Pisqa’ 181¹

1

“Now, this rule is applied to the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4).

On this basis you teach:

An unwitting killer who is expelled

to the city of [his] refuge,

{and whom the residents of that city

wish to honor —

he must inform them:

I am a killer!

If they reply: Even so!–

he may accept the honor,

for it is said:

“This rule is applied to the unwitting killer”}² (Dt.19:4).

2

Inferring from what is stated:

“Lest the blood-avenger pursue the unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6)—

I know only about a case involving

a pursuer who is himself the blood-avenger.³

But on what basis do I rule when

the pursuer is not the blood-avenger,

[and who must fear family-vengeance or the court]?

Or, the blood-avenger is not the pursuer

[and, therefore, is not entitled to exact vengeance]?

Or, neither the pursuer nor the blood-avenger

[has been clearly identified]?

The Teaching states:

“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats,

“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6)
in order to mandate an inclusive rule

[protecting anyone who avenges the blood of an innocent victim].

3

Inferring from what is stated:

“For his heart boiled with rage” (Dt.19:6),

I know only about a case

involving an avenger who suffers boiling rage.⁴

But on what basis do I rule when

a father must take vengeance upon his child,

or a child upon his father?⁵

The Teaching states:

“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:4), and repeats,

“Unwitting killer” (Dt.19:6)
in order to mandate an inclusive rule

[in which the avenger’s state of mind doesn’t weaken his claim to the city’s protection].

4

What does the Teaching add

by the three-fold repetition of the term:

“There” (Nu.35:6), “there” (Nu.35:11), and “there” (Nu.35:15)?

There in the city of his refuge, shall he reside,

there shall he die,

there shall he be buried.⁶

5

What does the Teaching add

by the three-fold repetition of the term:

“His kinsman” (Dt.19:4), “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5), and “his kinsman” (Dt.19:5)?⁷

The [first] kinsman excludes [gentile] others

[from the rule of blood-vengeance];⁸

The [second] kinsman excludes the resident alien;⁹

In [the third] kinsman—the Torah now calls the victim kinsman

“When he strikes his kinsman unwittingly

without having hated him” (Dt.19:4).

So, if he’d hated him,

he wouldn’t be expelled from his city?¹⁰

“Either yesterday or the day before” (Dt.19:4)—

R. Judah says:

Yesterday—counts for two days;

The day before—makes it three.¹¹

1. H:204-205; JN2:61-62.
2. =T.Mak.3:8, M. Mak.2:8. Sifre’s text is abbreviated. I have supplied in brackets that omits the bulk of the mishnaic-toseftan citation. See H: 458, n.2.
3. Therefore, the pursuer needn’t fear the vengeance of the killer’s family or the justice of the court
4. Cf. Sifre Nu. 160.
5. Since that father will have compassion on his son, the killer–does he forfeit the protection of the city of refuge?
6. = M.Mak.2:7; T.Mak.3:5.
7. Dt.19:4-5 reads: “One who beat his kinsman without intending to or previously hating him, or joined his kinsman in the forest to chop wood, . . . and the axe-handle struck his kinsman, and he died.” See Pisqa’ 182 below
8. A gentile who unwittingly kills a gentile or an Israelite is neither protected from blood-vengeance nor entitled to take it. See M. Mak.2:3.
9. =M. Mak.2:3, Acccording to this Mishnah: “A resident alien may not be expelled from his city except for causing the unwitting death of another resident alien.”.
10. Cf. M. Mak.2:3.
11. Thus, prior to the inadvertent killing, at least three days without anger must have elapsed for the rule of blood-vengeance to protect the avenger from retaliation.