Makkot

‘Restore the prophet's wife’, and were she not a prophet's wife, need she not have been restored? — But this can only be taken as R. Samuel b. Nahmani had explained it; for R. Samuel b. Nahmani, citing R. Jonathan, said that the Divine reply was as follows: Now therefore restore the man's wife in any case, and, as regards your plea, Wilt Thou slay even a righteous nation? Said he not himself to me: She is my sister, and she, even she herself said, He is my brother? . . .1 [Abimelech was told,] ‘for he [Abraham] is a prophet’ and he conjectured, from the questions put to him, the reply he was to give. A stranger coming to a city is [generally] asked about his food and drink . . .; do they ask: Is this your wife? Is this your sister? From the above data it has been deduced that ‘a son of Noah’2 suffers death [even for a crime committed under misapprehension], as he should have taken pains to ascertain the facts and did not. MISHNAH. A BLIND MANSLAYER DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT; THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. MEIR SAYS HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT. AN ENEMY DOES NOT GO INTO BANISHMENT; R. JOSE3 SAYS, AN ENEMY IS SLAIN, AS HE IS QUASI-ATTESTED.4 R. SIMEON SAYS THERE IS AN ENEMY THAT GOES INTO BANISHMENT AND THERE IS AN ENEMY THAT GOES NOT INTO BANISHMENT, [THE CRITERION BEING THAT]5 WHEREVER IT CAN BE SUGGESTED THAT HE HAD SLAIN [HIS VICTIM] WITTINGLY, HE GOES NOT INTO BANISHMENT,6 AND WHERE HE HAD SLAIN UNWITTINGLY, HE GOES INTO BANISHMENT. GEMARA. [A BLIND MANSLAYER DOES NOT GO . . . R. MEIR SAYS HE GOES etc.] Our Rabbis taught: [The words] seeing him not7 imply the exemption of a blind manslayer8 [from banishment]. These are the words of R. Judah; but R. Meir says that these words seeing him not do imply the inclusion of a blind manslayer.9 On what [textual] ground does R. Judah adopt his interpretation? — The wording, as when (a man) goeth into the wood with his neighbour . . .10 [he argues] implies [anybody], even a blind person; but then comes [elsewhere] the qualification seeing him not11 and thereby reduces the wider application.12 And R. Meir? — Since seeing him not [he argues] is a limiting expression, and [whoso killeth his neighbour] unawares11 is another, the effect of limitation after limitation [logically] only amounts to amplification.12 And R. Judah?13 — He takes unawares to exclude intentional injury. 14 R. JOSE SAYS, AN ENEMY IS SLAIN, AS HE IS QUASI-ATTESTED. But how? They have not duly forewarned him! — This Mishnah expresses the opinion of R. Jose b. Judah, as it is taught: R. Jose b. Judah says a Haber15 needs no forewarning, as forewarning was only introduced as a means for differentiating between one acting in error or with presumption.16 R. SIMEON SAYS, THERE IS AN ENEMY THAT GOES INTO BANISHMENT AND AN ENEMY THAT GOES NOT INTO BANISHMENT. It is taught: ‘How [illustrate] R. Simeon's statement that THERE IS AN ENEMY THAT GOES INTO BANISHMENT AND AN ENEMY THAT GOES NOT INTO BANISHMENT? [In this way:] if something snapped17 [and the severed object dropped and killed], he goes into banishment;18 if it slipped,19 he goes not into banishment. But is it not also taught, ‘R. Simeon says, One never goes into banishment until the rammer-block had [all]20 slipped from his hand.’ — which conflicts with the above statements both in regard to something snapping and slipping?21 [The seeming conflict] in regard to slipping is not difficult to explain, as version A deals with a person who was ill-disposed [towards the dead man], while version B deals with one who was well-disposed;22 nor is it difficult to explain the seeming conflict in the case of snapping, as version A is in accordance with Rabbi's view, while version B agrees with the view of the Rabbis.23 MISHNAH. WHITHER ARE THEY BANISHED? TO THE THREE CITIES SITUATE ON THE YONDER SIDE OF THE JORDAN AND THREE CITIES SITUATE IN THE LAND OF CANAAN, AS ORDAINED, YE SHALL GIVE THREE CITIES BEYOND THE JORDAN AND THREE CITIES IN THE LAND OF CANAAN; THEY SHALL BE CITIES OF REFUGE.24 NOT UNTIL THREE CITIES WERE SELECTED IN THE LAND OF ISRAEL DID THE [FIRST] THREE CITIES BEYOND THE JORDAN RECEIVE FUGITIVES, AS ORDAINED, [AND OF THESE CITIES WHICH YE SHALL GIVE] SIX CITIES FOR REFUGE SHALL THEY BE UNTO YOU25 WHICH MEANS THAT [THEY DID] NOT [FUNCTION] UNTIL ALL SIX COULD SIMULTANEOUSLY AFFORD ASYLUM. AND DIRECT ROADS WERE MADE LEADING FROM ONE TO THE OTHER, AS ORDAINED, THOU SHALT PREPARE THEE A WAY AND DIVIDE THE BORDERS OF THY LAND INTO THREE PARTS.26 AND TWO [ORDAINED] SCHOLAR — DISCIPLES WERE DELEGATED TO ESCORT THE MANSLAYER IN CASE ANYONE ATTEMPTED TO SLAY HIM ON THE WAY, AND THAT THEY MIGHT SPEAK TO HIM.27 R. MEIR SAYS: HE MAY [EVEN]28 PLEAD HIS CAUSE HIMSELF, AS IT IS ORDAINED, AND THIS IS THE WORD OF THE SLAYER.29 R. JOSE B. JUDAH SAYS: TO BEGIN WITH, A SLAYER WAS SENT IN ADVANCE TO [ONE OF] THE CITIES OF REFUGE, WHETHER HE HAD SLAIN IN ERROR OR WITH INTENT. THEN THE COURT SENT AND BROUGHT HIM THENCE. WHOEVER WAS FOUND GUILTY OF A CAPITAL CRIME THE COURT HAD EXECUTED, AND WHOEVER WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF A CAPITAL CRIME THEY ACQUITTED. WHOEVER WAS FOUND LIABLE TO BANISHMENT THEY RESTORED TO HIS PLACE [OF REFUGE] AS IT IS ORDAINED, AND THE CONGREGATION SHALL RESTORE HIM TO THE CITY OF REFUGE WHITHER HE WAS FLED.30 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: Moses had set apart three cities on the other side of the Jordan, and corresponding to them Joshua set apart [others] in the land of Canaan. And they were made to correspond on opposite sides like a double row [of trees] in a vineyard; Hebron in Judah,31 corresponding to Bezer in the wilderness;32 Shechem in mount Ephraim,31 corresponding to Ramoth in Gilead;32 Kedesh in mount Naphtali,31 corresponding to Golan in Bashan.32 And thou shalt divide the border of thy land into three parts33 means that they shall form triads,34 [namely], that the distance from the Darom [southern] boundary to Hebron be similar to that from Hebron to Shechem; and that from Hebron to Shechem similar to that from Shechem to Kedesh; and that from Shechem to Kedesh similar to that from Kedesh to the North [boundary]. Were35 three cities [necessary] in Trans-Jordania [the same as] three cities for the [whole] land of Israel? — Said Abaye: By reason that manslaying was rife in Gilead, way of testing the slayer's intention, he has to pay the penalty of a homicide: in other words, he is judged by the non-Jewish criminal code that does not admit the plea of ignorance. In Israelite law the forewarning by the two witnesses and relegation to the ‘cities of refuge’ were mitigations of the death penalty. wilful murder requires no formal forewarning ( vtr,v). See Z. Tosef., p. 440. Cf. Sanh. 29a. and restore him to the city of refuge . . . Num. XXXV, 22-25. see his victim; whereas unawares is applicable to the blind as to the seeing. Cf. Ned. 87-88. On this exegetical rule, see Malbim's introduction to Leviticus, * 237. does not go into (protective) banishment, but has to evade the avenger as best he may. He cannot be treated as guilty, for lack of due warning and proof. the second version, B, by implication, if it snapped — he goes not into banishment; if it slipped — he goes into banishment. Nahmanides): If the whole thing slipped, an enemy goes not into banishment (A) as there is a suspicion of foul play; while a friend, in whose case no such suspicion can arise, goes into banishment (B). into banishment’. (V, p. 42): If snapped, where foul play is unlikely, according to the Rabbis (the Sages) even an enemy goes into banishment (A); whereas according to Rabbi, even a friend (by implication in B), goes not into banishment; that is, if we take the case of the iron head slipping from the helve as similar to the snapping of a rope, or as part-snapping of the rammer-block. thus: Hebron Shechem Kedesh S N Bezer Ramoth Golan