hadam

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".

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".

Just as the city protects, so to it's boundary protects. A killer who went outside of the boundrary [of the city of refuge] and the goel hadam found him. Rebbi Yosi haGalili says, It's a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and permitted for everyone else. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permitted in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and everyone else is liable for [killing] him.

Just as the city protects, so to it's boundary protects. A killer who went outside of the boundrary [of the city of refuge] and the goel hadam found him. Rebbi Yosi haGalili says, It's a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and permitted for everyone else. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permitted in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and everyone else is liable for [killing] him.

Just as the city protects, so to it's boundary protects. A killer who went outside of the boundrary [of the city of refuge] and the goel hadam found him. Rebbi Yosi haGalili says, It's a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and permitted for everyone else. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permitted in the hands of the goel hadam [to kill him], and everyone else is liable for [killing] him.

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

A murderer who exits the boundary etc.: The rabbis taught [in a baraisa], (Numbers 35,27) "And the goel hadam will kill the murderer" [we can derive that] it is a mitzvah in the hands of the goel hadam. If there is no goel hadam, it's permissible for anyone else. These are the words of Rebbi Yossi Hagalili. Rebbi Akiva says, It's permissible for the Goel Hadam, and anyone else is liable [for killing the murderer].

Mar Zutra bar Tuvia says in the name of Rav, If a murderer leaves the boundrary and the Goel Hadam finds him and kills him, he [the Goel Hadam] is executed. Who is this in accordance with? It isn't like Rebbi Yossi Hagalili nor like Rebbi Akiva?

Mar Zutra bar Tuvia says in the name of Rav, If a murderer leaves the boundrary and the Goel Hadam finds him and kills him, he [the Goel Hadam] is executed. Who is this in accordance with? It isn't like Rebbi Yossi Hagalili nor like Rebbi Akiva?

He says like the following Tanna, that we learned in a baraisa, Rebbi Eliezer says, (Numbers 35, 12) "Untill he stands before a court for judgement" what is the Torah teaching us? Since it says (Numbers 35,27) "And the Goel Hadam will find the murderer" I might think that it means [he can kill him immediately] [therefore] the Torah teaches us "until he stand before a court for judgement"

One baraisa teaches, A father that killed, his son can become his Goel HaDam, and another baraisa teaches, His son cannot become his Goel HaDam. Let us say that this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbe Yossi HaGalili and this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbi Akiva.

One baraisa teaches, A father that killed, his son can become his Goel HaDam, and another baraisa teaches, His son cannot become his Goel HaDam. Let us say that this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbe Yossi HaGalili and this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbi Akiva.

One baraisa teaches, A father that killed, his son can become his Goel HaDam, and another baraisa teaches, His son cannot become his Goel HaDam. Let us say that this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbe Yossi HaGalili and this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbi Akiva.

One baraisa teaches, A father that killed, his son can become his Goel HaDam, and another baraisa teaches, His son cannot become his Goel HaDam. Let us say that this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbe Yossi HaGalili and this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is [like the opinion of] Rebbi Akiva.

But I'd this logical?! Whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is a mitzvah [for the Goel HaDam to kill the murderer] or whether [one holds like] the opinion that it is permissible, is it permitted [for a son to kill his father]? But Rabba bar Rav Huna said, and so too was taught in a baraisa of the academy of Rebbi Yishmael, For everything a son may not be made into an agent [of the court] against his father to hit him or curse him, except in the case of one who instigates [idolatry] upon which the Torah says (Deuteronomy 13,9) "do not spare him and do not conceal him".

Rather it's not a difficulty, [because] this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is referring to his son, and this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is referring to his grandson.

Rather it's not a difficulty, [because] this [baraisa that says the son cannot become a Goel Hadam] is referring to his son, and this [baraisa that says the son can become a Goel Hadam] is referring to his grandson.

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

But with regards to cities of refuge [going after the branches doesn't always result in a stringency], it is understandable if the trunk is outside and the branches inside, just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may not kill him [the murderer], so too on the trunk he may not kill him. But if the trunk is inside and the branches outside [then it won't result in a stringency to say that] just as on the branches [the Goel Hadam] may kill him, so too on the trunk he may kill him, Because he is inside [the boundary]!?

Rava says, On the trunk everyone agrees that he may not kill him. If he is on the branches and [the Goel Hadam] is able to kill him with arrows and pebbles everyone agrees that he is able able to kill him.

But still I ask does Reish Lakash indeed use [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] to teach this? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before the blood was thrown. [z'rikas hadam]. That it was said about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before z'rikas hadam. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus.

But still I ask does Reish Lakash indeed use [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] to teach this? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before the blood was thrown. [z'rikas hadam]. That it was said about an impure person who ate sacrifical meats before z'rikas hadam. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus.

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]