The anonymous donation for Massekhet Makkot is made in honor of Morris Dweck, Sammy Esses, Yaron Mizrahi, and Tuvi Asis, for their tireless work for the Beit Yaakov community. May God grant them continued strength to serve the community in good health, prosperity, and peace. Amen.
The Book of Joshua describes the establishment of the Cities of Refuge using a strong expression: God tells Joshua, “Now establish the Cities of Refuge that I spoke about in the Torah.” The word used is daber, and whenever this word appears, it signifies a strong expression. Why are the Cities of Refuge introduced with such a strong expression? The Gemara explains that this law comes directly from the Torah itself. God specifically instructed Joshua to fulfill this particular mitzvah—to establish the Cities of Refuge—which is unique. God never told Joshua to “complete” or “fulfill” any other mitzvah in the same way. Since He commanded Joshua to complete this Torah mitzvah upon entering the Land of Israel, it is considered a matter of Torah law and calls for a strong expression.
Both the terms ve-diber and dibbur are considered strong expressions. If one were to argue that every instance of ve-diber, daber, or dibbur implies a strong expression, the Gemara confirms this. For example, regarding Joseph and his brothers, it is written: “The man, the lord of the land, spoke to us very harshly.” Here, the word diber is used, indicating a harsh tone. Thus, daber is typically used in a strong sense.
However, an apparent contradiction arises. We find another word, yedaber, which seems to be gentle, even though it shares the same root as ve-diber and daber. For instance, the verse “Yedaber nations beneath us” means that God will subjugate the nations to us, and they will serve God peacefully when the Mashiach comes. Thus, yedaber is an expression of peace and tranquility. So which is it? The Gemara clarifies: daber is one word, and yedaber is another. Daber signifies harsh language, while yedaber signifies gentle language. The Rabbis are reliable and truthful in making this distinction.
The Yom HaRash cites Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis regarding the verse in Joshua in which God tells Joshua to establish the Cities of Refuge, using the term ve-yadber. One opinion suggests that it is a strong expression because Joshua delayed establishing the cities, prompting God to use strong language: “No, do it already!” The delay is the reason for the harsh tone. Another opinion states that it is a strong expression because this is a matter of Torah law, and therefore strong language is used.
Another interpretation (derash) of a verse states that Joshua wrote these words in the “Book of the Torah of God.” This raises a question: Where did Joshua write anything in the Torah? Moses wrote the Torah! Rashi explains that this refers to the last eight verses of the Torah, which Joshua wrote. Another interpretation, also cited by Rashi, states that it refers to the section about the Cities of Refuge, which is written in the Book of Joshua. The explanation, then, is that the eight verses at the end of the Torah were written in the “Torah of God,” meaning in the Torah itself. However, the account of the Cities of Refuge is written in Joshua’s own book, not in the Torah.
The Gemara discusses how the sections of a Sefer Torah are sewn together, specifically mentioning flax (pishtan). How are the sections of a Sefer Torah attached? The Gemara asks: With what do you sew it? It then draws a comparison to Tefillin. Just as Tefillin must be sewn with sinews (giddin) from an animal, so too a Sefer Torah must be sewn with sinews. This comparison teaches us that just as Tefillin must be written on parchment from a ritually pure (tahor) animal—that is, an animal one is permitted to eat, such as a cow—the same applies to a Sefer Torah. However, this comparison does not extend to all the laws concerning sinews and other details of Tefillin. Therefore, it is permissible to sew a Sefer Torah with flax. Rav says that his uncle, Habibi, had Tefillin sewn with flax, which would not meet the requirement of using sinews.
We learned earlier that a person who takes refuge in a City of Refuge remains there until the Kohen Gadol dies. Which Kohen Gadol? There are several types. One is the Kohen Gadol anointed with oil, a practice that continued until the time of Josiah. Another is the Kohen Gadol appointed by wearing the eight priestly garments (merubah begadim), a practice that began after Josiah, when anointing oil was no longer used. If such a Kohen Gadol became disqualified and another was appointed in his place, the original Kohen Gadol would be reinstated if he became fit again. The substitute Kohen Gadol is called a Kohen She’avar, but he retains the status of a Kohen Gadol. If he dies, he too releases the people from the City of Refuge. A fourth type is the Kohen Gadol who goes out to the battlefield to deliver an exhortation (mussar) and read the exemptions from war. All these types of Kohanim Gedolim can release the refugees from the Cities of Refuge.
The Mishnah states that the mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would visit the Cities of Refuge and provide the residents with food and clothing. They did this because they did not want the residents to pray for their sons to die, knowing that the death of a Kohen Gadol would free them. How do we know from the Torah that the death of these Kohanim Gedolim frees the refugees? The Torah mentions the Kohen Gadol three times, implying these three distinct types. However, Rabbi Yehuda argues that a fourth verse, referring to the Kohen Gadol who goes to war, does not explicitly use the term Kohen Gadol, so it must refer to one of the three already mentioned. This is the point of Rabbi Yehuda’s dispute. The mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would give gifts so that the residents would not pray for their sons to die. But what if they did pray? Would their prayers be answered? The Gemara asks whether such prayers have any basis. If they have no basis, why worry about the residents’ prayers?
The Torah says that the Kohanim Gedolim are culpable because they should have prayed for their generation, so that there would be no murderers or deaths. Since they did not, the refugees’ prayers do have a basis. This means that if there is a murder in Israel, even an accidental one, it is partly because the Kohen Gadol did not pray hard enough for the protection of the Jewish people. Therefore, he shares some responsibility for the failure, and the refugees’ prayers for his death would be answered. Some versions of our Mishnah have a different reading: instead of “so they would not pray for them to die,” it says, “so they would pray that they should live.” This implies that their prayers are effective.
The Gemara asks what the Kohen Gadol did wrong. It is like the saying in Babylonia: “Two of you sinned, and you give lashes to Zigod.” This refers to a story in which Zigod came to court to testify, but because he was only one witness, he was lashed, since two witnesses are required. Similarly, here, a man kills someone, and the Kohen Gadol is somehow responsible for his death? This seems unjust. Or, as they say in Israel, “Shechem enjoyed himself, and Mabgai suffered.” This refers to the story of Shechem ben Hamor, who married Dinah and enjoyed himself, while Mabgai, another resident of Shechem, suffered by undergoing circumcision. The same idea applies here: the killer is exiled, but why is the Kohen Gadol implicated? It is because he should have prayed for the generation to receive an extra measure of mercy. If he had prayed hard enough, there would have been no murder in Israel. Therefore, he shares in the guilt.
There is a story about a person who was eaten by a lion three parsa’ot from where Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi lived. Elijah the Prophet did not appear to Rabbi Yehoshua for three days. Why? As if it were Rabbi Yehoshua’s fault! Because he was the righteous leader (tzaddik) of the generation, if he had prayed, perhaps there would have been protection, and the man would not have been eaten. Therefore, the Heavenly Court (Yom Ha’Avi) “punished” Rabbi Yehoshua, so to speak, by not having Elijah appear to him for three days. Similarly, regarding the Kohen Gadol, if he had prayed hard enough, this incident might not have happened.
The curse of a scholar (chacham), even if seemingly baseless (al hinnam), comes true. From where do we learn this? When King David was digging the foundation of the Beit HaMikdash (Temple), the subterranean waters (tehom) began to rise. There was a risk that God would flood the entire world. David asked whether it was permissible to write one of God’s names, which has the power to stop the waters, and throw it into the depths to stop the leak. The name would rest on the leak and stop it. The question was whether one is allowed to write God’s name temporarily and throw it into the water, knowing it would be erased. No one told him the answer. David declared, “Anyone who knows the answer and does not tell me will be strangled by his anger.” The prophet Ahitophel, who was present, then spoke. He said, “What is there to do for peace between a man and his wife? The Torah states that if you want to erase God’s name in the case of the Sotah (a woman suspected of infidelity) in order to make peace between two people, then you must preserve peace in the whole world, so that the whole world is not destroyed.” He implied that if one can erase God’s name for peace between a husband and wife, then certainly it is permissible to do so to save the entire world from destruction. So Ahitophel wrote the Divine Name on a piece of pottery and threw it into the depths, and the water stopped. What happened to Ahitophel? He strangled himself. Thus, even though he did not withhold the information, the curse of the chacham came true, even if it was seemingly baseless.
Rashi raises a historical problem here. It seems that David was digging the foundation of the Beit HaMikdash and Ahitophel was there. However, tradition states that David did not buy the property for the Temple until three years after Ahitophel died. So the story, as a contemporary event, seems impossible. The explanation is that although the threshing floor (goren) had not yet been bought, Samuel and the prophets had already identified the site for the Temple in the Book of Joshua. They had the location in mind. They asked the owners of the threshing floor for the site and found its foundation. They had not bought the property yet, but they went to Aravna and said, “Listen, we are going to buy this property from you one day. We want it. You can start digging.” So although they did not buy it until after Ahitophel died, they received permission to dig while he was still alive, and that is when this story took place.
The Gemara continues: “The waters will be erased, as it is written regarding the Sotah, ‘and it shall be erased into the bitter waters.’” It is not just one of God’s names; many names are written in that passage. So David only cursed him for not telling him the halachah, but he did tell him the halachah. Yet the curse still came true. This demonstrates that once a scholar utters a curse, it comes true.
Another story illustrates that even a conditional curse (kelalah al tenai) comes true, regardless of whether the condition is met. The prophet Samuel had bad news to tell Eli the High Priest. God had revealed that a major tragedy would befall Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who would die on the same day. Eli told Samuel, “May God do this to you and more if you withhold anything from me.” Eli’s children had gone astray, and Eli was Samuel’s teacher. He warned Samuel that if he withheld a prophecy, his own children would also go astray. Samuel did not withhold the prophecy; he told Eli everything. Yet Samuel’s children did not follow his ways. This shows that the curse of a scholar, even if conditional, comes true. The condition was “if you withhold,” but even though Samuel did not withhold, the curse still materialized, as it is written: “And I will do to you as I did to my children who are not children.” Just as Eli’s children were not proper children, something would happen to Samuel’s children.
Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rav that a conditional excommunication (nidui al tenai) still requires absolution (hatarah), even if the condition was not met and the nidui should theoretically not have taken effect. If it is not absolved, the nidui remains. From where do we learn this? From the famous story of Judah. What did Judah promise Jacob when he wanted to bring Benjamin down to Egypt? He said, “If I do not bring him back to you, then I will have sinned against you forever.” This implied a self-imposed nidui, that he would forfeit his share in the World to Come. In the end, he brought Benjamin back and kept his word. But because he had uttered this conditional nidui, he lost his share in the World to Come. At the end of his life, when Moses was blessing the tribes, he blessed Judah first, saying, “May Judah live and not die.” The next verse is, “And this is for Judah.” This sequence is puzzling. Why go from Reuben to Judah? And what does “and this is for Judah” mean?
The Gemara explains that throughout the forty years the Jewish people were in the desert, Judah’s bones rattled in his coffin, as if he were not resting in peace. While all the other tribes had their fathers’ bones brought out of Egypt, Judah’s bones were restless. It was not until Moses came at the end of his life and prayed for him that he found peace. Who caused Reuben to confess his sin of moving his father’s bed from Bilhah’s tent to Leah’s tent? Judah did. When Judah repented for his sin with Tamar, it inspired Reuben to repent as well. Therefore, the verse says, “May Reuben live and not die,” referring to his entry into the World to Come because he repented, but this was due to Judah’s inspiration. Thus, “Hear, O Lord, the voice of Judah” refers to Judah’s merit. When Moses prayed, Judah’s bones reconnected, but he still was not allowed into the Heavenly Academy. Moses then prayed, “And bring him to his people,” and Judah was allowed in. However, he could not participate in the give-and-take of the Heavenly discussions. Moses prayed, “His hands are strong; let him be in the debate.” But Judah still could not answer questions. Moses prayed, “And may You be a help against his adversaries.” This shows that if they had performed absolution for his nidui, these problems would not have occurred. This demonstrates the effect of a conditional curse.
A second Tosafot states that when the brothers threw Joseph into the pit, Reuben was not there. He returned to the pit and saw that Joseph was gone. Reuben did not know that they had sold him. Tosafot asks why Reuben was not present at the sale. It says that Reuben repented for the incident with Bilhah on his own, even before the story of Judah and Tamar. So why does the Gemara credit Judah with Reuben’s repentance? The explanation is that until then, Reuben’s repentance was private. But after Judah repented publicly by declaring, “She is more righteous than I,” Reuben’s repentance reached a higher level and became public. Therefore, Judah deserves credit. The verse, “You, Judah, your brothers will praise you,” means that because Judah confessed, his brothers also confessed. This idea is found in the Torah.
The Gemara then asks: Do all three types of Kohanim Gedolim have to die for the unintentional killer to be freed, or is the death of just one sufficient? The Mishnah only mentions “the Kohen Gadol,” without specifying. Perhaps it means all three. We have a proof: if a person was sentenced and there was no Kohen Gadol at the time of sentencing, the ruling is that he never leaves the City of Refuge. This implies that all three Kohanim Gedolim must be present at the time of sentencing for the possibility of release. If one is missing, even if the other two die, he will not be released. The Gemara challenges this, asking who said there were three Kohanim Gedolim in the first place. If there were no other two, then he never leaves. But if the other two were present at the time of sentencing, he would eventually be released.
The next Mishnah states: If his judgment was concluded (nigmar dino) and then the Kohen Gadol died, he does not go into exile (eino gole). This means he does not even need to go to the City of Refuge. He was sentenced, found guilty, and assigned to the City of Refuge. Then he receives news that the Kohen Gadol has died. He can go home; he does not have to go to the City of Refuge. However, if the Kohen Gadol died before his judgment was concluded (shelo nigmar dino), and then a new Kohen Gadol was appointed in his place, and then the killer was sentenced, he is released upon the death of this new Kohen Gadol. The Gemara asks: What is the fault of this new Kohen Gadol? Why should his death determine the killer’s freedom? He was not appointed until after the murder happened. Similarly, if there was no Kohen Gadol at the time of sentencing, or if the killer killed the Kohen Gadol, or if a Kohen Gadol himself committed murder, in all these cases, he does not go free. Let us explore some interpretations.
The first case is understandable: if there was no Kohen Gadol at the time of the murder or sentencing, and a new Kohen Gadol was appointed afterward, this new Kohen Gadol has nothing to do with the case. He was not there to pray that the murder would not happen, nor was he there at the time of sentencing to pray that the person would be acquitted, which is also part of the Kohen Gadol’s responsibility. So if a new Kohen Gadol appears after the sentencing, it is clear why he is not “on the hook.” Similarly, if the killer killed the Kohen Gadol, or if a Kohen Gadol committed murder, these cases are similar to a sentencing without a Kohen Gadol. If the Kohen Gadol is killed, there is no Kohen Gadol at the time of sentencing. Or if the Kohen Gadol himself is the killer, he cannot be the one whose death frees the killer. According to this, even in these cases, there is no release from the City of Refuge. This law applies only if another Kohen Gadol is not appointed before the killer’s judgment. But if a new Kohen Gadol is appointed after the previous one is killed, then the new Kohen Gadol is responsible. The explanation is that a Kohen Gadol is needed at the time of sentencing. If the killer kills the Kohen Gadol, there is no Kohen Gadol at the time of sentencing, so he cannot go free.
The Mishnah continues: “He cannot leave.” He cannot leave the City of Refuge even for a mitzvah. For example, if he needs to testify about the new moon (Rosh Chodesh) in Jerusalem, he cannot leave. He cannot leave for a monetary case, nor even for a capital case. Not only can he not leave for a voluntary mitzvah, but he cannot leave even to give testimony in a monetary case, which the Torah obligates, or in a capital case. Even if the Jewish people need him—for instance, if he is the general of Israel and they cannot go to war without him—he must remain in the City of Refuge. The verse says, “There he shall dwell.” This means he stays there even if he is sick and dying. One might think that if he is going to die anyway, he could be taken somewhere else. But the verse says, “There shall be his death.” Not only that, “There shall be his burial.” Even after he dies, one might think he could be taken out to be buried with his family, but no: he must remain in the City of Refuge even after death. We must understand this logic: all the Jewish people are in danger, and he is the only one who can save them, yet he must stay in the City of Refuge. The Gemara notes that this is a difficult question, for which no answer is given, but it clearly shows that he cannot leave, even to save lives (pikuach nefesh) for all of Israel.
The Gemara states that just as the City of Refuge itself provides refuge (koletet), so too does its surrounding area (techum). If the unintentional killer leaves the City of Refuge’s boundaries and the avenger of blood (go’el hadam) finds him, it is a mitzvah for the avenger of blood to kill him. For everyone else, it is voluntary: anyone may kill him, but it is specifically a mitzvah for the avenger of blood to avenge. Rabbi Akiva says that it is a mitzvah for the avenger of blood, and everyone else is obligated (hayavim alav) to kill him. There are different textual versions (girsa’ot) here. Some say “everyone else is not obligated” (ein hayavim), while others say “everyone else is obligated” (hayavim). This is a significant question about the correct text of our Mishnah.
We learned in the Mishnah that if the Kohen Gadol died after the judgment was concluded, the killer does not go to the City of Refuge at all. He was alive at the time of sentencing, found guilty, and assigned to the City of Refuge. Then he receives a call that the Kohen Gadol has just died. So he does not even have to go to the City of Refuge. The Gemara asks for the source of this. It says, “that he may flee there,” implying that the death of the Kohen Gadol can release someone already in exile or prevent someone from going into exile in the first place. This is an argument of “how much more so.” What does this mean? One might argue that the person already in exile receives atonement (kaparah), but the person who has not yet gone into exile has not received atonement. The Gemara explains that it is not the exile itself that provides atonement, but the death of the Kohen Gadol. Therefore, even if he has not yet gone into exile, he will certainly receive atonement through the death of the Kohen Gadol. The atonement comes from the Kohen Gadol’s death. So if the death of the Kohen Gadol can atone for someone already in exile, it can certainly atone for someone who has not yet gone. Tosafot raises a question, because this sounds as though exile itself is not atonement, but we learned earlier that exile is atonement. The Gemara explains that we are discussing the completion of the atonement, which releases him from exile. Of course, exile provides atonement; otherwise, why would he go into exile? But the ultimate atonement is the death of the Kohen Gadol. So if the death of the Kohen Gadol can provide this ultimate atonement for someone who went into exile, it can certainly do so even before he reaches exile. This proves that the key is the Kohen Gadol. A person might be in the City of Refuge for one day, the Kohen Gadol dies, and he goes free. Another might be in exile for forty years, and it does not help him. So the essential atonement lies in the Kohen Gadol’s death.
The Gemara continues: What about the case where the Kohen Gadol died before the judgment was concluded, a new Kohen Gadol was appointed in his place, and then the killer was sentenced? He is released upon the death of the new Kohen Gadol, even though this second Kohen Gadol was not alive at the time of the murder. How do we know this? The verse says, “He shall sit in the City of Refuge until the death of the Kohen Gadol whom they anointed.” This implies the Kohen Gadol who was anointed in his days, meaning after he became a killer. The Gemara asks: What do you want from the new Kohen Gadol? You want to blame the murder on the Kohen Gadol who was alive at the time of the murder. But this is a post-facto situation. The Gemara explains that the new Kohen Gadol should have prayed that the sentencing would come out in the killer’s favor. If it did not, it means he did not pray hard enough. He has a responsibility to save the person. Therefore, he is deserving of punishment (onesh). However, if the Kohen Gadol is appointed after the judgment, he is completely innocent. He was not there for the murder or for the sentencing. Then, of course, he is not responsible, and the killer remains in the City of Refuge.
Abaye said: We have a tradition that if the killer died before reaching the City of Refuge, his bones are taken there. The Torah states that one cannot take ransom (kofer) for the life of a murderer so that he may live in a different city. He must go and “sit in the ground until the Kohen Gadol dies.” What does “sitting in the ground” mean? The tradition states that this refers to burial. From this verse, we learn that if he dies before returning to his land, he must be buried in the City of Refuge.
A Baraita supports this: If the killer died before the Kohen Gadol died, his bones are brought to the City of Refuge and buried there. Then, when the Kohen Gadol dies, his body can be exhumed and reburied in his ancestral plot (kevurei avotav) in his own land.