Makkot 13a — the Talmud in English

They would charge

the exiled murderers

rent from the Levites.

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

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: They would not charge them

the murderers

rent,

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

And in the Gemara it will be explained which cities are being discussed and over what they disagreed.

And the murderer returns

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

to the position of authority that he had held,

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

the words 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 Judah says: He would not return to the position of authority that he had held.

And their sources will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

Rav Kahana said: The disagreement

of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah as to whether they charge them rent is only

regarding the six

cities of refuge.

For

Rabbi Meir

holds that what is stated, “And the cities shall be

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

for you

for the purpose

of

refuge

—for refuge. But for the use of the houses of the city they must pay the owners of the city, who are the Levites.

And

Rabbi Judah

holds:

he holds that we derive from “

for you” that the cities were given

for all your needs,

and even dwelling in them was given for the needs of the murderers, and one may not take rent from them.

But regarding the forty-two

cities of the Levites, which also serve as cities of refuge,

everyone agrees that they would charge them rent.

For regarding the cities of the Levites it was not stated in the Torah that they must give a portion of the city for the needs of the murderers.

Rava said

to Rav Kahana:

This is certainly so:

when the cities of refuge were given to the murderers, as Scripture said

“for you,” -

it implies for all your needs!

And if so, how did Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir disagree regarding the six cities of refuge, when it is explicit in the words of Scripture that they should not pay rent!

Rather, Rava said: The disagreement

of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir is only

regarding the forty-two

cities of the Levites—

For

Rabbi Meir

holds that when Scripture says, “And the cities that you shall give to the Levites: the six cities of refuge that you shall give for the murderer to flee there,”

and upon them you shall give

forty-two cities,” that they should be similar to the cities of the Levites

like these—

as the six cities of refuge—is only

for

the matter of

refuge

for the murderers alone.

But they are not similar regarding dwelling, for the cities of the Levites were not given for the murderers to dwell in free of charge; rather, the murderers must pay rent to the Levites for dwelling in their cities.

And

Rabbi Judah

holds that the command, “

and upon them you shall give,” means that the cities of the Levites should be entirely similar

like these

to the cities of refuge, which were given for the dwelling of the murderers, free of charge.

For Rabbi Judah expounded the verse as follows:

Just as these—

the six cities of refuge—were given

for all your needs—

so too these,

the forty-two cities of the Levites,

also

were given

for all your needs

of the exiles.

But regarding the six

cities of refuge themselves, Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Meir did not disagree; rather,

everyone agrees, they would not

the murderers

charge them rent,

to the Levites.

We learned in the Mishna:

He returns to the position of authority that he had held, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: He would not return to the position of authority that he had held.

And the Gemara explains in what they disagreed, and the Gemara brings their disagreement regarding a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced, who goes out at the Jubilee—

The Sages taught:

It is written regarding a Hebrew slave whose ear was pierced [Leviticus 25],

“And he shall return to his family, and to the estate of his fathers’ house he shall return”

in the year of the Jubilee.

And we expound:

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

For a pierced slave who was freed at the Jubilee does not continue to hold the position of authority that he received from his ancestors,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: He too returns to what his ancestors had held. For Rabbi Meir expounds the latter part of the verse, “to the estate of his ancestors” he shall return,” and Rabbi Meir explains that he returns to every possession that he received from his ancestors, including holding a position of authority, like his ancestors. And just as Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Judah disagreed regarding a pierced Hebrew slave who was freed at the Jubilee, whether he returns to his original position of authority,

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.

so

they disagreed

regarding the exile, regarding the law of an unintentional murderer, who is exiled and leaves upon the death of the High Priest, whether he returns to the position of authority that he had held, like his ancestors.

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

When it says

regarding a pierced Hebrew slave,

“he shall return,” this word is superfluous, for it would have been possible to write, “And he shall return to his family and to the land of his estate.” And this verse comes to teach us by means of a gzera shava [below]—

to include the murderer.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

What is

“and likewise regarding the exile”?

How did they disagree in their expositions of the verse regarding the murderer, 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 estate.”

And we expound:

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

to the position of authority that he received from them,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: He too returns to what

his ancestors had held.

And although it is not written regarding the murderer, “to the estate of his ancestors,”

he derives

Rabbi Meir by means of a gzera shava, “return, return”—

from there.

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.

It is said here, “the murderer shall return,” and it is said regarding the slave who was freed at the Jubilee, “and to the estate of his ancestors he shall return.”

And from this Rabbi Meir learned that the law of the murderer is to return to his position of authority, as we find regarding the slave who was freed.

We have completed

the chapter “These Are the Exiles”.

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 person of Israel who transgresses one of the negative commandments of the Torah is liable for this to a punishment of thirty-nine lashes.

The source for the liability for lashes is from the words of Scripture in the portion of Ki Tetzei [Deuteronomy 25:1–3]: "

And they shall declare the wicked man wicked. And it shall be, if the judge understands that the wicked man is to be beaten—and the judge shall cause him to lie down, and he shall strike him before him according to the measure of his wickedness. "

By the number forty shall he strike him,"

he shall not add," and so forth.

But not for every transgression does one receive lashes.

Since the portion of lashes was juxtaposed to the portion of "You shall not muzzle an ox while it is threshing" [which was stated in the verse after it], the Sages learned from here that one receives lashes only for a transgression resembling the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it is threshing. Therefore—

a. One receives lashes only for a transgression of a negative commandment, resembling the transgression of muzzling an ox while it is threshing, which is a transgression of a negative commandment, and not for the nullification of a positive commandment, or for a prohibition stated in the language of a positive commandment.

b. One does not receive lashes for a negative commandment for which there is a positive commandment to rectify it [called "a negative commandment that is remedied by a positive commandment"], since it does not resemble the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it is threshing, for in that prohibition no positive commandment to rectify the prohibition was stated. For example, the transgression of robbery, concerning which the Torah stated a positive commandment to rectify it—through returning the robbed object.

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

Likewise, there are amoraim who hold that one does not receive lashes for "a negative commandment preceded by a positive commandment," because it does not resemble the prohibition of muzzling, which was not preceded by a positive commandment.

For example, the commandment of sending away the mother bird, in which the Torah first commanded one to send away the mother from above the eggs or from above the fledglings before taking them, and afterward the Torah added a negative commandment, "You shall not take the mother together with the children" [Deuteronomy 22:6–7. The order of the verses will be explained in the Gemara].

There is another verse that teaches about liability for lashes, stated in the portion of rebuke [Deuteronomy 28:58–59]: "If you do not observe to perform all the words of this Torah—and the Lord will make your blows extraordinary."

c. Likewise, there is a dispute whether one receives lashes for a negative commandment that does not involve an act with one's hands, such as a negative commandment transgressed through speech, because it does not resemble the prohibition of muzzling, which involves an act with one's hands.

Mishna:

And these are the ones who receive lashes:

And the tanna enumerates the series of those who receive lashes, and divides them into several groups, according to subjects:

a. Those liable for karet: lashes are administered for the transgression of the negative commandment.

And there is a novelty in this matter: although their punishment is karet, and a person is not punished with two punishments for one act, nevertheless lashes are administered to them for the transgression of the negative commandment, since they have the possibility of repenting and being exempted from the punishment of karet. And these are they:

One who has intercourse with his sister, and

one who has intercourse

with his father's sister, and

one who has intercourse

with his mother's sister, and

one who has intercourse

with his wife's sister, and

one who has intercourse

with his brother's wife, and

one who has intercourse

with his father's brother's wife, and

one who has intercourse

with a menstruant woman.

b. Those liable for negative commandments who are disqualified for the congregation or disqualified for priesthood.

And the novelty in their case is that sometimes two sets of lashes are administered for one act with one woman.

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

A widow—

who is forbidden only

to a High Priest.

A divorcee and a woman released through halitza—

who are forbidden even

to an ordinary priest.

A mamzeret and a Netina [

from the Gibeonites, who converted deceitfully in the days of Joshua, and are forbidden by the negative commandment "You shall not intermarry with them," like the seven nations in the Land of Israel]—who are forbidden even

to an Israelite.

And likewise a woman who is

the daughter of an Israelite—

it is forbidden for her to marry

a Netin or a mamzer.

And concerning these persons liable for negative commandments, we find that for one woman, who is disqualified on account of two different names—for example, she is also

a widow

from one man, and also

a divorcee

from another man—

they are liable for her,

if a High Priest has intercourse with her, for two sets of lashes,

on account of two names [

widow and divorcee].

For so Scripture said concerning the High Priest [Leviticus 21:14]: "A widow and a divorcee and a profaned woman, a harlot—these he shall not take!"

And the warning "he shall not take" applies both to a widow and to a divorcee, as though two separate warnings had been stated, each imposing lashes in its own right.

But a priest who has intercourse with a woman who is both

a divorcee

and

a woman released through halitza [

from the levir]—

is not liable

for lashes for her

except on account of

one warning

only,

for the transgression of a divorcee with a priest, and not for a woman released through halitza, since the prohibition of a woman released through halitza to a priest is only a rabbinic prohibition, learned, as an asmachta, from the extension of the verse concerning a divorcee; therefore, with regard to liability for lashes, the woman released through halitza is considered like a divorcee.

c. Negative commandments relating to prohibitions of eating, and concerning sacred things.

One who is impure who ate the

flesh of

sacred offerings [

a sacrifice].

And

likewise a person

who enters the Sanctuary

when he is

impure.

And in the Gemara [14b] it will be explained where a warning and a punishment are written concerning them.

And

likewise

one who eats fat and blood,

which are prohibitions of eating, both with unconsecrated food and with sacred offerings.

And

likewise one who eats invalid sacred offerings, such as sacred flesh that

remained

after the time allotted for its eating.

And

likewise one who eats sacred flesh that is

pigul,

which was slaughtered with a thought of pigul that renders the sacrifice invalid.

And

likewise one who eats sacred flesh that is

impure.

And since the Mishna speaks about sacred offerings, it also brings two additional negative commandments concerning sacred offerings, although they are not prohibitions of eating—

And one who slaughters

sacred offerings outside the Temple courtyard, or

one who offers,

who burns sacred offerings

outside

the Temple courtyard.

And one who eats leaven on Passover.

And one who eats

or

performs work

on the Day of Atonement.

And one who compounds the anointing oil,

who makes oil according to the formulation of the anointing oil in the Temple, which is something forbidden to make, by a negative commandment.

And one who compounds the incense,

who makes a compound according to the formulation of the incense in the Temple, for this too is forbidden to make, by a negative commandment.

And one who anoints

his body

with the anointing oil,

with the oil that Moses made in the wilderness and some of which remained for the generations.

And one who eats carcasses, torn animals, swarming creatures, and creeping things.

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

And the novelty is that lashes are administered for them:

If he ate untithed produce.

And

likewise one who ate

first tithe from which its teruma had not been removed,

from which the teruma of the tithe had not been separated, and whose law is like the law of untithed produce, and its eating is forbidden to every person, even a priest, as long as the teruma of the tithe has not been separated from it.

And

likewise one who ate

second tithe [

outside Jerusalem]—

And

likewise one who ate

sacred property

anywhere —

And it is speaking about a case in which they

were not redeemed [

the second tithe or the sacred property].

And now the Mishna brings a dispute of tannaim: what is the measure for which one receives lashes—

How much must he eat of untithed produce, and be liable

for lashes for its eating?

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-size

of untithed produce receives lashes.

Rabbi Shimon said to them:

And is it so that

if [

not]

you agree with me concerning one who eats a whole ant,

which does not contain an olive-size, but whose measure is

any amount—

that he is liable

for lashes for eating it?!

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

They said to him,

the Sages: There is no proof from eating an ant, for which one is liable for any amount,

because it is a complete creature,

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

And one cannot compare eating it to eating untithed produce, since with untithed produce there is no prohibition of eating a "complete creature."

He said to them,

Rabbi Shimon:

Even

with untithed produce we find the prohibition of a "complete creature," such as

one grain

of untithed produce, which does not contain an olive-size; and according to your words, one should receive lashes for eating it based on this reasoning, that it is

a complete creature.

Gemara:

The Gemara precisely analyzes the language of the Mishna:

Only

those liable for karet, it teaches,

the tanna taught in our Mishna that lashes are administered to them even though there is liability for karet.

Whereas

those liable for executions by the court—

it does not teach

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

Whose view is the Mishna,

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

Rabbi Akiva!

And the Gemara brings a beraita, containing a dispute among three tannaim whether, in the case of those liable for executions and those liable for karet, a punishment of lashes is possible—

As it was taught: Both those liable for karet and those liable for executions by the court—