Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 14, 2017 | 讻状讛 讘诪专讞砖讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Makkot 9

Study Guide Makkot 9. Does a child go to a city of refuge for killing a parent?聽 Can a slave or a Cuti (Shomronim) go to a city of refuge?聽 Does a Jew go for killing a slave or a Cuti?聽 For what cases does a ger toshav聽allowed to go?聽 For all these cases, contradictory聽sources are brought and the contradictions are resolved.聽 In the context of this, a debate ensues regarding the excuse “I thought it was allowed”聽– is it valid or not?聽 Potential proofs are brought from the Torah regarding Avimelech when he took Sarah from Avraham.聽 Does a blind person go to a city of refuge?聽 What is the halacha for one who hates the one who was killed?聽 聽The setting up of a system to help those who killed accidentally seems to be a uniquely Jewish concept.聽 See a recent article relating to the struggled of those who kill accidentally.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/09/18/the-sorrow-and-the-shame-of-the-accidental-killer

砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讜拽讛 讜诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗讛 诇拽诇诇讛

that does not have the capacity to cause damage worth one peruta, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Although one who strikes another pays damages and is not flogged, if he struck him with a blow that does not have the capacity to cause damage worth one peruta, since there is no payment, he is flogged for violating a Torah prohibition. The Gemara comments: And according to this opinion, contrary to those who hold that based on their virtual juxtaposition (see Exodus 21:15, 17) or on an analogy between them, the halakhot of striking and cursing are identical, we do not liken striking to cursing. Therefore, although one is flogged for cursing another only if the other comports himself as an observant, God-fearing Jew, one is liable for striking another even if the other was a sinner, e.g., a Samaritan.

讞讜抓 诪注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诇诪讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讙专 转讜砖讘 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to all of them, except for when it is due to a ger toshav. And a ger toshav is exiled due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav. The Gemara comments: Apparently, one may conclude that a ger toshav is a gentile, and therefore he is not exiled when he unintentionally kills a Jew. Say the latter clause of the mishna: A ger toshav is exiled due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav, indicating that his halakhic status is not that of a gentile, as gentiles are not liable to be exiled. There is an apparent contradiction between the two clauses in the mishna. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here, in the latter clause of the mishna, it is in the case of a ger toshav who killed a ger toshav that he is exiled; there, in the first clause, it is in the case of a ger toshav who killed a Jew. In the case described in the first clause he is not exiled, as his halakhic status is not that of a Jew, for whom the sin of unintentional murder of a Jew can be atoned through exile.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讙专 讜诇转讜砖讘 讘转讜讻诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 砖砖 讛注专讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 诇讻诐 讛注专讬诐 诇诪拽诇讟 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讙专 转讜砖讘

There are those who raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: 鈥淔or the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the resident [velatoshav] among them, shall these six cities be for refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:15), indicating that a ger toshav is exiled. And it is written in a previous verse: 鈥淎nd the cities shall be for you for refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:12), from which it is inferred: A refuge for you but not for a ger toshav, indicating that a ger toshav is not exiled. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that indicates that they are not exiled is concerning a ger toshav who killed a Jew; there, the verse that indicates that they are exiled is concerning a ger toshav who killed a ger toshav.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讙专 讜讙讜讬 砖讛专讙讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 拽转谞讬 讙专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讛 讙讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讙 讗祝 讙专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讙

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the halakha of the mishna from a baraita, which teaches: Therefore, a ger toshav and a gentile who killed a person are killed, even if they did so unintentionally. The Gemara infers based on the juxtaposition of a ger toshav and a gentile in the baraita: The tanna teaches the case of a ger toshav in a manner similar to the case of a gentile: Just as with regard to a gentile it is no different in a case where he killed one of his kind, a gentile, and it is no different in a case where he killed one not of his kind, a Jew, as in either case he is executed and is not exiled, so too, with regard to a ger toshav, it is no different in a case where he killed one of his kind, a ger toshav, and it is no different in a case where he killed one not of his kind, a Jew, as in either case he is executed and is not exiled.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛专讙讜 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讻讗谉 砖讛专讙讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讙诇讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 谞讛专讙

Rav 岣sda said: The contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where he killed him in a downward motion; there, the baraita is referring to a case where he killed him in an upward motion. Rav 岣sda elaborates: If one ger toshav killed another ger toshav in a downward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exiled, the ger toshav also suffices with exile. But if the ger toshav killed his counterpart in an upward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exempt from exile, the ger toshav is executed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讙诇讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讗讬讛讜 谞讛专讙

Rava said to him: And is it not derived by means of an a fortiori inference to the contrary? If one unintentionally kills another in a downward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exiled, the ger toshav also suffices with exile and nothing more, but if he killed in an upward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exempt from exile, is he killed?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

Rather, Rava said: The case in the baraita where a ger toshav is killed rather than exiled is where the ger toshav who killed another ger toshav says that it is permitted to kill the victim. If he killed him unintentionally he is exiled, in accordance with the ruling in the mishna. Abaye said to him: One who says that it is permitted to kill the victim is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he was unaware of the prohibition. Why, then, should he be executed? Rava said to him: That is not a problem, as I say that with regard to one who says that it is permitted, since he intended to kill the other, his action borders on the intentional.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讻住讘讜专 讘讛诪讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讚诐 讙讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara observes: And Rava and Rav 岣sda follow their standard line of reasoning, as is indicated by the fact that it was stated that they disagree in the case of a ger toshav who killed a person. If he thought he was killing an animal and it was discovered that it was a person, or if he thought he was killing a gentile and it was discovered that he was a ger toshav, Rava says he is liable to be executed, as with regard to one who says that it is permitted, his action borders on the intentional. Rav 岣sda says he is exempt, as one who says that it is permitted to kill the victim is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讱 诪转 注诇 讛讗砖讛 讗砖专 诇拽讞转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from that which is written with regard to Abimelech, king of Gerar, who took Sarah, Abraham鈥檚 wife: 鈥淎nd God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night and said to him: You shall die for the woman you took, as she is a man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Genesis 20:3). When Abimelech took Sarah he was under the impression that she was unmarried, as Abraham said that she was his sister. Despite the fact that Abimelech was one who says that it is permitted, he was liable to be executed for his action. What, is it not that he was liable to be executed at the hand of a court composed of people, indicating that one who says that it is permitted is liable?

诇讗 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讜讗 诇讬

The Gemara rejects that conclusion: No, it means that he was liable to be executed at the hand of Heaven, but not by a court. The Gemara adds: The language of the verses is also precise in this regard, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I also prevented you from sinning against Me鈥 (Genesis 20:6), indicating that it was a sin vis-脿-vis God and was not in the jurisdiction of a court of men.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讜讞讟讗转讬 诇讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讚讬谞讜 诪住讜专 诇讗讚诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讬谞讜 诪住讜专 诇讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning that based on the formulation of the verse one concludes that it was a sin exclusively vis-脿-vis God, where Joseph says to Potiphar鈥檚 wife: 鈥淎nd how can I perform this great evil, and sin to God鈥 (Genesis 39:9), may one also infer that it was a sin vis-脿-vis God and not vis-脿-vis man? Joseph is referring to adultery, which is punishable by execution according to the Noahide laws as well. Rather, in that case it means that although he performed a sin vis-脿-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man; here too, in the verse about Abimelech, it can be explained that although he performed a sin vis-脿-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man. There is no proof from this verse with regard to the status of one who says that it is permitted to perform a transgression.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讛讙讜讬 讙诐 爪讚讬拽 转讛专讙 讛转诐 讻讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 注诇讜讬讛 讜注转讛 讛砖讘 讗砖转 讛讗讬砖 讻讬 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the reply of Abimelech: 鈥淲ill You even slay a righteous nation?鈥 (Genesis 20:4). God appears to accept Abimelech鈥檚 contention, as He did not respond by calling him wicked, indicating that one who says that it is permitted to perform a transgression is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara rejects that understanding. There, the reason for the rejection of Abimelech鈥檚 contention is as they responded to him from Heaven: 鈥淎nd now, restore the man鈥檚 wife, as he is a prophet鈥 (Genesis 20:7).

讗砖转 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讚转讬讛讚专 讚诇讗讜 谞讘讬讗 诇讗 转讬讛讚专

This Gemara questions that response. Is it the wife of a prophet that is returned, and the wife of one who is not a prophet is not returned?

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注转讛 讛砖讘 讗砖转 讛讗讬砖 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛讙讜讬 讙诐 爪讚讬拽 转讛专讙 讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讞讜转讬 讛讬讗 讜讙讜壮 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讱 诇诪讚 讗讻住谞讗讬 讛讜讗 砖讘讗 诇注讬专 注诇 注住拽讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讬讛 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇讜诐 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗砖转讱 讝讜 讗讞讜转讱 讝讜

Rather, the explanation is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This is what God is saying to Abimelech: 鈥淎nd now, restore the man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Genesis 20:7), in any case, whether or not he is a prophet. And as for that which you said: 鈥淲ill You even slay a righteous nation? Didn鈥檛 he say to me: She is my sister鈥 (Genesis 20:4鈥5), claiming that you are a victim of circumstances beyond your control and exempt from punishment, that is not a valid claim. He is a prophet and it is from you that he learned to conduct himself in that manner. With regard to a stranger [akhsenai] who comes to the city, one asks him about matters of eating and drinking, e.g., whether he is hungry or thirsty. Does one ask him: Is that your wife? Is that your sister? Abraham understood from this line of questioning that you are suspect with regard to abducting women, and that is the reason that he introduced Sarah as his sister. Therefore, you are liable to be executed for her abduction.

诪讻讗谉 砖讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 诇诪讚

The Gemara comments: From here it is derived that a descendant of Noah, i.e., a gentile, is executed for a capital offense even if he says that it is permitted, as he should have learned that it is prohibited and he did not learn.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讜诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讙讜诇讛 讛砖讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜谞讗 谞讛专讙 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜注讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讬砖 砖讜谞讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讚注转 讛专讙 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讜砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛

MISHNA: A blind person who unintentionally murdered another is not exiled; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The enemy of the victim is not exiled, as presumably it was not a completely unintentional act. Rabbi Yosei says: Not only is an enemy not exiled, but he is executed by the court, because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned by witnesses not to perform the action, as presumably he performed the action intentionally. Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. This is the principle: In any case where an observer could say he killed knowingly, where circumstances lead to the assumption that it was an intentional act, the enemy is not exiled, even if he claims that he acted unintentionally. And if it is clear that he killed unknowingly, as circumstances indicate that he acted unintentionally, he is exiled, even though the victim is his enemy.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗

GEMARA: Apropos the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir with regard to a blind person, the Sages taught: It is written that one is exiled to a city of refuge if he killed another 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 (Numbers 35:23), indicating that the reference is to one who has the capacity to see. This serves to exclude a blind person; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: On the contrary, the term 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜诪讗 讗转讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诪注讟讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written with regard to those who are exiled: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), which is stated in general terms, applying even to a blind person. The phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 comes and excludes a blind person from this halakha.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讟 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 诇诪注讟 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

And Rabbi Meir interprets the verses differently: 鈥淲ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person, and 鈥渨ithout knowledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4) also serves to exclude a blind person. This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it includes a blind person in the halakhot of exile as well.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to that derivation? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda says that the phrase 鈥渨ithout knowledge鈥 comes to exclude one with intent, e.g., one who had intent to kill an animal and who killed a person, from the halakha of exile. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the two restrictive expressions as excluding two unrelated cases from the halakha of exile, and therefore the principle of: A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify, is not relevant in this case.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜谞讗 谞讛专讙 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 讛转专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy is executed because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned. The Gemara asks: But why is an enemy executed? The witness did not actually forewarn him, and courts administer corporal punishment only to a defendant who was forewarned. The Gemara answers: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot [岣ver] does not require forewarning for the court to administer corporal punishment to him, because fundamentally the obligation to issue forewarning was established only to distinguish between unwitting and intentional actions. The presumptive status of a 岣ver is that of one who knows the halakha; therefore, his action is presumed to have been intentional.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讬砖 砖讜谞讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 谞驻住拽 讙讜诇讛 谞砖诪讟 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. The Gemara adds: It is taught in a baraita: In what circumstances did Rabbi Shimon say that there is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled? He said that in a case where the rope snapped and the object attached to the rope fell and killed a person, he is exiled, as that appears to be an accident. But if an object was displaced from his hands, he is not exiled, as presumably he loosened his grip until it fell.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 注讚 砖讬砖诪讟 诪讞爪诇讜 诪讬讚讜 拽砖讬讗 谞驻住拽 讗谞驻住拽 拽砖讬讗 谞砖诪讟 讗谞砖诪讟

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One is never exiled unless his trowel with which he was working was displaced from his hand? As Rabbi Shimon stated that halakha without distinguishing between friend and enemy, therefore, the apparent contradiction between a case where the rope snapped, according to the first baraita, and a case where the rope snapped, according to the second baraita, is difficult. And the apparent contradiction between a case where the object was displaced, according to the first baraita, and a case where the object was displaced, according to the second baraita, is difficult.

谞驻住拽 讗谞驻住拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讜讛讘 讜讛讗 讘砖讜谞讗

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between a case where the rope snapped according to the first baraita and a case where the rope snapped according to the second is not difficult. This case in the second baraita is referring to a friend of the victim, and presumably if the rope snapped it is considered a case of circumstances beyond his control and he is exempt from exile, and that case in the first baraita is referring to an enemy of the victim. In that case, although the presumption is that the act was not intentional, due to his enmity toward the victim, it is also not assumed to be the result of circumstances that were completely beyond his control. Therefore, he is exiled.

谞砖诪讟 讗谞砖诪讟 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The apparent contradiction between a case where the object was displaced according to the first baraita and a case where the object was displaced according to the second baraita is not difficult, as this case in the first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who ruled in a mishna (7b) that if the blade of one鈥檚 ax was displaced from its handle and flew through the air and killed a person, he is exempt from exile, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and that case in the second baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, who rule that in that case, the person wielding the ax is exiled, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讛讬讻谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 诇砖诇砖 砖讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜诇砖诇砖 砖讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗转 砖诇砖 讛注专讬诐 转转谞讜 诪注讘专 诇讬专讚谉 讜讗转 砖诇砖 讛注专讬诐 转转谞讜 讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讘讞专讜 砖诇砖 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 砖诇砖 砖讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 拽讜诇讟讜转 砖谞讗诪专 砖砖 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 转讛讬讬谞讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖砖转谉 拽讜诇讟讜转 讻讗讞转

MISHNA: To where are the unintentional murderers exiled? They are exiled to cities of refuge, to three cities that were in the east bank of the Jordan and to three cities that were in the land of Canaan, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree cities shall you give beyond the Jordan and three cities shall you give in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:14). The mishna comments: Until the three cities of refuge that were in Eretz Yisrael were selected, an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three that were in the east bank of the Jordan, even though the latter three were already selected by Moses (see Deuteronomy 4:41), as it is stated: 鈥淪ix cities of refuge shall they be鈥 (Numbers 35:13), from which it is derived that they do not become cities of refuge until all six of them admit unintentional murderers as one.

讜诪讻讜讜谞讜转 诇讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 砖谞讗诪专 转讻讬谉 诇讱 讛讚专讱 讜砖诇砖转 讜讙讜壮

The mishna continues: And roads were aligned for them from this city, i.e., all cities, to that city, i.e., they would pave and straighten the access roads to the cities of refuge, as it is stated: 鈥淧repare 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3).

讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛谉 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讛专讙谞讜 讘讚专讱 讜讬讚讘专讜 讗诇讬讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛专爪讞

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: 鈥淎nd this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself speaks.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘转讞诇讛 讗讞讚 砖讜讙讙 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讬讚 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讜诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪砖诐 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讙讜讛讜 讜砖诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 驻讟专讜讛讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪拽讜诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘讜 讗转讜 讛注讚讛 讗诇 注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer鈥and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there鈥 (Numbers 35:24鈥25), indicating that he had been in a city of refuge before his trial.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖 注专讬诐 讛讘讚讬诇 诪砖讛 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讛讘讚讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讛讬讜 讻诪讬谉 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讘讻专诐 讞讘专讜谉 讘讛专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻谞讙讚 讘爪专 讘诪讚讘专 砖讻诐 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐 讻谞讙讚 专诪讜转 讘讙诇注讚 拽讚砖 讘讛专 谞驻转诇讬 讻谞讙讚 讙讜诇谉 讘讘砖谉 讜砖诇砖转 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉 砖讬讛讗 诪讚专讜诐 诇讞讘专讜谉 讻诪讞讘专讜谉 诇砖讻诐 讜诪讞讘专讜谉 诇砖讻诐 讻诪砖讻诐 诇拽讚砖 讜诪砖讻诐 诇拽讚砖 讻诪拽讚砖 诇爪驻讜谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Moses designated three cities of refuge in the east bank of the Jordan, and corresponding to them, Joshua designated three cities of refuge in the land of Canaan. And the cities were aligned like two rows of vines in a vineyard: In Eretz Yisrael there was Hebron in Mount Judea, corresponding to Bezer in the wilderness; Shechem in Mount Ephraim, corresponding to Ramoth in the Gilead; and Kadesh in Mount Naphtali, corresponding to Golan in the Bashan. From the term 鈥淎nd you shall divide [veshilashta]鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3), it is derived that the three cities in Eretz Yisrael will serve as three [meshulashin] lines of demarcation dividing the length of the land into four equal parts, in a manner that the distance from the southern border of Eretz Yisrael to Hebron, the southernmost city of refuge, will be like the distance from Hebron to Shechem, and the distance from Hebron to Shechem will be like the distance from Shechem to Kadesh, and the distance from Shechem to Kadesh will be like the distance from Kadesh to the northern border.

讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 转诇转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 转诇转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙诇注讚 砖讻讬讞讬 专讜爪讞讬诐

The Gemara questions the distribution of the cities: Why were there three cities designated on the east bank of the Jordan, where two and a half tribes resided, and three cities designated in Eretz Yisrael, where more than nine tribes resided? Abaye said: In Gilead, which is located on the east bank of the Jordan, murderers are common.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Makkot 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Makkot 9

砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻讛讜 讛讻讗讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 诇讜拽讛 讜诇讗 诪拽砖讬谞谉 讛讻讗讛 诇拽诇诇讛

that does not have the capacity to cause damage worth one peruta, as Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Although one who strikes another pays damages and is not flogged, if he struck him with a blow that does not have the capacity to cause damage worth one peruta, since there is no payment, he is flogged for violating a Torah prohibition. The Gemara comments: And according to this opinion, contrary to those who hold that based on their virtual juxtaposition (see Exodus 21:15, 17) or on an analogy between them, the halakhot of striking and cursing are identical, we do not liken striking to cursing. Therefore, although one is flogged for cursing another only if the other comports himself as an observant, God-fearing Jew, one is liable for striking another even if the other was a sinner, e.g., a Samaritan.

讞讜抓 诪注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘 讜讻讜壮 讗诇诪讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讙讜讬 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 讙讜诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 讙专 转讜砖讘 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讙专 转讜砖讘 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讬砖专讗诇

搂 The mishna teaches: Everyone is exiled due to their unintentional murder of a Jew, and a Jew is exiled due to all of them, except for when it is due to a ger toshav. And a ger toshav is exiled due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav. The Gemara comments: Apparently, one may conclude that a ger toshav is a gentile, and therefore he is not exiled when he unintentionally kills a Jew. Say the latter clause of the mishna: A ger toshav is exiled due to his unintentional murder of a ger toshav, indicating that his halakhic status is not that of a gentile, as gentiles are not liable to be exiled. There is an apparent contradiction between the two clauses in the mishna. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here, in the latter clause of the mishna, it is in the case of a ger toshav who killed a ger toshav that he is exiled; there, in the first clause, it is in the case of a ger toshav who killed a Jew. In the case described in the first clause he is not exiled, as his halakhic status is not that of a Jew, for whom the sin of unintentional murder of a Jew can be atoned through exile.

讗讬讻讗 讚专诪讬 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘 诇讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讙专 讜诇转讜砖讘 讘转讜讻诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 砖砖 讛注专讬诐 讜讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讜 诇讻诐 讛注专讬诐 诇诪拽诇讟 诇讻诐 讜诇讗 诇讙专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讬砖专讗诇 讻讗谉 讘讙专 转讜砖讘 砖讛专讙 讙专 转讜砖讘

There are those who raised a contradiction between two verses. It is written: 鈥淔or the children of Israel and for the stranger and for the resident [velatoshav] among them, shall these six cities be for refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:15), indicating that a ger toshav is exiled. And it is written in a previous verse: 鈥淎nd the cities shall be for you for refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:12), from which it is inferred: A refuge for you but not for a ger toshav, indicating that a ger toshav is not exiled. Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. Here, the verse that indicates that they are not exiled is concerning a ger toshav who killed a Jew; there, the verse that indicates that they are exiled is concerning a ger toshav who killed a ger toshav.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讙专 讜讙讜讬 砖讛专讙讜 谞讛专讙讬谉 拽转谞讬 讙专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讙讜讬 诪讛 讙讜讬 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讙 讗祝 讙专 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚拽讟诇 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 拽讟诇 讚诇讗讜 讘专 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讙

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to the halakha of the mishna from a baraita, which teaches: Therefore, a ger toshav and a gentile who killed a person are killed, even if they did so unintentionally. The Gemara infers based on the juxtaposition of a ger toshav and a gentile in the baraita: The tanna teaches the case of a ger toshav in a manner similar to the case of a gentile: Just as with regard to a gentile it is no different in a case where he killed one of his kind, a gentile, and it is no different in a case where he killed one not of his kind, a Jew, as in either case he is executed and is not exiled, so too, with regard to a ger toshav, it is no different in a case where he killed one of his kind, a ger toshav, and it is no different in a case where he killed one not of his kind, a Jew, as in either case he is executed and is not exiled.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛专讙讜 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讻讗谉 砖讛专讙讜 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讙诇讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讛讜讗 谞讛专讙

Rav 岣sda said: The contradiction between the mishna and the baraita is not difficult. Here, the mishna is referring to a case where he killed him in a downward motion; there, the baraita is referring to a case where he killed him in an upward motion. Rav 岣sda elaborates: If one ger toshav killed another ger toshav in a downward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exiled, the ger toshav also suffices with exile. But if the ger toshav killed his counterpart in an upward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exempt from exile, the ger toshav is executed.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讚专讱 讬专讬讚讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 讙诇讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 住讙讬 诇讬讛 讘讙诇讜转 讚专讱 注诇讬讬讛 讚讬砖专讗诇 驻讟讜专 讗讬讛讜 谞讛专讙

Rava said to him: And is it not derived by means of an a fortiori inference to the contrary? If one unintentionally kills another in a downward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exiled, the ger toshav also suffices with exile and nothing more, but if he killed in an upward motion, which is a case where if the perpetrator were a Jew, he would be exempt from exile, is he killed?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗

Rather, Rava said: The case in the baraita where a ger toshav is killed rather than exiled is where the ger toshav who killed another ger toshav says that it is permitted to kill the victim. If he killed him unintentionally he is exiled, in accordance with the ruling in the mishna. Abaye said to him: One who says that it is permitted to kill the victim is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, as he was unaware of the prohibition. Why, then, should he be executed? Rava said to him: That is not a problem, as I say that with regard to one who says that it is permitted, since he intended to kill the other, his action borders on the intentional.

讜讗讝讚讜 诇讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讻住讘讜专 讘讛诪讛 讜谞诪爪讗 讗讚诐 讙讜讬 讜谞诪爪讗 讙专 转讜砖讘 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 讞讬讬讘 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 拽专讜讘 诇诪讝讬讚 讛讜讗 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讜诪专 驻讟讜专 讗讜诪专 诪讜转专 讗谞讜住 讛讜讗

The Gemara observes: And Rava and Rav 岣sda follow their standard line of reasoning, as is indicated by the fact that it was stated that they disagree in the case of a ger toshav who killed a person. If he thought he was killing an animal and it was discovered that it was a person, or if he thought he was killing a gentile and it was discovered that he was a ger toshav, Rava says he is liable to be executed, as with regard to one who says that it is permitted, his action borders on the intentional. Rav 岣sda says he is exempt, as one who says that it is permitted to kill the victim is a victim of circumstances beyond his control.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 讛谞讱 诪转 注诇 讛讗砖讛 讗砖专 诇拽讞转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讬讚讬 讗讚诐

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav 岣sda from that which is written with regard to Abimelech, king of Gerar, who took Sarah, Abraham鈥檚 wife: 鈥淎nd God came to Abimelech in a dream of the night and said to him: You shall die for the woman you took, as she is a man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Genesis 20:3). When Abimelech took Sarah he was under the impression that she was unmarried, as Abraham said that she was his sister. Despite the fact that Abimelech was one who says that it is permitted, he was liable to be executed for his action. What, is it not that he was liable to be executed at the hand of a court composed of people, indicating that one who says that it is permitted is liable?

诇讗 讘讬讚讬 砖诪讬诐 讚讬拽讗 谞诪讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讞讟讜讗 诇讬

The Gemara rejects that conclusion: No, it means that he was liable to be executed at the hand of Heaven, but not by a court. The Gemara adds: The language of the verses is also precise in this regard, as it is written: 鈥淎nd I also prevented you from sinning against Me鈥 (Genesis 20:6), indicating that it was a sin vis-脿-vis God and was not in the jurisdiction of a court of men.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 讜讞讟讗转讬 诇讗诇讛讬诐 诇讗诇讛讬诐 讜诇讗 诇讗讚诐 讗诇讗 讚讬谞讜 诪住讜专 诇讗讚诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讬谞讜 诪住讜专 诇讗讚诐

The Gemara asks: And according to your reasoning that based on the formulation of the verse one concludes that it was a sin exclusively vis-脿-vis God, where Joseph says to Potiphar鈥檚 wife: 鈥淎nd how can I perform this great evil, and sin to God鈥 (Genesis 39:9), may one also infer that it was a sin vis-脿-vis God and not vis-脿-vis man? Joseph is referring to adultery, which is punishable by execution according to the Noahide laws as well. Rather, in that case it means that although he performed a sin vis-脿-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man; here too, in the verse about Abimelech, it can be explained that although he performed a sin vis-脿-vis God, his judgment is given over to the ruling of man. There is no proof from this verse with regard to the status of one who says that it is permitted to perform a transgression.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘讗 讛讙讜讬 讙诐 爪讚讬拽 转讛专讙 讛转诐 讻讚拽讗 诪讛讚专讬 注诇讜讬讛 讜注转讛 讛砖讘 讗砖转 讛讗讬砖 讻讬 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗

Abaye raised an objection to the opinion of Rava from the reply of Abimelech: 鈥淲ill You even slay a righteous nation?鈥 (Genesis 20:4). God appears to accept Abimelech鈥檚 contention, as He did not respond by calling him wicked, indicating that one who says that it is permitted to perform a transgression is a victim of circumstances beyond his control. The Gemara rejects that understanding. There, the reason for the rejection of Abimelech鈥檚 contention is as they responded to him from Heaven: 鈥淎nd now, restore the man鈥檚 wife, as he is a prophet鈥 (Genesis 20:7).

讗砖转 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讚转讬讛讚专 讚诇讗讜 谞讘讬讗 诇讗 转讬讛讚专

This Gemara questions that response. Is it the wife of a prophet that is returned, and the wife of one who is not a prophet is not returned?

讗诇讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜注转讛 讛砖讘 讗砖转 讛讗讬砖 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讚拽讗诪专转 讛讙讜讬 讙诐 爪讚讬拽 转讛专讙 讛诇讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗讞讜转讬 讛讬讗 讜讙讜壮 谞讘讬讗 讛讜讗 讜诪诪讱 诇诪讚 讗讻住谞讗讬 讛讜讗 砖讘讗 诇注讬专 注诇 注住拽讬 讗讻讬诇讛 讜砖转讬讬讛 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻诇讜诐 砖讜讗诇讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗砖转讱 讝讜 讗讞讜转讱 讝讜

Rather, the explanation is as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says, as Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: This is what God is saying to Abimelech: 鈥淎nd now, restore the man鈥檚 wife鈥 (Genesis 20:7), in any case, whether or not he is a prophet. And as for that which you said: 鈥淲ill You even slay a righteous nation? Didn鈥檛 he say to me: She is my sister鈥 (Genesis 20:4鈥5), claiming that you are a victim of circumstances beyond your control and exempt from punishment, that is not a valid claim. He is a prophet and it is from you that he learned to conduct himself in that manner. With regard to a stranger [akhsenai] who comes to the city, one asks him about matters of eating and drinking, e.g., whether he is hungry or thirsty. Does one ask him: Is that your wife? Is that your sister? Abraham understood from this line of questioning that you are suspect with regard to abducting women, and that is the reason that he introduced Sarah as his sister. Therefore, you are liable to be executed for her abduction.

诪讻讗谉 砖讘谉 谞讞 谞讛专讙 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 诇诇诪讜讚 讜诇讗 诇诪讚

The Gemara comments: From here it is derived that a descendant of Noah, i.e., a gentile, is executed for a capital offense even if he says that it is permitted, as he should have learned that it is prohibited and he did not learn.

诪转谞讬壮 讛住讜诪讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讙讜诇讛 讛砖讜谞讗 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜谞讗 谞讛专讙 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 讻诪讜注讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讬砖 砖讜谞讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讚注转 讛专讙 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 讜砖诇讗 诇讚注转 讛专讙 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讜诇讛

MISHNA: A blind person who unintentionally murdered another is not exiled; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The enemy of the victim is not exiled, as presumably it was not a completely unintentional act. Rabbi Yosei says: Not only is an enemy not exiled, but he is executed by the court, because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned by witnesses not to perform the action, as presumably he performed the action intentionally. Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. This is the principle: In any case where an observer could say he killed knowingly, where circumstances lead to the assumption that it was an intentional act, the enemy is not exiled, even if he claims that he acted unintentionally. And if it is clear that he killed unknowingly, as circumstances indicate that he acted unintentionally, he is exiled, even though the victim is his enemy.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 驻专讟 诇住讜诪讗 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛住讜诪讗

GEMARA: Apropos the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir with regard to a blind person, the Sages taught: It is written that one is exiled to a city of refuge if he killed another 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 (Numbers 35:23), indicating that the reference is to one who has the capacity to see. This serves to exclude a blind person; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: On the contrary, the term 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 serves to include a blind person.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗砖专 讬讘讗 讗转 专注讛讜 讘讬注专 讗驻讬诇讜 住讜诪讗 讗转讗 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诪注讟讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda? It is as it is written with regard to those who are exiled: 鈥淎nd as one who goes with his neighbor into the forest鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:5), which is stated in general terms, applying even to a blind person. The phrase 鈥渨ithout seeing鈥 comes and excludes a blind person from this halakha.

讜专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘诇讗 专讗讜转 诇诪注讟 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 诇诪注讟 讛讜讬 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讜讗讬谉 诪讬注讜讟 讗讞专 诪讬注讜讟 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转

And Rabbi Meir interprets the verses differently: 鈥淲ithout seeing鈥 serves to exclude a blind person, and 鈥渨ithout knowledge鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4) also serves to exclude a blind person. This is an example of a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression, and there is a hermeneutical principle that a restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify the halakha and include additional cases. In this case, it includes a blind person in the halakhot of exile as well.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讘诇讬 讚注转 驻专讟 诇诪转讻讜讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yehuda respond to that derivation? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda says that the phrase 鈥渨ithout knowledge鈥 comes to exclude one with intent, e.g., one who had intent to kill an animal and who killed a person, from the halakha of exile. Rabbi Yehuda interprets the two restrictive expressions as excluding two unrelated cases from the halakha of exile, and therefore the principle of: A restrictive expression following a restrictive expression serves only to amplify, is not relevant in this case.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讛砖讜谞讗 谞讛专讙 讻讜壮 讜讛讗 诇讗 讗转专讜 讘讬讛 诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛转专讗讛 诇驻讬 砖诇讗 谞讬转谞讛 讛转专讗讛 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讞讬谉 讘讬谉 砖讜讙讙 诇诪讝讬讚

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy is executed because his halakhic status is like that of one who is forewarned. The Gemara asks: But why is an enemy executed? The witness did not actually forewarn him, and courts administer corporal punishment only to a defendant who was forewarned. The Gemara answers: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One who is devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot [岣ver] does not require forewarning for the court to administer corporal punishment to him, because fundamentally the obligation to issue forewarning was established only to distinguish between unwitting and intentional actions. The presumptive status of a 岣ver is that of one who knows the halakha; therefore, his action is presumed to have been intentional.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讬砖 砖讜谞讗 讙讜诇讛 讜讬砖 砖讜谞讗 砖讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 谞驻住拽 讙讜诇讛 谞砖诪讟 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: There is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled. The Gemara adds: It is taught in a baraita: In what circumstances did Rabbi Shimon say that there is an enemy who is exiled and there is an enemy who is not exiled? He said that in a case where the rope snapped and the object attached to the rope fell and killed a person, he is exiled, as that appears to be an accident. But if an object was displaced from his hands, he is not exiled, as presumably he loosened his grip until it fell.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谞讜 讙讜诇讛 注讚 砖讬砖诪讟 诪讞爪诇讜 诪讬讚讜 拽砖讬讗 谞驻住拽 讗谞驻住拽 拽砖讬讗 谞砖诪讟 讗谞砖诪讟

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: One is never exiled unless his trowel with which he was working was displaced from his hand? As Rabbi Shimon stated that halakha without distinguishing between friend and enemy, therefore, the apparent contradiction between a case where the rope snapped, according to the first baraita, and a case where the rope snapped, according to the second baraita, is difficult. And the apparent contradiction between a case where the object was displaced, according to the first baraita, and a case where the object was displaced, according to the second baraita, is difficult.

谞驻住拽 讗谞驻住拽 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讘讗讜讛讘 讜讛讗 讘砖讜谞讗

The Gemara answers: The apparent contradiction between a case where the rope snapped according to the first baraita and a case where the rope snapped according to the second is not difficult. This case in the second baraita is referring to a friend of the victim, and presumably if the rope snapped it is considered a case of circumstances beyond his control and he is exempt from exile, and that case in the first baraita is referring to an enemy of the victim. In that case, although the presumption is that the act was not intentional, due to his enmity toward the victim, it is also not assumed to be the result of circumstances that were completely beyond his control. Therefore, he is exiled.

谞砖诪讟 讗谞砖诪讟 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讜讛讗 专讘谞谉

The apparent contradiction between a case where the object was displaced according to the first baraita and a case where the object was displaced according to the second baraita is not difficult, as this case in the first baraita is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who ruled in a mishna (7b) that if the blade of one鈥檚 ax was displaced from its handle and flew through the air and killed a person, he is exempt from exile, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, and that case in the second baraita is the opinion of the Rabbis, who rule that in that case, the person wielding the ax is exiled, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

诪转谞讬壮 诇讛讬讻谉 讙讜诇讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 诇砖诇砖 砖讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜诇砖诇砖 砖讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 砖谞讗诪专 讗转 砖诇砖 讛注专讬诐 转转谞讜 诪注讘专 诇讬专讚谉 讜讗转 砖诇砖 讛注专讬诐 转转谞讜 讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜讙讜壮 注讚 砖诇讗 谞讘讞专讜 砖诇砖 砖讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 砖诇砖 砖讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 拽讜诇讟讜转 砖谞讗诪专 砖砖 注专讬 诪拽诇讟 转讛讬讬谞讛 注讚 砖讬讛讬讜 砖砖转谉 拽讜诇讟讜转 讻讗讞转

MISHNA: To where are the unintentional murderers exiled? They are exiled to cities of refuge, to three cities that were in the east bank of the Jordan and to three cities that were in the land of Canaan, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: 鈥淭hree cities shall you give beyond the Jordan and three cities shall you give in the land of Canaan; they shall be cities of refuge鈥 (Numbers 35:14). The mishna comments: Until the three cities of refuge that were in Eretz Yisrael were selected, an unintentional murderer would not be admitted to the three that were in the east bank of the Jordan, even though the latter three were already selected by Moses (see Deuteronomy 4:41), as it is stated: 鈥淪ix cities of refuge shall they be鈥 (Numbers 35:13), from which it is derived that they do not become cities of refuge until all six of them admit unintentional murderers as one.

讜诪讻讜讜谞讜转 诇讛谉 讚专讻讬诐 诪讝讜 诇讝讜 砖谞讗诪专 转讻讬谉 诇讱 讛讚专讱 讜砖诇砖转 讜讙讜壮

The mishna continues: And roads were aligned for them from this city, i.e., all cities, to that city, i.e., they would pave and straighten the access roads to the cities of refuge, as it is stated: 鈥淧repare 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鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3).

讜诪讜住专讬谉 诇讛谉 砖谞讬 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 砖诪讗 讬讛专讙谞讜 讘讚专讱 讜讬讚讘专讜 讗诇讬讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讜讗 诪讚讘专 注诇 讬讚讬 注爪诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讝讛 讚讘专 讛专爪讞

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: 鈥淎nd this is the matter [devar] of the murderer, who shall flee there and live鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:4), indicating that the murderer himself speaks.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘转讞诇讛 讗讞讚 砖讜讙讙 讜讗讞讚 诪讝讬讚 诪拽讚讬诪讬谉 诇注专讬 诪拽诇讟 讜讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讜诇讞讬谉 讜诪讘讬讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 诪砖诐 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛专讙讜讛讜 讜砖诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘 诪讬转讛 驻讟专讜讛讜 诪讬 砖谞转讞讬讬讘 讙诇讜转 诪讞讝讬专讬谉 讗讜转讜 诇诪拽讜诪讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛砖讬讘讜 讗转讜 讛注讚讛 讗诇 注讬专 诪拽诇讟讜 讜讙讜壮

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: 鈥淎nd the congregation shall judge between the murderer and the blood redeemer鈥and the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there鈥 (Numbers 35:24鈥25), indicating that he had been in a city of refuge before his trial.

讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖诇砖 注专讬诐 讛讘讚讬诇 诪砖讛 讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 讜讻谞讙讚谉 讛讘讚讬诇 讬讛讜砖注 讘讗专抓 讻谞注谉 讜诪讻讜讜谞讜转 讛讬讜 讻诪讬谉 砖转讬 砖讜专讜转 砖讘讻专诐 讞讘专讜谉 讘讛专 讬讛讜讚讛 讻谞讙讚 讘爪专 讘诪讚讘专 砖讻诐 讘讛专 讗驻专讬诐 讻谞讙讚 专诪讜转 讘讙诇注讚 拽讚砖 讘讛专 谞驻转诇讬 讻谞讙讚 讙讜诇谉 讘讘砖谉 讜砖诇砖转 砖讬讛讜 诪砖讜诇砖讬谉 砖讬讛讗 诪讚专讜诐 诇讞讘专讜谉 讻诪讞讘专讜谉 诇砖讻诐 讜诪讞讘专讜谉 诇砖讻诐 讻诪砖讻诐 诇拽讚砖 讜诪砖讻诐 诇拽讚砖 讻诪拽讚砖 诇爪驻讜谉

GEMARA: The Sages taught: Moses designated three cities of refuge in the east bank of the Jordan, and corresponding to them, Joshua designated three cities of refuge in the land of Canaan. And the cities were aligned like two rows of vines in a vineyard: In Eretz Yisrael there was Hebron in Mount Judea, corresponding to Bezer in the wilderness; Shechem in Mount Ephraim, corresponding to Ramoth in the Gilead; and Kadesh in Mount Naphtali, corresponding to Golan in the Bashan. From the term 鈥淎nd you shall divide [veshilashta]鈥 (Deuteronomy 19:3), it is derived that the three cities in Eretz Yisrael will serve as three [meshulashin] lines of demarcation dividing the length of the land into four equal parts, in a manner that the distance from the southern border of Eretz Yisrael to Hebron, the southernmost city of refuge, will be like the distance from Hebron to Shechem, and the distance from Hebron to Shechem will be like the distance from Shechem to Kadesh, and the distance from Shechem to Kadesh will be like the distance from Kadesh to the northern border.

讘注讘专 讛讬专讚谉 转诇转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 转诇转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙诇注讚 砖讻讬讞讬 专讜爪讞讬诐

The Gemara questions the distribution of the cities: Why were there three cities designated on the east bank of the Jordan, where two and a half tribes resided, and three cities designated in Eretz Yisrael, where more than nine tribes resided? Abaye said: In Gilead, which is located on the east bank of the Jordan, murderers are common.

Scroll To Top