Makkot
Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka “who instilled in us a lifelong love of learning” and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, “our first Talmud teacher, who was one of the pioneers to open the doors of Talmud study to women.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The sages expound some verses in Yehoshua that relate directly or indirectly to setting up the refuge cities.
The accidental killer leaves the city of refuge at the death of the Kohen Gadol. Who qualifies as a Kohen Gadol for this purpose? If there are multiple Kohanim Gedolim, do they all need to die or just one of them? Out of concern that the people in the city may pray for the death of the Kohen Gadol, their mothers would provide food and clothing for the accidental murderers.
The Gemara digresses to discuss prayers that have no basis (like praying for the Kohen Gadol to die) – do they come true?
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 but before the killer got to the city, etc. In each of these scenarios, does the accidental murderer go free or not?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Makkot
Masechet Makkot is sponsored by Terri Krivosha and Rabbi Hayim Herring in loving memory of Terri’s father Judge Norman Krivosha, Nachum Meir ben David Beer v’Malka “who instilled in us a lifelong love of learning” and in honor of Dr. Judith Hauptman, “our first Talmud teacher, who was one of the pioneers to open the doors of Talmud study to women.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Chaim Avraham HaKohen ben Alter Gershon HaKohen.
Makkot 11
בְּלָשׁוֹן עַזָּה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר ה׳ אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֵאמֹר תְּנוּ לָכֶם אֶת עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם וְגוֹ׳״? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל הַתּוֹרָה.
with harsh language, as it is written: “And 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” (Joshua 20:1–2). 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.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּכׇל דִּיבּוּר לָשׁוֹן קָשָׁה? אִין, כְּדִכְתִיב: ״דִּבֶּר הָאִישׁ אֲדֹנֵי הָאָרֶץ אִתָּנוּ קָשׁוֹת״. וְהָתַנְיָא: ״נִדְבְּרוּ״, אֵין ״נִדְבְּרוּ״ אֶלָּא לְשׁוֹן נַחַת, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר ״יַדְבֵּר עַמִּים תַּחְתֵּינוּ״! ״דִּבֶּר״ לְחוּד, ״יַדְבֵּר״ לְחוּד.
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’s brothers: “The man, the lord of the land, spoke [dibber] harshly to us” (Genesis 42:30). The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “Then they who feared the Lord spoke [nidberu] with one another” (Malachi 3:16), that the term “they spoke” is nothing other than a term of gentleness, and likewise, the same is true of the verse which states: “He subdues [yadber] peoples under us” (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.
(סִימָנֵי רַבָּנַן מְהֵמְנֵי וְסָפְרֵי).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the disputes involving Rabbi Yehuda that follow: Rabbis; mehemni, i.e., the dispute with Rabbi Neḥemya; and the dispute with regard to Torah scrolls sewn with threads of flax.
פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן, חַד אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשִּׁיהָם. וְחַד אוֹמֵר: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל תּוֹרָה.
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.
״וַיִּכְתֹּב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים״, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – חַד אוֹמֵר: שְׁמֹנָה פְּסוּקִים, וְחַד אוֹמֵר: עָרֵי מִקְלָט.
The Gemara cites an additional dispute with regard to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua. It is written: “And Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God” (Joshua 24:26). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Neḥemya 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר שְׁמֹנָה פְּסוּקִים, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עָרֵי מִקְלָט, מַאי ״בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים״? הָכִי קָאָמַר: ״וַיִּכְתּוֹב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּסִפְרוֹ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה הַכְּתוּבִים בְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרַת אֱלֹהִים״.
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: “And Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God,” 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 “in the scroll of the Torah of God”? 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.
סֵפֶר שֶׁתְּפָרוֹ בְּפִשְׁתָּן, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חַד אוֹמֵר: כָּשֵׁר, וְחַד אוֹמֵר: פָּסוּל.
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.
לְמַאן דְּאָמַר פָּסוּל, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת ה׳ בְּפִיךָ״, וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ לִתְפִילִּין: מָה תְּפִילִּין הֲלָכָה לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי לְתוֹפְרָן בְּגִידִין – אַף כֹּל לְתׇפְרָן בְּגִידִין. וְאִידַּךְ: כִּי אִיתַּקַּשׁ – לַמּוּתָּר בְּפִיךְ, לְהִלְכוֹתָיו לָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ.
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: “And 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” (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.
אָמַר רַב: חֲזֵינַן לְהוּ לִתְפִילִּין דְּבֵי חֲבִיבִי דִּתְפִירִי בְּכִיתָּנָא, וְלֵית הִלְכְתָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ.
Rav said: I saw that the phylacteries of the house of my uncle, Rabbi Ḥiyya, were sewn with linen. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion; phylacteries may be sewn only with sinews.
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְאֶחָד הַמְרוּבֶּה בִּבְגָדִים, וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחוּתוֹ – מַחֲזִירִין אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ.
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 20:1–7) facilitates the return of the murderer.
לְפִיכָךְ אִימּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָה וּכְסוּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָשַׁב בָּהּ עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדֹל״, וּכְתִיב: ״כִּי בְעִיר מִקְלָטוֹ יֵשֵׁב עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדֹל״, וּכְתִיב: ״וְאַחֲרֵי מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדֹל״.
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: “And he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest who was anointed with the sacred oil” (Numbers 35:25), and it is written: “For in his city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the High Priest” (Numbers 35:28), and it is written: “And after the death of the High Priest the murderer shall return to his ancestral land” (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.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? כְּתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא: ״לָשׁוּב לָשֶׁבֶת בָּאָרֶץ עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן״. (וְגוֹ׳) וְאִידַּךְ: מִדְּלָא כְּתִיב: ״הַגָּדוֹל״ – חַד מֵהָנָךְ הוּא.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that another verse is written: “And 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” (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.
לְפִיכָךְ אִימּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. טַעְמָא דְּלָא מְצַלּוּ, הָא מְצַלּוּ – מָיְיתִי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״כַּצִּפּוֹר לָנוּד כַּדְּרוֹר לָעוּף כֵּן קִלְלַת חִנָּם לֹא תָבֹא״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: מִפִּירְקֵיהּ דְּרָבָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל דּוֹרָן וְלֹא בִּקְּשׁוּ.
§ 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’t it written: “As the wandering sparrow, as the flying swallow, so a curse that is baseless shall come home” (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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי: כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁלֹּא יָמוּתוּ. טַעְמָא דִּמְצַלּוּ, הָא לָא מְצַלּוּ – מָיְיתִי? מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? הָכָא אָמְרִינַן: טוֹבִיָּה חֲטָא וְזִיגּוּד מִנַּגַּיד.
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.
הָתָם אָמְרִי: שְׁכֶם נָסֵיב וּמִבְגַּאי גָּזַיר.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: מִפִּירְקֵיהּ דְּרָבָא שְׁמִיעַ לִי, שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶן לְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עַל דּוֹרָן וְלֹא בִּקְּשׁוּ. כִּי הָא דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא בְּרָחוֹק תְּלָתָא פַּרְסֵי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, וְלָא אִישְׁתַּעִי אֵלִיָּהוּ בַּהֲדֵיהּ תְּלָתָא יוֹמֵי.
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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: קִלְלַת חָכָם – אֲפִילּוּ בְּחִנָּם הִיא בָּאָה. מְנָלַן? מֵאֲחִיתוֹפֶל, שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁכָּרָה דָּוִד שִׁיתִין, קְפָא תְּהוֹמָא, בְּעָא לְמִישְׁטְפָא לְעָלְמָא. אֲמַר: מַהוּ לִכְתּוֹב שֵׁם אַחַסְפָּא וּמִישְׁדֵּא בִּתְהוֹמָא דְּלֵיקוּ אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ? לֵיכָּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ מִידֵּי. אֲמַר: כׇּל הַיּוֹדֵעַ דָּבָר זֶה וְאֵינוֹ אוֹמְרוֹ – יֵחָנֵק בִּגְרוֹנוֹ.
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.
נָשָׂא אֲחִיתוֹפֶל קַל וָחוֹמֶר בְּעַצְמוֹ, אָמַר: וּמָה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, אָמְרָה הַתּוֹרָה: שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם, לְכׇל הָעוֹלָם כּוּלּוֹ לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁרֵי. כְּתַב שֵׁם אַחַסְפָּא, שְׁדָא אַתְּהוֹמָא, נְחַת וְקָם אַדּוּכְתֵּיהּ.
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.
וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי כְּתִיב: ״וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל רָאָה כִּי לֹא נֶעֶשְׂתָה עֲצָתוֹ וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת הַחֲמוֹר וַיָּקׇם וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל בֵּיתוֹ (וְ)אֶל עִירוֹ וַיְצַו אֶל בֵּיתוֹ וַיֵּחָנַק וְגוֹ׳״.
And even so it is written that during the rebellion of Absalom: “And 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” (II 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: קִלְלַת חָכָם – אֲפִילּוּ עַל תְּנַאי הִיא בָּאָה. מְנָלַן? מֵעֵלִי, דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ [עֵלִי] לִשְׁמוּאֵל: ״כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה לְּךָ אֱלֹהִים וְכֹה יוֹסִיף אִם תְּכַחֵד מִמֶּנִּי דָּבָר״. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּגֶּד לוֹ שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת כׇּל הַדְּבָרִים וְלֹא כִחֵד מִמֶּנּוּ״, [וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי] כְּתִיב: ״וְלֹא הָלְכוּ בָנָיו בִּדְרָכָיו וְגוֹ׳״.
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: “Therefore may God do to you, and more also, if you hide any matter from me of all the matters that He spoke unto you” (I Samuel 3:17). And even though it is written immediately thereafter: “And Samuel told him all the matters, and did not hide from him” (I Samuel 3:18), it is written at the time of Samuel’s death: “And his sons did not follow in his ways” (I 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.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: נִידּוּי עַל תְּנַאי – צָרִיךְ הֲפָרָה. מְנָלַן? מִיְּהוּדָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם לֹא הֲבִיאֹתִיו אֵלֶיךָ וְגוֹ׳״, וְאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״יְחִי רְאוּבֵן וְאַל יָמֹת, וְגוֹ׳ וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה״?
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: “If I do not bring him to you…I would have sinned to you for all days” (Genesis 43:9), i.e., I will remain ostracized as a sinner. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let Reuben live and not die” (Deuteronomy 33:6), followed immediately by the verse: “And this for Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7)? Why was the blessing of Judah linked to that of Reuben?
כׇּל אוֹתָן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר, עַצְמוֹתָיו שֶׁל יְהוּדָה הָיוּ מְגוּלְגָּלִין בָּאָרוֹן, עַד שֶׁעָמַד מֹשֶׁה וּבִקֵּשׁ עָלָיו רַחֲמִים. אָמַר לְפָנָיו: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, מִי גָּרַם לִרְאוּבֵן שֶׁיּוֹדֶה – יְהוּדָה, ״וְזֹאת לִיהוּדָה… שְׁמַע ה׳ קוֹל יְהוּדָה״.
Throughout those forty years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness, Judah’s 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’s confession to his sin with Tamar led Reuben to confess to his own sin. Moses continued: “And this is for Judah…hear God, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7).
עָאל אִיבְרֵיהּ לְשָׁפָא, לָא הֲוָה קָא מְעַיְּילִי לֵיהּ לִמְתִיבְתָּא דְּרָקִיעַ, ״וְאֶל עַמּוֹ תְּבִיאֶנּוּ״. לָא הֲוָה קָא יָדַע לְמִישְׁקַל וּמִיטְרַח בִּשְׁמַעְתָּא בַּהֲדֵי רַבָּנַן, ״יָדָיו רַב לוֹ״. לָא הֲוָה יָדַע לְפָרוֹקֵי קוּשְׁיָא, ״וְעֵזֶר מִצָּרָיו תִּהְיֶה״.
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: “And bring him to his people” (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: “His hands shall contend for him” (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: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בְּמִיתַת כּוּלָּן הוּא חוֹזֵר, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּמִיתַת אֶחָד מֵהֶן?
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?
תָּא שְׁמַע: נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּלֹא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיהְדַּר בֵּיהּ בִּדְהָנָךְ! בִּדְלֵיכָּא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל – הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו וּלְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ – חוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי. נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּלֹא כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְהַהוֹרֵג כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג – אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם.
MISHNA: If, after the unintentional murderer’s 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.
וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה, וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן, וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת. וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִים לוֹ, וַאֲפִילּוּ שַׂר צָבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה״ – שָׁם תְּהֵא דִּירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ.
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: “And the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת – כָּךְ תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיֵּצֵא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וּמְצָאוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִצְוָה בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וּרְשׁוּת בְּיַד כׇּל אָדָם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: רְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וְכׇל אָדָם חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמָה מִי שֶׁגָּלָה כְּבָר – יָצָא עַכְשָׁיו, מִי שֶׁלֹּא גָּלָה – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁלֹּא יִגְלֶה? וְדִלְמָא: הַאי דִּגְלָה אִיכַּפַּר לֵיהּ, הַאי דְּלָא גְּלָה לָא! מִידֵּי גָּלוּת קָא מְכַפְּרָא? מִיתַת כֹּהֵן הוּא דִּמְכַפְּרָא!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s 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.
אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָשַׁב בָּהּ עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדֹל אֲשֶׁר מָשַׁח אֹתוֹ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַקֹּדֶשׁ״, וְכִי הוּא מוֹשְׁחוֹ? אֶלָּא: זֶה שֶׁנִּמְשַׁח בְּיָמָיו.
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: “And he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest, whom he anointed with the sacred oil” (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.
מַאי הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֶעְבַּד? הָיָה לוֹ לְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים שֶׁיִּגְמוֹר דִּינוֹ לִזְכוּת, וְלֹא בִּיקֵּשׁ.
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.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נָקְטִינַן: נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וָמֵת – מוֹלִיכִין אֶת עַצְמוֹתָיו לְשָׁם, דִּכְתִיב: ״לָשׁוּב לָשֶׁבֶת בָּאָרֶץ עַד מוֹת הַכֹּהֵן״, וְאֵיזֶהוּ יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁהִיא בָּאָרֶץ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ קְבוּרָה. תָּנָא: מֵת קוֹדֶם שֶׁמֵּת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, מוֹלִיכִין עַצְמוֹתָיו עַל קִבְרֵי אֲבוֹתָיו, דִּכְתִיב: ״יָשׁוּב הָרֹצֵחַ אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״, אֵיזֶהוּ יְשִׁיבָה שֶׁהִיא בְּאֶרֶץ אֲחוּזָּתוֹ הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר זוֹ קְבוּרָה.
§ 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: “To return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest” (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: “The murderer shall return to his ancestral land” (Numbers 35:28). What is the dwelling that is taking place in his ancestral land? You must say it is his burial.
נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, וְנַעֲשָׂה כֹּהֵן בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה, פְּלִיגִי בַּהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא. חַד אוֹמֵר: מֵתָה כְּהוּנָּה. וְחַד אוֹמֵר: בָּטְלָה כְּהוּנָּה.
§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to a case where the murderer’s 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 ḥalutza, and the High Priest was thereby disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa 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.
לֵימָא בִּפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָא מִיפַּלְגִי. דִּתְנַן: הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְנוֹדַע שֶׁהוּא בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל קׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהִקְרִיב פְּסוּלִין, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora’im, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, 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 ḥalutza, 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.
מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵתָה כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּטְלָה כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר?
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’s 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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Makkot 11
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧ³ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄? ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
with harsh language, as it is written: βAnd 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 Mosesβ (Joshua 20:1β2). 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ΄Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ·ΧΦ·Χͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ΄! Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ¨Χ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Χ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ.
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 Josephβs brothers: βThe man, the lord of the land, spoke [dibber] harshly to usβ (Genesis 42:30). The Gemara asks: But isnβt it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: βThen they who feared the Lord spoke [nidberu] with one anotherβ (Malachi 3:16), that the term βthey spokeβ is nothing other than a term of gentleness, and likewise, the same is true of the verse which states: βHe subdues [yadber] peoples under usβ (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.
(Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the disputes involving Rabbi Yehuda that follow: Rabbis; mehemni, i.e., the dispute with Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya; and the dispute with regard to Torah scrolls sewn with threads of flax.
Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
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.
Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄, Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ Φ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara cites an additional dispute with regard to the portion of the cities of refuge in the book of Joshua. It is written: βAnd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of Godβ (Joshua 24:26). Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi NeαΈ₯emya 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.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄. ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄? ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄.
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: βAnd Joshua wrote these matters in the scroll of the Torah of God,β 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 βin the scroll of the Torah of Godβ? 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.
Χ‘Φ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΧ€Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦ°, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ·Χ©Χ.
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: βAnd 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 mouthβ (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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
Rav said: I saw that the phylacteries of the house of my uncle, Rabbi αΈ€iyya, were sewn with linen. But the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion; phylacteries may be sewn only with sinews.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅ΧΦ·. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅ΧΦ·.
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 20:1β7) facilitates the return of the murderer.
ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄.
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: βAnd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest who was anointed with the sacred oilβ (Numbers 35:25), and it is written: βFor in his city of refuge he shall dwell until the death of the High Priestβ (Numbers 35:28), and it is written: βAnd after the death of the High Priest the murderer shall return to his ancestral landβ (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.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄. (ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³) ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°: ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° ΧΧΦΌΧ.
And Rabbi Yehuda holds that another verse is written: βAnd 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 priestβ (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.
ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΈΧΦΉΧΧ΄! ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ.
Β§ 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 isnβt it written: βAs the wandering sparrow, as the flying swallow, so a curse that is baseless shall come homeβ (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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ Χ ΦΈΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ·ΧΧ¨.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°Χ§Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ§ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨Φ°Χ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ΅ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ§Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉ.
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.
Χ ΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΉΧ€ΦΆΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧ Χ ΦΆΧ’ΦΆΧ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²Χ¦ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ§ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ (ΧΦ°)ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Φ·Χ§ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄.
And even so it is written that during the rebellion of Absalom: βAnd 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 himselfβ (II 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ: Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΅ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ [Χ’Φ΅ΧΦ΄Χ] ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈ ΧΦ±ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨Χ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄, [ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ] ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄.
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: βTherefore may God do to you, and more also, if you hide any matter from me of all the matters that He spoke unto youβ (I Samuel 3:17). And even though it is written immediately thereafter: βAnd Samuel told him all the matters, and did not hide from himβ (I Samuel 3:18), it is written at the time of Samuelβs death: βAnd his sons did not follow in his waysβ (I 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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΧ β Χ¦ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ²Χ€ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄?
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: βIf I do not bring him to youβ¦I would have sinned to you for all daysβ (Genesis 43:9), i.e., I will remain ostracized as a sinner. And Rabbi Shmuel bar NaαΈ₯mani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: βLet Reuben live and not dieβ (Deuteronomy 33:6), followed immediately by the verse: βAnd this for Judahβ (Deuteronomy 33:7)? Why was the blessing of Judah linked to that of Reuben?
ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨, Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ: Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ… Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΧ³ Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ΄.
Throughout those forty years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness, Judahβs 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. Judahβs confession to his sin with Tamar led Reuben to confess to his own sin. Moses continued: βAnd this is for Judahβ¦hear God, the voice of Judahβ (Deuteronomy 33:7).
Χ’ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ’Φ·, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, Χ΄ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ΄. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ§Φ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΧ΄.
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: βAnd bring him to his peopleβ (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: βHis hands shall contend for himβ (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: βAnd You shall be a help against his adversariesβ (Deuteronomy 33:7).
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ?
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?
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ°! ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
MISHNA: If, after the unintentional murdererβs 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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¦ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ ΦΈΧ‘ Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ΄ β Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ.
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: βAnd the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled thereβ (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.
ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ β ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅ΧΦ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ¨Φ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ.
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.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ!
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murdererβs 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.
ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦΉΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉ? ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ.
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: βAnd he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest, whom he anointed with the sacred oilβ (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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ°ΧΦΌΦ·Χ? ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ΅Χ©Χ.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ: Χ ΦΈΧ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χͺ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ±ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅Χͺ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΉΧ¦Φ΅ΧΦ· ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ²ΧΦ»ΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉΧ΄, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
Β§ 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: βTo return and dwell in the land until the death of the priestβ (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: βThe murderer shall return to his ancestral landβ (Numbers 35:28). What is the dwelling that is taking place in his ancestral land? You must say it is his burial.
Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ, Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ§ Χ Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ.
Β§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to a case where the murdererβs 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 αΈ₯alutza, and the High Priest was thereby disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi YitzαΈ₯ak NappaαΈ₯a 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.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ’ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amoraβim, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi YitzαΈ₯ak NappaαΈ₯a, 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 αΈ₯alutza, 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.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ·, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨?
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 Priestβs 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.
