Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 16, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Makkot 11

The accidental killer speaks to the elders when he gets to the city.聽 The gemara derives聽a number of halachot from here.聽 The section in Yehoshua when he sets up cities of refuge is discussed.聽 The accidental killer leaves the city of refuge at the death of the Kohen Gadol.聽 Who qualifies as a Kohen Gadol?聽 If there are multiple聽Kohanim Gedolim, do they all need to die or just one of them.聽 Out of concern that the people in the city may pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, their mother’s would provide food and clothing for the accidental killers.聽 The gemara then discusses prayers that have no basis (like praying for the Kohen Gadol to die)- do they come true?聽 Different scenarios are brought regarding the timing of the death of the Kohen Gadol – after the killing but before the court determined that the killer needs to go to the city of refuge or after the court’s ruling but6 before the killer got to the city, etc. and the halacha聽in each case is determined.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讘诇砖讜谉 注讝讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗诪专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讻诐 讗转 注专讬 讛诪拽诇讟 讗砖专 讚讘专转讬 讗诇讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 讛转讜专讛

with harsh language, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke [vayedabber] to Joshua saying: Speak [dabber] to the children of Israel, saying: Assign you the cities of refuge of which I spoke [dibbarti] to you by means of Moses鈥 (Joshua 20:1鈥2). Why does the Torah repeatedly employ a term of dibbur, connoting harsh speech, as opposed to the term of amira, connoting neutral speech? It is due to the fact that the cities of refuge are a mitzva of the Torah, and therefore they warrant emphasis.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讚讬讘讜专 诇砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讗讬谉 讻讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讛讗讬砖 讗讚谞讬 讛讗专抓 讗转谞讜 拽砖讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讚讘专讜 讗讬谉 谞讚讘专讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 谞讞转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讚讘专 注诪讬诐 转讞转讬谞讜 讚讘专 诇讞讜讚 讬讚讘专 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all instances of speaking [dibbur] indicate harsh language? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is written with regard to Joseph鈥檚 brothers: 鈥淭he man, the lord of the land, spoke [dibber] harshly to us鈥 (Genesis 42:30). The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen they who feared the Lord spoke [nidberu] with one another鈥 (Malachi 3:16), that the term 鈥渢hey spoke鈥 is nothing other than a term of gentleness, and likewise, the same is true of the verse which states: 鈥淗e subdues [yadber] peoples under us鈥 (Psalms 47:4), meaning that God will calmly and gently conduct the nations under the influence of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: The meaning of dibber is discrete and the meaning of yadber is discrete. There is a difference between the two conjugations of the same root.

(住讬诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讛诪谞讬 讜住驻专讬)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the disputes involving Rabbi Yehuda that follow: Rabbis; mehemni, i.e., the dispute with Rabbi Ne岣mya; and the dispute with regard to Torah scrolls sewn with threads of flax.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬讛诐 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 转讜专讛

The Gemara resumes the discussion of the harsh language employed in the portion discussing murderers in the book of Joshua. Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this matter. One says harsh language was employed because Joshua delayed fulfilling the mitzva of designating cities of refuge, and one says it is because the cities of refuge are a mitzva of the Torah, and therefore they warrant emphasis.

讜讬讻转讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 注专讬 诪拽诇讟

The Gemara cites an additional dispute with regard to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua. It is written: 鈥淎nd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God鈥 (Joshua 24:26). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ne岣mya disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The reference is to the final eight verses in the Torah that record the death of Moses and were recorded by Joshua in the scroll of the Torah, in addition to the rest of the Torah that was written by Moses (see Bava Batra 15a). And one says: The reference is to the portion of the cities of refuge that appears in the book of Joshua.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪谞讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 诪讗讬 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘住驻专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐

The Gemara discusses these two opinions: Granted, according to the one who says that the reference is to the final eight verses in the Torah, that is the reason that it is written: 鈥淎nd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God,鈥 as he wrote those verses and they were included in the Torah. But according to the one who says that the reference is to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渋n the scroll of the Torah of God鈥? They appear in the book of Joshua, not in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: And Joshua wrote in his book these matters that are also written in the scroll of the Torah of God.

住驻专 砖转驻专讜 讘驻砖转谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻砖专 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇

The Gemara proceeds to cite another dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and one of the Sages in which it is not clear which opinion is attributable to which Sage. In the case of a Torah scroll where one sewed its sheets with linen threads, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The Torah scroll is fit for use, and one says: The Torah scroll is unfit for use.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 讜讗讬转拽砖 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诇转驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 诇讛诇讻讜转讬讜 诇讗 讗讬转拽砖

The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who says that the Torah scroll is unfit for use, the reason is as it is written with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淎nd it shall be for you a sign on your hand and a memorial between your eyes, in order that the Torah of God shall be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). And in this verse the entire Torah is juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries: Just as with regard to phylacteries, there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai to sew them with sinews, so too, with regard to all sheets of the Torah scroll, there is a requirement to sew them with sinews. And the other Sage holds: When the Torah scroll is juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries, it is only with regard to the principle that the sheets of the Torah scroll may be prepared only from a species of animal that is permitted to your mouth, i.e., that it is permitted for a Jew to eat; but with regard to its other halakhot, it is not juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讘讬 讞讘讬讘讬 讚转驻讬专讬 讘讻讬转谞讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav said: I saw that the phylacteries of the house of my uncle, Rabbi 岣yya, were sewn with linen. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion; phylacteries may be sewn only with sinews.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪专讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注讘专 诪诪砖讬讞讜转讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛专讜爪讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞

MISHNA: The Torah states that an unintentional murderer is required to remain in the city of refuge to which he fled until the death of the High Priest. The mishna elaborates: With regard to High Priests, who were appointed in several different manners, one anointed with the anointing oil, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period; and one consecrated by donning multiple garments, the eight vestments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period; and one who received a temporary appointment due to the unfitness of the serving High Priest, who departed from his anointment with the restoration of the serving High Priest to active service, their deaths facilitate the return of the murderer from the city of refuge to his home. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the death of a priest anointed for war to address the soldiers (see Deuteronomy 20:1鈥7) facilitates the return of the murderer.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬诪讜转讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诪住驻拽讜转 诇讛谉 诪讞讬讛 讜讻住讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转驻诇诇讜 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讬诪讜转讜

The mishna continues: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons would die. The more comfortable their lives in the city of refuge, the less urgency they would feel to leave, and the less likely it would be that they would pray for the death of the High Priests.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讘 讘讛 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 讬砖讘 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讞专讬 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the death of these High Priests facilitates the return of the murderer, derived? Rav Kahana said they are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest who was anointed with the sacred oil鈥 (Numbers 35:25), and it is written: 鈥淔or in his city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the High Priest鈥 (Numbers 35:28), and it is written: 鈥淎nd after the death of the High Priest the murderer shall return to his ancestral land鈥 (Numbers 35:28). The three mentions of the death of the High Priest correspond to the three types of High Priest enumerated by the first tanna of the mishna: One anointed with oil, one consecrated by donning the eight vestments, and one who was relieved of his position.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇砖讜讘 诇砖讘转 讘讗专抓 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 (讜讙讜壮) 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讛讙讚讜诇 讞讚 诪讛谞讱 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that another verse is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for him that fled to his city of refuge, to return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest鈥 (Numbers 35:32), from which it is derived that the death of the priest anointed for war also facilitates the return of the murderer. And the other tanna says: From the fact that High Priest is not written in that verse, it is clear that the reference is not to an additional type of High Priest; rather, the reference is to one of those High Priests mentioned in the preceding verses.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬诪讜转讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪诇讜 讛讗 诪爪诇讜 诪讬讬转讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻爪驻讜专 诇谞讜讚 讻讚专讜专 诇注讜祝 讻谉 拽诇诇转 讞谞诐 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讚讜专谉 讜诇讗 讘拽砖讜

搂 The mishna teaches: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons will die. The Gemara asks: The reason that the High Priest will not die is that they do not pray; but if they prayed for the death of the High Priest, would he die? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s the wandering sparrow, as the flying swallow, so a curse that is baseless shall come home鈥 (Proverbs 26:2)? Why does the mishna express concern over a baseless curse? A certain elder said to him: I heard in the lecture delivered by Rava that it is not a baseless curse, as the High Priests share the blame for the unintentional murders performed by these people, as they should have pleaded for mercy for their generation, that no murder should transpire, even unintentionally, and they did not plead. Due to their share in the blame, prayers for their death could be effective.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讻讚讬 砖讬转驻诇诇讜 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪诇讜 讛讗 诇讗 诪爪诇讜 诪讬讬转讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讜讘讬讛 讞讟讗 讜讝讬讙讜讚 诪谞讙讬讚

And some teach a variant reading of the mishna: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments, so that those exiled would pray that their sons will not die. The Gemara infers: The reason that the High Priests will not die is that they pray, but if they did not pray for the High Priest not to die, would the High Priest die? What could the High Priest have done to prevent the unintentional murder? Here, in Babylonia, we say an adage to describe a situation of that sort: Toviyya sinned and Zigud is flogged. Toviyya violated a prohibition and Zigud came as a single witness to testify against him. Since the testimony of a single witness is not valid in court, he is flogged for defaming Toviyya. The sinner is unpunished and the person who sought to testify against him is flogged. This became a colloquialism for a situation where one is punished for the sin of another.

讛转诐 讗诪专讬 砖讻诐 谞住讬讘 讜诪讘讙讗讬 讙讝讬专

There, in Eretz Yisrael, they say a different adage with the same application: Shechem married a woman and Mavgai circumcised himself. This is based on the episode of the abduction of Dinah in the city of Shechem (see Genesis, chapter 34), where Shechem compelled all the male residents of the city to undergo circumcision so that he could marry Dinah. Shechem married Dinah, while the rest of the males suffered the pain of circumcision and received no benefit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讚讜专谉 讜诇讗 讘拽砖讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讻诇讬讛 讗专讬讗 讘专讞讜拽 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转注讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讛 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬

A certain elder said to him: I heard in the lecture delivered by Rava that the High Priests share the blame, as they should have pleaded for mercy for their generation and they did not plead. Consequently, they required the exiles to pray on their own behalf. The Gemara illustrates the concept of the responsibility held by the spiritual leadership: This is like in this incident where a certain man was eaten by a lion at a distance of three parasangs from the place of residence of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and Elijah the prophet did not speak with him for three days because of his failure to pray that an incident of this kind would not transpire in his place of residence.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 拽诇诇转 讞讻诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞谞诐 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谞诇谉 诪讗讞讬转讜驻诇 砖讘砖注讛 砖讻专讛 讚讜讚 砖讬转讬谉 拽驻讗 转讛讜诪讗 讘注讗 诇诪讬砖讟驻讗 诇注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诪讛讜 诇讻转讜讘 砖诐 讗讞住驻讗 讜诪讬砖讚讗 讘转讛讜诪讗 讚诇讬拽讜 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 诇讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讚讘专 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专讜 讬讞谞拽 讘讙专讜谞讜

Apropos curses that are realized, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to the curse of a Sage, even if it is baseless, i.e., based on a mistaken premise, it nevertheless comes to fruition and affects the object of the curse. From where do we derive this? It is derived from this incident involving Ahithophel. When David dug the drainpipes in preparation for building the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to write the sacred name on an earthenware shard and throw it into the depths, so that the water will subside and stand in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. David said: Anyone who knows the answer to this matter and does not say it shall be strangled.

谞砖讗 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 讜诪讛 诇注砖讜转 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讗诪专讛 讛转讜专讛 砖诪讬 砖谞讻转讘 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讬诪讞讛 注诇 讛诪讬诐 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 讗讞住驻讗 砖讚讬 讗转讛讜诪讗 谞讞转 讜拽诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛

Then Ahithophel raised an a fortiori inference on his own and said: And if in order to make peace between a man and his wife in the case of a sota, when the husband suspects his wife of having committed adultery, the Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased on the water, then, in order to establish peace for the whole world in its entirety, is it not all the more so permitted? Ahithophel said to David: It is permitted. David wrote the sacred name on an earthenware shard and cast it into the depths, and the water in the depths subsided and stood in its place.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗讞讬转驻诇 专讗讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞注砖转讛 注爪转讜 讜讬讞讘砖 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讬拽诐 讜讬诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转讜 (讜)讗诇 注讬专讜 讜讬爪讜 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讜讬讞谞拽 讜讙讜壮

And even so it is written that during the rebellion of Absalom: 鈥淎nd Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not taken, and he saddled his donkey and he arose and went to his house, to his town, and he commanded his household and strangled himself鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:23). Although David stipulated that his curse would take effect only if one who knows the answer fails to share it with him, and Ahithophel did not fail to share it with him, the curse was realized.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽诇诇转 讞讻诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谞诇谉 诪注诇讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 [注诇讬] 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛 讬注砖讛 诇讱 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讻讛 讬讜住讬祝 讗诐 转讻讞讚 诪诪谞讬 讚讘专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讙讚 诇讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗转 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻讞讚 诪诪谞讜 [ 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬] 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘谞讬讜 讘讚专讻讬讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a similar statement: Rabbi Abbahu says: With regard to the curse of a Sage, even if it is stated conditionally, it comes to realization. From where do we derive this? It is derived from an incident involving Eli the High Priest, as Eli said to Samuel, after the latter had received a prophetic vision with regard to Eli, that his sons do not follow his path: 鈥淭herefore may God do to you, and more also, if you hide any matter from me of all the matters that He spoke unto you鈥 (I聽Samuel 3:17). And even though it is written immediately thereafter: 鈥淎nd Samuel told him all the matters, and did not hide from him鈥 (I聽Samuel 3:18), it is written at the time of Samuel鈥檚 death: 鈥淎nd his sons did not follow in his ways鈥 (I聽Samuel 8:3), indicating that God did to Samuel as he prophesied with regard to Eli, and his own sons did not follow his path. Despite the fact that Eli stated the curse conditionally, Samuel was affected by the curse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讬讚讜讬 注诇 转谞讗讬 爪专讬讱 讛驻专讛 诪谞诇谉 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗转讬讜 讗诇讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜讗诇 讬诪转 讜讙讜壮 讜讝讗转 诇讬讛讜讚讛

Apropos declarations that take effect even if they were stated conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Ostracism that was declared conditionally requires nullification, even though the condition was not fulfilled. From where do we derive this? It is derived from Judah, as it is written with regard to his request that his father allow the brothers to take Benjamin to Egypt: 鈥淚f I do not bring him to you鈥I would have sinned to you for all days鈥 (Genesis 43:9), i.e., I will remain ostracized as a sinner. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟et Reuben live and not die鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:6), followed immediately by the verse: 鈥淎nd this for Judah鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7)? Why was the blessing of Judah linked to that of Reuben?

讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 诪讙讜诇讙诇讬谉 讘讗专讜谉 注讚 砖注诪讚 诪砖讛 讜讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 诪讬 讙专诐 诇专讗讜讘谉 砖讬讜讚讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讝讗转 诇讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 讛壮 拽讜诇 讬讛讜讚讛

Throughout those forty years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness, Judah鈥檚 bones were rattling in the coffin, detached from one another, because the ostracism that he declared upon himself remained in effect, until Moses stood and entreated God to have mercy upon him. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, who caused Reuben to confess his sin with Bilhah? It was Judah. Judah鈥檚 confession to his sin with Tamar led Reuben to confess to his own sin. Moses continued: 鈥淎nd this is for Judah鈥ear God, the voice of Judah鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7).

注讗诇 讗讬讘专讬讛 诇砖驻讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转讬讘转讗 讚专拽讬注 讜讗诇 注诪讜 转讘讬讗谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讬讚注 诇诪讬砖拽诇 讜诪讬讟专讞 讘砖诪注转讗 讘讛讚讬 专讘谞谉 讬讚讬讜 专讘 诇讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 诇驻专讜拽讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜注讝专 诪爪专讬讜 转讛讬讛

At that point his limbs entered their designated place [leshafa] and no longer rattled, but the Heavenly court still would not allow him to enter the heavenly academy. Moses continued: 鈥淎nd bring him to his people鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7), so that he may join the other righteous people in Heaven. That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to engage in the give-and-take of halakha with the Sages in the heavenly academy. Moses continued: 鈥淗is hands shall contend for him鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7). That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to resolve any difficulty raised to reject his opinion until Moses prayed: 鈥淎nd You shall be a help against his adversaries鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘诪讬转转 讻讜诇谉 讛讜讗 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘诪讬转转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

The mishna enumerates those High Priests whose death facilitates the return of unintentional murderers to their homes from the city of refuge to which they fled. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it only with the death of all of the High Priests enumerated in the mishna that the unintentional murderer returns, or perhaps it is even with the death of one of them that he returns?

转讗 砖诪注 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讘讚讛谞讱 讘讚诇讬讻讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the succeeding mishna: If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no one filling the position of High Priest, he never leaves the city of refuge. And if it is so that the death of any of those listed in the mishna facilitates his return, let him return with the death of one of these other High Priests, the one who was sanctified by donning the eight vestments or a priest who was relieved of his position. The Gemara rejects the proof: The mishna is referring to a case where there were no High Priests when the verdict was decided.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪谞讜 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讜诇讗讞专 诪讻谉 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘诪讬转转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讛讜专讙 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讙 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐

MISHNA: If, after the unintentional murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, he is not exiled, as the death of the High Priest exempts him from exile. If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns from exile with the death of the second High Priest. If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge.

讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诇讗 诇注讚讜转 诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 诇注讚讜转 诪诪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇注讚讜转 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讬诐 诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖专 爪讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜讗讘 讘谉 爪专讜讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 谞住 砖诪讛 砖诐 转讛讗 讚讬专转讜 砖诐 转讛讗 诪讬转转讜 砖诐 转讛讗 拽讘讜专转讜

And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all, either for testimony relating to a mitzva, or for testimony relating to monetary matters, or for testimony relating to capital matters. And even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of Israel like Joab ben Zeruiah, he never leaves the city of refuge, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there鈥 (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.

讻砖诐 砖讛注讬专 拽讜诇讟转 讻讱 转讞讜诪讛 拽讜诇讟 专讜爪讞 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘讬讚 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜专砖讜转 讘讬讚 讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讘讬讚 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The mishna continues: Just as an unintentional murderer is admitted to the city of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. Once he entered the outskirts of the city, the blood redeemer may not kill him. In a case where a murderer emerged beyond the Shabbat boundary of the city of refuge and the blood redeemer found him there, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, and it is optional for every other person to do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is optional for the blood redeemer, and every other person is liable for killing him.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讙诇讛 讻讘专 讬爪讗 注讻砖讬讜 诪讬 砖诇讗 讙诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚讙诇讛 讗讬讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讙诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讙诇讜转 拽讗 诪讻驻专讗 诪讬转转 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讻驻专讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讘 讘讛 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讗砖专 诪砖讞 讗转讜 讘砖诪谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻讬 讛讜讗 诪讜砖讞讜 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖谞诪砖讞 讘讬诪讬讜

The mishna teaches: If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns with the death of the second High Priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said that they are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest, whom he anointed with the sacred oil鈥 (Numbers 35:25). Now is it the unintentional murderer who anoints the High Priest? Rather, the reference is to that High Priest who was anointed during his days, after he committed the unintentional murder.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 砖讬讙诪讜专 讚讬谞讜 诇讝讻讜转 讜诇讗 讘讬拽砖

The Gemara asks: Why is his return home dependent on the death of the second High Priest? Earlier (11a), the Gemara explained that the High Priest bears a share of the responsibility for unintentional murderers, as he should have pleaded for mercy for his generation and he did not do so. In this case, as the High Priest in question was appointed only after the murder transpired, what could he have done to prevent the unintentional murder? The Gemara answers: He should have pleaded for mercy that the verdict of the unintentional murderer would be decided by the court favorably, so that he would not be sentenced to exile, and he did not plead.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜诪转 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诇砖诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇砖讜讘 诇砖讘转 讘讗专抓 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讬砖讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讗专抓 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛 转谞讗 诪转 拽讜讚诐 砖诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注爪诪讜转讬讜 注诇 拽讘专讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讜讘 讛专爪讞 讗诇 讗专抓 讗讞讝转讜 讗讬讝讛讜 讬砖讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛

Abaye said: We have a tradition that with regard to an unintentional murderer whose verdict was decided and who was sentenced to exile, and he died before he was exiled to the city of refuge, one transports his bones to the city of refuge, and buries him there, as it is written: 鈥淭o return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest鈥 (Numbers 35:32). And what is the dwelling that is in the land? You must say it is referring to his burial. A Sage taught: If an unintentional murderer died in a city of refuge before the High Priest died, one transports his bones to the graves of his ancestors after the High Priest dies, as it is written: 鈥淭he murderer shall return to his ancestral land鈥 (Numbers 35:28). What is the dwelling that is taking place in his ancestral land? You must say it is his burial.

谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讻讛谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪转讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to a case where the murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided, i.e., he was sentenced to exile, and the High Priest filling the position at the time was deemed the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and the High Priest was thereby disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The priesthood died, i.e., it is as though the High Priest died, and all exiles return home from the city of refuge. And the other one says: The priesthood is voided, i.e., it is as though there was no High Priest filling the position during that period, and therefore, the exiles may never leave the city of refuge.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛拽专讬讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:1): If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings upon the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and he was disqualified from the Temple service, Rabbi Eliezer says: All offerings that he sacrificed up to that point are not valid, as it is apparent that he is not and never was fit for Temple service, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems all offerings that he already sacrificed as valid.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara explains: Let us say that the one who says here that the priesthood died holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. He holds that the High Priest is disqualified only from the time of the discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood and forward, while any service performed previous to that discovery is valid. The discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood is like the High Priest鈥檚 death, but his priesthood is not invalidated retroactively. And the one who says that the priesthood is voided holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and since his priesthood is voided retroactively, there was no High Priest filling the position when he was sentenced.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 11

讘诇砖讜谉 注讝讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗诪专 讚讘专 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗诪专 转谞讜 诇讻诐 讗转 注专讬 讛诪拽诇讟 讗砖专 讚讘专转讬 讗诇讬讻诐 讜讙讜壮 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 讛转讜专讛

with harsh language, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke [vayedabber] to Joshua saying: Speak [dabber] to the children of Israel, saying: Assign you the cities of refuge of which I spoke [dibbarti] to you by means of Moses鈥 (Joshua 20:1鈥2). Why does the Torah repeatedly employ a term of dibbur, connoting harsh speech, as opposed to the term of amira, connoting neutral speech? It is due to the fact that the cities of refuge are a mitzva of the Torah, and therefore they warrant emphasis.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讻诇 讚讬讘讜专 诇砖讜谉 拽砖讛 讗讬谉 讻讚讻转讬讘 讚讘专 讛讗讬砖 讗讚谞讬 讛讗专抓 讗转谞讜 拽砖讜转 讜讛转谞讬讗 谞讚讘专讜 讗讬谉 谞讚讘专讜 讗诇讗 诇砖讜谉 谞讞转 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讬讚讘专 注诪讬诐 转讞转讬谞讜 讚讘专 诇讞讜讚 讬讚讘专 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara asks: Is that to say that all instances of speaking [dibbur] indicate harsh language? The Gemara answers: Yes, as it is written with regard to Joseph鈥檚 brothers: 鈥淭he man, the lord of the land, spoke [dibber] harshly to us鈥 (Genesis 42:30). The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淭hen they who feared the Lord spoke [nidberu] with one another鈥 (Malachi 3:16), that the term 鈥渢hey spoke鈥 is nothing other than a term of gentleness, and likewise, the same is true of the verse which states: 鈥淗e subdues [yadber] peoples under us鈥 (Psalms 47:4), meaning that God will calmly and gently conduct the nations under the influence of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: The meaning of dibber is discrete and the meaning of yadber is discrete. There is a difference between the two conjugations of the same root.

(住讬诪谞讬 专讘谞谉 诪讛诪谞讬 讜住驻专讬)

The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the disputes involving Rabbi Yehuda that follow: Rabbis; mehemni, i.e., the dispute with Rabbi Ne岣mya; and the dispute with regard to Torah scrolls sewn with threads of flax.

驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖砖讬讛诐 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 砖诇 转讜专讛

The Gemara resumes the discussion of the harsh language employed in the portion discussing murderers in the book of Joshua. Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this matter. One says harsh language was employed because Joshua delayed fulfilling the mitzva of designating cities of refuge, and one says it is because the cities of refuge are a mitzva of the Torah, and therefore they warrant emphasis.

讜讬讻转讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讞讚 讗讜诪专 砖诪谞讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 注专讬 诪拽诇讟

The Gemara cites an additional dispute with regard to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua. It is written: 鈥淎nd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God鈥 (Joshua 24:26). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Ne岣mya disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The reference is to the final eight verses in the Torah that record the death of Moses and were recorded by Joshua in the scroll of the Torah, in addition to the rest of the Torah that was written by Moses (see Bava Batra 15a). And one says: The reference is to the portion of the cities of refuge that appears in the book of Joshua.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖诪谞讛 驻住讜拽讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 讚讻转讬讘 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 诪讗讬 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讜讬讻转讜讘 讬讛讜砖注 讘住驻专讜 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讛讻转讜讘讬诐 讘住驻专 转讜专转 讗诇讛讬诐

The Gemara discusses these two opinions: Granted, according to the one who says that the reference is to the final eight verses in the Torah, that is the reason that it is written: 鈥淎nd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God,鈥 as he wrote those verses and they were included in the Torah. But according to the one who says that the reference is to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua, what is the meaning of the phrase 鈥渋n the scroll of the Torah of God鈥? They appear in the book of Joshua, not in the Torah. The Gemara answers: This is what the verse is saying: And Joshua wrote in his book these matters that are also written in the scroll of the Torah of God.

住驻专 砖转驻专讜 讘驻砖转谉 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻砖专 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 驻住讜诇

The Gemara proceeds to cite another dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and one of the Sages in which it is not clear which opinion is attributable to which Sage. In the case of a Torah scroll where one sewed its sheets with linen threads, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The Torah scroll is fit for use, and one says: The Torah scroll is unfit for use.

诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 驻住讜诇 讚讻转讬讘 诇诪注谉 转讛讬讛 转讜专转 讛壮 讘驻讬讱 讜讗讬转拽砖 讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 诪讛 转驻讬诇讬谉 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬 诇转讜驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诇转驻专谉 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬 讗讬转拽砖 诇诪讜转专 讘驻讬讱 诇讛诇讻讜转讬讜 诇讗 讗讬转拽砖

The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who says that the Torah scroll is unfit for use, the reason is as it is written with regard to phylacteries: 鈥淎nd it shall be for you a sign on your hand and a memorial between your eyes, in order that the Torah of God shall be in your mouth鈥 (Exodus 13:9). And in this verse the entire Torah is juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries: Just as with regard to phylacteries, there is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai to sew them with sinews, so too, with regard to all sheets of the Torah scroll, there is a requirement to sew them with sinews. And the other Sage holds: When the Torah scroll is juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries, it is only with regard to the principle that the sheets of the Torah scroll may be prepared only from a species of animal that is permitted to your mouth, i.e., that it is permitted for a Jew to eat; but with regard to its other halakhot, it is not juxtaposed and likened to phylacteries.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讝讬谞谉 诇讛讜 诇转驻讬诇讬谉 讚讘讬 讞讘讬讘讬 讚转驻讬专讬 讘讻讬转谞讗 讜诇讬转 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜讜转讬讛

Rav said: I saw that the phylacteries of the house of my uncle, Rabbi 岣yya, were sewn with linen. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion; phylacteries may be sewn only with sinews.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 诪砖讜讞 讘砖诪谉 讛诪砖讞讛 讜讗讞讚 讛诪专讜讘讛 讘讘讙讚讬诐 讜讗讞讚 砖注讘专 诪诪砖讬讞讜转讜 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗转 讛专讜爪讞 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 诪砖讜讞 诪诇讞诪讛 诪讞讝讬专 讗转 讛专讜爪讞

MISHNA: The Torah states that an unintentional murderer is required to remain in the city of refuge to which he fled until the death of the High Priest. The mishna elaborates: With regard to High Priests, who were appointed in several different manners, one anointed with the anointing oil, which was the method through which High Priests were consecrated until the oil was sequestered toward the end of the First Temple period; and one consecrated by donning multiple garments, the eight vestments unique to the High Priest, which was the practice during the Second Temple period; and one who received a temporary appointment due to the unfitness of the serving High Priest, who departed from his anointment with the restoration of the serving High Priest to active service, their deaths facilitate the return of the murderer from the city of refuge to his home. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the death of a priest anointed for war to address the soldiers (see Deuteronomy 20:1鈥7) facilitates the return of the murderer.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬诪讜转讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 诪住驻拽讜转 诇讛谉 诪讞讬讛 讜讻住讜转 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转驻诇诇讜 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖讬诪讜转讜

The mishna continues: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons would die. The more comfortable their lives in the city of refuge, the less urgency they would feel to leave, and the less likely it would be that they would pray for the death of the High Priests.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讘 讘讛 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 讘注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 讬砖讘 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讜讻转讬讘 讜讗讞专讬 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters, that the death of these High Priests facilitates the return of the murderer, derived? Rav Kahana said they are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest who was anointed with the sacred oil鈥 (Numbers 35:25), and it is written: 鈥淔or in his city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the High Priest鈥 (Numbers 35:28), and it is written: 鈥淎nd after the death of the High Priest the murderer shall return to his ancestral land鈥 (Numbers 35:28). The three mentions of the death of the High Priest correspond to the three types of High Priest enumerated by the first tanna of the mishna: One anointed with oil, one consecrated by donning the eight vestments, and one who was relieved of his position.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻转讬讘 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇砖讜讘 诇砖讘转 讘讗专抓 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 (讜讙讜壮) 讜讗讬讚讱 诪讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讛讙讚讜诇 讞讚 诪讛谞讱 讛讜讗

And Rabbi Yehuda holds that another verse is written: 鈥淎nd you shall take no ransom for him that fled to his city of refuge, to return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest鈥 (Numbers 35:32), from which it is derived that the death of the priest anointed for war also facilitates the return of the murderer. And the other tanna says: From the fact that High Priest is not written in that verse, it is clear that the reference is not to an additional type of High Priest; rather, the reference is to one of those High Priests mentioned in the preceding verses.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗讬诪讜转讬讛谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讜壮 讟注诪讗 讚诇讗 诪爪诇讜 讛讗 诪爪诇讜 诪讬讬转讬 讜讛讻转讬讘 讻爪驻讜专 诇谞讜讚 讻讚专讜专 诇注讜祝 讻谉 拽诇诇转 讞谞诐 诇讗 转讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讚讜专谉 讜诇讗 讘拽砖讜

搂 The mishna teaches: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments so that they would not pray that their sons will die. The Gemara asks: The reason that the High Priest will not die is that they do not pray; but if they prayed for the death of the High Priest, would he die? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎s the wandering sparrow, as the flying swallow, so a curse that is baseless shall come home鈥 (Proverbs 26:2)? Why does the mishna express concern over a baseless curse? A certain elder said to him: I heard in the lecture delivered by Rava that it is not a baseless curse, as the High Priests share the blame for the unintentional murders performed by these people, as they should have pleaded for mercy for their generation, that no murder should transpire, even unintentionally, and they did not plead. Due to their share in the blame, prayers for their death could be effective.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 讻讚讬 砖讬转驻诇诇讜 注诇 讘谞讬讛诐 砖诇讗 讬诪讜转讜 讟注诪讗 讚诪爪诇讜 讛讗 诇讗 诪爪诇讜 诪讬讬转讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讻讗 讗诪专讬谞谉 讟讜讘讬讛 讞讟讗 讜讝讬讙讜讚 诪谞讙讬讚

And some teach a variant reading of the mishna: Therefore, the mothers of High Priests would provide those exiled to cities of refuge with sustenance and garments, so that those exiled would pray that their sons will not die. The Gemara infers: The reason that the High Priests will not die is that they pray, but if they did not pray for the High Priest not to die, would the High Priest die? What could the High Priest have done to prevent the unintentional murder? Here, in Babylonia, we say an adage to describe a situation of that sort: Toviyya sinned and Zigud is flogged. Toviyya violated a prohibition and Zigud came as a single witness to testify against him. Since the testimony of a single witness is not valid in court, he is flogged for defaming Toviyya. The sinner is unpunished and the person who sought to testify against him is flogged. This became a colloquialism for a situation where one is punished for the sin of another.

讛转诐 讗诪专讬 砖讻诐 谞住讬讘 讜诪讘讙讗讬 讙讝讬专

There, in Eretz Yisrael, they say a different adage with the same application: Shechem married a woman and Mavgai circumcised himself. This is based on the episode of the abduction of Dinah in the city of Shechem (see Genesis, chapter 34), where Shechem compelled all the male residents of the city to undergo circumcision so that he could marry Dinah. Shechem married Dinah, while the rest of the males suffered the pain of circumcision and received no benefit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 诪驻讬专拽讬讛 讚专讘讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬 砖讛讬讛 诇讛谉 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 注诇 讚讜专谉 讜诇讗 讘拽砖讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗讻诇讬讛 讗专讬讗 讘专讞讜拽 转诇转讗 驻专住讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讜诇讗 讗讬砖转注讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讘讛讚讬讛 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬

A certain elder said to him: I heard in the lecture delivered by Rava that the High Priests share the blame, as they should have pleaded for mercy for their generation and they did not plead. Consequently, they required the exiles to pray on their own behalf. The Gemara illustrates the concept of the responsibility held by the spiritual leadership: This is like in this incident where a certain man was eaten by a lion at a distance of three parasangs from the place of residence of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and Elijah the prophet did not speak with him for three days because of his failure to pray that an incident of this kind would not transpire in his place of residence.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 拽诇诇转 讞讻诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讞谞诐 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谞诇谉 诪讗讞讬转讜驻诇 砖讘砖注讛 砖讻专讛 讚讜讚 砖讬转讬谉 拽驻讗 转讛讜诪讗 讘注讗 诇诪讬砖讟驻讗 诇注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诪讛讜 诇讻转讜讘 砖诐 讗讞住驻讗 讜诪讬砖讚讗 讘转讛讜诪讗 讚诇讬拽讜 讗讚讜讻转讬讛 诇讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬讚讬 讗诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讚讘专 讝讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜诪专讜 讬讞谞拽 讘讙专讜谞讜

Apropos curses that are realized, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to the curse of a Sage, even if it is baseless, i.e., based on a mistaken premise, it nevertheless comes to fruition and affects the object of the curse. From where do we derive this? It is derived from this incident involving Ahithophel. When David dug the drainpipes in preparation for building the Temple, the waters of the depths rose and sought to inundate the world. David said: What is the halakha? Is it permitted to write the sacred name on an earthenware shard and throw it into the depths, so that the water will subside and stand in its place? There was no one who said anything to him. David said: Anyone who knows the answer to this matter and does not say it shall be strangled.

谞砖讗 讗讞讬转讜驻诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讘注爪诪讜 讗诪专 讜诪讛 诇注砖讜转 砖诇讜诐 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讗诪专讛 讛转讜专讛 砖诪讬 砖谞讻转讘 讘拽讚讜砖讛 讬诪讞讛 注诇 讛诪讬诐 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖专讬 讻转讘 砖诐 讗讞住驻讗 砖讚讬 讗转讛讜诪讗 谞讞转 讜拽诐 讗讚讜讻转讬讛

Then Ahithophel raised an a fortiori inference on his own and said: And if in order to make peace between a man and his wife in the case of a sota, when the husband suspects his wife of having committed adultery, the Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased on the water, then, in order to establish peace for the whole world in its entirety, is it not all the more so permitted? Ahithophel said to David: It is permitted. David wrote the sacred name on an earthenware shard and cast it into the depths, and the water in the depths subsided and stood in its place.

讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻转讬讘 讜讗讞讬转驻诇 专讗讛 讻讬 诇讗 谞注砖转讛 注爪转讜 讜讬讞讘砖 讗转 讛讞诪讜专 讜讬拽诐 讜讬诇讱 讗诇 讘讬转讜 (讜)讗诇 注讬专讜 讜讬爪讜 讗诇 讘讬转讜 讜讬讞谞拽 讜讙讜壮

And even so it is written that during the rebellion of Absalom: 鈥淎nd Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not taken, and he saddled his donkey and he arose and went to his house, to his town, and he commanded his household and strangled himself鈥 (II聽Samuel 17:23). Although David stipulated that his curse would take effect only if one who knows the answer fails to share it with him, and Ahithophel did not fail to share it with him, the curse was realized.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 拽诇诇转 讞讻诐 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讘讗讛 诪谞诇谉 诪注诇讬 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 [注诇讬] 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讻讛 讬注砖讛 诇讱 讗诇讛讬诐 讜讻讛 讬讜住讬祝 讗诐 转讻讞讚 诪诪谞讬 讚讘专 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讙讚 诇讜 砖诪讜讗诇 讗转 讻诇 讛讚讘专讬诐 讜诇讗 讻讞讚 诪诪谞讜 [ 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬] 讻转讬讘 讜诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘谞讬讜 讘讚专讻讬讜 讜讙讜壮

The Gemara cites a similar statement: Rabbi Abbahu says: With regard to the curse of a Sage, even if it is stated conditionally, it comes to realization. From where do we derive this? It is derived from an incident involving Eli the High Priest, as Eli said to Samuel, after the latter had received a prophetic vision with regard to Eli, that his sons do not follow his path: 鈥淭herefore may God do to you, and more also, if you hide any matter from me of all the matters that He spoke unto you鈥 (I聽Samuel 3:17). And even though it is written immediately thereafter: 鈥淎nd Samuel told him all the matters, and did not hide from him鈥 (I聽Samuel 3:18), it is written at the time of Samuel鈥檚 death: 鈥淎nd his sons did not follow in his ways鈥 (I聽Samuel 8:3), indicating that God did to Samuel as he prophesied with regard to Eli, and his own sons did not follow his path. Despite the fact that Eli stated the curse conditionally, Samuel was affected by the curse.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讬讚讜讬 注诇 转谞讗讬 爪专讬讱 讛驻专讛 诪谞诇谉 诪讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗诐 诇讗 讛讘讬讗转讬讜 讗诇讬讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讬讞讬 专讗讜讘谉 讜讗诇 讬诪转 讜讙讜壮 讜讝讗转 诇讬讛讜讚讛

Apropos declarations that take effect even if they were stated conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Ostracism that was declared conditionally requires nullification, even though the condition was not fulfilled. From where do we derive this? It is derived from Judah, as it is written with regard to his request that his father allow the brothers to take Benjamin to Egypt: 鈥淚f I do not bring him to you鈥I would have sinned to you for all days鈥 (Genesis 43:9), i.e., I will remain ostracized as a sinner. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淟et Reuben live and not die鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:6), followed immediately by the verse: 鈥淎nd this for Judah鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7)? Why was the blessing of Judah linked to that of Reuben?

讻诇 讗讜转谉 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖讛讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 注爪诪讜转讬讜 砖诇 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讜 诪讙讜诇讙诇讬谉 讘讗专讜谉 注讚 砖注诪讚 诪砖讛 讜讘拽砖 注诇讬讜 专讞诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇驻谞讬讜 专讘讜谞讜 砖诇 注讜诇诐 诪讬 讙专诐 诇专讗讜讘谉 砖讬讜讚讛 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讝讗转 诇讬讛讜讚讛 砖诪注 讛壮 拽讜诇 讬讛讜讚讛

Throughout those forty years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness, Judah鈥檚 bones were rattling in the coffin, detached from one another, because the ostracism that he declared upon himself remained in effect, until Moses stood and entreated God to have mercy upon him. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, who caused Reuben to confess his sin with Bilhah? It was Judah. Judah鈥檚 confession to his sin with Tamar led Reuben to confess to his own sin. Moses continued: 鈥淎nd this is for Judah鈥ear God, the voice of Judah鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7).

注讗诇 讗讬讘专讬讛 诇砖驻讗 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇讬 诇讬讛 诇诪转讬讘转讗 讚专拽讬注 讜讗诇 注诪讜 转讘讬讗谞讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讗 讬讚注 诇诪讬砖拽诇 讜诪讬讟专讞 讘砖诪注转讗 讘讛讚讬 专讘谞谉 讬讚讬讜 专讘 诇讜 诇讗 讛讜讛 讬讚注 诇驻专讜拽讬 拽讜砖讬讗 讜注讝专 诪爪专讬讜 转讛讬讛

At that point his limbs entered their designated place [leshafa] and no longer rattled, but the Heavenly court still would not allow him to enter the heavenly academy. Moses continued: 鈥淎nd bring him to his people鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7), so that he may join the other righteous people in Heaven. That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to engage in the give-and-take of halakha with the Sages in the heavenly academy. Moses continued: 鈥淗is hands shall contend for him鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7). That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to resolve any difficulty raised to reject his opinion until Moses prayed: 鈥淎nd You shall be a help against his adversaries鈥 (Deuteronomy 33:7).

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘诪讬转转 讻讜诇谉 讛讜讗 讞讜讝专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘诪讬转转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

The mishna enumerates those High Priests whose death facilitates the return of unintentional murderers to their homes from the city of refuge to which they fled. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it only with the death of all of the High Priests enumerated in the mishna that the unintentional murderer returns, or perhaps it is even with the death of one of them that he returns?

转讗 砖诪注 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讛讚专 讘讬讛 讘讚讛谞讱 讘讚诇讬讻讗

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the succeeding mishna: If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no one filling the position of High Priest, he never leaves the city of refuge. And if it is so that the death of any of those listed in the mishna facilitates his return, let him return with the death of one of these other High Priests, the one who was sanctified by donning the eight vestments or a priest who was relieved of his position. The Gemara rejects the proof: The mishna is referring to a case where there were no High Priests when the verdict was decided.

诪转谞讬壮 诪砖谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讛专讬 讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜诪谞讜 讗讞专 转讞转讬讜 讜诇讗讞专 诪讻谉 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘诪讬转转讜 砖诇 砖谞讬 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讘诇讗 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讛讛讜专讙 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 砖讛专讙 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐

MISHNA: If, after the unintentional murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, he is not exiled, as the death of the High Priest exempts him from exile. If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns from exile with the death of the second High Priest. If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge.

讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诇讗 诇注讚讜转 诪爪讜讛 讜诇讗 诇注讚讜转 诪诪讜谉 讜诇讗 诇注讚讜转 谞驻砖讜转 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖专讗诇 爪专讬讻讬诐 诇讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 砖专 爪讘讗 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜讗讘 讘谉 爪专讜讬讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪砖诐 诇注讜诇诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗砖专 谞住 砖诪讛 砖诐 转讛讗 讚讬专转讜 砖诐 转讛讗 诪讬转转讜 砖诐 转讛讗 拽讘讜专转讜

And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all, either for testimony relating to a mitzva, or for testimony relating to monetary matters, or for testimony relating to capital matters. And even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of Israel like Joab ben Zeruiah, he never leaves the city of refuge, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there鈥 (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.

讻砖诐 砖讛注讬专 拽讜诇讟转 讻讱 转讞讜诪讛 拽讜诇讟 专讜爪讞 砖讬爪讗 讞讜抓 诇转讞讜诐 讜诪爪讗讜 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪爪讜讛 讘讬讚 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜专砖讜转 讘讬讚 讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 专砖讜转 讘讬讚 讙讜讗诇 讛讚诐 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜

The mishna continues: Just as an unintentional murderer is admitted to the city of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. Once he entered the outskirts of the city, the blood redeemer may not kill him. In a case where a murderer emerged beyond the Shabbat boundary of the city of refuge and the blood redeemer found him there, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, and it is optional for every other person to do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is optional for the blood redeemer, and every other person is liable for killing him.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 诪讬 砖讙诇讛 讻讘专 讬爪讗 注讻砖讬讜 诪讬 砖诇讗 讙诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 讬讙诇讛 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讚讙诇讛 讗讬讻驻专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚诇讗 讙诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讚讬 讙诇讜转 拽讗 诪讻驻专讗 诪讬转转 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讻驻专讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬砖讘 讘讛 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讛讙讚诇 讗砖专 诪砖讞 讗转讜 讘砖诪谉 讛拽讚砖 讜讻讬 讛讜讗 诪讜砖讞讜 讗诇讗 讝讛 砖谞诪砖讞 讘讬诪讬讜

The mishna teaches: If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns with the death of the second High Priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said that they are derived from a verse, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest, whom he anointed with the sacred oil鈥 (Numbers 35:25). Now is it the unintentional murderer who anoints the High Priest? Rather, the reference is to that High Priest who was anointed during his days, after he committed the unintentional murder.

诪讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇诪注讘讚 讛讬讛 诇讜 诇讘拽砖 专讞诪讬诐 砖讬讙诪讜专 讚讬谞讜 诇讝讻讜转 讜诇讗 讘讬拽砖

The Gemara asks: Why is his return home dependent on the death of the second High Priest? Earlier (11a), the Gemara explained that the High Priest bears a share of the responsibility for unintentional murderers, as he should have pleaded for mercy for his generation and he did not do so. In this case, as the High Priest in question was appointed only after the murder transpired, what could he have done to prevent the unintentional murder? The Gemara answers: He should have pleaded for mercy that the verdict of the unintentional murderer would be decided by the court favorably, so that he would not be sentenced to exile, and he did not plead.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜诪转 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 讗转 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诇砖诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇砖讜讘 诇砖讘转 讘讗专抓 注讚 诪讜转 讛讻讛谉 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讬砖讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讗专抓 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛 转谞讗 诪转 拽讜讚诐 砖诪转 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讜诇讬讻讬谉 注爪诪讜转讬讜 注诇 拽讘专讬 讗讘讜转讬讜 讚讻转讬讘 讬砖讜讘 讛专爪讞 讗诇 讗专抓 讗讞讝转讜 讗讬讝讛讜 讬砖讬讘讛 砖讛讬讗 讘讗专抓 讗讞讜讝转讜 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讝讜 拽讘讜专讛

Abaye said: We have a tradition that with regard to an unintentional murderer whose verdict was decided and who was sentenced to exile, and he died before he was exiled to the city of refuge, one transports his bones to the city of refuge, and buries him there, as it is written: 鈥淭o return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest鈥 (Numbers 35:32). And what is the dwelling that is in the land? You must say it is referring to his burial. A Sage taught: If an unintentional murderer died in a city of refuge before the High Priest died, one transports his bones to the graves of his ancestors after the High Priest dies, as it is written: 鈥淭he murderer shall return to his ancestral land鈥 (Numbers 35:28). What is the dwelling that is taking place in his ancestral land? You must say it is his burial.

谞讙诪专 讚讬谞讜 讜谞注砖讛 讻讛谉 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讞讚 讗讜诪专 诪转讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讗讜诪专 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛

搂 The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to a case where the murderer鈥檚 verdict was decided, i.e., he was sentenced to exile, and the High Priest filling the position at the time was deemed the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and the High Priest was thereby disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The priesthood died, i.e., it is as though the High Priest died, and all exiles return home from the city of refuge. And the other one says: The priesthood is voided, i.e., it is as though there was no High Priest filling the position during that period, and therefore, the exiles may never leave the city of refuge.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讜诪拽专讬讘 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜谞讜讚注 砖讛讜讗 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛拽专讬讘 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪讻砖讬专

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:1): If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings upon the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and he was disqualified from the Temple service, Rabbi Eliezer says: All offerings that he sacrificed up to that point are not valid, as it is apparent that he is not and never was fit for Temple service, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems all offerings that he already sacrificed as valid.

诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讜诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘讟诇讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

The Gemara explains: Let us say that the one who says here that the priesthood died holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. He holds that the High Priest is disqualified only from the time of the discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood and forward, while any service performed previous to that discovery is valid. The discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood is like the High Priest鈥檚 death, but his priesthood is not invalidated retroactively. And the one who says that the priesthood is voided holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and since his priesthood is voided retroactively, there was no High Priest filling the position when he was sentenced.

Scroll To Top