THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF
brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question about the Daf
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications for
these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) STEPPING OUT OF THE "IR MIKLAT"
OPINIONS: Mar Zutra bar Tuvya states in the name of Rav that when an
accidental killer steps out of the boundary of the Ir Miklat before his
trial, the Go'el ha'Dam may not kill him. He derives from the verse that the
Go'el ha'Dam may not kill the accidental killer until the killer is brought
before the court (according to the RITVA, this means that the Go'el ha'Dam
may not kill the accidental killer until the court warns the killer that if
he exits the Ir Miklat, the Go'el ha'Dam will have the right to kill him).
If the Go'el ha'Dam kills him before he is brought before the court, then
the Go'el ha'Dam is punished as a murderer. Earlier (10b), Rav Huna states
that when an accidental killer flees to an Ir Miklat and the Go'el ha'Dam
kills him before he gets there, the Go'el ha'Dam is *not* punished by Beis
Din as a murderer. Is Mar Zutra bar Tuvya arguing with Rav Huna?
(a) The RE'AH and RABEINU MEIR HA'LEVI, cited by the RITVA, maintain that
Mar Zutra and Rav Huna are arguing. Rav Huna says that if the Go'el ha'Dam
kills the accidental killer on the way to an Ir Miklat, he is not killed by
Beis Din. It follows that, according to Rav Huna, the same applies if the
Go'el ha'Dam kills the accidental killer when he steps outside of the Ir
Miklat. Rav Huna's opinion is that of Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Akiva, and the
Halachah therefore follows his opinion.
(b) The RITVA argues that the two statements are not exclusive. Rav Huna
might agree that once a killer has reached the Ir Miklat and now is
considered a permanent resident of that city, it is forbidden to kill him
even if he steps outside of the city limits. (Consequently, it is possible
that Rav Huna is *not* following the view of Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yosi.
They say only that the Go'el ha'Dam is not punished when he kills the killer
who negligently strays outside of the city limits. Perhaps they do *not*
condone the Go'el ha'Dam killing the accidental killer before he even has a
chance to get to the Ir Miklat.) Moreover, if Rav Huna's view is arguing
with this Tana, then the Gemara should have mentioned this earlier when it
asked questions on Rav Huna's opinion; the Gemara should have answered these
questions by saying that his opinion is the opinion of other Tana'im! This
omission proves that they do not necessarily have the same opinion.
(RASHI seems to be making a similar distinction between the case of Rav Huna
and that of Mar Zutra. Rashi adds that Rav Huna's case is "on the road on
the way [to an Ir Miklat]." The HAGAHOS HA'BACH (10b) points out that Rashi
adds "on the way [to an Ir Miklat]" in order to show that this is not
similar to the case later where the killer steps out of his city when he is
not "on the way.")
The ARUCH LA'NER and SI'ACH YITZCHAK assert that the RAMBAM understands the
Gemara like the Re'ah (in (a) above). The Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach 5:10)
rules that if the Go'el ha'Dam kills the accidental killer at *any time*
after the accidental killing, he is innocent. The KESEF MISHNEH gives many
reasons why the Rambam chose not to rule like Rav, who maintains that the
Go'el ha'Dam is punished if he kills before the trial. One reason is the
fact that, in our case, Rav follows the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer, who is
from the school of Beis Shamai (and whom the Halachah does not follow).
The Aruch la'Ner and Si'ach Yitzchak explain that the Rambam learns like the
Re'ah, that Mar Zutra in the name of Rav is arguing with Rav Huna. He rules
like Rav Huna, since he was a later Amora than Rav. (The Kesef Mishneh does
not give this answer, presumably because he learns the Gemara like Rashi and
the Ritva, and maintains that Mar Zutra in the name of Rav is not arguing
with Rav Huna.)
(c) RABEINU CHANANEL seems to have taken a third approach to this Sugya.
According to Rabeinu Chananel, both the Mishnah and Rav in the Gemara are
discussing a Go'el ha'Dam's right to kill an accidental killer *before* the
court has decided that he is guilty of killing b'Shogeg. The Mishnah earlier
(9b) teaches that even before the case is brought before the court, the
killer must flee to an Ir Miklat. Rebbi Akiva and Rebbi Yosi permit the
Go'el ha'Dam to kill the killer even though no court decision has yet been
rendered. Rebbi Eliezer argues that until the court decides that the person
has killed b'Shogeg, the Go'el ha'Dam has no right to kill the killer.
According to this explanation, it is clear that even Rebbi Eliezer agrees
that the Go'el ha'Dam may kill the killer after it has been ruled that he
killed b'Shogeg. That is the case in which Rav Huna earlier ruled that the
Go'el ha'Dam is exempt for killing the killer.
2) TO WHERE MAY A LEVI FLEE
OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses where a Levi goes if he kills accidentally.
The problem is that all of the Arei Miklat belong to the Levi'im; they are
the cities that were designated for the Levi'im. How, then, is it possible
for one to be in "Galus," in exile, while in his hometown? The Mishnah
explains that a Levi who kills accidentally must go from one Ir Miklat to
another Ir Miklat. The Gemara cites a Beraisa which states that a Levi who
stays in his own city is also protected from the Go'el ha'Dam.
How are we to reconcile the statement of the Beraisa with our Mishnah?
(a) TOSFOS (here and in Zevachim 117a) and RASHI (Zevachim 117a) explain as
follows. A Levi who killed accidentally has two options -- he can go to
another city, where he will be free to roam anywhere within the city limits,
or he can stay in his own city and move to another neighborhood in his city.
If he chooses the second option of staying in his own city, though, his
movement in the city will be limited. How limited will he be? The ME'IRI
cites two opinions. According to one opinion, he will be confined to a
single neighborhood within the city (as TOSFOS and TOSFOS SHANTZ here
imply). According to another opinion, he will be able to roam around the
entire city *except* for his original neighborhood (as Tosfos in Zevachim
implies; see also ARUCH LA'NER here).
Accordingly, our Mishnah is expressing one option, while the Beraisa is
expressing another option.
(b) Tosfos in Zevachim and the RITVA here answer that l'Chatchilah a Levi
should flee to a different city. However, b'Di'eved if he flees to his own
city, he will be protected there.
The SHEYAREI KORBAN (Yerushalmi Makos 2:6) asks how can there be a ruling of
"l'Chatchilah" and "b'Di'eved" with regard to such a matter? The killer is
seeking refuge from a Go'el ha'Dam by fleeing to the Ir Miklat. He will be
putting his life in danger by going to another city, and he certainly should
be permitted to remain where he is l'Chatchilah in order to save his life
and avoid putting his life in danger!
Perhaps Tosfos means that if the killer wants a greater Kaparah, he should
go to another city despite the risk to his life instead of remaining in his
(c) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Rotze'ach 7:5) and ME'IRI have a different
understanding of the Mishnah and Gemara here. The Rambam apparently learns
that when the Beraisa says that the Levi is protected when he stays in his
own town, this refers only to when he killed outside of his hometown.
However, when he killed in the confines of his own town, then he must
fulfill the words of the Mishnah and flee to another city to seek refuge.
His home city no longer protects him. (Y. Montrose)