Yalkut Shimoni on Torah Reader

From where do we know that nothing should precede the morning continual-offering? Scripture says "and he shall arrange upon it the burnt-offering." What is the proof? Rava said: "the burnt-offering" means the first burnt-offering. From where do we know that nothing should be delayed after the afternoon continual-offering? Scripture says "and he shall burn upon it the fats of the peace-offerings." What is the proof? The verse says "upon it" the peace-offerings, and not upon its fellow the peace-offerings. Rava said to him: but perhaps it is peace-offerings that are not brought after it, yet a burnt-offering may be brought? Rather, Rava said: "the peace-offerings upon it" means: complete with it all the offerings, all of them. Rav Huna raised a contradiction: it is written (Exodus 23:18) "the fat of My festival-offering shall not remain overnight until morning" — until morning it shall not remain, but all night long it may remain; and it is written "and he shall burn upon it the fats of the peace-offerings" — "upon it" means complete all the offerings with it. He raised the contradiction and he himself resolved it: in a case where they were left over.

(Leviticus 6:6) "A perpetual fire" — perpetual, even on the Sabbath; perpetual, even in a state of ritual impurity; "it shall not be put out" — even during the journeys. What did they do for it? They turned a copper vessel over upon it; these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Shimon says: even at the time of the journeys they would clear its ashes, as it is said (Numbers 4:13) "and they shall clear the ashes from the altar and spread a purple cloth over it."

(Leviticus 6:7) "And this is the law of the meal-offering" — for the eternal House. "This" — it does not apply on a private high place. "This is the law of the meal-offering" — one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense. And from where did they emerge as needing this? From the general statement, as it is said "and he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense upon it." (Leviticus 2:3) "And what is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons": one might think that only a meal-offering whose remnants are eaten requires oil and frankincense; a meal-offering whose remnants are not eaten, from where? Scripture says "the law of the meal-offering," one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense. Rabbi Akiva said: if we have found that Scripture did not distinguish, regarding the prohibition of giving, between the sinner's meal-offering of an Israelite and the sinner's meal-offering of priests, so too let us not distinguish, regarding giving, between the freewill meal-offering of an Israelite and the freewill meal-offering of priests. Rabbi Chananyah ben Yehudah said to him: what proof is this? You derive a positive command from a negative command! Scripture therefore says "the law of the meal-offering," one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense. "He shall offer it" — when it is fit, and not when it is unfit. "It" — all of it as one. "The sons of Aaron" — and not the daughters of Aaron.

All meal offerings have a handful taken from them, and so forth, as it is written [whether it is written explicitly or not written explicitly, it is considered written]: "And this is the law of the meal offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "and the remainder of it Aaron and his sons shall eat" (Leviticus 6:9). "Before the LORD" - one might think this means on the western side (it is written in hint 448 and in hint 438). "And he shall take up from it" (Leviticus 6:8) - from that which is joined together, teaching that one may not bring a single tenth-measure of fine flour in two vessels, and that one may not make a fixed measure for the handful. "From the fine flour of the meal offering and from its oil and all the frankincense" - that the frankincense must be present there at the time the handful is taken. "And all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering, and he shall burn it" - that he shall gather up the frankincense and offer it upon the altar fires. "And he shall burn upon the altar a pleasing aroma, its memorial portion to the LORD" - they are remembered by it, and they are remembered through the handful, and they are remembered through the frankincense. Our Rabbis taught: If the frankincense was diminished and only one grain remained, it is invalid; if two grains remained, it is valid - these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: With one grain it is valid; less than that, it is invalid. But was it not taught that Rabbi Shimon says a handful of frankincense that is lacking any amount whatsoever is invalid? Teach instead: a grain of frankincense that is lacking any amount whatsoever is invalid. And if you wish, say: here he speaks of frankincense that comes with the meal offering, and there of frankincense that comes by itself. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yosef said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: There are three disputes in the matter. Rabbi Meir holds: a full handful at the start and a full handful at the end. Rabbi Yehuda holds: a full handful at the start and two grains at the end. Rabbi Shimon holds: a full handful at the start and one grain at the end. And all three derived their views from a single verse, "and all the frankincense that is upon the meal offering." Rabbi Meir holds: until [there be present] the frankincense that was fixed together with the meal offering from the outset. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: "all" - even one single grain, [and the word] "and" comes to include one grain. And Rabbi Shimon does not expound the word "and." And Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The dispute concerns frankincense that comes with the meal offering, but frankincense that comes by itself - by all opinions a full handful at the start and a full handful at the end. For this reason "that is upon the meal offering" was required: that which comes with the meal offering, yes; by itself, no. And Rabbi Yitzchak said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: The dispute concerns frankincense that comes with the meal offering, but frankincense that comes in dishes - by all opinions two handfuls at the start and two handfuls at the end. This is obvious! [Why state it?] Lest you say that since it comes together with the bread, it is treated like "that which is upon the meal offering" - therefore it teaches us [otherwise].

"And the remainder of it" (Leviticus 6:9) - that which is valid and not that which is invalid. "Aaron and his sons shall eat" - this expanded its eating, [permitting it to be eaten] with any food they wish. "They shall eat it" - that they may eat ordinary food and priestly portions along with it when it is small in amount. "To Aaron and his sons" - to Aaron first, and afterward to his sons. To Aaron not in division, and to his sons in division: just as Aaron the High Priest eats without dividing, so too his sons who are High Priests eat without dividing. "It shall be eaten unleavened" - this is a positive commandment. Because it had been within the category of the permitted, and then became forbidden, and then returned and was permitted again, one might think it returns to its original permitted state [namely, optional]; therefore Scripture teaches "it shall be eaten unleavened" - it is a commandment. Similar to it: "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" (Deuteronomy 25:5) - it is a commandment. Because she had been within the category of the permitted, and then became forbidden, and then returned and was permitted again, one might think she returns to her original permitted state; therefore Scripture teaches "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" - it is a commandment. Who is the Tanna of that which our Rabbis taught, "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" is a commandment, and so forth? Rabbi Yitzchak bar Avdimi said: It is Abba Shaul, and this is what he means: "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" as a commandment. For at first she was to him within the category of the permitted - if he wished, he married her for the sake of her beauty; if he wished, he married her for the sake of marriage. Then she became forbidden, and returned and was permitted; one might think she returns to her original permitted state; therefore Scripture teaches "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" as a commandment. [Rava said: You may even say it accords with the Rabbis, and this is what he means: "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" as a commandment,] for at first she was to him within the category of the permitted - if he wished he married her, if he wished he did not marry her; then she became forbidden and returned and was permitted; one might think she returns to her original permitted state, that if he wished he married her and if he wished he did not. But she is already bound to him, so what would release her? Rather say: if he wished he married her, if he wished he performed chalitzah [the release ceremony]; therefore Scripture teaches "her brother-in-law shall come in to her" as a commandment. Now apply this to the opening clause: "it shall be eaten unleavened" as a commandment, for at first it was permitted to him, and so forth. According to Rava, who said it accords with the Rabbis, this is what it means: "it shall be eaten unleavened" is a commandment, for at first it was within the category of the permitted - if he wished he ate it, if he wished he did not eat it; then it became forbidden and returned and was permitted; one might think it returns to its original permitted state, that if he wished he ate it and if he wished he did not. But is it not written, "and they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made" (Exodus 29:33), teaching that the priests eat and the owners are atoned for? Rather: if he wished he himself ate it, if he wished another priest ate it; therefore Scripture teaches "it shall be eaten unleavened" - it is a commandment. But according to Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi, who said the whole matter accords with Abba Shaul, what two options are there here? If he wished he ate it as unleavened bread, if he wished he ate it boiled. But this boiled form - what is it like? If it is unleavened, it is already unleavened; and if it is not unleavened, surely the Merciful One said "unleavened"! In truth it is unleavened, and the reason the Merciful One repeated it for us is to make the matter indispensable.

Rabbi Yehoshua of Sikhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Great is peace for all blessings are sealed with peace: The reading of the Shema — "spreads the shelter of peace." The [standing] prayer — "He who makes peace." The Priestly Blessing — "and grant you peace" (Numbers 6:26). But I only know this regarding blessings; so where do we derive this for sacrifices? We learn to say, "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, of the grain-offering, etc. and the sacrifice of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:37). But I only know this in general; so where do we derive this in detail? We learn to say, "This is the law of the burnt-offering" (Leviticus 6:2), "This is the law of the grain-offering" (Leviticus 6:7), "This is the law of the sin-offering" (Leviticus 6:18), "This is the law of the guilt-offering" (Leviticus 7:1), "This is the law of the peace-offering" (Leviticus 7:11). But I only know this for individual sacrifices; so where do we derive this for communal sacrifices? We learn to say "Do these for the Lord on your set times, etc.," [yet it finishes with "peace-offerings" (Numbers 29:39). I only know this in this world; so from where do we derive this in the next world? We learn to say, "I will extend to her peace like a river" (Isaiah 66:12). The Rabbis said: Great is peace, for when the messianic king will come, he will only open with peace, as it is written, "How pleasant on the mountains are the feet of the messenger proclaiming peace" (Isaiah 52:7). And why did they see fit to say the Priestly Blessing after the blessing of thanksgiving (in the silent prayer)? As it is written, "And Aharon lifted up his hand toward the people and blessed them, and he came down from sacrificing the sin-offering" (Leviticus 9:22). And why did they see fit to says the blessing of "Grant peace," after the Priestly Blessing? As it is stated, "And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them" (Numbers 6:27). The blessing of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is peace, as it is stated, "The Lord blesses His people with peace" (Psalms 29:11). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: From where is it derived that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the Priestly Blessing? As it is stated, "So shall they put My name upon the Children of Israel, and I will bless them" (Numbers 6:27).

[Ed.: "Menorah" down below should probably be Menuda. "Chazar l'Suro", is the only time in Chazal that that form appears. It appears frequently, also in regard to converts, as Chazar M'suro. Perhaps its a mistake here, or perhaps it is actually meant as some kind of opposite. This translation begins in the middle, at a really cool part.] At that moment (while the people were mourning their punishment) God said to Moshe, go and bring some satisfaction to those poor ones, whose hearts have left them. Moshe said: Master of the Universe! With what can I give them satisfaction? God said back to him: Go and bring them satisfaction, with words of Torah. Which is what it means: “Speak to the Children of Israel, When you come to the land of your settlement, which I am giving to you, and you make a fire-offering to the Lord..." (Num 15:2,3). At that moment there was a great quarrel between the Children of Israel and the converts. Such that God had to ask Moshe: Why are they making this quarrel?! Did I not write for you all, in My Torah, “The congregation shall have one law and the stranger residing among you the same law … one Torah and one justice” (15:15,16). From here, they taught: There are three kinds of converts. There is a convert that is completely like a non-Jew, a convert that is similar to a donkey, and there is a convert just like Abraham our forefather. What kind of convert is completely like a non-Jew? He has improperly killed meat and unkosher meat in his home, but he says, I’ll go and convert so I can be amongst them. Because they have good food and they’ve got holidays and Sabbaths, and I’ll still eat these in my house. So he twists [misrepresents? pushes?] himself and goes and converts. When he then turns from the proper path, he receives punishment, for his own good, to save him from what he is doing. The Holy One said to Israel: My children, just as he loved you, so you must love him. As it says, “And you shall love the convert” (Deut 10:19). What kind of convert is similar to a donkey? He goes to marry a Jewish woman, and they say to him, we won’t allow you to be with her unless you convert. So he twists himself and goes and converts. When he then turns from the proper path, he receives punishment, for his own good, to save him from what he is doing. The Holy One said to Israel: My children, just as he sought comfort from you, so shall give him comfort. As it says, “And the convert you shall not oppress” (Ex 22:20). What kind of convert is just like Abraham our forefather? He goes and searches out all the nations in the world. When he sees that they too tell of the goodness of the Jewish people, he says, I will go and convert, and thus bring myself under the wings of the Shechina. As it says, “Let no convert who has joined himself to the LORD say, ‘The LORD will surely exclude me from his people.’ (Isa 56:3).

“Take the staff…” (Bamidbar 20:8) This is what the scripture says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2) This is the staff which was in the hand of our father Yaakov, as it says “…for with my staff I crossed…” (Genesis 32:11) And it is the staff which was in the hand of Yehudah, as it says “Your signet, your cloak, and the staff that is in your hand.” (Genesis 38:18) And it was in the hand of Moshe, as it says “And you shall take this staff in your hand…” (Exodus 4:17) And it was in the hand of Aharon, as it says “Aaron cast his staff…” (Exodus 7:10) And it was in the hand of David, as it says “And he took his staff in his hand…” (Samuel I 17:40) And it was in the hand of every king until the Holy Temple was destroyed, and so in the future that very staff will be given to the King Messiah and with it he will rule over the nations of the world in the future. Therefore it says “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion…” (Psalms 110:2)…

R' Shim'on ben Lakish said, "Pinhas is Eliahu. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to him, 'You have made peace between Israel and Me in this world. Even in the next world, you are the one who will make peace between My children and Me, as it is said (Mal. 3:23-24), "Lo, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before the coming of the day of the Lord... He shall reconcile parents with children.""" "From the families of Menashe son of Yosef" (Numbers 27:1) - just as Yosef loved the land, so too those who came from his loins loved the land. "The names of the daughters were Mahlah etc" (Numbers 27:1) - you could imagine (but you'd be wrong) that the one mentioned first was greater in deeds as well, so the text says "they were Mahlah, Tirtzah etc" (Numbers 36:11 presenting different order of names) to teach that they were all equally good. "They stood in front of Moshe" (Numbers 27:2) the text is teaching that they did not stand until they 40th year, the year in which Aharon died, as it says "and Aharon the priest went up etc" (Numbers 33:38).

These are the journeys of the children of Israel. The Lord said to Moses, "Write down the journeys that the Israelites have taken in the wilderness, so that they may know how many miracles I performed for them in each journey." It is similar to a king whose son fell ill, so he took him to another place for his healing. When they returned, the father began to mention the journeys, saying, "Here we slept, here we were honored, here you had a headache." Similarly, the Lord said to Moses, "Count for them all the places [where they angered Me]." This is why it is said, "These are the journeys of the children of Israel." It is written (Isaiah 63:11), "Then His people remembered the days of old, of Moses: Where is He who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of His flock? Where is He who put His Holy Spirit within them?" Just as one does not bring the flock into the cool shade, so too, the Israelites did not enter the cool shade for forty years.

Another explanation: Just as sheep do not gather treasures, only the shepherd in the wilderness, so too, Israel lived for forty years without gathering treasures. Another explanation: Just as in a place where the shepherd leads, the flock follows, so too, Israel would travel to any place that Moses and Aaron guided them. And Moses wrote (hinting with the numerical value 318): "And they journeyed from Raamses in the first month." It is written, "He made the moon for festivals; the sun knows its setting." Rabbi Yochanan said, "The sun was created only to illuminate during the day." It is written, "Let there be lights in the firmament." But if so, why was the moon created? To sanctify the beginnings of months and years. Rabbi Shila of Kfar Tamarta said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "Even though the sun knows its setting, we learn from here that we do not count the moon unless the sun has set." Yusta Haverya said in the name of Rabbi Berachya, "And they journeyed from Raamses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the month." If you count the moon until that point, there are only fourteen (heard or measured). From here we learn that we do not count the moon unless the sun has set.

"And they journeyed from Raamses." The Lord said to Israel, "When you were in Egypt, you were scattered for a period of forty days. I brought you together for a brief moment in Raamses, and now you are scattered in all the lands. I will gather you again, as it is said, 'And it shall come to pass on that day, the Lord will extend His hand a second time.'" "On the morrow of the Passover, the children of Israel went out." It is written, "The Lord your God brought you out of Egypt at night." But did they not go out at night? Was it not during the day? Rather, it teaches us that the redemption began for them in the evening, as it is said, "And this day shall be a memorial for you." It is a day that is a memorial for you, but we did not hear which day it is. When it says, "And Moses said to the people, 'Remember...'," it is still unclear. But when it says, "On the morrow of the Passover, on the fifteenth day of the festival," and they did not go out until the festival day itself, it becomes clear.

And they journeyed from Elim. That very day was the Sabbath in which they complained, as it is stated, "And the people murmured against Moses" (Exodus 16:2). And Moses assured them that they would receive food the next day, as it is written, "And in the morning, you shall see the glory of the Lord" (Exodus 16:7). On the first day of the week, which was a Sabbath, the manna descended for them from the beginning, as it is written, "On the sixth day, they shall prepare what they bring in" (Exodus 16:5).

Moses, Aaron, and Eleazar ascended the mountain. Moses was ashamed to say to Aaron, "The time has come for you to depart from this world." Aaron said to him, "My brother, do you wish to know what is written about Abraham?" Moses replied, "Yes." Aaron said, "And you shall come to your ancestors in peace, and you shall be buried in a good old age" (Genesis 15:15), and he did not feel any pain. Aaron said to him, "If God were to say to you after a hundred and twenty years that you will die, what would you say?" Moses replied, "The Righteous Judge." Aaron then asked him, "And if He were to say to you today, what would you say to Him?" Moses answered, "The Righteous Judge is trustworthy in me." Aaron said, "Since you have accepted it upon yourself, let us ascend to the top of the mountain, for so the Lord told me." As Aaron was walking after him, the angels were astonished and said, "When Isaac ascended the altar and did not resist, you were amazed. Come and see the great one going after his younger brother to accept death willingly." Moses did not know how to disrobe Aaron of his outer garments and dress Eleazar with them, as it would not be appropriate to remove the sacred garments out of their order or to leave Aaron unclothed. God said, "You do what you need to do, and I will do what I need to do." Moses disrobed Aaron, and Aaron swallowed himself up in the mountain, while the ministering angels dressed Eleazar. Moses dressed Eleazar in the priestly garments that he had removed from Aaron, in his presence. God then showed Moses His favor and informed him that no one else would take away his greatness. Afterward, God descended and took Moses' soul with a kiss, as it is stated, "By the mouth of God" (Deuteronomy 34:5). Moses and Eleazar kissed Aaron. Moses kissed one cheek and Eleazar kissed the other cheek. Some say that Moses undressed Aaron from his ankles, and the cloud of glory descended and covered him. Moses asked, "What do you see?" Aaron replied, "I see nothing except that the cloud of glory clothes the limbs you undress." Moses continued undressing him until the cloud of glory covered him up to his waist. Then the cloud of glory descended and covered him up to his neck. Aaron said to Moses, "My brother, what do you see? What is death like?" Moses replied, "Until now, I see nothing except that the cloud of glory has covered me up to my neck." Once Moses had completely undressed him, the cloud of glory covered Aaron entirely. Moses called to Aaron, "My brother, what is the death of the righteous like? Where are you?" Aaron replied, "I am not worthy to tell you, but I wish I had come here earlier." When Moses saw how Aaron was passing away, Moses desired the same fate. When Moses said to God, "As Aaron, your brother, has passed away," God said, "The Lord, the God of spirits, will visit him." And when Aaron died and disappeared from them, Moses and Eleazar descended, and all of Israel stood trembling and eagerly waiting to see him because he was a lover of peace and pursued peace. But the Satan came between them and made all of Israel feel Moses and Eleazar's loss. All of Israel held them responsible and said, "Where is he?" God concealed him for the life of the world to come. They said, "We do not believe you. Perhaps you made an unjust decision against him and imposed a death penalty on him. We, all of Israel, seek to stone Moses and Eleazar." Immediately, God said to the ministering angels, "Lift up Aaron's staff, the lovers of the Eternal's exaltedness, so that Israel will know and not harm Moses and Eleazar." The ministering angels lifted Aaron's staff with the Eternal's exaltedness, and God went before the staff and mourned over it, and the ministering angels echoed His mourning. True Torah was in his mouth, and so on. When Israel saw the staff lifted with the Eternal's exaltedness and God and the ministering angels mourning over it, all of Israel, from the greatest to the smallest, rose and mourned for him with great mourning, weeping heavily over him, as it is said, "And all the house of Israel wept for Aaron." Come and see the honor and praise of the righteous Aaron, whom the entire world mourns. But when Miriam died, they did not mourn her or bury her. Moses went ahead, and Aaron followed, and they buried her. Even for our teacher Moses, all of Israel did not weep for him as they wept for Aaron, because he used to rebuke them in every matter. It is written about Moses, "And the children of Israel wept for Moses," and about Aaron, it is written, "All the house of Israel." This shows that they never bowed to the yoke of sin, as neither man nor woman ever said anything rebellious. And when Moses saw the honor and praise of Aaron, with his staff elevated in the exaltedness of the world, and God and the ministering angels surrounding him and mourning over him, immediately he sat and wept, saying, "Woe is me, for I am left alone." When Miriam died, not a single Israelite came to us except for me, Aaron, and his sons. We stood before her bier, we wept and mourned, and we buried her. When Aaron died, I and his son engaged in burying him. We stood before his bier, and I wondered, "Who will stand for me at the time of my death? Neither father, nor son, nor brother, nor sister—who will mourn for me?" At that moment, the Almighty replied to me, "Do not fear, for I myself will stand for you, and I will bury you with great honor, as it is written, 'And he buried him in the valley.' Just as Aaron's cave was concealed and unknown, so shall your burial place be concealed and unknown, as it is written, 'And no man knows his burial place.' Just as the Angel of Death had no dominion over Aaron except through a kiss, so shall the Angel of Death have no dominion over you, and you shall depart with a kiss, as it is said, 'By the mouth of God.' Immediately, Moses' mind was settled. Blessed are the righteous, for the Almighty Himself gathers them, as it is written, 'The honor of God will gather you.' Furthermore, the ministering angels go out to meet them, rejoice in their arrival, receive them with a pleasant countenance, and say to them, 'Come in peace, rest on your beds,' as it is written, 'Let peace come and let them rest on their couches.'"

"And they camped by the Jordan." Rabbah bar bar Channah said to me: "I saw a certain place that was three parasangs away." "When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan" - Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: "The phrase 'Canaan' refers to the land of Canaan, not the Jordan." Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai says: "Behold, it says, 'Beyond the Jordan,' which means the land of Canaan extends as far as the Jordan." Rabbah bar bar Channah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: "The Jordan only flows from Jericho and southward." For what halachic purpose? If we say it is referring to a vow, it follows the language of people, and wherever they call it the Jordan, it is forbidden [to bring tithes there]. Rather, it is referring to tithing of animals. It is also taught similarly: The Jordan flows from the cave of Pamias and passes through the Sea of Sivhah, the Sea of Tiberias, and the Sea of Sodom, and it empties into the Great Sea. The Jordan is only from Jericho and southward. Rabbi Chiya bar Acha said: Why is it called Jordan? Because it descends from Dan. Rabbi Abba said to Rav Ashi: Do we learn it from here? But it is written: 'They called it Dan,' etc. Rabbi Yitzchak says: It was named Pamyas. And it is taught in a Baraita: The Jordan flows from the cave of Pamias.

"And if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land, then those whom you let remain shall be irritants in your eyes and thorns in your sides" (Numbers 33:55). The Lord said to the children of Israel: "I have commanded you to utterly destroy them, but you have not done so. Instead, you have engaged with the ways of the immoral woman, etc., and you have followed the practices of the wicked beasts." Behold, Jeremiah comes from her children, and he reproaches you with harsh words that displease you, and his prophecies are thorns in your sides. Therefore, the verse needs to specify that these are the words of Jeremiah, son of Chilkiah.

"And the boundary shall be the sea." It was taught: What is considered the Land of Israel and what is considered outside the Land? Anything that receives abundant water from the torrents of Ammon and is within the Land [of Israel], it is considered part of the Land. Anything that receives abundant water from the torrents of Ammon but is outside the Land, it is considered outside the Land. And those who are at sea see them as if a thread is stretched over them from Kefarloriya to the Ocean Sea, from the River of Egypt to the Ocean Sea. Within the thread is the Land of Israel, and outside the thread is outside the Land. The rabbis ask: What is the purpose of the phrase "and the boundary shall be the sea"? It is needed for those at sea. But Rabbi Yehuda says it is not necessary for those at sea.

"And one prince." Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: From where do we derive that orphans who come to divide their father's estate, the court appoints a trustee for them to represent their interest in the matter? It is derived from the verse that states, "And one prince from each tribe." "And their fields shall be for their livestock." The water source of the city belongs to its residents; their livelihood and the livelihood of others take precedence over the livelihood of others. The livestock of the residents take precedence over the livestock of others. Their laundry and the laundry of others, their laundry takes precedence. The livelihood of others and their laundry, the livelihood of others takes precedence. Rabbi Yossi says: Their laundry takes precedence over the livelihood of others. How do we know this? It is derived from the verse: "And their fields shall be for their livestock and for their possessions and for all their animals." What does "all their animals" include? If we say it includes all living creatures, isn't a living creature already included in the category of livestock? Rather, what does "all their animals" mean? It refers specifically to their actual livelihood. However, is it not because of the distress caused by the shortage of laundry that they vigorously compete for it? Rav Abahu said: Cities of refuge were not designated for burial, as the verse states: "And for all their animals, they have been given for life, and not for burial." The Gemara raises an objection: But regarding the city of refuge, it is stated: "His place shall be there, and his death shall be there, and his burial shall be there." Why is the verse not concerned about causing distress to the killer? The Gemara answers: From the phrase "from the wall of the city and outward," the Torah teaches that it must be given a rooftop enclosure. From where are these matters derived? Rava said: Since the verse says "from the wall of the city and outward," the Torah is saying: First give it an enclosure, and afterward measure its boundaries. It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili, says: The depth of the cities of the Levites is two thousand cubits. Go out from them one thousand cubits, and there is a designated area that is a quarter of that size for fields and vineyards. From where are these matters derived? Rava said: Since the verse says "from the wall of the city and outward" by one thousand cubits all around, the Torah is saying: Surround the city with one thousand cubits, and a quarter will be the designated area. Rava bar Adda said: I found it explained in the town where there were two thousand cubits between each pair of towns. How many boundaries were there? Sixteen. How many corners were there? Sixteen. Because eight of the boundaries and four of the corners come from the eight boundaries and four corners of the surrounding towns, the designated area is a quarter larger than the surrounding area. If you add four more corners, it becomes a third larger. If you add another corner, it becomes a quarter larger than that. Abaye said: I also found it explained in the town where there were one thousand by one thousand cubits. How many boundaries were there? Eight. How many corners were there? Sixteen. How many corners were there for the boundaries and how many corners were there for the corners? Eight for the boundaries and four for the corners, totaling twelve. Rabina said: What is the meaning of "a quarter"? A quarter of what? Rav Ashi said: A quarter of the boundaries. The Sages said to Rabina: Rav Ashi, but it is written "around." What does "around" refer to? If you don't say this about the corners, then with regard to the elevation, as it is written, "And they shall throw the blood against the altar all around," "around" should also mean literally around. Rather, what does "around" refer to? It refers to the corners of the altar. So here too, "around" refers to the corners of the city. Rav Abba said to Rav Ashi: But there is the horn of the corner in the town, making it a rounded shape. And I need a square shape. He said to him: Say that we say: He should see it as if it were squared. Rav Abba said to Rav Ashi: Since how much is a square larger than a circle? It is a quarter. These eight, sixty-two, and seventy-seven cubits are a third larger. Rav Ashi said: This is true when it is a perfect square, but when it is a diagonal line, we need more, as every cubit in a square is like two fifths in a diagonal line. On that day, Rabbi Akiva expounded on two verses. One verse states, "And their measurements shall be from outside the city, one thousand cubits," and another verse states, "From the wall of the city and outward, one thousand cubits around." It is impossible to say "one thousand" twice, as it is already stated as "one thousand." How, then, do we understand it? One thousand cubits is the boundary for the fields, and one thousand cubits is the boundary for the Sabbath limit. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei HaGalili, says, "One thousand cubits is the boundary for the fields and vineyards." And regarding them, forty-two cities were given, which served as cities of refuge for the Levites. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says, "They did not receive any reward for them." Rav Kohana said, "There is a dispute about the forty-two cities. One opinion holds that they were given for the reception of refugees, and the other opinion holds that they were given for the priests." The one who holds that they were given for the reception of refugees argues from the fact that it is written, "For yourselves and for all your needs," meaning that these cities are for all your needs. However, regarding the six cities of refuge, everyone agrees that they did not receive any reward for them.

"This is the land that shall fall to you as an inheritance." What does it mean "to you"? It is fitting for you. It can be compared to a king who had both male and female slaves, and he wanted to marry his male slaves to female slaves from another estate. The king pondered and said in his mind, "My male slaves and my female slaves are better off if I marry my male slaves to my female slaves. They belong to me, and Israel belongs to me." As it is written, "For the land is Mine" (Leviticus 25:23), and "For the children of Israel are My servants" (Leviticus 25:55). It is better for Me to grant My land to My servants, to My people. Therefore, it is said "to you."

"Speak to the children of Israel, saying... When you cross over... and you shall designate cities for yourselves." This is what the verse means: "Good and upright is the Lord; therefore, He instructs sinners on the way" (Psalms 25:8). David said before the Lord: "Master of the Universe, if not for Your mercy, Adam, the first man, would not have had a standing. When You said to him, 'On the day you eat from it, you will surely die,' he did not fulfill it. Instead, You removed him from the Garden of Eden [and he lived for 930 years and then died]. What did You do to him? You banished him from the Garden of Eden." For why was he banished? Because he brought death upon generations, and he deserved to die immediately. However, You had compassion on him and banished him, similar to the case of an unintentional killer who is exiled to the cities of refuge. Moses said, "Master of the Universe, if someone unintentionally kills in the south or in the north, how will he know where the cities of refuge are so that he can flee there?" God said to him, "Prepare clearly marked roads to the cities of refuge. Establish signposts for them so that they will not be led astray and the avenger of blood will not find them." Moses asked, "How?" God replied, "Set up cities of refuge with well-marked roads leading to them." That is why it is said, "Good and upright is the Lord." If He made a path and a way for murderers to escape and be saved, how much more so for the righteous. The verse says, "He will guide the humble in justice" (Psalms 25:9).

"For you are crossing the Jordan." Why is this portion stated? Because it says, "Then Moses set apart three cities." I only know that Moses set them apart beyond the Jordan. From where do I derive that Moses commanded Joshua to set apart cities of refuge? The verse states, "And you shall designate cities for yourselves." After the inheritance and settlement, the verse speaks, or is it only speaking about their entry into the land immediately? The Torah teaches us by saying, "When the Lord your God cuts off the nations." After the inheritance and settlement, the verse speaks. And "you shall designate" means it is merely an invitation. I might think it includes villages as well. Therefore, it says, "cities." If "cities" is mentioned, I might think it even includes hamlets. Therefore, it says, "cities." How is it known that there were only markets and places for convening there? There are six cities of refuge, which do not receive additional cities of refuge on the other side of the Jordan River until they are designated in the land of Canaan. The cities of refuge should not have gardens or orchards. They should not have inns or taverns. They should not have marketplaces. They should be places of refuge. You should contribute funds for them. They should not be converted into cities of exile. There should be six of them so that if one is taken, another will be available in its place. If their numbers decrease, they should be replenished. They only need one or two. You shall say to them, "When you enter the land, designate cities of refuge for yourselves." The obligation to designate cities of refuge is dependent on your entry into the land. One might think that once they have entered the land, they are obligated to designate cities of refuge outside the land. Therefore, it says, "I am giving you," indicating that just as I have given them to you, you are obligated to designate cities of refuge and not outside the land.

"And you shall designate for yourselves cities" - Could these be large or small cities, either from the cities that the Canaanites built or from the cities that the Israelites will build? It is stated, "cities," indicating both large and small cities, not smaller than the cities that the Canaanites built or than the cities that the Israelites will build upon entering the land. Since it is stated, "to flee there," one might think that a person may determine the location of the city of refuge on their own. Therefore, it is stated, "there," indicating a designated place. It is stated here, "there," and it is stated there, "there" - just as the manner of designating the city of refuge there is based on the words of the Torah, so too, the manner of designating the city of refuge here is based on the words of the Torah. Alternatively, could the cities of refuge be designated based on the discretion of the court forever? Therefore, it is stated, "there," to teach that the first designation is based on the words of the Torah, and the subsequent designations are based on the court's discretion....

"And the accused shall flee there." This means that one should not leave there, neither for the sake of fulfilling a positive commandment, nor for the sake of monetary matters, nor for the sake of saving lives. Even all of Israel should go there, and even a military officer like Yoav ben Tzruya should not leave from there forever, as it is stated, "There, there shall be his place of residence; there, his death shall be; and there, his burial shall be." If a person unintentionally kills another, except for killing his own father. And we raised a dilemma: Does a son go into exile because of his father? Rav Kahana said: This is not difficult. This statement applies to Rabbi Shimon, who said that strangulation is more severe than the sword. If the unintentional killing is by a sword, it can be atoned for, but if it is by strangulation, it cannot be atoned for. According to the Rabbis who say that the sword is more severe and it kills one's father unintentionally, it is considered unintentional killing by the sword, and it cannot be atoned for. Rava said: The exception is for one who strikes his father intentionally with a vessel. Since in the case of intentional murder, he is liable to be executed, the same applies even in the case of unintentional murder. This teaches us this halacha. "And the accused shall flee there" — "murderer" includes any murderer by implication. It is stated "unintentionally causing death," implying that it includes even one who unintentionally kills his father or mother. Therefore, the verse states "murderer causing death." I only stated that "murderer causing death" excludes one who unintentionally kills his father or mother, as he does not go into exile. "Murderer" but not one who plotted. "Unintentionally causing death" excludes intentional killing; these are the words of Rabbi Chanina. Rabbi Elazar ben Matya says: "Unintentionally causing death" excludes killing on Shabbat. "Unintentionally" excludes killing one's father on a weekday.

Why is it stated "redeemer of blood"? Because it says, "If the avenger of blood finds him, he may kill him" (Numbers 35:27), I would think that he may be killed without any formal procedure. Therefore, it is stated "until they stand before the congregation" (Numbers 35:12), which implies that there must be a legal proceeding. If one was pursuing another to kill him, and they said to him, "You are a member of the covenant community," he should know that it is written in the Torah, "Whoever sheds the blood of man" (Genesis 9:6), etc. He may say, "Even so, he is a murderer; let him die before he kills." He may kill him and save the life of this person. Similarly, if one was pursuing a woman to rape her, and they said to him, "She is a married woman," he should know that it is written in the Torah, "The adulterer shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10), etc. He may say, "Even so, he is an adulterer; let him die before he commits adultery." He may kill him and save the life of this woman by sacrificing his own life. I might think that he may kill him as soon as he pursues him, whether for murder or adultery. Therefore, it is stated, "And the murderer shall not die until they stand before the congregation" (Numbers 35:12). The Sages taught in a Baraita: "And the murderer shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:30) - it is a mitzvah in the hand of the redeemer of blood. If there is no redeemer of blood, he does not have the authority to execute the murderer. These are the words of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: The authority to execute the murderer is in the hand of the redeemer of blood, and all people are obligated concerning him. What is the reason for Rabbi Yossi HaGelili's opinion? Is it not written, "If a man commits murder" (Numbers 35:16)? And Rabbi Akiva, who is it written for? Rav Zutra bar Tovia said that Rav said: It refers to a murderer who went outside the designated boundary and the redeemer of blood found him and killed him. The one who is killed is executed for his own death. This statement does not follow the opinion of Rabbi Yossi HaGelili or the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. This is what Rabbi Eliezer said: "Until they stand before the congregation" - what is the purpose of this phrase? Since it is written, "And the redeemer of blood shall kill the murderer; when he meets him, he shall kill him" (Numbers 35:19), I might think that the redeemer of blood can immediately kill him. Therefore, it is stated "until they stand before the congregation." Rabbi Yossi HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva derive the same interpretation from the phrase "until they stand." It is derived from a teaching: How do we know that the Sanhedrin, when they see a person who has killed a soul and is not liable to be executed until he stands before the court, can still judge him and impose the death penalty? It is derived from the phrase "until they stand before the congregation."

And the cities that you shall give: Including the first cities or excluding the first cities? It is derived from the phrase "and you shall give the cities" - which means you shall give the three cities, etc. What is the purpose of stating "and the cities, along with their pasturelands"? This teaches us where the cities of refuge are located - three on the east side of the Jordan River and three in the land of Canaan, as it is stated, "You shall give beyond the Jordan, etc." Until the three cities were chosen in the land of Canaan, the three cities on the east side of the Jordan did not accept the accidental manslayer, as it is stated, "Six cities of refuge shall you have." Only when all six cities were ready to accept, they functioned together. It is taught in a Baraita: Moses designated three cities on the east side of the Jordan River, and correspondingly, Joshua designated three cities in the land of Canaan. And they were aligned like two rows: Hebron in the territory of Judah corresponds to Bezer in the wilderness. Shechem in the hill country of Ephraim corresponds to Ramoth in Gilead. Kedesh in the hill country of Naphtali corresponds to Golan in Bashan. And the three cities should be arranged in a triangle, so that there is a direct line from the south of Hebron to Hebron, from Hebron to Shechem, and from Shechem to Kedesh, and from Kedesh to the north. On the east side of the Jordan, three cities, and in the land of Israel, three cities. Abaye said: In Gilead, murderers were common, as it is written: "Gilead, a city of workers of mischief, is stained with blood" (Hosea 6:8), indicating that they used to lie in wait to kill souls. And what about this matter? And what about that matter? From this angle and from that angle? Abaye said: In Shechem as well, murderers were common, as it is stated: "The company of priests shed blood on the way to Shechem" (Hosea 6:9), indicating that they used to join together to kill souls, just as these priests would join together to distribute the terumah in the granary. And furthermore, the verse states: "And you shall give them forty-two cities" (Numbers 35:7). Abaye said: These cities accept unintentional manslayers, whether they were aware of it or not, whereas those cities only accept them if they were aware. And Hebron is indeed a city of refuge, as the verse states: "They gave to Caleb Hebron" (Joshua 14:13). Abaye said: This is a separate matter, as it is written: "They gave the fields of the city and its villages to Caleb" (Joshua 21:12). And Kedesh is indeed a city of refuge, as the verse states: "Rekem and Kinneret, Kedesh" (Joshua 19:37). And it was taught in a Baraita: These cities are not made like small cities or large cities, but rather as medium-sized towns. Rav Yosef said: There are two Kedesh cities. Rav Ashi said: Such as Salka and Akra, which are Kedesh cities.

There shall be cities of refuge. I only have that they accept in the land, but how do I know that they also accept outside the land? The verse states: "There shall be." When the people of Transjordan came to the land of Canaan, I might have thought they should count six cities there. Therefore, the verse states: "You shall give three cities beyond the Jordan" (Numbers 35:14). When the people of the land of Canaan came to Transjordan, I might have thought they should also count six cities there. Therefore, the verse states: "You shall give three cities in the land of Canaan" (Numbers 35:14). For I have said that if their sword is rebuilt, others will be established in their place, and the first ones will not return to their original place. From now on, the verse states: "There shall be six cities of refuge" (Numbers 35:13), indicating that the second ones return to their original place. It is written: "And to the resident alien and to the settler among them, they shall be cities of refuge for you" (Numbers 35:15). And it is written: "For you, as a refuge, they shall be" (Numbers 35:12). This is not difficult: Here, it refers to a resident alien or settler who killed a resident alien or settler. Here, it refers to a resident alien or settler who killed an Israelite. And they raised a dilemma: Therefore, a resident alien and an inadvertent killer, when they are killed, are included. The teaching is comparing a resident alien to an inadvertent killer. Just as an inadvertent killer is not treated differently whether he killed a relative or someone unrelated, he is still subject to punishment. So too, a resident alien is not treated differently whether he killed a relative or someone unrelated, he is still subject to punishment. Rav Chisda said: This is not difficult. Here, when he killed through descent, since an Israelite is exiled, he is also exiled. There, when he killed through ascent, since an Israelite is exempt, he is put to death. Rava said to him: Is it not all the more reasonable to say that even when he killed through descent, since an Israelite is exiled, he is put to death in exile? There, when he killed through ascent, since an Israelite is exempt, he is put to death. Rather, Rava said: In the case of one who says "permitted," Abaye said to him: He is considered an inadvertent killer. Abaye said to him: I say that when one says "permitted," he is an unwitting transgressor. Abaye said to him: I am different because I say that when one says "permitted," he is close to acting intentionally.

"And for the resident alien and for the settler." Or just as Israel is exiled through the actions of an Israelite, so too Israel is exiled through the actions of a resident alien. You may say, if when an Israelite killed him, he is exempt, a fortiori, he should not be exiled, but rather, if he killed an Israelite, he is put to death. These six cities shall be for refuge. Why is it stated? Because it says, "You shall give three cities on the other side of the Jordan" (Deuteronomy 19:7). I might have thought that I should first designate the first city as a city of refuge; therefore, the verse states, "These six cities shall be." This teaches that not one of them shall be designated until all six are designated.

"And if he struck him with an iron tool." Samuel said, "Why is it not stated 'with a hand in iron'? Because iron kills with any stroke, therefore the Torah did not give it a measure of the amount [required for liability]. And it is as we say, 'He was cut into pieces with iron.' If one dipped it into water or into fire, and he cannot rise from there and dies, he is liable. How do we know this? Samuel said, according to the principle of 'or with enmity,' to include one who minimizes [his act of killing]. There was a man who minimized his act of killing his companion by exposure to sunlight, and she died. Ravina ruled that Rav Acha bar Yaakov should be liable, but Ravina ruled in accordance with the principle of 'or with enmity' [that he is exempt]. If a murderer who did not intend to commit a transgression [but did so] is liable for minimizing [his act], then for damages caused intentionally but through coercion, it is not a proper judgment to impose liability for minimizing [the act]. Rav Acha bar Yaakov exempts him, according to the principle of 'he shall surely be put to death,' for the one who struck is a murderer. It is specifically for a murderer that I have obligated you for minimizing [the act], but for damages caused [by coercion], one is not liable for minimizing [the act]. And if he struck him with an iron tool and he died, why is it stated? Because it says, 'Or with a stone in his hand,' etc. I might have thought that I only have liability if he killed with these [specific objects], with stones and with wood. How do I know that with iron as well [he is liable]? Therefore, it says, 'And if he struck him with an iron tool.' This teaches that until it says, 'I have liability' if when he killed with a stone and with wood, I am liable. "But if you say so, you punished him beyond the requirements of the law." Therefore, it is stated, "And if he struck him with an iron tool." [Just as it says, 'or with a stone in his hand,' so too with iron] in his hand. You might think it was openly before the One who said and the world came into being, that iron kills with anything. Therefore, it is not stated 'in his hand,' but rather even with a needle or even with a reed. I might have only known that if he killed with an iron tool, he would be liable for casting ashes and incense upon him. From where do I know this? Therefore, it says, 'he shall surely be put to death,' regarding the murderer."

"mot yumat, he shall surely be put to death" (written in a remez 322). "mot yumat, he shall surely be put to death," the murderer shall be put to death, meaning you shall kill him, and if you do not kill him, for the killing of his ox, it is written in a hint. "the murderer-murderer verbal analogy applies" (written in a hint, i.e., indirectly). A murderer should be treated as a murderer. "murderer and blood avenger" (written in two separate verses) that come together, but they do not teach us anything new (written in the book of Judges). And if he struck him with a stone in his hand, why is it stated? Because it says, "If men quarrel and one strikes the other," I understand that if they struck each other whether with a matter that can cause death or with a matter that cannot cause death, it is stated, "And if he struck him with a stone in his hand," to indicate that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And from where do we derive that in a place that can cause death? It is derived from the phrase, "And he throws upon him a stone, and he dies," which indicates that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And concerning a place that can cause death, I have only that if he struck him with a stone, he is liable. From where do we derive that rolling stones and pillars upon him are also included? It is stated, "He is a murderer; he shall surely be put to death."

Or with a wooden implement, why is it stated? Because it says, "And if a man strikes his slave or his female slave with a rod," I understand that whether he struck him with a matter that can cause death or with a matter that cannot cause death, it is stated, "Or with a wooden implement," to indicate that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And from where do we derive that in a place that can cause death? It is derived from the phrase, "And if a man is quarrelsome, etc.," which indicates that he is not liable unless he struck him with a matter that can cause death. And concerning a place that can cause death, I have only that if he struck him with a wooden implement, he is liable. From where do we derive that throwing boards and wooden beams upon him are also included? It is stated, "He is a murderer; he shall surely be put to death." From where do we derive that if he struck him with a stone, you would say that he struck him with a clump of salt or with a dried fig cake, or he dropped a basket filled with dirt or a basket filled with pebbles upon him? It is derived from the phrase, "And if he struck him with a stone in his hand," or with a wooden implement. From where do we derive that if he struck him on the head of a beam or on the helm of a ship, you would say he is liable? It is stated, "Or with a wooden implement in his hand." From where do we derive that if one pushes his fellow into water or into fire, or incites a snake against him, you would say it is only if he is able to cause his death? It is stated, "In his hand," to include even if he cannot cause his death. As it is said, "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him," and if he fled to Babylon, they could go there to execute him. You would say that the redeemer of blood should kill him, etc. From where do we derive that even if he said, "I am unable to accept him," it is stated, "When he strikes him," to include even in a case where he cannot accept him. The redeemer of blood should kill the murderer; it is a mitzvah for the redeemer of blood to do so. And from where do we derive that if he does not have a redeemer of blood, the court appoints a redeemer of blood? It is stated, "When he strikes him." Why is it stated "redeemer of blood"? Because it says, "And if he struck him with an iron implement, or with a stone in his hand," [or with a wooden implement in his hand]. I have only that if he killed him with these, he is liable, but with what did he kill him?

Another interpretation: From where do we derive that you evaluate the construction of a father based on all three cases? Neither the sight of a stone is like the sight of wood, nor is the sight of wood like the sight of a stone. And neither the sight of this nor the sight of that is like the sight of iron, and the sight of iron is not like the sight of the other two. The equal side in all three cases is that they are capable of causing death, and causing death is a mitzvah for the redeemer of blood. Therefore, even if he pushed him into water or into fire, or incited a dog against him, or struck him with a snake, you evaluate the construction of a father based on all three cases. Neither the sight of a stone is like the sight of wood, nor is the sight of wood like the sight of a stone. And neither the sight of this nor the sight of that is like the sight of iron, and the sight of iron is not like the sight of the other two. The equal side in all three cases is that they are caused by things that cause death, and causing death incurs liability. Thus, one who pushed him into fire or into water, or incited a dog against him, or incited a snake against him, their judgment is left to Heaven. Or if one threw him with his hunting implements intending to harm him, from where do we derive that even if he says, "I cannot accept him," it is stated, "When he strikes him," indicating that he should be killed upon contact. And if he pushed him due to enmity, and is not enmity itself enmity? What is the purpose of stating "enmity" and "hatred"? Rather, just as hatred leads to striking him, enmity also leads to striking him. In the case of striking him with his implements, it is stated that "he shall die." What is the meaning of "his implements" mentioned here? The term "his implements" mentioned below indicates that the act of throwing and striking caused his death. Since it is stated "he shall surely die," one might think that anyone who strikes will die. However, the text provides clarifications: a minor who struck, a mentally incompetent person who struck, a teacher who struck, and a toddler who struck. Additionally, the striking in the context of rebellion and striking out of love are also included. But intentional striking is distinguished from unintentional striking. An adult is distinguished from a minor, a resident is distinguished from a stranger, and the intention to kill him is specified. In the case of a planned ambush, a distinction is made for a mentally incompetent person. However, if he survives for a day or two, a distinction is made, except for a master who struck his servant. This is because the Babylonian Talmud specifies that the exemption for acting unknowingly applies only to a strike without intent, a teacher who struck, and striking in the context of rebellion and out of love. Since it is stated "and you shall do to him as he intended," one might think that even the one who sends the strike is liable. But it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker, not the sender. This implies that I am lenient with the sender in cases where the strike is not intended to be lethal, but the striker still strikes with lethal intent. It is stated "he shall surely die," not the sender. I am lenient with these individuals, but I am not lenient with striking other people's slaves. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. I am lenient with other people's slaves, but I am not lenient with the slave himself. Hence, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. I am strict when it comes to one's father who is a president, but I am not strict when it comes to one's father who is a judge. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" (he shall surely die). I am strict when it comes to one's father who is a judge in the Supreme Court (not the Great Court). Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. It is possible to say all these cases apply to one's father when he committed a transgression, indicating liability. Since it is stated, "And all Israel shall hear and fear," it was established that they should execute by way of stoning. One might think that if a pregnant woman is a transgressor, they should delay her execution until she gives birth. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" regarding the striker. One might think that if she is in her third month of pregnancy, they should not delay her execution until she gives birth, but if she is in her ninth month of pregnancy, they should delay her execution until she gives birth. Therefore, it is stated "he shall surely die" or "he shall surely die" referring to the death penalty decreed by the court. How do we know that they should strike him with stones, arrows, and clubs? It is stated "he shall surely die" from every side. This is applicable only when the Sanhedrin is in its rightful place. When the Sanhedrin is not in its rightful place, a person is liable to be killed by the falling of his house or being dragged by a wild animal, etc. Since it is stated "Honor your father and your mother," it means that when one kills his son, the son is exempt from punishment. Therefore, it is stated "the avenger of blood shall put him to death," etc.

Or if he struck him with enmity, why is it stated "by his hand"? Because it states "or if he struck him with an iron tool" etc., "or with a stone" etc., "or with a wooden tool" etc. I only know that if he killed him with those, he is liable. How do I know that if he choked him, strangled him, or kicked him, he is also liable? It is stated "by his hand" from any manner of killing. And if it happened suddenly, excluding the case of a cornered animal. Without enmity, excluding a hater. A person who pushed another with his body, or one who threw something on him with the intention of causing a descending object that serves a purpose. Without intent, excluding one who intended to throw on one side and it landed on the other side. And one who did not intend, excluding one who intended to throw two and ended up throwing four. And if one brings harm to his fellow in a forest, just as a forest grants permission for one to be harmed and cause harm to enter it, so too any place grants permission for one to be harmed and cause harm to enter it. The Sages taught: A blind person is not exiled, as it is stated "without seeing" to exclude the blind according to Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says "without seeing" to include the blind. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As it is written, "And if one brings harm to his fellow in a forest," which even includes a blind person who comes without seeing its full extent. And Rabbi Meir says "without seeing" to exclude intentional action. "Without seeing" means not bringing the one who throws at night. It was taught in a braita that Rabbi Yehuda says: A blind person has no shame. What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? As Rabbi Yehuda derived from the verse "Do not favor him, and your eye shall pronounce guilt." Just as there the blind are excluded as witnesses, so too here the blind are excluded. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from cases of capital punishment by the court. Similarly, he exempts them from cases of lashes. This is derived from the principle that one wicked person exempts another wicked person from cases of capital punishment by the court. And Rabbi Yehuda exempted him from all the laws of the Torah, as he said: "And the congregation shall judge between the smiter and the redeemer of blood." Whoever is included in the case of a smiter and a redeemer of blood is included in matters of judgment, and whoever is not included in the case of a smiter and a redeemer of blood is not included in matters of judgment. Rav Yosef said, initially, I used to say that if someone tells me that the halacha follows Rabbi Yehuda, I would observe an extra day of Yom Tov in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as I did not take it into account and I performed a mitzvah. Since I heard that which Rabbi Chanina said: "Greater is the one who is commanded and performs than one who is not commanded and performs," if someone tells me that the halacha does not follow Rabbi Yehuda, I would observe only one day of Yom Tov in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Rabbi Yehuda exempted him from all the commandments of the Torah, as he said: "These are the commandments and the statutes and the ordinances." Whoever is included in matters of judgment is included in the commandments, statutes, and ordinances, and whoever is not included in matters of judgment is not included in the commandments, statutes, and ordinances. "Without seeing" excludes the blind. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda, and so on. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda held that partial knowledge is not considered the same as complete knowledge, while Rabbi Meir held the opposite view. And we raise a contradiction: I know that there are vows but I do not know that there are ways to annul them, [one who acts as if he did not hear at all], I know that there are ways to annul them [but] I do not know that this is a vow. Rabbi Meir says: One should never annul a vow unless he knows within the same day that it is a vow, and we do not say that partial hearing is like complete hearing. And Rabbi Yehuda says: One may annul it within the same day even if he does not know that it is a vow, as we say that partial hearing is like complete hearing. Rava said: Here we have an issue related to the verse, and there we have an issue related to the verse. Rabbi Yehuda holds that regarding a case of a murderer, it is written: "And if someone brings harm to his neighbor in the forest," anything that is included in the term "forest" applies, and a blind person also falls within the category of "forest." And if you say that "without seeing" includes the blind person, it is unnecessary, but rather we learn that it excludes the blind person. And Rabbi Meir holds that in matters of vows, it is written: "And her husband heard it and remained silent," Rabbi Yehuda holds that partial hearing is like complete hearing, and Rabbi Meir holds the opposite.

And he fell upon him. These are the unintentional killers. If one was spinning a grinding stone in a circle and it fell on him and killed him, or if one was dragging a barrel and the rope snapped and it fell on him and killed him, or if one was descending a ladder and it fell on him and killed him, then this person is exiled. But if one was pulling a grinding stone and it fell on him and killed him, or if one was carrying a barrel and the strap broke and it fell on him and killed him, or if one was climbing a ladder and it fell on him and killed him, then this person is not exiled. This is the general rule: any case where the cause of death is due to a descending object leads to exile, but if it does not involve a descending object, there is no exile. From where do we derive this? Shmuel said that the verse "And he fell upon him and died" implies that the manner of falling must be in a customary manner. "And he fell" includes the case of someone who leapt into a well. "And he died" teaches that the person is not an enemy and does not seek his harm in court. It indicates that the person's words were not evaluated and his testimony was not accepted. The Sages taught: "And he is not his enemy, he shall testify for him, and he does not seek his harm, he shall judge him." We find that a person is considered an enemy when he hates someone. If he loves someone, from where do we derive it? It is a logical deduction. If he hates someone because he is distant from him, then he also loves someone because he is close to him. The rabbis further asked about the phrase "And he is not his enemy, he does not seek his harm." What is the interpretation? One answer is that it refers to a judge. Another answer is as it was taught: "And he is not his enemy." Issi ben Yehuda says: From here we learn about two Torah scholars who hate each other and should not sit together in judgment.

And he shall not be biased towards him, in order to disqualify those who hate him from sitting in judgment. I only have a source for disqualifying haters; how do I know to include relatives? Therefore, it is stated: "Between the one who strikes and the avenger of blood." I only have a source for judges who disqualify haters and relatives; how do I know about witnesses? Therefore, since you are judging, and the Torah said, "put to death based on the testimony of witnesses," just as judges disqualify haters and relatives, witnesses also disqualify haters and relatives. Furthermore, what applies to judges, who have ongoing authority, to disqualify haters and relatives, does not apply to witnesses, as their authority is not ongoing, and they do not disqualify haters and relatives. I only have a source for the case of a murderer; how do I know about other capital offenses? Therefore, it is stated: "These judgments." I only have a source for the people of Israel; how do I know about converts? Therefore, it is stated: "These judgments shall be for you as for the native-born." I only have a source for cases involving loss of life; how do I know about cases involving monetary matters? Therefore, it is necessary to state: "Upon these judgments." Just as cases involving loss of life are included in these judgments, so too cases involving monetary matters are included in these judgments. But how do I know that cases involving monetary matters are not included in these judgments? Therefore, it is stated: "These judgments." How do I know about cases involving loss of life? It is stated: "And the congregation shall judge, resulting in ten." And it is stated: "And they shall save the congregation, resulting in ten." And how do I know about three additional judges? Since the Torah said, "put to death based on the testimony of witnesses," just as witnesses are two, judges are also two, and a court cannot add another one, thus we have three judges. Some interpreters of the Scriptures say that three testimonies are mentioned in the passage to teach you that cases involving loss of life require three judges.

How do we know that a smaller Sanhedrin, consisting of twenty-three members, is sufficient? As it is stated: "And the congregation shall judge, and they shall deliver the slayer from the hand of the avenger of blood." The term "congregation" indicates that the judgment of the congregation is effective, and the term "congregation" implies a minimum of ten individuals. How do we know to include an additional three? It is derived from the verse: "You shall not follow the majority for evil." I understand that one should be with them for the good, meaning even if there is only one person advocating for the defendant, it is sufficient. However, the verse states: "To pervert [the judgment]"; this implies that even for evil, meaning if there are two people advocating for conviction, the judgment is still effective. And the Sanhedrin, which is not equivalent to them, may not add another member, as the minimum number required is already twenty-three.

And the congregation shall deliver the killer. From here we learn that whether a person has killed intentionally or unintentionally, they are all brought to the cities of refuge, and the court sends and brings them from there. Whoever is deserving of death is executed, and whoever is not deserving of death is acquitted. And whoever is deserving of exile is returned to their place, as it is said: "And the congregation shall return him." "Until the death of the High Priest." It was taught in a beraita: "In all cases, if one intentionally kills a person, he is executed; if he unintentionally kills, he is exiled. And if he violates a positive commandment or a negative commandment, it is as if he violated them all." That he is executed for intentional murder is obvious; the need for exile for unintentional killing is necessary to teach us. The Gemara asks: According to the first explanation, since it is written "until the death of the High Priest," say that anyone who has a mitigating factor of returning [to his city of refuge] is not subject to exile, but it is not necessary to teach us that if one kills a High Priest or a ruler, he is never released from there. The Gemara responds: It teaches us that halakha. And say this also: According to the second explanation, the phrase "to flee there" teaches that every murderer, even a ruler, is included in its literal meaning. And if he violates a positive commandment, isn't it obvious that if he didn't violate it, he is like an ordinary person? The Gemara explains: That is what it is saying—if he violates it, he is like an ordinary person. This is obvious! The Gemara responds: It is necessary to teach us that we only adjudicate cases of a High Priest before the Supreme Sanhedrin, as it is written: "They shall bring all the great matters to you," which indicates that the matters of a great person are adjudicated only by a Supreme Sanhedrin. The Gemara suggests: Say this also: Who is it written about? It is written about a great matter. One who was anointed with the anointing oil, one who was distinguished by his garments, and one who surpassed his contemporaries in wisdom—these factors determine the return of the murderer [to the city of refuge]. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a high-ranking military commander returns the murderer [to the city of refuge]. From where are these matters derived? As we learned, it is stated: "Until the death of the High Priest." And it is written: "For in the city of refuge he shall remain until the death of the High Priest." Rabbi Yehuda has an alternative derivation: It is written in another verse: "He shall dwell in his own city until the death of the High Priest." And the term "the great" mentioned in these verses refers only to the High Priest. "Until the death of the High Priest." Therefore, the deaths of the priests provide them with sustenance and clothing, so that they will not pray for the deaths of their children. The reason for this is that they do not pray for it, as it is said: "A baseless curse shall not come." That elder said to Ravah: I heard that they were supposed to seek mercy for their generation, but they did not. And there are those who say that the reason is so that they will pray for their children not to die. The reason for this is that they do pray for it, as opposed to not praying for it. What could they have done differently? Here they say: They have committed many sins and transgressions. There, they say: They have established false witnesses and caused a decree. That elder said, etc. For that man who was bitten by a lion from afar, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not respond to him for three days.

"Just as the city accepts, so too its boundary accepts." And they raised a contradiction: "And he shall dwell in it, but not in its boundary." Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to the city's acceptance, and here it is referring to the boundary's acceptance. And you can derive from it that they do not make a field a boundary, and a boundary a field; they do not make a city a boundary, and a boundary a city. Rav Sheshet said: This is only necessary for leniencies. "Until the death of the High Priest," Rabbi Meir says: A murderer shortens the days of a person's life, while a High Priest extends the days of a person's life. It is not just that someone who shortens the days of a person's life should face judgment before someone who extends the days of a person's life. Rabbi says: A murderer defiles the land and removes the Divine presence, while a High Priest causes the Divine presence to dwell in the land. This is not a proper judgment, etc. And if he leaves, he leaves. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: If the measure of punishment is mild and he takes even one step, he becomes liable for his life. By analogy, we learn that a greater measure of kindness applies. The Sages teach: "And if he leaves, he leaves." I would only know that this applies to intentional acts. From where do I derive that it also applies to accidental acts? The verse states: "And if he leaves, he leaves" — regardless. And it was taught in a Baraita: For an intentional act, he is killed, but for an accidental act, he is exiled. This is not difficult: Here, when the Torah speaks in the language of human beings, and here, when the Torah does not speak in the language of human beings. Abaye said: It is logical to conclude that when the Torah speaks in the language of human beings, the outcome should not be more severe than the beginning. Just as the beginning, in the case of an intentional act, results in being killed and exiled for an accidental act, so too, the outcome, in the case of an intentional act, should result in being killed and exiled for an accidental act.

"The manslayer shall return to his own land of possession." To his own land of possession he shall return and not to a different land as his fathers held. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He also returns to the land as his fathers held. Similarly, when it says "Veshav El Mishpachto" (and he shall return to his family), it means he returns to the authority that was in place there. These are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the authority that was in place there. He only returns to his family, to his own family, and not as his fathers held. These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He also returns to the authority that was in place there. And concerning the possession of his fathers, just as his fathers held it, he completes his return from there.

And the congregation shall return him. I might think that if someone is obligated to be exiled but did not have a chance to go into exile before dying, the congregation should return him, meaning they should treat his corpse as if it were a living person. Therefore, it is stated "ve-heshivu, and they shall return him" (and they shall return him), indicating that his body should not be moved from its place. "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge). If the murderer was found outside the city of refuge, they would bring him back. I might think they can bring him back to any nearby city. Therefore, it is stated "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge) which implies his specific designated city. "Asher Nus" (that he fled to). He should not leave to rescue someone from a draft, from a river, from a fire, or from a battle. "Shamah" (there), he should not go to distribute charity to the poor. I might think if the person in need is poor, he should not go, but if the person in need is rich, he should go. Therefore, it is stated "Shamah" (there). I might think that if there are rich people similar to him, he should not go, but if there are no rich people similar to him, he should go. Therefore, it is stated "Shamah" (there). "Veyashav Bah" (and he shall dwell there), meaning he should not go from city to city. Even though I may say that if he anointed himself in his lifetime and he was a person of stature, but if he anointed himself and he was a minor, he should not go. Therefore, it is stated "Beshemen Hakodesh" (with the holy anointing oil), indicating that the matter depends on the oil and not on the individual. "Vehashivu Oto Ha'edah" (and the congregation shall return him). This means that one who was obligated to be exiled and went into exile but returned before his appointed time shall meet his death as if it were the death of two. I hear you, "Ed Mot" (witness of death) refers to both this witness and that witness. Therefore, it is stated "Ad Mot Hakohen Hagadol" (until the death of the high priest). "Ad Mot Hakohen Hagadol" (until the death of the high priest) refers to the one who holds the position of high priest, who is distinguished by his multiple garments. "Asher Mashach" (who was anointed) includes one anointed for war. That particular detail includes the anointed himself, as it is stated "Miklat Ha'ir Kolelet" (the city of refuge shall admit) but not its open spaces, "O Ha'ir Matzelet" (or the city shall rescue) but not its surroundings. Therefore, it is stated "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge). "Umatza Oto" (and he finds him) includes the act of finding him as the blood avenger. As it is stated "Arei Miklat Ha'ir Kolelet" (the city of refuge shall admit) but not its borders, "O Ha'ir Matzelet" (or the city shall rescue) but not its boundaries. Therefore, it is stated "Michutz Lagvul Ir Miklato" (beyond the border of the city of his refuge). "Verezach Go'el Hadam" (and the blood avenger shall slay) includes anyone who kills him. And similarly, "V'ach Et Damchem L'Nafshoteychem" (only your blood shall I require for your lives) indicates that one demands the blood of a person from anyone who kills him. In his city of refuge, it includes the residents of his city of refuge who were exiled together with him. I hear you, "Shomea Ani" (I hear), he shall dwell in exile. Therefore, it is stated "Ki Be'ir Miklato" (for in his city of refuge), to include that if he killed someone in that city, he shall be exiled from one neighborhood to another. And a Levite shall be exiled from city to city. "Ad Mot Hakohen" (until the death of the high priest) indicates that his possession is a place of refuge. I only have the case of his possession being a place of rescue. From where do I know that the entire land is a place of rescue? It is stated "Yashuv Harotze'ach El Eretz Achuzato Miged" (the manslayer shall return to his own land of possession). "Vehayu Eleh Lachem" (and they shall be for you) teaches that the Sanhedrin functions both in the land and outside the land. The Sages taught: "Ledoroteichem Bechol Moshevoteichem Lamadnu L'Sanhedrin Shenohegeth Be'eretz Uv'chutz La'aretz" (For your generations, in all your settlements, we have learned that the Sanhedrin functions both in the land and outside the land). If so, why does it state "B'sha'arecha" (at your gates)? It means that you establish courts in each district and in each city. Outside the land, you establish courts in each district, but not in each city.

Why is it stated "kol makeh nefesh lefi edim, anyone who strikes a person must be judged according to witnesses" (every strike that takes a life requires witnesses)? Because it is written, "And the avenger of blood shall slay the murderer" (Numbers 35:19). I might think that the avenger can kill the murderer on his own, without witnesses. Therefore, it is stated "kol makeh nefesh lefi edim, anyone who strikes a person must be judged according to witnesses" (every strike that takes a life requires witnesses) to teach that the murderer is not put to death except through witnesses. These are the words of Rabbi Yehoshua. Rabbi Yonatan says, "Why is it stated 'kol makeh nefesh lefi edim, anyone who strikes a person must be judged according to witnesses' (every strike that takes a life requires witnesses)? Because it is written, 'But the murderer shall not die' (Numbers 35:12). I might think that the murderer is put to death by the court without witnesses. Therefore, it is stated 'kol makeh nefesh lefi edim, anyone who strikes a person must be judged according to witnesses' (every strike that takes a life requires witnesses) to teach that the murderer is not put to death except through witnesses and by the court."