baraita

Gemara: Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: "'Without vision' (Numbers 35:23)—to exclude the blind person—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: '"Without vision" (Numbers 35:23)—to include the blind person.'"

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

Rabbi Shimon says: There is a hater that is exiled... etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: How [is it that] Rabbi Shimon said there are haters which are exiled and haters which are not exiled? If the rope breaks—he is exiled. If the rope slips—he is not exiled. [These seem to refer to cases in the first mishnah of the chapter].

But it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Shimon says: "He is never exiled until the handle slips from his hand." A difficulty of "breaking" on "breaking", and a difficulty of "slipping" on "slipping". [While the first baraita said one whose rope broke which resulted in an accidental death was exiled, here it implies that they would not be. Similarly, while the first baraita said that the rope slipping out of her hand would not make her liable for exile, the second quotes this as the only criteria. Thus there is a difficulty in both cases.]

But it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Shimon says: "He is never exiled until the handle slips from his hand." A difficulty of "breaking" on "breaking", and a difficulty of "slipping" on "slipping". [While the first baraita said one whose rope broke which resulted in an accidental death was exiled, here it implies that they would not be. Similarly, while the first baraita said that the rope slipping out of her hand would not make her liable for exile, the second quotes this as the only criteria. Thus there is a difficulty in both cases.]

But it was taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Shimon says: "He is never exiled until the handle slips from his hand." A difficulty of "breaking" on "breaking", and a difficulty of "slipping" on "slipping". [While the first baraita said one whose rope broke which resulted in an accidental death was exiled, here it implies that they would not be. Similarly, while the first baraita said that the rope slipping out of her hand would not make her liable for exile, the second quotes this as the only criteria. Thus there is a difficulty in both cases.]

Gemara: Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: Moses set aside three cities across the Jordan. And opposite them, Joshua set aside [three cities] in the land of Canaan. They were arranged such that they resembled two rows in a vineyard: Hebron in Judah opposite Betzer in the wilderness; Shkhem on the mountain of Efraim opposite Ramot in Gilead; Kedesh on the mountain of Naftali opposite Golan in Bashan. And they divided [the length] into thirds so that they should be thirds: from the south to Hebron was like Hebron to Shkhem; from Hebron to Shkhem was like Shkhem to Kedesh; from Shkhem to Kedesh was like Kedesh to the north.

But Kedesh is a city of refuge?! But it is written, "The fortified towns: Tzidim, Tzar and Hamat, Rakat and Khineret... and Kedesh, and Edrai and Ein Hatzor? (Joshua 19:35-37)" [which means that Kedesh is a fortified town]. And it is taught [in a baraita]: "Those cities [of refuge]—make them neither small villages nor large cities but medium-sized towns"?! [Which means that Kedesh cannot be a fortified town and still qualify as a city of refuge]. Rav Yoseif said: "There were two Kedesh's." Rav Ashi said: "Like Seleucia and the acropolis of Seleucia." [Kedesh had a separate, administrative section known as Kedesh as well as a distinct town called Kedesh, like the case we know of in Seleucia].

"And they prepared for them [the cities] roads..." etc. It was taught [in a baraita]: "Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya'akov says:

They challenged [from a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the murderer the verse speaks. You say it's about the murderer or perhaps it's actually about the blood avenger? When it says, 'And he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:4)—thus [you would] say that the verse is speaking about the murderer." [Just as the earlier phrase "he didn't hate him" is clearly referring to the murderer, so too when the phrase appears in verse 6 it is also referring to the murderer. Thus the rest of the verse should also be read as referring to the murderer].

He [Rav Huna] said according to this tanna, as it is taught [in a baraita]: "'And for him there is no death penalty' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—about the blood avenger the verse speaks. You say it's about the blood avenger or maybe the verse is actually speaking about the murderer? When it says, 'Since he didn't hate him recently' (Deuteronomy 19:6)—this is speaking about the murderer, [but then] how can I uphold 'and for him there is no death penalty'? [This should have been obvious because it has already been established by the fact that he's a manslayer!]. [Therefore], the verse speaks about the blood avenger."

No! It is like as it is taught [in a baraita]: "And they speak to him words appropriate to him, saying to him: 'Do not do this practice of shedding blood! It was accidentally that the deed came to his hand!' Rabbi Meir says: 'He speaks for himself, as it is said: "And this is the word (davar) of the murderer" (Deuteronomy 19:4)' [lit. this is the matter (davar) of the murderer]. They [the rabbis] said to him: There is much that an agent can accomplish (that he alone would not be able to do).