Makkot 12b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda says

with regard to the eating of Second Tithe -

In a cave,

which is within the boundary of Jerusalem and whose opening is outside the city, or a cave outside Jerusalem whose opening is within the city -

follow its opening,

and the law of the entire hollow of the cave depends on the place of the opening, and not on the place of the cave.

With regard to a tree

standing at the boundary of the city -

follow its foliage.

And since we have proved that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the first difficulty of the Gemara is also resolved. Since our Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda, while the Mishna in tractate Second Tithe, which says that each part of a tree is judged according to its location, follows the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. If so, there is again no need for the earlier distinction that Second Tithe depends on the wall, whereas the law of cities of refuge depends on residence; rather, the law of the tree both with regard to cities of refuge and with regard to Second Tithe is identical, and both are subject to the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

And we raise a difficulty: What proof is there from what Rabbi Yehuda said concerning the law of eating Second Tithe in Jerusalem, “with regard to a tree, follow its foliage,” that this is his position with regard to every tree standing at the boundary? And how is it proved that the Mishna in tractate Tithes, which says that one follows the foliage both with regard to Second Tithe and with regard to cities of refuge, reflects Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion?

But it is apparent that one can distinguish and say:

Perhaps you heard Rabbi Yehuda say this with regard to Second Tithe

that one follows the foliage, meaning specifically that in every direction we follow it

stringently -

For if

its principal is outside and its foliage is inside,

there is a stringency in following the foliage, and the matter is considered as though it stands entirely in Jerusalem, with regard to making it unfit for redemption.

Just as, with regard to its foliage, he cannot redeem it,

he cannot redeem the Second Tithe there, since Second Tithe may not be redeemed after it has been caught within the walls of Jerusalem -

so too, with regard to its principal, he cannot redeem it.

For with regard to this matter it is considered as though it stands inside—but not with regard to the Second Tithe being eaten even from its principal, which is outside the wall.

And likewise, in the opposite arrangement there is a stringency in following the foliage:

For if

its principal is uprooted inside and its foliage is outside,

they are stringent concerning its principal with regard to eating,

for just as, with regard to its foliage, he cannot eat it without redemption,

since it is outside Jerusalem,

so too, with regard to its principal, he cannot eat it without redemption,

for it is as though it were located outside Jerusalem.

And since he cannot redeem it there, because it is in Jerusalem, nor can he eat it there without redemption, since it is as though it were outside Jerusalem, he has no possibility of eating it unless he redeemed it before it entered Jerusalem, or unless he brings it into Jerusalem.

If so, one may say that Rabbi Yehuda followed the foliage in the tree only with regard to Second Tithe—stringently in every direction.

Rather, with regard to cities of refuge,

whose laws are also stated in the Mishna in tractate Tithes, that one follows the foliage, from where do we know that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? For it is impossible to be stringent in a city of refuge in every case, since if its principal is inside and its foliage is outside, it is possible only to be lenient with regard to it.

For

granted

that if

its principal is outside and its foliage is inside,

it is possible to be stringent and say:

just as, with regard to its foliage, he cannot kill him,

the blood avenger cannot kill the murderer, since he is caught within a city of refuge,

so too, with regard to its principal, he cannot

the blood avenger

kill him.

Rather,

in a situation where

its principal is inside and its foliage is outside,

and he is located on the principal, it is possible to say only that it is lenient:

just as, with regard to its foliage,

which is located outside,

he can kill him, with regard to its principal,

which is located inside,

so too, he can kill him.

And from where do you know this?! Since he is located on its principal -

he is standing inside,

he is located within the city of refuge; how can we permit killing him within his city of refuge?

If so, we have no source or basis for the answer to the contradiction between the Mishnayot, that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagreed about this. For Rabbi Yehuda did not state his law leniently!

Rava said,

the distinction that Rav Kahana stated, to resolve the contradiction between the Mishnayot, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagreed, is indeed correct.

And what we challenged, that we find in Rabbi Yehuda’s words that one follows the foliage only stringently, is also correct.

And with regard to Second Tithe, we find a stringency in every direction, as explained above.

And with regard to a city of refuge, there is also a stringent aspect when its foliage is inside: it is forbidden to kill the murderer sitting on its principal outside.

But even when its foliage is outside, where Rabbi Yehuda said that one follows the foliage, his intention is not to be entirely lenient and say that it is permitted to kill the murderer if he is sitting on the trunk within the city.

For if the murderer is located inside, while sitting

on the principal

of the tree -

everyone agrees that he cannot

the blood avenger

kill him,

for he is caught inside the city, and one does not treat the principal as following the foliage leniently, as explained.

And conversely, if

he is standing,

the murderer is located

on its foliage,

which is outside the city,

and the blood avenger can

the blood avenger

kill him with arrows and stones

from his place of standing outside the city -

everyone agrees that he can

the blood avenger

kill him,

for there is no one who holds that the foliage follows the principal in order to save him.

When do they disagree,

Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis? Whether one follows the foliage outside; that is, whether this means that we permit the blood avenger

to be

to use the

principal

of the tree located inside as

a ladder for its foliage,

in order to climb upon it.

Is the blood avenger permitted to climb onto the trunk standing inside the city and use it as a ladder in order to kill the murderer sitting on the foliage outside the city?

One master,

Rabbi Yehuda,

holds: the principal is a ladder for the foliage.

For one follows the foliage leniently, permitting the killing of the murderer. For we are not being so lenient as to say that the principal is considered to follow the foliage; rather, each one stands independently, and the blood avenger merely uses the principal to assist in killing the murderer on the foliage, who is not in the city of refuge.

And one master,

the Rabbis,

hold: the principal is not a ladder for the foliage.

And he is not permitted to use the principal of the tree standing inside.

Rav Ashi said

that he too holds that our Mishna and the Mishna in tractate Tithes follow Rabbi Yehuda, who follows the foliage stringently.

And there will be no difficulty:

What is the meaning of “follow the foliage”,

which Rabbi Yehuda said even with regard to cities of refuge, where a leniency is relevant when its foliage is outside?

For his intention is to say that one follows

even after the foliage.

That is, when its principal is outside and its foliage is inside, one follows the foliage stringently, so that one may not kill him even though he is sitting outside the city.

But if its foliage is outside and its principal is inside, one truly follows the principal, and he cannot kill him even on its foliage outside, for one always follows stringently, whether after the foliage or after the principal.

And it is a novelty that even if we say that in all the laws of the Torah one follows the principal, and therefore when its principal is inside and its foliage is outside he cannot kill him because its principal is inside, nevertheless Rabbi Yehuda must teach the novelty that with regard to cities of refuge there is a case in which one follows even after the foliage, stringently—when only the foliage is inside, in which case it is forbidden to kill the murderer even if he is sitting on the principal outside!

Mishna:

A. A murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge, and then

killed

unintentionally

in that same city -

is exiled

within the city

from neighborhood to neighborhood.

For he cannot leave the city, because of the obligation of exile for the first killing.

B.

And a Levite

who is one of the city’s inhabitants, and killed unintentionally,

is exiled from the city

in which he lived

to another

city of refuge

,

since he is obligated to go into exile only for this killing.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is written, “

And I shall designate for you a place

to which he shall flee.” The Holy One, blessed be He, promised Moses - “

And I shall designate for you” -

in your lifetime!

that he would merit designating during his lifetime the three cities of refuge across the Jordan, and fulfilling this mitzva. “

A place,”

implies that it is connected to “for you” -

in your place!

that Moses’ place would be a city of refuge. That is, the camp of the Levites in the wilderness, and likewise the cities of the Levites in the Land, would be cities of refuge; and likewise the cities of refuge would be cities for the Levites. “

To which he shall flee” -

teaches that Israel exiled

the unintentional murderers

in the wilderness.

And

where

were they

exiled

in the wilderness? But there were no cities of refuge in the wilderness!

Rather, they were exiled

to the camp of the Levites.

From here they said,

since this verse contains an additional meaning in “And I shall designate for you a place,” namely, that a Levite too has a place of exile -

A Levite

who resides in one of the cities of refuge,

who killed

a person unintentionally -

is exiled from district to district,

that is, to another city.

And if he was exiled to his district -

his district provides him refuge [

and see the notes concerning where he killed and how he is caught, for the early authorities disagreed about this].

Rav Aha son of Rav Ika said: What is the verse

that indicates that he may move within his city from one neighborhood to another? For we derive it from the redundancy of the verse:

“For in his city of refuge he shall dwell”.

The verse could have said, “For there he shall dwell,” but it comes to teach us that he is also sheltered in

a city that had already sheltered him, the like thereof

[according to the Bach, who read these words here and not at the beginning of the following Mishna. And see Tosafot Yom Tov].

Mishna:

A murderer who was exiled to his city of refuge, and the people of the city wished to honor him, shall say to them

“I am a murderer!”

And if

they say to him, “Nevertheless,”

we wish to honor you,

he shall accept from them

the honor that they bestow upon him.

As it is stated:

“And this is the matter of the murderer.”

The verse teaches that the murderer must speak and reveal the fact that he is a murderer, so that they will not honor him in error.