Pisqa’ 181213H:204-205; JN2:61-62. 1. “Now, this rule is applied to the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4). On this basis you teach: An unwitting killer who is expelled to the city of [his] refuge, {and whom the residents of that city wish to honor — he must inform them: I am a killer! If they reply: Even so!— he may accept the honor, for it is said: “This rule is applied to the unwitting killer”}214=T.Mak.3:8, M. Mak.2:8. Sifre’s text is abbreviated. I have supplied in brackets that omits the bulk of the mishnaic-toseftan citation. See H: 458, n.2. (Dt.19:4).
2. Inferring from what is stated: “Lest the blood-avenger pursue the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6)— I know only about a case involving a pursuer who is himself the blood-avenger.215Therefore, the pursuer needn’t fear the vengeance of the killer’s family or the justice of the court But on what basis do I rule when the pursuer is not the blood-avenger, [and who must fear family-vengeance or the court]? Or, the blood-avenger is not the pursuer [and, therefore, is not entitled to exact vengeance]? Or, neither the pursuer nor the blood-avenger [has been clearly identified]? The Teaching states: “Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats, “Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6) in order to mandate an inclusive rule [protecting anyone who avenges the blood of an innocent victim].
3. Inferring from what is stated: “For his heart boiled with rage” (Dt.19:6), I know only about a case involving an avenger who suffers boiling rage.216Cf. Sifre Nu. 160. But on what basis do I rule when a father must take vengeance upon his child, or a child upon his father?217Since that father will have compassion on his son, the killer—does he forfeit the protection of the city of refuge? The Teaching states: “Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats, “Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6) in order to mandate an inclusive rule [in which the avenger’s state of mind doesn’t weaken his claim to the city’s protection].
4. What does the Teaching add by the three-fold repetition of the term: “There” (Nu.35:6), “there” (Nu.35:11), and “there” (Nu.35:15)? There in the city of his refuge, shall he reside, there shall he die, there shall he be buried.218= M.Mak.2:7; T.Mak.3:5.
5. What does the Teaching add by the three-fold repetition of the term: “His kinsman” (Dt.19:4), “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5), and “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5)?219Dt.19:4-5 reads: “One who beat his kinsman without intending to or previously hating him, or joined his kinsman in the forest to chop wood, . . . and the axe-handle struck his kinsman, and he died.” See Pisqa’ 182 below The [first] kinsman excludes [gentile] others [from the rule of blood-vengeance];220A gentile who unwittingly kills a gentile or an Israelite is neither protected from blood-vengeance nor entitled to take it. See M. Mak.2:3. The [second] kinsman excludes the resident alien;221=M. Mak.2:3, Acccording to this Mishnah: “A resident alien may not be expelled from his city except for causing the unwitting death of another resident alien.”. In [the third] kinsman—the Torah now calls the victim kinsman “When he strikes his kinsman unwittingly without having hated him” (Dt.19:4). So, if he’d hated him, he wouldn’t be expelled from his city?222Cf. M. Mak.2:3.
“Either yesterday or the day before” (Dt.19:4)— R. Judah says: Yesterday—counts for two days; The day before—makes it three.223Thus, prior to the inadvertent killing, at least three days without anger must have elapsed for the rule of blood-vengeance to protect the avenger from retaliation.
(דברים יט ד) וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרוֹצֵחַ, מִכָּן אַתָּה אוֹמֵר (מכות ב ח) רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגּוֹלֶה מֵעִיר לְעִיר מִקְלָט.
Pisqa’ 181213H:204-205; JN2:61-62.
1. “Now, this rule is applied to the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4).
On this basis you teach:
An unwitting killer who is expelled
to the city of [his] refuge,
{and whom the residents of that city
wish to honor —
he must inform them:
I am a killer!
If they reply: Even so!—
he may accept the honor,
for it is said:
“This rule is applied to the unwitting killer”}214=T.Mak.3:8, M. Mak.2:8. Sifre’s text is abbreviated. I have supplied in brackets that omits the bulk of the mishnaic-toseftan citation. See H: 458, n.2. (Dt.19:4).
מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יט ו) ״פֶּן יִרְדֹּף גֹּאֵל הַדָּם אַחֲרֵי הָרוֹצֵחַ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא רוֹדֵף וְגוֹאֵל; רוֹדֵף וְלֹא גוֹאֵל, גּוֹאֵל וְלֹא רוֹדֵף, לֹא רוֹדֵף וְלֹא גוֹאֵל מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רֹצֵחַ רֹצֵחַ, רִבָּה.
2. Inferring from what is stated:
“Lest the blood-avenger pursue the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6)—
I know only about a case involving
a pursuer who is himself the blood-avenger.215Therefore, the pursuer needn’t fear the vengeance of the killer’s family or the justice of the court
But on what basis do I rule when
the pursuer is not the blood-avenger,
[and who must fear family-vengeance or the court]?
Or, the blood-avenger is not the pursuer
[and, therefore, is not entitled to exact vengeance]?
Or, neither the pursuer nor the blood-avenger
[has been clearly identified]?
The Teaching states:
“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats,
“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6) in order to mandate an inclusive rule
[protecting anyone who avenges the blood of an innocent victim].
מִכְּלָל שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ״, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חַמּוּת הַלֵּב; הָאָב אֶת הַבֵּן וְהַבֵּן אֶת הָאָב מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רֹצֵחַ רֹצֵחַ, רִבָּה.
3. Inferring from what is stated:
“For his heart boiled with rage” (Dt.19:6),
I know only about a case
involving an avenger who suffers boiling rage.216Cf. Sifre Nu. 160.
But on what basis do I rule when
a father must take vengeance upon his child,
or a child upon his father?217Since that father will have compassion on his son, the killer—does he forfeit the protection of the city of refuge?
The Teaching states:
“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats,
“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6) in order to mandate an inclusive rule
[in which the avenger’s state of mind doesn’t weaken his claim to the city’s protection].
מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שָׁמָּה שָׁמָּה שָׁמָּה שְׁלֹשָׁה פְעָמִים? שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ.
4. What does the Teaching add
by the three-fold repetition of the term:
“There” (Nu.35:6), “there” (Nu.35:11), and “there” (Nu.35:15)?
There in the city of his refuge, shall he reside,
there shall he die,
there shall he be buried.218= M.Mak.2:7; T.Mak.3:5.
מַה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר רֵעֵהוּ רֵעֵהוּ רֵעֵהוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים? רֵעֵהוּ – פְּרָט לַאֲחֵרִים, רֵעֵהוּ – פְּרָט לְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב, רֵעֵהוּ – כְּבָר קְרָאַתּוּ הַתּוֹרָה רֵעֵהוּ! אֲשֶׁר יַכֶּה אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בִּבְלִי דַעַת וְהוּא לֹא שֹׂנֵא לוֹ, הָא אִם שׂוֹנֵא לוֹ – אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה.
5. What does the Teaching add
by the three-fold repetition of the term:
“His kinsman” (Dt.19:4), “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5), and “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5)?219Dt.19:4-5 reads: “One who beat his kinsman without intending to or previously hating him, or joined his kinsman in the forest to chop wood, . . . and the axe-handle struck his kinsman, and he died.” See Pisqa’ 182 below
The [first] kinsman excludes [gentile] others
[from the rule of blood-vengeance];220A gentile who unwittingly kills a gentile or an Israelite is neither protected from blood-vengeance nor entitled to take it. See M. Mak.2:3.
The [second] kinsman excludes the resident alien;221=M. Mak.2:3, Acccording to this Mishnah: “A resident alien may not be expelled from his city except for causing the unwitting death of another resident alien.”.
In [the third] kinsman—the Torah now calls the victim kinsman
“When he strikes his kinsman unwittingly
without having hated him” (Dt.19:4).
So, if he’d hated him,
he wouldn’t be expelled from his city?222Cf. M. Mak.2:3.
מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: תְּמוֹל – שְׁנַיִם, שִׁלְשֹׁם – שְׁלֹשָׁה.
“Either yesterday or the day before” (Dt.19:4)—
R. Judah says:
Yesterday—counts for two days;
The day before—makes it three.223Thus, prior to the inadvertent killing, at least three days without anger must have elapsed for the rule of blood-vengeance to protect the avenger from retaliation.