1) AN ENTIRE YESHIVA THAT GOES TO "GALUS"
OPINIONS: Rebbi Yochanan states that if a Rosh Yeshiva killed accidentally, then his entire Yeshiva must go to Galus with him to the Ir Miklat. What is the reason for Rebbi Yochanan's ruling?
(a) The SEDEI YITZCHAK points out that the previous Gemara teaches that when a student killed accidentally and is sent to Galus, his Rav must go with him. The Gemara bases this ruling on the verse that says that the accidental killer "will flee to one of these cities and live" (Devarim 4:42). The phrase "and live" means that the exiled person must have the basic necessities for life, one of which is the ability to learn Torah, and therefore the Rav must go to the Ir Miklat with his student. Similarly, when a Rosh Yeshiva is sent to Galus, it is essential to his life that his students accompany him so that he will be able to teach Torah, for that is his life. In this vein, Rebbi states (later on this Daf) that "I learned much Torah from my teachers, and more from my colleagues, and from my students I learned most of all." Accordingly, a Rav's life of Torah hinges primarily on his relationship with his students. Once the Gemara establishes that this reason applies to a student, it certainly applies to a Rav as well.
(b) The IYUN YAKOV has an entirely different approach. He learns that the requirement that the students go to Galus with their teacher is not related at all to the needs of the teacher. Rather, it is based on a different statement of Rebbi Yochanan. In Chagigah (15b), Rebbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that a person should endeavor to learn Torah only from a teacher who is "similar to a Mal'ach of Hash-m." A person whom Hash-m permits to kill another Jew accidentally is not one who is similar to a Mal'ach (see Insights to Makos 9:2:e:1). The students of that person are held responsible for not thoroughly investigating to make sure that their teacher was fit to teach them. Therefore, the students are punished by having to go to Galus with their teacher.
The Iyun Yakov adds that this logic does not apply to a mere friend of a person who killed accidentally. The law does not require that the friend of an accidental killer go into Galus with his friend for not being careful to ensure that his friend was free of sin. This is because it is only with regard to choosing a spiritual mentor, a Torah teacher, that one who is not careful is held liable.
This answer is problematic. Why is going to Galus with their teacher the punishment of the students for having chosen an unworthy teacher? If they were not supposed to choose him as their teacher in the first place, then why are they required to go to Galus to continue to learn from him?
Perhaps the answer of the Iyun Yakov may be understood based on the words of the RAMBAM in Hilchos Teshuvah (2:1). The Rambam states that genuine repentance is achieved when the former transgressor is given the same opportunity to sin but refrains from sinning. If the students would stay in their town while their teacher goes to Galus, they would never have the opportunity to do true Teshuvah, since they would not have the opportunity to learn from their exiled teacher. By sentencing them to Galus, the Torah makes them aware of their misdeed, and it gives them the opportunity to stay away from their unworthy teacher while they are in the Ir Miklat. This makes them into true Ba'alei Teshuvah. (Y. MONTROSE)
2) LEARNING TORAH FROM AN UNWORTHY TEACHER
QUESTION: Rebbi Yochanan states that if a Rosh Yeshiva killed accidentally, then his entire Yeshiva must go to Galus with him to the Ir Miklat. Earlier, the Gemara derives from a similar ruling -- that a teacher must go to Galus with his student who killed accidentally -- that a teacher should not accept to teach an unworthy student, since that student might kill accidentally and be sentenced to Galus. Why does the Gemara not deduce the same thing from Rebbi Yochanan's statement that a student should not learn Torah from an unworthy teacher? (MAHARSHA, ARUCH LA'NER, and others)
(a) The YALKUT GERSHONI answers with a simple explanation. The statement about a student who kills accidentally was said by an early source, a Beraisa. The Beraisa's statement supports the dictum of Rebbi Zeira (an Amora who lived later), who says that one should not teach an unworthy student. The statement about a teacher who kills accidentally was said by Rebbi Yochanan. It is Rebbi Yochanan himself who says in Chagigah (15b) that a student must endeavor to learn Torah from a worthy teacher. The Gemara cannot cite support for Rebbi Yochanan's statement from a comment that Rebbi Yochanan himself made!
(b) The IMREI TZVI explains that for a Rav to have to move his family to another city in order to be near his exiled student is an extremely difficult ordeal. Such an ordeal warns every teacher to be careful not to accept an unworthy student. In contrast, the nature of students is that they often leave their homes to study Torah with a certain Rav. It is no more of an inconvenience to be in one town away from home than to be in another town away from home. Therefore, there is nothing in this statement which essentially warns a student to avoid an unworthy teacher. (Y. MONTROSE)
3) AN ACCIDENTAL KILLING WITH NO WITNESSES
OPINIONS: The Gemara describes one of the ways in which Hash-m brings justice to killers. If one person killed accidentally and without witnesses (and thus he cannot be sent to an Ir Miklat), and another person killed intentionally and without witnesses (and thus he cannot be put to death by Beis Din), Hash-m causes them to go to the same place, where the person who killed accidentally falls off of a ladder in front of witnesses, and lands on -- and kills -- the person who killed intentionally. Each person thereby receives the punishment that he deserves. The intentional receives his punishment of death, and the accidental killer is sent to Galus.
Why does the accidental killer need to go to Galus? The purpose of going to Galus is to get protection from the Go'el ha'Dam. If no one saw him kill by accident, then the Go'el ha'Dam does not know who killed his relative, and thus the killer is in no danger such that he should need to seek refuge in the Ir Miklat! (MAHARSHA)
ANSWERS: The question presumes that the purpose of going to the Ir Miklat is for protection from the Go'el ha'Dam. In order to answer this question, one must look more deeply into the nature of the obligation to go to an Ir Miklat. There are three basic approaches.
(a) The MAHARSHA writes that the underlying reason for the obligation to go to an Ir Miklat is, as mentioned above, to protect the accidental killer from his victim's relative, the Go'el ha'Dam, who has the right to avenge his relative's death as long as the killer is not in an Ir Miklat. Even when the case of the accidental killer cannot be judged in court because there were no proper witnesses, if the Go'el ha'Dam determines to his satisfaction that the person actually killed (for example, through the admission of the killer himself, or through witnesses whom the court does not accept), and he kills the accidental killer based on this information, Beis Din cannot punish him, since Beis Din cannot prove that he was wrong and that the accused killer did not kill. Therefore, the accidental killer who killed without witnesses might feel confident that no one will try to kill him, while the Go'el ha'Dam might actually try to kill him. In order to protect him, Hash-m arranges that he kills again b'Shogeg in front of witnesses and is thereby forced to go to an Ir Miklat.
(b) However, there seems to be an additional purpose for going to an Ir Miklat. Going to an Ir Miklat is meant to be a Kaparah, an atonement, for the killer, as the Gemara mentions elsewhere in Makos (2b, 11b) and in Shevuos (8a). Consequently, there is a purpose in going to Galus even when no Go'el ha'Dam is pursuing the accidental killer to kill him.
This is also evident from the Mishnah later (11b) which derives from verses that the accidental killer "shall live in the Ir Miklat, and he shall die in the Ir Miklat, and he shall be buried in the Ir Miklat." This means that it is a Mitzvah for him to stay in the Ir Miklat aside from the purpose of escaping the Go'el ha'Dam. Moreover, the Gemara there quotes a Beraisa that teaches that if a person was sentenced to go to Galus and then died, his body is buried in the Ir Miklat. Obviously, his body does not go there in order to seek refuge from the Go'el ha'Dam. It is clear from these and other sources that the main reason for Galus is atonement, and not only protection (see RASHASH, 11b).
The SEFER HA'CHINUCH also writes that the purpose of fleeing to an Ir Miklat is twofold: to protect the killer from the Go'el ha'Dam and to attain Kaparah.
The Aruch la'Ner therefore explains that an accidental killer must go to Galus even if there are no witnesses. This is because he requires atonement even when there are no witnesses. The Go'el ha'Dam, however, is not permitted to kill him, as stated above. Since the accidental killer was negligent about attaining atonement and going to Galus on his own accord, Hash-m causes him to kill accidentally in front of witnesses so that he will be forced to go to Galus and attain atonement.
(c) However, the words of the RITVA (2a and 2b) imply that there is another reason for Galus. Galus is a punishment given to an accidental killer. The killer must live in fear of the Go'el ha'Dam as a punishment for his accidental killing. For this reason, the Ritva (2a) writes that if the killer admits that he killed b'Shogeg, he will not be sentenced to Galus since the Go'el ha'Dam will not be allowed to kill him based on his own admission (this is because such admission is similar to admitting that one deserves to be killed, in which case his word is not accepted). This implies that there is no purpose in going to the Ir Miklat when the killer does not need to seek protection from the Go'el ha'Dam (that is, when the Go'el ha'Dam is not appointed by Beis Din and given permission to kill the killer). Support for this view may be found in the Gemara in Sanhedrin (45b) which says that when there is no Go'el ha'Dam, Beis Din appoints a Go'el ha'Dam. This shows that going to Galus when there is no Go'el ha'Dam pursuing him is pointless.
Another proof is the Gemara in Kesuvos (33b) which cites the verse that teaches that when a person mortally wounds someone, Beis Din incarcerates the perpetrator until the fate of the victim is determined. If the victim dies, then the perpetrator is punished appropriately. The Gemara suggests that the verse refers to a person who hits someone accidentally, and the victim's life is in mortal danger; Beis Din incarcerates the perpetrator until the fate of his victim is determined (if he dies, then the perpetrator is sentenced to Galus). It is clear from that Gemara that Galus is a punishment that is administered by Beis Din, similar to the punishment of Misah for a person who killed b'Mezid.
According to this understanding of the purpose of Galus, the Gemara here is easily understood. Hash-m wants to punish the person who killed accidentally, without witnesses, by having him kill again accidentally in front of witnesses.
How, though, are these statements of the Gemara to be reconciled with the statements mentioned earlier (in (b) above), which imply a different purpose to the law of Galus? The answer is that there are two different purposes for Galus. One purpose is to attain Kaparah. For the purpose of attaining Kaparah, a killer should flee to the Ir Miklat even if no one is pursuing him. The second purpose is the element of punishment. For the purpose of giving him a punishment, the Torah advises Beis Din to appoint a Go'el ha'Dam to pursue the killer.
When the Ritva writes that a person who admits that he killed accidentally does not receive Galus since there is no Go'el ha'Dam, he does not mean that the killer does not have a Mitzvah to go to the Ir Miklat. Rather, he should go to the Ir Miklat because of the need to attain Kaparah. The Ritva means that Beis Din does not sentence him to Galus, because Beis Din never enforces a punishment which is solely for Kaparah, as the Ritva quotes in the name of the RAMBAN (2b). (M. KORNFELD)