## Jerusalem Talmud Makkot Chapter 2

###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:1:1)

**משנה:** אֵילּו הֵן הַגּוֹלִין הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה. הָיָה מְעַגֵּל בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ הָיָה מְשַׁלְשֵׁל בֶּחָבִית וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ הָיָה יוֹרֵד בַּסּוּלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה. אֲבָל אִם הָיָה מוֹשֵׁךְ בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ הָיָה דוֹלֶה בֶחָבִית וְנִפְסַק הַחֶבֶל וְנָפְלָה עָלָיו וַהֲרָגַתּוּ הָיָה עוֹלֶה בַסּוּלָּם וְנָפַל עָלָיו וַהֲרָגוֹ הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. זֶה הַכְּלָל כָּל שֶׁבְּדֶרֶךְ הוֹרָדָתוֹ גּוֹלֶה וְשֶׁלֹּא בְדֶרֶךְ הוֹרָדָתוֹ אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The following are exiled: the unintentional homicide¹ 35, *Deut.* 19:1–10.. If he was rolling with the roller² 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 exiled³ 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..

footnotes:
¹ The rules of exile of the unintentional homicide are detailed in Num.
² The roller is used to smoothe the surface of a roof after waterproofing.
³ The rules of Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:1:2)

**הלכה:** אֵילּו הֵן הַגּוֹלִין כול׳. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה פוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּפִּיל אֶת כָּל הַחֶבֶל. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיר אֶת כָּל הַמַּחֲלָצוֹן. מַאי דָּמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בִּפְסִיקַת הַחֶבֶל. מַה דָּמַר רִבִּי יְהוּדָה בִּשְׁמִיטַּת הַמַּחֲלָצוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ⁴ it is missing in the ms.: “The following are exiled,” etc. Rebbi Jehudah declares him not liable unless the entire rope falls from his hand⁵. Rebbi Simeon declares him not liable unless he let go the trowel completely⁶ 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 go⁷.

footnotes:
⁴ This note is found only in the editio princeps;
⁵ This refers to the case of a person lowering a load by means of a rope when the load comes crashing down and kills somebody. If he loosens his grip, the homicide is due to his negligence and he is exiled. If the rope breaks (assuming he was not negligent in using a rope not suitable for its task by common engineering standards), it is an act of God and he is not liable.
⁶ Both Rashi (French truelle)
⁷ Meaning that the argument of R. Jehudah applied to R. Simeon’s case would have resulted in R. Simeon’s statement and vice-versa.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:1:3)

רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָיָה מְעַגֵּל בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲלִיכָתָהּ וְהוֹצִיא הֲלָהּ אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְהִטִּיחָה לוֹ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. הִיא עֲלִיָיה הִיא יְרִידָה. רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. הָיָה מְעַגֵּיל בַּמַּעְגֵּילָה כְּדֶרֶךְ הֲלִיכָתָהּ וְהוֹשִׁיט הַתְּינּוֹק אֶת יָדוֹ וּרְצָצָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אַטְרַחְתְּ בָּהּ. הִיא עֲלִיָיה הִיא יְרִידָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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 movement⁸. 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 movement⁹.

footnotes:
⁸ This is a personal injury case, not one of homicide. The particular distinction derived from Deut
⁹ If there is no negligence on the part of the operator, he is not liable and the distinction becomes meaningless.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:2:1)

**משנה:** נִשְׁמַט הַבַּרְזֶל מִקַּתּוֹ וְהָרַג רִבִּי אוֹמֵר אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים גּוֹלֶה. מִן הָעֵץ הַמִּתְבַּקֵּעַ רִבִּי אוֹמֵר גּוֹלֶה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 go¹⁰. 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..

footnotes:
¹⁰ This is a matter of interpretation of Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:2:2)

**הלכה:** נִשְׁמַט הַבַּרְזֶל מִקַּתּוֹ כול׳. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נְשִׁילָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן כִּי יִשַּׁל זֵיתֶיךָ. מַה נְשִׁילָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן נְשִׁירָה אַף כָאן נְשִׁירָה. מַה טַעֲמוֹן דְּרַבָּנִין. נֶאֱמַר כָּאן נְשִׁילָה וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן וְנָשַׁל יְי אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֶת הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵל מִפָּנֶיךָ וגו׳. מַה נְשִׁילָה שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרָה לְהַלָּן מַכָּה אַף כָאן מַכָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If the iron slipped off the handle,” etc. What is Rebbi’s reason? It is said here¹¹ 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 there¹². 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 there¹³. 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.

footnotes:
¹¹ In Deut.
¹² Deut
¹³ Deut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:3:1)

**משנה:** זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים וְהָרַג הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה. רִבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אִם מִשֶּׁיָּצָאת הָאֶבֶן מִיָּדוֹ וְהוֹצִיא הַלָּה אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ וְקִיבְּלָהּ הֲרֵי זֶה פָּטוּר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If one threw a stone into the public domain and it killed someone, he is exiled¹⁴. Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, if after the stone left his hand, the other one stuck out his head and received it, he¹⁵ is not liable.

footnotes:
¹⁴ As negligent homicide.
¹⁵ The thrower’s


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:3:2)

**הלכה:** זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן כול׳. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב וּמָצָא. שֶׁיְּהֵא מָצוּי לוֹ בְשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא הוֹרְגוֹ. וְיֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לִזְרוּק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה כוֹתְלוּ גוֹהָא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 him¹⁶. 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 inclined¹⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Deut
¹⁷ The wall of his property tilted towards the outside and threatens to fall into the public domain. The owner of the wall throws stones into the overhang to support the wall to remove the danger to the public. The anonymous Tanna assumes that the stones will have to be carried there, not thrown. (Babli 8a, in the name of R. Samuel bar Rav Isaac).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:4:1)

**משנה:** זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲצֵירוֹ וְהָרַג אִם יֵשׁ רְשׁוּת לַנִּיזָּק לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם גּוֹלֶה. וְאִם לָאו אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַאֲשֶׁר יָבֹא אֶת רֵעֵהוּ בַיַּעַר. מָה הַיַּעַר רְשׁוּת לַנִּיזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. יָצָא חֲצַר בַּעַל הַבַּיִת שֶׁאֵין רְשׁוּת לַנִּיזָּק וְלַמַּזִּיק לִיכָּנֵס לְשָׁם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר מַה חֲטָבַת עֵצִים רְשׁוּת. יָצָא הָאָב הַמַּכֶּה אֶת בְּנוֹ וְהָרַב הָרוֹדֶה אֶת תַּלְמִידוֹ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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*¹⁶. 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 son¹⁸, a teacher who disciplines his student, and the court bailiff¹⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁶ Deut
¹⁸ In the course of his duty as educator.
¹⁹ Acting on the orders of the court in flogging people.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:4:2)

**הלכה:** זָרַק אֶת הָאֶבֶן לַחֲבירוֹ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי יַנַּאיִ טַבָּח שֶׁהוּא מְקַצֵּב וְהִיכָּה בֵּין מִלְּמַעֲלָה בֵין מִלְּמַטָּה גּוֹלֶה. וְאַתְיָיא כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי הוּנָא. טַבָּח שֶׁהוּא מְקַצֵּב וְהִכָּה לְפָנָיו לְמַטָּן גּוּלֶה לְמַעֲלָן אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. לְאַחֲרָיו לְמַעֲלָן גּוֹלֶה לְמַטָּן אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי יִצְחָק. כָּל מִילָּה וּמִילָּה לְדַעְתֵּיהּ. יָשַׁב לוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה בַיּוֹם וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינּוֹק לִינָּתֵן עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה בַיּוֹם גּוֹלֶה. בַּלַּיְלָה וְדֶרֶךְ הַתִּינּוֹק הַנָּתוּן עַל גַּבֵּי מִיטָּה בַּלַּיְלָה אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה. יָשַׁב לֹו עַל גַּבֵּי עֲרִיסָה בַיּוֹם וְדֶרֶךְ הַתִּינּוֹק לִינָּתֵן עַל גַּבֵּי עֲרִיסָה בַיּוֹם אֵינוֹ גּוֹלֶה. בַּלַּיְלָה וְאֵין דֶּרֶךְ הַתִּינּוֹק לִינָּתֵן עַל גַּבֵּי עֲרִיסָה בַלַּיְלָה גּוֹלֶה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** If he threw the stone into his (comrade)²⁰,” 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 exile²¹. 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 exile²². 3:19)..

footnotes:
²⁰ A scribal error, חבירו “his comrade” for חצירו “his courtyard.
²¹ (Babli 7b). A butcher is cutting up a cattle carcass into quarters using a meat cleaver. He holds the cleaver behind his back, raises it over his head, and brings it down in front to split the animal. Therefore, the ascending motion behind his back is a necessary prelude to the descending motion in front, and is part of a descending motion in the sense of Mishnah 1. An ascending motion in front and the following descending motion in his back are both classified as ascending; an accident during this motion does not qualify to send the perpetrator into exile.
²² A person sits on a bed or a crib without looking whether a baby is lying there and by his action kills the baby. If he could reasonably have expected to find a baby there, his action is murder; otherwise it is involuntary homicide which qualifies for exile. During the day, the baby is put in a movable crib, so the mother can have him close by at all times. During the night, the baby is in his mother’s bed (1K


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:4:3)

אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. הָיָה עוֹמֵד וּמְבַקֵּעַ עֵצִים בַּחֲצֵירוֹ וְנִכְנַס הַפּוֹעֵל לִיטּוֹל שְׂכָרוֹ נִתְזָה הַבְּקַעַת עָלָיו וְהִזִּיקַתּוּ חַיָיב. וְאִם מֵת אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְיַעַר. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חֲנִינָה פָטוּר. וְלֹא פְלִיגִין. מַה דָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ. וּמַה דְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. בְּשֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ. אִם בְּשֶׁלֹּא רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִיכָּנֵס חַיָיב. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה. פָטוּר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִיכָּנֵס צָרִיךְ לְשַׁמֵּר אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וְאִית דְּבָעְי מֵימַר. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הִיכָּנֵס נַעֲשִׂית כַּחֲצַר שׁוּתָפִין. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַשׁוּתָפִין קוֹנִין זֶה מִזֶּה בְחָצֵר. וּמַמְחִין זֶה עַל יְדֵי זֶה בְחָצֵר. וְחַיָיבִין זֶה בְנִיזְקֵי זֶה. וְלֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב. מְמַלֵּא אֶת כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְזוֹ אֵינָהּ מְמַלְּאָה אֶת כָּל רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהַלֵּךְ בְּחָצֵר כְּמִי שֶׁהִיא מְמַלֵּא אֶת כָּל הֶחָצֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
²³ 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 Ḥanina²⁴ 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 him²⁵. 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 Ḥiyya²⁶ in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Partners acquire from one another in a courtyard; they object to one another in a courtyard²⁷ 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 domain²⁸ 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..

footnotes:
²³ This is from Baba qamma
²⁴ Read with ק “R. Hiyya” (the Elder).
²⁵ The occurrences of “liable” and “not liable” should be exchanged, following ק.
²⁶ R. Ḥiyya bar Abba.
²⁷ In a condominium courtyard, only outdoor activities (other than access to the houses built around the courtyard) agreeable to all parties can be performed. Cf. Nedarim
²⁸ This refers to Halakhah Bava qamma


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:5:1)

**משנה:** הָאָב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי בְּנוֹ וְהַבֵּן עַל יְדֵי הָאָב. הַכֹּל גּוֹלִים עַל יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹלִים עַל יְדֵיהֶם חוּץ מֵעַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. וְגֵר תּוֹשָׁב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב. הַסּוּמֶא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר גּוֹלֶה. הַשּׂוֹנֵא אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר הַשּׂוֹנֵא נֶהֱרָג מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְמוּעָד. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ שׂוֹנֵא גּוֹלֶה וְיֵשׁ שֶׁאֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. כֹּל שֶׁהוּא יָכוֹל לוֹמַר לָדַעַת הָרַג אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. וְשֶׁלֹּא לָדַעַת הָרַג הֲרֵי זֶה גּוֹלֶה:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The father is exiled for his son, and the son for the father²⁹. Everybody³⁰ is exiled for an Israel, and an Israel for everybody except a sojourner. A sojourner is exiled for a sojourner³¹.
A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled³². 35:23.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah³³ says, the hater is executed for he is as if notorious³⁴. 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.

footnotes:
²⁹ If the father kills his son unintentionally. If he kills him during a punishment for educational reasons he is not liable for any penalty (Note 18); if he kills him otherwise intentionally he must be prosecuted for murder and the perpetrator is barred from the cities of refuge even if no conviction is possible, e.g., for lack of eye witnesses or warning. Similarly, a son is exiled for the unintentional killing of his father.
³⁰ Adult Israel, Samaritan, or circumcised slave of a Jewish master.
³¹ A Gentile observing the Noahide commandments.
³² They disagree about the interpretation of Num
³³ In the later editions of the Babli: R. Yose, by actions of editors who held that R. Simeon, contemporary of R. Jehudah, could not react to an opinion of the latter’s son.
³⁴ He does not need warning and in his opinion cannot claim that he did it unintentionally.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:5:2)

**הלכה:** הָאָב גּוֹלֶה עַל יְדֵי הַבֶּן כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעוּרָא. תַּנָּא רִבִּי שִׁילָא בַּר בִּינָה. כִּלְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם הוּא יָמִית אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. הֲרֵי מִי שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת בְּנוֹ אֵין בְּנוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי נַעֲשֶׂה גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם לְהָמִית אֶת אָבִיו. אֲבָל אָח שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת אָחִיו אָחִיו הַשֵּׁינִי נַעֲשֶׂה גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם לְהָמִית אֶת אָחִיו. תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב. כִּלְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם הוּא יָמִית אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. הֲרֵי מִי שֶׁהִכָּה אֶת בְּנוֹ בְּנוֹ הַשֵּׁינִי נַעֲשֶׂה גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם לְהָמִית אֶת אָבִיו. אֲבָל אָח שֶׁהִכָּה אָחִיו אֵין אָחִיו הַשֵּׁינִי נַעֲשֶׂה גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם לְהָמִית אֶת אָחִיו. וּמְנַיִין אֲפִילּוּ אָמַר. שֶׁאֵינִי יָכוֹל לְהַקְבִּילוֹ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר בְּפִגְעוֹ בוֹ הוּא יְמִיתֶינּוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written³⁵ 35:19., *the redeemer of the blood*³⁶ 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 brother³⁷. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him³⁸ *Num*. 160., the verse says³⁵ 35:19., *when he comes upon him he shall kill him*³⁶ 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)..

footnotes:
³⁵ Num.
³⁶ The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num.
³⁷ The Babli 12a simply notes the existence of contradictory interpretations, without attaching names to the traditions. R. Eliezer ben Jacob probably is the second of this name, of the fourth generation of Tannaïm. R. Shila bar Binah (Avinna) belongs to the generation of transition from Tannaïm and Amoraïm.
³⁸ That he is forced to witness the execution, Sifry
³⁵ Num.
³⁶ The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:5:3)

וְהַסּוּמֶא. אָמַר רִבִּי בָּא. מָאן תַּנָּא סוּמֶא. רִבִּי יוּדָה. דְּרִבִּי יוּדָה פוֹטְרוֹ מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רַבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. כֹּל שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה מְאוֹרוֹת מִיָּמָיו לֹא יִפְרוֹשׂ אֶת שְׁמַע. הָא אִם רָאָה פוֹרֵשׂ. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ. בְּלֹא רְאוֹת. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסּוּמֶא. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. פְּרָט לַסּוּמֶא. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר פְּרָט וָכָא הוּא אָמַר לְרַבּוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִלֵּל. בְּיוֹשֵׁב בְּבַיִת אָפֵל הִיא מַתְנִיתָא. כָּךְ אָנוּ אוֹמְרִים. הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּבַיִת אָפֵל לֹא יִפְרוֹשׂ אֶת שְׁמַע. בְּרַם הָכָא בְּלֹא רְאוֹת לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַסּוּמָא. מַה מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִין בְּלֹא רְאוֹת. לְהָבִיא אֶת הַמַּכֶּה בַלָּיְלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And the blind person.” Rebbi Abba said, who stated “the blind person”? Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah frees him from all obligations of the Torah³⁹ 2:6 (Note 201), Babli *Bava qamma* 87a., as we have stated there⁴⁰ Mishnah 4:7.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anyone who never saw light in his life may not cover the *Shema*ˋ.⁴¹ˋ 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*⁴² 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. ⁴³ 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.⁴⁴” But here, *without seeing*, to include the blind person. How do the rabbis read *without seeing*? To include one who smites in the night⁴⁵.

footnotes:
³⁹ Soṭah
⁴⁰ Megillah
⁴¹ He cannot lead the congregation in the recital of the benedictions before and after the recitation of the Shema
⁴² Num.
⁴³ A parallel to this paragraph is in Megillah
⁴⁴ In his explanation, R. Jehudah does not exclude the blind person but one born and raised in a cave who never saw daylight.
⁴⁵ He is included in the list of the exiled together with the blind person.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:1)

**משנה:** לְאֵיכָן גּוֹלִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט. לְשָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן וּלְשָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֵת שְׁלשׁ הֶעָרִים תִּתְּנוּ מֵעֵבֶר לַיַּרְדֵּן וְגוֹ׳. עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִבְחֲרוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא הָיוּ שָׁלשׁ שֶׁבְּעֵבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן קוֹלְטוֹת שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה. עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ שִׁשָּׁתָן קוֹלְטוֹת כְּאַחַת: וּמְכוּוָּנוֹת לָהֶן דְּרָכִים מִזּוֹ לָזוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תָּכִין לְךָ הַדֶּרֶךְ וְשִׁלַֹּשְתָּ אֶת גְּבוּל אַרְצְךָ. וּמוֹסְרִין לָהֶן שְׁנֵי תַלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים שֶׁמָּא יַהַרְגֶנּוּ בַדֶּרֶךְ וִידַבְּרוּ אֵלָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר אַף הוּא מְדַבֵּר עַל יְדֵי עַצְמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרוֹצֵחַ: רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בַּתְּחִלָּה אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד מַקְדִּימִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט וּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵיב מִיתָה הֲרָגוּהוּ וְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵיב מִיתָה פְּטָרוּהוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב גָּלוּת מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֹתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ. אֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶחָד הַמְרוּבֶּה בִבְגָדִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחָתוֹ. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר אַף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. לְפִיכָךְ אִימּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָיה וּכְסוּת כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶן שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּמֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִינּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו וּלְאַחַר מִיכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ חוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי: נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל הַהוֹרֵג כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל שֶׁהָרַג אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. וְאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא לֹא לְעֵדוּת מִצְוָה וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת מָמוֹן וְלֹא לְעֵדוּת נְפָשׁוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין לֹו וַאֲפִילּוּ שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁמָּה. שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ וְשָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ וְשָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת כָּךְ תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט. רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וּמְצָאוֹ גוֹאֵל הַדָּם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגָּלִילִי אוֹמֵר מִצְוָה בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם וּרְשׁוּת בְּיַד כָּל אָדָם. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר רְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם וְכָל אָדָם אֵין חַיָיבִין עָלָיו. אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם אוֹ עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה בְתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. הָרַג בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר גּוֹלֶה מִשְּׁכוּנָה לִשְׁכוּנָה. וּבֶן לֵוִי גּוֹלֶה מֵעִיר לְעִיר: כַּיּוֹצֵא בוֹ רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁגָּלָה לְעִיר מִקְלָט וְרָצוּ אַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר לְכַבְּדוֹ יֹאמַר לָהֶם רוֹצֵחַ אָנִי. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַף עַל פִּי כֵן יְקַבֵּל מֵהֶן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְזֶה דְּבַר הָרֹצֵחַ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**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 said⁴⁶ 35:14.: *Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan*, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected⁴⁷ 20:7. *Sifry Num.* 160., those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said⁴⁸ 35:13., *there shall be six cities of refuge*, not until all six were receiving together⁴⁹.
Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said⁵⁰ 19:3.: *Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts*⁵¹. One sends with them⁵² two scholars lest he⁵³ kill him⁵² on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he⁵³ may argue for himself as it is said⁵⁴ 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 said⁵⁵ 35:25., *the community shall return him to his city of refuge*. Not only⁵⁶ 35:28). a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil⁵⁷. 30:22–33)., but also one wearing the many vestments⁵⁸, and one deposed from his office⁵⁹. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war⁶⁰. 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. He⁵² cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation,⁶¹ nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya⁶², he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said *there*⁵⁵ 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 asylum⁶³. 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 everybody⁶⁴. 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 crown⁶⁵. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite⁶⁶ who killed is exiled from one city to another.
Similarly⁶⁷ 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 said⁵⁴ 19:4., *this is the word of a homicide*.

footnotes:
⁴⁶ Num.
⁴⁷ Jos.
⁴⁸ Num.
⁴⁹ Giving asylum to the involuntary homicide.
⁵⁰ Deut.
⁵¹ Divide both the Land of Israel and Transjordan into three Voronoi domains each so that the nearest city of refuge always was indicated on the sign posts.
⁵² The homicide.
⁵³ The avenger of the blood.
⁵² The homicide.
⁵³ The avenger of the blood.
⁵⁴ Deut.
⁵⁵ Num.
⁵⁶ The homicide may return to his home town upon the death of the High Priest (Num.
⁵⁷ A High Priest of the period of Judges or Kings, anointed from the vial prepared by Moses (Ex
⁵⁸ A High Priest of Second Temple times, wearing an imitation of the High Priest’s robes.
⁵⁹ A High Priest of Herodian times or later, when High Priests usually were appointed annually.
⁶⁰ To exhort the army, Deut
⁵² The homicide.
⁶¹ A religious act, neither civil nor criminal; e. g., to testify to the appearance of the New Moon.
⁶² David’s general.
⁵⁵ Num.
⁶³ Every city of refuge also is a Levitic city (Num
⁶⁴ To kill the homicide who left the city of refuge (in the Babli: intentionally).
⁶⁵ If most of the crown is outside (inside), the entire tree is considered outside (inside). In the Babli, the crown is only taken as an extension of the tree.
⁶⁶ Whose city it is. Only a Levite can be a permanent resident of a city of refuge.
⁶⁷ This makes no sense here; it is copied from the identical Mishnah Ševiˋit
⁵⁴ Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:2)

**הלכה:** לְאֵיכָן גּוֹלִין כול׳. שָׁלֹשׁ עַיָירוֹת הִפְרִישׁ מֹשֶׁה בְּעֶבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן. וּמִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ הִפְרִישׁוּ עוֹד שָׁלֹשׁ. אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ לֹא הָיוּ קוֹלְטוֹת עַד שֶׁכִּיבְּישׁוּ וְחִילְּיקוּ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְחִילְּקוּ נִתְחַיְיבָה הָאָרֶץ בַּשְּׁמִיטִּין וּבַיּוֹבֵילוֹת וְהָיוּ אֵילּוּ וְאֵילּוּ קוֹלְטוֹת. שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים שֶׁהִפְרִישׁוּ בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֶל הָיוּ מְכוּוָּנוֹת כְּנֶגֶד שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ מֹשֶׁה בְּעֶבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּשְׁתֵּי שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁלְּכֶרֶם. אֶת חֶבְרוֹן בִּיהוּדָה כְּנֶגֶד בֶּצֶר בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְאֶת שְׁכֶם בְּהַר אֶפְרַיִם כְּנֶגֶד רָאמוֹת בַּגִּלְעַד. אֶת קֶדֶשׁ בַּגָּלִיל כְּנֶגֶד גּוֹלָן בַּבָּשָׁן. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישׁוּ שְׁכֶם בְּהַר אֶפְרַיִם לֹא הָיְתָה קוֹלֶטֶת. הִפְרִישׁוּ קִרְיַת יְעָרִים תַּחְתֶּיהָ עַד שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ אֶת שְׁכֶם. עַד שֶׁלֹּא הִפְרִישׁוּ קֶדֶשׁ בַּגָּלִיל לֹא הָיְתָה קוֹלֶטֶת. הִפְרִישׁ גַּמְלָה תַּחְתֶּיהָ עַד שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ אֶת קֶדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “Where are they exiled to,” etc. ⁷⁰“Three cities did Moses designate in Transjordan⁷¹ 4:41.. When they came to the Land they designated another three⁷² 20:7.. Neither of them were giving asylum until after they conquered and divided⁷³. 20:8. *Sifry Num*. 160.. After they conquered and divided, the Land became obligated for Sabbaticals and Jubilees and these and those⁷⁴ 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]⁷⁵ they had designated Sichem on Mount Ephraim it could not give asylum; they designated Qiryat-Yearim in its place until they conquered Sichem⁷⁶12).. (Before) [even though]⁷⁵ they had designated Qedesh in Galilee it could not give asylum; they designated Gamla in its place until they conquered Qedesh.⁷⁷ 12. Gamla is not a biblical name; it was situated on the Eastern shore of the sea of Galilee.”

footnotes:
⁷⁰ Tosephta 3:1–4, 8–9. Babli 9b–10a.
⁷¹ Deut.
⁷² Jos.
⁷³ Since the Transjordan towns are rededicated by Josua, Jos
⁷⁴ The towns dedicated by Moes and Joshua.
⁷⁵ The text in parentheses, to be deleted, is from the ms., the one in brackets from the Tosephta.
⁷⁶ The king of Sichem is not listed among the kings vanquished by Josua (Jos.
⁷⁵ The text in parentheses, to be deleted, is from the ms., the one in brackets from the Tosephta.
⁷⁷ This is difficult to understand since the king of Qedesh is listed in Jos.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:3)

וְשִׁלַּשְׁתָּ. שֶׁיְּהוּ מְשׁוּלָּשׁוֹת. כְּדֵי שֶׁתְּהֵא מֵחֶבְרוּן לִיהוּדָה כְּמֵחֵבְרוֹן לִשְׁכֶם וּמֵחֵבְרוֹן לִשְׁכֶם כְּמִשְׁכֶם לְקֶדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“*Divide into three parts*⁵¹. That it should be from Hebron to (Jehudah)⁷⁸ as from Hebron to Sichem and from Hebron to Sichem as from Sichem to Qedesh.”

footnotes:
⁵¹ Divide both the Land of Israel and Transjordan into three Voronoi domains each so that the nearest city of refuge always was indicated on the sign posts.
⁷⁸ Read with the Tosephta and the Babli: From the Southern border to Hebron.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:4)

נָפְלָה אַחַת מֵהֶן בּוֹנִין אוֹתָהּ מֵאוֹתוֹ הַשֵּׁבֶט. וּמְנַיִין אַף בִּשְׁאָר כָּל הַשְּׁבָטִים. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר שֵׁשׁ. שֶׁיְּהוּ מְכוּוָּנוֹת וְקוֹלְטוֹת כָּרִאשׁוֹנוֹת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If any of them collapsed, one rebuilds it from the same tribe. And from where also from other tribes? The verse says, *six*⁷⁹ 35:15.. That they should be parallel and receiving like the earlier ones.”

footnotes:
⁷⁹ Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:5)

הֶעָרִים הַלֵּילוּ אֵין בּוֹנִין אוֹתָם לֹא כְרָכִים גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא עֲיָירוֹת קְטַנּוֹת אֶלָּא בֵינוֹנִיּוֹת. אֵין בּוֹנִין אוֹתָהּ אֶלָּא עַל הַשּׁוּק. אִם אֵין שָׁם שׁוּק עוֹשִׂין לְשָׁם שׁוּק. אֵין בּוֹנִין אוֹתָם אֶלָּא עַל הַמַּיִם. אִם אֵין שָׁם מַיִם מְבִיאִין לְשָׁם מַיִם. נִתְמָעֲטוּ דִיּוּרֵיהֶן מְבִיאִין אֲחֵרִים תַּחְתֵּיהֶן. אִם אֵין שָׁם אוֹכְלוֹסִין מְבִיאִין לְשָׁם כֹּהֲנִים לְוִיִים וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“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 them⁸⁰. If the number of households declined, one brings others there. If the number of inhabitants declined, one brings there Cohanim, Levites, and Israel⁸¹ The parallel mention of דִּיּוּרִין “apartment dwellers” (Hebrew) and ὄχλος “multitude” expresses the same idea twice in different languages..”

footnotes:
⁸⁰ By aquaeduct.
⁸¹ Even though they are Levitic cities. Levitic cities were not renewed in the Second Commonwealth; in talmudic times we only hear of priestly villages in Galilee, quite different from the biblical towns enumerated in Jos.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:6)

אֵין עוֹשִׂין בְּתוֹכָן לֹא בֵית הַבַּד וְלֹא בֵית הְבְּצִירָה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי נְחֶמְיָה. וַחֲכָמִים מַתִּירִין. אֵין מַפְשִׁילִין בְּתוֹכָן חֲבָלִים. וְאֵין עוֹשִׁין בְּתוֹכָן כְּלֵי זְכוּכִית בִּשְׁבִיל לְהַרְגִּיל אֶת הָרֶגֶל לְשָׁם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“One builds in them neither an olive press nor a wine press⁸², 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.⁸³”

footnotes:
⁸² Presses for hire to be used by the surrounding agricultural population. The idea is that one does not want to attract too much traffic. A small number of people can be controlled; an “avenger of the blood” going after one of the homicides can be evicted or at least be warned that any killing within the asylum domain is murder. Greater traffic makes this impossible. The Sages hold that local traffic is acceptable; only manufactures that attract exporters have to be discouraged.
⁸³ Here the Sages agree.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:7)

רִבִּי יוֹחנָן שָׁלַח לְרַבָּנִין דְּתַמָּן. תַּרְתֵּין מִילִּין אַתּוֹן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב וְלֵית אִינּוּן כֵּן. אַתּוֹן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. יְפַת תּוֹאַר לֹא הִתִּירוּ בָהּ אֶלָּא בְעִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה בִּלְבַד. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. לֹא בְעִילָה רִאשׁוֹנָה וְלֹא בְעִילָה אֲחַרוֹנָה אֶלָּא לְאַחַר כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים. וְאַחַר כֵּן תָּבוֹא אֵלֶיהָ וּבְעַלְתָּהּ. אַחַר כָּל הַמַּעֲשִׂים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan sent to the rabbis there⁸⁴: 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 woman⁸⁵ 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*⁸⁶ 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.

footnotes:
⁸⁴ Babylonia.
⁸⁵ The female prisoner of war whom her captor desires, Deut.
⁸⁶ Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:8
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:8)

וְאַתּוֹן אָמְרִין בְּשֵׁם רַב. סָבוּר הָיָה יוֹאָב שֶׁקַּרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קוֹלְטוּת וְאֵינוֹ קוֹלֵט אֶלָּא גַגּוֹ. שֶׁל שִׁילוֹ קוֹלֵט. וְשֶׁלְּבֵית הָעוֹלָמִים אֵינוֹ קוֹלֵט. וַאֲנִי אוֹמֵר. לֹא מִזְבֵּחַ קוֹלֵט וְלֹא גַגּוֹ קוֹלֵט לֹא שֶׁל שִׁילוֹ קוֹלֵט וְלֹא שֶׁלְּבֵית הָעוֹלָמִים קוֹלֵט. אֵין לְךָ קוֹלֵט אֶלָּא שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט בִּלְבַד. וְאֶיפְשַׁר יוֹאָב דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ תַּחְכְּמוֹנִי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁי הָיָה טוֹעֶה בַדָּבָר זֶה. אָמַר רִבִּי תַנְחוּמָא. לְסַנְהֶדְרִין בָּרַח. כְּהָדָא דְּתַנֵּי. הֲרוּגֵי בֵית דִּין נִכְסֵיהֶן לַיּוֹרְשִׁין. הֲרוּגֵי מַלְכוּת נִכְסֵיהֶן לַמַּלְכוּת. אָמַר יוֹאָב. מוּטָּב שֶׁאֵיהָרֵג בְּבֵית דִּין וְיִירָשׁוּנִי בָנַיי וְאַל יַהַרְגֵּינִי הַמֶּלֶךְ וְיִירָשֵׁינִי. כַּד שְׁמַע שְׁלֹמֹה כֵּן אָמַר. לְמָמוֹנוֹ אֲנִי צָרִיךְ. מְיָּד וַהֲסִירוֹתִי דְּמֵי חִנָּם. אֵין מָמוֹנוֹ חִנָּם. וַיִּשְׁלַח בְּיַד בְּנָיָהוּ וַיִּפְגַּע בּוֹ וַיְמִיתֵיהוּ וַיֵּקַּבְּרוּהוּ בְּבֵיתוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר. וְכִי מִדְבָּר הָיָה בֵיתוֹ. אֶלָּא לְלַמְּדָךְ שֶׁכֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּת יוֹאָב שַׂר צְבָא יִשְׂרָאֵל נַעֲשׂוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל כַּמִּדְבָּר. אִין תֵּימַר. שֶׁהָיָה בוּזֵז וּבוֹנֶה לָהֶן דֵּימוֹסִיּוֹת וּמֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. שְׁבָח. וְאִין תֵּימַר. שֶׁהָיָה בוּזֵז וּמַאֲכִיל חֲכָמִים וְתַלְמִידֵיהֶם. שְׁבַח שְׁבָחִים. וּמְנַיִין שֶׁהָיְתָה סַנְהֶדְרִין גְּדוֹלָה אֶצֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. וְלֹא תַעֲלֶה בְמַעֲלוֹת עַל מִזְבְּחִי. וּמַה כְתִיב תַמָּן. וְאֵלֶּה הַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תָּשִׂים לִפְנֵיהֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Also you say that Joab was of the opinion that the horns of an altar give asylum⁸⁷ 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*⁸⁸ 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 government⁸⁹. 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*⁹⁰ 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*⁹¹ 2:29,34.. Was his house a wilderness? But to tell you that when Joab the commander of Israel’s army died⁹², Israel was turned into a wilderness. If you say that he collected booty to build public baths and baths⁹³ 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 praise⁹⁴ 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*⁹⁵. 20:23, 21:1..

footnotes:
⁸⁷ 1K.
⁸⁸ 2S.
⁸⁹ This projects Roman practice into Jewish law.
⁹⁰ 1K.
⁹¹ A combination of 1K.
⁹² Here starts the second sheet of the Genizah fragment (G).
⁹³ A double expression of Greek (Sanhedrin
⁹⁴ Babli Sanhedrin
⁹⁵ Ex


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:9
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:9)

[נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וּמֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה.] תַּנֵּי רִבִּי לִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר. מִקְלָט מִקְלָט כָתוּב בָּפָרָשַׁת דְּרָכִים. כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הָרוֹצֵחַ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַכָּתוּב וְהוֹלֵךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. כְּמִין יָד הָיְתָה מַרְאָה לָהֶן אֶת הַדֶּרֶךְ. אָמַר רִבִּי פִינְחָס. טוֹב וְיָשָׁר. לָמָּה הוּא טוֹב. שֶׁהוּא יָשָׁר. וְלָמָּה הוּא יָשָׁר. שֶׁהוּא טוֹב. עַל כֵּן יוֹרֶה חַטָּאִים בַּדָּרֶךְ. שֶׁמּוֹרֶה דֶּרֶךְ תְּשׁוּבָה. שָׁאֲלוּ לַחָכְמָה. חוֹטֵא מָהוּ עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָמְרָה לָהֶם. חַטָּאִים תְּרַדֵּף רָעָה. שָׁאֲלוּ לַנְּבוּאָה. חוֹטֵא מָהוּ עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָמְרָה לָהֶן. הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחוֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת. שָׁאֲלו לְקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא. חוֹטֵא מָהוּ עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶן. יַעֲשֶׂה תְשׁוּבָה וְיִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. הַיְינוֹ דִכְתִיב. עַל כֵּן יוֹרֶה חַטָּאִים בַּדָּרֶךְ. יוֹרֶה לַחַטָּאִים דֶּרֶךְ לַעֲשׂוֹת תְּשׁוּבָה. כְּתִיב כַּצִּפּוֹר לָנוּד כַּדְּרוֹר לָעוּף כֵּן אִישׁ נוֹדֵד מִמְּקוֹמוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
[“If sentence had been passed when the High Priest died, he is not exiled.”]⁹⁶ It was stated⁹⁷: “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 them⁹⁸. ⁹⁹ 25[10]. Rebbi Phineas said, *good and straightforward*¹⁰⁰. 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. ¹⁰¹ 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*¹⁰² 13:21.. They asked Prophecy, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, *the sinning soul is the one which will die*¹⁰³. 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*¹⁰⁰. 25:8., the way to repentance. ¹⁰⁴ 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.

footnotes:
⁹⁶ Added from G; referring to Mishnah 10 even though the Halakhah refers to Mishnah 8.
⁹⁷ Babli 10b, Tosephta 3:5.
⁹⁸ He does not assume that everybody be literate.
⁹⁹ This paragraph is shortened in G, it is only hinted at in the Babli, 10b (in the name of Rav Ḥama bar Ḥanina), extended in Midrash Tehillim
¹⁰⁰ Ps
¹⁰¹ There exist various versions of this homily. In G, the text reads:שָׁאֲלוּ לַתּוֹרָה. הַחוֹטֵא בְמָהוּא עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָֽמְרָה לָהֶן יָבִיא קָרְבָּן וְיִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. שָׁאֲלוּ לַנְּבוּאָה. הַחוֹטֵא מָהוּ עוֹנְשׁוֹ.אָֽמְרָה. הַנֶּ֥פֶשׁ הַֽחֹטֵא֭ת הִ֥יא תָמֽוּת׃ שָׁאֲלוּ לְדָוִיד הַחוֹטֵא בְמָה עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶן יִתַּ֤מּוּ חַטָּאִ֨ים ׀ מִן־הָאָ֡רֶץ וגו׳.שָׁאֲלוּ לַחָכְמָה. חוֹטֵא מָהוּ עוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָֽמְרָה לָהֶן. חַ֭טָּאִים תְּרַדֵּ֣ף רָעָ֑ה וג׳. שָׁאֲלו לְקוּדְשָׁא בְּרִיךְ הוּא. חוֹטֵא מָהוּעוֹנְשׁוֹ. אָמַר לָהֶן. יַעֲשֶׂה תְשׁוּבָה וַאֲנִי מְקַבֵּל דִכְתִיב. ט֣וֹב וְיָשָׁ֥ר יי. לָמָּה הוּא טוֹב.They asked the Torah, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, he shall bring a sacrifice and it will be atoned for him. They asked Prophecy, what is the punishment of the sinner? She told them, the sinning soul is the one which will die.
¹⁰² Prov.
¹⁰³ Ez
¹⁰⁰ Ps
¹⁰⁴ The continuation of the quote is not a verse; it seems to be the invention of a copyist who did not understand it. In G, the quote “Like a bird to move, like a swallow to fly,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:10
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:10)

[נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ בְּלֹא כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל]. וְתֵ מַר אָכֵן. תִּיפְתָּר שֶׁהָיָה עֵת וְעוֹנָה. כַּיי דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא. עִתִּים הֵן לַתְּפִילָּה. אָמַר דָּוִד לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲנִי מִתְפַּלְּל אֵלֶיךָ תְּהֵא עֵת רָצוֹן. דִּכְתִיב וַאֲנִי תְפִילָּתִי לְךָ יְי עֵת רָצוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
[If sentence was passed when there was no High Priest.]¹⁰⁵ And you say so¹⁰⁶? Explain it that it was time and period¹⁰⁷. 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 written¹⁰⁸ 69:14.: *But I, my prayer is to You at a time of goodwill.*

footnotes:
¹⁰⁵ Added from G, referring to Mishnah 11, even though the discussion continuous about Mishnah 9.
¹⁰⁶ This continues from Note 104. Why are the priests’ mothers worried?
¹⁰⁷ The prayers of the exiles might be heard even if it was not their special merit that made the prayers effective. The Babli 11a holds that the prayers of the exiles may be effective if the High Priests fail to uphold very high standards of conduct.
¹⁰⁸ Ps.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:11
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:11)

רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר דִּיבּוּר חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא [יֵשׁ] שָׁם. וְהָכְתִיב וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים (כול׳ גרשה) [אֶל נֹחַ וְאֶל בָּנָיו אִתּוֹ לֵאמֹר. מַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא יֵשׁ שָׁם. חִידֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי. וְהָא כְתִיב וַיִּפֹּל אַבְרָם עַל פָּנָיו וַיְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ אֱלֹהִים לֵאמֹר. מַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא יֵשׁ שָׁם חִידֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַמִּילָה. וְהָא כְתִיב דָּבָר שָׁלַח יי בְּיַעֲקֹב וג׳ מַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא יֵשׁ שָׁם חִידֵּשׁ בּוֹ אֶת הַ{מִּי}לָּה. וְהָא כְתִיב וַיְדַבֵּר אֱלֹהִים אֶל מֹשֶׁה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אֲנִי יְי. מַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא יֵשׁ שָׁם חִידֵּשׁ בּוֹ קִידּוּשׁ הַשֵּׁם. וְהָא כְתִיב וַיְדַבֵּר יְהֹוָה אֶל יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֵאמֹר. מַה חִידּוּשׁ מִקְרָא יֵשׁ שָׁם. אִון תֵּימַר שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט. כְּבָר נִתְּנוּ לְמֹשֶׁה מִסִּינַי. אֶלָּא אַף הוּא נֶאֱמַר לוֹ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר לְמֹשֶׁה וְנָס אֶל אַחַת מֵהֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְעָמַד פֶּתַח וג׳ וְנָתְנוּ לוֹ מָקוֹם וְיָשַׁב עִמָּם.] מָהוּ וְיָשַׁב עִמָּם. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁילֹה. שֶׁאִם הָיָה תַלְמִיד חָכָם עוֹשִׂין לוֹ בֵית וַועַד.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁰⁹(*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*¹¹⁰ 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*)¹¹¹ 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*¹¹² 17:3.? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced circumcision. But is it not written, *a word the Eternal sent to Jacob*¹¹³. 9:7.? What new biblical commandment is there? He newly introduced …¹¹⁴ 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 written¹¹⁵ 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 written¹¹⁶ 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.*¹¹⁷ 20:4.] What means *that he stay with them*? The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Shila¹¹⁸: If he is a scholar, they make him a house of assembly¹¹⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁰⁹ This paragraph is very much truncated in the Leiden ms.; after the introduction is noted “repetition”, i. e., it is found elsewhere and needs no repetition here. But the paragraph is not known from any other place in the Yerushalmi; it is preserved almost completely in the Genizah fragment [G]. Already in 1934 S. Lieberman discovered the full text in Yalqut Makhiri Isaiah
¹¹⁰ If God addresses a human using the root דבר instead of אמר, נאם it is a sign that a new commandment is contained in the following paragraph.
¹¹¹ Gen.
¹¹² Gen.
¹¹³ Is
¹¹⁴ As the editor of G noted, the illegible word here seems to be מילה, belonging to the preceding sentence. Following Yalqut Makhiri
¹¹⁵ Ex.
¹¹⁶ Jos.
¹¹⁷ Jos.
¹¹⁸ A student of R. Simeon ben Laqish.
¹¹⁹ Where others can come and profit from his knowledge (Babli 10a).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:12
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:12)

[כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת כָּךְ הָיָה תְּחוּמָהּ קוֹלֵט.] שָׁלֹשׁ עָרִים הִפְרִישׁ מֹשֶׁה בְּעֶבֶר הַיַּרְדֵּן. מִשֶּׁבָּאוּ לָאָרֶץ הִפְרִישׁוּ עוֹד שָׁלֹשׁ. וּלְעָתִיד לָבוֹא מַפְרִישִׁין עוֹד שָׁלֹשׁ. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ. הֲרֵי ט׳. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. שָׁלֹשׁ. שָׁלֹשׁ שֶׁלְּשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי ט׳. וְעוֹד הֲרֵי י״ב. רִבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אוֹמֵר. שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי ט׳. וְעוֹד הֲרֵי י״ב. עַל הַשָּׁלֹשׁ הֲרֵי ט״ו. כָּתוּב שֵׁשׁ עָרֵי מִקְלָט תִּהְיֶינָה לָכֶם. שֶׁיְּהוּ שִׁשָּׁתָן קוֹלְטוֹת כְּאַחַת. וְתֵ מַר אָכֵן. וַתְיָיא כַיי דָמַר רִבִּי שְׂמוּאֵל [בַּר יַיְנָא] בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי אָחָא. חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים חָסַר מִקְדָּשׁ אַחֲרוֹן מִמִּקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן. דִּכְתִיב עֲלוּ הָהָר וַהֲבֵאתֶם עֵץ וגו׳ עַד וְאֶכָּבְדָה. וְאֶכָּבְדָ כָתוּב חָסֵר ה״א. אֵילּוּ ה׳ דְבָרִים שֶׁחָסַר מִקְדָּשׁ אַחֲרוֹן מִמִּקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן. וְאֵילּוּ הֵן. אֵשׁ. אָרוֹן. אוּרִים וְתוּמִּים. שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְרוחַ הַקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹²⁰[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] ¹²¹ 185. 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*¹²² 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 written¹²³ 35:13.: *Six cities of refuge there shall be for you*, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so¹²⁴ 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]¹²⁵ 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 written¹²⁶ 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*¹²⁷ 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 fire¹²⁸ 7:1)., the Ark¹²⁴ 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 Tummim¹²⁹ 28:30) but for which no description or instructions are given., anointing oil¹²⁴ 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 Spirit¹³⁰.

footnotes:
¹²⁰ Reference to Mishnah 12, found only in G.
¹²¹ Tosephta 3:10, Sifry Deut.
¹²² Deut.
¹²³ Num.
¹²⁴ If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num.
¹²⁵ Added from G (and the parallels, Taˋaniot
¹²⁶ Hag.
¹²⁷ Ketib
¹²⁸ The Heavenly fire (2Chr.
¹²⁴ If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num.
¹²⁹ Which are mentioned as worn by the High Priest (Ex.
¹²⁴ If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num.
¹³⁰ The spirit of prophecy.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:13
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:13)

[אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם.] אָמַר [רִבִּי] אַבַּיי. תַּלְמִיד חָכָם צָרִיךְ לְפַרְסֵם אֶת עַצְמוֹ. הֵיךְ בַּר נַשׁ דַּחֲכַם חָדָא מֵיכְלָה וָאֲזִיל לַאֲתַר וְאִינּוּן מְיַיקְרִין לֵיהּ כַּד הוּא חֲכַם תְּרֵין מֵיכְלָה צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר לוֹן חָדָא מֵיכְלָא אֲנָא חַכִּים. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. אוֹמֵר בְשָׂפָה רָפָה וְהַיָּמִין פְשׁוּטָה לְקַבֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹³¹ˋ*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]¹³²ˋ*it* 10:8 the speaker is R. Yose (the Amora). Abbai said, a scholar has to make his qualifications known. ¹³³ˋ*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. ¹³⁴ 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.)

footnotes:
¹³¹ From G, a quote from Mishnah 13. The discussion refers to Mishnah 14 which also is Mishnah Ševi
¹³² From G. In Ševi
¹³³ Halakhah Ševi
¹³⁴ This does not belong here; it has been copied from Ševiˋit


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:14
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:14)

מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי יוּדָה. כִּי יֵחַם לְבָבוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
What is Rebbi Jehudah’s¹³⁵ reason? *For his blood is hot*¹³⁶ 19:6..

footnotes:
¹³⁵ In G: R. Huna. If the reference is to Mishnah 12, it should be “R. Yose the Galilean.” If the reference is to the anonymous statement in Mishnah 8, the attribution to R. Jehudah might be correct.
¹³⁶ Deut.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:15
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:6:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:6:15)

אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. וְחוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁלַּשְּׁלִישִׁי. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ. צָרְכוּ לַדָּבָר שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. אָמַר רִבִּי יוּסֵי. מַתְנִיתִין לֹא אָמְרָה כֵן. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל צְרִיכִין לוֹ. אֲפִילּוּ שַׂר צָבָא כְּיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה אֵין יוֹצֵא מִשָּׁם לְעוֹלָם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר שָׁמָּה. שָׁם תְּהֵא דִירָתוֹ כול׳.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Abbahu said, but he returns upon the death of the third¹³⁷. Rebbi Abbahu said, if they need it¹³⁸ (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 Ṣeruya⁶², he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said *there*⁵⁵ 35:25.. There shall be his dwelling, etc.”

footnotes:
¹³⁷ In G: “the second.” This reading has to be rejected since it is that of Mishnah 10. It rather seems to refer to Mishnah 11, about one who killed a High Priest, or a homicidal High Priest.
¹³⁸ In G: If they (the High Court or the government) need him
⁶² David’s general.
⁵⁵ Num.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:7:1)

**משנה:** וּמַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיו מַעֲלוֹת לָהֶן שָׂכָר. וְחוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיָה חוֹזֵר לִשְׂרָרָה שֶׁהָיָה בָהּ:

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** They⁶⁸ 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 earlier⁶⁹, the words of Rebbi Meïr; Rebbi Jehudah says, he does not return to the office he held earlier.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry
⁶⁹ The public office held by the homicide before his exile. The question is whether the homicide is barred from holding public office upon his return.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:7:2)

**הלכה:** [מַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּם.] תַּנֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. לְמַחְלוֹקֶת נִיתְּנוּ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. לְבֵית דְִּירָה נִיתְּנוּ. וַתְיָיא דְרִבִּי יוֹסֵי כְרִבִּי יוּדָה. וּדְרִבִּי מֵאִיר כְדַעְתֵּיהּ. דְּתַנִּינָן. מַעֲלוֹת הָיוּ שָׂכָר לַלְוִיִּים דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי (מֵאִיר) [יְהוּדָה]. רִבִּי (יְהוּדָה) [מֵאִיר] אוֹמֵר לֹא הָיו מַעֲלוֹת שָׂכָר לַלְּוִיִּם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** ¹³⁹[They⁶⁸ 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.] ¹⁴⁰ 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: “They⁶⁸ 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.”

footnotes:
¹³⁹ The text in brackets is from G. Here starts the discussion of Mishnah 15. The text in parentheses is from the Leiden ms. The correct quote of the Mishnah is in G.
⁶⁸ The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry
¹⁴⁰ Maˋaser Šeni
⁶⁸ The feminine form of the verb is confirmed by the readings of Maimonides and Rashi, as well as the Munich ms. of the Babli. In the Babli, the question is raised whether the homicide (reading מעלים) pays rent or his hometown (reading מעלות) pays indemnity to the Levites in either the city of refuge or the 42 additional Levitic cities which also serve as cities of asylum. Since neither Sifry


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:7:3)

רָבָא בְשֵׁם רַב יוּדָה רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְשֵׁם מַר עוּקְבָּא. אֵין מְקַדְּדִין אֶלָּא בְחֶבֶל שֶׁלַּחֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה. רִבִּי זֵירָא בְשֵׁם רַב חִסְדָּא אוֹמֵר. אֵין מְקַדְּדִין לֹא בְעָרֵי הַלְּוִיִּם וְלֹא בִמְקוֹם עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה. וַתְיָיא כְמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֶלֶף אַמָּה מִגְרָשׁ וְאַלְפַּיִים תְּחוּם שַׁבָּת. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דָּמַר. אֶלֶף מִגְרָשׁ וְאַלְפַּיִים שָׂדוֹת וּכְרָמִים. כְּלוּם לָמְדוּ לִתְחוּם שַׁבָּת לֹא מִתְּחוּם עָרֵי לְוִיִים. לְעִיקָּר אֵין מְקַדְּדִין לַטְּפֵילָה מְקַדְּדִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹⁴¹ 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?

footnotes:
¹⁴¹ This text is also in Sotah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Makkot 2:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Makkot/r/2:7:4)

וּמָנַיִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ קוֹבִרִין בְּעָרֵי הַלְּוִיִּם. רִבִּי אַבָּהוּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶם יִהְיוּ לִבְהֶמְתָּם וְלִרְכוּשָׁם וּלְכֹל חַיָיתָם. לַחַיִים נִיתְּנוּ וְלֹא לִקְבוּרָה נִיתְּנוּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
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*¹⁴² 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.

footnotes:
¹⁴² Num.