2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

Makkot 13

How does one re-enter society after having served their time? That is the question on our daf today. After the High Priest dies, those who had been sent to the city of refuge (the accidental murderers) get to go home. But in what capacity?

The Mishna teaches: He returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied.

The Gemara picks this up:

What is the meaning of: And likewise, the same is true with regard to an exile? The Gemara explains: It is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “The murderer shall return to his ancestral land” (Numbers 35:28), from which it is derived that he returns to his ancestral land, but he does not return to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He even returns to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held. Rabbi Meir derives this by means of a verbal analogy from there, i.e., between the term of “return” written with regard to the unintentional murderer, and the term of “return” written with regard to the Hebrew slave. The verbal analogy teaches that just as a Hebrew slave returns to his father’s estate and the status of prominence held by his ancestors, so too, the unintentional murderer returns to his ancestral land and to the status of prominence held by his ancestors.

While there is disagreement, Rabbi Meir gets the last word, and that is that once someone has served their time and is restored to society, they should be fully integrated and have the same status as before.

We struggle with this today. How do we allow people to come back after time served? Do we really believe in teshuvah (as Rabbi Meir did)? How can we create ways for people to re-enter society so that they can be productive members and upright citizens?

Makkot 12

Have you ever been nervous to tell someone something about yourself? Well, I bet it’s not as bad as the secret on today’s daf: murder.

On our daf, the discussion turns towards Levites who accidentally murder someone. Where do they go? They already live in cities of refuge! Great rabbis may live there as well – remember, the teacher has to come with the student (and vise versa). So, what if the people of the city want to honor one of these men of stature? Our daf tells us:

Similarly, in the case of a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city sought to honor him due to his prominence, he shall say to them: I am a murderer. If the residents of the city say to him: We are aware of your status and nevertheless, we wish to honor you, he may accept the honor from them, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4), from which it is derived that the murderer is required to say [ledabber] to them that he is a murderer. He is not required to tell them any more than that.

The message is loud and clear – tell people who you are.

(It certainly makes watching tacky TV shows and listening to bad music seem like small potatoes.)

Makkot 11

Today’s daf reminds us of the responsibility of everyone, but especially leadership, to create a just society and the kind of environment where everyone is taken care of.

Before you dive into the text, you need to know a strange little rule – that the accidental killers who are exiled to the cities of refuge live their lives there . . . until the High Priest dies. Then, they are free to go home.

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.

Okay, first we learn that the moms of the High Priests would provide for those living in these cities of refuge so that they don’t pray for the High Priest to die. But, why should their prayers matter?

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.

Wow. They have a share of the blame. As Abraham Joshua Heschel said, “Few are guilty, but all are responsible.”

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!?

Again, why is God listening to their prayers? Now we get an interesting teaching.

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.

One more little nugget on the page about how the leadership is held responsible for things that happen under their watch.

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.

The message is clear: Leadership holds responsibility. Don’t get distracted, hold those in power accountable.

Makkot 10

Another daf where there are too many gems!

The first is why you’re supposed to study in groups, and not alone . . .

Rav Ashi says: Anyone who loves to study in abundance, i.e., with many colleagues, to him shall be increase, i.e., he will succeed in his studies. And that is parallel to that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A sword is upon the baddim, veno’alu” (Jeremiah 50:36)? It is fitting that a sword be placed on the necks of the enemies of Torah scholars, a euphemism for Torah scholars, who sit and engage in the study of the Torah individually [bad bevad]. Moreover, they grow foolish through individual study, as it is written here: Veno’alu, and it is written there: “For we have been foolish [no’alnu]” (Numbers 12:11). Moreover, they thereby sin, as it is stated immediately thereafter: “And for we have sinned.”

Wow! So, those who study in groups should be blessed. But those who study Torah alone 1) A sword on his neck, 2) they grow foolish, and 3) they sin!!!

A sin to study Torah?

Let’s unpack a bit. If you study in a group, others can disagree with you, point out where you are wrong, give other perspectives and ideas. When you study by yourself it’s only YOUR life experience, your understanding. In a way – you are determining what is Torah- and that is idolatry.

So, get out of your echo chamber and learn from others.

Another gem:

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Much Torah have I studied from my teachers, and I have learned more from my colleagues than from them, and I have learned more from my students than from all of them.

Yes!! Learn from everyone.

But, to take it back to the topic at hand, in the cities of refuge where accidental murderers are allowed to live. Do they get to study Torah?

The Sages taught: In the case of a student who was exiled, his teacher is exiled to the city of refuge with him, so that the student can continue studying Torah with him there, as it is stated: “And he shall flee to one of these cities and live,” from which it is derived: Perform some actions for the unintentional murderer so that life in the city will be conducive to living for him. Since Torah study is an integral component of his life, arrangements must be made to ensure continuity in that facet of his existence… Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a teacher of Torah who was exiled, his school is exiled with him.

Wow! so everyone gets to study Torah in community, even these accidental killers.

But, there is an idea that Torah study protects you from sin, even accidental, so we get the last two gems.

Turns out that Torah study only protects you WHILE you are studying.

This is as it was in this incident where Rav Ḥisda was sitting and studying in the study hall of Rav and the agent of the Angel of Death was unable to approach him and take his life because his mouth was not silent from his study for even a moment. The agent ascended and sat on the cedar tree of the study hall of Rav. The cedar tree broke and Rav Ḥisda was momentarily silent, startled by the sudden noise, and the agent of the Angel of Death overcame him. Apparently, matters of Torah provide protection from the Angel of Death only when one is actively engaged in their study.

So, lots of gems today. Hope you love Torah as much as even these exiled Jews do.

Makkot 9

There are lots of movies out there about revenge. That’s because it’s a basic human instinct. In order to prevent someone who accidentally killed another person from being murdered in revenge by the victim’s family, the Torah tells us to establish cities where these accidental killers can live. On our daf today, we learn of other measures the rabbis put in to ensure safety for those unlucky ones who accidentally kill another person.

“Six cities of refuge shall they be” (Numbers 35:13).. . The mishna continues: And roads were aligned for them from this city to that city, i.e., they would pave and straighten the access roads to the cities of refuge, as it is stated: “Prepare for you the road, and divide the borders of your land, which the Lord your God causes you to inherit, into three parts, that every murderer may flee there” (Deuteronomy 19:3).

So, the first protection is to have 6 cities of refuge and to have straight roads there from all the other cities.

And the court would provide the unintentional murderers fleeing to a city of refuge with two Torah scholars, due to the concern that perhaps the blood redeemer, i.e., a relative of the murder victim seeking to avenge his death, will seek to kill him in transit, and in that case they, the scholars, will talk to the blood redeemer and dissuade him from killing the unintentional murderer. Rabbi Meir says: The unintentional murderer also speaks [medabber] on his own behalf to dissuade the blood redeemer, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live” (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself speaks.

Second, they provide rabbinic escorts to protect them on their way to the city of refuge.

Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: Initially, either one who killed another unintentionally or one who killed another intentionally would hurry and flee to the cities of refuge, and the court in his city would send for him and would bring him from there to stand trial. For one who was found liable to receive the death penalty in court for intentional murder, the court would execute him, and for one who was not found liable to receive the death penalty, e.g., if they deemed that the death occurred due to circumstances beyond his control, they would free him. For one who was found liable to be exiled, the court would restore him to his place in the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer…and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:24–25), indicating that he had been in a city of refuge before his trial.

So, everyone went to these cities before their trial so that mob justice would not prevail.

This is a great question: How do we provide safety for those accused of crimes? How do we protect them and ensure they are treated humanely?

I have a feeling we will hear more about cities of refuge. They were places where one could live, could have a job, could study with their rabbi, could have family . . . What if those awaiting trial had this too?

Makkot 8

There is a balance between disciplining and abusing a child. (You want the discipline, but not the abuse.) On our daf today, we get an interesting lesson. At first glance, it seems to let abuse father’s off the hook, but, if you read closely, it’s really an attempt to teach a valuable lesson.

Ravina raised an objection to the opinion of Rava who argued that a particular text teaches us that three kinds of people are exempt from having to go into exile through accidental manslaughter, the text is there to exclude a father who strikes his son, and a teacher who oppresses his student, and an agent of the court.

Thank God we no longer live in those times. But let’s keep reading.

Let us say with regard to a father who strikes his son: Since if the son was learned, it is not a mitzva to strike him, now, in a case where the son is not learned and the father strikes him to facilitate his education too, it is not a mitzva, and therefore he should be exiled!

Yes! They are saying that we no longer hit our children to teach them lessons.

Rava replied: There, even though the son is learned, it is a mitzva to strike him from time to time, as it is written: “Chastise your son, and he will give you rest; and he will give delight to your soul” (Proverbs 29:17).

What?! Why? We have already learned that we don’t hit our children. So, what is this trying to teach?

That even the best of kids needs to know how to handle criticism. Good or bad, our kids need to learn how to receive feedback. Or else they turn into adults who can’t receive critique . . . not that I know any adults like that.

Makkot 7

One of our most quoted texts on the daf today! Most quoted when talking about the death penalty. After pages and pages about when and how and what method of death penalty to use – you might love to hear this:

A Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seven years is characterized as a destructive tribunal. Since the Sanhedrin would subject the testimony to exacting scrutiny, it was extremely rare for a defendant to be executed. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: This categorization applies to a Sanhedrin that executes a transgressor once in seventy years. Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiva say: If we had been members of the Sanhedrin, we would have conducted trials in a manner whereby no person would have ever been executed.

Wow wow! So, the death penalty might be on the books, but once in 7 years means you have a violent court. No, one death penalty in 70 years! Then you get Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva saying – if we were on the court, it would NEVER happen! So, we clearly have it on the books but never want to use it.

This is where we usually end the quote. But it’s not where it ends . . .

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In adopting that approach, they too would increase the number of murderers among the Jewish people. The death penalty would lose its deterrent value, as all potential murderers would know that no one is ever executed.

So, maybe there are certain cases . . .

In Israel, they really almost never use the death penalty. Almost. When did they use it? Against Adolf Eichman. They ruled that genocidal intention and orchestrating the mass extermination of the Jewish people of Europe might be bad enough to deserve the death penalty.

Makkot 6

Lost in translation

On our daf today, we learn that one cannot be put on trial in a court that does not understand your language.

The mishna teaches: Alternatively, from the phrase in the verse “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter. The Gemara relates: There were certain people who spoke a foreign language who came before Rava for judgment. Rava installed an interpreter between them and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter? The Gemara answers: Rava knew what they were saying, as he understood their language, but he did not know how to respond to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna.

Here, the only reason Rava is allowed to have a translator in because he understands everything the defendant is saying, he just cannot respond with confidence.

So, what do we lose when we rely on translators? Why would this be so bad?

First, you really have to trust the translator – they could be making it up! Who would know?

Second, even with translations, certain expressions or idioms don’t translate.

Third, nuance might be lost. Vibe might be misread.

And finally, how will you cross examine?

All of this made me think of one of my favorite translators. . .

If you don’t know. Key and Peele had this skit. Obama had a sense of humor!

Makkot 5

Sometimes, when I read the daf, I think that secular writers must also have read it for their story lines.

And Rava says: If two witnesses came and said: So-and-so killed a person in Sura in the morning on Sunday, and two other witnesses came to court and said to the first set: In the evening on Sunday you were with us in Neharde’a, we see: If one is able to travel from Sura to Neharde’a from morning until evening they are not conspiring witnesses, as conceivably they could have witnessed the murder in Sura and traveled to Neharde’a by evening. And if it is not possible to travel that distance in that period of time, they are conspiring witnesses. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned about the possibility that these witnesses traveled on a flying camel, i.e., one that runs so quickly that it enabled them to traverse the distance faster than the typical person. Therefore, Rava teaches us that one need not take that possibility into account.

Did you read Where the Crawdad Sings? If not, this daf is so on point with the story line. There is a question of if the main character could have done something if she was witnessed being somewhere else.

I will leave it at that, it’s such a good book and I wouldn’t want to give it away.

I will say that she did not have a flying camel . . .

Makkot 4

Happy Passover! A great little gem on our daf that I think holds up for Passover as well.

The rabbis are debating if a certain amount of contamination falls into a body of water if you can still use it for mikvah (or if it’s water in wine if it’s till wine etc) and we get this gem: And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri comes to say: Everything follows the appearance, (meaning that even in that case, if its appearance is that of wine it does not invalidate the ritual bath.)

Okay. Why do I love this? Besides it being practice (hey that water looks dirty, maybe it should work as minkah?) I love how appearances are important.

It’s Passover. Guess what? We live in a different time than when I was a a kid. We can eat gluten free bread and cereal and basically it may appear as though it’s just another week – but it’s not! I love that it’s easier AND for appearances sake we should still make it different and special form other weeks.

I know I am excited for cream cheese on matzah for breakfast.

Happy Passover!