ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 11
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina asks why the Parshah of Rotzchim was said in
a strong Lashon, by which he means with a Lashon of 'Dibur' (even though
throughout the Sefer, he uses a Lashon of 'Amirah').
(b) We learn from the Pasuk "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos" -
that Dibur is a strong Lashon (which stems from the Midas ha'Din).
(c) The Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Yadber Amim Tachteinu", describes "Az
Nidberu Yir'ei Hashem Ish el Re'eihu" as gentle. "Yadber Amim Tachteinu"
means - that Hashem will lead nations to be under our jurisdiction.
(d) We reconcile Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina with the Beraisa - by
differentiating between 'Daber' (which is a strong Lashon of speech) and
'Yadber' (which is a gentle Lashon of leading).
(a) Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over the previous point; one
explains Yehoshua's use of 'Dibur' like Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina. The
other one - attributes it to the fact that he failed to tell Yisrael about
the Arei Miklat as soon as it was told to him.
(b) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah argue over the Pasuk "Vayichtov
Yehoshua es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh be'Sefer Toras Elokim". One of them ascribes
this to the Pesukim of the Arei Miklat (which we have just been discussing).
The other one - to the last eight Pesukim in the Torah (which speak after
(c) The first opinion explains the words "be'Sefer Toras Elokim" to mean -
that Yehoshua wrote in his Sefer things that were already written in the
(a) Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir argue over a Sefer-Torah that one stitched
with linen threads. One opinion learn from the Pasuk "Lema'an Tiheyeh Toras
Hashem be'Ficha" - that just as Tefilin (based on a Halachah le'Moshe
mi'Sinai) must be written on Gidin (animal sinews ), so too, must a
(b) The other opinion validates it in spite of the 'Hekesh' - because, in
his opinion, the 'Hekesh' only teaches us that, like Tefilin, a Sefer-Torah
must be written on K'laf that is made from animals that one is permitted to
eat (since this is clearly insinuated in the Pasuk), but does not
incorporate what is only Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.
(c) Rav commented - that the Tefilin (or the Sifrei-Torah) that he saw in
the house of his uncle Rebbi Chiya - were stitched with flax ...
(d) ... but that the Halachah was not like him.
(a) A Kohen Merubeh Begadim who died, just like a Mashu'ach be'Shemen
ha'Mishchah, would release the murderers from the Ir Miklat. The two could
not serve simultaneously - because the former only occurred from the time of
Yoshiyahu ha'Melech (when the jar of anointing oil was hidden). Prior to
that, every Kohen Gadol was anointed.
(b) A Kohen she'Avar mi'Meshichaso who died would release him too. This
refers to a Kohen who stood in for a Kohen Gadol who became Tamei, and who
subsequently stood down, when the Kohen Gadol became Tahor once again.
(c) The fourth category of Kohen Gadol that Rebbi Yehudah adds to the list -
a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah.
(d) The mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would distribute food and clothes to
the murderers, says our Mishnah - to discourage them from Davening that
their sons should die (to enable them to go free).
(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah learns from the three Pesukim "Veyashav Bah
ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol", "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev ad Mos ha'Kohen
ha'Gadol" and "ve'Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" - that the three Kohanim
Gedolim listed in our Mishnah release the murderers from the Ir Miklat with
(b) Rebbi Yehudah includes a Mashu'ach Milchamah from the Pasuk "Lashuv
ba'Aretz ad Mos ha'Kohen". The Rabbanan disagrees with him - because the
Pasuk there omits the word "ha'Gadol", conveying the impression that this
Kohen is merely one of the three mentioned earlier.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "ke'Tzipor Lanud ki'Deror La'uf Kein Kilelas
Chinam Lo Savo" - that a baseless curse will not materialize.
(b) That old man quoting Rava reconciled our Mishnah with this Pasuk - by
basing the mothers of the Kohanim fears on the fact that the murders would
not have occurred had their sons Davened that such things should not happen
in Yisrael. Consequently, the murderers' prayers were not baseless at all.
(c) The alternative version to 'K'dei she'Lo Yispalelu al B'neihen
she'Yamusu' - 'K'dei she'Yispaleu al B'neihem she'Lo Yamusu' (because
otherwise, they might die automatically).
(d) Before arriving at the same conclusion as we did in the first version,
the problem with this is - 'Zigud Chata ve'Tuvya Mangid (receives Malkos)'
(or 'Sh'chem Chata u'Mavga'i Gazir' [has to circumcise]), which means that
since it is the murderers who killed, why should the Kohen Gadol have to
(e) Eliyahu ha'Navi did not speak to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi for three
days - because someone was eaten by a lion, and even though this took place
at a distance of three Parsah (twelve Mil), such was Rebbi Yehoshua ben
Levi's piety that his Tefilos would have prevented it from happening.
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said that the curse of a Chacham - will come true
even if it is unfounded.
(b) When David was digging the foundations for the Beis-Hamikdash, and the
depths threatened to drown the world, David asked a She'eilah. He was able
to dig the foundations of the Beis-Hamikdash, despite the fact that he had
not yet purchased the land on which it was to be built, from Aravnah
ha'Yevusi - because years earlier, he had already worked out together with
Shmuel, its exact location. Presumably, he dug the foundations with
(a) David's She'eilah was - whether it was permitted to write Hashem's Name
on a piece of clay and throw it into the depths, to confine the water of the
depths to its current location (even though it was bound to get erased).
(b) Eventually, Achitofel resolved David's She'eilah by Darshening a 'Kal
va'Chomer - from a Sotah, where Hashem permitted His Name to be erased in
order to make peace between man and wife; how much more so to save the
(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learned his Din from that episode - because when
initially, nobody responded to David's She'eilah, he placed a curse upon
anyone who knew the answer and did not divulge it, to the effect that he
would be strangled. Achitofel divulged the information, yet he died by
(d) Achitofel strangled himself - because (for the first time in his life),
his advice (to Avshalom) was spawned.
Rebbi Avahu learned from Eli and Shmuel that the curse of a Chacham
materializes even if the condition that accompanies it is fulfilled -
because Eli told Shmuel that he would be made to suffer what he was
suffering if he did not reveal to him what Hashem had said. He did indeed
reveal to Eli Hashem's terrible prophecy, yet his children (like Eli's) did
not go in his ways.
(a) And Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from Yehudah, whose bones 'rolled in the
coffin' - that a Niduy (Cherem) will materialize, even if the conditions to
which it is attached are fulfilled (seeing as Yehudah was punished in this
way, even though he returned Binyamin safe and sound, as promised).
(b) Yehudah's bones - were taken out of Egypt by the members of his tribe,
as were the bones of the other sons of Ya'akov,
(c) Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the
juxtaposition of the Pasuk "Y'chi Reuven ve'Al Yamos" to that of "ve'Zos
li'Yehudah ... " - that (due to the self-imposed Niduy), Yehudah's bones
were rolling in the coffin throughout the forty years in the desert, and
that Moshe was now Davenning on his behalf.
(d) The connection between Reuven and Yehudah - is that it was Yehudah, who
did Teshuvah on his sin (concerning Tamar), who inspired Reuven (who sinned
against his father regarding Bilhah's bed) to follow suite, and if Reuven's
Teshuvah was excepted, it would not be fair if Yehudah should still be
(e) When Moshe Davened 'Sh'ma Hashem Kol Yehudah", Yehudah's bones knitted
together. When he said ...
1. ... "ve'El Amo Tevi'enu" - he was accepted as a member of the Celestial
2. ... "Yadav Rav Lo" - he was able to participate in the discussions that
went on there.
3. ... "ve'Eizer mi'Tzarav Tiheyeh" - he was also able to answer (according
to the Halachah) the Kashyos that were asked there.
(a) We ask whether the death of one of the Kohanim Gedolim will suffice to
release the murderers from the Arei Miklat or whether all of them (either a
Mashu'ach or a Merubeh Begadim plus the others) must die to release them.
The following Mishnah will rule that in a case where the Din of a murderer
is concluded when there is no incumbent Kohen Gadol - he will never go free.
(b) We resolve our She'eilah from there - because if it was any of the three
(or four Kohanim Gedolim who released the murderers from the Ir Miklat, why
should a murderer whose Din was concluded with no Kohen Gadol in office, not
go free with the death of one of the other Kohanim Gedolim (a decisive proof
that all three Kohanim Gedolim must die, before the murderers can go free).
(a) Our Mishnah rules in a case where the Kohen Gadol died ...
1. ... after the murderer's Din was concluded, before he had a chance to run
to the Ir Miklat - that he is exempt from having to do so.
(b) We already cited the Mishnah's ruling that if the murderer's Din was
concluded before a new Kohen Gadol had been appointed, then he would never
be permitted to go free - and the Tana issues the same ruling in a case
where someone killed a Kohen Gadol or the Kohen Gadol killed him.
2. ... and they appointed a new one, before his Din was concluded - then he
can be released only when the second Kohen Gadol dies.
(c) We learn from the Pasuk "Asher Nas Shamah" - which incorporates living
there, dying there and being buried there.
(d) Even if K'lal Yisrael needed him, like for example, Yo'av the
commander-in-chief of the army, who were about to go to war - he was not
permitted to leave (and if he did, he was a the mercy of the Go'el ha'Dam).
(a) Once the murderer reached the T'chum (the Shabbos boundaries) of the
town - the Go'el ha'Dam was no longer permitted to kill the murderer if he
caught up with him, even though he was still outside the walls of the town.
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, if a Rotze'ach left the Ir Miklat, it
was a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him. For anybody else - it was
(c) According to Rebbi Akiva - the Go'el ha'Dam had Reshus to kill him,
anyone else is not Chayav for killing him (though he ought not to have done
it [others have the text, 'Chayavin Alav']).
(a) A murderer does not go into Galus if the Kohen Gadol dies after the
G'mar Din, says Abaye - due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from one who is already in
the Ir Miklat when the Kohen Gadol dies, which sets him free, how much more
so that he it absolves him from having to go there in the first place.
(b) We answer the Pircha that perhaps a murderer who has been in Galus has
at least attained a Kaparah, whereas one who has not been in Galus has not -
by pointing out that it is not the Galus that serves as a Kaparah, but the
death of the Kohen Gadol (see Tosfos DH 'Midi').
(c) Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk "Veyashav Bah ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol
Asher Mashach Oso be'Shemen ha'Kodesh", that (seeing as the murderer was not
the one to anoint the Kohen Gadol), what the Pasuk must therefore mean is -
that if the Kohen Gadol was anointed (only after the murderer had committed
the murder, but) before the G'mar-Din, the latter only goes out with his
(d) Even though the second Kohen Gadol was not yet anointed at the time when
the murderer killed, he is nevertheless partly to blame - because he did not
Daven for the murderer's Din to be concluded in his favor.
(a) Abaye rules that if a murderer whose Din is concluded dies before he
manages to run to an Ir Miklat - then his remains must be taken to the Ir
Miklat to be buried there.
(b) He extrapolates this ruling from the Pasuk "Lashuv Lasheves ba'Aretz ad
Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" - because "Lasheves ba'Aretz" implies to dwell inside
the ground, a Lashon that is more applicable to a corpse than to a live
(c) And the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Yashuv ha'Rotze'ach el Eretz
Achuzaso" - that if a murderer dies before the Kohen Gadol, he is taken to
be buried in his family grave (see Aruch la'Ner).
(a) Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over a case where the Kohen
Gadol is declared a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah after the conclusion of
the murderer's Din. One them says 'Meisah Kehunah' - by which he means that
it is as if the Kohen would have died, and the murderer is exempt from
running to the Ir Miklat.
(b) The other one says - 'Batlah Kehunah', which means that it is as if the
Kehunah was annulled, in which case the murderer would have to remain in the
Ir Miklat forever.
(c) Initially, we link the above Machlokes to a Machlokes Tana'im in
Terumos. Rebbi Eliezer holds there that if a Kohen who is serving on the
Mizbe'ach discovers that he is a ben Gerushah ... , all the Korbanos that he
brought until then are Pasul. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - they are Kasher.
(d) We conclude however, that even if Rebbi Eliezer cannot hold 'Meisah
Kehunah', Rebbi Yehoshua might concede 'Batlah Kehunah', yet the Korbanos
that he brought until that moment are valid - because the Pasuk in
ve'Zos-ha'Berachah validates them when it writes "Bareich Hashem Cheilo
u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" (even though he is considered a Chalal).