Dear Rabbi,
Mark May here in Raanana
Rules of the Blood Avenger
Mesechta Makkos
Chapter 2
Mishna 9b3
Discusses location of Cities of Refuge provided for those who kill inadvertently.
Mishna 9b4
Speaks of protection from the Blood Avenger. This was afforded the unintentional killer before he reaches the City of Refuge after sentenced by the court.
Until learning this Daf it was my impression that a killer could be killed by a blood Avenger if caught after the murder of a relative as long as outside the City of Refuge. This killing by a blood Avenger in this circumstance was condoned by the Torah Law.
After careful analysis it seems that this is not the case. Rather the killer must be tried by the court to decide whether the killing (an unintentional act) merited exile and the protection of the City of refuge.
If that is the case:
Why would the unintentional killer worry about the threat of a vengeance killing before trial?
It is my understanding that the Torah condones vengeance killing only in the case of an unintentional killer caught outside of the City of Refuge. Please clarify. Is this only after the trial? If so then why the impression that after the killing the killer must seek asylum before the trial?..The need for signs, wide roads and safety upon reaching an over hanging branch of a tree within city limits and so forth.
The measures to protect the sentenced unintentional killer by two Torah Scholars until reaching the safety of the city of refuge implies that the trial was held outside the city of refuge. Why not have the trial in the city of refuge?
Is condoned vengeance killing only after the court decides the fate of an unintentional killer?
Is vengeance killing condoned by the Torah for Other types of killers ..intentional, gross negligence, inadequate warnings or witnesses who are not eligible for asylum in City of Refuge?
Is it true that Killing by the Blood avenger of these other types of killers is not condoned by the Torah?
In that CASE, they wouldn't need to seek asylum to avoid the Avenger.
Please help me understand.
Addendum: Based on Daf 10-
It appears that part of my question is addressed and two opinions are sited:
Rav Huna (10b2..Art Scroll) If a killer was exiled to a city of refuge and the redeemer of the blood found him on his way there and killed him he is exempt from punishment.
The Gemara differs with Rav Huna: Thus a dispute
Note 19, page 10b2. The avenger is forbidden as a capital crime to kill the killer as he attempts to reach city of refuge. Only after the killer reaches the city of refuge may the goel hadam kill him , if he sets foot outside the asylum city.
Note 22, page 10b2. We must do all we can to save the killer from the vengeance of the goel hadam because the accused (Killer) is not subject to the death penalty for his crime, since he killed inadvertently without enmity.
My comment further supports this position: I would think that the Torah would condemn killing someone who has not been convicted by Beit Din.
Does the Torah resolve this dispute?
1) Under what conditions is the goel hadam permitted to kill?
With my very best
1) Why would the unintentional killer worry about the threat of vengeance killing before the trial?
The Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach 5:9-10) cites Rav Huna on 10b that the words (Devarim 19:6), "And he does not possess a judgement of death," refers to the blood avenger. The words before this in the verse tell us that this is because "his heart was heated." The close relative is not held culpable by the Torah for the capital penalty, if he kills in revenge, because he cannot be expected to control himself. The Rambam writes that this applies even if the avenger kills him outside the refuge city before the trial. However, the Chazon Ish (Choshen Mishpat 17:1, DH u'Mihu) writes that if the avenger does attack before the end of the trial, it is a Mitzvah for everyone to try and save the unintentional killer from the avenger. The reason is because there are several factors which might determine that the unintentional killer is not to blame at all. The killing might have been carried out almost under duress, or some other extenuating circumstances might have been present which would lead the Beis Din to say that the killer does not even require exile to provide atonement. The Chazon Ish writes that even though the avenger cannot be killed by Beit Din if he takes revenge, he is considered a Rodef and any onlooker has a Mitzvah to kill the avenger if necessary in order to save the life of the unintentional killer.
2) We learn from this that the exemption of the avenger if he kills outside the refuge city before the trial is very limited. It does not mean that the Torah condones what he did, but rather merely that if he did it, the Beis Din cannot put him to death. If the avenger has not yet killed the unintentional killer, bystanders may kill the avenger to save his victim. All this applies only if the avenger killed him outside the refuge city, but if he entered the city in order to kill, this is considered as full scale murder, and the avenger receives capital punishment.
3) To answer the original question: The avenger is uncontrollable, so the unintentional killer is well advised to worry about this threat.
I will try to answer the other questions soon, bs'd.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
4) Now to the question about whether vengeance killing is ever condoned inside the refuge city:
The Rambam (Hilchos Rotze'ach 6:4) writes that if "the killing was close to being intentional, or it happened through negligence when the killer should have been careful but was not, in such cases the crime is too great for the killer to be given the atonement of exile, and the refuge city does not protect him.... Therefore, if the avenger found him anywhere and killed him, he is exempt."
The Sefer ha'Mafte'ach of the Frankel edition of the Rambam cites Mefarshim who write that "anywhere" includes killing him inside the refuge city.
The Rambam (6:5) continues and says that, similarly, if there was only one witness to the murder, or the murderer was not warned in advance, the avenger is also exempt for killing the murderer. The Pnei Yehoshua (7a, DH veha'Nir'eh) writes that he is even allowed to kill him l'Chatchilah.
It seems from here that there are certain scenarios where the killer really is guilty of the crime but the Beis Din cannot prove this. In such cases, the avenger is able to apply the punishment instead, if he is capable of doing so.
This idea is somewhat the opposite of what we saw in my earlier reply. There, it looked very likely that the unintentional killer did not deserve to die, but the Halachah states that the avenger cannot be punished by Beis Din for not overcoming his natural "heated heart," but the onlookers are allowed to kill the avenger in order to save the life of the unintentional killer. Now we have the opposite example, when the killing was almost intentional, so we permit the avenger to take the law into his own hands.
5) The reason why the trial is not held in the city of refuge is because the Torah states (Bamidbar 35:25), concerning the unintentional killer who was saved by the Beis Din from the avenger, "And the community shall return him to his city of refuge, to where he had fled." We learn that he had left the refuge city in order to attend the court case and judgement.
It seems that the Torah does not want the refuge cities, of which there were only a total of six in the entire Eretz Yisrael, to become also cities of murder law courts. Presumably, the general practice is that a defendant is judged in his own city, where he is known better.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
1) I would like to add one very interesting thing, written by the Chazon Ish (Choshen Mishpat 17:1, DH u'Mihu). He writes that after the Beis Din ruled that the inadvertent killer must go to Galus, one cannot forcibly prevent the Go'el ha'Dam from killing him outside the city of refuge, but all one can do is to request the Go'el ha'Dam to refrain. The Chazon Ish learns this Chidush from the fact that it was two Talmidei Chachamim who are sent along to provide the escort. Why did Chazal require that Torah scholars be sent? Would it not have been better to send two armed security guards? The Chazon Ish proves from this that the protection offered to the Goel ha'Dam, after he has been senteced to exile but before he actually reaches the refuge city, is moral protection, not physical. Otherwise, the Beis Din would have sent along two boxing champions to protect him. The fact that two Torah scholars were sent shows us that we are looking for people who are well-qualified at persuading the Go'el ha'Dam and showing how the Torah does not want him to take revenge. If he does insist on taking revenge, he cannot be physically stopped.
(See Avi ha'Ezri, by Rav Elazar Menachem Shach zt'l, on the Rambam, Hilchos Rotze'ach (end of 5:5), who disagrees with the Chazon Ish and maintains that the Go'el ha'Dam can be forcibly stopped from taking revenge even before the unintentional killer has reached asylum after being sentenced to Galus.)
2) I want to try and explain the thinking behind what the Chazon Ish writes.
My source is Rashi in Sanhedrin (end of 57a, DH ka'Yotzei). Rashi writes that if someone spilled blood b'Shogeg, this is also considered as full-scale bloodshed, but Hash-m took mercy on the killer.
An example would be the person in the Mishnah above (7a) who was coming down the ladder and fell on someone and killed him. He is considered Shogeg and must go to Galus. This was not a case of pure Ones. The person coming down the ladder should have been more careful about what he was doing. When one descends a ladder he needs to be more careful, and he must be aware that a danger may be involved both for himslef and for other people. When he fell and killed someone, this certainly was not deliberate, but on the other hand he was responsible for the death of the person on whom he fell. Since he caused his death, he should really be put to death himself, but the Torah took pity on him, as Rashi in Sanhedrin writes. In practical terms, the mercy of the Torah means that it enables him to flee to a refuge city and be protected there. It follows that when he is outside the refuge city, the Torah does not have pity on him, and consequently we cannot stop the Go'el ha'Dam from implementing the punishment that the Torah should really carry out.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom