Makkot 12b (יב:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yehuda says

with regard to eating second tithe:

In a cave,

which is within the boundary of Jerusalem but whose opening is outside the city, or a cave outside Jerusalem whose opening is inside the city—

follow its opening,

and the status of every hollow within the cave depends on the location of its opening, not on the location of the cave.

With regard to a tree

standing at the city boundary—

follow its foliage.

Once we have demonstrated that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, the Gemara’s initial difficulty is also resolved. Since our Mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda, while the Mishna in Tractate Second Tithe, which states that each part of a tree is judged according to its location, follows the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, there is no longer any need for the earlier distinction that second tithe depends on the wall, whereas the law of the cities of refuge depends on dwelling. Rather, the law of a tree, both with regard to the cities of refuge and with regard to second tithe, is the same in both cases, and both statements reflect the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis.

We challenge this: What proof is there from Rabbi Yehuda’s statement 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 a boundary? And how can it be demonstrated that the Mishna in Tractate Tithes, which states that one follows the foliage both with regard to second tithe and with regard to the cities of refuge, follows Rabbi Yehuda?

For it is evident that one can distinguish and say:

Perhaps you heard Rabbi Yehuda say this with regard to second tithe

only because in that case we follow it in every direction

stringently.

For if

its principal part is outside and its foliage is inside,

there is a stringency in following the foliage, so that it is considered to stand entirely in Jerusalem and is not fit for redemption.

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

he cannot redeem the second tithe there, since second tithe cannot be redeemed once it has been enclosed within the walls of Jerusalem—

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

For this purpose it is considered to stand inside. [But this does not mean that the second tithe may be eaten even from the principal part of the tree that is outside the wall.]

Likewise, in the opposite case there is a stringency in following the foliage:

If

its principal part is inside and its foliage is outside,

the principal part is treated stringently 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 part he cannot eat it without redemption,

for it is considered to be outside Jerusalem.

Since he cannot redeem it there, because it is in Jerusalem, and he also cannot eat it there without redemption, since it is considered to be outside Jerusalem, he has no way to eat it unless he redeemed it before it entered Jerusalem, or unless he brings it into Jerusalem.

Accordingly, one may say that only with regard to second tithe did Rabbi Yehuda follow the foliage of a tree—stringently in either direction.

However, with regard to the cities of refuge,

whose laws are also stated in the Mishna in Tractate Tithes as following the foliage, from where do we know that this is Rabbi Yehuda’s position? It cannot be that the law of a city of refuge is stringent in every case, since when its principal part is inside and its foliage is outside, it can only be applied leniently.

For

granted

that if

its principal part is outside and its foliage is inside,

it is possible to be stringent and say:

Just as with regard to its foliage the blood redeemer cannot kill him,

the accidental killer, since he is absorbed within the city of refuge,

so too, with regard to its principal part the blood redeemer cannot

kill him,

either.

But

in a case where

its principal part is inside and its foliage is outside,

and he is situated on the principal part, it is possible to say only that the law is lenient:

Just as with regard to its foliage,

which is outside,

he can kill him, so too, with regard to its principal part,

which is inside,

he can kill him.

But how can you say this? Since he is situated on the principal part—

he is standing inside—

he is within the city of refuge. How can we permit him to kill him inside his city of refuge?

If so, we have no source or basis for resolving the contradiction between the two Mishnayot by saying that Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree concerning this matter. For Rabbi Yehuda did not state his law as a leniency!

Rava said:

The distinction stated by Rav Kahana to resolve the contradiction between the Mishnayot, namely, that they reflect the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, is indeed correct.

And what we challenged—that we do not find in Rabbi Yehuda’s words that one follows the foliage except stringently—is also correct.

With regard to second tithe, we find a stringency in either direction, as explained above.

And with regard to a city of refuge, there is also a dimension of stringency when the foliage is inside: it is prohibited to kill the accidental killer sitting on the principal part outside.

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

For if the killer is inside, sitting

on the principal part

of the tree—

everyone agrees that the blood redeemer cannot

kill him,

him,

since he is absorbed within the city, and we do not cause the principal part to follow the foliage as a leniency, as explained.

Conversely, if

he is standing—

the killer is found

on its foliage,

which is outside the city,

and

the blood redeemer

can kill him with arrows and stones

from his position outside the city, —

everyone agrees that he can

kill him,

him,

for no one maintains that the foliage follows the principal part in order to save him.

They disagree

—Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis—whether one follows the foliage when it is outside, meaning, whether we permit the blood redeemer

to be

to use the

principal part

of the tree, which is inside, as

a ladder for its foliage,

in order to climb it.

The question is whether the blood redeemer may climb onto the trunk standing inside the city and use it as a ladder in order to kill the killer sitting on the foliage outside the city.

One master—

Rabbi Yehuda—

holds: The principal part is a ladder for its foliage.

One follows the foliage leniently, permitting the killer to be killed. For we are not being so lenient as to say that the principal part is considered to follow the foliage; rather, each remains in its own place, and the blood redeemer merely uses the principal part to assist him in killing the killer on the foliage, who is not in the city of refuge.

And one master—

the Rabbis—

holds: The principal part is not a ladder for its foliage.

He is not permitted to use the principal part of the tree standing inside.

Rav Ashi said

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

And it will not be difficult:

What is the meaning of “follow the foliage”,

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

For his intention is to say that one follows

even after the foliage.

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

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

This is a novel point: even if we say that throughout the laws of the Torah one follows the principal part, and therefore, when its principal part is inside and its foliage is outside, he cannot kill him because its principal part is inside, Rabbi Yehuda nevertheless must teach that with regard to the cities of refuge there is a case in which one follows even the foliage stringently—when only the foliage is inside, in which case it is prohibited to kill the killer even if he is sitting on the principal part outside!

Mishna:

1. A killer 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 his obligation of exile for the first killing.

2.

A Levite

who is one of the city’s residents and killed unintentionally

is exiled from the city

where he lives

to another

city of refuge

,

since he is obligated to undergo 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 on the other side of the Jordan and fulfilling this mitzva. “

A place”—

the wording indicates that it refers back to “for you”:

in your place!

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

To which he shall flee”—

this teaches that the Israelites exiled

accidental killers

in the wilderness.

And

where

did they

exile

them in the wilderness? There were no cities of refuge in the wilderness!

Rather, they were exiled

to the Levite camp.

From here they said,

since this verse contains an additional meaning in the words “And I shall designate for you a place,” namely, that a Levite too has a place to which he may be exiled—

A Levite

who resides in one of the cities of refuge

who killed

a person unintentionally—

is exiled from district to district,

meaning, to another city.

And if he was exiled to his district—

his district provides him refuge [See the notes concerning where he killed and how he is absorbed, as the early authorities disagree about this].

[see the notes concerning where he killed and how he is absorbed there, since the early authorities disagree on this matter].

Rav Aha, son of Rav Ika, said: What is the verse that indicates that he may be exiled within his own city, from one neighborhood to another?

We derive it from the superfluous wording of the verse,

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

Scripture could have said, “For there he shall dwell”; rather, it comes to teach us that he is also taken in by

a city that has already taken him in, as in this case [

According to the Bach, who had these words here rather than at the beginning of the following Mishna. See also Tosafot Yom Tov].

Mishna:

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

I am a murderer!” .

And if

they say to him, “Nevertheless,”

we wish to honor you,

he may accept from them

the honor they accord him.

As it is stated:

“And this is the matter of the murderer.”

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