## Makkot Daf 12a

###### Makkot 12a:1
[Makkot 12a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:1)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְלִיגִי, כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מַאן דְּאָמַר מֵתָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר בָּטְלָה – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם דִּכְתִיב: ״בָּרֵךְ ה׳ חֵילוֹ וּפֹעַל יָדָיו תִּרְצֶה״ – אֲפִילּוּ חֲלָלִין שֶׁבּוֹ, אֲבָל הָכָא, אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this parallel: **According to** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees** that he holds that the priesthood is voided. **When they disagree,** it is **according to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua: The one who says** the priesthood is **dead** holds **in accordance with** the straightforward understanding of the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua. And the one who says** the priesthood is **voided** can also hold in accordance with his opinion and explain that **Rabbi Yehoshua states** his opinion **only there,** with regard to Temple service, **as it is written: “Bless, God, his property [*ḥeilo*], and accept the work of his hands”** (Deuteronomy 33:11). The term *ḥeilo* is interpreted homiletically to mean that **even** the offerings of **those disqualified from Temple service due to flawed lineage [*ḥalalin*]** are accepted after the fact. **But here,** with regard to the status of the priest, **even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes** that the priesthood is voided retroactively.


###### Makkot 12a:2
[Makkot 12a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:2)

נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְכוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: שְׁתֵּי טָעִיּוֹת טָעָה יוֹאָב בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיָּנׇס יוֹאָב אֶל אֹהֶל ה׳ וַיַּחֲזֵק בְּקַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If **the verdict of** a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge. And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all; even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of the Jewish people like Joab ben Zeruiah, he does not leave the city of refuge ever. **Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: Joab made two errors at that moment,** when he fled from Solomon, **as it is written: “And Joab fled to the Tent of God and grasped the horns of the altar”** (I Kings 2:28).


###### Makkot 12a:3
[Makkot 12a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:3)

טָעָה – שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹלֵט אֶלָּא גַּגּוֹ, וְהוּא תָּפַס בְּקַרְנוֹתָיו. טָעָה – שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹלֵט אֶלָּא מִזְבַּח בֵּית עוֹלָמִים, וְהוּא תָּפַס מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה. אַבָּיֵי אוֹמֵר: בְּהָא נָמֵי מִיטְעָא טְעָה: טָעָה – שֶׁאֵינוֹ קוֹלֵט אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן וַעֲבוֹדָה בְּיָדוֹ, וְהוּא זָר הָיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He erred** in **that only the top of** the altar **provides refuge, and he grasped its corners.** Moreover, **he erred** in **that only the altar of the eternal House,** i.e., the Temple. **provides refuge, and he grasped the altar at Shiloh. Abaye said:** It is **with regard to this** that Joab **also erred, as** the altar **provides refuge only** for **a priest** who grasps the roof of the altar **and his service is in his hand, and** Joab **was a non-priest.**


###### Makkot 12a:4
[Makkot 12a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:4)

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שָׁלֹשׁ טָעִיּוֹת עָתִיד שָׂרוֹ שֶׁל רוֹמִי לִטְעוֹת, דִּכְתִיב: ״מִי זֶה בָּא מֵאֱדוֹם חֲמוּץ בְּגָדִים מִבׇּצְרָה״, טוֹעֶה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת אֶלָּא בֶּצֶר, וְהוּא גּוֹלֶה לְבׇצְרָה. טוֹעֶה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת אֶלָּא שׁוֹגֵג, וְהוּא מֵזִיד הָיָה. טוֹעֶה – שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹלֶטֶת אֶלָּא אָדָם, וְהוּא מַלְאָךְ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Apropos errors, the Gemara cites that **Reish Lakish says: The angel of Rome is destined to make three errors, as it is written: “Who is this who comes from Edom, with crimsoned garments from Bozrah?”** (Isaiah 63:1), which is a parable for God’s arrival after killing the angel of Rome in Bozrah. The angel of Rome will **err** in **that** it is **only** the city of **Bezer** that **provides refuge and he exiled** himself **to Bozrah;** he will **err** in **that it provides refuge only** to **an unintentional** murderer **and he was** an **intentional** murderer; and he will **err** in **that it provides refuge only** to **a person and he is an angel.**


###### Makkot 12a:5
[Makkot 12a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: עָרֵי מִקְלָט לֹא נִתְּנוּ לִקְבוּרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶם יִהְיוּ לִבְהֶמְתָּם וְלִרְכֻשָׁם וּלְכֹל חַיָּתָם״ – לְחַיִּים נִתְּנוּ וְלֹא לִקְבוּרָה. מֵיתִיבִי, ״שָׁמָּה״ – שָׁם תְּהֵא דִּירָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא מִיתָתוֹ, שָׁם תְּהֵא קְבוּרָתוֹ! רוֹצֵחַ שָׁאנֵי, דְּגַלִּי בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes its analysis of the mishna. **Rabbi Abbahu says: Cities of refuge were not given for** the purpose of **burial** of unintentional murderers within them, **as it is written** with regard to the Levite cities: **“And their open land shall be for their cattle, and for their property, and for all their beasts [*ḥayyatam*]”** (Numbers 35:3), from which it is derived: **For life [*leḥayyim*] they are given, but not for burial.** Even Levites who reside in these cities are buried beyond the open land surrounding the city. The Gemara **raises an objection** to this from the mishna’s interpretation of the term: “That he fled **there”** (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: **There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.** The Gemara answers: **A murderer is different, as the Merciful One revealed concerning him** that he is to be buried there. That does not apply to the other residents of the city.


###### Makkot 12a:6
[Makkot 12a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:6)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָעִיר קוֹלֶטֶת וְכוּ׳. וּרְמִינְהוּ: ״וְיָשַׁב בָּהּ״ – בָּהּ וְלֹא בִּתְחוּמָהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לָא קַשְׁיָא, כָּאן – לִקְלוֹט, כָּאן – לָדוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **Just as** an unintentional murderer **is admitted** to **the city** of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a *baraita* with regard to that which is written concerning the unintentional murderer: **“And he shall dwell in it”** (Numbers 35:25), from which it is inferred: **“In it,” but not within its boundary. Abaye said:** This is **not difficult. Here,** the mishna is referring to the unintentional murderer being **admitted** to the city, which will provide refuge from the blood redeemer, who may not kill him there. **There,** the *baraita* is referring to the place where it is permitted for the murderer **to dwell,** i.e., within the city itself and not on its outskirts.


###### Makkot 12a:7
[Makkot 12a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:7)

״לָדוּר״? תִּיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּאֵין עוֹשִׂין שָׂדֶה מִגְרָשׁ וְלֹא מִגְרָשׁ שָׂדֶה, לֹא מִגְרָשׁ עִיר וְלֹא עִיר מִגְרָשׁ. אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לֹא נִצְרְכָה אֶלָּא לִמְחִילּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to state that the murderer may not **dwell** on the outskirts of the city? **Let him derive** that *halakha* from the fact **that one may not render the field** of a Levite city **an open space, nor an open space a field, nor an open space** part of the **city, nor** the **city an open space.** Apparently, the outskirts of the city, whose status is that of an open space, may not be utilized for residential purposes. **Rav Sheshet said: It is necessary** to state this *halakha* **only for tunnels.** If a murderer excavated a tunnel on the outskirts of the city, although he did not violate the prohibition against ruining the fields of the city, he may not reside there based on the *halakha* by Torah law that he must reside inside the city.


###### Makkot 12a:8
[Makkot 12a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:8)

רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְרָצַח גֹּאֵל הַדָּם אֶת הָרֹצֵחַ״ – מִצְוָה בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, אֵין גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם – רְשׁוּת בְּיַד כׇּל אָדָם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: רְשׁוּת בְּיַד גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם, וְכׇל אָדָם חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches a dispute between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva with regard to a case **where** the unintentional **murderer emerged beyond the** Shabbat **boundary** of the city of refuge, and the blood redeemer found him there. **The Sages taught** that it is written: “And the blood redeemer finds him outside the border of his city of refuge **and the blood redeemer murders the murderer,** he has no blood” (Numbers 35:27): It is **a mitzva for the blood redeemer** to kill him, and if **there is no blood redeemer** available to fulfill this mitzva, **it is optional for any person** to do so; this is **the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says:** It is **optional for the blood redeemer** to kill him, **and any** other **person is liable for** killing **him.**


###### Makkot 12a:9
[Makkot 12a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:9)

מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי? מִי כְּתִיב: ״אִם רֹצֵחַ״? וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִי כְּתִיב: ״יִרְצַח״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the mishna: **What is the reason** for the opinion **of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili?** He says: **Is it written: If** the blood redeemer **murders** the unintentional murderer, he has no blood? It states: “And the blood redeemer murders the murderer,” indicating that it is a mitzva. **And Rabbi Akiva** says: **Is it written:** The blood redeemer **shall murder,** in the imperative? It merely states: “And the blood redeemer murders,” which is merely relating the scenario under discussion.


###### Makkot 12a:10
[Makkot 12a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:10)

אָמַר מָר זוּטְרָא בַּר טוֹבִיָּה אָמַר רַב: רוֹצֵחַ שֶׁיֵּצֵא חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, וּמְצָאוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם וַהֲרָגוֹ – נֶהֱרָג עָלָיו. כְּמַאן? לָא כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, וְלָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
On a related note, the Gemara cites that **Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says** that **Rav says:** In the case of **a murderer who emerged beyond the** Shabbat **boundary** of the city of refuge, **and the blood redeemer found him** there **and killed him,** the blood redeemer is **executed for** killing **him.** The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Rav issue this ruling? He issued it **neither in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,** who maintains that there is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, **nor in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who says the blood redeemer has the option of killing him.


###### Makkot 12a:11
[Makkot 12a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:11)

הוּא דְּאָמַר כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: ״עַד עׇמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר? לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְרָצַח גֹּאֵל הַדָּם אֶת הָרֹצֵחַ״, יָכוֹל מִיָּד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַד עׇמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav **states** this ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **that *tanna*, as it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says** with regard to the verse: “And the murderer shall not die, **until he stands before the congregation for judgment”** (Numbers 35:12): **Why** must **the verse state** this? It is necessary **since it is stated:** “And the blood redeemer finds him…**and the blood redeemer murders the murderer”** (Numbers 35:27). One **might** have thought that the blood redeemer may murder him **immediately;** therefore, **the verse states: “Until he stands before the congregation for judgment,”** from which it is derived that the blood redeemer may kill the murderer only after he is convicted in court. Mar Zutra bar Toviyya says that Rav says that the blood redeemer is liable if he kills the murderer before he is convicted.


###### Makkot 12a:12
[Makkot 12a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:12)

וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, הַאי ״עַד עׇמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט״ מַאי דָּרְשִׁי בֵּיהּ? הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן לְסַנְהֶדְרִין שֶׁרָאוּ אֶחָד שֶׁהָרַג אֶת הַנֶּפֶשׁ שֶׁאֵין מְמִיתִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּעֲמוֹד בְּבֵית דִּין אַחֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עַד עׇמְדוֹ לִפְנֵי הָעֵדָה לַמִּשְׁפָּט״ – עַד שֶׁיַּעֲמוֹד בְּבֵית דִּין אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Yosei** HaGelili **and Rabbi Akiva,** with regard to **this** verse: **“Until he stands before the congregation for judgment,” what do** they **derive from it?** The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Akiva says: From where** is it derived in the case of **a Sanhedrin that saw one kill a person that** they **may not execute him until he stands** trial **in a different court?** It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “Until he stands before the congregation for judgment,”** meaning: **Until he stands** before **a different court.** Since they themselves witnessed the murder, they are no longer capable of considering the possibility that he may be innocent.


###### Makkot 12a:13
[Makkot 12a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:13)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אִם יָצֹא יֵצֵא הָרֹצֵחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא בְּמֵזִיד, בְּשׁוֹגֵג מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אִם יָצֹא יֵצֵא״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: **“And if the murderer emerges [*yatzo yetze*]** …and the blood redeemer murders the murderer, he has no blood” (Numbers 35:26–27): **I have** derived **only** that the blood redeemer may kill the unintentional murderer if the unintentional murderer emerges from the city **intentionally. From where** is it derived that the same applies if he emerges **unwittingly?** It is derived from this verse, as **the verse states: “If *yatzo yetze*”;** the doubled form of the verb serves to teach that this *halakha* applies **in any case** where the unintentional murderer emerges from the city of refuge.


###### Makkot 12a:14
[Makkot 12a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:14)

וְהָתַנְיָא: וְהַהוֹרְגוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד – נֶהֱרָג, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – גּוֹלֶה! לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: אָמְרִינַן דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר: לָא אָמְרִינַן דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to an unintentional murderer who emerged from the city of refuge unwittingly: **And one who kills him intentionally is executed,** and one who kills him **unintentionally is exiled?** The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **this** second *baraita* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **we say: The Torah spoke in the language of people,** and no *halakha* is derived from the doubled form of the verb: *Yatzo yetze*, as it is merely a rhetorical flourish, and **that** first *baraita* **is in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says** that **we do not say: The Torah spoke in the language of people,** and the compound verb was employed in order to derive that the blood redeemer may kill the unintentional murderer even if he emerged from the city of refuge unwittingly.


###### Makkot 12a:15
[Makkot 12a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:15)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא סוֹפוֹ חָמוּר מִתְּחִלָּתוֹ: מָה תְּחִלָּתוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד – נֶהֱרָג, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – גּוֹלֶה, אַף סוֹפוֹ, בְּמֵזִיד – נֶהֱרָג, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – גּוֹלֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: It stands to reason** that the *halakha* is **in accordance with** the opinion of **the one who says: The Torah spoke in the language of people,** and the blood redeemer is liable for killing an unintentional murderer who emerged from the city of refuge unwittingly, in order to ensure **that** the **ultimate** punishment of the unintentional murderer, when he emerges from the city of refuge, **will not be more severe than his initial** punishment, when he is sentenced in court. **Just as** with regard to **his initial** punishment for murder, if he killed **intentionally he is executed,** and if he killed **unintentionally he is exiled, so too,** with regard to **his ultimate** punishment, if he emerges from the city of refuge **intentionally he is killed** by the blood redeemer, and if he emerges **unwittingly he is** returned to **exile** in the city of refuge.


###### Makkot 12a:16
[Makkot 12a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:16)

תָּנֵי חֲדָא: אָב שֶׁהָרַג – בְּנוֹ נַעֲשָׂה לוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם. וְתַנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין בְּנוֹ נַעֲשָׂה לוֹ גּוֹאֵל הַדָּם. לֵימָא הָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְהָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It **is taught** in **one** *baraita*: In the case of **a father who killed** his son, **his** surviving **son becomes his blood redeemer** and may kill him. **And it is taught** in **another** *baraita*: **His son does not become his blood redeemer.** The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that **this** *baraita*, which states that his son does become his blood redeemer, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.** Since there is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill the murderer, this mitzva applies equally to a son. **And that** *baraita*, which states that a son does not become a blood redeemer to kill his father, is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** who holds that the blood redeemer has only the option, not a mitzva, to kill the murderer.


###### Makkot 12a:17
[Makkot 12a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:17)

וְתִסְבְּרַאּ? בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִצְוָה בֵּין לְמַאן דְּאָמַר רְשׁוּת, מִי שְׁרֵי? וְהָאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, וְכֵן תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לַכֹּל אֵין הַבֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה שָׁלִיחַ לְאָבִיו לְהַכּוֹתוֹ וּלְקִלְלָתוֹ, חוּץ מִמֵּסִית, שֶׁהֲרֵי אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה ״לֹא תַחְמֹל וְלֹא תְכַסֶּה עָלָיו״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that understanding. **And** how can **you understand** it in that manner? **Both according to the one who says** that there is **a mitzva** for the blood redeemer to kill the unintentional murderer **and according to the one who says** that it is **optional, is it permitted** for a son to do so? **But doesn’t Rabba bar Rav Huna say, and likewise the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to all** transgressions of the Torah, even if the father is liable to receive lashes or be ostracized, **a son does not become an agent** of the court **to flog his father or to curse him, apart from** the case of a father who acted as **one who incites** others to engage in idol worship, **as the Torah states** in his regard: **“You shall neither spare nor conceal him”** (Deuteronomy 13:9)?


###### Makkot 12a:18
[Makkot 12a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:18)

אֶלָּא לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בִּבְנוֹ, וְהָא בְּבֶן בְּנוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the Gemara suggests that the apparent contradiction between the two *baraitot* is **not difficult,** as **this** *baraita*, which says that the son does not become a blood redeemer to kill his father, is referring **to his son, and that** *baraita*, which says that the son does become a blood redeemer, is referring **to the son of his son,** who can become a blood redeemer to kill his grandfather, as the grandson is not required to honor his grandfather as he is required to honor his father.


###### Makkot 12a:19
[Makkot 12a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:19)

**מַתְנִי׳** אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם, וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה חוּץ לַתְּחוּם, אוֹ עוֹמֵד חוּץ לַתְּחוּם וְנוֹפוֹ נוֹטֶה בְּתוֹךְ הַתְּחוּם – הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The previous mishna teaches that the halakhic status of the outskirts of the city is like that of the city itself in terms of the unintentional murderer being provided refuge there. The mishna adds: With regard to **a tree that stands within the** Shabbat **boundary** of a city of refuge, **whose boughs extend outside the boundary, or** a tree that **stands outside the boundary and its boughs extend inside the boundary,** the status of the tree, whether it is considered inside or outside the boundary, in **all** cases **follows the boughs.**


###### Makkot 12a:20
[Makkot 12a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:20)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהִי: אִילָן שֶׁהוּא עוֹמֵד בְּתוֹךְ הַפָּנִים וְנוֹטֶה לַחוּץ, אוֹ עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ וְנוֹטֶה לִפְנִים, מִכְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹמָה וְלִפְנִים – כְּלִפְנִים, מִכְּנֶגֶד הַחוֹמָה וְלַחוּץ – כְּלַחוּץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** from a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 3:7) taught with regard to second tithe. Second-tithe produce must be consumed within Jerusalem or redeemed outside of Jerusalem: With regard to **a tree that stands within** Jerusalem, **and** whose boughs **extend outside** the city wall, **or** a tree that **stands outside** the city wall **and** whose boughs **extend inside** the wall, the principle is: The halakhic status of any part of the tree that is **above the wall and inward** is that of an area **within** the wall and the halakhic status of any part of the tree that is **above the wall and outward** is that of an area **outside** the wall. Apparently, the trunk does not follow the boughs and the boughs do not follow the trunk. The status of each part of the tree is determined by its position relative to the wall.


###### Makkot 12a:21
[Makkot 12a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:21)

מַעֲשֵׂר אַעָרֵי מִקְלָט קָא רָמֵית? מַעֲשֵׂר בְּחוֹמָה תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא, עָרֵי מִקְלָט בְּדִירָה תְּלָה רַחֲמָנָא – בְּנוֹפוֹ מִתְּדַר לֵיהּ, בְּעִיקָּרוֹ לָא מִתְּדַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the parallel between the cases. **Are you raising a contradiction** between the *halakha* of second **tithe and** the *halakha* of **cities of refuge?** With regard to the *halakha* of second **tithe, the Merciful One made** the status of the tree **dependent on the wall,** and with regard to **cities of refuge, the Merciful One made** the status of the tree **dependent on dwelling. One can dwell in its boughs,** but **one cannot dwell in its trunk.** Therefore, with regard to cities of refuge, the halakhic status of the tree is determined by the boughs.


###### Makkot 12a:22
[Makkot 12a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Makkot/r/12a:22)

וּרְמִי מַעֲשֵׂר אַמַּעֲשֵׂר, דְּתַנְיָא: בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף, בְּעָרֵי מִקְלָט – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַנּוֹף. אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְהָא רַבָּנַן, דְּתַנְיָא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the Gemara **raises a contradiction** between the previous *baraita* with regard to the *halakha* of second **tithe and** another *baraita* with regard to the *halakha* of second **tithe, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (see *Ma’asrot* 3:10): **In Jerusalem, follow the boughs** in determining the status of the tree with regard to consuming second-tithe produce, and likewise, **with regard to cities of refuge, follow the boughs** in determining the status of the tree with regard to providing refuge for an unintentional murderer. **Rav Kahana said:** This apparent contradiction is **not difficult,** as **this** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, and that** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **the Rabbis. As it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to partaking of second tithe in Jerusalem: