Makkot

OR WHILE GOING UP A LADDER HE FELL DOWN AND KILLED SOMEBODY, HE DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT. THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHENEVER THE DEATH WAS CAUSED IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT, HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT, BUT IF IT IS CAUSED NOT IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT, HE DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT. GEMARA. What is the [Scriptural] authority for these [distinctions]? — Said Samuel: It is prescribed, or . . . he let it fall upon him so that he died,1 [meaning that one has not to go into banishment] until something fell in a downward movement. Our Rabbis taught: [That killeth any person] by error,2 precludes anyone that killed with full knowledge; [whoso killeth . . .] unawares,3 precludes anyone that killed with intent. ‘By error...precludes anyone that killed with full knowledge’. — Is that not obvious [without ‘stressing the text]? Such a one is ‘the son of Death’! — Said Rabbah: I would suggest that it is to preclude a case where one pleads that he thought he was permitted to kill [that person]. Said Abaye to Rabbah: If [as you suggest], he thought that he had a right to kill, then [surely], he is a victim of mischance! — [No], replied Rabbah, because I consider anyone pleading that he thought it permissible [to kill] closely akin to a wilful [murderer]. ‘Whoso killeth . . . unawares . . . precludes anyone that killed with intent’ — Is not that obvious? Such a one is ‘the son of Death’! — Said Rabbah: I would suggest that it is to meet such cases as when he intended to kill an animal, but killed a man;4 to kill a heathen,5 but killed an Israelite; to kill a premature-born, 6 but killed a fully-developed infant. Our Rabbis taught: if . . . suddenly,7 precludes [from refuge] anyone [killing through rushing precipitately] round a corner;8 without enmity, precludes an adversary; he thrusts him, means with his body;9 or have cast upon him, includes [an accident resulting from] a downward motion as a prerequisite of an upward swing; without laying of wait,10 precludes an intended throw in one direction which swerved to another. And if a man lie not in wait,11 precludes anyone who intended to throw an object a distance of two ells, but made it go four ells. And as a man goeth into the wood with his neighbour,12 [provides here a standard. For] what is the nature of this forest? It is a domain affording [free] access to the injured as well as to the injurer.13 In like manner every place [of injury] must be a domain of free access to the injured as to the injurer [to involve liability for injury]. R. Abbahu asked R. Johanan: If while a person is going up a ladder, a rung giving way under him comes down and kills somebody, how would this be taken? Was the death to be considered [a result] of an upward or a downward movement?14 — He replied: You have indeed laid your finger on [an accident resulting from] a downward motion as a prerequisite of an upward movement. To this R. Abbahu objected [from the Mishnah]: THIS IS THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE: WHENEVER THE DEATH WAS CAUSED IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT, HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT, BUT IF [CAUSED] NOT IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT, HE DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT. Now, [what kind of case would be included in the general] terms of the latter principle — BUT IF [CAUSED] NOT IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT . . . if not an instance of this kind? — [R. Johanan replied:] Following your opinion, what instance would you include in the general terms of the first principle — WHENEVER. . . IN THE COURSE OF A DOWNWARD MOVEMENT . . . ? [You could give] but one, namely, that of a butcher; and that instance is also within the terms of the latter principle, as it is taught: If a butcher whilst chopping meat killed somebody [there are four different versions of the case]. Version A15 has it: If he killed a person in front of him, he is liable to go into banishment; if behind, he is exempt. Version B: If behind him, he is to go into banishment; if in front, he is exempt. Version C: Whether in front of him or behind, he is to go into banishment. Version D: Whether in front of him or behind, he is exempt. And [continued R. Johanan], it is really not difficult [to explain these diversities], thus: In Version A: If he killed in front by a downward stroke [he goes into banishment]; if behind him by an upward swing [of the chopper], he is exempt.16 In Version B: If he killed in front of him by the upward swing [he is exempt]; if behind him, by the downward [back] movement [he goes into banishment].17 In Version C: If he killed either in front or behind him by the downward movement [he goes into banishment]; and in Version D.’ If he killed either in front or behind him by the upward swing [he is exempt].18 May we say that this question has already been disputed by Tannaim: If while a person is going up a ladder and a rung gave way under him . . . Version A has it that he is liable, and Version B that he is exempt? Is not the point at issue between them this, that one Master considers it a downward movement, and the other an upward movement? — Not necessarily; it may be that all agree in considering it an upward movement, and yet it is not difficult [to explain the discrepancy]: Version A refers to his liability in damages,19 Version B, to his liability of banishment. And, if you prefer, I might even suggest that both versions refer to banishment,20 and it is not difficult [to find an explanation]: Version A refers to a case where the rung was worm-eaten,21 while Version B to where it was not worm-eaten. Nay, if you prefer, I might even suggest that it was not worm-eaten, and still it is not difficult [to explain]: Version B refers to a case where the rung was fixed tightly, while Version A refers to where it was not fixed tightly.21 MISHNAH. IF THE IRON SLIPPED FROM ITS HELVE22 AND KILLED [SOMEBODY], RABBI SAYS HE DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT AND THE SAGES SAY HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT; IF FROM THE SPLIT LOG,23 RABBI SAYS HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT, AND THE SAGES SAY HE DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT. GEMARA. It is taught: Rabbi said to the Sages: Does the text read, and the iron slippeth from its tree [wood]?24 It reads only, from the tree. Moreover,25 the tree occurs twice in the same text, and just as in the first instance26 the reference is to the tree that is being hewn, so is the reference in the second instance27 to the tree that is being hewn. R. Hiyya b. Ashi28 observed that Rab had said that both sides based their views on a different interpretation of the same text, namely, and the iron slippeth from the tree;24 Rabbi maintains that the Masorah [the traditional text unvocalized],29 is determinant [in Biblical exposition] and we may as well read the word as ve-nishshal [and . . . was hurled away],30 and the Rabbis, on the other hand, maintain that Mikra [the text as habitually read] is determinant31 [in exposition] and here we have but ve-nashal32 [and . . . slipped]. But does Rabbi actually maintain that the Masorah is determinant [in exposition]? not and let it fall upon him, that he die . . . Num. XXXV, 22ff. 15. Scriptural law of refuge, v. B.K. (Sonc. ed.) p. 253, n. 6.] inadequate as affording neither atonement nor protection against the avenger.] wait, Num. XXXV, 22. banishment, the man's movement or that of the rung? caused by him through inadvertence or culpable negligence; man is held ‘constantly forewarned’ — v. B.K. 26a. entailing banishment. not go into banishment, i.e., he is not to be given the benefit of asylum (but must evade the avenger as best he can; V. Maim. Yad Rozeah, VI, 4). to the Rabbis, no atonement in exile (v. Maim, ibid. VI, 3), as it is a secondary force (v. Gemara) with no element of neglect in this strange unforeseen accident (Han. Cf. Rashi and Jer. Targum Deut., a.l.). with the axe) to cut down the tree and the iron slippeth from the tree . . . he shall flee . . . From its tree (lit., ‘wood’) might mean from its helve, but from the tree is open to another interpretation, namely, a rebound from the tree. mentioned in the same context. Synagogue; thus the same consonants might be read in several ways, often giving rise to different meanings, e.g. ckv and ckv and similarly kabu and kabu as suggested here in the discussion. XXVI, 62. The root is found to have both a transitive meaning (Deut. VII, 22, cast away the nations; also, cast off thy shoe, Ex. III, 5), and an intransitive meaning (Deut. XXVIII, 40, thine olive shall cast its fruit). Cf. J. Mak. II, 2 (31c) and Nahmanides’ Notes on Mak. Rashi suggests the Pi'el form, ‘and the iron hurled away part of the tree;’ on his second explanation by vocalizing it like katbu or kavbu v. Rashi, Keth. 69b, top, s.v. ojbh the sacred text according to Kere (hre) the established vocalization has an authentic origin, hence well-founded, as distinct from the Masorah, the Kethib (ch,f) the traditional text of consonants without vowels.]