Makkot Daf Yud Daled

with a special thanks to Rabbi Aryeh Lebowitz, dafyomi.co.il, and Chana T Fisch(for the great question)

Amud Aleph

The reason Rabbi Akiva holds that you get malkot when you're chayav Karet but not Chayav mitah, because you might never get Karet! If a person does teshuva, then he doesn't get karet! 

Question: what if the the person doesn't do teshuva? 

Answer: as long as there is a possibility for him not to get karet B"D can give malkot. 

R. Yitzchak: The Torah teaches that Arayot are Chayavei Keritot, and mentions Bi'ah with a sister, is also chayav karet;

- This teaches that this araya (sleeping with sister) and all other Chayavei Keritot are punishable by Karet, and not by lashes.

 Question: But the rabbanan hold that you do get malkot!

 Answer: It's to divide the issurim, like R. Yochanan taught.

- R. Yochanan: If one forgot several Chayavei Keritot and then did them, he brings a Korban for each one. (the pasuk teaches that you are chayav for each one individually)

Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to individualize the Arayos?

Answer: "V'ei Ishah b'Tumat Nidatah" obligates in karet for every individual woman.

Challenge: But then the Chachamim should learn it from "v'El Ishah..."!

Answer: they do, but the Kares for Bi'ah with a sister teaches that if one has Bi'ah with his sister, and the sisters of his father and mother, he is liable for each one.

Challenge: This is obvious! They are different sins with different women!

Answer: Rather, it teaches that if one has Bi'ah with his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, he is liable (a separate Korban) for each (of the three reasons she is forbidden to him)

Question: How can his sister be the sister of his parents?

Answer: His father was a Rasha. A man slept with his mother, and had 2 daughters. Then he sleeps with his daughter (who is also his sister) and they have a son. Then his son sleeps with his mother's sister, who is also his sister because they have the same father, and also his father's sister because they have the same mother. So it's one woman but different Arayot. 

Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source for this?

Answer: He learns it from a Kal va'Chomer;

Beraita - Question: Rabbi Akiva asks, if one has Bi'ah with his sister, who is also the sister of his father and mother, is he is liable once, or for each transgression?

Answer: Raban Gamliel and R. Yehoshua say we heard only the following. If one has relations with five Nidot in one Helem, he is liable for each woman. All the more so, in your case he is liable for each!

If he is liable for each when they are all Nidah, all the more so for different Arayot!

the Chachamim reject this Kal va'Chomer. He is liable for each Nidah because they are different women!

R. Yitzchak must admit that the Kal va'Chomer is refuted!

Response: He learns it from the end of the verse "Ervat Achoto Gilah"

Chachamim learn from this that one is liable for a full sister, for we do not punish based on a Kal va'Chomer and we cannot learn from a Kal va'Chomer, if he is liable for a half sister, and all the more so for a full sister!

Question: What is R. Yitzchak's source to be chayav for a full sister?

Answer: He learns liability from the Lav. ("Achotcha Hi" is a full sis)

Other Answer: R. Yitzchak holds that we punish based on a Kal va'Chomer, therefore it suffices that there is a Lav for a half-sister. 

Alternate answer: He learns from the beginning of the verse "Achoto Bat Aviv Oh Bat Imo." 'Achoto' is extra to teach about a full sister.

Amud Bet

Chachamim use that 'Achoso' to teach that one who makes oil like Shemen ha'Mishchah and anoints with (the original) Shemen ha'Mishchah is liable twice.

 R. Yitzchak learns like R. Elazar.

R. Elazar: Whenever the Torah writes separate Lavim for two sins but mentions Karet only once, they are separate- regarding Korbanot, but if done in one Helem, two Korbanot are brought.

Alternatively, he does not learn like R. Elazar. Rather, he learns from an extra Karet written regarding Nidah - "v'Ish Asher Yishkav Es Ishah Davah... v'Nichresu."

Chachamim use this to teach R. Yochanan's law.

R. Yochanan: A woman becomes Nidah only if the blood leaves through her Ervah (i.e. not blood that comes out through Caesarian section).

Mishna: If a Tamei person eats Kodesh or enters the Mikdash, he is lashed.

Question: We understand why a Tamei who enters the Mikdash is lashed and is listed with the sins of Karet:

1. The punishment is explicit

2. The warning for lashes is explicit 

3. The Karet for eating Kodesh is explicit 

However, what is the warning against eating Kodesh?

Answer: Reish Lakish says it is "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga."

Alt. Answer: R. Yochanan - we learn from a Gezerah Shavah of Tumato

It says "vtumato alav" like it says (about a Tamei who enters the Mikdash) "Od tumato Vo" just like there the Torah specifies warning and punishment, also regarding eating Kodesh.

Question: Granted, Reish Lakish did not learn like R. Yochanan, for he has no tradition for the Gezerah Shavah. However, why didn't R. Yochanan learn like Reish Lakish?

Answer: He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" discusses Terumah.

Question: Where does Reish Lakish learn that a Tamei is warned not to eat Terumah?

Answer: "Ish Ish mi'Zera Aharon v'Hu Tzaru'a Oh Zav ba'Kodoshim Lo Yachol"

Question: Why does it say "mi'Zera Aharon"?

Answer: The verse discusses something that all decendents of Aharon (women included) may eat, which is Terumah.

R. Yochanan agrees that this forbids a Tamei to eat Terumah. He holds that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids touching Terumah.

Question: Reish Lakish cannot say that "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids a Tamei to eat Kodesh. He uses it to forbid a Tamei to touch Kodesh!

Reish Lakish: If a Tamei touches Kodesh he is lashed - "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga"

R. Yochanan: He is not lashed. That is a warning not to touch Terumah,

Answer: Since it says "Lo Siga", it forbids touching;

The verse "b'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga v'El ha'Mikdash Lo Savo", equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. Just like a Tamei may not enter the Mikdash, he may not eat Kodesh.

Question: We need the verse to forbid a Tamei to eat Kodesh before the throwing the blood...

Reish Lakish: If a Tamei ate Kodesh before Zerikah, he is lashed. "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" applies before and after Zerikah;

R. Yochanan: He is not lashed. A Gezerah Shavah "Tumato-Tumato" (written regarding the punishment), teaches that one is liable only for Kodesh permitted to Tehorim, which is after Zerikah.

 Answer: Reish Lakish says, "b'Chol Kodesh" includes before Zerikah.

Beraita in support: "B'Chol Kodesh Lo Siga" forbids eating Kodesh;

Challenge: Perhaps it forbids touching!

Rejection: "B'Chol Kodesh... v'El ha'Mikdash" equates Kodesh to the Mikdash. A Tamei who enters the Mikdash is Chayav Mitah (b'Yedei Shamayim, this is included in Karet). The prohibition of Kodesh also entails Mitah;

One is not Chayav Mitah for touching,

 _______________________________________________________________

In a Beraita on amud aleph, Rabbi Akiva asks Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua a halachik question. The Gemara sets the stage by telling us that they were at a market/butcher and that an animal was being purchased for Rabban Gamliel's son's wedding.

Question: Why all the background info? Extra points if you reference another Gemara where background information is given to prove your point. :) 

Makkot Yud Gimmel Sancino translation

משנה: People who violate these laws will get מכות in a בית דין:
1. Sleeps with his sister (he would get כרת too)
2. Sleeps with his aunt (his father's or mother's sister)
3. Sleeps with his sister-in-law (his brother's wife or his wife's sister)
4. Sleeps with his uncle's (father's brother) wife
5. Sleeps with someone in נידה
6. A כהן גדול who marries a widow
7. Any כהן who marries a divorcee
8. Anyone who marries a ממזר or ממזרת
9. Anyone who eats קרבנות when they are טמאה
10. Anyone who enters the בית המקדש when they are טמאה
11. Anyone who eats forbidden fats, blood, leftovers of קרבנות you're not allowed to eat, leftovers of קרבנות that have "expired' they're time limit, a טמאה קרבן, a קרבן outside of Jerusalem.
12. Anyone who eats חמץ during פסח
13. One who does not fast on יום כיפור or works on יום כיפור.
14. One who mixes oils to be used in the בית המקדש- it's not pure olive oil, it's a mixture of oils he uses, which is forbidden. Same with mixing ingredients for incense/spices.
15. One who eats non-kosher- How much non-kosher do you need to eat to be punished with מכות?
Rav Simeon says "the merest morsel." The חכמים say a כזית. Rav Simeon challenges the חכמים: would you deny that someone who ate a tiny ant would get lashes? The חכמים say: it is different because there you are eating the entire creature! Rav Simeon says back: even so, a grain of wheat would also be considered a separate entity! The חכמים say: you can't assign the importance of a living creature to a plant.

גמרא: The משנה only lists cases where you can get כרת as cases where you can also get lashes- whose opinion is the משנה citing? This is the opinion of רבי עקיבא, who says only those liable to כרת can also get lashes, while רבי ישמאעל says both those liable to the death penalty and liable to כרת can get lashes from a court. The reasoning behind רבי עקיבא's opinion is that those responsible for כרת-level offenses can repent and the punishment that would be given in שמים can be repealed if replaced by earthly punishment (such as מכות)- they won't get כרת if they repent. Those who are liable for the death penalty do not get מכות because the extra punishment would not relieve them of their punishment בשמים- lashes would not be enough to "wipe" them of their sins.
רב יצחק asks: Since we already know all the relations listed above are offenses that achieve כרת, why do we only repeat that one would get כרת for sleeping with his sister? To show that they will receive כרת, not lashes. רב יצחק is disagreeing with רב עקיבא and רב ישמאעל by saying that the written law does not allow מכות to be given instead of כרת- the prescribed punishment will be given to each case as specified in the תורה.
What is the reasoning behind רבי ישמאעל's opinion? The תורה says, "If thou wilt not observe to do ALL the words of this law... then the Lord will make thy strokes pronounced." What is this "pronouncement?" The תורה says, "If the wicked man deserves to be beaten the judge shall cause him to lie down and to be beaten before his face according to the measure of his misdeed by number... forty stripes." Therefore, [רב ישמאעל learns] that the law is anyone who is deserving of lashes shall get lashes (which extends to those who also deserve the death penalty). If this is the case, then why not give מכות to those who neglect to do מצוות עשה as well? The פסוק says, "if thou wilt not OBSERVE to do" and according to Rav Abin in the name of Rav Elai whenever one sees the expression observe, lest, or do in the תורה, It is referring to a מצוה לא תעשה. Then why do we not give מכות to someone who violates a passive לא תעשה? The פסוק says, "If thou wilt not observe to DO (there has to be action)." Then why not give מכות to someone who violated a מצוה that could've been remedied by a simple, subsequent action? An act that requires מכות as punishment must be an active prohibition (a prohibition that someone actively violates) that cannot be remedied by a  simple action afterwards. Why does רבי עקיבא say one who gets the death penalty does not get additional מכות? Becausethe פסוק says, "according to his misdeed," meaning that you can only punish him for one misdeed- you can not hold him liable for two. Why does רבי ישמאעל say you can give someone liable for the death penalty מכות as well? Because רבי ישמאעל holds מכות as a "protracted death (so it's not really two separate punishments)." But if this is the case, why does רבי עקיבא say those liable to כרת should get מכות as well- doesn't that contradict his previous statement (about why we don't give מכות to those deserving of the death penalty)? And if you want to say it is because they might repent after מכות and they will not get כרת from G-d (they will be forgiven in שמים), how are we to assess that the guilty has repented (perhaps after the whipping he has not repented and we have held upon him two punishments!)? Rav Abbahu says: Because we derive a גזרה שוה between the two פסוקים describing כרת and מכות for It says (with כרת), "before the eyes' and with מכות "before thine eyes." רבי אבא בן ממל responded to Rav Abbahu, saying: if this is the case, why not include the death penalty in this גזרה שוה by deriving "from the eyes (describing murder)" from "before thine eyes?"  It is admissible to interpret before the eyes from before thine eyes, but it is not to derive from the eyes from before thine eyes (because the phrasing varies too much). Why does this matter? Did רב ישמאעל not teach a גזרה שוה between "and the priest shall come again" and "and he shall go in and see?" Rabbi Samuel son of Rabbi Isaac says that the פסוק רבי עקיבא interprets only applies to punishments that can be inflicted by Beit Din- since בית דין cannot inflict כרת on a man, they can give him lashes but if בית דין kills him, they cannot also give him lashes because that would be two punishments inflicted by בית דין for one misdeed.
רבא rejects the whole argument, saying of course you would not give lashes to a man who is receiving the death penalty because the greater punishment would override the lesser! The difference occurs in a case where the prohibition given is to serve as a forewarning to a capital sentence- in such a case, רבי ישמאעל would hold that lashes are to be given while רבי עקיבא would hold lashes are not to be given in such cases. But if this is the case, shouldn't Rabbi Akiva include in his prohibition against flogging cases of כרת as well, for the תורה says that the prohibition is supposed to keep people from going into כרת- the prohibition serves as a forewarning for כרת! Rabbi Mordechai said to רב אשי Abimi of Agrunia said in the name of רבא that כרת does not require a warning for you do not need to warn someone when they do not give the קרבן פסח or do not give their son a ברית מילה they might get כרת- that law in cases of כרת is the warning is designed to serve as a warning for lashes. Maybe there is no warning because violating these מצוות do not warrant the giving of a קרבן to atone? This is not the case because the reason you do not need to give a קרבן when you violate these מצוות is because they are מצוות עשה- not giving a warning has nothing to do with the reason you don't need to give a קרבן to atone for these sins.

What would be a passive לא תעשה? Why would the תורה design the הלכה in a way that for כרת deserving sins, you only get a warning against מכות? Wouldn't כרת seem a lot scarier to people than a few lashes and work as a better deterrent against crime? Sorry I posted so late!

Makkot Dav Yud Bet

Thanks to Artscroll and dafyomi.co.il

Continuation of previous daf

Statement: The diagreement between R’ Ami and R’ Yitzchak is not the same as the disagreement between R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua.   

(Mishnah: If his sentence was passed)

Statement: R’ Yehuda says in the name of Rav- Yoav made two mistakes when Shlomo tried to kill him. The first mistake was that he grabbed the horns of the Mizbeach but only the roof offers protection. The second mistake was that the Mizbaech in Shiloh did not offer protection, only the Mizbaech in the Beit Hamikdahs offered protection but it was not yet built.

Abaye: Another mistake Yoav made was that the Mizbaech only protects Kohanim and Yoav was not a Kohen.

Reish Lakish: The angle of Rome will make three mistakes when Mashiach comes. The first mistake will be that he will flee to the city of Batzrah but Betzer is the Ir Miklat. His second mistake is that an Ir Miklat only protects someone who killed by accident but he killed on purpose and the third mistake is that he is an angel and Irei Miklat only protect people

R’ Abahu: Leviim who live in Irei Miklat are not buried in them since we learn from a pasuk that the land was given to be live on, not to be buried on.

Attack: But the Mishnah says “Shamah”- he will live there, die there, and be buried there.

Answer: This refers to killers and they are different because Hashem commanded for them to be buried there.

(Mishnah: Just as the city provides protection, its boundary also provides protection.)

Contradiction from a Baraisa: But we learn from the posuk in Devarim that the exiled killer needs to live within the city’s wall, not within the city’s limit outside the wall.

Abaye: There is no contradiction because the Mishnah is saying that the boundary of the city protects the killer and the Barisa is saying that the killer needs to live within the city’s wall. The killers needs to live in the city but is still protected outside the city wall.

Attack: No one can live there anyway because there is a rule that you cannot make an open area into a city nor a city into an open area.

Rav Sheishess: The Baraisa is necessary to teach that a killer cannot live in a tunnel that began within the city’s walls but ended outside of the wall but still within the city’s boundaries.

(Mishnah: If a killer goes outside the boundary of an Ir Miklat…)

Baraisa: According to R’ Yossi HaGlili, it is a mitzvah for the Goel Hadam to kill the killer. If there is no Goel Hadam, then anyone can kill him. According to R’ Akiva, the Goel Hadam can kill the killer but if anyone else kills him, then they are liable to death.

Question: What are their reasonings?

Answer: For R’ Yossi HaGlili, the posuk says, “will kill”, not “if he kills” so we learn that it is a commandment. For R’ Akiva, the posuk says “will kill”, not that “he shall kill”. Since it is does not explicitly command someone to kill, it cannot be a mitzvah.

Mar Zutra bar Toviah: Rav said that if the Goel Hadam kills the killer outside the Ir Miklat, then the Goel Hadam is killed by Beit Din.

Question: This is neither like R’ Yossi HaGlili or R’ Akvia. Whose opinion is it?

Answer: It is R’ Eliezer’s opinion.

Baraisa: What do we learn from the posuk “Until he stands before the court in justice”? It teaches that while you may have thought that the killer can be killed at any point because of the posuk “and the redeemer of the blood will kill the killer” but really, the Goel Hadam can only kill the killer after he has been convicted in court.    

Question: What do R’ Yose HaGlili and R’ Akiva learn from the posuk “Until he stands…”?

Answer: Rabbi Akiva says if a Sanhedrin witness a murder, they cannot kill him and he goes to a different Sanhedrin to be tried.

Baraisa: “If the killer will go out”- from this posuk we know that if a killer leaves the Ir Miklat on purpose he can be killed by the Goel Hadam but from where do we know that even if he leaves by accident he can be killed? The Torah says “go out” twice to teach that it applies in all situations.

Attack: But in a different Baraisa it says that if the killer leaves by accident, then he is not killed but sent back to the Ir Miklat.

Resolution: The second Baraisa is going with the opinion that the Torah speaks in the language of people so the double word of “go out” does not teach anything. The first Baraisa is going with the opinion that the Torah does not speak in the language of people so it can learn rules from the double word.

Abaye: It makes sense to go according to the second Baraisa because just like when a killer kills on purpose he is killed and when the killer killed by accident he is sent to the Ir Miklat, so too if he leaves the Ir Miklat by accident he is sent back to the Ir Miklat.

Baraisa #1: If a father kills one of his sons by accident, then his other son becomes the Goel Hadam.

Baraisa #2 (contradiction): His son does not become the Goel Hadam

Answer: Baraisa #1 is according to R’ Yose HaGlili who says it is a mitzvah for the Goel Hadam to kill the killer. Therefore, even a son is allowed to kill his father. Baraisa #2 is according to R’ Akiva who says that it is not a mitzvah for the Goel Hadam to kill the killer. Therefore, a son is not allowed to kill his father.

Attack: Rabbah bar Rav Huna said that a son cannot bring punishment to his father except f his father tried to get other people to do Avodah Zara!  

Answer: Baraisa #2 is talking about the father’s son but Baraisa #1 is talking about the father’s grandson. Therefore, the grandson can kill his grandfather but a son cannot kill his father.

Mishnah: If there is a tree inside the Ir Miklat but its branches hang outside the city, or if a tree is planted outside the Ir Miklat but its branches hang inside the city, everything goes by where the branches are. Therefore, if a killer is on a branch of a tree that is planted in an Ir Miklat but the branches are outside the city, he is technically not in the Ir Miklat.    

Gemara:

Question: But in a Mishnah (#1) discussing where you can eat Ma’aser Sheni, it says that the part of a tree that is inside Yerushalyim is considered inside Yerushalyim and the part of the tree that is outside yerushalyim is outside the city.

Answer: You cannot compare the laws of eating Ma’aser Sheni to the laws of an Ir Miklat.

Question: In another Mishnah (#2) is says that in both a case of Ma’aser and in an Ir Miklat, the entire tree is classified according to where the branches are. This contradicts Mishnah #1 which says that different parts of the tree have different statuses.   

Rav Kahana: There is no contradiction between the two different Mishnayot because Mishnah #2 is according to R’ Yehuda and Mishnah #1 is according to the Chachamim.

Amud Bet

Baraisa (support for Rav Kahana): R’ Yehuda holds that for a cave, you go according to where the entrance is but according to a tree, you hold according to where the branches are.  

Question: Perhaps R’ Yehuda is stringent when it comes to Ma’aser Sheni. If someone is on branches of a tree that is outside Yerushalyim, he would not be able to eat Ma’aser. So too, if a killer is on the trunk of a tree that has branches inside the Ir MIklat, he would be stringent and say that a Goel Hadam cannot kill the killer. Would R’ Yehuda also say this if the tree is inside the cit but its branches are outside?

Rava: Everyone says that the killer cannot be killed if he is on the tree in the Ir Miklat but if he is on a branch outside the city, then the Goel Hadam is allowed to stand outside the city and throw rocks or arrows to try and kill the killer. R’ Yehuda and the Chacjhamim disagree in the case of the Goel Hadam climbing up the tree to kill the killer. R’ Yehuda says that that is allowed while the CHachamim say it is not.

Rav Ashi: Not only do we classify a tree by the location of its trunk, we sometimes even classify it according to the location of its branches. Therefore, its teaching a stringency and it holds like R’ Yehuda.

Mishnah: If a killer in an Ir Miklat kills while he is in exile, he is sent to a different neighborhood in the same city. If a Levi kills in his city (an Ir Miklat), he is sent to a different Ir Miklat.

Gemara:

Baraisa: from the posuk “V’samti lecha makom”, we learn that in Moshe’s lifetime, he will designate some of the Irei Miklat. From “makom”, we learn that the Irei Miklat will be in Leviyim cities. “Asher Yanus Shamah” teaches that exile applied even while Bnei Yisrael was in the desert. While in the desert, where were the people exiled to? They were sent to Levi’s camp. If the killer was from Levi, then he was sent to a different city within Levi. If he was still in his city, then he went to a different neighborhood.

Rav Acha: From the posuk “ki v’Ir Miklato yeshev”, we learn that a Levi can find refuge in his own city and if a killer kills while in an Ir Miklat, he is given refuge there also.        

            

Question to consider: According to R' Yossi HaGlili, killing a killer who is not in an Ir Miklat is a mitzvah even for someone who is not the Goel Hadam. Why would it be a mitzvah to kill someone who killed by accident? He is already being punished for his actions by being sent to an Ir Miklat. Beside for this demonstrating how precious every single life is, is there any other lesson to be learned from this? 

Makkot, Daf Yud Alef

Big thank you to R' Aryeh Lebowitz (congrats on breaking 5000 shiurim on yutorah!) and Artscroll!

Amud Alef

Question: R' Chama bar Chanina asks, why does the discussion of arei miklat in Sefer Yehoshua have such harsh language? Pasuk uses the word "Vayidaber" instead of "Vayomer" which is much Harsher.

Answer: (gemara) Because setting aside Arei Miklat is d'Orayta.

Question: Does "Dibbur" always mean harsh language?

Answer: Yes! As Yehuda responds to Yaakov that the King of Egypt spoke harshly to them

Question: (contradiction), but in the braita, the word "nidabru" is used?!

Answer: Here it's just mild speech (in this form)

Question: What about "yadber"

Answer: Daber=harsh, yadber= soft

3 Arguments R' Yehuda had with other Tannaim:

1. R' Yehuda V. Rabanan: (why is there harsh language written towards ari miklat in sefer Yehoshua?)

            a) chad omer: because Yehoshua delayed in building them

            b) chad omer: because it's a din d'orayta

2. R'Yehuda V. R'  Nechemia: What does this pasuk refer to?"Yehoshua wrote these words in the sefer of G-d"

            a) chad omer: the last 8 pesukim that Yehoshua wrote

            b)chad omer: he wrote about the ari miklat

Question: I understand if you say it refers to 8 pesukim, that its "the torah of G-d", but what does it mean if you think it refers to the arei miklat?

Answer: It would mean that Yehoshua wrote these words in his book that had been written previously in the torah

3. R' Yehuda V. R' Meir :If a torah is sewn together with flax...

            a) Chad omer: it's kasher

            b) Chad omer: it's pasul

According to b, because the torah of HaShem should be in your mouth and we say that torah is like tefillin- just like tefillin has halacha moshe misinai that it should be sewn with sinues of an animal

According to a, yes we compare torah to tefillin but not for sewing-- just that both tefillin and torah parchment have to come from kosher animals.

Statement: Rav says-  I saw the tefillin of my uncle (R' Chiya), and his were sewn with flax, but we don't follow him.

New Mishna:

Whether you have a Cohen Gadol who was annointed with oil or by giving him vestments, or even a Cohen Gadol who has retired- once he dies, the guy can leave the Ir Miklat. R' Yehuda says, even the guy who is the anointed as the leader of battle (not even a cohen gadol) can send someone home from Ir Miklat when he dies.

Therefore, the mother's of Cohanim Gedolim used to give food and clothing to the men in ari miklat so that they wouldn't daven for the Cohanim Gedolim to die.

Gemara:

Question: From where do we know this? (that these 3 or 4 people can send you out of Ir Miklat when they die)

Answer: There are 3 Pesukim to Prove it (all quoted)  3 pesukim = 3 people

Question: What about R' Yehuda (who says 4) ?

Answer: There is a 4th pasuk that R' Yehuda uses to prove the 4th person (the non-cohen)

Question: What would the Tanna Kamma say about this pasuk?

Answer: the pasuk writes cohen, not gadol, so it must refer to one of the earlier mentioned cohanim.

Question on Mishna: If the mothers actually brought provisions to the people in the arei mikalt so that they wouldn't daven for their sons to die, does that really mean that if they did daven, the cohanim would die? Aren't undeserved curses invalid?

Answer: An elder said in the name of Rava that the Cohanim should've davened to HaShem for the people- that they shouldn't kill and have to go to arei miklat but since they didn't, they would deserve the curse.

Answer 2: The mothers did this so that they would daven for the cohen to live!

            Question: So if they didn't daven, they wouldn't live?! It's not fair for the cohen to be punished for someone else's sins! Like if Tuvia sinned and Zigud got makkot! Or in the case of Shechem, when his whole city got destroyed for his sin!

            Answer: An elder said in the name of Rava that it was because the cohanim should have davened HaShem for mercy on the people, but they didn't. (So they were responsible).

 -This is like the story of the guy who was eaten by a lion 4 parsaot from R' Yehoshua ben Levi, and Eliyahu HaNavi didn't speak to him for 3 days because of it ( because R' Yehoshua ben levi should have davened for the man!)

Statement: R' Yehuda says in the name of Rav- the curse of a talmid chacham, even if it is for no reason, it will come true.

Question: From where do we know this?

Answer: From the story of Achitofel

That when David Hamelech dug for the Beit Hamikdash in Shitin, water started coming up from the ground and it was going to flood the world! So he asked, can I write shem HaShem on a piece of pottery and throw it in so that the waters will calm down? No one responded. So he exclaimed, if anyone knows the answer and is just not answering me, they should choke to death! Achitofel said, to make peace between just one man and wife we put shem HaShem on paper for sota, so kal v'chomer to save the whole world we should be able to do the same! So David did it, and the waters calmed. But after that, Achitofel choked to death because David Hamelech had made that curse on him

Statement: R' Abahu says- the curse of a Chacham, even if it is made on a condition, comes true.

Question: From where do we know this?

Answer: From the story of Eili. When HaShem came to Shmuel in dreams about Eili's family, Eili said to Shmuel you should tell me everything, or these things will happen to you! And even though Shmuel told Eili the dreams right after- the same came true for Shmuel- that his sons turned away from him. 

Amud Bet

Statement: R' Yehuda says in the name of Rav- If someone is banned on a condition, you still have to annul it (does not go away on its own).

Question: From where do we know this?

Answer: From Yehuda- as the pasuk says "I guarantee I'm going to bring back Binyamin"... and I'll suffer whatever I have to if I don't bring him back.

Question: R' Shimon Bar Nachmeini says in the name of R' Yochanan- What is the meaning of the Moshe's bracha- "May Reuven live...and this is for Yehuda"

Answer: All of the 40 years that bnai yisrael were in the midbar, the bones of Yehuda were rattling in the box, until Moshe davened that Yehuda should be forgiven. Moshe asked, who set the example for Reuven to admit he was doing wrong? Yehuda! From the story with Tamar-- so HaShem listened to Moshe, and Yehuda's limbs settled down. But still, Yehuda wasn't being let in to the yeshiva in shamayim, ,so Moshe davened more, and he got there. But Yehuda still wasn't able to learn with the rabanim up there. Moshe davened more, and so the pasuk says "yadav rav lo". But he still couldn't answer questions, so he davened, and the pasuk of "v'ezer mitzarav" proves that he got there.

Question: Do you get out of the Ir Miklat when all of them die, or just one?

Answer: If someone has their final judgement between cohanim gedolim, you're there forever. But if you only need one, let him go out with one of the other guys.

Question: No, but what if there aren't any of those either?

Mishna:

If one gets a gmar din but before he gets to galut the cohen gadol dies, he is exempt from galut. If the cohen gadol dies before he gets a gmar din, they appoint a new cohen gadol in his place, and after the gmar din, he can only return from galut once the second cohen gadol dies. If one gets a gmar din during a time that there's no cohen gadol, or one who inadvertently killed a cohen gadol, or a cohen gadol who inadvertently killed, the killer can never leave galut.

He can never leave the Ir Miklat- not to testify for a mitzvah, nor to testify for a monetary case, nor to testify in a capital crime case. Even if Yisrael needs him to save them or even if he is the chief general like Yoav ben Tzeruya, he can never leave galut- As the pasuk uses the word "shama", teaching that there he will live and die and be buried.

Just as the city gives refuge to the killer, so does it's techum, surrounding the city for 2000 feet.

If a killer leaves the techum and the goel hadam finds him, R' Yosi HaGlili says that it's a mitzvah for the goel hadam to kill him, and mutar for anyone else to kill him. R' Akiva says that it's permitted (not mitzvah) for the goel hadam to kill him, but any other person who kills him is liable for death for doing so..

Gemara:

Question: What's the reason? (That a person is exempt from galut if the cohen gadol dies after his sentence)

Answer: Abaye says it's a kal v'chomer-- If someone who is in galut when a cohen gadol dies gets to leave, then for someone who hasn't gone to galut yet, all the more so he should not go into galut!

Question: But perhaps the person who has been in galut already has received atonement for his sins there, and so when the cohen gadol dies he can be freed! But for someone who has not gone to galut yet at all?

Attack: Is it really the galut that atones? It's the death of the cohen gadol that atones!

Case of gmar din when there's no cohen gadol:

Question: From where is this derived?

Answer: R' Kahana says, the pasuk writes that the inadvertent killer should stay in the Ir Miklat until the cohen gadol dies who was annointed. Its not the killer that anoints the cohen gadol, rather it refers to the cohen gadol who was anointed in the killer's days (once he became a killer).

Question: What should the cohen gadol have done?

Answer: He should've davened that you shouldn';t have to go to Ir Miklat.

Statement: Abaya says, We hold that if someone dies right after they get their gmar din to go into galut, they bury his bones in the Ir Miklat, as the pasuk says he dwells "in the land"= burial. If he dies before cohen gadol dies, we bury him with his ancestors because pasuk says he dwells in the land of his inheritance, meaning- he needs to be buried there.

Statement: If you find out after someone's gmar din that the cohen gadol was a ben grusha or ben chalutza (invalid),

            R' Ami V. R' Yitzchak Nafka

            a) chad amar: it's like the cohen died-- go free

            b) chad amer: No, he was never a cohen gadol, so there was  never a cohen gadol   so you can never go free!

This is the same argument as R' Eliezer V. R' Yehoshua, as stated in the mishna- if a cohhen was serving in the beit hamikdash and during the avoda he finds out he is a ben grusha or chalutza,

            a) R' Eliezer says all of his karbanot are pasul-- he was never a cohen

            b) R' Yehoshua says, the karbanos are fine.

Therefore, a1=b2, b1=a2

________________________________________________________________________

Question to consider:

The gemara on amud alef discusses the cohen gadol's responsibility for the sins of the people of his generation . The gemara refutes the suggestion that the Cohen Gadol shouldn't have to deal with inadvertent deaths during his service, but rather that he is obligated to plea on behalf the people. Is this rule unique to a cohen gadol? Given that we do not have cohanim gedolim today, does some variation of this rule apply to our community leaders? Many of us are familiar with the ma'amar chazal: "כל ישראל ערבים זה לזה". To what extent does this apply to an ordinary Jew?  How much responsibility do we have over our fellow Jews and how much are we expected to daven for their well-being?

Masechet Makkot, Daf Yud
Thank you to dafyomi.co.il

            Question: Why were there three Arei Miklat in Ever ha'Yarden (for only two and a half Shevatim), and three in Eretz Yisrael (for nine and a half Shevatim)?

            Answer (Abaye): There were many murderers in Gil'ad

            -(R. Elazar) They sat in ambush to kill people.

            Question: The Beraisa said 'they must be evenly spaced...' Why was the (north to south) distance from the extremes (north and south) to the nearest Ir Miklat greater than the distance in the middle? (The former was a quarter of the length of Eretz Yisrael, and the latter was at most half of this.)

            Answer (Abaye): There were also many murderers in Shechem (in the middle of Eretz Yisrael).

            -(R. Elazar): They used to gang up to kill, like Kohanim gang up to collect Terumah from granaries.

            Question: There were more than six cities

            Answer (Abaye): The six are able Kolet (Kolet=to provide refuge) whether or not the murderer intended to take refuge there. The other 42 are Kolet only if he intended.

            Question: Chevron was not an Ir Miklat! It says "va'Yitnu l'Kalev Es Chevron..."

            Answer (Abaye): Kalev received the surrounding villages - "v'Es Sede ha'Ir v'Es Chatzereha Nosnu l'Kalev."

            Question: Kadesh was not an Ir Miklat! It says "v'Arei Mivtzar... v'Kedesh..." (Mivtzar is a great city);

            -(Beraisa): We do not select small towns to be Arei Miklat (for food is scarce), nor great cities (lest the Go'el ha'Dam come there often, and plot to kill the murderer), rather, intermediate cities.

            Answer (Rav Yosef): There were two cities called Kedesh.

            -(Rav Ashi): This is like Salikum, a great city with a middle-size suburb city called by the same name.

            -(Beraisa): Arei Miklat are not small towns, nor great cities, rather, intermediate cities;

            1. We establish them only in places of water and if there is no water, we dig channels so water will flow to them from rivers.

            2. We establish them only where there are markets, and many people nearby (lest Go'elei ha'Dam take up arms and overcome the residents);

            3. If the people nearby dwindled, we bring more. If residents of the city dwindled, we bring Kohanim, Leviyim and Yisraelim (so that murderers will not comprise the majority)

            -R. Nechemyah says, we do not sell weapons or traps in the cities;

            -Chachamim permit this. (The Go'el ha'Dam is afraid to visibly kill him, for if so, he is Chayav Mitah).

            -All agree that we do not set traps there. Also, we do not twine ropes (this is done over a large area, encompassing many people), lest the Go'el ha'Dam come there often.

            -(R. Yitzchak): We learn from "... va'Chai" - we must ensure that he will live.

            -(Beraisa): "Va'Chai" - if a Talmid is exiled, his Rebbi also goes, so he will have true life.

            -(R. Zeira): This teaches that a Rebbi should be careful not to teach an improper Talmid (the Rebbi is exiled as punishment for teaching him).

            -(R. Yochanan): If a Rebbi is exiled, his academy also goes.

            Question: R. Yochanan taught that Torah is Kolet - "Es Betzer ba'Midbar... v'Zos ha'Torah."

            Answer #1: It is Kolet only when he is learning.

            Answer #2: It is Kolet (protects) from the angel of death, but not from the Go'el ha'Dam.

            -Rav Chisda was learning. The angel of death could not approach him because he did not stop speaking Torah. He sat on a tree. The angel of death split the tree. Rav Chisda stopped learning for a moment, and died.

            -(R. Tanchum bar Chanilai): The first Ir Miklat mentioned was in Reuven's portion. He merited this because he was the first to speak to save Yosef

            -(R. Simlai): Hashem told Moshe to (separate the cities, and thereby) make the sun shine for murderers. Alternatively, He told him 'by separating the cities, you made the sun shine for murderers.'

            -(R. Simai): "Ohev Kesef Lo Yisba Kesef" is Moshe, who knew that the cities he separated would not Kolet until the ones in Eretz Yisrael were separated. In any case he seized the opportunity to do the Mitzvah;

            -"U'Mi Ohev be'Hamon Lo Sevu'ah" - who is qualified to teach Torah to many? One who has all the grain (he knows Tanach, Mishnah, Halachos and Agados).

            -(R. Elazar): "Mi Yemalel Gevuros Hash-m Yashmi'a Kol Tehilaso" - who is qualified to recount Hash-m's mighty acts? One who can make known all His praise (knows all His Torah).

            -(Rav Ashi): "U'Mi Ohev be'Hamon..." - whoever loves learning with many, he will have grain (Torah).

            -(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): "Cherev El ha'Badim..." - Chachamim who learn Bad b'Vad (individually) deserve the sword;

i. Further, they become foolish. It says "v'No'alu", like "Asher No'alnu";

ii. Further, they sin. We learn from "va'Asher Chatanu", or from "No'alu Sarei Tzo'an."

            -(Ravina): "U'Mi Ohev..." - whoever loves teaching many, he will have Torah.

            -(Rebbi): I learned much from my Rebbeyim, even more from my colleagues, and the most from my Talmidim.

            -(R. Yehoshua ben Levi): "Samachti b'Omrim Li Beis Hash-m Nelech" - David said to Hashem 'I heard people saying 'When will David die, and Shlomo will build the Beis ha'Mikdash and we will go there for the festivals!', and I rejoiced'!

            -Hashem: "Tov Yom ba'Chatzerecha me'Alef" - I prefer one day that you engage in Torah to 1000 Korbanos that Shlomo will bring.

            -(Mishnah): We prepare roads between the cities...

            -(Beraisa - R. Eliezer ben Yakov): We write 'Miklat' on every crossroads, so a murderer will know which way to go.

10b

            -(Rav Kahana): He learns from "Tachin Lecha ha'Derech" - prepare the way.

            -Rav Chama bar Chanina would began expounding the Parshah of murderers with the following "Tov v'Yashar Hash-m Al Ken Yoreh Chata'im ba'Darech" - He shows sinners the path, and all the more so Tzadikim!

            -Reish Lakish would begin "veha'Elokim Inah l'Yado", "Ka'asher Yomar Meshal ha'Kadmoni me'Rsha'im Yetzei Resha" - the verse discusses two men who killed without witnesses. One was Shogeg, and the other was Mezid;

            -Hashem arranges that they come to the same inn. The Shogeg murderer walks down a ladder and falls on the Mezid and kills him, as he deserved;

            -(Witnesses saw this time, so) the Shogeg murderer is exiled, as he deserves.

            -(Rabah bar bar Huna): Hashem leads a person in the way he wants to go. We learn this from Torah, Nevi'im and Kesuvim:

1. Torah: At first, Hash-m told Bil'am "Lo Selech Imahem." After he persisted, Hash-m told him "Kum Lech Itam";

2. Nevi'im: "Ani Hash-m... Madrichecha b'Derech Telech."

3. Kesuvim: "Im la'Letzim Hu Yalitz vela'Anavim Yiten Chen."

            -(Rav Huna): If the Go'el ha'Dam killed the murderer on his way to Galus, he is exempt;

            He understands that "v'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" discusses the Go'el ha'Dam.

            Question (Beraisa): "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" refers to the murderer;

            Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to the Go'el ha'Dam!

            Rejection: The verse continues "Ki Lo Sonei Lo Mitmol Shilshom", i.e. the murderer.

            Answer: Rav Huna holds like the following Tana.

            -(Beraisa): "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" refers to the Go'el ha'Dam;

            Suggestion: Perhaps it refers to the murderer!

            Rejection: "Ki Lo Sonei Lo..." already teaches that we do not kill the murderer. "V'Lo Ein Mishpat Maves" teaches about the Go'el ha'Dam.

            -(Mishnah): We send two Chachamim with a murderer on his way to the Ir Miklat. They speak to the Go'el ha'Dam, lest he kill him on the way;

            Suggestion: The Chachamim warn the Go'el ha'Dam, if he kills the murderer, he will be killed.

            Rejection: No, they merely try to dissuade him from killing him.

            -(Beraisa): They say appropriate words. 'Do not treat him like a murderer. It happened b'Shogeg.'

            -R. Meir says "Zeh Devar ha'Rotze'ach" - the murderer speaks for himself.

            -Chachamim: Words are accepted better through many Sheluchim (than through the person himself).

            Question (Beraisa): 'Do not treat him like a murderer. It happened b'Shogeg.'

            This is obvious. If he was Mezid he is not exiled!

            Answer: Indeed, even b'Mezid (at first) he is exiled!

            (Beraisa - R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah): At first, he goes to an Ir Miklat, whether he was Shogeg or Mezid. Beis Din send for him, and pass sentence:

i. If the verdict is that he is Chayav Misah, they kill him - "v'Shalchu Ziknei Iro... v'Nasnu Oso b'Yad Go'el ha'Dam va'Mes";

ii. If he is exempt, they discharge him - "v'Hitzilu ha'Edah... mi'Yad Go'el ha'Dam";

iii. If he is Chayav Galus, they return him to his Ir Miklat - "v'Heshivo Oso ha'Edah El Ir Miklato..."

            -Rebbi says, the murderers run to Arei Miklat on their own. The Mezid murderers do not realize that Kelitah is only for Shogeg.

            -(R. Elazar): If a city is mostly murderers, it is not Kolet. "V'Diber b'Oznei Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi Es Devarav" - his words (I murdered) cannot be the same as (the majority of) their words.

            -(R. Elazar): If a city lacks Zekenim, it is not Kolet, for we cannot fulfill "v'Diber b'Oznei Ziknei ha'Ir."

            -R. Ami and R. Asi argued about R. Elazar's law; one of them learned like him;

            The other says that it is Kolet. "V'Diber..." is only l'Chatchilah.

            -(R. Ami or R. Asi): If a city lacks Zekenim, a boy (of the city) cannot become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh. We need "Ziknei Iro" (to judge him);

            -(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): He can become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh. "Ziknei Iro" is only l'Chatchilah.

            -(R. Ami or R. Asi): If a city lacks Zekenim, it does not bring Eglah Arufah (behead a calf if a murdered corpse is found and it is the closest city), for we need "Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi";

            -(The other of R. Ami and R. Asi): It brings Eglah Arufah. "Ziknei ha'Ir ha'Hi" is only l'Chatchilah.

Question for Discussion: The Beraita says that if a Rebbi’s student is exiled, he is also exiled. R’ Zeira explains that a Rebbi is exiled as a punishment if he teaches an improper student. This is difficult for me to understand because even though it is the Rebbi’s responsibility to lead his students on the right path, why is the Rebbi blamed and must also be exiled when it is not his fault for what his students do?