MISHNAH: The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide 35, Deut. 19:1–10 . . If he was rolling with the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lowering an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was descending on a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is exiled. But if he was drawing the roller when it fell on somebody and killed him, or lifting an amphora when it fell on somebody and killed him, or was climbing a ladder when he fell on somebody and killed him, he is not exiled. This is the principle, by anything lowered, he is exiled, if it is not lowered, he is not exiled 35 essentially absolve the homicide from exile if there was a freak accident, where nobody could have expected a deadly outcome. Then when the theme is taken up again in Deut., v. 19:5 gives as example that two people go to cut down a tree, one swings his axe to cut the tree when the blade comes off the handle (or jumps off the tree to be cut) while the axe is lowered and kills the other person. The verse ends with an emphatic statement, this one has to flee to a city of asylum to stay alive . This is read to mean that exile is appropriate only if the impetus given to the deadly object is reinforced by gravity, not if it is attenuated by it. .
HALAKHAH: it is missing in the ms. : “The following are exiled,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah declares him not liable unless the entire rope falls from his hand. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable unless he let go the trowel completely and the ˋArukh (Italian cazzuola ) define this as builder’s trowel ( Babli 9b ). If the builder is standing on a roof and lets go of the trowel which falls down and kills, he is negligent. But if the tool breaks (assuming it was well maintained), it is an act of God and he is not liable. . What Rebbi Simeon said refers to breaking of the rope. What Rebbi Jehudah said, was about letting the trowel go.
Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If one was using a roller going forward when another person stuck out his head and the roller hit him. He told him, there is no difference between upward and downward movement. 19:5 is not applicable. . Rebbi Jeremiah asked before Rebbi Abbahu: If one was using a roller going forward when a child stuck out his hand and it was smothered. He told him, you are bothering me about this; there is no difference between upward and downward movement.
MISHNAH: If the iron slipped off the handle and killed, Rebbi said he does not go into exile, but the Sages say he does go. From the wood to split, Rebbi says he goes into exile, but the Sages say, he does not go. 19:5 as explained in the Halakhah (Babli 7b/8a , Sifry Deut . 183.) The Babli points out that for the Sages indirect causation is not punishable as negligence, while for Rebbi it is. .
HALAKHAH: “If the iron slipped off the handle,” etc. What is Rebbi’s reason? It is said here 19:5 : וְנָשַׁ֤ל הַבַּרְזֶל֙ מִן־הָעֵ֔ץ the iron was lost from the wood. The wood might either be the handle or the tree to be felled. Cf. Arabic نسل “to beget, procreate; to pluck; to unravel, untwist, fray; to molt; to fall out” (1 conjugation). getting lost and it says there. 17:40. נשר is Mishnaic Hebrew for all material shed by a plant. , for your olives will fall off . Since getting lost there means falling off, here also it means falling off. What is the rabbis’ reason? It is said here getting lost and it says there. 7:22 . , the Eternal, your God, will eliminate these peoples before you . Since getting lost there means taking a hit, here also taking a hit.
MISHNAH: If one threw a stone into the public domain and it killed someone, he is exiled. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if after the stone left his hand, the other one stuck out his head and received it, he is not liable.
HALAKHAH: “If one threw a stone,” etc. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated, it found . That he should have been there at the moment he killed him. 19:5 reads: If somebody goes with another to a forest to cut down trees; his hand was coming down with the axe to cut the tree, the iron was lost from the wood, found the other, and he died; this one has to flee to one of these towns and live . If the person killed was not in the trajectory of the flying object at the start, the thrower is not guilty of negligent homicide. ( Babli 8a ; Sifry Deut . 183). . But is there permission to throw the stone into the public domain? Rebbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it if his wall was inclined.
MISHNAH: If he threw the stone into his own courtyard and it killed, if the person damaged had the right to enter there, he is exiled, but if not, he is not exiled, as it is said, if somebody goes with another to a forest . 19:5 reads: If somebody goes with another to a forest to cut down trees; his hand was coming down with the axe to cut the tree, the iron was lost from the wood, found the other, and he died; this one has to flee to one of these towns and live . If the person killed was not in the trajectory of the flying object at the start, the thrower is not guilty of negligent homicide. ( Babli 8a ; Sifry Deut . 183). . Since the forest is a place where the person injured and the one causing the injury both may enter, this excludes a private courtyard where the person injured and the one causing the injury may not enter together. Abba Shaul says, since cutting down trees is a voluntary act, this excludes a father who hits his son, a teacher who disciplines his student, and the court bailiff.
HALAKHAH: If he threw the stone into his (comrade),” etc. Rebbi Yannai said, a butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody whether raising or descending has to go into exile. This follows what Rebbi Huna said: A butcher who was cutting up [a carcass] and hit somebody in front of him in a descending motion goes into exile, in an ascending motion does not go into exile. In his back, in an ascending motion he goes into exile, in a descending motion he does not go into exile. Rebbi Isaac said, each case goes by its circumstances. If somebody sat on a bed during the day, and it is not usual to find a baby in a bed during the day, he goes into exile. During the night, when it is usual to find a baby in a bed during the night, he does not go into exile. If somebody sat on a crib during the day, and it is usual to find a baby in a crib during the day, he does not go into exile. During the night, when it is not usual to find a baby in a crib during the night, he goes into exile. 3:19 ). .
3:8 ( ק , Notes 112–117). While the origin of the text clearly is in Bava qamma , neither text is a copy of the other; they are derived from a common source. “Liable” and “not liable” refer to the payments due for personal injury claims. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, if he was splitting wood in his courtyard, when a worker entered to collect his wages, and a splinter ricocheted and injured him, he is liable. If he died, he does not go into exile, for it is not like a forest. Rebbi Ḥanina stated, he is not liable. They do not disagree. What Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when they did not see him. But what Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, when they saw him. When they did not see him, from the moment he told him: enter, should he not be liable? Rebbi Ḥiyya stated, he is not liable. Since he told him: enter, he has to take precautions. Some would say, since he told him to enter, it becomes like the courtyard of partners. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard 5:1 (Note 4 ). , and are mutually liable for damages. But did not Rav say, if he filled the entire public domain? This did not fill the entire public domain! Since they usually walk in the entire domain, it is as if he had filled the entire domain 3:6 (Note 104 ). Would the right of access given to the worker be restricted to a narrow path of shortest access? The answer is negative; also in this aspect the property owner is liable. .
MISHNAH: The father is exiled for his son, and the son for the father. Everybody is exiled for an Israel, and an Israel for everybody except a sojourner. A sojourner is exiled for a sojourner. A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled. 35:23 . . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, the hater is executed for he is as if notorious. Rebbi Simeon says, there is a hater who is exiled and one who is not exiled. In any case where one can say that he killed intentionally, he is not exiled; unintentionally, he is exiled.
HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written 35:19 . , the redeemer of the blood 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order ( Sifry Num. 161). himself shall kill the murderer , nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: Even though it be written, the redeemer of the blood himself shall kill the murderer , nevertheless if somebody smote his son, his second son becomes the redeemer of the blood to kill his father. But if a brother smote his brother, the second brother does not become the redeemer of the blood to kill his brother. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him Num . 160. , the verse says 35:19 . , when he comes upon him he shall kill him 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order ( Sifry Num. 161). .
“And the blind person.” Rebbi Abba said, who stated “the blind person”? Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah frees him from all obligations of the Torah 2:6 (Note 201 ), Babli Bava qamma 87a . , as we have stated there Mishnah 4:7 . : “Rebbi Jehudah said, anyone who never saw light in his life may not cover the Shema ˋ.ˋ since they start with a praise of God for the creation of the celestial shining bodies. The majority opinion holds that while a blind person cannot see the sun’s light, he profits from it since other people who can see can help him during daylight. ” Therefore, if he saw once he may cover. And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing 35:23 , part of the definition of involuntary homicide. Babli 9b , Sifry Num . 160. As the Babli explains, the double restriction mentioned by the verse, unintentional, without seeing , has to be read as an inclusion. . Rebbi Meïr says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Jehudah says, excluding the blind person. 4:7 . One has to read “Jehudah” for Meïr, as in Megillah , since only for R. Jehudah are two opinions recorded. Also “there” means Makkot , “here” Megillah . The argument of Rebbi Meïr seems inverted. There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanina the son of Rebbi Hillel said, the Mishnah is about one sitting in a dark house. So we are saying, “one sitting in a dark house may not cover the Shemaˋ.” But here, without seeing , to include the blind person. How do the rabbis read without seeing ? To include one who smites in the night.
MISHNAH: Where are they exiled to? To the cities of refuge. To the three in Transjordan and the three in the Land of Canaan, as it is said 35:14 . : Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan , etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected 20:7 . Sifry Num. 160. , those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said 35:13 . , there shall be six cities of refuge , not until all six were receiving together. Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said 19:3 . : Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts . One sends with them two scholars lest he kill him on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he may argue for himself as it is said 19:4 . , this is the word of the homicide . Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, at the start both the involuntary and the voluntary [homicide] go to the city of refuge; the court sends and brings them back from there. If one is found guilty by a death sentence, they execute him. If he is found not guilty in a capital case, he is freed. If he is found guilty to be exiled they return him to his place as it is said 35:25 . , the community shall return him to his city of refuge . Not only 35:28 ). a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil. 30:22–33 ). , but also one wearing the many vestments, and one deposed from his office. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war. 20:2 . returns the homicide. Therefore, the mothers of the [High] Priests support them with food and clothing, so they should not pray for the death of their sons. If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled. If sentence had not yet been passed when the High Priest died, and sentence was passed after a successor had been appointed, he returns after the death of the second. If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest, or one who killed a High Priest, or a High Priest who killed, can never leave from there. He cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation, nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there 35:25 . . There shall be his dwelling, there he shall die, there he shall be buried. Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grant asylum. 35:6 ). Each Levitic city was surrounded by a greenbelt of 2’000 cubits, having the same status as the city itself ( Lev . 35:4–5; Sotah 5:4 Notes 107–111 .) The avenger of the blood has no right to pursue the homicide into the city’s domain. . If a murderer left the domain and was found by the avenger of the blood, Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, it is the obligation of the avenger of the blood and the right of everybody. Rebbi Aqiba says, it is the right of the avenger of the blood and nobody would be liable because of him. If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain, or the tree stands outside the domain but its crown is inside the domain, everything follows the crown. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite who killed is exiled from one city to another. Similarly 10:8. , a homicide exiled to a city of refuge whom the citizens of the town wanted to honor, should say to them, I am a homicide. If they tell him, anyway, he should accept, for it is said 19:4 . , this is the word of a homicide .
HALAKHAH: “Where are they exiled to,” etc. “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan 4:41 . . When they came to the Land they designated another three 20:7 . . Neither of them were giving asylum until after they conquered and divided. 20:8 . Sifry Num . 160. . After they conquered and divided, the Land became obligated for Sabbaticals and Jubilees and these and those were giving asylum. The three cities which they designated in the Land of Israel were parallel to the three cities which Moses had designated in Transjordan like two rows in a vineyard. Hebron in Judea parallels Beṣer in the desert. Sichem on Mount Ephraim parallels Ramot Gilead. Qedesh in Galilee parallels Golan in Bashan. (Before) [even though] they had designated Sichem on Mount Ephraim it could not give asylum; they designated Qiryat-Yearim in its place until they conquered Sichem12 ). . (Before) [even though] they had designated Qedesh in Galilee it could not give asylum; they designated Gamla in its place until they conquered Qedesh. 12 . Gamla is not a biblical name; it was situated on the Eastern shore of the sea of Galilee. ”
“ Divide into three parts . That it should be from Hebron to (Jehudah) as from Hebron to Sichem and from Hebron to Sichem as from Sichem to Qedesh.”
“If any of them collapsed, one rebuilds it from the same tribe. And from where also from other tribes? The verse says, six 35:15 . . That they should be parallel and receiving like the earlier ones.”
“One builds these cities not as great fortified places or small villages but in average sizes. One only builds them around a market place. If they have no market place one creates a market place for them. One only builds them near water. If they have no water one brings water to them. If the number of households declined, one brings others there. If the number of inhabitants declined, one brings there Cohanim, Levites, and Israel The parallel mention of דִּיּוּרִין “apartment dwellers” (Hebrew) and ὄχλος “multitude” expresses the same idea twice in different languages. .”
“One builds in them neither an olive press nor a wine press, the words of Rebbi Nehemiah, but the Sages permit it. One does not braid ropes there, nor does one manufacture glass, in order not to attract visitors.”
Rebbi Joḥanan sent to the rabbis there: Two things you say in the name of Rav which are not so. You say in the name of Rav that only the first copulation with the beautiful woman 21:10–14 . The Babli Qiddušin 21b ( Tosaphot 22a s. v . שלא) seems to permit a first copulation before the woman undergoes formal conversion even for a Cohen to whom the convert will be forbidden. is permitted. But I am saying, the first or the later copulations are permitted only after all ceremonies; after that you may come to her and copulate with her 21:13 , after full conversion. The Babli ( Qiddušin 68a ) reads the verse as: after that you may copulate with her as her husband , meaning that valid marriage is possible only after conversion. , after all ceremonies.
Also you say that Joab was of the opinion that the horns of an altar give asylum 2:28 , Babli 12a . but only its top gives asylum; in fact only the top of the one in Shilo gives asylum, but that of the Temple does not give asylum. But I am saying that neither the altar gives asylum, nor does its top give asylum, nor the one in Shilo gives asylum, nor that of the Temple gives asylum. Nothing except the six cities of refuge give asylum. Is it possible that Joab, about whom it is written, the most wise, head of the third 23:8 . Joab himself is not mentioned in the Chapter. Targum Jonathan and the Babli ( Moˋed qatan 16b) read the expression as referring to David. should err in this matter? Rebbi Tanḥuma said, he fled to the Sanhedrin, because it is stated: The property of people executed by the court goes to their heirs; the property of people executed by the government goes to the government. Joab said, it is better that I should be executed by the court and my sons will inherit from me than that the king should execute me and inherit from me. When Solomon heard this he said, do I need his money? Immediately, I shall remove the blood for free 2:31 . In the MT, confirmed by LXX, וַהֲסִירֹתָ. The blood is the innocent blood of Abner and Amasa. , but his money is not free. He sent through Benaiahu who smote him and killed him; they buried him in his house in the wilderness 2:29 , 34 . . Was his house a wilderness? But to tell you that when Joab the commander of Israel’s army died, Israel was turned into a wilderness. If you say that he collected booty to build public baths and baths 7:19, Note 357 ) and Hebrew terms for public baths. , this is worthy of praise. But if you say that he collected booty to support Sages and their students, it is worthy of the highest praise 49a refers to 1Chr. 11:8 as proof that Joab used his riches to support scholars. . And from where that the Supreme Sanhedrin is near the altar? Do not ascend on my altar by stairs. What is written next? These are the rules of law you shall put before them . 20:23 , 21:1 . .
[“If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled.”] It was stated: “Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, ‘refuge, refuge’ was written at crossroads, so that the homicide might see what was written and continue.” Rebbi Abun said, a sign-post was directing them. 25[10]. Rebbi Phineas said, good and straightforward . 25:8 . . Why is He good? Because He is straightforward. And why is He straightforward? Because He is good. Therefore, He teaches the way to the sinners. He instructs in the way of repentance. They asked David, what is the punishment of the sinner? He told them, may sins vanish from the earth etc. They asked Wisdom, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, evil will pursue sinners . They asked the Holy One, praise to Him, what is the punishment of the sinner? He said to them, let him repent and I will accept.. That is what is written, good and straightforward is the Eternal. (Why is he good?) A slightly different version of G’s text is in Pesiqta dR. Cahana Shuva (ed. Buber p. 158b), quoted in Yalqut Shimony (Psalms 702, Ezechiel 358). They asked Wisdom, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, evil will pursue sinners 13:21 . . They asked Prophecy, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, the sinning soul is the one which will die . 18:4 . . They asked the Holy One, praise to Him, what is the punishment of the sinner? He said to them, let him repent and it will be atoned for him. That is what is written, therefore, He teaches the way to the sinners . 25:8 . , the way to repentance. etc.”, is a paragraph by itself. In the Babli 11a , the quote like a bird to move, like a swallow to fly, so undeserved curse will not happen ( Prov. 26:2 ) is quoted in reference to Mishnah 9. Why do the mothers of the High Priests have to support the exiled homicides if their prayers would be ineffective? It is written: Like a bird to move, like a swallow to fly , so is a man moving from his place.
[If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest.] And you say so? Explain it that it was time and period. As Rebbi Yose ben Ḥalaphtasays, there are times for prayer. David said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of Universes, at the moment when I am praying to You it should be a moment of goodwill. As is it written 69:14 . : But I, my prayer is to You at a time of goodwill.
( Tarbiz 5, p. 109.) The Genizah text is given here in brackets; at one place where it is illegible it is completed from Yalqut Makhiri in the Notes. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: At every occasion where dibbur is said, there is a new biblical commandment. But is it not written, God spoke (etc., repetition) [ to Noah ( and his sons with him as follows ) 8:15 . The scribe, quoting from memory, erroneously added the end of v. 9:8 . ? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced limb of a living animal. But is it not written, Abram fell on his face and God spoke to him as follows 17:3 . ? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced circumcision. But is it not written, a word the Eternal sent to Jacob . 9:7 . ? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced … one has to read: The ischiatic tendon. The verse is also quoted in the Babli, Hulin 91a , to prove that the ischiatic tendon remains forbidden in Israel even though its prohibition was not repeated in the Torah after the epiphany of Sinai (in contrast to circumcision, which is mentioned in Lev. 12:3 .) As S. Lieberman noted, the argument is correctly explained by Maharsha (R. Samuel Eliezer Idels) in his Notes to Hulin : The prohibition of the ischiatic tendon is the only commandment (דבר) which the Eternal sent through Jacob. The Babli is completely intelligible only on the basis of the Yerushalmi here. But is it not written 6:2 , the only case of דבר to Moses not in connection with a commandment. , God spoke to Moses and said to him, I am the Eternal ? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced Sanctification of the Name. But is it not written 20:1 , introduction to the designation of cities of refuge; the reason for placing the paragraph in this Halakhah. , the Eternal spoke to Joshua as follows ? What new biblical commandment is there? If you want to say the six cities of refuge, were they not already given to Moses at Sinai? But even to him was spoken what was not said to Moses: He shall flee to one of these cities and stand at the gate etc., and they shall give him a place that he stay with them. 20:4 . ] What means that he stay with them ? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Shila: If he is a scholar, they make him a house of assembly.
[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] 185. The Tosephta credits Abba Shaul with the statement quoted here for R. Nehorai. Sifry quotes R. Nehorai and (Rebbi) Shaul, in inverse order. “Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan. When they came to the Land they designated another three. In the future there will be another three, as it is said three, three, three 19:9 . It is written there in v. 7 , “three cities you shall designate”. Since it is already reported in Deut. 4:41–43 that Moses designated three cities in Transjordan, v. 19:7 must refer to the three cities which Joshua designated. Therefore 19:9 must refer to another three cities situated in the Northern part of the Land of Promise ( Num. 34:1–15 ) that never was part of the historical Land of Israel. In the opinion of Abba Shaul this Northern part, promised only if the entire people keep all biblical commandments, was as wide as the Cis- and Transjordan parts of the Land of Israel, and therefore needed not three but six additional cities of refuge. It is difficult to make sense of R. Nehorai’s statement. In the text probably one should read three ( Deut. 19:7 ), three, the three ( Deut. 19:9 ). The words עוֹד “additional”, עַל אֵלֶּה “to these” are in Deut. 19:9 . In the Constantinople edition, the argument of Abba Shaul for the first 9 is identical to that of the anonymous Tanna; this might be lectio facilior. . This makes nine. Abba Shaul says, three. Three of three times three makes nine. Additional makes twelve. Rebbi Nehorai says, three, three, three make nine. Additional makes twelve. To these three makes fifteen.” It is written 35:13 . : Six cities of refuge there shall be for you , that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so 35:13 , which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each. Another interpretation ( Pene Moshe ) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses ( Ex. 30:22–33 ) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount ( 2Chr. 35:3 ) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple. ? It follows what Rebbi Samuel [ben Aina] 2:1, Horaiot 3:2, as well as the Babli, Yoma 21b ). Only R. Samuel bar Aina is known as student of R. Aha. said in the name of Rebbi Aḥa: Five things was the last Temple missing which were in the first Temple, as it is written 1:8 . : Go to the mountain, bring wood, etc., up to I may be honored. It is written I shall be honored , without the letter he וְאֶכָּבֵד, Qere וְאֶכָּֽבְדָה֭. Both spellings make sense. The missing ה is interpreted in the Alexandrian system of numeration as “5”. . These are the five things which the last Temple was missing which were in the first Temple. They are: The fire 7:1 ). , the Ark 35:13 , which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each. Another interpretation ( Pene Moshe ) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses ( Ex. 30:22–33 ) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount ( 2Chr. 35:3 ) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple. , Urim and Tummim 28:30 ) but for which no description or instructions are given. , anointing oil 35:13 , which limits the number to six, cannot be squared with Deut. 19:9 which suggests nine. The question can be directed only at the anonymous Tanna who requires 9, and R. Nehorai who requires 15 cities, but not at Abba Shaul who envisages two pairs of six cities each. Another interpretation ( Pene Moshe ) has this sentence starting a new paragraph, referring to Mishnah 9, and wonders why a High Priest of Second Temple times, who was not anointed with the holy oil compounded by Moses ( Ex. 30:22–33 ) should have the power to free the exiled homicide. It is stated there in v. 23 that only Moses himself could compound this oil and in v. 31 that it should be used for all subsequent generations. By tradition, Josia buried the oil flask together with the Ark of the Covenant in the Temple Mount ( 2Chr. 35:3 ) after the prophetess Hulda informed him of the imminent destruction of the Temple. , and the Holy Spirit.
ˋ it 10:8 (Note 67), viz., the case that a homicide is honored. [If a tree stands inside the domain but its crown is outside the domain.] [Rebbi]ˋ it 10:8 the speaker is R. Yose (the Amora). Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. ˋ it 10:8, Note 123. He has memorized and completely mastered one collection of Tannaitic statements. If he knows one collection and he comes to a place where they honor him as if he knew two, he has to tell them, I know one collection. 10:7. If a lender is offered repayment of a loan in a Sabbatical, when it should be forgiven, he may say softly that he observes the Sabbatical, implying that he will not urge repayment while at the same time accepting the voluntary liquidation of the debt. (Rav Huna said, he says it in a soft voice and his right hand is stretched out to receive.)
What is Rebbi Jehudah’s reason? For his blood is hot 19:6 . .
Rebbi Abbahu said, but he returns upon the death of the third. Rebbi Abbahu said, if they need it (the homicide.) , they send and bring him from there. Rebbi Yose said, our Mishnah does not say so, but “even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya, he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there 35:25 . . There shall be his dwelling, etc.”
MISHNAH: They nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Meïr said, they were not paying rent. He returns to the office he held earlier, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he does not return to the office he held earlier.
HALAKHAH: [They nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites.] 5:8, Notes 165–167. The question is whether individual houses in Levitic cities were private or tribal property, as explained there. Even though three sources (the Leiden ms. here and in Maˋaser Šeni and G here) confirm the text “R. Yose said, they were given as dwellings” one must read “R. Meïr”, as shown. R. Yose holds with R. Jehudah in Mishnah Maˋaser Šeni 5:9. In the Babli (13a ) it is held that the six cities of refuge were tribal property; for the other 42 Levitic cities the dispute is not resolved. It was stated: Rebbi Jehudah says, they were given to be distributed. Rebbi Yose said, they were given as dwellings. It turns out that Rebbi Yose holds with Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Meïr follows his own opinion as we have stated: “They nor the Yerushalmi mention this, it seems that the Yerushalmi recognizes only the six cities of refuge as proper places of asylum. were paying rent to the Levites, the words of Rebbi (Meïr) [Jehudah]. Rebbi (Jehudah) [Meïr] said, they were not paying rent to the Levites.”
5:5 , explained in detail in Notes 120–123 and Eruvin 5 (22d l. 26). In these sources, the deviations from the text here and the inclusion of the remark about burial, irrelevant for the topics of the other quotes, make it clear that the text here is the source. The problem is whether the 1000 or 2000 cubits of surrounding territory given to Levitic cities ( Num. 35:4 , 5 ) have to be measured with a measuring rope hugging the terrain or with ropes following the terrain being held horizontally each time. This second way, called “strip-measuring” amounts to measuring the distances on a map onto which the geographic features have been orthogonally projected. The Babli ( Eruvin 58b ) and also the Yerushalmi Eruvin (5, 22d l. 9) more reasonably require that strip-measuring be done by ropes four cubits long. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Mar Uqba: One strip-measures only with a rope of 50 cubits. Rebbi Zeˋira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: One strip-measures neither for the Levitic cities nor for the place of breaking the calf’s neck. This would be acceptable for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of Sabbath domain. But for him who says, 1000 cubits of open space and 2000 cubits of fields and vineyards, did they not learn the Sabbath domain from the Levitic cities? For the main thing one does not strip-measure; does one strip-measure for the derivative?
From where that one does not bury in Levitic cities? Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: And their open spaces shall be for their animals, and their property, and all their lives 35:3 . The Babli, 12a , exempts homicides from burial outside the town limits on the basis of Mishnah 11. . They were given for living; they were not given for burial.