exile

[Or] if he was ascending on a ladder and if he fell and killed him, this one is not [liable for] exile. This is the general rule: Anyone on his way down, [that person is liable for] exile. Anyone that is not on his way down, [that person is liable for] exile.

Gemara: From where is it derived [that downward motion that kills someone is punished by exile]? Shmuel said that the verse said: “And he cast it upon him, and he died” (Numbers 35:23) [meaning] until it falls in the way of falling.

He challenged him "This is the general rule: anything that is within a downward movement, [that person] is sent to exile. Anything not in a downward movement [that person who initiated the act] is not exiled." And what does this "anything not in a downward movement include?" Does it not include this case?! [where the rung is downward and you are moving up, where, according to this general rule, that person would not be culpable for the rung falling]. But according to your reasoning, [the rule that] anything that is in the way of descent includes what?!

No [that's wrong], everybody agrees that it is a case of ascent. And this is not a problem [they still have a disagreement]. Here [one is talking about the issue of] damages [where he would be obligated to pay the compensation for damages caused] and the other [is talking about the issue of] exile [from which he would be exempted].

If you want, say that both cases are talking about exile and there is [still] not a difficulty. They are disagreeing about it being rotten. Here, [where he would be obligated for exile] is when (the rung) is rotten. Here [where he would be exempt from exile] is when it is not rotten.

If you want, say that both cases are talking about exile and there is [still] not a difficulty. They are disagreeing about it being rotten. Here, [where he would be obligated for exile] is when (the rung) is rotten. Here [where he would be exempt from exile] is when it is not rotten.

If you want, say that both cases are talking about exile and there is [still] not a difficulty. They are disagreeing about it being rotten. Here, [where he would be obligated for exile] is when (the rung) is rotten. Here [where he would be exempt from exile] is when it is not rotten.

And if you want, say that they both agree that the wood was not rotten and it is [still] not a difficulty: Here [where he would be exempt from exile] is when the rung has been fastened. Here, [where he would be liable] is when he did not fasten it.

However, where can we find a case where Rebi [would exempt someone from exile] in an instance of secondary force? This is like [a case where] someone threw a clod of dirt and it struck a twig and the twig then went and hit a cluster of dates and the dates then fell and killed.

Mishnah: The one who throws a stone into the public domain and killed [someone], behold, he is exiled. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], behold, he is exempt [from exile].

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says, etc. Our Rabbis taught [in a baraita]: And “and found [his neighbor]” (Deuteronomy 19:5) excludes the one who places himself [in danger]. From here [it follows that] Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: If, from when the stone left his hand, another person stuck out their head and received [the stone and was killed], he is exempt [from exile].

Ravina challenged Rava (all the cases to follow are where the person is in pursuit of a Mitzvah so they would not be punished with exile): This excludes the case of a father who strikes his son (and kills him inadvertently), and the teacher who rebukes his student (and inadvertently kills him) and the court agent (who inadvertently killed). So, why (is this a mitzvah to hit one's son, etc?). Let us say that since he was already learned (the son), it's not actually a Mitzvah to strike him (again) so here too, it is also not a Mitzvah. (Rava:) There, despite the fact that he's already learned, it is still a Mitzvah to hit him, as it is stated, "rebuke your son and he will bring you rest."

Mishnah: A father is exiled because of [killing accidentally] his son and the son is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] his father. Any person is exiled by way [killing accidentally] an Israelite and an Israelite is exiled by way of [killing accidentally] them except for a foreign resident. A foreign resident is only sent to exile for a [killing a fellow] foreign resident.

Learning [to be] a carpenter's apprentice is a livelihood that he is teaching him! [Actually] he is teaching him another trade [that is not his livelihood—so striking and killing him inadvertently will result in exile).

According to Rabbi Shimon who says strangulation is more severe than decapitation [in the realm of punishment]. So, for the unwitting sin [in which, if he committed it intentionally, he would be punished with] beheading, he is given atonement [through exile]. But, an unwitting sin [which, if were done intentionally, would be punished with] strangulation, is not given atonement [through exile].

According to Rabbi Shimon who says strangulation is more severe than decapitation [in the realm of punishment]. So, for the unwitting sin [in which, if he committed it intentionally, he would be punished with] beheading, he is given atonement [through exile]. But, an unwitting sin [which, if were done intentionally, would be punished with] strangulation, is not given atonement [through exile].

For the Rabbis who say beheading is more severe than strangulation: one who inadvertently kills his father, this is inadvertent sin [that would be punished, if done intentionally, with] beheading, so such an inadvertent sin would be given atonement [through exile—so this is the opinion of our Mishnah].

Rava says:... [This case of non-exile for a son] is when he just hits [wounds] his father inadvertently. Since, you may have thought that if he would have killed him intentionally, he would be executed, then let him also be so in a case of inadvertent striking, this comes to teach us [that no, in fact, exile is specifically in cases of inadvertent killing and not striking/wounding].

Rava says:... [This case of non-exile for a son] is when he just hits [wounds] his father inadvertently. Since, you may have thought that if he would have killed him intentionally, he would be executed, then let him also be so in a case of inadvertent striking, this comes to teach us [that no, in fact, exile is specifically in cases of inadvertent killing and not striking/wounding].

This works out well if a slave or Samaritan is exiled by way of an Israelite or lashed. [He is exiled in a case where] he killed him [accidentally] and lashed [in a case where] he cursed him. But an Israelite who is exiled or lashed by way of Samaritan?! It works well with exile [in a case where] he killed him [accidentally]. But lashing, why? [If you say] because he cursed him, "the chieftain of your people do not curse" (Exodus 22:27)! [I.e. a Samaritan is not on of your people and thus this prohibition for which the punishment is lashes should not apply in this case]

"Everyone gets exiled for killing an Israelite accidentally, and vice versa] except through [killing accidentally] a foreign resident." Therefore, a foreign resident is [considered] an idol worshiper! But read the end [of the Mishnah]! "A foreign resident is exiled on account of [killing accidentally] a foreign resident [which would imply that they aren't like idol worshipers as they actually get exiled]! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [where the punishment is exile] is where a foreign resident kills a foreign resident, and here [where he does not get exile] is where a foreign resident kills an Israelite.

"Everyone gets exiled for killing an Israelite accidentally, and vice versa] except through [killing accidentally] a foreign resident." Therefore, a foreign resident is [considered] an idol worshiper! But read the end [of the Mishnah]! "A foreign resident is exiled on account of [killing accidentally] a foreign resident [which would imply that they aren't like idol worshipers as they actually get exiled]! Rav Kahanah said: This is not a difficulty. Here [where the punishment is exile] is where a foreign resident kills a foreign resident, and here [where he does not get exile] is where a foreign resident kills an Israelite.

Rav Hisda said: This is not a difficulty! Here [where he is exiled] is where he killed in a downward motion, and here [where he is not exiled] is where he killed in an upward motion. [I.e:] If [he killed him] in a downward motion, [in which case] an Israelite would be exiled, then exile should be enough for the [resident foreigner] as well. If [he killed him] in an upward motion, [in which case] an Israelite is exempt, then the resident foreigner is put to death.

Rava said to him: And is it not a kal vahomer (logical inference from a light to serious case)!? [This kal vahomer will show that your argument doesn't work]. Just as [in the case of] a downward motion an Israelite would be exiled, exile should be enough for a resident foreigner too; then [in the case of] an upward motion, an Israelite is an exempt, should [the resident foreigner really] be killed?!

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.]

Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: 'Originally, both unintentional and intentional [murderers] would rush to the cities of refuge, and the courts would send for them and bring them out of there [for judgement]. One who was liable for death by the court, they would put him to death; one who was not liable for death they would exempt him; one who was liable for exile, they would return him to his place, as it is said: "The congregation will return him to the city of his refuge" (Numbers 35:25).'"

It was taught [by a tanna]: "A student that is exiled—they exile his teacher with him." As it is said, "and live" (Deuteronomy 4:42)? We make him [the manslayer] something that can be his livelihood [in the city of refuge]. Rabbi Z'eira said: "From here [we learn] that one should not teach a student that is not discerning."

Rabbi Yohanan: "The teacher that is exiled—they exile his yeshiva with him." Is this so?! But Rabbi Yohan said: "From where [do we learn] that the words of Torah are effective at providing refuge? As it is said: 'Betzer in the wilderness...' (Deuteronomy 4:43), (and afterwards it is written) 'And this Torah' (Deuteronomy 4:44)"?! [I.e., why is a teacher being exiled at all? Why don't the words of Torah protect him?].

Mar [the tannah] had just said, 'It was accidentally that the deed came to his hand' Isn't this obvious!? If it was willfully would he be subject to exile? Yes,

Whomever was liable to execution they would execute, as the Torah says (Deuteronomy 19,12), "and the elders of his city would and send for him, and take him from there, and place him in the clutches of the goal hadam, and he would die". Whomever was not liable, they would exonerate, as the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "and the congregation would save the murderer from the hands if the goal hadam". Whomever was liable for exile, they would return to his place, as the Torah says (Numbers 35, 25), "and that congregation will return him to his city of refuge which he had fled to".

Rebbi says, They exile themselves, because they had thought that both accidental and willful [murderers] are protected [by the cities of refuge], but the didn't know that only accidental [murderers] are protected and willful [murderers] aren't protected.

MISHNA: The [high priest] anointed with the anointing oil, the [high priest] appointed through the vestments, and the [high priest] who stepped down from his position all return the murderer [from exile if they die]. Rebbi Yehuda says, Even the [high priest] anointed for a war returns the murderer [if he dies].

They inquired, Is it with the death of all of [the types of high priest enumerated in the mishna] that [the murderer] returns [from exile]? Or maybe it's with death of any of them?

MISHNA: If after his verdict was handed down [but before he went exile] the high priest had died he does not go to exile. If before he was given a verdict the high priest died, and they appointed another one is his place, and then afterwards he had his verdict, he returns with the death of the second one. If he had his verdict when their was no high priest or one who killed the high priest or a high priest who killed do not ever leave exile.

MISHNA: If after his verdict was handed down [but before he went exile] the high priest had died he does not go to exile. If before he was given a verdict the high priest died, and they appointed another one is his place, and then afterwards he had his verdict, he returns with the death of the second one. If he had his verdict when their was no high priest or one who killed the high priest or a high priest who killed do not ever leave exile.

MISHNA: If after his verdict was handed down [but before he went exile] the high priest had died he does not go to exile. If before he was given a verdict the high priest died, and they appointed another one is his place, and then afterwards he had his verdict, he returns with the death of the second one. If he had his verdict when their was no high priest or one who killed the high priest or a high priest who killed do not ever leave exile.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that he doesn't go to exile if the high priest dies before he gets there]? Abaye says it's a fortiori, And just as someone who was already in exile goes out [with the death the high priest], then now, someone who never went to exile should certainly not be exiled. But maybe the one was exiled got an atonement, and the one who wasn't exiled didn't [get his atonement]? Is exile the thing that grants atonement? The death of the high priest is what grants atonement.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that he doesn't go to exile if the high priest dies before he gets there]? Abaye says it's a fortiori, And just as someone who was already in exile goes out [with the death the high priest], then now, someone who never went to exile should certainly not be exiled. But maybe the one was exiled got an atonement, and the one who wasn't exiled didn't [get his atonement]? Is exile the thing that grants atonement? The death of the high priest is what grants atonement.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that he doesn't go to exile if the high priest dies before he gets there]? Abaye says it's a fortiori, And just as someone who was already in exile goes out [with the death the high priest], then now, someone who never went to exile should certainly not be exiled. But maybe the one was exiled got an atonement, and the one who wasn't exiled didn't [get his atonement]? Is exile the thing that grants atonement? The death of the high priest is what grants atonement.

GEMARA: What is the reason [that he doesn't go to exile if the high priest dies before he gets there]? Abaye says it's a fortiori, And just as someone who was already in exile goes out [with the death the high priest], then now, someone who never went to exile should certainly not be exiled. But maybe the one was exiled got an atonement, and the one who wasn't exiled didn't [get his atonement]? Is exile the thing that grants atonement? The death of the high priest is what grants atonement.

[The murderers] would have to pay up rent to the Levites [who inhabited the city of refuge]. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, [The murderers] would not have to pay up rent. And [upon release, the murderers] would return to their positions that they had held [prior to exile]. These are the words of Rebbi Meir. Rebbi Yehuda says, [The murderers] would not return to their previous positions.

And similarly by an exile [because] when [the Torah] said [a second time] "he shall return" it was to include the murderer.

What do we mean "and similarly by an exile"? Like we learned in a baraisa, (Numbers 35,28) "The murderer shall return to his family and to his ancestral land" [this implies that] to his ancestral lands he returns but that he does not return to his ancestral positions. These are the words of Rebbi Yehuda. Rebbi Meir says, He even returns to the positions of his ancestors. [Rebbi Meir] learns [a gezaira shava of] שיבה שיבה from there [the Jewish slave].