Makkot

— [No;] accepting R. Eliezer's point of view, there can be no divergence;1 whereas from R. Joshua's point of view, it may be argued that he who says that the priestly Office died, follows R. Joshua's view; and the other, who says that the priestly Office has become void might explain that R. Joshua considered all the [past] offerings as appropriate [for some special reason] because it is written, Bless, Lord, helo [his substance]2 and accept the work of his hands,3 which [if read as hillo]4 means to include [the work of] even the profane [vulgarized] in his midst; whereas here [in regard to the liberation of refugees] even R. Joshua might admit [that the priestly office is rendered void]. IF HIS TRIAL WAS CONCLUDED . . . [HE MAY NOT GO OUT THENCE... NOT EVEN IF HE BE CAPTAIN OF THE HOST LIKE JOAB B. ZERUIAH . . .] Rab Judah reporting Rab said: At that hour Joab fell into two errors, as it is written, And Joab fled unto the Tent of the Lord and caught hold of the horns of the altar.5 He erred [once], as only the roof of the altar6 affords asylum and he caught hold on its horns; he erred [again], as only the altar of the permanent Temple7 afforded asylum and he caught hold on the altar at Shiloh.8 Abaye observed that he also erred in this respect, that the altar affords asylum only to a priest while engaged in actual service,6 whereas Joab was a lay person. Resh Lakish said that the Prince [Guardian Angel] of Edom [Rome] is destined to fall into three errors, as it is written, Who is this that cometh from Edom with dyed garments from Bozrah?9 He will err [first], as only Bezer affords asylum, but he will betake himself to Bozrah [Bostra];10 he will err [again], as asylum is afforded only to slayers in error, but he slays with intent; and he will err [yet again], as asylum is afforded only to man, but he is an angel! R. Abbahu said that the ‘cities of refuge’11 were not assigned for burial, as it is written, [And the cities shall they have to dwell in] and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle and for their goods and for all their living,12 meaning, assigned [only] for ‘living’ but not for burial.13 An objection was raised: THERE MUST BE HIS ABODE, THERE HIS DEATH, THERE HIS BURIAL. — The case of the slayer is different, because the Divine Law has [distinctly] indicated his [special] treatment. JUST AS THE CITY AFFORDS ASYLUM SO DOES ITS BOUNDARY AFFORD ASYLUM. Against this some cited the following: [It is written,] And he shall abide in it,14 that means, In the city [of refuge] but not in its [outer] bounds?15 — Said Abaye: This is no difficulty; here [in our Mishnah], the point under consideration is [its domain] as an asylum, whereas there, [in the cited passage] it is [its limitation] as a domicile. But is not that [last] point to be derived from the fact that a ‘Field is not turned into suburb, nor suburb into field; nor suburb into city, nor city into suburb’?16 — Said R. Shesheth: [Yes,] but we still need that other statement if only to debar subterranean retreats.17 IF A SLAYER WENT BEYOND THE BOUNDS AND THE BLOOD-AVENGER FELL IN WITH HIM etc. Our Rabbis taught: And the avenger of blood shall slay the manslayer, [there shall be no blood guiltiness for him];18 this means that it is an obligation for the blood-avenger [to slay the vagrant murderer]; if there be no blood-avenger, it is permissible for anyone19 [to do so]: these are the words of R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says [it means] that it is permissible for the blood-avenger, and everyone [else] is [not] responsible for him.20 What is the reason [for the view] of R. Jose the Galilean? — Is it written, if he shall slay him?21 And what is R. Akiba's reason? — Does it say, he shall slay him [yirzah]?22 Mar Zutra b. Tobiah citing Rab said: If a slayer [who) had gone beyond the bounds [of the city of refuge] was met and slain by the avenger of the blood, the latter is slain on that account.23 Whose view does Rab follow? It is in accord with neither R. Jose the Galilean nor with R. Akiba!24 — It is in accord with the view of the following Tanna, as is taught: R. Eliezer says: [that the manslayer die not] until he stand before the Congregation [of judges] for judgment.25 What does this teach? Since it is said, and the avenger of blood shall slay the manslayer,26 one might presume that he [the avenger] may do so forthwith, therefore does the earlier text provide that the manslayer die not until he stand before the Congregation [of judges]27 for judgment.25 And what deductions do R. Jose and R. Akiba obtain from, until he stand before the Congregation? — They require that text for [another ruling], as it is taught: R. Akiba says: Whence may it be shown that, if a Sanhedrin had been eye-witnesses to an act of murder, they cannot themselves have him put to death until he stand for trial before another tribunal? From the instructive text, the manslayer die not until he stand before, the Congregation [of judges] for judgment, [which means, not] until he stood [for trial] before another tribunal.28 Our Rabbis taught: But if the slayer do [verily] come out29 beyond the border of his city of refuge . . . there shall be no blood guiltiness;30 from this I learn, only a case of deliberate egress; whence do I derive that the same law applies for an unintentional strayer? From the instructive double-verb, which implies a coming-out anyway.31 But then, is it not taught [elsewhere], If [the slayer comes out beyond the bounds] deliberately, he32 is slain; if in error, he33 goes into banishment? — This is no difficulty. One [Baraitha]34 is in accordance with the view that the Torah uses [occasionally] popular idiom;35 while the other [Baraitha]36 follows the view that the Torah does not use popular idiom.37 Abaye remarked: It seems logical to take the view that the Torah does [occasionally] use popular idiom, as you could not treat his later act [of accidental straying] more severely than his first act [of accidental killing], arguing: What is the law in his first act? If [the killing was] deliberate, he is slain; if in error [accidental], he goes into banishment. Similarly in his later act [of vagrancy], if the vagrancy was deliberate, he is slain [by the avenger with impunity]; if in error [accidentally], his slayer goes into banishment. It is taught in one [Baraitha]: ‘If a father killed [a son], his [other] son becomes the avenger of blood.’ Again it is taught in another [Baraitha], ‘One's [own] son cannot become the avenger of blood.’ Now, could it be suggested that the first reflects the view of R. Jose the Galilean,38 while the second reflects that of R. Akiba?39 Can this be maintained? For whichever view you take of the avenger's role, whether that of the one who regards it as obligatory, or of him who says it is optional, is it admissible? Did not Rabbah son of R. Huna say, and the same is taught by one of the School of R. Ishmael: Never is a son [to be] commissioned [by the Court] to punish his father, whether it be to inflict a flogging or pronounce a [formal] execration on him, save only in the case of one who entices [another] to idol worship, because there the Torah says neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him . . . [but thou shalt surely kill him,] thine hand shall be first upon him!40 But this [seeming] incongruity is not difficult [to explain]. One [Baraitha]41 treats of a son [against a father], the other42 of a grandson against his grandfather. MISHNAH. IF A TREE STANDING WITHIN THE BOUNDARY HAS ITS BOUGHS EXTENDING BEYOND [THE BOUNDARY]43 OR STANDING WITHOUT THE BOUNDARY HAS ITS BOUGHS EXTENDING WITHIN, IT WHOLLY FOLLOWS44 [THE POSITION OF] THE BOUGHS.45 GEMARA. A point [of difficulty] was raised [from the following]:46 If a tree standing within [the wall of Jerusalem] overhangs outside or standing without overhangs inside — the part which bends over the wall from the wall inwards is considered as within [the wall], and that part which bends over the wall from the wall outwards is considered as without [the wall]? 47 You cannot raise a point from [the law of second] tithes as against the [law of the] cities of refuge! [There is no comparison]. Tithes are associated by the Divine Law with the wall [of the Holy City]48 whereas the cities of refuge are governed [in the Divine law] by [the principle of] domicile.49 Now, it is the boughs that afford shelter of domicile, not the root of a tree. Then the [same] point might be raised from another Baraitha50 regarding [the law of] tithes, where it is taught: In regard to Jerusalem,51 follow the bough: In regard to the cities of refuge, follow the bough!52 — Said R. Kahana: There is no difficulty; one [this latter] citation presents the view of R. Judah, while the other [the former], adopts the view of the Rabbis, as is taught: the blessing of God upon the work of their hands, i.e., his service at the altar, v. Ex. XXXII, 26ff. v, p. 1, nn. 2-3. In Kid. 66b, the explanation given here is ascribed to Abba, Samuel's father. next to (ogn) mine altar, but not from upon (kgn) mine altar (where priests stood while placing the offerings).’ V. Yoma 85a. Sanhedrin sitting with the power to impose capital punishment by due trial, that is to say, a National Altar, not a local one, as prescribed in Deut. XVII, 8-11. Cf. Nahmanides on Num. XXXV, 29. Shiloh was rejected and abandoned at the death of Eli and his sons (cf. I Sam. II, 30-35; Ps. LXXVIII, 60-61); Nob was destroyed by Saul, and the altar at Gibeon was only temporary and local. I Chron. XV, 1, and XVI, 1. V. Zeb, 118b. observations of R. Johanan, J. Mak. II, 6, and stands for all temporary sanctuaries. will be punished. cubits beyond that, available for cultivation, and constituted the bounds of the cities of refuge. V. Num. XXXV, 4-5. the condition set out in verses 26-27, i.e., If the manslayer ventures abroad beyond the bounds of his place of refuge and is caught outside by the avenger, the avenger is to do his duty and kill him. R. Akiba carries the conditional part a little further, namely, If the manslayer ventures abroad . . . and is found outside, and if the avenger (perchance) killed, then no guilt shall attach to the avenger, as the manslayer had run the risk to his own cost. murderer; when he meeteth him, he shall slay him (19), and then again, the avenger of blood shall slay the murderer when he meeteth him (21), that is, anyone. Cf. Sifre on those texts. the condition stated in vv. 26-27. forms of the conditional sentence, if one do so-and-so, then such-and-such is to happen) finds ample illustration in this section, verses 16, 17, 18, 20-21, (yumath) — he shall die. R. Jose's way of reading finds illustration in vv. 22, 23, followed by another form (Perfect) in the apodosis 24, 25. Cf. Lev. XXV, 51 and 52, where the two forms appear side by side, and I Kings I, 52, where both forms are given side by side in the same verse. is not permissible for a stranger to kill the murderer, and yet he is not guilty of murder if he did. similarly if he slays him on coming out beyond the border of the city of refuge. having witnessed the act themselves, their minds are already made up before the trial commences; therefore, there is really no trial. V. R.H. 26a (top). he came out and deliberately exposed himself to danger. two kinds of coming out, intentionally and unintentionally. Cf. B.M. 31a ff; and Malbim, Introduction to Leviticus, No. 38. beyond the bounds, he is considered as outside the bounds. Again, if he sits at the root outside the bounds and the bough extends within, he is considered as within the bounds and is protected. priest and the Levite (cf. Num. XVIII, 24ff.) had been given (of ‘corn, wine and oil’ and other fruits), a further second — tithe was set apart by the owner for himself to be taken to Jerusalem and enjoyed there, or it might be ‘redeemed’, that is, commuted into money which was to be spent there on victuals. (Deut. XIV, 22-26.) Fruits of the second tithe may not be eaten outside Jerusalem without first being redeemed; and when once in Jerusalem they could not be redeemed and taken out again but had to be eaten there as holy food. Cf. infra 19b. walls of the Holy City. others) and probably alludes to Tosef. ‘Ar. V, 7, rather than to Ma'as., III, 10. refuge and the second-tithe as following the same rule. In all cases the tree and its branches follow the root from which they spring and draw their nourishment. In the three specific instances mentioned here also the branch is a deciding factor. are likewise permitted only within the sacred area of the Holy City. Cf. Deut. XII, 7, 12-15; 20ff.