Wenn ein Jäger in seine Zufluchtsstadt geflohen ist und die Menschen dieser Stadt ihn ehren wollten, muss er ihnen sagen: "Ich bin ein Jäger"; und wenn sie fortbestehen, kann er ihre Hommage annehmen, nämlich. (5. Mose 19: 4): "Und dies ist das Wort des Jägers" (dh er muss im obigen Fall sagen: "Ich bin ein Jäger.") Sie würden den Leviten Miete zahlen. [In den zweiundvierzig (levitischen) Städten, die ebenfalls Zuflucht gewähren, zahlt der Jäger dem Mann, bei dem er wohnt, Miete.] Dies sind die Worte von R. Yehudah. R. Meir sagt: Sie würden ihnen keine Miete zahlen. [Die Halacha stimmt nicht mit R. Meir überein. (Die Meinungsverschiedenheit besteht) nur mit den zweiundvierzig (levitischen) Städten, aber mit den sechs Zufluchtsstädten sind sich alle einig, dass keine Miete gezahlt wurde.] Und (nach Verlassen der Zufluchtsstadt) kehrt er zu seiner früheren Eminenz zurück. Dies sind die Worte von R. Meir. R. Yehudah sagt: Er würde nicht zu seiner früheren Eminenz zurückkehren, [wie geschrieben steht (3. Mose 25:41): "Und er wird zu seiner Familie zurückkehren, und zum Besitz seiner Väter wird er zurückkehren."—Er kehrt zu seiner Familie zurück, aber nicht zu der Station seiner Väter. Die Halacha stimmt nicht mit R. Yehudah überein.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
מעלים היו שכר ללוים – In the forty-two cities [of the Levites] that also absorb, the murderer accounts a reward to the owner who dwells in it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
Introduction
Mishnah eight deals with the arrival of the manslayer in the city of refuge, his acceptance there, and his eventual leaving of the city.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
ורבי מאיר אומר וכו' – But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir, and specifically in the forty-two [Levitical] cities, but in the six Cities of Refuge, everyone admits that we do not account a reward to the owner.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
A manslayer who went to his city of his refuge and the men of that city wished to do him honor, should [refuse] by saying to them, “I am a manslayer!”. If they say to him, “Nevertheless” he should accept from them [the proffered honor], as it is said: “and this is the word of the manslayer.” Upon reaching the city of refuge the manslayer should initially attempt to refuse any honors that the people of the city may offer him. However, if they insist he may accept. This is learned from the verse, “and this is the word of the manslayer.” The mishnah understands the verse as hinting that the manslayer need only speak one word of refusal of honor. He need not refuse a second time.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Makkot
לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה – as it is written (Leviticus 25:41): “…he shall go back to his family and return to his ancestral holding.” To his family he returns, but he does not return to what his family held. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
They used to pay rent to the Levites, according to the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “They did not pay them rent.” According to Numbers 35:6 the cities of refuge are actually owned by the tribe of Levi which was not apportioned a geographical inheritance in Israel as were the other tribes. Therefore Rabbi Judah states that those who fled to the city of refuge must pay rent to the Levites. Rabbi Meir hold that they need not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
And [on his return home] he returns to the office he formerly held, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: “He does not return to the office he formerly held.” When he returns to his former home after the death of the high priest, Rabbi Meir holds that he returns to his former positions of power and honor. Rabbi Judah holds that he does not.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Makkot
Questions for Further Thought: • What might be the connection between the two disputes at the end of this mishnah? Are Rabbis Meir and Judah holding consistent opinions? If so, what conception of manslaying underlies each of their words?
