Makkot 10b (י:) — the Talmud in English

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

“Refuge”

was written on

a piece of wood that was fixed at every

crossroads,

where the roads diverged, one of them leading to a city of refuge,

so that the murderer would recognize

which road led to the city of refuge

and turn there.

Rav Kahana said: What is the verse that supports this? “

You shall prepare the road for yourself”—

make a preparation for yourself along the road,

so that the road would be “prepared” for the murderer to flee along it to the city of refuge, and he would not have to search for and seek it out.

Rav Hama bar Hanina,

when he would come to expound the passage concerning one who murders unintentionally,

would introduce this passage with an opening from here:

he would begin by prefacing it with an exposition concerning a positive matter, from a verse in the Book of Psalms: “

The Lord is good and upright.

Therefore He instructs sinners in the way”—

the verse indicates that one must prepare the road even for those who murder unintentionally, in order to save them from the blood redeemer. [The verse refers to one who murders unintentionally, since those who act unintentionally are called “sinners.”]

And from here we learn:

if He instructs sinners

in the way, meaning that the Holy One, blessed be He, helps them escape,

how much more so the righteous,

that He will save them from an evil mishap.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish introduced this passage with an opening from here: “

And one who did not lie in wait, but God caused it to come to his hand,”

etc.

.

Concerning this, the verse says [II Samuel 24]: “

As the ancient proverb says,”

the Torah, which is the proverb of the Holy One, blessed be He, Who is the Ancient One of the world: “

From the wicked”

comes forth wickedness!”

etc.

.

The Torah hints that it is God Who “causes” it to come to the hand of the murderer, so that he will kill this person unintentionally. For if it happens that a person performs such a wicked act unintentionally, this is a sign that he is wicked and in need of atonement!

And we explain why the murderer is considered wicked, and how God caused it to come to his hand:

What does the verse “

and God caused it to come to his hand”

refer to? It refers to

two people who killed,

each separately

a person.

One killed unintentionally,

and became liable to exile but was not exiled.

And one killed intentionally,

but the court could not execute him.

For the case is one in which

for this one,

the one who killed unintentionally,

there are no witnesses

who testify that he killed unintentionally, and therefore the court did not exile him.

And for this one,

the one who killed intentionally,

there are no witnesses

who could testify against him that he killed intentionally, and therefore the court did not execute him.

And in order to bring them to their punishments,

the Holy One, blessed be He, brings them together to one inn,

where many people are present who will testify concerning what will happen.

The one who killed intentionally,

and is liable to death,

sits

in the inn

beneath the ladder,

the staircase,

and the one who killed

unintentionally descends the ladder, and f

a

lls upon him, and k

i

lls him.

And so both of them come to their punishments.

For

the one who killed intentionally is killed

now, while

the one who killed unintentionally is exiled,

against his will, since there are now witnesses who testify against him.

Rabba bar Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Huna—and some say that Rav Huna said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: From the Torah, from the Prophets, and from the Writings,

we learn that

along the path a person wishes to follow,

whether for good or for evil,

they lead him

and assist him from Heaven.

From the Torah, as it is written in the passage concerning Balak, that at first God said to Balaam: “

You shall not go with them,”

with the ministers of Balak who had come to ask him to curse Israel.

And it is written afterward, when Balaam returned and asked God a second time whether he should go with them, and God told him the opposite: “

Rise, go with them!”

Since Balaam wished to go, he was led from Heaven along the path he wished to follow.

From the Prophets, as it is written

[Isaiah 48]: “

I am the Lord your God, teaching you for your benefit.

Guiding you

along the way

that you

shall go!”

That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, leads him along the path he chose to follow.

From the Writings, as it is written in the Book of Proverbs

[chapter 3]: “

If he joins the scoffers,”

a person

he himself will scoff!”

He is not restrained from Heaven; rather, his path will be to scoff along with them.

And conversely, “

a

nd if he joins

the humble,

he is assured from Heaven that ultimately, through his deeds, he will

find favor

in the eyes of others.”

Rav Huna said: If a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge was found by the blood redeemer

on the road, while he was fleeing to the city of refuge,

and the blood redeemer killed him, he is exempt.

See the notes concerning the basis for the blood redeemer’s exemption.

This is because the verse says: “

He shall flee to one of these cities, and live.

Lest the blood redeemer pursue the murderer, because his anger is heated, and overtake him and strike him mortally, since the way is long.

For he is not liable to the death penalty, since he was not his enemy yesterday or the day before.

Therefore I command you, saying: You shall set apart three cities for yourself.

A

nd Rav Huna holds

that the explanation of the verse is as follows:

Lest the blood redeemer pursue the murderer, overtake him, and strike him mortally,

and the blood redeemer need not fear that the court will punish him, because the words of the verse,

“For he is not liable to the death penalty,”

are written concerning the blood redeemer,

and not concerning the murderer who killed unintentionally.

Only the end of the verse does he explain as referring to the murderer: the road must be prepared for him, because he was not the enemy of the person killed yesterday or the day before.

And we raise an objection from a beraita:

Meytivi,

as it was taught: “

For he is not liable to the death penalty” —

the murderer

who killed unintentionally is

the subject of the verse,

and concerning him the verse concludes: “because he was not his enemy yesterday or the day before.”

You say that the murderer

is the subject of this verse,

or perhaps it is not

the subject

but the blood redeemer,

who is not liable to the death penalty if he kills the murderer?

When it says at the end of the verse, “

because he was not his enemy yesterday or the day before,”

you must say

that the verse comes to provide the reason why he is not liable to the death penalty.

It necessarily follows that

the murderer is the subject of the verse,

meaning that he is not liable to the death penalty because he killed unintentionally and not out of hatred.

This is difficult for Rav Huna, who explained the words of the verse, “For he is not liable to the death penalty,” as referring to the blood redeemer.

And we answer:

He,

Rav Huna,

agrees with this tanna,

who disagrees with the tanna of the aforementioned beraita.

As it was taught: “

For he is not liable to the death penalty”—

the blood redeemer is the subject of the verse,

as the Torah exempts him if he killed the murderer before the murderer reached his city of refuge.

You say that the blood redeemer is the subject of the verse, or perhaps it is not

the subject

but the murderer?

When it says, “

because he was not his enemy yesterday or the day before,”

the murderer is already mentioned,

as this reason is stated to explain why the murderer is exiled and not killed: he did not kill out of hatred.

What, then, do I make of

the apparently superfluous words

“For he is not liable to the death penalty”?

It necessarily follows that

the blood redeemer is the subject of the verse.

Therefore Rav Huna learned that a blood redeemer who killed the murderer while he was fleeing to the city of refuge is exempt, since this verse refers to the murderer’s initial journey to the city of refuge.

And we raise an objection from the fact that

we learned

in our Mishna: The court

hands over to him,

the unintentional murderer, when he returns from the court to the city of refuge,

two Torah scholars

to accompany him,

lest the blood redeemer kill him

the blood-avenger,

on the way

from the court to the city of refuge.

And they speak

the Torah scholars

to him,

to the blood redeemer.

What, is it not

the intention of the Mishna, when it says that the two Torah scholars speak to the blood redeemer, to say

that they warn him,

that the Torah scholars accompanying him warn the blood redeemer

that if he kills

the murderer,

he is liable to execution!

It would thus be proven from the Mishna that the halakha is not in accordance with Rav Huna.

And we reject this:

No,

they are not sent to warn the blood redeemer, but to appease him with words, so that he will not kill the murderer.

As it was taught

in a beraita to explain the words of our Mishna, “And they speak to him”—

“And they speak to him”—

with appropriate words

to say

to him,

to the blood redeemer, in order to calm him.

They say to him: Do not treat him as murderers treat their victims,

and do not kill him, since

the deed came to his hand unintentionally.

Rabbi Meir says: He,

the murderer,

speaks on his own behalf

to the blood redeemer, asking him not to kill him,

as it is stated: “

And this is the matter of the murderer.”

The Sages said to him

the following:

Many

things that are not accomplished directly by a person

are accomplished through agency.

Things are done through an agent and are more readily accepted by the other party.

The Gemara now discusses the words of the beraita and explains them:

The Master said

in the beraita: They say to him,

“The deed came to his hand unintentionally.”

And we raise a difficulty: What does their statement that he killed unintentionally add, in order to calm the blood redeemer?

For

it is obvious

to everyone that he killed unintentionally and not intentionally! For if he had killed intentionally, they would not have protected him from the blood redeemer, nor would they have enabled him to flee to a city of refuge—

If he killed him intentionally

he killed him, and what—

is he subject to exile!?

But he is liable to a court-imposed death penalty.

And we answer:

No,

indeed, the beraita is referring even to a case in which he killed intentionally, since before he is brought to trial, every murderer—even one who killed intentionally—is exiled to a city of refuge!

And

a support for this is brought from

that

which

was taught: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:

At first,

before they stood trial,

both

a murderer who killed

unintentionally, and both

a murderer who killed

intentionally,

would

hasten

and flee

to the cities of refuge.

And the court

of the city in which they had killed,

would send

to the city of refuge

and bring them from there,

and judge them.

One who

was determined to have killed intentionally and

was sentenced to death—

they would kill him,

they permitted the blood-avenger to kill him.

As it is stated

concerning an intentional murderer: “

And the elders of his city shall send and take him from there, and deliver him into the hand of the blood-avenger, and he shall die.”

And

one who

was determined in court

not to have been sentenced

to death [even if he killed intentionally, but they had not warned him]—

they would acquit him.

As it is stated: “

And the congregation shall deliver the murderer from the hand of the blood-avenger.”

Whereas

one

who was determined in court to have killed unintentionally and

was sentenced to exile—

they would return him to his place

in the city of refuge.

As it is stated

concerning an unintentional murderer: “

And the congregation shall return him to the city of refuge to which he had fled.”

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says:

the verse does not mean that even an intentional murderer is initially exiled to a city of refuge.

Rather, the murderers are mistaken in this regard, and

they exile themselves—

thinking

the murderers

that both

one who kills

unintentionally and both

the murderer who kills

intentionally,

the cities of refuge

shelter

and save them from punishment.

And they do not know that

only

when one kills unintentionally do they shelter him,

but

when one kills intentionally they do not shelter him.

And concerning this the verse teaches that the court shall send and take him from there to kill him; his exile to a city of refuge does not exempt him from the punishment of death.

Rabbi Elazar said: A city

of refuge

whose majority

of its inhabitants are

unintentional murderers

—

does not shelter.

As it is stated [Joshua 20]: “

And he shall declare his words in the ears of the elders of that city”

And he shall speak in the ears of the elders of that city

[the city of refuge]

his words.”

The verse teaches that his words must be spoken in the ears of the elders of the city of refuge, and must differ from the words of the people of the city who hear him speak.

That is, the people of the city before whom he presents his words are unlike him, for they are not murderers,

and not that their words were equated with his words.

And Rabbi Elazar said: A city in which there are no elders—

does not shelter, as we require

that there be in it

“the elders of the city,”

as explained in the verse in the Book of Joshua,

and there are none,

because in a city without elders this detail is not fulfilled.

The Gemara now brings that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disputed this matter, as well as two passages in the Torah—in the passage concerning the wayward and rebellious son and in the passage concerning the heifer whose neck is broken—in all of which “the elders of the city” are mentioned: Is this requirement indispensable, or is it merely a mitzva?

It was stated: A city

of refuge

that has no elders—

they

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

disputed whether it shelters or not.

One says that it shelters, and one says that it does not shelter.

The Gemara explains the dispute:

According to the one who says that it does not shelter,

his reasoning is

that we require “the elders of the city,” and there are none.

Whereas

according to the one who says that it shelters,

his reasoning is that the requirement for the elders of the city is merely

a mitzva. And

they likewise disputed

with regard to a city without elders, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether the law of a wayward and rebellious son applies there or not:

One says,

although it is stated in the verse [Deuteronomy 21], “the elders of his city,” nevertheless

the law

is

of a wayward and rebellious son

is applied there.

And one says: The law of a wayward and rebellious son is not applied there.

We explain the basis of their dispute:

According to the one who says “

the law of a wayward and rebellious son is not applied there,”

he holds that

we require

the fulfillment of the words of the verse: “And his father and mother shall seize him and bring him out to

the elders of his city.”

And

in this city

there are no

elders of the city, and this requirement is indispensable.

Whereas

according to the one who says “

the law of a wayward son

and rebellious son is applied there,”

what the verse says, “the elders of his city,” is merely

a mitzva,

but does not prevent the procedure from being carried out.

And

they further disputed the law of

a city without elders, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether it brings a heifer whose neck is broken:

One says,

although it has no elders, it

brings a heifer whose neck is broken

if a slain person is found near it, and it is not known who struck him.

And one says: It does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken.

We explain the basis of their dispute:

According to the one who says that it does not bring a heifer whose neck is broken,

he holds that

we require

the fulfillment of the words of the verse [Deuteronomy 21]: “And

the elders of that city

shall take a heifer of the herd,”

and there are none.

According to the one who says

that even if it has no elders it

brings a heifer whose neck is broken,

he holds that “the elders of the city” is stated only as

a mitzva.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: Why was

the passage of

murderers said in the Book of Joshua—