Dibur HaMatchil para sa Mga Bilang 35:25

"Until the death of the High Priest." It was taught in a beraita: "In all cases, if one intentionally kills a person, he is executed; if he unintentionally kills, he is exiled. And if he violates a positive commandment or a negative commandment, it is as if he violated them all." That he is executed for intentional murder is obvious; the need for exile for unintentional killing is necessary to teach us. The Gemara asks: According to the first explanation, since it is written "until the death of the High Priest," say that anyone who has a mitigating factor of returning [to his city of refuge] is not subject to exile, but it is not necessary to teach us that if one kills a High Priest or a ruler, he is never released from there. The Gemara responds: It teaches us that halakha. And say this also: According to the second explanation, the phrase "to flee there" teaches that every murderer, even a ruler, is included in its literal meaning. And if he violates a positive commandment, isn't it obvious that if he didn't violate it, he is like an ordinary person? The Gemara explains: That is what it is saying—if he violates it, he is like an ordinary person. This is obvious! The Gemara responds: It is necessary to teach us that we only adjudicate cases of a High Priest before the Supreme Sanhedrin, as it is written: "They shall bring all the great matters to you," which indicates that the matters of a great person are adjudicated only by a Supreme Sanhedrin. The Gemara suggests: Say this also: Who is it written about? It is written about a great matter. One who was anointed with the anointing oil, one who was distinguished by his garments, and one who surpassed his contemporaries in wisdom—these factors determine the return of the murderer [to the city of refuge]. Rabbi Yehuda says: Even a high-ranking military commander returns the murderer [to the city of refuge]. From where are these matters derived? As we learned, it is stated: "Until the death of the High Priest." And it is written: "For in the city of refuge he shall remain until the death of the High Priest." Rabbi Yehuda has an alternative derivation: It is written in another verse: "He shall dwell in his own city until the death of the High Priest." And the term "the great" mentioned in these verses refers only to the High Priest. "Until the death of the High Priest." Therefore, the deaths of the priests provide them with sustenance and clothing, so that they will not pray for the deaths of their children. The reason for this is that they do not pray for it, as it is said: "A baseless curse shall not come." That elder said to Ravah: I heard that they were supposed to seek mercy for their generation, but they did not. And there are those who say that the reason is so that they will pray for their children not to die. The reason for this is that they do pray for it, as opposed to not praying for it. What could they have done differently? Here they say: They have committed many sins and transgressions. There, they say: They have established false witnesses and caused a decree. That elder said, etc. For that man who was bitten by a lion from afar, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi did not respond to him for three days.

"Until the death of the High Priest," Rabbi Meir says: A murderer shortens the days of a person's life, while a High Priest extends the days of a person's life. It is not just that someone who shortens the days of a person's life should face judgment before someone who extends the days of a person's life. Rabbi says: A murderer defiles the land and removes the Divine presence, while a High Priest causes the Divine presence to dwell in the land. This is not a proper judgment, etc. And if he leaves, he leaves. Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says: If the measure of punishment is mild and he takes even one step, he becomes liable for his life. By analogy, we learn that a greater measure of kindness applies. The Sages teach: "And if he leaves, he leaves." I would only know that this applies to intentional acts. From where do I derive that it also applies to accidental acts? The verse states: "And if he leaves, he leaves" — regardless. And it was taught in a Baraita: For an intentional act, he is killed, but for an accidental act, he is exiled. This is not difficult: Here, when the Torah speaks in the language of human beings, and here, when the Torah does not speak in the language of human beings. Abaye said: It is logical to conclude that when the Torah speaks in the language of human beings, the outcome should not be more severe than the beginning. Just as the beginning, in the case of an intentional act, results in being killed and exiled for an accidental act, so too, the outcome, in the case of an intentional act, should result in being killed and exiled for an accidental act.

And the congregation shall return him. I might think that if someone is obligated to be exiled but did not have a chance to go into exile before dying, the congregation should return him, meaning they should treat his corpse as if it were a living person. Therefore, it is stated "והשיבו" (and they shall return him), indicating that his body should not be moved from its place. "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge). If the murderer was found outside the city of refuge, they would bring him back. I might think they can bring him back to any nearby city. Therefore, it is stated "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge) which implies his specific designated city. "Asher Nus" (that he fled to). He should not leave to rescue someone from a draft, from a river, from a fire, or from a battle. "Shamah" (there), he should not go to distribute charity to the poor. I might think if the person in need is poor, he should not go, but if the person in need is rich, he should go. Therefore, it is stated "Shamah" (there). I might think that if there are rich people similar to him, he should not go, but if there are no rich people similar to him, he should go. Therefore, it is stated "Shamah" (there). "Veyashav Bah" (and he shall dwell there), meaning he should not go from city to city. Even though I may say that if he anointed himself in his lifetime and he was a person of stature, but if he anointed himself and he was a minor, he should not go. Therefore, it is stated "Beshemen Hakodesh" (with the holy anointing oil), indicating that the matter depends on the oil and not on the individual. "Vehashivu Oto Ha'edah" (and the congregation shall return him). This means that one who was obligated to be exiled and went into exile but returned before his appointed time shall meet his death as if it were the death of two. I hear you, "Ed Mot" (witness of death) refers to both this witness and that witness. Therefore, it is stated "Ad Mot Hakohen Hagadol" (until the death of the high priest). "Ad Mot Hakohen Hagadol" (until the death of the high priest) refers to the one who holds the position of high priest, who is distinguished by his multiple garments. "Asher Mashach" (who was anointed) includes one anointed for war. That particular detail includes the anointed himself, as it is stated "Miklat Ha'ir Kolelet" (the city of refuge shall admit) but not its open spaces, "O Ha'ir Matzelet" (or the city shall rescue) but not its surroundings. Therefore, it is stated "El Ir Miklato" (to the city of his refuge). "Umatza Oto" (and he finds him) includes the act of finding him as the blood avenger. As it is stated "Arei Miklat Ha'ir Kolelet" (the city of refuge shall admit) but not its borders, "O Ha'ir Matzelet" (or the city shall rescue) but not its boundaries. Therefore, it is stated "Michutz Lagvul Ir Miklato" (beyond the border of the city of his refuge). "Verezach Go'el Hadam" (and the blood avenger shall slay) includes anyone who kills him. And similarly, "V'ach Et Damchem L'Nafshoteychem" (only your blood shall I require for your lives) indicates that one demands the blood of a person from anyone who kills him. In his city of refuge, it includes the residents of his city of refuge who were exiled together with him. I hear you, "Shomea Ani" (I hear), he shall dwell in exile. Therefore, it is stated "Ki Be'ir Miklato" (for in his city of refuge), to include that if he killed someone in that city, he shall be exiled from one neighborhood to another. And a Levite shall be exiled from city to city. "Ad Mot Hakohen" (until the death of the high priest) indicates that his possession is a place of refuge. I only have the case of his possession being a place of rescue. From where do I know that the entire land is a place of rescue? It is stated "Yashuv Harotze'ach El Eretz Achuzato Miged" (the manslayer shall return to his own land of possession). "Vehayu Eleh Lachem" (and they shall be for you) teaches that the Sanhedrin functions both in the land and outside the land. The Sages taught: "Ledoroteichem Bechol Moshevoteichem Lamadnu L'Sanhedrin Shenohegeth Be'eretz Uv'chutz La'aretz" (For your generations, in all your settlements, we have learned that the Sanhedrin functions both in the land and outside the land). If so, why does it state "B'sha'arecha" (at your gates)? It means that you establish courts in each district and in each city. Outside the land, you establish courts in each district, but not in each city.