat or blood,

which are prohibitions against eating, whether of non-sacred food or of consecrated offerings.

And

likewise, one who eats invalid consecrated offerings, such as sacrificial meat that

remained

after the time allotted for eating it.

And

likewise, one who eats sacrificial meat that is

pigul,

which was slaughtered with an intention of pigul that invalidates the sacrifice.

And

likewise, one who eats sacred meat that is

impure.

Since the Mishna is discussing consecrated offerings, it also brings two additional negative commandments concerning consecrated offerings, although they do not involve a prohibition against eating—

And one who slaughters

consecrated offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or

one who offers,

burning consecrated offerings

outside

the courtyard.

And one who eats leavened bread on Passover.

And one who eats

or

performs labor

on Yom Kippur.

And one who compounds the anointing oil,

who makes oil according to the formula of the anointing oil in the Temple, which is prohibited to make by a negative commandment.

And one who compounds the incense,

who makes a compound according to the formula of the incense in the Temple, which too is prohibited to make by a negative commandment.

And one who anoints

his body

with the anointing oil,

the oil that Moses made in the wilderness and that remained for future generations.

And one who eats carcasses, tereifot, abominable creatures, or creeping things.

d. Negative commandments that were not written explicitly in the Torah.

The novel point is that lashes are administered for them:

One who eats untithed produce.

And

likewise, one who eats

first tithe from which its teruma has not been removed,

from which the terumat ma’aser was not separated. Its status is like that of untithed produce, and everyone is prohibited from eating it, even a kohen, as long as the terumat ma’aser has not been separated from it.

And

likewise, one who eats

second tithe [

outside Jerusalem]—

And

likewise, one who eats

consecrated property

anywhere —

And this refers to the case of

that was not redeemed [

the second tithe or the consecrated property].

The Mishna now brings a dispute among tannaim concerning the measure for which one receives lashes—

How much must one eat of untithed produce to be liable

for lashes for eating it?

Rabbi Shimon says:

Even one who eats

any amount

of untithed produce receives lashes.

And the Sages say:

Only one who eats at least

an olive-bulk

of untithed produce receives lashes.

Rabbi Shimon said to them:

But

if [

you do not]

you concede to me with regard to one who eats an entire ant,

which does not contain an olive-bulk, but only a measure of

any amount—

that he is liable

for lashes for eating it!?

And if so, the same should apply to one who eats untithed produce: He should be liable for lashes even for eating any amount!

The Sages said to him: There is no proof from eating an ant, for which one is liable for any amount,

since

it is an intact creature,

and the Torah prohibited eating it as it is, even though it does not contain the measure of an act of eating, which is an olive-bulk.

And one cannot compare eating it to eating untithed produce, since in the case of untithed produce there is no prohibition against eating an “intact creature.”

He said to them,

Rabbi Shimon:

Even

in the case of untithed produce we find the prohibition of an “intact creature,” such as

a single grain of untithed produce,

which does not contain an olive-bulk; and according to your reasoning, one should receive lashes for eating it on the basis of this reasoning, that

it is an intact creature.

Gemara:

The Gemara analyzes the wording of the Mishna:

Only

those liable for karet it teaches,

the tanna taught in our Mishna that they receive lashes despite being liable for karet.

Whereas

those liable for execution by a court—

it did not teach

in our Mishna that lashes are administered to them [even if they were warned that they would receive lashes].

Whose view is the Mishna,

according to whose opinion is our Mishna stated? It is according to the view of

Rabbi Akiva!

The Gemara cites a beraita containing a dispute among three tannaim as to whether, in cases liable for execution by a court and cases liable for karet, a punishment of lashes is possible—

As it was taught in a beraita: Both those liable for karet and those liable for execution by a court—