Makkot 10b — the Talmud in English

It was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

“Refuge”

was written on

a piece of wood that was fixed at every

crossroads,

where roads divided, one of which led to a city of refuge,

so that the murderer would recognize

which was the road leading to the city of refuge

and turn there.

Rav Kahana said: What is the verse? “

You shall prepare for yourself the road,”

make a preparation for yourself for the road,

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

Rav Hama bar Hanina,

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

opened an opening for this passage from here,

he would begin and precede it with an exposition concerning a good matter, from the words written in the Book of Psalms: “

Good and upright is the Lord.

Therefore He instructs sinners in the way,”

for the verse teaches that a preparation is to be made for the road even for those who murder unintentionally, in order to save them from the blood-avenger [and the verse refers to one who murders unintentionally, for the unintentional are called “sinners” ].

And from here we learn,

if He instructs sinners

the way, for the Holy One, blessed be He, helps them to be saved,

how much more so the righteous,

that He will save them from an evil occurrence.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish opened an opening for this passage from here: “

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

etc.

.

Concerning this the verse said [Samuel II 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

evil emerges!”

etc.

.

The Torah hinted that it is God who “causes” it to come to the hand of the murderer, so that he unintentionally kills this person. For if it happened that a person unintentionally performed such a wicked act, it 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”

speak of? —

Of two people who killed

each, separately,

a person.

One killed unintentionally,

and became liable to exile but did not go into exile.

And one killed intentionally,

but the court could not execute him.

For it is speaking of a situation in which

for this one,

the one who killed unintentionally,

there are no witnesses

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

And in order to bring them to their punishment,

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

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

This one who killed intentionally,

and became liable to death,

sits

in the inn

beneath the ladder,

the staircase,

and this one who killed

unintentionally descends the ladder, and f

a

lls upon him, and k

i

lls him.

Так оба понесут свое наказание.

And thus both of them will come to their punishment.

For

this one who killed intentionally is killed

now.

And this one who killed unintentionally goes into exile

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

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

we learn that

along the way a person wishes to go,

whether for good or for evil,

they lead him,

they assist him from Heaven.

From the Torah, for it is written

in the passage concerning Balak, that at first the Lord said to Balaam: “

You shall not go with them,”

with the officers of Balak who came to ask him to curse Israel.

And it is written

afterward, when Balaam returned and asked the Lord a second time whether he should go with them, that the Lord said to him the opposite: “

Rise, go with them!”

Since Balaam wished to go, they led him from Heaven along the path that he wished to go.

From the Prophets, for it is written

[Isaiah 48]: “

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

Guiding you—

in the way

that you

will go!”

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

From the Writings, for it is written

in the Book of Proverbs [chapter 3]: “

If he joins mockers,”

a person joins them,

he himself will mock!”

They do not restrain him from Heaven; rather, his path will be to mock with them.

And conversely, “

a

if

the humble

he joins—he is assured from Heaven that in the end, through his deeds, he will

find favor

before people.”

Rav Huna said: A murderer who went into exile to a city of refuge, and the blood-avenger found him

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

and killed him, is exempt.

[And see in the notes in what manner the blood-avenger is exempt for this].

Because the verse said: “

He shall flee to one of these cities and live.

Lest the blood-avenger pursue the murderer, because his anger is heated, and overtake him, because the road is long, and strike him mortally.

Yet he has no judgment of death, because he was not his enemy from yesterday and the day before.

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

A

nd he holds,

Rav Huna, that the explanation of the verse is as follows:

Lest the blood-avenger pursue the murderer, overtake him, and strike him mortally.

And the blood-avenger will not fear that the court will punish him, because the words of the verse,

“Yet he has no judgment of death,”

are written concerning the blood-avenger,

and not concerning the one who killed unintentionally.

And only the end of the verse he explains as referring to the murderer, that it is a mitzva to prepare the road for him, because he was not the enemy of the one killed from yesterday and the day before.

And we raise an objection from a beraita:

It was objected

from that which was taught: “

Yet he has no judgment of death” —

Concerning the murderer

who acted unintentionally

the verse speaks,

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

You say that the verse speaks concerning the murderer,

that this verse speaks of him,

or perhaps it

does not

speak except concerning the blood-avenger,

who has no judgment of death if he kills the murderer?

When it says

at the end of the verse, “

because he was not his enemy from yesterday and the day before”—

you must say

that the verse has come to give a reason why he has no judgment of death.

Necessarily,

the verse speaks concerning the murderer,

to say that he has no judgment of death because he killed unintentionally and not out of hatred.

And this is difficult for Rav Huna, who explained the words of the verse “Yet he has no judgment of death” as referring to the blood-avenger.

And we answer:

He,

Rav Huna,

states in accordance with this tanna,

who disagrees with the tanna in the aforementioned beraita.

For it was taught: “

Yet he has no judgment of death”—

the verse speaks concerning the blood-avenger,

for the Torah exempted him if he killed the murderer before he reached his city of refuge.

You say that the verse speaks concerning the blood-avenger, or perhaps it

does not

speak

except concerning the murderer? When it says “

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

the murderer has already been mentioned,

for this reason is stated to explain why the murderer goes into exile and is not killed: because he did not kill out of hatred.

What, then, do I establish,

the superfluous words

“Yet he has no judgment of death”? —

Necessarily,

the verse speaks concerning the blood-avenger.

And therefore Rav Huna learned that a blood-avenger who killed the murderer while he was fleeing to the city of refuge is exempt. For this verse speaks of his first journey to refuge.

And we raise an objection from that which

we learned

in our Mishna: The court

gives him over,

the murderer who acted unintentionally, when he returns from the court to the city of refuge,

two Torah scholars

to accompany him,

lest he kill him,

the blood-avenger,

on the road

from the court to the city of refuge.

And they speak

the Torah scholars

to him,

to the blood-avenger.

What, is it not

the meaning of what the Mishna said, that two Torah scholars will speak to the blood-avenger, that it means

that they warn him,

that the Torah scholars accompanying him warn the blood-avenger,

that if he kills

the murderer—

he is liable to death!

And it is proved from the Mishna that it is not in accordance with Rav Huna.

And we reject this:

No,

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

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 words appropriate

to say

to him,

to the blood-avenger, in order to calm him.

They say to him: Do not treat him in the manner of murderers of blood,

and do not kill him, for

the deed came to his hand unintentionally.

Rabbi Meir says: He,

the murderer,

speaks on his own behalf

to the blood-avenger, asking him not to kill him,

as it is stated, “

And this is the matter of the murderer.”

The Sages said to him,

the Sages said to him:

Many

things that are not done by a person

a messenger does.

For through a messenger, the matters are done and accepted more readily by the other person.

And the Gemara comes to discuss the words of the beraita and explain 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 saying that he killed unintentionally add, in order to calm the blood-avenger?

But

it is obvious

to everyone that he killed him unintentionally and not intentionally! For if he had killed him intentionally, they would not have protected him from the blood-avenger, and they would not have permitted him to go into exile to a city of refuge—

if he killed intentionally

he killed him, and would he be

a son of exile!?

But he is liable to the death penalty imposed by the court.

And we answer:

No,

indeed, the beraita is also speaking of a case in which he killed intentionally, since before he is brought to judgment, 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 for judgment,

one

murderer who killed

unintentionally, and one

murderer who killed

intentionally,

would

hasten

and flee

to the cities of refuge.

And the court

of the city in which they killed him

would send

to the city of refuge

and bring them from there,

and judge them.

Whoever

was determined to have killed intentionally, and

became liable for death—

they killed him,

they permitted the avenger of the blood to kill him.

As it is stated

concerning a murderer who killed intentionally: “

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

And

whoever

was determined in court

not to have become liable

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

they acquitted him.

As it is stated: “

And the assembly shall save the murderer from the hand of the avenger of the blood.”

But

whoever

was determined in court to have killed unintentionally, and

became liable for exile—

they return him to his place

in the city of refuge.

As it is stated

concerning a murderer who killed unintentionally: “

And the assembly shall return him to his city of refuge, to which he fled.”

Rabbi says:

The verse does not intend to say that even a murderer who killed intentionally is first exiled to a city of refuge.

Rather, the murderers are mistaken in this, and

they exile themselves—

thinking

the murderers

that one,

who kills

unintentionally, and one

who murders

intentionally,

the cities of refuge

receive

and save them from punishment.

And they do not know that

only

when he kills unintentionally do they receive him,

but

when he kills intentionally they do not receive him.

And concerning this the Scripture taught that the court should send and take him from there in order to kill him, and 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,

the majority of whose inhabitants are

murderers

unintentionally—

does not receive.

As it is stated [

Joshua 20 ]: “

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

the city of refuge ]

his words.

The Scripture teaches that his words must be in the ears of the elders of the city of refuge, different from the words of the people of the city who hear his words.

That is, the people of the city before whom he speaks his words are not like 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 receive, for we require

that there be in it

“the elders of the city,”

as explained in the verse in the Book of Joshua,

and there is none,

for in a city in which there are no elders this detail is not fulfilled.

And now the Gemara brings that Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi disagreed here and in two places in the Torah—in the passage of the wayward and rebellious son and in the passage of the beheaded heifer—in all of which “the elders of the city” is stated: whether this is indispensable, or merely a mitzva.

It was stated: A city

of refuge

in which there are no elders—

they disagreed,

Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether it receives or does not receive.

One said: It receives, and one said: It does not receive.

The Gemara explains the disagreement:

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

his reason is

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

But

according to the one who says that it receives,

his reason is that the requirement for the elders of the city is only

a mitzva. And

so too

in a city in which there are no elders, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

disagreed whether the law of a “wayward and rebellious son” applies in it or not:

One said,

although it is stated in the Scripture [

Deuteronomy 21 ] “the elders of his city,” nevertheless

the law of

a wayward and rebellious son

is applied there.

is carried out in it.

And we explain the reason for their disagreement:

According to the one who says “

the law of a wayward and rebellious son is not carried out in it,”

he holds that

we require

fulfilling the words of the Scripture: “And his father and his mother shall seize him, and they shall bring him out to

the elders of his city.”

And

in this city

there are none

of the elders of the city, and this matter is indispensable.

But

according to the one who says “

the law of a wayward

and rebellious son is carried out in it,”

what the Scripture said, “the elders of his city,” is only

a mitzva,

but it is not indispensable.

And

they further disagreed concerning the law of

a city in which there are no elders, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

whether it brings a beheaded heifer:

One said,

although there are no elders in it, it

brings a beheaded heifer

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

And one said: It does not bring a beheaded heifer.

And we explain in what they disagreed:

According to the one who says that it does not bring a beheaded heifer,

he holds

we require

fulfilling the words of the Scripture [

Deuteronomy 21 ]: “And

the elders of that city shall take a heifer of cattle,”

and there are none.

According to the one who says

even if there are no elders in it, it

brings a beheaded heifer,

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

a mitzva.

Rabbi Hama bar Hanina said: For what reason was

in the Book of Joshua

the passage of murderers—