Makkot 10
דִּכְתִיב: ״גִּלְעָד קִרְיַת פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן עֲקֻבָּה מִדָּם״, מַאי ״עֲקוּבָּה מִדָּם״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹקְבִין לַהֲרוֹג נְפָשׁוֹת.
Therefore, a greater number of cities of refuge per capita were required there, as it is written: “Gilead is a city of those who work iniquity; it is covered [akuba] with blood” (Hosea 6:8). What is the meaning of: Covered [akuba] with blood? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that they would set an ambush [okevin] to kill people.
וּמַאי שְׁנָא מֵהַאי גִּיסָא וּמֵהַאי גִּיסָא דִּמְרַחֲקִי, וּמַאי שְׁנָא מְצִיעָאֵי דִּמְקָרְבִי?
The Gemara asks: And what is different about the cities of refuge closest to the border on this southern side of the country and from the border on that northern side of the country, that are distanced one-quarter of the length of Eretz Yisrael from the border, and what is different about the city of refuge in the middle of the country, which is relatively close to any potential murderers? The maximum distance that one would need to travel to reach the middle city is one-half the distance from the northern and southern borders to their respective cities of refuge.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בִּשְׁכֶם נָמֵי שְׁכִיחִי רוֹצְחִים, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּכְחַכֵּי אִישׁ גְּדוּדִים חֶבֶר כֹּהֲנִים, דֶּרֶךְ יְרַצְּחוּ שֶׁכְמָה וְגוֹ׳״, מַאי ״חֶבֶר כֹּהֲנִים״? אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: שֶׁהָיוּ מִתְחַבְּרִין לַהֲרוֹג נְפָשׁוֹת, כְּכֹהֲנִים הַלָּלוּ שֶׁמִּתְחַבְּרִין לַחְלוֹק תְּרוּמוֹת בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת.
Abaye said: Murderers are also common in Shechem, as it is written: “And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so does the band of priests; they murder in the way toward Shechem, yes, they commit enormity” (Hosea 6:9). What is the meaning of “the band of priests”? Rabbi Elazar says: It means that the people would band together to kill people, like those priests who band together to distribute teruma among themselves in the granaries.
וְתוּ לֵיכָּא? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַעֲלֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ אַרְבָּעִים וּשְׁתַּיִם עִיר״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: הַלָּלוּ, קוֹלְטוֹת בֵּין לְדַעַת בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת. הַלָּלוּ – לְדַעַת קוֹלְטוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא לְדַעַת אֵינָן קוֹלְטוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And are there no more cities of refuge beyond these six? But isn’t it written: “And the cities that you shall give to the Levites: The six cities of refuge you shall give for the murderer to flee there, and beyond them you shall give forty-two cities” (Numbers 35:6), indicating that the status of all the Levite cities is that of cities of refuge? Abaye said: With regard to these six cities designated specifically for this purpose, unintentional murderers in need of refuge are admitted there whether they entered the cities deliberately, aware that they are cities of refuge, or whether they entered inadvertently. By contrast, with regard to those forty-two Levite cities, unintentional murderers are admitted only if they entered the cities deliberately, but if they entered the cities inadvertently, they are not admitted to the cities.
וְחֶבְרוֹן עִיר מִקְלָט הֲוַא[י]? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּתְּנוּ לְכָלֵב אֶת חֶבְרוֹן כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר מֹשֶׁה״! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: פַּרְווֹדֶהָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת שְׂדֵה הָעִיר וְאֶת חֲצֵרֶיהָ נָתְנוּ לְכָלֵב בֶּן יְפֻנֶּה״.
The Gemara asks: And is Hebron a city of refuge? But isn’t it written: “And they gave Hebron to Caleb, as Moses had spoken” (Judges 1:20)? This indicates that Hebron belonged to Caleb from the tribe of Judah, and it was not a Levite city. Abaye said: Its suburbs [parvadaha] were given to Caleb; the city itself was a city of priests, as it is written in the context of the distribution of the Levite cities: “And they gave them Kiryat Arba…which is Hebron…and the field of the city and its courtyards they gave to Caleb, son of Jephunneh” (Joshua 21:11–12).
וְקֶדֶשׁ עִיר מִקְלָט הֲוַאי? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְעָרֵי מִבְצָר הַצִּדִּים צֵר וְחַמַּת רַקַּת וְכִנָּרֶת וְגוֹ׳ וְקֶדֶשׁ וְאֶדְרֶעִי וְעֵין חָצוֹר״, וְתַנְיָא: עָרִים הַלָּלוּ אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן לֹא טִירִין קְטַנִּים וְלֹא כְּרַכִּים גְּדוֹלִים אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת! אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: תַּרְתֵּי קֶדֶשׁ הֲוַאי. (אָמַר) רַב אָשֵׁי [אָמַר]: כְּגוֹן סְלֵיקוּם וְאַקְרָא דִּסְלֵיקוּם.
The Gemara further asks: And is Kadesh a city of refuge? But isn’t it written: “And the fortified cities were Ziddim Zer, and Hammath, Rakkath, and Chinnereth…and Kedesh and Edrei and En Hazor” (Joshua 19:35–37), and it is taught in a baraita: With regard to these cities of refuge, one does not establish them in small settlements [tirin] or in large cities; rather, one establishes them in intermediate-sized towns? Apparently, Kadesh was a large, fortified city. Rav Yosef said: There were two cities named Kedesh, and the one listed among the fortified cities in the book of Joshua is not the one that was a city of refuge. Rav Ashi said: The listing of Kadesh among the fortified cities is not difficult, as it is similar to the two adjacent yet separate cities of Selikum and the fortification [ve’akra] of Selikum. Likewise, there was the fortified city of Kadesh, mentioned in Joshua, and the city itself, which was an intermediate city that served as city of refuge.
גּוּפָא: עָרִים הַלָּלוּ, אֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתָן לֹא טִירִין קְטַנִּים וְלֹא כְּרַכִּין גְּדוֹלִים, אֶלָּא עֲיָירוֹת בֵּינוֹנִיּוֹת. וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם מַיִם, וְאִם אֵין שָׁם מַיִם – מְבִיאִין לָהֶם מַיִם. וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שְׁווֹקִים, וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתָן אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם אוּכְלוּסִין. נִתְמַעֲטוּ אוּכְלוּסֵיהֶן – מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן. נִתְמַעֲטוּ דִּיּוּרֵיהֶן – מְבִיאִין לָהֶם כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִּם וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים.
§ The Gemara discusses the matter itself, and it cites the complete baraita: With regard to these cities of refuge, one does not establish them in small settlements or in large cities; rather, one establishes them in intermediate-sized towns. And one establishes them only in a place where water is available, and if there is no water available there, as there is no spring accessible from the city, one brings them water by digging a canal. And one establishes them only in a place where there are markets, and one establishes them only in a populated place, where there are many people who regularly frequent the town. If the population of the surrounding areas diminishes, one adds to it. If the number of residents in the city of refuge itself diminishes, one brings new residents to the city, among them priests, Levites, and Israelites.
וְאֵין מוֹכְרִין בָּהֶן לֹא כְּלֵי זַיִין, וְלֹא כְּלֵי מְצוּדָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאֵין פּוֹרְסִין בְּתוֹכָן מְצוּדוֹת, וְאֵין מַפְשִׁילִין לְתוֹכָן חֲבָלִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא רֶגֶל גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם מְצוּיָה שָׁם.
The baraita continues: And one may not sell weapons or hunting tools in the cities of refuge, to prevent the blood redeemer from gaining access to means that he could exploit to kill the unintentional murderer who fled to the city of refuge; this is the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya. And the Rabbis permit selling weapons and hunting tools. And Rabbi Neḥemya and the Rabbis agree that one may not spread nets in the cities of refuge, nor may they braid [mafshilin] ropes in those cities, so that the foot of the blood redeemer will not be found there. If the blood redeemer were to enter the city of refuge to purchase nets or ropes, he is apt to encounter the murderer and kill him.
אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַאי קְרָא? ״וְנָס אֶל אַחַת מִן הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וָחָי״ – עֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּתֶהְוֵי לֵיהּ חִיּוּתָא.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says: What is the verse from which these matters are derived? It is written: “And he shall flee to one of these cities and live” (Deuteronomy 4:42), meaning: Perform some actions for the unintentional murderer so that life in the city of refuge will be conducive to living for him. All these steps are taken to facilitate that objective.
תָּנָא: תַּלְמִיד שֶׁגָּלָה – מַגְּלִין רַבּוֹ עִמּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וָחַי״ – עֲבֵיד לֵיהּ מִידֵּי דְּתֶהְוֵי לֵיהּ חִיּוּתָא. אָמַר רַבִּי זְעֵירָא: מִכָּאן שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁנֶה אָדָם לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁאֵינוֹ הָגוּן.
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 Zeira says: From here one learns that a person should not teach a student who is not fit, as that may result in the teacher following the student into exile.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הָרַב שֶׁגָּלָה – מַגְּלִין יְשִׁיבָתוֹ עִמּוֹ. אִינִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִנַּיִן לְדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה שֶׁהֵן קוֹלְטִין? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אֶת בֶּצֶר בַּמִּדְבָּר וְגוֹ׳״, [וּכְתִיב בָּתְרֵיהּ:] ״וְזֹאת הַתּוֹרָה״.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the case of a teacher of Torah who was exiled, his school is exiled with him. The Gemara asks: Is that so that a teacher of Torah is exiled? But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan himself say: From where is it derived that matters of Torah provide refuge, i.e., that the blood redeemer may not harm one who is engaged in Torah? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “Bezer in the wilderness, in the flatlands, for the Reubenites; and Ramoth in Gilead, for the Gadites; and Golan in Bashan, for the Manassites” (Deuteronomy 4:43), in the list of cities of refuge designated by Moses, and it is written thereafter: “And this is the Torah” (Deuteronomy 4:44). Based on that juxtaposition it is derived that the status of Torah is like that of a city of refuge.
לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא – בְּעִידָּנָא דְּעָסֵיק בַּהּ, הָא – בְּעִידָּנָא דְּלָא עָסֵיק בַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the status of Torah is like that of a city of refuge, is referring to Torah at the time that one is engaged in its study, and that statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan, that the teacher of Torah must take his school to the city of refuge, is referring to the teacher of Torah at the time that he is not engaged in its study. His mere presence in a city of refuge provides him with continuous protection.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא, מַאי קוֹלְטִין – מִמַּלְאַךְ הַמָּוֶת. כִּי הָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא הֲוָה יָתֵיב וְגָרֵיס בְּבֵי רַב, וְלָא הֲוָה קָא יָכֵיל שְׁלִיחָא [דְּמַלְאֲכָא דְּמוֹתָא] לְמִיקְרַב לְגַבֵּיהּ, דְּלָא הֲוָה שָׁתֵיק פּוּמֵּיהּ מִגִּירְסָא, סְלֵיק וִיתֵיב אַאַרְזָא דְּבֵי רַב, פְּקַע אַרְזָא וּשְׁתֵיק, וִיכֵיל לֵיהּ.
And if you wish, say: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement that matters of Torah provide refuge? It means protection, but not for an unintentional murderer from the blood redeemer; rather, it means protection from the Angel of Death. 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בַּר חֲנִילַאי: מִפְּנֵי מָה זָכָה רְאוּבֵן לִימָּנוֹת בְּהַצָּלָה תְּחִלָּה? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא פָּתַח בְּהַצָּלָה תְּחִלָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע רְאוּבֵן וַיַּצִּלֵהוּ מִיָּדָם״.
§ Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥanilai says: For what reason was Reuben privileged to be enumerated first in the rescue, as the first city of refuge listed is Bezer (see Deuteronomy 4:43), which is located in the tribal portion of Reuben? It is due to the fact that he began the rescue of Joseph first, as it is stated: “And Reuben heard and delivered him from their hands” (Genesis 37:21).
דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי שִׂמְלַאי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אָז יַבְדִּיל מֹשֶׁה שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים בְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן מִזְרְחָה [שָׁמֶשׁ]״? אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה: הַזְרַח שֶׁמֶשׁ לָרוֹצְחִים. אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי אָמַר לוֹ: הִזְרַחְתָּ שֶׁמֶשׁ לָרוֹצְחִים.
Rabbi Simlai taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Then Moses separated three cities beyond the Jordan, to the east of the sun [mizreḥa shamesh]” (Deuteronomy 4:41)? The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Shine the sun [hazraḥ shemesh] for murderers, i.e., provide them with the hope of rescue. Some say that God said to Moses: In designating these cities of refuge you have shined the sun for murderers.
דָּרַשׁ רַבִּי סִימַאי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אֹהֵב כֶּסֶף לֹא יִשְׂבַּע כֶּסֶף וּמִי אֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן לֹא תְבוּאָה״? ״אֹהֵב כֶּסֶף לֹא יִשְׂבַּע כֶּסֶף״ – זֶה מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ, שֶׁהָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן קוֹלְטוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְחֲרוּ שָׁלֹשׁ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, וְאָמַר: מִצְוָה שֶׁבָּאָה לְיָדִי אֲקַיְּימֶנָּה.
On a related note, Rabbi Simai taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: “He who loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he who loves abundance with increase” (Ecclesiastes 5:9)? “He who loves silver shall not be satisfied with silver”; this is a reference to Moses our teacher, whose love of mitzvot was so great that although he knew that an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three cities of refuge that were in the east bank of the Jordan until the three cities of refuge that were in the land of Canaan were selected, and that his designation of cities of refuge would have no practical ramifications in his lifetime, he nevertheless said: When there is a mitzva that has come my way, I will fulfill it.
״וּמִי אֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן לֹא תְבוּאָה״ – לְמִי נָאֶה לְלַמֵּד בְּהָמוֹן? מִי שֶׁכׇּל תְּבוּאָה שֶׁלּוֹ. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: ״מַאי דִּכְתִיב מִי יְמַלֵּל גְּבוּרוֹת ה׳ יַשְׁמִיעַ כׇּל תְּהִלָּתוֹ״? לְמִי נָאֶה (לְלַמֵּד) [לְמַלֵּל] גְּבוּרוֹת ה׳ – מִי שֶׁיָּכוֹל לְהַשְׁמִיעַ כׇּל תְּהִלָּתוֹ.
The next phrase in that verse: “Nor he who loves abundance with increase,” is also interpreted as referring to Torah: For whom is it fitting to teach an abundance of people? One for whom all its increase belongs to him, i.e., one who knows all the content of the Torah is worthy of teaching it in public. And that is identical to that which Rabbi Elazar says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who can express the mighty acts of God, or make all His praise heard” (Psalms 106:2)? For whom is it fitting to express the mighty acts of God? It is one who can make all His praise heard. One who knows only part of it is unfit to teach the multitudes.
וְרַבָּנַן, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר מָרִי, אָמַר: ״מִי אֹהֵב בֶּהָמוֹן לוֹ תְּבוּאָה״ – כׇּל הָאוֹהֵב (לִמְלַמֵּד) בֶּהָמוֹן – לוֹ תְבוּאָה. יְהַבוּ בֵּיהּ רַבָּנַן עֵינַיְיהוּ בְּרָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה.
And the Rabbis say, and some say Rabba bar Mari says, that the passage “nor he who loves abundance with increase” means whoever loves a Torah scholar who teaches in the presence of an abundance of people, to him shall be increase, i.e., sons who are Torah scholars. The Gemara relates: When they heard that interpretation, the Sages cast their eyes upon Rava, son of Rabba, who loved Torah scholars who disseminate Torah, and he was blessed with sons who were Torah scholars.
(סִימָן: אָשֵׁי לִלְמוֹד, רָבִינָא לְלַמֵּד).
The Gemara provides a mnemonic for the ensuing interpretations of the second part of the verse cited earlier (Ecclesiastes 5:9): Ashi to study, Ravina to teach.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: כׇּל הָאוֹהֵב לִלְמוֹד בֶּהָמוֹן – לוֹ תְּבוּאָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״חֶרֶב אֶל הַבַּדִּים וְנֹאָלוּ״? חֶרֶב עַל צַוְּארֵי שׂוֹנְאֵיהֶם שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁיּוֹשְׁבִין וְעוֹסְקִין בַּתּוֹרָה בַּד בְּבַד, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁמִּטַּפְּשִׁין – כְּתִיב הָכָא: ״וְנֹאָלוּ״, וּכְתִיב הָתָם: ״אֲשֶׁר נוֹאַלְנוּ״. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁחוֹטְאִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַאֲשֶׁר חָטָאנוּ״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא מֵהָכָא: ״נוֹאֲלוּ שָׂרֵי צֹעַן״.
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.” And if you wish, say that from here it is derived that no’alu means sinned: “The ministers of Zoan have sinned [no’alu]” (Isaiah 19:13).
רָבִינָא אָמַר: כׇּל הָאוֹהֵב לְלַמֵּד בֶּהָמוֹן – לוֹ תְּבוּאָה. וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי: הַרְבֵּה תּוֹרָה לָמַדְתִּי מֵרַבּוֹתַי, וּמֵחֲבֵירַי יוֹתֵר מֵהֶם, וּמִתַּלְמִידַי יוֹתֵר מִכּוּלָּן.
Ravina says that there is a different interpretation of the verse cited earlier (Ecclesiastes 5:9): Anyone who loves to teach in abundance, before the multitudes, to him shall be increase, as his Torah knowledge is enhanced through those lectures. And that is the parallel to that which 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״עֹמְדוֹת הָיוּ רַגְלֵינוּ בִּשְׁעָרַיִךְ יְרוּשָׁלִָם״? מִי גָּרַם לְרַגְלֵינוּ שֶׁיַּעַמְדוּ בַּמִּלְחָמָה – שַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלַםִ, שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹסְקִים בַּתּוֹרָה.
Apropos the virtue of Torah study, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Our feet were standing in your gates, Jerusalem” (Psalms 122:2)? What caused our feet to withstand the enemies in war? It is the gates of Jerusalem, where they were engaged in Torah study. He interprets the term “in your gates” to mean: Because of your gates, the place of justice and Torah.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״שִׁיר הַמַּעֲלוֹת לְדָוִד שָׂמַחְתִּי בְּאֹמְרִים לִי בֵּית ה׳ נֵלֵךְ״? אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, שָׁמַעְתִּי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: ״מָתַי יָמוּת זָקֵן זֶה, וְיָבֹא שְׁלֹמֹה בְּנוֹ וְיִבְנֶה בֵּית הַבְּחִירָה וְנַעֲלֶה לָרֶגֶל?״, וְשָׂמַחְתִּי. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: ״כִּי טוֹב יוֹם בַּחֲצֵרֶיךָ מֵאָלֶף״ – טוֹב לִי יוֹם אֶחָד שֶׁאַתָּה עוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה לְפָנַי, מֵאֶלֶף עוֹלוֹת שֶׁעָתִיד שְׁלֹמֹה בִּנְךָ לְהַקְרִיב לְפָנַי עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “A song of the ascents to David: I rejoiced when they said to me, let us go to the house of God” (Psalms 122:1)? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, I heard people who were saying in reference to me: When will this old man die, and Solomon his son will come and succeed him and build the Temple and we will ascend there for the pilgrimage Festival? It was common knowledge that the Temple would be constructed by David’s successor. David continued: And despite my pain that I am not privileged to build the Temple, I rejoiced. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him: “For better is one day in your courtyard than one thousand” (Psalms 84:11), meaning, I prefer one day during which you engage in the study of Torah before Me than the one thousand burnt-offerings that your son Solomon is destined to sacrifice before Me upon the altar (see I Kings 3:4).
וּמְכֻוּוֹנוֹת לָהֶם דְּרָכִים וְכוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר:
§ The mishna teaches: And roads were aligned for them from this city to that city. It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says:
״מִקְלָט״ הָיָה כָּתוּב עַל פָּרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּכִּיר הָרוֹצֵחַ וְיִפְנֶה לְשָׁם. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: מַאי קְרָא? ״תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ״ – עֲשֵׂה [לְךָ] הֲכָנָה לַדֶּרֶךְ.
Refuge was written on signs at every crossroads marking the path to a city of refuge, so that the unintentional murderer would identify the route to the city of refuge and turn to go there. Rav Kahana said: What is the verse from which this is derived? “Prepare for you the road” (Deuteronomy 19:3), meaning: Perform for you preparation of the road.
רַב חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״טוֹב וְיָשָׁר ה׳ עַל כֵּן יוֹרֶה חַטָּאִים בַּדָּרֶךְ״ – אִם לַחַטָּאִים יוֹרֶה, קַל וָחוֹמֶר לַצַּדִּיקִים.
§ Apropos that halakha, the Gemara cites that Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina introduced this portion with regard to the halakhot of exile with an introduction from here: “Good and upright is God; therefore He directs sinners along the way” (Psalms 25:8). He said: If He directs sinners by commanding the placing of signs directing them to the city of refuge, it may be inferred a fortiori that He will assist and direct the righteous along the path of righteousness.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ פָּתַח לַהּ פִּתְחָא לְהַאי פָּרַשְׁתָּא מֵהָכָא: ״וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא צָדָה וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ וְגוֹ׳״, ״כַּאֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר מְשַׁל הַקַּדְמֹנִי מֵרְשָׁעִים יֵצֵא רֶשַׁע וְגוֹ׳״,
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish introduced this portion with an introduction from here: It is stated with regard to an unintentional murderer: “And one who did not lie in wait, but God caused it to come to his hand, and I will appoint you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). Now this is puzzling. Why would God cause one to sin in this manner? The verse states: “As the ancient parable says: From the wicked comes forth wickedness” (I Samuel 24:13). Evil incidents befall those who have already sinned.
בַּמָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר – בִּשְׁנֵי בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהָרְגוּ אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ, אֶחָד הָרַג בְּשׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד הָרַג בְּמֵזִיד, לָזֶה אֵין עֵדִים וְלָזֶה אֵין עֵדִים. הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַזְמִינָן לְפוּנְדָּק אֶחָד, זֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּמֵזִיד יוֹשֵׁב תַּחַת הַסּוּלָּם, וְזֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּשׁוֹגֵג יוֹרֵד בַּסּוּלָּם, וְנֹפֵל עָלָיו וְהֹרְגוֹ, זֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּמֵזִיד – נֶהֱרָג, וְזֶה שֶׁהָרַג בְּשׁוֹגֵג – גּוֹלֶה.
Reish Lakish explains: In this light, the verse “But God caused it to come to his hand” may be understood. With regard to what scenario is the verse speaking? It is with regard to two people who killed a person, where one killed unintentionally while the other killed intentionally. For this person there are no witnesses to his action, and for that person there are no witnesses to his action; therefore, neither received the appropriate punishment of exile and execution, respectively. The Holy One, Blessed be He, summons them to one inn. This person who killed intentionally sits beneath a ladder, and that person who killed unintentionally descends the ladder, and he falls upon him and kills him. There were witnesses to that incident and therefore, that person who killed intentionally is killed, and that person who killed unintentionally is exiled, each receiving what he deserved.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִן הַנְּבִיאִים וּמִן הַכְּתוּבִים – בַּדֶּרֶךְ שֶׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לֵילֵךְ בָּהּ – מוֹלִיכִין אוֹתוֹ.
Apropos the path upon which God leads people, the Gemara cites a statement that Rabba bar Rav Huna says that Rav Huna says, and some say it was a statement that Rav Huna says that Rabbi Elazar says: From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings one learns that along the path a person wishes to proceed, one leads and assists him.
מִן הַתּוֹרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם״. מִן הַנְּבִיאִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ מְלַמֶּדְךָ לְהוֹעִיל מַדְרִיכְךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ (זוּ) תֵּלֵךְ״. מִן הַכְּתוּבִים – דִּכְתִיב: ״אִם לַלֵּצִים הוּא יָלִיץ וְלַעֲנָוִים יִתֶּן חֵן״.
One learns this from the Torah, as it is written that initially God said to Balaam with regard to the contingent dispatched by Balak: “You shall not go with them” (Numbers 22:12). After Balaam implored Him and indicated his desire to go with them, it is written: “Arise, go with them” (Numbers 22:20). One learns this from the Prophets, as it is written: “I am the Lord your God, Who teaches you for your profit, Who leads you on the path that you go” (Isaiah 48:17), indicating that along the path that one seeks to go, God will direct him. One learns this from the Writings, as it is written: “If one seeks the cynics, He will cause him to join the cynics, but to the humble He will give grace” (Proverbs 3:34), indicating that if one chooses cynicism God will direct him there and if he opts for humility God will grant him grace.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָט וּמְצָאוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם וַהֲרָגוֹ – פָּטוּר. קָסָבַר: ״וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת״ – בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the halakhot of exile. Rav Huna says: In the case of an unintentional murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge, and the blood redeemer found him on the way and killed him, he is exempt. The Gemara notes: Rav Huna holds that the verse: “Lest the blood redeemer pursue the murderer…and strike him fatally…and for him there is no sentence of death, as he did not hate him from before” (Deuteronomy 19:6), is written with regard to the blood redeemer, teaching that the blood redeemer is not liable to be executed for killing the murderer.
מֵיתִיבִי: ״וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת״ – בָּרוֹצֵחַ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בָּרוֹצֵחַ, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְהוּא לֹא שֹׂנֵא לוֹ מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם״ – הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בָּרוֹצֵחַ הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: “And for him there is no sentence of death”; the verse is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer, teaching that the unintentional murderer is not liable to be executed. That is why the Jewish people were commanded to establish cities of refuge to protect him. The baraita proceeds to prove that the verse is written with regard to the murderer. Do you say that it is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer, or is it speaking only with regard to the blood redeemer? When it states in an earlier verse: “And he did not hate him from before” (Deuteronomy 19:4), it is clear that the reference is to the unintentional murderer, and therefore, you must say that in the phrase: “And for him there is no sentence of death,” the verse is speaking with regard to the unintentional murderer.
הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת״ – בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. אַתָּה אוֹמֵר בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בָּרוֹצֵחַ? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי לֹא שׂוֹנֵא הוּא לוֹ מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם״ – הֲרֵי רוֹצֵחַ אָמוּר, הָא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת״? בְּגוֹאֵל הַדָּם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara answers: Rav Huna states his opinion in accordance with the opinion of that following tanna, as it is taught in another baraita: “And for him there is no sentence of death”; the verse is speaking with regard to the blood redeemer. The baraita clarifies: Do you say that it is speaking with regard to the blood redeemer, or is it speaking only with regard to the unintentional murderer? When it states: “As he did not hate him from before,” the unintentional murderer is already stated, as that phrase certainly is referring to him. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And for him there is no sentence of death”? It is with regard to the blood redeemer that the verse is speaking.
תְּנַן: מוֹסְרִין לוֹ שְׁנֵי תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, שֶׁמָּא יַהַרְגֶנּוּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. מַאי לָאו דְּמַתְרוּ בֵּיהּ, דְּאִי קָטֵיל בַּר קְטָלָא הוּא?
The Gemara cites proof concerning Rav Huna’s ruling from the mishna. We learned in the mishna: And they would provide the unintentional murderer fleeing to a city of refuge with two Torah scholars, due to the concern that perhaps the blood redeemer will seek to kill him in transit, and in that case they will talk to the blood redeemer. The Gemara asks: What, is it not that the Torah scholars forewarn him that if he kills the unintentional murderer he would be liable to be executed? That contradicts Rav Huna’s opinion that a blood redeemer who kills the unintentional murderer is exempt.
לָא, כִּדְתַנְיָא: וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו – דְּבָרִים הָרְאוּיִים לוֹ. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: אַל תִּנְהַג בּוֹ מִנְהַג שׁוֹפְכֵי דָמִים, בִּשְׁגָגָה בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לְיָדוֹ. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: הוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ״. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הַרְבֵּה שְׁלִיחוּת עוֹשָׂה.
The Gemara rejects this proof: No, the statement of the Torah scholars to the blood redeemer can be explained as it is taught in a baraita: And they will speak to him about matters appropriate to him. They say to the blood redeemer: Do not accord him treatment appropriate for murderers, as it was unintentionally that he came to be involved in the incident. Rabbi Meir says: The unintentional murderer too 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 apologizes and speaks to the blood redeemer. The Sages said to Rabbi Meir: Many matters are performed more effectively through agency.
אָמַר מָר: בִּשְׁגָגָה בָּא מַעֲשֶׂה לְיָדוֹ. פְּשִׁיטָא! דְּאִי בְּמֵזִיד, בַּר גָּלוּת הוּא? אִין.
The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master says in the baraita: It was unintentionally that he came to be involved in the incident. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? As, if it were intentionally that he killed a person, is he liable to be exiled? The Gemara answers: Yes, even intentional murderers flee to a city of refuge on occasion.
וְהָא תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד מַקְדִּימִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, וּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתָם מִשָּׁם.
The Gemara continues: And so it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 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.
מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב מִיתָה – הֲרָגוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְשָׁלְחוּ זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְלָקְחוּ אֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם וְנָתְנוּ אֹתוֹ בְּיַד גֹּאֵל הַדָּם וָמֵת״. מִי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּיב – פְּטָרוּהוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה אֶת הָרֹצֵחַ מִיַּד גֹּאֵל הַדָּם״. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּיב גָּלוּת – מַחְזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֹתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ אֲשֶׁר נָס שָׁמָּה״.
The baraita continues: With regard to one who was found liable to receive the death penalty for intentional murder, after the trial the court would execute him, as it is stated: “And the elders of his city shall send and take him from there and deliver him into the hands of the blood redeemer and he shall die” (Deuteronomy 19:12). And with regard to one who was not found liable to receive the death penalty, e.g., if they deemed that it was due to circumstances beyond his control, they freed him, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall rescue the murderer from the hands of the blood redeemer” (Numbers 35:25). With regard to 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).
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: מֵעַצְמָן הֵן גּוֹלִין. כִּסְבוּרִין הֵן אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – קוֹלְטוֹת, וְהֵן אֵינָן יוֹדְעִין שֶׁבַּשּׁוֹגֵג קוֹלְטוֹת, בְּמֵזִיד אֵינָן קוֹלְטוֹת.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The Torah does not command intentional murderers to flee to a city of refuge; rather, the Torah is cognizant of the fact that in practice, intentional murderers would exile themselves on their own, as they thought that they would be admitted to these cities, which would provide refuge for both unintentional and intentional murderers, and they do not know that only those who murder unintentionally are admitted to these cities, but those who murder intentionally are not admitted.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עִיר שֶׁרוּבָּהּ רוֹצְחִים – אֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדִבֶּר בְּאׇזְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִיא אֶת דְּבָרָיו״ – וְלֹא שֶׁהוּשְׁווּ דִּבְרֵיהֶן לִדְבָרָיו.
§ Rabbi Elazar says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city of refuge whose majority consists of unintentional murderers, as it is stated with regard to an unintentional murderer who fled to a city of refuge: “And he shall speak his matters in the ears of the elders of that city” (Joshua 20:4), indicating that there is some novel element in the matters that he seeks to convey to the elders of the town, but not when their matters are equal to his matters, as those elders made the same statements when they arrived at the city of refuge as unintentional murderers.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: עִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ זְקֵנִים אֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת, דְּבָעֵינַן ״זִקְנֵי הָעִיר״ וְלֵיכָּא. אִיתְּמַר: עִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ זְקֵנִים, רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי – חַד אוֹמֵר: קוֹלֶטֶת, וְחַד אוֹמֵר: אֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת – בָּעֵינַן ״זִקְנֵי הָעִיר״, וְלֵיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קוֹלֶטֶת – מִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא.
And Rabbi Elazar says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city in which there are no elders, as we require the fulfillment of the verse: “And he shall speak in the ears of the elders of the city” (Joshua 20:4), and there are none. It was stated: A city in which there are no elders is the subject of a dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: An unintentional murderer is admitted there, and one says: An unintentional murderer is not admitted there. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that an unintentional murderer is not admitted to a city in which there are no elders, his reasoning is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city and there are none. According to the one who says that an unintentional murderer is admitted there, his reasoning is that he holds that speaking to the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio, but it does not affect the city’s status as a city of refuge.
וְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ זְקֵנִים – רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי, חַד אָמַר: נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה – בָּעֵינַן ״זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ״, וְלֵיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר נַעֲשֶׂה בָּהּ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה – מִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא.
And a city in which there are no elders is the subject of another dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: One can become a wayward and rebellious son in it. And one says: One cannot become a wayward and rebellious son in it. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that one cannot become wayward and rebellious son in it, it is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city, as it is written: “And his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city and the gate of his place” (Deuteronomy 21:19), and there are none. According to the one who says that one can become a wayward and rebellious son in it, the presence of the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio.
וְעִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ זְקֵנִים, רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי – חַד אָמַר: מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה – בָּעֵינַן ״זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַהִיא״, וְלֵיכָּא. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְבִיאָה עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה – מִצְוָה בְּעָלְמָא.
And a city in which there are no elders is the subject of another dispute between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi. One says: If a corpse was discovered proximate to that city, the inhabitants of the city bring a heifer whose neck is broken. And one says: The inhabitants of the city do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken. The Gemara explains: According to the one who says that the inhabitants of the city do not bring a heifer whose neck is broken, it is due to the fact that we require the presence of the elders of the city, as it is written: “And the elders of that city shall bring the calf down to a rough valley” (Deuteronomy 21:4), and there are no elders. According to the one who says that the inhabitants of the city bring a heifer whose neck is broken, the presence of the elders is merely a mitzva ab initio.
אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשַׁת רוֹצְחִים
§ Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: For what reason was the portion discussing murderers stated
