ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Makos 12
MAKOS 11-15 - Ari Kornfeld has generously sponsored the Dafyomi publications
for these Dafim for the benefit of Klal Yisrael.
(a) Rav Yehudah lists two mistakes that Yo'av made when he 'held on to the
horns of the Mizbe'ach of Shiloh'. It cannot really have been next to the
Mizbe'ach of Shiloh that he was standing - since Shiloh was destroyed in the
days of Eli (many years earlier). In reality, he took hold of the horns of
the Mizbe'ach that David built on a Bamah in front of the Aron.
(b) His two mistakes were firstly, that he held on to the 'horns' from
below, whereas it is only the roof of the Mizbe'ach that is Kolet; and
secondly, that it is only the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash that is Kolet,
and not even that of Shiloh (let alone of a Bamah).
(c) The third mistake Abaye adds to the list is - that it is only a Kohen
who is exempt from Misah, as long as he is performing the Avodah, but not a
(d) In similar vein, Resh Lakish lists the three mistakes that the Angel of
Rome (Samael) will make when he runs to Batzrah to avoid the death-sentence
for all the murders that he and his nation perpetrated against Yisrael;
namely - that the name of the Ir Miklat is Betzer, and not Batzrah; that it
is humans (and not angels) and Shogeg (and not Meizid) who can find refuge
in an Ir Miklat and not Meizid.
(a) Rebbi Avahu extrapolates from the Pasuk "u'Migresheihem Yiheyu
li'Vehemtam, ve'li'Rehusham *u'le'Chol Chayasam*" - that the Arei Miklat are
for living purposes, to preclude burial, which is forbidden in an Ir Miklat.
(b) We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which Darshens "Shamah", 'Sham Tehei
Kevuraso' - by confining the first D'rashah to the Levi'im who owned the
cities, and the second one to the murderers, who have to be buried there,
due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Veyashav Bah" - "Bah", 've'Lo
bi'Techumah', that one is not permitted to live outside the town, even
within the T'chum.
(d) We reconcile this with our Mishnah, which forbids the Go'el ha'Dam to
kill the Rotze'ach, once he reaches the T'chum - 'Ka'an Lik'lot, Ka'an
Ladur' (living there is one thing, being considered inside the town is
(a) The difference between 'Sadeh' and 'Migrash' is - that whereas the
latter (which refers to land that has to be left uncultivated) incorporates
the first thousand Amos outside the town, and the former, the second
(b) The Beraisa - forbids transforming a Sadeh into a Migrash or vice-versa,
or a Migrash into part of the Ir or vice-versa.
(c) We nevertheless need the D'rashah "Bah", 've'Lo bi'Techumah' - to forbid
inhabiting it even underground (which would not encroach on the 'Migrash').
(a) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, anyone is permitted to kill a
Rotze'ach who leaves the Ir Miklat, only if the victim has no Go'el ha'Dam.
(b) He extrapolates from the Pasuk (in connection with the Rotze'ach leaving
the Ir Miklat) "*Veratzach* Go'el ha'Dam es ha'Rotze'ach" - that it is a
Mitzvah for him to kill the Rotze'ach. Otherwise, the Torah would have
written - "*Im Ratzach* Go'el ha'Dam e ha'Rotze'ach" (because the Lashon
"Ve'... " is sometimes a Lashon of Mitzvah and sometimes Reshus).
(c) Rebbi Akiva counters this on the grounds that had it been a Mitzvah, the
Torah would have written "*Yirtzach* es ha'Rotze'ach" (which is a Lashon of
(d) Mar Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav holds neither like Rebbi Yossi Hagelili nor
like Rebbi Akiva. He maintains that a Go'el ha'Dam who kills the Rotze'ach
should he leave the Ir Miklat - is Chayav Misah.
(a) Mar Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav actually holds like Rebbi Eliezer in a
Beraisa, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yamus ha'Rotze'ach ad Amdo Lifnei
ha'Eidah la'Mishpat" - that a Rotze'ach is only sentenced to death by
Beis-Din, and cannot be killed by the Go'el ha'Dam (even if he leaves the Ir
(b) According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva, the Pasuk comes to
each us - that even if the Sanhedrin witnessed Reuven killing Shimon, they
cannot put him to death by virtue of what they saw, but are obligated to go
before another Beis-Din who will sentence him by their testimony.
(a) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Rotze'ach
leaving the Ir Miklat) "Im Yatzo Yatza ha'Rotze'ach" - that even if he
leaves the Ir Miklat be'Shogeg, the Go'el ha'Dam may (or should) kill him.
(b) To reconcile this with the Beraisa "be'Meizid Neherag, be'Shogeg Goleh",
we establish the latter - according to those who hold 'Dibrah Torah
ki'Leshon B'nei Adam' (in which case, we do not Darshen anything from the
double Lashon of "Yatzo Yatzta").
(c) Abaye supports the second opinion - because it is not logical for the
end of the murderer to be more stringent than the beginning (where Shogeg
goes into Galus and is not killed).
(a) Initially, we connect the Machlokes whether a son can be a Go'el ha'Dam
to avenge the blood of his brother, whom his father killed, with the
Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi Hagelili and Rebbi Akiva - and Rebbi Yossi
Hagelili, who holds that it is a Mitzvah, permits it (whilst Rebbi Akiva,
who holds that it is Reshus, forbids it).
(b) We query this however, from a statement by Rabah bar Rav Huna and Tana
de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who say - that, with he sole exception of where the
father is a Meisis, a son may never be appointed to punish his father (not
to administer Malkos and not to curse him).
(c) When, to reconcile the two Beraisos, we conclude "Ha bi'Veno, Ha be'Ben
B'no'' - we mean that certainly Rabah bar Rav Huna is right (and a son may
not be a Go'el ha'Dam to kill his father), and the Beraisa which permits his
son to be a Go'el ha'Dam against 'his father', is talking about the son of
the murdered man (not his brother, as we thought), killing his (the murdered
man's) father (who is own grandfather).
(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the murderer is standing ...
1. ... inside the town, on the trunk, but when most of the branches are
growing outside the walls - the Go'el ha'Dam may kill him, since the tree
goes after the branches.
(b) The Beraisa rules that if a tree is growing within the walls of
Yerushalayim but the branches protrude outside or vice-versa, then we
disregard both the branches and the trunk. If he is within the walls he may
eat Ma'aser Sheini, and if he is not, he may not.
2. ... outside the town on the trunk, but when most of the branches are
growing inside - he may not, for the same reason.
(c) Initially we resolve this apparent discrepancy by differentiating
between Ma'aser and Arei Miklat - simply because whereas Ma'aser is
determined by the wall ("Lif'nei Hashem Elokecha Tochlenu"), Ir Miklat is
determined by residence ("Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev", and the branches are
obviously more inhabitable than the trunk).
(a) The Mishnah in Ma'asros says 'be'Arei Miklat Halach Achar ha'Nof -
bi'Yerushalayim Halach Achar ha'Nof' (clearly making no distinction between
Ma'aser and Ir Miklat in this regard).
(b) We answer the S'tirah in Ma'aser by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi
Yehudah, who says that one may eat Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim ...
1. ... in a cave on the outskirts of Yerushalayim - provided the entrance to
the cave is inside.
(c) The author of our Mishnah is then Rebbi Yehudah (who does not
differentiate between Ma'aser and Ir Miklat).
2. ... on the trunk of a tree that is outside Yerushalayim if the branches
are inside (but not vice-versa)
(d) The Rabbanan (who do not differentiate either) go neither according to
the branches nor according to the trunk, but according to whether the person
concerned in inside the wall or outside (even regarding Ir Miklat too).
(a) We query our current explanation by asking that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah
only says his Din (without reservation) by Ma'aser, because it goes
'le'Chumra both ways, but not by Arei Miklat, which goes le'Chumra one way
but le'Kula, the other - because he is not sure himself whether we go after
the branches or not (so he follows the branches wherever it is le'Chumra).
(b) The Chumra by Ma'aser in the case where the owner is standing on the
trunk, which is ...
1. ... outside, whereas the branches are inside, would be - that he would no
longer be able to redeem the Ma'aser (as if he was in Yerushalayim).
(c) The case that would then cause a problem with regard to Ir Miklat is -
where the murderer is standing on the trunk inside the town, whereas the
branches are outside, permitting the Go'el ha'Dam to kill the Rotze'ach (a
Kula), even though technically, he is standing inside the Ir Miklat.
2. ... inside and the branches are outside - he would not be permitted to
eat it (as if he was outside).
(a) Rabah upholds the query. The basis of the Tana'im's dispute therefore
pertains to a case where the murderer is perched on the branches outside the
walls, where Rebbi Yehudah permits the Go'el ha'Dam to climb up the trunk
which is inside the town, in order to get to the murderer, whereas the
Rabbanan forbid even that.
(b) And even the Rabbanan will concede in a similar case where the murderer
is also perched in the branches outside the walls, that the Go'el ha'Dam
would be permitted to kill him from afar with arrows or stones - because
they too agree, that the branches do not go after the trunk.
(a) Rav Ashi disagrees with the entire Sugya. He amends the Lashon of our
Mishnah 'ha'Kol Holech Achar ha'Nof' to - 'ha'Kol Holech Af Achar ha'Nof',
implying that we certainly go after the trunk (but that we will even go
after the branches le'Chumra).
(b) The implication refers to - where the murderer is standing on the trunk
inside the town, in which case, we certainly do not go after the branches
that are growing outside the wall (permitting the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him,
as we thought until now).
(c) We go after the trunk in a case - where the murderer is perched in the
branches outside the walls, and the trunk is inside (in which case the Go'el
ha'Dam is certainly not permitted to kill the murderer according to Rav
(d) The author of our Mishnah is still - Rebbi Yehudah, who is the one to go
after the branches (at least, le'Chumra).
(a) If a murderer kills someone be'Shogeg in an Ir Miklat - he must run to
another district in that town.
(b) If the murderer is a ben Levi - then Lechatchilah, he must run to
another Ir Miklat.
(c) The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Samti *Lecha* Makom" - that Moshe would perform the Mitzvah (of
setting up some Arei Miklat still) in his lifetime.
(d) If a ben Levi ran to another district in his own town (like a Yisrael) -
Bedieved it was Kolet him (see Tosfos DH 'Pilcho').
2. ... "Asher Yanus Shamah" - that the Din of Arei Miklat applied in the
desert, and someone who murdered be'Shogeg would have to run to the Machaneh
(e) Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika learns from the Pasuk "Ki be'Ir Miklato
Yeishev" - that a Yisrael who already killed once runs to another district
in the same town (Lechatchilah, and a resident ben Levi, Bedieved).