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 "והשיבו" (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 "כל מכה נפש לפי עדים" (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 "כל מכה נפש לפי עדים" (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 'כל מכה נפש לפי עדים' (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 'כל מכה נפש לפי עדים' (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."
One witness may not respond, whether in favor or against, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda. He may respond in favor but not against. What is the reason for Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda's opinion? It is derived from the fact that one witness may not respond in a capital case, as he does not respond to establish guilt but may respond in favor. The Rabbis disagree because it appears as if he is interfering with his testimony. And what do the Rabbis derive from the phrase "למות" (to death)? They apply it to include one of the disciples, as it is taught: One of the witnesses says, "I have something to teach regarding him in favor." How do we know that his words are not heard? The verse states, "ועד אחד לא יענה" (one witness may not respond). How do we know that this includes one of the disciples who says, "I have something to teach regarding him in favor [or against]"? How do we know that his words are not heard? The verse states, "אחד לא יענה" (one may not respond). One witness may not respond in a capital case, but may respond in an oath case. The phrase "ועד אחד" (one witness) refers to a person who built his father's house. Wherever it says "עד" (witness), it includes two witnesses until the verse explicitly singles out one witness. "In all your settlements" includes both in the land and outside the land. One might think that even cities of refuge should follow the same rules in both the land and outside the land, therefore it is stated "בכל מושבותיכם" (in all your settlements) to teach that the courts operate in the land and outside the land, but cities of refuge are only applicable in the land.
The requirement of testimony applies to every strike that causes injury. How do we know that it also applies to a case of exile? The verse states, "Every strike shall be according to witnesses." Just as the testimony is required for physical blows, it is also required for the case of exile. How do we know the laws of exile and corporal punishment? The verse states, "Every strike that causes injury shall be according to witnesses." This implies that the witness must be qualified to testify. How do we know that even an unqualified witness is included? The verse states, "witness and witness," which means that both a qualified and an unqualified witness are included, as "witness and witness" is mentioned to include the judge.
"Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he must be put to death. Why should I have him? For the Merciful One said, 'You shall not accept a ransom in place of the life of a murderer; he shall be put to death.'" (Numbers 35:31) "Do not accept ransom for one who has fled to the city of refuge to return and live in the land before the death of the high priest; he must remain in exile. Why should I have him? For the Merciful One said, 'You shall not accept a ransom for one who has fled to his city of refuge, allowing him to return and live in the land before the death of the high priest; he must remain in exile.'" (Numbers 35:32) These two verses serve the same purpose: one refers to intentional killing and the other to unintentional killing, and both are necessary. How do we know that in the case of a person who is deserving of the death penalty, whose days are completed but he extends his stay and does not leave, or if he is bound and someone commits an act of violence against him, causing injury, how do we know that he is exempt? It is derived from the verse that says, 'You shall not accept ransom... to return' (Numbers 35:32), indicating that you shall not accept ransom to enable him to return. "Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer." You do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer, but you do accept ransom for the limbs that are not restored. "Do not accept ransom for the life of a murderer." Why is it stated? Because it says, 'If ransom is imposed on him' (Exodus 21:30) or just as we grant redemption to those sentenced to death by the hands of Heaven, so too, we grant redemption to those sentenced to death by human hands. Therefore, it says, "Do not accept ransom..." (Numbers 35:32). Rabbi Yashiyah says: If someone went out [of the city of refuge] to be killed, and he injured others, he is liable. If others injured him, they are exempt from his body but not from his money. Or [this law applies] until his judgment is not yet complete; as it is stated, "Whoever is a murderer shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:30) until his judgment is complete, he is liable; once his judgment is complete, he is exempt. Rabbi Yonatan says: If someone went out [of the city of refuge] to be killed and another person came before him and killed him, the latter is exempt. Or [this law applies] until his judgment is not yet complete; as it is stated, "Whoever is a murderer shall be put to death" (Numbers 35:30) until his judgment is complete, he is liable; once his judgment is complete, he is exempt. "Do not accept ransom for one who has fled to the city of refuge." If someone intentionally caused the death [of the fleeing person], I understand that he should pay money and be expelled. Therefore, it is stated, "Do not accept ransom for one who has fled" (Numbers 35:32). "Do not accept ransom." This refers to a person who was obligated to be exiled, but the court declared to him, "Go and depart." One might think that he still has an obligation [to be exiled]; you say [this verse applies] to a soul in exile. "Do not accept ransom for one who has fled" includes a case where someone fled to a city of refuge, and the court declared to him, "Go and depart." One might think that he still has an obligation [to be exiled]; therefore, it is stated, "To return." This teaches [the law] regarding a person who was measured [by the court] and completed six cubits [of distance] while his [avenger] was pursuing him, and the court declared to him, "Go and depart." One might think that he still has an obligation [to be exiled]; it is therefore derived from the verse "To return."
"Do not deceive the land." This is a warning to deceivers. Alternatively, "Do not deceive the land" means, do not cause the land to become deceptive towards you. For blood will deceive. Rabbi Yashiyah says, using a wordplay, "It will cause wrath to be directed even towards the land." And concerning the land, there shall be no atonement. Why is it stated? Because it is said, "And they shall expiate their sin." This teaches that if an incident of the Golden Calf were to occur again, and afterward it is discovered who the killer is, I hear that we would exempt him. Therefore, it is stated, "And concerning the land, there shall be no atonement." And concerning the land, there shall be no atonement. Just as with a person, we hang the guilty one, so too with the calf, we hang it. "And do not defile the land." It is pure from defilement, while not all lands are pure from defilement. "Dwelling among the children of Israel." Can it mean within one hundred out of one thousand? Therefore, it is stated, "Dwelling among the children of Israel." And some say, within each and every tribe. And some say, within all the tribes. Rabbi Nehorai says, "For I am the Lord who dwells [could dwell] even in exile." Therefore, it is stated, "In the land." Or [alternatively], "In the land while you are in exile." Therefore, it is stated, "Dwelling among the children of Israel." At a time when the children of Israel are in the land and not when they are outside the land. "And do not defile the land." The Scripture reveals that the shedding of blood defiles the land and removes the divine presence. Because the shedding of blood brought the destruction of the Temple. There was an incident involving two priests who were equal in stature and ran to ascend the ramp together. One of them pushed his companion within four cubits and took a knife and stabbed him in the heart. Rabbi Tzadok came and stood on the steps of the Hall and said, "Hear me, our brothers, the House of Israel. It says, 'If a slain person be found fallen in the land...' Let us determine who is fit to bring the heifer to the sanctuary or the courtyards." They all burst into tears. And then the father of the infant came and said to them, "Our brothers, I have appeased you. My child is still a fluttering bird, and the knife has not become impure. This teaches you that the impurity of knives is more severe for Israel than the shedding of blood." And it also says, "Moreover, innocent blood has been shed." From here it is taught that due to the sin of shedding blood, the divine presence departs from Israel, and the sanctuary becomes impure."I, who dwell among them, hold dear the children of Israel. Even though they are impure, the divine presence remains among them, as it is stated, 'I dwell among them in their impurities.'" Rabbi Nathan says, "The children of Israel are beloved, for wherever they are exiled, the divine presence is with them." They were exiled to Egypt, and the divine presence was with them, as it is said, "I revealed Myself to the house of your father." They were exiled to Babylon, and the divine presence was with them, as it is said, "For your sake, I am sending to Babylon." They were exiled to Elam, and the divine presence was with them, as it is said, "And I will set My throne in Elam." They were exiled to Edom, and the divine presence was with them, as it is said, "Who is this coming from Edom?" And when they return, the divine presence returns with them, as it is said, "And the Lord your God will bring you back." It does not say "and He will return," but rather "and He will bring back." It also says, "With me from Lebanon, my bride." Rabbi says, based on a parable: A king said to his servant, "If you seek me, I will be with my children. As long as you seek me, I will be with my children." Similarly, it says, "The One who dwells among them in their impurities."
Indeed, the tribe of Benjamin used to speak [a coded language] (written in the hint of the year 775). There were no festive days for the Israelites like the fifteenth of Av and Yom Kippur. Regarding Yom Kippur, it is a day of forgiveness and atonement [the day the second tablets were given]. But why is the fifteenth of Av [considered special]? Rav Yehuda said, it is the day when the tribes were allowed to intermarry. What is the scriptural source for this? "This is the thing that the Lord has commanded concerning the daughters of Zelophehad." This matter only applies to this generation. Rav Nachman said, it was the day when the deaths in the desert ceased, as our Master said, as long as the deaths in the desert were not finished, there was no communication with Moses. As it is written, "And it came to pass when all the men of war had completely ceased to die." And it is written, "And the Lord spoke to me, saying, 'You have gone through enough of this.'"
Rabbi Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The daughters of Zelophehad were permitted to marry whomever they pleased, as it is stated, "Let them marry whomever is good in their eyes; they shall marry within the clan of their father" (Numbers 36:6). However, how do I reconcile this with the fact that I can only uphold it for their paternal family? The verse gives them good advice, that they should only marry someone suitable for them, and not cause the inheritance to be transferred (as it is written in a hint, Tishrei 5755). Rabbi Yochanan, in the name of Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Shimon, said: According to the Torah, a woman inherits her son. The verse states, "And every daughter who inherits a portion shall marry within the tribe of her father" (Numbers 36:8). Just as the father's tribe, the father inherits his son, so too, the mother's tribe, the mother inherits her son. Rabbi Yochanan presented an objection: A woman inherits her son, and a woman inherits her husband. Yet, we do not inherit through women, but only through men. Rabbi Yochanan replied, "Since we have received the tradition, I do not know the reason for the distinction." Our Tanna, based on the Mishna, says that if we interpret it to mean that a woman inherits her son, then how do we determine which comes first, the son's inheritance or the daughter's inheritance from the mother's estate? Therefore, it is always interpreted that inheritance is through the male line. However, here it is different because it is written, "And every daughter who inherits, but does not inherit" (Numbers 36:8). The Tanna of Rabbi Yishmael's school of thought teaches that the daughters of Zelophehad were equal, as it is written, "And the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah" (Numbers 27:1). These are the mitzvot that a prophet is not authorized to innovate (mentioned at the end of the Book of Kohanim).