Makkot 12bמכות י״ב ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
12bי״ב ב

ר' יהודה אומר במערה הולך אחר פתחה באילן הולך אחר נופו

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to a cave, follow its entrance; if the entrance is inside the city, the status of the entire cave is that of part of the city, and one may partake of tithes in it. With regard to a tree, follow its boughs. The baraita that states that with regard to second tithe in Jerusalem and cities of refuge one follows the boughs is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

אימור דשמעת ליה לר"י גבי מעשר לחומרא עיקרו בחוץ ונופו בפנים כי היכי דבנופו לא מצי פריק בעיקרו נמי לא מצי פריק עיקרו מבפנים ונופו מבחוץ כי היכי דבנופו לא מצי אכיל בלא פדייה בעיקרו נמי לא מצי אכיל בלא פדייה

The Gemara rejects that explanation. Say that you heard Rabbi Yehuda express this opinion with regard to second-tithe produce in a situation where his ruling is a stringency, as in the case where the trunk of a tree is outside Jerusalem and its boughs are inside Jerusalem, just as among its boughs, one may not redeem second-tithe produce, and he must partake of it in Jerusalem, so too at its trunk he may not redeem second-tithe produce, even though it stands outside of Jerusalem. So too in a case where the trunk of a tree is inside and its boughs outside, there is a stringency: Just as among its boughs, one may not partake of second-tithe produce without redemption, so too at its trunk he may not partake of second-tithe produce without redemption, even though it stands inside Jerusalem.

אלא גבי ערי מקלט בשלמא עיקרו בחוץ ונופו בפנים כי היכי דבנופו לא מצי קטיל ליה בעיקרו נמי לא מצי קטיל ליה אלא עיקרו בפנים ונופו בחוץ כי היכי דבנופו מצי קטיל ליה בעיקרו נמי מצי קטיל ליה הא גואי קאי

But with regard to cities of refuge, it may be otherwise: Granted, if its trunk is outside the boundary and its boughs are inside, just as among its boughs, the blood redeemer may not kill the unintentional murderer, so too at its trunk, he may not kill him. But if its trunk was inside and its boughs outside, would one say that just as among its boughs, the blood redeemer may kill him, at its trunk, he may also kill him? Isn’t the unintentional murderer standing inside the city of refuge? How could one say that it is permitted for the blood redeemer to kill him inside the city?

אמר רבא בעיקרו דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דלא מצי קטיל קאי בנופו ויכול להורגו בחצים ובצרורות דכ"ע לא פליגי דמצי קטיל ליה

Rava said that it can be explained as follows: In the case where its trunk is inside the boundary and its boughs outside, and the unintentional murderer was standing at its trunk, everyone agrees that the blood redeemer may not kill him, and when Rabbi Yehuda said that the trunk follows the boughs, he did not intend to include that case. If the murderer is standing among the boughs of the tree, and the blood redeemer is able to kill him with arrows and pebbles, everyone, including the Rabbis, agrees that the blood redeemer may kill him, as the boughs are outside the city.

כי פליגי במהוי עיקרו דרגא לנופו מר סבר הוי עיקרו דרגא לנופו ומר סבר לא הוי עיקרו דרגא לנופו

When they disagree is with regard to whether its trunk can become a step for its boughs, enabling the blood redeemer to gain access to the unintentional murderer there. One Sage, Rabbi Yehuda, holds: Its trunk can become a step for its boughs; the blood redeemer may gain access to the boughs extending outside the boundary and kill the unintentional murderer by climbing the trunk inside the city. It was in that context that Rabbi Yehuda says that the trunk follows the boughs. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds: Its trunk cannot become a step for its boughs.

רב אשי אמר מאי אחר הנוף אף אחר הנוף:

Rav Ashi said: What is the meaning of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: Follow its boughs? It does not mean that the location of the boughs is the only determining factor; rather, it means that in addition to the trunk, follow the boughs as well in a case where it is a stringency. Therefore, with regard to a city of refuge a tree whose trunk is inside the boundary and its boughs extend beyond the boundary, the halakhic status of the boughs is the same as what it would be were they inside the boundary.

מתני׳ הרג באותה העיר גולה משכונה לשכונה ובן לוי גולה מעיר לעיר:

MISHNA: If an unintentional murderer, exiled to a city of refuge, unintentionally killed a person in the same city, he is exiled from that neighborhood where he resided to another neighborhood within that city. And a Levite who is a permanent resident of a city of refuge and unintentionally killed a person is exiled from that city to another city.

גמ׳ ת"ר (שמות כא, יג) ושמתי לך מקום וגו' ושמתי לך בחייך מקום ממקומך אשר ינוס שמה מלמד שהיו ישראל מגלין במדבר להיכן מגלין למחנה לויה

GEMARA: Apropos the halakha in the mishna that a Levite is exiled from one city to another city, the Gemara cites that which the Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And one who did not lie in wait…and I will appoint for you a place where he may flee” (Exodus 21:13). “And I will appoint for you”; God said to Moses: There will be a place that provides refuge for unintentional murderers already during your lifetime. “A place”; it will be from your place, meaning the Levite camp served as the place that provided refuge in the wilderness. “Where he may flee”; this teaches that Israel would exile unintentional murderers in the wilderness as well, before they entered the land. To where did they exile unintentional murderers when they were in the wilderness? They exiled them to the Levite camp, which provided refuge.

מכאן אמרו בן לוי שהרג גולה מפלך לפלך ואם גלה לפלכו פלכו קולטו אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא מאי קרא (במדבר לה, כח) כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עיר שקלטתו כבר:

From here the Sages said: A Levite who killed unintentionally is exiled from one district to another district, to a different Levite city in the other district. And if he was exiled to a city in his own district, he is admitted to the city in his district, which provides him with refuge. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: What is the verse from which it is derived that a murderer who unintentionally killed in the city of refuge where he was exiled is exiled to another neighborhood in that same city? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “For in his city of refuge he shall dwell” (Numbers 35:28), indicating that it is a city in which he was already admitted, as the verse is referring to it as his city, and he shall continue to reside there as well.

מתני׳ כיוצא בו רוצח שגלה לעיר מקלטו ורצו אנשי העיר לכבדו יאמר להם רוצח אני אמרו לו אף על פי כן יקבל מהן שנאמר (דברים יט, ד) וזה דבר הרוצח

MISHNA: Similarly, in the case of a murderer who was exiled to a city of refuge and the people of the city sought to honor him due to his prominence, he shall say to them: I am a murderer. If the residents of the city say to him: We are aware of your status and nevertheless, we wish to honor you, he may accept the honor from them, as it is stated: “And this is the matter [devar] of the murderer” (Deuteronomy 19:4), from which it is derived that the murderer is required to say [ledabber] to them that he is a murderer. He is not required to tell them any more than that.