POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Makos 12
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
1) WHICH PLACES ARE "KOLET"
(a) (Mishnah): If he was sentenced...
2) A MURDERER WHO LEFT THE CITY
(b) (Rav Yehudah): "Va'Yanas Yo'av...va'Yachazek b'Karnos
ha'Mizbe'ach" - Yo'av made two mistakes:
1. He grabbed the corners of the Mizbe'ach, but the
Mizbe'ach is only Kolet someone standing on top;
(c) (Abaye): He made a third mistake - the Mizbe'ach is only
Kolet a Kohen engaging in Avodah, but Yo'av was a Zar.
2. Only the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash is Kolet,
he grabbed a Bamah that David had made in front of
the Aron (Rashi's text).
(d) (Reish Lakish): The Sar (overseeing angel) of Romi will
make three mistakes in the future - "Mi Zeh Ba
1. The Ir Miklat is Betzer, he went to Batzrah;
(e) (R. Avahu): We do not bury Leviyim in the Arei Miklat -
"U'Migresheihem...ul'Chol Chayasam", they are for life,
not for burial.
2. Klitah is only for Shogeg, he was Mezid;
3. Klitah is only for people, he is an angel.
(f) Question (Mishnah): "Shamah" - he will live, die and be
(g) Answer: Burial of murderers is different, the Torah
explicitly commanded about it.
(h) (Mishnah): Just as the city is Kolet, also its Techum.
(i) Contradiction (Beraisa): "V'Yashav Bah" - not in the
(j) Answer (Abaye): The Techum is Kolet, but he may not dwell
(k) Question: No one may live there!
1. We may not convert a Migrash (1000 Amos surrounding
a city in each direction) into a field or city, or
(l) Answer (Rav Sheshes): There is no general prohibition to
dwell in the outskirts under the ground - "Va'Yashav Bah"
forbids this to a murderer.
(a) (Mishnah): If a murderer left the Techum...
3) A TREE PARTIALLY IN AN "IR MIKLAT"
(b) (Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'Ratzach Go'el ha'Dam Es
ha'Rotze'ach" - (If a murderer left the Techum), it is a
Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him; if there is no
Go'el ha'Dam, anyone else is permitted;
(c) R. Akiva says, the Go'el ha'Dam is permitted to kill him,
anyone else is (Gra's - not) liable if he kills him.
(d) Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's reason?
(e) Answer: It does not say 'Im' (if), it says "V'Ratzach"
(imperative, he will kill)!
1. R. Akiva says, had it said 'Yirtzach', this would
clearly be imperative, but 'v'Ratzach' can be
Reshus! (Ritva - R. Akiva agrees that this tense
usually denotes the imperative, but we do not
expound to kill unless it is explicit).
(f) (Rav Zutra bar Tuvya): If the Go'el ha'Dam found and
killed the murderer outside the Ir Miklat (R. Chananel -
before Beis Din ruled that he goes to Galus), he is
(g) Question: This is not like either Tana!
(h) Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer.
1. (Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: What do we learn
from "Ad Amdo Lifne ha'Edah la'Mishpat"?
(i) Question: How do R. Akiva and R. Yosi expound "Ad
2. Answer: One might have thought "V'Ratzach Go'el
ha'Dam Es ha'Rotze'ach", he should kill him
immediately - "Ad Amdo..." teaches, only after he is
warned not to leave (Ritva; R. Chananel - until Beis
Din sentences him to Galus).
(j) Answer (Beraisa - R. Akiva): If the Sanhedrin witnessed a
murder, they do not kill him, he is tried in a different
Beis Din - "Ad Amdo Lifne ha'Edah la'Mishpat".
(k) (Beraisa #1) Suggestion: "Im Yatzo Yezte ha'Rotze'ach"
(he may be killed) - perhaps this is only if he left his
1. Rejection: "Im Yatzo Yezte" - the verb is doubled to
teach, even b'Shogeg.
(l) Version #1 - Rambam's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2):
(If he left b'Shogeg), if someone (the Go'el ha'Dam or
anyone else) kills him b'Mezid is killed, b'Shogeg he
goes to Galus.
(m) Version #2 - Ritva's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2):
If he left b'Mezid he is killed, if he left b'Shogeg he
returns to Galus. (End of Version #2)
(n) Resolution: The Tana of Beraisa #2 holds that the Torah
speaks as people do (they sometimes double the verb,
therefore, we need not expound this), the first Tana does
(o) (Abaye): It is more reasonable to learn like Beraisa #2,
his liability for leaving the city should not be more
stringent than for killing:
1. One who kills b'Mezid is killed, but b'Shogeg he
only goes to Galus - it suffices to make him just as
liable for leaving the city!
(p) (Beraisa #1): If a father killed (his son), his son
becomes the Go'el ha'Dam.
(q) Contradiction: (Beraisa #2): If a father killed (his
son), his son does not become Go'el ha'Dam.
(r) Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi ha'Galili (since
it is a Mitzvah to kill, even a son can do this), Beraisa
#2 is like R. Akiva (since it is only Reshus).
(s) Rejection: Even if it is a Mitzvah, it is forbidden for a
son to kill his father!
1. (Rabah bar Rav Huna, also Tana d'vei R. Yishmael): A
son may not be appointed to lash or curse his
father, unless his father was a Mesis, regarding
which it says "V'Lo Sachmol v'Lo Sechaseh Alav".
(t) Answer: Beraisa #1 means, the son of the son that was
killed becomes Go'el ha'Dam; Beraisa #2 says that another
son of the father does not become Go'el ha'Dam.
(a) (Mishnah): If a tree is within the Techum and the foliage
is outside, or vice-versa, the entire tree has the law of
the foliage (if the murderer is on the trunk, it is as if
he is on the foliage).
(b) (Gemara - Mishnah #1) Contradiction: (Regarding Ma'aser
Sheni) if a tree is within Yerushalayim and the foliage
is outside, or vice-versa, any place on the tree is
judged like the ground below (e.g. if it is inside the
city wall, Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten there but not
(c) Answer: You cannot ask from Ma'aser to Arei Miklat -
Ma'aser depends on being within the wall, Arei Miklat
depends on dwelling;
1. One can dwell in the foliage, not on the trunk.
(d) There is a contradiction regarding Ma'aser itself!
1. (Mishnah #2): Regarding (eating or redeeming Ma'aser
in) Yerushalayim, we adopt the law of the foliage;
regarding Arei Miklat, we adopt the law of the
(e) Answer (Rav Kahana): Mishnah #1 is like Chachamim,
Mishnah #2 is like R. Yehudah.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (Regarding Ma'aser), if a
cave is partly in Yerushalayim, the entire cave has
the law of the opening; regarding a tree, we adopt
the law of the foliage.
(f) Question: Perhaps R. Yehudah only goes after the foliage
to be stringent, to forbid redeeming (on the trunk) if
the foliage is inside Yerushalayim, and to forbid eating
if the foliage is outside;
1. Also, if the trunk is outside an Ir Miklat and the
foliage is inside, he would be stringent to forbid
killing the murderer on the trunk;
(g) Answer (Rava): All agree that he may kill him on the
trunk (in the Ir Miklat);
2. But if the trunk is inside and the foliage is
outside, would he say, since one could kill the
murderer if he was on the foliage, he may kill him
if he is on the trunk in the Ir Miklat?!
1. If he is on the foliage, all agree that he may kill
him by shooting arrows or throwing rocks;
2. They argue whether or not he may climb up the trunk
in order to get to the murderer to kill him.