Makkot 9b — the Talmud in English

For ostensibly the answer is difficult: is it specifically

the wife of a prophet who must be returned to him

, whereas if she were the wife of a man

who is not a prophet

she would not be returned!?

Rather,

the verse certainly came to teach us

as Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said.

For Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: this is what the Holy One, blessed is He, said to him

to Abimelech: “

And now, return the man’s wife,”

in any event,

whether he is a prophet or whether he is an ordinary man.

And

regarding what

you said: “

Will you even kill a righteous nation?

Did he not say to me, ‘She is my sister,’”

and so forth—

your answer is, Abraham,

he is a prophet, and he learned from you

that he must give you a misleading answer, that Sarah is his sister.

For Abraham reflected on what the people of Abimelech had asked him about his wife when he came to Gerar, and wondered to himself:

Behold, an

innkeeper’s guest,

a visitor,

who comes to a city—

he is asked about matters of eating,

whether he needs to eat or drink.

Surely

or

do they ask him:

Is the woman who is with you

your wife

or is

this

woman

your sister

or is

this so?

And since they asked him improperly about Sarah, because they had not learned proper conduct, he did not tell them the whole truth, since he was afraid lest they kill him. And through this Abimelech almost came to the sin of intercourse with a married woman.

Therefore the Holy One, blessed is He, said to him that he is not considered righteous, because the reason that he did not know that Sarah was Abraham’s wife was the result of his not having learned proper conduct.

From here

we learn

that a ben Noach

who erred and transgressed because he thought that this act was permitted does not have the exemption of an inadvertent offender; rather, he

is killed

for his act as though he had done it deliberately, because

he should have learned

that his act was a transgression,

but he did not learn.

Mishna:

A blind person

who killed a person inadvertently

does not go into exile; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: He goes into exile.

And their source will be explained in the Gemara.

One who hates

who killed the person whom he hates

does not go into exile.

Rabbi Yosei says: One who hates

who killed the person whom he hates

is killed, because he is like one who has been warned.

For the matter is considered as though he killed him at a time when he had been warned not to kill him, because if he killed him, it is certain to us that he did so knowingly and not inadvertently.

Rabbi Shimon says: There is one who hates who goes into exile, and there is one who hates who does not go into exile,

and he is not killed either.

This is the rule

according to Rabbi Shimon:

every

case of killing carried out by one who hates in a manner

that he can

[that is, we can]

say

that

he killed knowingly

does not go into exile,

because he is suspect of having killed him knowingly.

But in a situation in which this killing was certainly

not knowingly carried out

this is

the person who hates

who goes into exile.

goes into exile.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: It is stated in the passage concerning those who go into exile [Numbers 35], “

without seeing.”

And it implies that in this case he killed because he did not see, but ordinarily he does see.

We learn from here to exclude—

except for a blind person; these are the words of Rabbi Judah.

except for a blind person; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says:

we expound it in the opposite manner: “

without seeing”—

to include a blind person!

And as he explains below.

The Gemara explains that they disagree concerning the form of the derivation:

What is Rabbi Judah’s reason

who exempts a blind person from exile?

As it is written: “

And one who comes upon his fellow in the forest,”

and it implies every person,

even a blind person.

Therefore

it came—the surplus in the words “

without seeing”—

and

it excluded him,

excluding a blind person, to say that he is not included among those liable to exile.

And

if

Rabbi Meir

were to expound to make a blind person liable, since indeed from the body of the verse “And one who comes upon his fellow in the forest” it implies inclusion of a blind person, we therefore expound that the words

“without seeing”

came

to exclude

a blind person and exempt him.

But since it is stated again

“without knowledge,”

and it implies

to exclude

a blind person who does not see and does not know that, while chopping wood, he is killing his fellow,

this is exclusion after exclusion.

And

it is an established principle for us that “

there is no exclusion after exclusion—

except to include”!

And

on the other hand,

Rabbi Judah,

who did not learn from this to include, held that from the words “

without knowledge” we do not expound to exclude a blind person; rather,

it came to exclude one who intends

to kill:

it is this that it came

to exclude, for one who kills intentionally does not go into exile!

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei says: One who hates is killed, and so forth.

And we ask: How do we kill him because he certainly killed deliberately?

But the witnesses did not warn him

before he killed!

And we answer:

The Mishna,

our Mishna, is not according to the ordinary Rabbi Yosei [who is Rabbi Yosei ben Halafta], but according to

Rabbi Yosei bar Judah.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yosei bar Judah says: A haber—

does not require a warning,

for he is killed on the basis of witnesses who testified that he transgressed, because he certainly acted deliberately, since he knows the laws.

And he does not require a warning

because a warning is given

by witnesses

only

in order

to distinguish between an inadvertent act and a deliberate act,

so that the defendant cannot say that he did not know that it was forbidden. But if it is clear to the witnesses that the transgression was committed by him deliberately, the perpetrator is liable for its punishment even though he was not warned not to commit it.

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Shimon says: There is one who hates who goes into exile, and so forth. It was taught: How

so that the accused cannot say that he did not know that the act was prohibited. But if it is clear to the witnesses that he committed the transgression intentionally, the perpetrator is liable for its punishment even though he was not warned not to commit it.

that is, in what manner,

did Rabbi Shimon say: There is one who hates who goes into exile and there is one who hates who does not go into exile?

The rope was severed,

and the object that had been tied to it fell upon the person whom he hated and killed him; he

goes into exile,

because it cannot be said that he acted intentionally, since the matter was not dependent on him.

But if

the rope slipped

from his hand and the object tied to it fell upon the person whom he hated and killed him, he

does not go into exile,

because it is possible to say that he dropped it intentionally, because of his hatred for the one who was killed.

And the Gemara raises a contradiction to this from another beraita:

But was it not taught: Rabbi Shimon says: He never goes into exile,

neither one who loves nor one who hates,

until his maḥatzel slips

from

his hand, since liability for exile applies only when it slips from his hand and not when it is severed.

It is difficult: “it was severed” regarding “it was severed,”

for in the first beraita it implies that one who hates goes into exile when it was severed, whereas in the second beraita it implies that when it was severed, he is like one under duress, and there is no obligation of exile at all.

And likewise,

“it slipped” regarding “it slipped” is difficult,

for in the first beraita it implies that when it slipped, one who hates does not go into exile, whereas in the second beraita it implies that he does go into exile.

And we answer [the version of Rashi]:

“it slipped” regarding “it slipped” is not difficult.

This

that was taught in the second beraita, that he goes into exile, refers

to one who loves,

for we do not suspect that he killed intentionally.

Whereas

this

that was taught in the first beraita, that he does not go into exile, refers

to one who hates,

as explicitly stated in the beraita.

And likewise,

“it was severed” regarding “it was severed” is not difficult.

This,

the second beraita, which states that when it was severed he does not go into exile, is according to

Rabbi,

who said that when the iron slipped from its handle he does not go into exile, and the same is true when the rope was severed from his hand. For Rabbi’s reason is that he goes into exile only when the entire striking implement left his hand, as when his maḥatzel slipped, or in a situation where the wood being split flew off, which is not part of the implement in his hand.

And according to Rabbi’s method, according to Rabbi Shimon, who says that one who hates goes into exile only when it was severed, we do not find a situation in which one who hates would go into exile, since according to Rabbi there is exemption when it was severed.

Whereas

this,

the first beraita, which says that when it was severed he goes into exile, is according to

the Rabbis,

who disagreed and held that when the iron slipped from its handle he goes into exile; according to them, both one who loves and one who hates go into exile when the rope was severed.

Mishna:

To where do those who kill inadvertently

go into exile?—

To the cities of refuge—

To three

cities

that are across the Jordan, and to three

cities

that are in the land of Canaan.

As it is stated: “

You shall give three cities across the Jordan, and you shall give three cities in the land of Canaan,”

and so forth.

Until the three cities in the Land of Israel were selected as cities of refuge, throughout all fourteen years of the conquest and division of the Land of Israel,

As it is stated: “

You shall give three cities across the Jordan, and you shall give three cities in the land of Canaan,”

and so on.

the three

cities that Moses designated for refuge

across the Jordan did not receive.

As it is stated: “

There shall be six cities of refuge,”

until

all six of them receive at once.

And they direct roads for them from one to another, straight and properly prepared roads were made from each city to a city of refuge, so that the killer would not lose his way or encounter an obstacle in his flight, as it is stated: “

As it is stated: “

There shall be six cities of refuge,”

until

all six of them provide refuge together.

You shall prepare for yourself the road and divide,”

and so forth. And they provide them to the killers, after their judgment has been completed that they must go into exile, two Torah scholars who accompany them on the road from the court to the city of refuge, because

as it is stated: “

You shall prepare the way for yourself and divide it into three,”

and so on.

perhaps the blood-avenger will kill him

on the road, and they will speak to him

not to kill him, since this act came upon him inadvertently and he is not a spiller of blood.

to accompany them on the road from the court to the city of refuge, because

perhaps the blood avenger will kill him

on the way,

and they will speak to him

Rabbi Meir says:

The Torah scholars who accompany him do not need to speak on his behalf; rather, he speaks on his own behalf. As it is stated: “ And this is the matter of the killer.”

And in the Gemara [10b] the reason for their dispute is explained.

Rabbi Yosei bar Judah says: At first,

at the beginning of every killer’s trial, before he comes to court, both

a killer who acted

inadvertently and one who acted deliberately hasten

and flee

to the cities of refuge, and the court

in his city

sends and brings him from there

to judge him in his city, and then—

unintentionally and one who acted intentionally hasten

and flee

to the cities of refuge, and the court

in his city

sends for him and brings him from there

to judge him in his city, and then—

Whoever

killed intentionally, with witnesses and warning, and

became liable to death in court—

they killed him.

And

whoever

did not become liable to death

but was found innocent—

they released him.

Whoever

killed unintentionally and

became liable to exile—

they return him to his place,

to the city of refuge from which he was brought for judgment.

As it is stated: “

And the congregation shall return him to his city of refuge

to which he fled.”

Gemara:

The Sages taught

in the Tosefta:

Moses separated three cities

designated

across the Jordan.

And corresponding to them Joshua separated

three cities

in the land of Canaan.

And they were aligned

these opposite those, in two rows,

like two rows in a vineyard,

and these are they:

Hebron

which is

in Judah—

was

opposite,

facing

Bezer,

which was a city of refuge

in the wilderness,

across the Jordan, east of the Land of Israel.

Shechem

which is

in the hill country of Ephraim—

was

opposite Ramoth in Gilead.

Kedesh

which is

in the hill country of Naphtali—

was

opposite Golan in Bashan.

And the verse says: “

And you shall divide into thirds

the border of your land,” and we derive:

that they should be divided into thirds!

And that is:

that there should be

an equal distance

from the

border

of the south

of the Land of Israel to

Hebron—

like

the distance that there is

from Hebron to Shechem.

And

so that the distance should likewise be equal

from Hebron to Shechem—

like

the distance

from Shechem to Kedesh,

which is in the north.

And from Shechem to Kedesh, like

the distance that there is

from Kedesh to the

border

of the north.

And we raise an objection: How is it possible that

across the Jordan,

where there were only two and a half tribes, they made

three

cities of refuge, and likewise

in the Land of Israel

they made

three

cities of refuge, even though there were nine and a half tribes there!?

Abaye said:

Across the Jordan they needed more cities of refuge, since we find that

in Gilead,

which is across the Jordan,

murderers are common.