Makkot

introduced by a strong [emphatic] term,1 as it is written, And the Lord spake [directed] unto Joshua saying, Speak [direct] unto the children of Israel saying, Appoint for you cities of refuge, whereof I spake to you by the hand of Moses?2 Because it was a direction to give effect to what had been ordained in the Torah. Does it mean to say that the use of the term dabber always denotes strong [emphatic] utterance? — Yes indeed, as it is written [explicitly], and he [Joseph] spake hard words to them.3 But, is it not taught [elsewhere] that in the passage, Then they that feared the Lord spake together one with another4 means none other than gentle discourse, and thus the verse says, He shall subdue [yadber] the peoples under us?5 — Yes; but Dabber6 is a form different from Yadber7 [with consequent different shades of meaning].8 R. Judah and our [other] Rabbis differ [as to the reason for the introduction of the strong term]: one thinking it is because Joshua must have somewhat delayed the appointment of those [cities of refuge]; whereas the other thinks it was simply because of its importance as being an ordinance in the Torah. And Joshua wrote these words in the book of the Law of God.9 R. Judah and R. Nehemiah are divided on the interpretation thereof, one taking them as referring to the final eight verses of the Pentateuch,10 while the other takes them to be the section on the cities of refuge.11 Now, according to the one who holds that they were the final eight verses of the Pentateuch, it is quite correct to say, [and Joshua wrote these words] in the book of the Law of God.12 But, if they are taken to refer to the section on the cities of refuge,13 how do you explain the wording, wrote these words in the book of the Law of God? — We take them in this way: ‘And Joshua wrote’, in his own book, ‘these words’14 [that are prescribed] ‘in the book of the Law of God’. [The fitness of] a Sefer[-Torah] whose parchment skins are sewn together with flaxen thread was a point of issue between R. Judah and R. Meir,15 one declaring that it is fit [for public use] while the other holds it to be unfit. The one who declares it unfit appeals to the verse, And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thine hand and for a memorial between thine eyes that the Lord's law may be in thy mouth.16 The whole Torah is set thus side by side with Tefillin.17 [Accordingly we draw an analogy:] As in the case of Tefillin there is a statute [a rule in practice] received by Moses at Sinai in regard to the use of gut-string for sewing them, the same is to obtain in the sewing of Torah scrolls. And the other?18 — He applies the analogy only to the requirement that the parchment [for Torah scrolls] has to be made of skins of animals permitted as food [for Jews];19 but the argument from analogy is not carried so far as to extend to [subsidiary] ‘rules in practice’.20 Rab remarked: We saw the phylacteries in the household of my Beloved [uncle R. Hiyya], and they were sewn with flaxen thread. But, the halachah21 is not in accordance with his practice. MISHNAH. IT IS ALL ONE WHETHER A HIGH PRIEST [WHO DIED] HAD BEEN ANOINTED WITH THE [HOLY] ANOINTINGOIL;22 OR HAD BEEN CONSECRATED BY THE MANY VESTMENTS,23 OR HAD RETIRED FROM HIS OFFICE24 — ALL MAKE POSSIBLE THE RETURN OF THE MANSLAYER; R. JUDAH SAYS ALSO THE [DEATH OF THE] PRIEST WHO HAD BEEN ANOINTED FOR WAR25 PERMITS THE RETURN OF THE MANSLAYER. THEREFORE, MOTHERS OF HIGH PRIESTS WERE WONT TO PROVIDE FOOD AND RAIMENT FOR THEM THAT THEY MIGHT NOT PRAY FOR THEIR SON'S DEATH. GEMARA. What are the data [for the above statement]? — Said R. Kahana: They are [severally] indicated in the texts [the high priest being mentioned three times], And he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest which was anointed with the holy oil;26 again it is written, Because he should have remained in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest;27 and once more, But after the death of the high priest the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.27 And whence R. Judah's view? — It is written once again, [And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge] that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.28 And the other?29 — Since the description ‘high’ is omitted therein, the last quoted passage is taken [by him] as [but a secondary reference to] one of the aforementioned. THEREFORE MOTHERS OF HIGH PRIESTS [WERE WONT TO PROVIDE FOOD AND RAIMENT FOR THEM THAT THEY MIGHT NOT PRAY FOR THEIR SON'S DEATH]. The reason [given] is that the banished might not pray [for the high priest's death]; but what if they should pray, [think you] he would die? [Surely the saying is,] As the flitting bird as the flying swallow, so the curse that is causeless shall [not] follow!30 Said a venerable old scholar: I heard an explanation at one of the sessional lectures of Raba, that [the high priests were not without blame, as] they should have implored Divine grace for [averting the sorrows of] their generation, which they failed to do. Others read in the Mishnah thus: THAT THEY MIGHT PRAY FOR THEIR SONS THAT THEY DIE NOT. The reason [given then] is that the banished should pray [for the high priest]; but, what if they did not pray [for him; think you] he would die? What should he have done [to avert it]? — As they say here [in Babylon]: ‘Toby did the [bad] jobbing and Ziggad31 got the [hard] slogging,’ or as they say there [in Palestine]: ‘Shechem got him a wife32 and Mabgai33 caught the knife.’ Said a venerable old scholar: I heard an explanation at one of the sessional lectures of Raba that [the high priests were not without blame, as] they should have implored Divine grace for [averting the sorrows of] their generation, which they failed to do. Just as in the case of that poor fellow who was devoured by a lion some three parasangs from the town where R. Joshua b. Levi lived, when [the prophet] Elijah would not commune with the Rabbi,34 on that account, for three days! Rab Judah reported Rab to have said that the curse of a Sage, though uttered without cause, takes effect. Whence is this obtained? From [the fate of] Ahithophel; because, when David was digging out the [Temple's] foundations, the Deep came surging up threatening to flood the world.35 He [David] asked, ‘What [is the law]36 about writing the Divine Name on a shard and throwing it into the Deep to [make it] keep to its own region?’ As no one made reply, he said, ‘Whoever knoweth aught on this topic and would not tell, may he be suffocated!’37 Thereupon, Ahithophel reasoned thus in his own mind: If in the cause of restoring harmony between husband and wife38 the Torah said: ‘Let My Name,39 solemnly inscribed [in a scroll, rather] be blotted out in water’,40 may that not the more readily be done for the [safety of] the whole world? ‘Yes, It is allowed!’ [exclaimed Ahithophel]. The Divine Name was thereupon inscribed on a shard and thrown in the Deep; It subsided and abode in its own region. Nevertheless it is recorded, And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass and arose and gat him home to his house, to his city and put his household in order, and hanged himself and died.41 R. Abbahu said that the curse of a Sage, though uttered without cause, takes effect — Whence is this derived? From the fate of Eli; because, Eli said to Samuel, God do so to thee, and more also, if thou hide anything from me of all the things He said to thee.42 Now, although it is recorded, And Samuel told him every whit and hid nothing from him,43 nevertheless it is recorded, And his [Samuel's] sons walked not in his ways.44 that is, induce peoples to come and submit. employ the analogy? have cloven hoofs and chew the cud. The words ‘in thy mouth’ occurring in the ordinance Tefillin are interpreted: What can be put in thy mouth, thus excluding skins of animals forbidden as food, and this restriction in the preparation of parchments is carried over by analogy from Tefillin to Torah scrolls. practices. Each case is considered on its own merits. quoting Hor. 11b.) what distinguished the high priest from the ordinary priest was the number of vestments, the high priest having eight, the ordinary priests having only four. (a) a causeless curse will not follow (the innocent), or (b) that it will follow (the person who curses without cause). our Tommy Atkins and Jack Tar for ‘soldier’ and ‘sailor’.). There is also probably a play here on the name Zingad in the Aramaic, Zingad ( — who is hoisted) minnegad ( — gets a flogging). was called by the people of that country Mabartha, maybe a corruption of Mabg(a)itha. Elijah's appearance as friend, guide, monitor or rescuer. See J. E. V, 122 ff. and M. Friedmann's exhaustive study in his introduction to the Seder Elijahu Rabbah (Wien, 1904). Chap. IV, p. 27 ff. Friedm. op. cit., p. 157. Samuel if he would not reveal God's word in regard to Eli's wicked sons.