Sanhedrin 90a

"Rabbi Samuel son of Nachmani stated, 'All God's traits operate measure for measure', as it is stated, (Malachim II:7) 'Elisha said, hear God's word, at this time tomorrow a seah (measurement) of fine flour will be sold for a shekel (minimal amount of money) and two seahs of barley for a shekel in the gates of Samaria.' (At that moment the Jews lacked food). The king's captain upon whose arm he was leaning answered the man of God, 'Even if God would make the storages of heaven open up, could this happen?' Elisha then answered, 'You will see this with your eyes, but you will not eat from it.' And it is written, 'And it was to him so, that the people trampled him in the gates and he (the captain who doubted Elisha) died."

(The talmud continues) "But perhaps it is Elisha's curse which caused this captain's death (not God meting out measure for measure), in accordance with Rabbi Judah's quote from Rav, "A curse of a wise sage even for naught comes true".

(The talmud answers) "If this were so, it should have written, 'and he was trampled and died'. Why does it add 'in the gates'? Because it was due to the matter of the gates." (i.e., the food which he denied would be in sold in the gates, thereby proving it was God's justice, not Elisha's curse.

 

 

 

A number of questions arise:

1) This last statement seems inconclusive. Why can't we say that Elisha also worked measure for measure and included the gates in his curse, that is, that the captain would die in the gates? Why does the Talmud feel convinced that since he died in the gates, it could not be due to Elisha's curse? Death alone could be due to Elisha's curse, but not the place?

2) Can man actually curse and it comes true?

3) What does this mean that a wise man's curse even for naught comes true? Does this mean that one undeserving will still be harmed by the wise man's curse? Where is the justice in this?

4) There is an inherent contradiction in the statement of Rav: "A curse of a wise sage even for naught comes true".

If one is wise, does it mean that he is cursing someone undeserving? If so, the man isn't wise. And if the recipient is deserving of the curse, then it is not for naught.

Makos 11a

 

Background information: Accidental killings required those murderers to be exiled to cities of refuge, and they only leave exile when the high priest dies. They wish for his death, as they can then go home. The reason for this was offered by a rabbi. He said that as these murderers wish for the high priests death, they will hopefully come to acknowledge their sadistic or vicious drives, and then come to realize this tendency was the cause for another person to die at their hands. Had they not had these drives, they would have taken care to never have placed another in harms way. It is this negligence of human life which caused the death of those accidentally killed.

 

"Mothers of the priests used to clothe and feed those exiled who accidentally killed. These mothers hoped that since they extended kindness to those exiled, they in return would not pray for these mother's priests (sons) to die. The reasoning (why the priests didn't die) is because the exiled murderers didn't pray for his death. Had they prayed, the priests would die."

(The talmud continues) "But how can this be (that their prayers effectuate his death), isn't it written (Proverbs 21:2) 'as a bird moves suddenly and as a swallow flies off, so also does the curse for naught come back to him (who cursed)'. Meaning, not only doesn't the curse come about, bit it also comes back to the utterer." (So those exiled who pray - or curse - for the death of the high priest, such curses should not take hold. But yet is says they did. This is the question.)

(The talmud answers) "The priests are at fault, ...as they should have prayed that accidental killings be averted by God." Since the priests were lax and didn't pray for this, the killings did occur, and the priests are at fault.

(The talmud continues) "Another answer given why the mothers tended to those exiled was to induce them to pray for the lives of their sons the priests. Had those exiled prayed, the priests would live, but if they didn't pray, the priests would die."

 

 

 

 

Curses are only actualized by God alone, as man has no ability to alter nature. I believe both answers are really one. We can explain the Talmud's statements in the following light:

 

"The reasoning (why a the priests didn't die) is because the exiled murderers didn't pray for his death. Had they prayed, the priests would die." This means that if those exiled prayed for his death, this shows the priest was not an upright individual. The cursing of the priest in reality has no effect. Rather, it is an indication of a the level of the priest who God will mete out justice accordingly, regardless of the exiled people's curse.

 

"Another answer given why the mothers tended to those exiled was to induce them to pray for the lives of their sons the priests. Had those exiled prayed, the priests would live, but if they didn't pray, they would die." This teaches that the actions of those exiled again indicates the level of he priest. By praying for the priests to live, it is representative of the perfection of the priest, that even those exiled attest to his greatness. God all along knows the level of the priests and spares his life. We see that the Talmud does not credit man with the ability to curse, as in both cases, the exiled peoples must call to God - prayer - for their wish.

 

 

(The talmud continues)"A curse of a wise sage even for naught comes true. From where do we learn this? From Achitophel. When King David desired to lay the foundations of the Temple, the waters of the deep threatened to encompass the Earth killing mankind. David desired to know whether he was allowed to write God's name on a shard, and cast it into the oceans to stop the waters. David said, "If anyone knows the answer and keeps silent, he should die by strangulation". Achitophel thought to himself an a priori argument (kal v'chomer), "If for the sake of a married couple, God's name may be erased, (referring to the Sotah) so certainly for the entire world God's name may be erased". Achitophel then told David it was permissible to write God's name on the shard cast it into the ocean, knowing the water would erase God's name. David did so, and it stopped the waters". Nonetheless, Achitophel later on died from hanging himself. Apparently King David's curse still took effect.

 

(The talmud continues) "A curse of a wise sage even made on condition comes true. From where do we learn this? From Eli who said to Samuel "so should happen to you (referring to having improper sons) if you conceal this matter from me. Even though Samuel told Eli the matter, nonetheless, it says, 'his sons did not go in his path".

 

 

It is important to note that in Eli's case, the words "don't conceal" are used. Perhaps teaching us that Eli's cursing was well founded. He experienced resistance from Samuel before resorting to cursing. The reason David's case is called "for naught" is because there was not yet any resistance to King David which required his curse of death to one who held back the answer. In Eli's case however, he had already approached Samuel and Samuel resisted telling Eli about the matter. Therefore, Eli said "do not conceal it from me". Being faced with opposition from Samuel, Eli used a threat which was not for naught, as the circumstance required a more forceful approach. In King David's case, there was no circumstance warranting such a threat yet. It may have been King David's own urgency which prompted the use of a curse. For this reason alone we call King David's case "for naught" (no circumstance) but Eli's case is not for naught, as the situation required curse.

 

Ramban and Ritvah concur that regarding David's curse, Achitophel delayed somewhat, which grieved King David, and was therefore at fault. We must say that God will punish regardless of David's curse. One who sins, God will punish - one who acts righteously, God rewards.