Makkot Dav Yud Bet
Thanks to Artscroll and dafyomi.co.il
Continuation
of previous daf
Statement: The
diagreement between R’ Ami and R’ Yitzchak is not the same as the disagreement
between R’ Eliezer and R’ Yehoshua.
(Mishnah: If
his sentence was passed)
Statement: R’
Yehuda says in the name of Rav- Yoav made two mistakes when Shlomo tried to kill
him. The first mistake was that he grabbed the horns of the Mizbeach but only the
roof offers protection. The second mistake was that the Mizbaech in Shiloh did
not offer protection, only the Mizbaech in the Beit Hamikdahs offered
protection but it was not yet built.
Abaye:
Another mistake Yoav made was that the Mizbaech only protects Kohanim and Yoav
was not a Kohen.
Reish
Lakish: The angle of Rome will make three mistakes when Mashiach comes. The
first mistake will be that he will flee to the city of Batzrah but Betzer is
the Ir Miklat. His second mistake is that an Ir Miklat only protects someone
who killed by accident but he killed on purpose and the third mistake is that
he is an angel and Irei Miklat only protect people
R’ Abahu:
Leviim who live in Irei Miklat are not buried in them since we learn from a
pasuk that the land was given to be live on, not to be buried on.
Attack: But
the Mishnah says “Shamah”- he will live there, die there, and be buried there.
Answer: This
refers to killers and they are different because Hashem commanded for them to
be buried there.
Contradiction
from a Baraisa: But we learn from the posuk in Devarim that the exiled killer needs
to live within the city’s wall, not within the city’s limit outside the wall.
Abaye: There
is no contradiction because the Mishnah is saying that the boundary of the city
protects the killer and the Barisa is saying that the killer needs to live
within the city’s wall. The killers needs to live in the city but is still
protected outside the city wall.
Attack: No one
can live there anyway because there is a rule that you cannot make an open area
into a city nor a city into an open area.
Rav
Sheishess: The Baraisa is necessary to teach that a killer cannot live in a
tunnel that began within the city’s walls but ended outside of the wall but
still within the city’s boundaries.
(Mishnah: If
a killer goes outside the boundary of an Ir Miklat…)
Baraisa: According
to R’ Yossi HaGlili, it is a mitzvah for the Goel Hadam to kill the killer. If
there is no Goel Hadam, then anyone can kill him. According to R’ Akiva, the
Goel Hadam can kill the killer but if anyone else kills him, then they are
liable to death.
Question: What
are their reasonings?
Answer: For R’
Yossi HaGlili, the posuk says, “will kill”, not “if he kills” so we learn that
it is a commandment. For R’ Akiva, the posuk says “will kill”, not that “he
shall kill”. Since it is does not explicitly command someone to kill, it cannot
be a mitzvah.
Mar Zutra bar
Toviah: Rav said that if the Goel Hadam kills the killer outside the Ir Miklat,
then the Goel Hadam is killed by Beit Din.
Question: This
is neither like R’ Yossi HaGlili or R’ Akvia. Whose opinion is it?
Answer: It
is R’ Eliezer’s opinion.
Baraisa: What
do we learn from the posuk “Until he stands before the court in justice”? It
teaches that while you may have thought that the killer can be killed at any
point because of the posuk “and the redeemer of the blood will kill the killer”
but really, the Goel Hadam can only kill the killer after he has been convicted
in court.
Question:
What do R’ Yose HaGlili and R’ Akiva learn from the posuk “Until he stands…”?
Answer:
Rabbi Akiva says if a Sanhedrin witness a murder, they cannot kill him and he
goes to a different Sanhedrin to be tried.
Baraisa: “If
the killer will go out”- from this posuk we know that if a killer leaves the Ir
Miklat on purpose he can be killed by the Goel Hadam but from where do we know
that even if he leaves by accident he can be killed? The Torah says “go out”
twice to teach that it applies in all situations.
Attack: But
in a different Baraisa it says that if the killer leaves by accident, then he
is not killed but sent back to the Ir Miklat.
Resolution:
The second Baraisa is going with the opinion that the Torah speaks in the
language of people so the double word of “go out” does not teach anything. The
first Baraisa is going with the opinion that the Torah does not speak in the
language of people so it can learn rules from the double word.
Abaye: It
makes sense to go according to the second Baraisa because just like when a
killer kills on purpose he is killed and when the killer killed by accident he
is sent to the Ir Miklat, so too if he leaves the Ir Miklat by accident he is
sent back to the Ir Miklat.
Baraisa #1: If
a father kills one of his sons by accident, then his other son becomes the Goel
Hadam.
Baraisa #2
(contradiction): His son does not become the Goel Hadam
Answer:
Baraisa #1 is according to R’ Yose HaGlili who says it is a mitzvah for the
Goel Hadam to kill the killer. Therefore, even a son is allowed to kill his
father. Baraisa #2 is according to R’ Akiva who says that it is not a mitzvah
for the Goel Hadam to kill the killer. Therefore, a son is not allowed to kill
his father.
Attack: Rabbah
bar Rav Huna said that a son cannot bring punishment to his father except f his
father tried to get other people to do Avodah Zara!
Answer:
Baraisa #2 is talking about the father’s son but Baraisa #1 is talking about
the father’s grandson. Therefore, the grandson can kill his grandfather but a
son cannot kill his father.
Mishnah: If there is a tree inside the Ir
Miklat but its branches hang outside the city, or if a tree is planted outside
the Ir Miklat but its branches hang inside the city, everything goes by where
the branches are. Therefore, if a killer is on a branch of a tree that is
planted in an Ir Miklat but the branches are outside the city, he is
technically not in the Ir Miklat.
Gemara:
Question: But
in a Mishnah (#1) discussing where you can eat Ma’aser Sheni, it says that the
part of a tree that is inside Yerushalyim is considered inside Yerushalyim and
the part of the tree that is outside yerushalyim is outside the city.
Answer: You
cannot compare the laws of eating Ma’aser Sheni to the laws of an Ir Miklat.
Question: In
another Mishnah (#2) is says that in both a case of Ma’aser and in an Ir
Miklat, the entire tree is classified according to where the branches are. This
contradicts Mishnah #1 which says that different parts of the tree have different
statuses.
Rav Kahana: There
is no contradiction between the two different Mishnayot because Mishnah #2 is
according to R’ Yehuda and Mishnah #1 is according to the Chachamim.
Amud Bet
Baraisa
(support for Rav Kahana): R’ Yehuda holds that for a cave, you go according to
where the entrance is but according to a tree, you hold according to where the
branches are.
Question:
Perhaps R’ Yehuda is stringent when it comes to Ma’aser Sheni. If someone is on
branches of a tree that is outside Yerushalyim, he would not be able to eat Ma’aser.
So too, if a killer is on the trunk of a tree that has branches inside the Ir
MIklat, he would be stringent and say that a Goel Hadam cannot kill the killer.
Would R’ Yehuda also say this if the tree is inside the cit but its branches
are outside?
Rava:
Everyone says that the killer cannot be killed if he is on the tree in the Ir Miklat
but if he is on a branch outside the city, then the Goel Hadam is allowed to
stand outside the city and throw rocks or arrows to try and kill the killer. R’
Yehuda and the Chacjhamim disagree in the case of the Goel Hadam climbing up
the tree to kill the killer. R’ Yehuda says that that is allowed while the
CHachamim say it is not.
Rav Ashi:
Not only do we classify a tree by the location of its trunk, we sometimes even classify
it according to the location of its branches. Therefore, its teaching a stringency
and it holds like R’ Yehuda.
Mishnah: If a killer in an Ir Miklat kills
while he is in exile, he is sent to a different neighborhood in the same city.
If a Levi kills in his city (an Ir Miklat), he is sent to a different Ir
Miklat.
Gemara:
Baraisa:
from the posuk “V’samti lecha makom”, we learn that in Moshe’s lifetime, he
will designate some of the Irei Miklat. From “makom”, we learn that the Irei
Miklat will be in Leviyim cities. “Asher Yanus Shamah” teaches that exile
applied even while Bnei Yisrael was in the desert. While in the desert, where
were the people exiled to? They were sent to Levi’s camp. If the killer was
from Levi, then he was sent to a different city within Levi. If he was still in
his city, then he went to a different neighborhood.
Rav Acha:
From the posuk “ki v’Ir Miklato yeshev”, we learn that a Levi can find refuge
in his own city and if a killer kills while in an Ir Miklat, he is given refuge
there also.
Question to
consider: According to R' Yossi HaGlili, killing a killer who is
not in an Ir Miklat is a mitzvah even for someone who is not the Goel Hadam.
Why would it be a mitzvah to kill someone who killed by accident? He is already
being punished for his actions by being sent to an Ir Miklat. Beside for this demonstrating
how precious every single life is, is there any other lesson to be learned from
this?
I think that a lesson that can be learned from this is the importance of listening to HaShem. The person killed by accident, and we forgive him and send him to an Ir Miklat to protect his life, but by this killer not going to an Ir Miklat he is actually going against something he was supposed to do. His killing another person was by accident so we do not punish him harshly, but when he actively goes against what he is supposed to do, he is allowed to be killed (and it is even a mitzvah).
ReplyDeleteYou're right Leora. This is a very troubling idea. I honestly do not have an explanation for this mitzvah and cannot come up with a lesson that we can learn from it aside from that the person who killed accidentally did kill someone and therefore deserves to die, and the Ir Miklat is just a way out of this certain death if he gets there in time. But I'm not so satisfied with this answer so I look forward to reading what everyone else has to say.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I think the mitzvah status of the goel hadam killing the murderer is an example of when the Torah rules based on human inclination. A good example of this, that I learned when I was on Michlelet is the mitzvah of Eshet Yifat Toar. Instead of forbidding taking women from war completely, the Torah gives us rules instead of how to do it in a kosher way. Similarly, it is natural,and 'human' to want to take revenge on the person who murdered your loved one. Perhaps The torah recognizes this and permits acting on this inclination, but only for this person. The issue of it being a mitzvah, and even so for a regular person accoding to R' Yosi HaGlili is beyond my comprehension currently.Really interesting and thought-provoking question.
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a chakirah that could be done, exploring whether ir miklat is to be seen as a haven or a punishment. After all, we seem to view it nowadays as something positive for the accidental murderer that helps him/her "get out of" being punished, but when you think about it, it could really be viewed as a punishment, albeit a lesser one than execution. (The most basic reason that it could be seen as a punishment is, of course, that the accidental murderer must leave his/her home, regardless of whether or not s/he wants to.) If we view ir miklat as a punishment, then it makes sense to say that the accidental murderer is "punished" (killed) for leaving, because it would be the same as running away from beit din after receiving a g'mar din.
ReplyDeleteThis does still beg the question of why it would be a mitzvah for all to kill him/her, and not just for beit din to do so, as vigilante justice is not our usual way of doing things.
I think that according to R' Yossi HaGlili, anyone can kill the killer to show our value of life (working in the backwards direction). If we are allowed to kill the killer, then it shows just how much he deserves punishment for killing someone even accidentally. We are showing the nation that this person committed a sin of killing someone, so he deserves to die; but because it was inadvertent, we are giving him the chance to run to an Ir Miklat, and so if he doesn't go to an Ir Miklat (or is found outside an Ir Miklat) then he can be killed by anyone.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Torah might have made this rule as another incentive for the accidental killer to go to the Ir Miklat. If only one person could kill him, the accidental killer can flee somewhere else, not to an Ir Miklat, and still be safe. Therefore, the Torah needs to present the rule that anyone can kill an accidental killer. In practice, however, I don't think this would happen that often.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a mitzvah to kill someone who killed by accident because it is a warning to others. We must be very careful with what we do even if it is by accident the killer is still punished because we can’t let some killers not be responsible for their actions and others be responsible whether it is on purpose or by accident. This teaches us that we must always be wary of our surroundings and try our best not to get into a situation where we might accidentally cause harm or death to others.
ReplyDeleteI think it's to incentivize others to be more cautious. The Arei Miklat makes people careful not to be reckless. the more extreme the circumstances of an accidental killing, the more likely people will avoid it. Of course once it actually happens, it is unfortunate and the circumstances are extreme.
ReplyDeleteThe killer was given a "out", and was instructed to go to the Ir Miklat. Whether or not this Ir Miklat is good or bad for the killer does not really matter (well it does but not for my point), because he is still instructed to go there either way. He is going against his instructions, and is threatening his life by choosing to do so. I think that R' Yossi HaGlili is emphasizing the point that a person should stick to what they are told to do. Going to the Ir Miklat is not an option. He must go there, and he must do the best he can to save his own life, even if he may not feel as though he deserves to live, or any other reason he may have for not wanted to continue living. It is beyond my ability however, to understand why it is a mitzvah for a regular person to kill this killer, as opposed to just Beit Din being allowed to kill him but I don't doubt there is a valid lesson to be learned, i'm just not quite sure what it is.
ReplyDeleteLeora, your question is a good one, and I think that the simplest answer could be that that's why Rabbi Akiva disagrees, and says that a family member is allowed but not obligated to kill the accidental murderer, but not anyone else. But, to try and understand R' Yossi HaGlili's opinion, I think that often we find that Jews are supposed to do whatever we can to keep our community holy. We see from the story of the mekoshesh eitzim on shabbos in the desert, that all of Bnei Yisrael went out to stone him for violating Shabbos. This severe punishment is done in order to wipe out all the people who did not follow HaShem's ways. We need to do whatever we can to maintain our kedusha, and that means getting rid of anyone who takes away from the Torah and mitzvot. I think here too, the Torah demands of us to be extra careful and watch out for each other. If someone was negligent and killed someone else by accident, this is not to be taken lightly. Since it was just an accident, we allow that person to seek refuge in an ir miklat. However, if he is not found in an ir miklat, then not only did he kill by accident, he is also not listening to the commandment of getting to an ir miklat as fast as possible. Therefore, we must kill him to keep the Jewish community holy. Though I still do feel that this is a little bit harsh and therefore I think its important to keep R' Akiva's opinion in mind.
ReplyDeleteThis may sound like an archaic idea, but maybe killing the murderer will release the family of anger. However, this contradicts with the aveira of revenge. An answer to this can be that maybe murder is an exception, because you can never undo the result.
ReplyDelete