Commentary page

Makkot 13a

This page gathers the commentary on one source unit: the classic commentaries as they are printed, the sources the text cites, the sages named in it and direct links back to the text.

Read the full text in the reader

Babylonian Talmud · folio map

Makkot 13a

Makkot 13a. The full printed text of this folio side — 14 numbered segments, about 371 words — with the classic commentaries printed on the page.

Original text

Segment 1

מַעֲלִים הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר. וְחוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ.

The unintentional murderers would pay a fee to the Levites as rent for their living quarters in the cities of refuge, which were Levite cities; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: They would not pay a fee to them, but would reside rent free, as they are required to live there by Torah law. They also disagreed with regard to the status of the unintentional murderer when he returns home after the death of the High Priest. 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.

Segment 2

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּשֵׁשׁ, דְּמָר סָבַר ״לָכֶם״ – לִקְלִיטָה. וּמָר סָבַר: ״לָכֶם״ – לְכׇל צׇרְכֵיכֶם. אֲבָל בְּאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הָיוּ מַעֲלִין לָהֶם שָׂכָר.

GEMARA: Rav Kahana said: This dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir is with regard to payment of rent to the Levite landlords in the six cities of refuge designated in the Torah and in the book of Joshua, as one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that in the verse: “They shall be cities of refuge for you” (Numbers 35:11), the term “for you” means that the cities shall be for you only for providing refuge, and therefore they must pay rent to the Levites. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that the term “for you” means for all your needs; therefore, they are not required to pay rent. But with regard to the forty-two additional Levite cities, which also served as cities of refuge, everyone agrees that the unintentional murderers would pay rent to the Levite landlords.

Segment 3

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: הָא וַדַּאי ״לָכֶם״ – לְכׇל צׇרְכֵיכֶם מַשְׁמַע. אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּאַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם, דְּמָר סָבַר: ״וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ״ – כִּי הָנָךְ לִקְלִיטָה. וּמָר סָבַר: ״וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ״ – כִּי הָנָךְ, מָה הָנָךְ לְכׇל צׇרְכֵיכֶם, אַף הָנֵי נָמֵי – לְכׇל צׇרְכֵיכֶם, אֲבָל בְּשֵׁשׁ – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לֹא הָיוּ מַעֲלִים לָהֶן שָׂכָר.

Rava said to him: But the term “for you” certainly indicates for all your needs; therefore, the dispute cannot be as Rav Kahana explains it. Rather, Rava said: The dispute is only with regard to the forty-two Levite cities, as one Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds that from the verse: “They shall be the six cities of refuge… and beside them you shall give forty-two cities” (Numbers 35:6), it is derived that the forty-two cities are like these original six cities, only insofar as with regard to the unintentional murderer being admitted. And one Sage, Rabbi Meir, holds that from the verse: “They shall be the six cities of refuge… and beside them you shall give forty-two cities,” it is derived that the forty-two cities are like these original six cities in every sense: Just as those six cities were given to you, i.e., the unintentional murderers, for all your needs, so too, these forty-two cities were given to you, i.e., the unintentional murderers, for all your needs. But with regard to the six cities specifically designated as cities of refuge, everyone agrees that unintentional murderers would not pay the Levites a fee.

Segment 4

חוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָּהּ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְשָׁב אֶל מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֶל אֲחֻזַּת אֲבוֹתָיו יָשׁוּב״ – לְמִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ הוּא שָׁב, וְאֵינוֹ שָׁב לְמַה שֶּׁהֶחְזִיקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הוּא שָׁב לְמַה שֶּׁהֶחְזִיקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו, ״אֶל אֲחֻזַּת אֲבוֹתָיו״ – כַּאֲבוֹתָיו.

§ The mishna teaches that there is a dispute as to whether the unintentional murderer returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile. On a related note, the Sages taught with regard to a Hebrew slave liberated during the Jubilee Year, about whom it is written: “And he returns to his family, and to the estate of his fathers he shall return” (Leviticus 25:41): He returns to his family, 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. From the phrase “to the estate of his fathers he shall return,” it is derived that he returns to be like his fathers.

Segment 5

וְכֵן בַּגּוֹלָה, כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר ״יָשׁוּב״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ.

And likewise, the same is true with regard to an exile sent to a city of refuge, as when the verse states: “To the estate of his fathers he shall return,” the term “he shall return” is redundant and it serves to include the unintentional murderer.

Segment 6

מַאי ״וְכֵן בַּגּוֹלָה״? כִּדְתַנְיָא: ״יָשׁוּב הָרֹצֵחַ אֶל אֶרֶץ אֲחֻזָּתוֹ״ – לְאֶרֶץ אֲחוּזָּתוֹ הוּא שָׁב, וְאֵינוֹ שָׁב לְמַה שֶּׁהֶחְזִיקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אַף הוּא שָׁב לְמַה שֶּׁהֶחְזִיקוּ אֲבוֹתָיו – גָּמַר שִׁיבָה שִׁיבָה מֵהָתָם.

The Gemara asks: 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.

Segment 7

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵלּוּ הֵן הַגּוֹלִין

We shall return to you, Chapter "Aielu hein haGolen"

Segment 8

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ הֵן הַלּוֹקִין: הַבָּא עַל אֲחוֹתוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אָבִיו, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִמּוֹ, וְעַל אֲחוֹת אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת אֲחִי אָבִיו, וְעַל הַנִּדָּה. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר.

MISHNA: After enumerating in tractate Sanhedrin those liable to be executed and in the previous chapter those liable to be exiled, the mishna proceeds to enumerate those liable to receive lashes. These are the people who are flogged by Torah law for violating a prohibition: One who engages in intercourse with his sister, or with his father’s sister, or with his mother’s sister, or with his wife’s sister, or with his brother’s wife, or with the wife of his father’s brother, or with a menstruating woman. Likewise, one is flogged in the case of a widow who married a High Priest, a divorcée or a ḥalutza who married an ordinary priest, a mamzeret , i.e., a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman who married a Jew of unflawed lineage, and a Jewish woman of unflawed lineage who married a Gibeonite or a mamzer , i.e., a son born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship.

Segment 9

אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה – חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת. גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם אַחַת בִּלְבַד.

The mishna elaborates: If a woman was both a widow and a divorcée, as after she was widowed she remarried and was divorced, a High Priest is liable to receive two sets of lashes for marrying her due to the violation of two different prohibitions, that of his marrying a widow and that of his marrying a divorced woman. If a woman was both a divorcée and a ḥalutza , from two different men, an ordinary priest who marries her is liable to receive only one set of lashes, due to the violation of one prohibition alone.

Segment 10

הַטָּמֵא שֶׁאָכַל אֶת הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְהַבָּא אֶל הַמִּקְדָּשׁ טָמֵא, וְאוֹכֵל חֵלֶב, וָדָם וְנוֹתָר וּפִגּוּל וְטָמֵא.

The mishna continues enumerating those liable to receive lashes: A ritually impure person who ate sacrificial food and one who entered the Temple while ritually impure. And one who eats the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal; or blood; or notar , leftover flesh from an offering after the time allotted for its consumption; or piggul , an offering invalidated due to intent to sprinkle its blood, burn its fats on the altar, or consume it, beyond its designated time; or one who partakes of an offering that became impure, is flogged.

Segment 11

וְהַשּׁוֹחֵט וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ, וְהָאוֹכֵל חָמֵץ בְּפֶסַח, וְהָאוֹכֵל וְהָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן, וְהַמְפַטֵּם אֶת הַקְּטוֹרֶת, וְהַסָּךְ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה, וְהָאוֹכֵל נְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת שְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים.

And one who slaughters a sacrificial animal or sacrifices it on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, and one who eats leavened bread on Passover, and one who eats on Yom Kippur and one who performs labor on Yom Kippur, and one who blends the anointing oil for non-sacred use, and one who blends the incense that was burned on the altar in the Sanctuary for non-sacred use, and one who applies the anointing oil, and one who eats unslaughtered animal or bird carcasses, or tereifot , which are animals or birds with a condition that will lead to their death within twelve months, or repugnant creatures, or creeping animals, is liable to receive lashes.

Segment 12

אָכַל טֶבֶל וּמַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁלֹּא נִטְּלָה תְּרוּמָתוֹ, וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וְהֶקְדֵּשׁ שֶׁלֹּא נִפְדּוּ.

If one ate untithed produce, i.e., produce from which terumot and tithes were not separated; or first-tithe produce whose teruma of the tithe was not taken; or second-tithe produce or sacrificial food that was not redeemed; he is liable to receive lashes.

Segment 13

כַּמָּה יֹאכַל מִן הַטֶּבֶל וִיהֵא חַיָּיב? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כׇּל שֶׁהוּא. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: כְּזַיִת. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִי אַתֶּם מוֹדִים לִי בְּאוֹכֵל נְמָלָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּיב? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן: אַף חִטָּה אַחַת כִּבְרִיָּיתָהּ.

With regard to the measure for liability for eating forbidden food, the mishna asks: How much does one need to eat from untithed produce to be liable to receive lashes? Rabbi Shimon says: If one ate any amount of untithed produce he is liable to receive lashes. And the Rabbis say: He is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk, which is the minimum measure characterized as eating. Rabbi Shimon said to them: Do you not concede to me with regard to one who eats an ant of any size that he is liable to receive lashes? The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: He receives lashes for eating an ant of any size due to the fact that it is an intact entity in the form of its creation, and that is what the Torah prohibited. Rabbi Shimon said to them: One kernel of wheat is also in the form of its creation, and therefore one should be liable to receive lashes for eating any intact entity.

Segment 14

גְּמָ׳ חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת קָא תָנֵי, חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין לָא קָתָנֵי. מַתְנִיתִין מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: אֶחָד חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת וְאֶחָד חַיָּיבֵי מִיתוֹת בֵּית דִּין

GEMARA: Apropos the list in the mishna of those liable to receive lashes, the Gemara notes: The tanna teaches those liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [ karet ], as most of the cases enumerated at the beginning of the mishna include actions that not only entail violation of a prohibition but are also punishable by karet . But the tanna does not teach those liable to be executed with court -imposed death penalties among those liable to receive lashes. Apparently, lashes are not administered to those who violate a prohibition punishable by execution. The Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught in a baraita that there is a tannaitic dispute: Both those liable to receive karet and those liable to be executed with court -imposed death penalties

Makkot 13a

Makkot 13a

Rashi

Tosafot

Rabbeinu Chananel

Ritva

Meiri

Maharsha (Chidushei Halachot)

Maharam

Penei Yehoshua

What this page contains

Continue the sequence

Parallel sources

Lessons and study tools

Sages named on this page

Original text