Makkot

that the word miklat [asylum] was inscribed at the parting of the ways so that the [fugitive] manslayer might notice and turn in that direction. Said R. Kahana:1 What is the Scriptural authority for that? Thou shalt prepare thee the way,2 meaning, make you preparation for the road. R. Hama b. Hanina opened his discourse on the theme with this text: Good and upright is the Lord, therefore doth He instruct sinners in the way.3 Now, if He instructs sinners4 how much more so the righteous! R. Simeon b. Lakish opened his discourse [on this theme] with these [two] texts: And if a man lie not in wait, but God cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee,5 and As saith the proverb of the ancients: Out of the wicked cometh forth wickedness; but my hand shall not be upon thee.6 Of whom does the [former] text speak? Of two persons who had slain, one in error and another with intent, there being witnesses in neither case. The Holy One, blessed be He, appoints them both [to meet] at the same inn; he who had slain with intent sits under the step-ladder and he who had slain in error comes down the step-ladder, falls and kills him. Thus, he who had slain with intent is [duly] slain, while he who had slain in error [duly] goes into banishment. 7 Rabbah son of R. Huna reporting Rab Huna8 [some say, R. Huna reporting R. Eleazar]9 said: From the Pentateuch, the Prophets and the Hagiographa it may be shown that one is allowed to follow the road he wishes to pursue.10 From the Pentateuch, as it is written, And God said to Balaam, Thou shalt not go with them11 and then it is written, [If the men came to call thee] rise up and go with them.12 From the Prophets, as it is written, l am the Lord thy God who teacheth thee for thy profit, who leadeth thee by the way that thou shouldest go.13 From the Hagiographa, as it is written, If he is of the scorners, he will [be allowed to] speak scorn and [if] of the meek, he will show forth grace.14 R. Huna said that if a manslayer, on his way into banishment, was met and killed by the avenger, he is acquitted, because, he holds, the clause, and he — not deserving of death,15 refers to the blood-avenger. Thereupon an objection was raised: [It is taught]: The verse, ‘and he — not deserving of death’, is said of the manslayer.16 You say of the manslayer; maybe it refers to the blood-avenger?17 When, however, the text adds also, ‘inasmuch as he hated him not in time past’, you have to take it as referring to the manslayer!18 R. Huna follows another Tanna, as it is taught [in the following]: The clause ‘and he — not deserving of death’ is said of the blood-avenger. You say of the blood-avenger; maybe it refers to the manslayer? When, however, the text adds ‘inasmuch as he hated him not in time past’, the manslayer is already disposed of;19 what then can I make of the clause ‘and he — not deserving of death’ save that it refers to the blood avenger? [Now,] we learn, AND TWO [ORDAINED] SCHOLAR-DISCIPLES WERE DELEGATED TO ESCORT THE MANSLAYER IN CASE ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO SLAY HIM ON THE WAY THAT THEY MIGHT SPEAK TO HIM. What did they say to him? Did they not warn the avenger that if he killed the manslayer he would himself be deserving of death? — No, [not that!] as it is taught, That they might speak unto him appropriate words: they would say: ‘Do not treat him after the manner of shedders of blood; it was but in error that he had a hand in it.’ R. Meir says: He may even himself plead his cause, as it is said, And this is the word [plea] of the slayer.20 They say to the avenger, Much is effected [for Providence] by agents!21 The Master said: ‘It was but in error that he had a hand in it’. Is that not too obvious a plea, because, if he had committed it wilfully, would he be a refugee? — Yes, he would be, as it is taught: R. Jose b. Judah says, that to begin with, every slayer, be it in error or with intent, was first sent forward to [one of] the cities of refuge. The Court then sent and had him brought thence. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime, they had put to death, as it is written, Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.22 Whoever was found not guilty [of murder] they acquitted, as it is said, And the congregation [of judges] shall deliver the slayer out of the hands of the avenger of blood.23 Whoever had incurred banishment, they sent him back to his place [of refuge], as it is said, And the congregation [of judges] shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled.23 Rabbi says [they were not sent in the first instance], they went [there] into banishment of their own accord, thinking that every slayer, whether in error or with intent, was afforded shelter, and they knew not that those cities [only] afforded shelter to those who had slain in error, but to those who had slain with intent, they afforded no shelter. R. Eleazar said24 that a city, the majority of whose denizens were [quondam] slayers, could not [by right] admit fugitives, because [in the ordinance] it is said, And he shall declare his words [cause] in the ears of the elders of that city,25 that is, [declare] his cause, but not a cause like their own. R. Eleazar also said that a city which has no [body of] elders could not [by right] admit fugitives, as the elders of that city25 are required [by the ordinance] and these were not there. It has been stated: The [legal status of the] city which has no elders was discussed by R. Ammi and R. Assi, the one holding It could admit fugitives, the other that it could not. The one who denied it the right of admitting fugitives argued that ‘the elders of the city’ were [an essential] requisite [in the ordinance]25 and these were not there; the other, who accorded it the right of admitting fugitives, argued that it was merely [a statement of] what was requisite generally. The city which has no elders was again discussed by R. Ammi and R. Assi, one holding that a person could [legally] be charged there as ‘a stubborn and rebellious son’, while the other held he could not be. He who denied it the [legal] capacity of receiving the charge of ‘a stubborn and rebellious son’ argued that the elders of his city26 were [an essential] requisite [in the ordinance] and these were not there; while the other, who accorded it the right of receiving the charge of ‘a stubborn and rebellious son’, argued that it was merely [a statement of] what was requisite generally. Further, the city which has no elders was likewise, discussed by R. Ammi and R. Assi, one holding that it had to bring a murder-atoning heifer,27 and the other holding that it had not to bring a murder-atoning heifer. He who said that it had not to bring the murder-atoning heifer, argued that the elders of that city28 were [an essential] requisite [in the ordinance] and these were not there; while the other who maintained that it had to bring a murder-atoning heifer argued that it was merely [a statement of] what was requisite generally. R. Hama b. Hanina remarked: Why was the section of the law of murder his heart is hot and overtake him, because the way is long, and smite him mortally, and he (the manslayer, was (the avenger, is) not deserving of death; inasmuch as he hated him not in time past. The Hebrew and he — not deserving of death may refer to either the manslayer in the first instance, or to the avenger, in the second; hence arise the two opposite interpretations in the following discussion.