Talmud do Liczb 35:45

HALAKHAH: “Money matters are judged by three [judges],” etc. From where comes this? These shall be the laws of procedure to you,¹¹Num. 35:29. The chapter covers the rules of levitic cities, laws of property, and of the homicide, criminal law. I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination¹²Mishnah 4:1. Examination refers to cross-examination relating to questions which answer to “who”, “when”, and “where”. Interrogation refers to answers to “how”. The distinction between the two is in regard to rules about discrepancies in testimony between different witnesses, Mishnah 5:1. The verse makes it clear that the rules also apply to lawsuits about subjects not covered by the detailed list in the Mishnah..

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily²⁸Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work²⁹Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: “He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned³⁰Ex. 22:19. This explains the punishment for idolatrous acts forbidden in the Second Commandment. This is the interpretation in all of talmudic literature (Babli Sanhedrin 60b, Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 310, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai p. 210.) (Nowhere in rabbinic literature does one find the more obvious explanation of Ex. 22:19: “Anyone sacrificing to the Elohim (God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world) shall be banned, only to YHWH (God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace) alone.” In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.}.” Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaïtic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, ויקהל.. What is the reason? It says here, “in all your settlements” and it says there, “these should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements³³Num. 35:29. The quote is correct in Šabbat..” Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned by necessity, it is as if it were mentioned unnecessarily³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9th rule., and anything mentioned unnecessarily teaches.

It was stated²¹Babli 2b, Tosephta 1:1.: “Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says in the name of Rebbi Eliezer, he declares his jealousy by the testimony of one witness or his own testimony; he takes her to drink on the testimony of two witnesses.” It is said here: “For he found in her a word of nakedness¹⁶Deut. 24:1.”; “finding” anywhere has to be validated by witnesses²²Everywhere the Torah uses the expression כִּי מָצָא, כִּי יִמָּצֵא “if it happened” the implication is that the case must be heard before a duly constituted court.. How does Rebbi Eliezer explain “a word”? A circumstance that brings into the habit of nakedness²³A “word (or case, matter) of nakedness” is not nakedness itself.. May a single witness let him take her to drink²⁴This seems to refer to the first version (the Mishnah) of R. Eliezer’s position. The earlier argument (Note 20) showed that the husband is empowered to bring his wife to the Temple on his own testimony; one still needs an argument to permit a single witness to a secluded rendez-vous to allow the husband to bring his wife to the Temple.? His own testimony can never obligate him to swear in money matters but it will let him take her to drink²⁵R. David Fraenckel points out that this sentence is ambiguous. It either can mean that a person’s own word in money matters can never bring onto him a biblical obligation to swear, for if he agrees that he owes money he pays and if he disputes the [entire] claim and the other party has neither witnesses nor documents, no oath is due. But it also may mean that a statement of a claimant can never obligate the defendant to swear., a single witness who will obligate him to swear in money matters²⁶Num. 35:30: “A single witness should not testify in a death penalty case” is interpreted to mean that in money matters a single witness in support of a claim of money obligates the defendant to swear (Sifry Num. 161; the argument here is hinted at in Sifry Deut. 188). not so much more? May a relative bring her to drink²⁷No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings.? Who is a closer relative than her husband? May a hearsay witness bring her to drink? What is the difference between him and a relative? A relative may be disabled today but he might be enabled later²⁷No relative can be a witness in court in any proceeding. Therefore, it is most irregular that the husband’s word should carry any weight in any proceedings., a hearsay witness is not acceptable either today or later²⁸While a woman may rely on hearsay testimony about her husband’s death (Yebamot 16:5 ff.), this is an extra-judicial proceeding. In judicial proceedings, hearsay testimony is strictly excluded..

¹⁸From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is from Ševi‘it 8:5, Notes 77–84. Jehudah from Ḥusa hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta and said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rebbi Abba and asked him about the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him (Num. 35:15): “These [six] cities shall be”, each town shall be, and only afterwards their surroundings around them. He [R. Yose] said to him [Jehudah from Huṣa], what did cause you [this emharassment]? That you did not study with your companions!

⁴⁸To this and the following paragraph there exists an almost parallel text in Sanhedrin 6:9 (ן), an enlarged version in the Babli Yebamot 78b–79a and Num.rabba 8(4), and a shortened version in Midrash Samuel 28[5].[“The dedicated ones”]⁴⁹Reading of G; in L: “It was stated”. The following text deals with the identity of “the dedicated ones”, their exclusion from the Jewish marriage community, and proof that they were among the returnees from Babylon.. Rebbi Immi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi, because of: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.⁵⁰Jos. 9:27.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”⁵¹This is also mentioned in Jos. 9:27, but the service in the Tabernacle is reserved for priests and Levites. The statement is interpreted to mean that their status will only be determined when the Eternal’s altar is given its permanent place.? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall not include nor exclude them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include them he may include, exclude them he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said⁵²2S. 21:2.: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “⁵³2S. 21:1. there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for four sins⁵⁴In ן “three” and this also seems to be the reading underlying the Babli’s version and Pirqe R.Eliezer Chapter 17. The number is 4 in Ta‘anit 3:3 (66c 1. 29). the rains are locked away. For the sins of foreign worship, incest and adultery, murder, and the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay. From where for the sin of foreign worship? “⁵⁵Deut. 11:16–17. Beware, lest you be seduced” etc. What is written afterwards? “The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you and he locks the sky, etc.” From where for the sins of the incestuous and adulterers? “⁵⁶Jer. 3:2–3. While the prophet obviously speaks of Baal worship, all his imagery is that of sexual transgressions. Quoted in the name of R. Jehudah in Sifra Qedošim Pereq7(4). You distorted the Land by your immorality and your evil deeds.” What is the punishment? “Rainshowers were withheld, there was no late rain,” etc. From where because of the murderers? “⁵⁷Num. 35:33. Because blood will distort the Land.” From where for the sins of those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay? “⁵⁸Prov. 25:14. In the name of different Amoraim in the Babli, Ta‘anit8b, Midrash Prov. 25(14). Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who prides himself by lying gifts.” David checked his entire generation and did not find one of these. He turned to ask the urim and tummim. That is what is written: “⁵³2S. 21:1. David asked before the Eternal” by urim and tummim.⁵⁹In MT, there is a lacuna in 2S. 21:1 between “David asked before the Eternal,” and “The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” It is explained that he asked by applying the urim and tummim oracle. In the Babli and the sources dependent on it, R. Eleazar explains that “asking before the Eternal” means applying the urim and tummim oracle since in Num. 27:21 it says, “before Eleazar the priest he shall stand and ask the urim and tummim.” Rebbi Eleazar said, “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law.⁶⁰Zeph. 2:3. The homily is slightly more explicit in the Babli, where it is credited to R. Simeon ben Laqish. It addresses a seeming inconsistency in 2S. 21:1 where God’s answer is that the famine is a punishment for two crimes, the first “about Saul” and the second “about the House of blood guilt because he killed the Gibeonites.” The verse of the prophet is read to mean that even at the moment a person is judged for his misdeeds his “works”, his good deeds, are mentioned in the Heavenly court. But here the sin “about Saul” was not Saul’s but David’s and the entire people’s since they let him be buried in Transjordan and did not bring him to his proper burial in his ancestral land until prodded by the absence of rain (2S. 21:14, where the coming of rain is described as a direct consequence of the proper burials given to Saul and Jonathan.)” What means “Whose Law is Work”? He enforces His Law and this is His Action⁶¹While the Babli certainly reads with the Masoretes פָּעָלוּ, it might be that the Yerushalmi reads פָּעֳלוֹ.. “⁵³2S. 21:1. The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood guilt.” “Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them, what is between you and the house of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a religious leader, a scribe, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him: “⁶²2S. 21:6. May there be given to us seven men of his sons and we shall hang them before the Eternal on the hill of Saul, the elected of the Eternal.” He said to them, what use is it for you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, ⁶³2S. 21:4.“there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” He said, maybe they are afraid⁶⁴In ן: They are afraid one in front of the other (to accept blood money).; he separated them and spoke to each one separately, trying to mollify him by himself, and asked him: What use is it for you that they be killed? Take gold and silver! But he said, “there is no money for us from Saul and his house.” It is written “for me”⁶⁵In 2S. 21:4, the Ketib is “for me” but the Qere “for us”. The homily explains both readings; both are correct.. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are merciful, decent, and charitable⁶⁶In addition to the sources mentioned in Note 48, the following is also in Midrash Psalms 1,17.. From where that they are merciful? “He gave you mercy⁶⁷Deut. 13:18..” From where that they are decent? “That His fear should be on your faces.⁶⁸Ex. 20:20.” This is a sign, for a decent person does not sin. About anybody indecent it is clear that his ancestors did not stand on Mount Sinai. From where that they are charitable? “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.⁶⁹Deut. 7:12.” But these, nothing of this in found in them. Immediately he went to exclude them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.⁵²2S. 21:2.” And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel.⁷⁰Neh. 3:26, 11:21. The emphasis is on their dwelling separately.” Also in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “One crossing the city they cause to be lost.⁷¹This quote (as well as the version of G) is clearly corrupt; it telescopes a quote and its interpretation into one sentence. The correct text is in ן:
וְהָעוֹבֵד הָעִיר יַעַבְדוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
יַאֲבִידוּהוּ מִכֹּל שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.
(Ez. 48:19) “The city worker will cultivate it, from all the tribes of Israel.” (Interpretation) ‘He will cause him to be lost from all the tribes of Israel.’
Ezechiel, in his description of the future Israel, gives Jerusalem a strip of land from the Meditteranean to the Dead Sea, which will be cultivated by the Temple workers to provide food for the city. The verse is taken out of context and, in Galilean dialect, ע and א are identified, changing “cultivate” into “getting lost”. The city worker is the dedicated one.”

From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge between the beater, etc²⁰Num.35:24; between the slayer and the avenger of the blood.. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of those who vote²¹I. e., the judges; the expression is from Ex. 23:2.. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by each other’s testimony?

MISHNAH: If they sinned before being appointed; when afterwards they were appointed, they remain commoners^1,Since at the moment of the sin they became obligated for the sacrifices, a later change of status has no influence. The difference between ecclesiastical and political offices will become clear in Mishnah 2.⁷For the purposes of this sacrifice.. Rebbi Simeon says, if it became known to them before they were appointed, they are obligated; if after they were appointed they are not liable. Who is the Prince? This is the king, as it is said⁸Lev. 4:22., if he transgressed one of the commandments of the Eternal, his God; a Prince who has none above him but the Eternal, his God. And who is the Anointed? This is one anointed with the anointing oil, not one clothed in multiple garb⁹Making the anointing oil was commanded personally to Moses (Ex.30:25). All High Priests up to the time of king Josiah were anointed with it. Since that time, the oil was no longer available; it cannot be reconstituted. The later High Priests were inducted into their office by investiture with the High Priest’s garments..
The only difference between the priest anointed with the anointing oil and the one clothed in multiple garb is the bull brought for all commandments¹⁰The rules about the High Priest’s purification sacrifice explained in Chapter 2 became obsolete with the destruction of the First Temple and could be restored to validity only if a dig on the Temple Mount would recover the flask containing the original oil. The High Priests of the Second Temple had the status of commoners in this respect.. And the only difference between an officiating High Priest and a deposed one is the bull of the Day of Atonement¹¹Which has to be acquired by the High Priest with his own money together with a goat (Lev. 16:3). and the tenth of an ephah¹²The personal daily offering of the High Priest, Lev. 6:12–16, of about 3.84 l of fine flour..
Both are equal in the office of the day of Atonement¹³If the acting High Priest becomes impure or otherwise incapacitated, a former High Priest can replace him without special dedication. No common priest can perform any of the prescribed acts of the Day of Atonement., commanded about the virgin¹⁴Lev. 21:13. This applies only if the High Priest marries while High Priest. If he married a widow while a common priest, he still may be elevated to High Priest., and prohibited for a widow¹⁵Lev. 21:14., and do not defile themselves for close relatives¹⁶Lev. 21:11., and may not let their hair grow¹⁷Lev. 21:10. or rend their garments¹⁸Lev. 21:10. These are forbidden as mourning rites., and let the homicide return¹⁹Num. 35:25 (where anointing is mentioned), 32 (where anointing is not mentioned)..

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰Num. 35:17.: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)²¹Num. 35:21; the quote is not appropriatethe murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death²²Num. 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³Num. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a., in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal..

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰Num. 35:17.: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)²¹Num. 35:21; the quote is not appropriatethe murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death²²Num. 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³Num. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a., in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal..

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰Num. 35:17.: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)²¹Num. 35:21; the quote is not appropriatethe murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death²²Num. 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³Num. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a., in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal..

HALAKHAH: “A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written²⁰Num. 35:17.: If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, (the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,)²¹Num. 35:21; the quote is not appropriatethe murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death²²Num. 35:18.. When He comes to iron²³Num. 35:16. Babli 76b., He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal²⁴Prosecution of murder with a stone or wood is possible only if the stone or wood can be classified as lethal; otherwise the murderer can claim that the slain person was the victim of an accident.. If he put him in front of a horse²⁵In the following cases, it is presumed that the murderer somehow immobilized his victim. In these cases, the murderer is guilty if the horse already was galloping, or the arrow or spear already flying, etc. Then the action of the murderer is murder. But according to the Mishnah, tying a person as a target for other people’s future shots is indirect causation. Babli 77a., in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him²⁶It is murder if the first wave of water is lethal..

HALAKHAH: Paragraph. “One gives a fore-court to the city⁵One does not start to measure the 2’000 cubits outside the town from the wall of the (easternmost, northernmost, etc.) house but only at a distance of √5000 ~ 70⅔ cubits (cf. Chapter 2, Note 82).,” etc. Rav Ḥuna in the name of [Rav]¹⁰¹Missing in L, inserted from the quote of the text by Rashba, col. 334. Rav Huna is not known to have had any teacher but Rav.: Rebbi Meïr and the rabbis explain the same verse. Rebbi Meïr explained: From the city wall, why does the verse say, outwards¹⁰²Num. 35:4, Babli 57a. He reads the verse that one does not start measuring from the city wall but somewhere outside. The definition of “outside” is given over to the rabbinic authorities.? From here that one gives a fore-court to the city. The rabbis explained, outwards, why does the verse say, from the city wall? From that one does (not)¹⁰³This was written by the scribe but (wrongly) deleted by the corrector who then (wrongly) inserted the relative pronoun in the following space. give a fore-court to the city¹⁰⁴They read the word as stating that one measures outward at a right angle to the wall, starting from the wall.. Does this not mean that one gives a fore-court to the city¹⁰⁵This refers to the second part of Mishnah 2, where it is stated that two villages less than 141⅓ cubits apart are considered a single village for the rules of the Sabbath. This statement seems incompatible with the reading of the verse attributed to the rabbis.? Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Abuna, Rebbi Naḥum in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Abba, the Mishnah is finished¹⁰⁵This refers to the second part of Mishnah 2, where it is stated that two villages less than 141⅓ cubits apart are considered a single village for the rules of the Sabbath. This statement seems incompatible with the reading of the verse attributed to the rabbis..

⁹⁸Babli 7b, Sifra Aḥare Pereq4(1–3).“He shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel⁹⁹Lev. 16:16., etc. In this aspect I have three impurities. The impurity of foreign worship as it is said, to defile My Sanctuary¹⁰⁰Lev. 20:3.. Sexual offenses as it is said, not to act in the rules of abominations¹⁰¹Lev. 18.30.. Spilling of blood as it is said, do not defile the Land¹⁰²Num. 35:34, a misquote from memory.. I could think that this he-goat atones for all these impurities, the verse says, from the impurities, not all impurities¹⁰³Reading the prefix מ as partitive, cf. Note 75.. We find that the verse treated the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately; also here we treat only the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta separately¹⁰⁴In his opinion, the Day of Atonement is exclusively for repairing any damage to the Sanctuary., the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Simeon says, from its place it is decided, as it is said, he shall atone for the Sanctuary from the impurities of the Children of Israel, any impurity in the Sanctuary. I could think that this he-goat atones for these impurities, the verse says, and their crimes⁹⁹Lev. 16:16.. These are the rebellions¹⁰⁵Intentional sins, intended as “breaking the yoke of Heaven”. There is no homily on חַטָּאוֹת “unintentional sins” also mentioned in the verse., for so it says, the king of Moab rebelled against me¹⁰⁶2K. 3:7..

Rebbi Mana said, lighting fire was mentioned unnecessarily¹²⁹Since the prohibition of making fire is implied in the Fourth Commandment in any reasonable interpretation. Therefore, making fire is a detail which can be used to characterize all work forbidden on the Sabbath.; prostrating oneself was mentioned by necessity to explain about itself since it is not work¹³⁰Nothing is changed or produced by prostrating oneself; it is not obvious that it should be forbidden under any circumstances.. This follows what Ḥizqiah stated: He who sacrifices to powers shall be banned¹²⁴Ex. 22:19. For this argument the reference to Elohim is taken to apply to idols. The masoretic vocalization applying a definite article must refer to God in His function as Judge, God as Creator, Ruler of the physical world, to Whom propitiatory sacrifices are forbidden; sacrifices are legitimate only if offered to YHWH, God the Merciful and Dispenser of Grace. This is the interpretation adopted at the end of the paragraph. In all of Lev. and Num., there is never any mention of a sacrifice to Elohim.. Sacrificing was mentioned separately to teach about everything¹³¹Since punishment for sacrificing is spelled out separately, any punishment for an act of idolatry must be given separately by the 9^th rule, supporting R. Zakkai against R. Joḥanan., prostrating oneself to explain about itself since it is not work. Rebbi Jeremiah said, lighting fire was mentioned by necessity, to teach that courts should not sit on the Sabbath¹³²In the Babli, Yebamot 6b, this is a Tannaitic statement from the school of R. Ismael, appended to an argument also quoted in Mekhilta dR. Ismael, Wayyaqhel.. What is the reason? It says here, in all your settlements, and it says there, these . . should be rules of law for your generations, in all your settlements¹³³Num. 35:29.. Since “settlements” mentioned there refers to courts, “settlements” referred to here also refers to courts. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, even if you say that it was mentioned separately necessarily is as if it was mentioned separately not by necessity,¹³⁴Since the argument is based on Num. 35:29, not on Ex. 22:19, the latter verse can be used in an application of the 9^th rule. and any item mentioned separately unnecessarily instructs¹³⁵It is axiomatic that the Torah contains no unnecessary statements. If an item is singled out and there is no apparent reason for this one has to conclude that anything to be inferred about this particular item applies to all similar cases..

HALAKHAH: “The order of beheading,” etc. ⁴¹Babli 52b; Tosephta 9:11.“Rebbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said⁴²Lev. 18:3., in their statutes you shall not walk.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: One shall murder the murderer⁴³Num. 35:30: Any homicide; following witnesses one shall murder the murderer., the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here⁵Ex. 21:20. The slave slain by his master shall be avenged. Babli 52b; the Babli text in Mekhilta dR. Ismael p. 273, dR. Simeon bar Iohai p. 175., and there it is written: I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant⁶Lev. 26:25.. Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he⁴⁴The avenger. should kill him between the arms? It is said here⁴⁵Deut. 19:19. Since this refers to perjured witnesses, it includes all kinds of death penalties., you shall eliminate the evil from your midst, and it is said there⁴⁶Deut. 21:9., you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst. Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck⁴⁷By the doctrine of invariability of lexemes the meaning of “elimination” must be the same in Deut. 19:19 and Deut. 21:9. That of “breaking the neck” in Deut. 21:4 is defined by “neck” in Lev. 5:8. Since elimination in Deut. 21 is by breaking the neck, Deut. 19:19 also must refer to the neck. Since strangulation is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, the only method of execution to which this may refer is beheading.. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.

⁷⁷A parallel (except for the corrector’s additions) is found in the Babli, Zevaḥim88b, Arakhin 16a, in the name of R. Anani bar Sason. Rebbi Simon said, just as sacrifices atone, so the garments⁷⁸The High Priest’s. atone, shirt, trousers, turban, and vest. The shirt was atoning for [wearers of kilaim⁷⁹While most of the High Priest’s garments contained kilaim, only the shirt was worn directly on the body. It seems that the trident here interprets the argument at the start of kilaim 9:1 to mean that biblically on kilaim which gives immediate protection to the body is forbidden. There are those who want to say,]⁸⁰Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.) for spillers of blood, as you are saying,⁸¹Gen. 37:31. they dipped the shirt in blood. The trousers were atoning for uncovering nakedness⁸²The technical term for incest and adultery., as you are saying⁸³Ex. 28:42., make for them linen trousers to cover the flesh⁸⁴“Flesh” as a limb always denotes the penis, the only boneless limb.of nakedness. The turban was atoning for haughtiness, as you are saying,⁸⁵Lev. 8:9. This is a pun on the expression “thick of head” for “haughty”. he put the turban on his head. The belt was atoning for [thieves; but some are saying, for]⁸⁰Corrector’s addition (from a different source, not in the parallel in the Babli.) the crooked ones. Rebbi Levi said, it was 32 cubits and he wound it around on both sides. The breast plate was atoning for those who bend the law, as you are saying⁸⁶Ex. 28.15., you shall make a breast-plate of judgment. The vest was atoning for idol worshippers, as you are saying⁸⁷Hos.3:5., without vest and household-gods. The coat. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Jonathan of Bet-Guvrin: For two things there was no atonement⁸⁸They do qualify for any obligatory sacrifice. but the Torah established atonement for them. These are those: one who spreads slander, and the involuntary homicide. For him who spreads slander there was no atonement, but the Torah fixed atonement for them, the bells of the coat: it shall be on Aaron in service, and its sound be heard⁸⁹Ex. 28:35.. The sound may come to atone for the sound. For the involuntary manslaughter there was no atonement but the Torah established atonement for them, the death of the High Priest⁹⁰Num. 35:25.. He shall dwell there until the High Priest’s death

²⁶Part of a larger story in Qiddušin4:1 (Notes 54–58), copied in Babli Yebamot78b; Midrash Samuel28[5]; Num. rabba8(4). Four sins cause the rains to be halted. The sins of idolatry, incestuous and adulterous behavior, spilling blood, and of those who pledge publicly for charity but do not pay up. By the sin of idolatry from where? ²⁷Deut. 11:16–17.Guardyourselves, that your heart not be led astray so you deviate and worship other powers, etc. What is written next? The Eternal’s rage will be inflamed against you; He will arrest the sky and there will be no rain. By the sin of incestuous and adulterous behavior, from where? ²⁸Jer. 3:2–3.You pollute the Land by your whoring and your criminality. What is the punishment for this? It prevents rain showers, and there will be no late rain. By the sin of the spillers of blood, from where? ²⁹Num. 35:33.For the blood pollutes the Land. The blood will make anger rest on the Land. By the sin of those who pledge publicly for charity but do not pay up, from where? ³⁰Prov. 25:14.Clouds and wind but no rain, a man who takes credit for a lying gift.

¹²⁷Num. 35:3. 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 all their lives¹²⁸This paragraph is copied here only as an appendix to the preceding; it does not belong here.. They were given for living; they were not given for burials.

MISHNAH: The High Synhedrion³³²As usual in rabbinic sources, the political institution of the Synhedrion is identified with the juridical of the High Court, projecting Jabneh arrangements into Temple times. had 71 members and a lower one 23 members. From where that the High Court has 71 members? For it is said³³³Num. 11:16.: Assemble for me 70 men of the Elders of Israel, and Moses was presiding, that makes 71. Rebbi Jehudah says, 70³³⁴He is known for the correctness of his historical traditions. For the political functions of a Synhedrion, an even number of members is acceptable. The judicial functions were exercised by committees of 23 each.. From where that a lower court has 23 members? For it is said, the congregation shall judge, the congregation shall save³³⁵Num. 35:24,25 speaking of the trial of the homicide; cf. Sifry Num. #160.. One congregation judges, one congregation saves, this makes twenty. And from where that a congregation consists of ten persons? As it is said, how long this evil congregation³³⁶Num. 14:27, interpreted as speaking of the ten bad spies., without Joshua and Caleb.
From where that one adds another three³³⁸Since Mishnah 6 established that a criminal court must have 20 judges/jurors.? From the interpretation of what is said³³⁹Ex. 23:2: Do not follow the majority to do evil; do not testify in a quarrel, to bend, to twist after the majority. This is read to mean that for acquittal one vote is enough but that for conviction one needs a qualified majority even without the one judge who is voting. Cf. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Mišpaṭim20, dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai 23:2 (in the name of Rebbi.), do not follow the majority to be unfavorable, I understand that He said, follow them to be favorable. Then why was it said, to bend after the majority? Your bending to be favorable is not equal to your bending to be unfavorable. Your bending to be favorable shall be by one [vote] (witness), your bending to be unfavorable shall be by two. Since no court may be even-numbered, one adds another one to obtain 23. How many people shall live in a town that it may have a criminal court? 120. Rebbi Nehemiah said 230, that they might be commanders over tens³⁴⁰Since the verse requires that judges be outstanding personalities, Ex. 18:21, Deut.1:15, each judge must be qualified at least to be the leader of ten men..

HALAKHAH: “I am putting an oath on you that you should come and testify for me,” etc. ⁵⁷Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Parashah 8(8–10). From where that this only refers to monetary claims? Rebbi Eliezer said, it uses here “or” and it uses “or” with a deposit⁵⁸In Lev. 5:1, “or” is used twice, in vv. 21–22 four times.. Since the “or” used with a deposit only refers to monetary claims, also the “or” used here only refers to monetary claims. The “or” of the homicide will disprove⁵⁹Num. 35:22–23, in the description of accidental homicide, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath from “or” accompanied by an oath; the “or” of the homicide cannot disprove since they are not accompanied by an oath. The “or” of the deviant woman will disprove⁶⁰Num. 5:14, the presumption of innocence of the deviant woman is introduced by “or”. The imprecation is not the woman’s but the Cohen’s, v. 19. since they are accompanied by an oath and do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” accompanied by an oath not accompanied by a Cohen from similar “or”; the “or” of the deviant woman cannot disprove since they are accompanied by a Cohen. The “or” of blurting lips will disprove⁶¹Lev. 5:4, “or” is used twice. since they do not refer to monetary claims. One argues about “or” where He made intent equal to error⁶²As explained in the preceding Chapters, blurted oaths create a liability for a sacrifice only if they were broken in a period of forgetting, i. e., unintention- ally. There is no mention of unintentional sin for liability in cases of oath about testimony or monetary damages. from similar “or”; the “or” of blurting lips cannot disprove since there He did not make intent equal to error. Rebbi Aqiba says, for some of these one is liable, for some one is not liable. For monetary claims one is liable; for non-monetary claims one is not liable⁶³He refers to Lev. 5:5: It shall be if he causes damage by some of these; some will require a sacrifice but not others. The decision what to include is left to the religious authorities guided by the hermeneutical principle of “equal cut”. Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(1).. Rebbi Simeon says, He made liable here and he made liable for a deposit. Since deposits only refer to monetary claims, so here also it only refers to monetary claims^41,All examples in Lev. 5:21–22 (a deposit, a loan, extortion and robbery, a find) refer to monetary claims about movables. Since there can be no sacrifice for an oath about deposits relating to real estate, one might argue that there can be no sacrifice for an oath about testimony involving real estate, asserted in Tosephta 4:1.⁶⁴Babli 33b, Sifra Ḥova (Wayyiqra 2) Pereq 17(2)..

HALAKHAH: “The father is exiled for the son,” etc. Rebbi Zeˋira said that Rebbi Shila bar Binah stated: Even though it be written³⁵Num. 35:19., the redeemer of the blood³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 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 brother³⁷The 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.. And from where even if he said, I cannot face him³⁸That he is forced to witness the execution, Sifry Num. 160., the verse says³⁵Num. 35:19., when he comes upon him he shall kill him³⁶The closest family member of the murder victim is required to lead the execution of the duly convicted murderer. Num. 35:30 requires that the killing of the murderer be in the presence of witnesses; this implies that the killing be in execution of a court order (Sifry Num. 161)..

“And the blind person.” Rebbi Abba said, who stated “the blind person”? Rebbi Jehudah, for Rebbi Jehudah frees him from all obligations of the Torah³⁹Soṭah 2:6 (Note 201), Babli Bava qamma 87a., as we have stated there⁴⁰Megillah Mishnah 4:7.: “Rebbi Jehudah said, anyone who never saw light in his life may not cover the Shemaˋ.⁴¹He cannot lead the congregation in the recital of the benedictions before and after the recitation of the Shemaˋ 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 seeing⁴²Num. 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. ⁴³A parallel to this paragraph is in Megillah 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.⁴⁴In his explanation, R. Jehudah does not exclude the blind person but one born and raised in a cave who never saw daylight.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person. How do the rabbis read without seeing? To include one who smites in the night⁴⁵He is included in the list of the exiled together with the blind person..

Jehudah from Ḥuṣī⁸²An otherwise unknown personage from tannaïtic times. Neither the tradition of his name nor that of his place are certain. hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta who asked him, where have you been? He said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rebbi Vardimos and said to him, answer, what is the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him (Num. 35:15): “These [six] cities shall be”, each town shall live⁸³It seems that this is based on identifying ה and ח which not only where pronounced identically but also written almost identically, with the left leg of ה touching the roof slightly towards the middle, the left leg of ח being at the extreme left end and going up slightly over the roof. Since היה indicates permanency, one might also explain the argument that the first duty of the city government is to insure the continued survival of its inhabitants., and only afterwards their surroundings around them⁸⁴The surroundings are mentioned in slightly different formulations Num. 35:2,3. In the Babli, Nedarim 81a, verse 3 “their surroundings [of the Levitic town] shall be for its animals and its life-necessities” is explained (following R. Yose) “for its animals and clothes-washing.”. He [R. Yose] said to him [Jehudah from Ḥuṣi], what did cause you [this embarassment]? That you did not search with your companions!

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 said⁴⁶Num. 35:14.: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected⁴⁷Jos. 20:7. Sifry Num. 160., those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said⁴⁸Num. 35:13., there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together⁴⁹Giving asylum to the involuntary homicide..
Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said⁵⁰Deut. 19:3.: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts⁵¹Divide 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.. One sends with them⁵²The homicide. two scholars lest he⁵³The avenger of the blood. kill him⁵²The homicide. on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he⁵³The avenger of the blood. may argue for himself as it is said⁵⁴Deut. 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 said⁵⁵Num. 35:25., the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only⁵⁶The homicide may return to his home town upon the death of the High Priest (Num. 35:28). a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil⁵⁷A High Priest of the period of Judges or Kings, anointed from the vial prepared by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33)., but also one wearing the many vestments⁵⁸A High Priest of Second Temple times, wearing an imitation of the High Priest’s robes., and one deposed from his office⁵⁹A High Priest of Herodian times or later, when High Priests usually were appointed annually.. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war⁶⁰To exhort the army, Deut. 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. He⁵²The homicide. cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation,⁶¹A religious act, neither civil nor criminal; e. g., to testify to the appearance of the New Moon. nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya⁶²David’s general., he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there⁵⁵Num. 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 asylum⁶³Every city of refuge also is a Levitic city (Num. 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 everybody⁶⁴To kill the homicide who left the city of refuge (in the Babli: intentionally).. 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 crown⁶⁵If 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.. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite⁶⁶Whose city it is. Only a Levite can be a permanent resident of a city of refuge. who killed is exiled from one city to another.
Similarly⁶⁷This makes no sense here; it is copied from the identical Mishnah Ševiˋit 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 said⁵⁴Deut. 19:4., this is the word of a homicide.

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 said⁴⁶Num. 35:14.: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected⁴⁷Jos. 20:7. Sifry Num. 160., those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said⁴⁸Num. 35:13., there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together⁴⁹Giving asylum to the involuntary homicide..
Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said⁵⁰Deut. 19:3.: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts⁵¹Divide 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.. One sends with them⁵²The homicide. two scholars lest he⁵³The avenger of the blood. kill him⁵²The homicide. on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he⁵³The avenger of the blood. may argue for himself as it is said⁵⁴Deut. 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 said⁵⁵Num. 35:25., the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only⁵⁶The homicide may return to his home town upon the death of the High Priest (Num. 35:28). a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil⁵⁷A High Priest of the period of Judges or Kings, anointed from the vial prepared by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33)., but also one wearing the many vestments⁵⁸A High Priest of Second Temple times, wearing an imitation of the High Priest’s robes., and one deposed from his office⁵⁹A High Priest of Herodian times or later, when High Priests usually were appointed annually.. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war⁶⁰To exhort the army, Deut. 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. He⁵²The homicide. cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation,⁶¹A religious act, neither civil nor criminal; e. g., to testify to the appearance of the New Moon. nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya⁶²David’s general., he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there⁵⁵Num. 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 asylum⁶³Every city of refuge also is a Levitic city (Num. 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 everybody⁶⁴To kill the homicide who left the city of refuge (in the Babli: intentionally).. 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 crown⁶⁵If 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.. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite⁶⁶Whose city it is. Only a Levite can be a permanent resident of a city of refuge. who killed is exiled from one city to another.
Similarly⁶⁷This makes no sense here; it is copied from the identical Mishnah Ševiˋit 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 said⁵⁴Deut. 19:4., this is the word of a homicide.

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 said⁴⁶Num. 35:14.: Three cities you shall designate in Transjordan, etc. As long as those in the Land of Israel had not been selected⁴⁷Jos. 20:7. Sifry Num. 160., those in Transjordan were not receiving, as it is said⁴⁸Num. 35:13., there shall be six cities of refuge, not until all six were receiving together⁴⁹Giving asylum to the involuntary homicide..
Roads were maintained from one to the other, as it is said⁵⁰Deut. 19:3.: Maintain the road for yourselves, and divide the domain of your Land into three parts⁵¹Divide 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.. One sends with them⁵²The homicide. two scholars lest he⁵³The avenger of the blood. kill him⁵²The homicide. on the road, to argue with him. Rebbi Meïr says, he⁵³The avenger of the blood. may argue for himself as it is said⁵⁴Deut. 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 said⁵⁵Num. 35:25., the community shall return him to his city of refuge. Not only⁵⁶The homicide may return to his home town upon the death of the High Priest (Num. 35:28). a [High Priest] anointed with the anointing oil⁵⁷A High Priest of the period of Judges or Kings, anointed from the vial prepared by Moses (Ex. 30:22–33)., but also one wearing the many vestments⁵⁸A High Priest of Second Temple times, wearing an imitation of the High Priest’s robes., and one deposed from his office⁵⁹A High Priest of Herodian times or later, when High Priests usually were appointed annually.. Rebbi Jehudah says, also the one anointed for war⁶⁰To exhort the army, Deut. 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. He⁵²The homicide. cannot leave from there, neither for a testimony of obligation,⁶¹A religious act, neither civil nor criminal; e. g., to testify to the appearance of the New Moon. nor a testimony in a civil suit, nor a testimony in a criminal suit, not even if Israel needs him like Joab ben Ṣeruya⁶²David’s general., he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there⁵⁵Num. 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 asylum⁶³Every city of refuge also is a Levitic city (Num. 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 everybody⁶⁴To kill the homicide who left the city of refuge (in the Babli: intentionally).. 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 crown⁶⁵If 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.. If somebody killed in one of these cities, he is exiled from quarter to quarter; but a Levite⁶⁶Whose city it is. Only a Levite can be a permanent resident of a city of refuge. who killed is exiled from one city to another.
Similarly⁶⁷This makes no sense here; it is copied from the identical Mishnah Ševiˋit 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 said⁵⁴Deut. 19:4., this is the word of a homicide.

HALAKHAH: “Civil suits are decided on the same day,” etc. It was stated⁴⁷A similar baraita is quoted in the Babli, 33b, where, however, a dissent is noted.: A witness may not argue either for acquittal or conviction⁴⁸In the formulation of the Babli: A witness cannot turn judge.. From where this? A witness shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life⁴⁹Num. 35:30. In the Babli, R. Yose ben Jehudah reads the verse only as prohibiting a witness from arguing for conviction.. And from where that he himself may not argue either for acquittal or conviction? The verse says, one shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life⁵⁰This is not a verse. Num. 35:30 reads: A single witness may not argue … This is split into two sentences: A witness may not, a single person may not.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, sometimes a person sees himself set up by perjured witnesses and he speaks much lest he be put to death⁵¹While in the Babli, 34a, R. Simeon ben Laqish is quoted as sustaining the opinion that the accused may not testify for himself since he is party to the proceedings, here it seems clear that he gives the accused the right to point out to the judges the fact that he is accused because of perjured (or otherwise tainted) testimony..

“If any of them collapsed, one rebuilds it from the same tribe. And from where also from other tribes? The verse says, six⁷⁹Num. 35:15.. That they should be parallel and receiving like the earlier ones.”

Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed⁵⁴This argument really implies that capital crimes be tried only by the Supreme Court whose decrees are final.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions⁵⁵The Sabbath Temple service, as prescribed in Num. 28:10, requires slaughtering and burning. For any other purpose, these are deadly sins and capital crimes if done on the Sabbath., is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, from My altar take him to be executed⁵⁶Ex. 21:14. The verse is read, not as a denial of asylum for any murderer, but as a commandment to immediately execute a Cohen even if he was officiating when convicted of murder. (The non-Cohen would commit a deadly sin by touching the altar.). Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions⁵⁷The argument deserves no refutation since the relation “stronger than” underlying an argument de minore ad majus is not transitive (a stronger than b, b stronger than c does not imply a stronger than c. Babli Šabbat 132b; cf. H. Guggenheimer, Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, London 1967, pp. 182–183.) The Babli, 35b, disproves the argument at length.. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Yannai: This⁵⁸Mishnah 6. implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, in all your dwellings⁵⁹Ex. 35:3, the prohibition to start a fire on the Sabbath., and it is said there, these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings⁶⁰Num. 35:29, the law of homicide and murder. The argument (Babli 35b) goes as follows. Some capital crimes are punished by burning. Ex. 35:3, which has been shown to be applicable to court proceedings, forbids executing a convicted criminal who has to be burned. Therefore no capital punishment can be executed on the Sabbath.. Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.

¹²⁰Reference to Mishnah 12, found only in G.[Just as the city grants asylum, so does its domain grants asylum.] ¹²¹Tosephta 3:10, Sifry Deut. 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, three¹²²Deut. 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 written¹²³Num. 35:13.: Six cities of refuge there shall be for you, that all six of them give asylum simultaneously. And you say so¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 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]¹²⁵Added from G (and the parallels, Taˋaniot 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 written¹²⁶Hag. 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 he¹²⁷Ketib 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 fire¹²⁸The Heavenly fire (2Chr. 7:1)., the Ark¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 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 Tummim¹²⁹Which are mentioned as worn by the High Priest (Ex. 28:30) but for which no description or instructions are given., anointing oil¹²⁴If this refers to the previous statement,then it is pointed out that Num. 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 Spirit¹³⁰The spirit of prophecy..

Rebbi Abbahu said, but he returns upon the death of the third¹³⁷In 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.. Rebbi Abbahu said, if they need it¹³⁸In G: If they (the High Court or the government) need him (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 Ṣeruya⁶²David’s general., he cannot ever leave from there, as it is said there⁵⁵Num. 35:25.. There shall be his dwelling, etc.”

HALAKHAH: ¹⁴⁴This paragraph is a reformulation of a paragraph in Makkot 2:7 Notes 41–44. There, we have stated, “A blind person is not exiled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah; Rebbi Meïr says, he is exiled.” And both of them explained the same verse, without seeing¹⁴⁵Num. 35:23.. Rebbi Jehudah says, to include the blind person. Rebbi Meïr says, excluding the blind person. And here we have stated, “a person who never saw light does not spread out the Shema`<sup>143</sup>Since the first benediction preceding the Shema` is a praise of God for the creation of light..” Therefore if he saw he spreads. Rebbi Ḥaggai asked before Rebbi Yose, is the argument of Rebbi Jehudah inverted? There he says, excluding, but here he says, to include. Rebbi Ḥanania 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 spread the Shema`.” But here, without seeing, to include the blind person.

It is written¹⁰²Jos. 9:27.: At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation. One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall [neither]¹⁰³Added from the Qiddušin text. exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.: But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel. Why did he exclude them? Because there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year. David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written¹⁰⁵Deut. 11:16–17.: Beware, lest you be seduced and next to it, He locks the sky up. Incest and adultery, as it is written¹⁰⁶Jer. 3:2–3. Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman. Murder, as it is written¹⁰⁷Num. 35:33.: Because blood will distort the Land. Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written¹⁰⁸Prov. 25:14.: Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts. David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.: David asked before the Eternal. Rebbi Eleazar said, it is written¹⁰⁹Zeph. 2:3.: Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law, etc. ¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul, whom you did not grant the last favor, and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, May there be given to us seven men … and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon¹¹⁰2S. 21:6.. He said to them, what use is it to you that they be killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house¹¹¹2S. 21:6.. He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt which each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, there is no silver or gold for us, it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written¹¹²Ex. 20:20.: that His fear be on your faces. Merciful, for it is written¹¹³Deut. 13:18,: He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you. Charitable, for it is written¹¹⁴Deut. 7:12.: The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity. But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel¹⁰⁴2S. 21:1–2.. And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said:¹¹⁵Neh. 3:26, 11:21. And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones. Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written¹¹⁶Ez. 48:19.: The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel. He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.

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 lives¹⁴²Num. 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.

HALAKHAH: “Criminal courts apply in the Land,” etc. ⁷¹Tosephta Sanhedrin 3:10, Babli 7a.“Criminal courts apply in the Land and outside the Land, as it is written⁷²Num. 35:29.: This shall be for you a law statute for your generations, in all your dwellings. And why does the verse say⁷³Deut. 16:18., judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates, in the towns of the Land of Israel. Only that in the Land of Israel one installs judges in every town and outside the Land one appoints them by circuits.” It was stated: ⁷⁴Sifry Deut. 144, Babli Sanhedrin 16b. There and in the sources given in Note 71 the author is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel.
The difference between the anonymous Tanna of the first Tosephta and R. Dositheos b. Yannai / Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel is that according to the first Tanna the claimant in a civil suit has the choice of the jurisdiction to file his suit whereas the dissenters restrict him to courts of his own tribe (L. Finkelstein, Commentary to Sifry).“Rebbi Dositheos ben Rebbi Yannai says, there is an obligation for every tribe to judge his own tribe, as it is written⁷³Deut. 16:18.: Judges and marshals you shall appoint for yourself in all your gates which the Eternal, your God, gives you for your tribes.”

¹⁷³A slightly changed parallel is in Ševuˋot 4:1. From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge¹⁷⁴Num. 35:24, about the trial of the homicide who fled to a city of asylum. R Ismael objects to R. Aqiba’s inferences from additional את ,ו etc. and insists that any interpretations of verses conform to the plain sense of the verse within the purview of his hermeneutical rules.; the congregation shall save¹⁷⁵Num. 35:25.. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta¹⁷⁶This gives the missing argument in R. Ismael’s statement.. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another¹⁷¹Deut. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives.? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony¹⁷⁰Cf. Gittin 9:8, Note 128. Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut. 24:16. But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a, points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses.?

¹⁷³A slightly changed parallel is in Ševuˋot 4:1. From where following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: The congregation shall judge¹⁷⁴Num. 35:24, about the trial of the homicide who fled to a city of asylum. R Ismael objects to R. Aqiba’s inferences from additional את ,ו etc. and insists that any interpretations of verses conform to the plain sense of the verse within the purview of his hermeneutical rules.; the congregation shall save¹⁷⁵Num. 35:25.. The congregation be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rebbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta¹⁷⁶This gives the missing argument in R. Ismael’s statement.. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And from where that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. From where that witnesses may not be relatives of one another¹⁷¹Deut. 24:16 is indeterminate enough to include both testimony and sentence by relatives.? Think of it, if they be found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony¹⁷⁰Cf. Gittin 9:8, Note 128. Formal perjury, “plotting”, is testimony which is impossible, i. e., where it was proven that the witnesses were not at the place about which they testify at the time they assert to have seen the object of their testimony. If only one witness was perjured, there is only one valid witness and his testimony is worthless by biblical standards; for worthless testimony there can be no biblical punishment. Therefore, if the two perjured witnesses were related, each would be convicted by his relatives’ testimony; this is forbidden by Deut. 24:16. But testimony which would not expose the witnesses to the penalty of perjury is worthless. The Babli, 28a, points out that this argument also eliminates a single relative among the witnesses.?

BARAITHA.¹Keth. 16b-17a (Sonc. ed., pp. 92ff.). How does one dance²The meaning here is to recite the praises of a bride. before the bride? Beth Shammai said: The bride as she is; and Beth Hillel said: Beautiful and graceful bride!³Whether she possessed the qualifications or not. Beth Shammai said to Beth Hillel: Even if she is lame or blind? But it is written, Keep thee far from a false matter!⁴Ex. 23, 7; and there must be no departure from the truth even for a bride. Beth Hillel replied: If one has made a bad purchase, should one esteem it in his eyes or depreciate it? Surely one should esteem it in his eyes. Therefore Beth Hillel said: Always should the disposition of a man be pleasant towards his fellow-creatures.
GEMARA. But how can Beth Hillel [say of a bride] that she is beautiful when in fact she is not? [Beth Hillel can reply that in the circumstances people will understand it as] beautiful in her deeds and graceful in her person because we do not presume [to attribute to a person] what is unbecoming. And [what can] Beth Shammai [reply to this]? They can say: Is it written, ‘Keep far from a falsehood’? [It is written, From a false] matter,⁵lit. ‘word’. even if it be inexplicit.⁶It is therefore wrong to make a statement and expect people to take it in a different sense. And [what can] Beth Hillel [reply to this]? They can say: When the All-present declared, Keep thee far from a false matter, it is in connection with what follows, And the innocent and righteous slay thou not;⁷i.e. the context is giving false evidence which will lead to an innocent person being condemned to death. but where it is a case of preserving life⁸Creating a deeper love between husband and wife. it is in order [to depart from the strict truth]. Should the question be raised: Why do Beth Hillel in their refutation cite the example of ‘a bad purchase’, let them refute Beth Shammai from the Torah! For it has been taught:⁹Yeb. 65b (Sonc. ed., pp. 437f.); B.M. 87a (Sonc. ed., p. 502, n. 4). Great is peace, seeing that for its sake the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. At first it is written, My lord being old,¹⁰Gen. 18, 12. and afterwards, I … who am old.¹¹ibid. 13. When Sarah was told by the angel that she would have a son she laughed to herself and exclaimed, My lord being old; but when God repeated what she had said to Abraham, not to hurt his feelings He changed the word to I … who am old. [Beth Hillel] can reply: There is no question [that what we say] is correct according to the Torah, but it is also correct by the standard of human beings; reverse it.¹²The text should read kelappë ’alyah, lit. ‘towards the tail’, i.e. reverse it, and the word which follows is an explanatory gloss (Jastrow s.v. ’alyah). The meaning is, To meet the question raised, it would be best in the Baraitha first to cite the passage from Genesis and then the example of ‘a bad purchase’.
[It was quoted above:] And the innocent and righteous slay thou not. Since you mention the innocent [may not be slain], obviously the righteous [may not]!¹³The term innocent has a negative connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil; but the term righteous has both a negative and positive connotation, viz. one who keeps away from evil and does good. [It denotes] ‘innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘righteous because of disciples’.¹⁴These are forensic terms. I. Where two witnesses testify against a man that he had committed an offence but disagree on the details, the accused is discharged. E.g., two witnesses testify that they saw him worshipping idols; one says that he worshipped the sun and the other that it was the moon. Because the witnesses are in disagreement on details, the man is acquitted. He is technically termed naḳi me‘edim, ‘innocent (or, freed) because of [the disagreement of] witnesses’. II. In the criminal court young scholars sat in rows in front of the judges. When the trial ended and before the verdict was delivered, any one of these scholars could, if he knew anything in favour of the accused, come forward and speak for him, and if the judges accepted his statement they discharged the accused. He was then termed ẓaddiḳ min hattalmidim, ‘righteous (i.e. acquitted) because of the disciples’. If the disciple wished to testify against the accused, he was not permitted to do so. That would be a case of rasha‘ min hattalmidim, ‘condemned because of the disciples’, which was not allowed. Cf. Sanh. 33b-34a (Sonc. ed., p. 212) and Rashi ad loc. From this we learn [the ruling]: Do not put to death ‘the innocent because of witnesses’ and ‘the condemned because of disciples’. [Do you think,] ‘Condemned because of disciples’? Say, because of one of the disciples.¹⁵This refusal to listen to disciples’ statements against the accused holds good only when one disciple came forward. This procedure is based on Num. 35, 30; cf. Sanh. loc. cit.
Raba expounded: What is the meaning of what is written, For the Lord is righteous, He loveth righteousness; the upright shall behold His face?¹⁶Ps. 11, 7. If so, [the verse should read,] ‘He loveth the righteous’!¹⁷Since He is described as righteous, that is the wording which might have been expected. But [it is to be understood] as Raba interpreted it:¹⁸Cf. ‘Erub 19a (Sonc. ed., pp. 129f.). Abraham¹⁹So the text must be emended. V reads ‘from forty’. comes and brings [redemption to the wicked who are under sentence to suffer in Gehinnom, in agreement with] Resh Laḳish [who said: The fire of Gehinnom has no power over the transgressors in Israel,] or it may be deduced by an argument from minor to major [from the golden altar], as it is stated, Every one that is written unto life in Jerusalem.²⁰Isa. 4, 3. The text is obviously corrupt and is conjecturally reconstructed from the Talmud. Abraham, in freeing the sinners of Israel from Gehinnom, performs an act of righteousness which merits him the love of God, Who is righteous, especially as He has written unto [eternal] life every one in Jerusalem (i.e. the whole people of Israel).