Commentary for Makkot 2:10

אלו הן הגולין. היה מעגל במעגילה – a smooth round stone that we roll on top of the plaster or clay that is at the tope to smooth out the fissures/cracks.

Introduction The second chapter of Makkoth discusses the laws regarding accidental killing. These laws are discussed extensively in Numbers 35:9-28, 32 and Deuteronomy 19:1-13. According to these passages, if a person killed another person by accident the victim’s relative could exact blood vengeance upon the accidental killer. If the accidental killer wanted to avoid being killed by the blood avenger he would run to one of the cities of refuge that were to be established when the Land of Israel was conquered. The accidental killer would have to stay in this city until the death of the High Priest at which point he could return to his former city and the blood avenger would be forbidden from killing him. The mishnah which we will learn today defines what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.

היה משלשל בחבית – from above to below

The following go into banishment: one who kills in error. If [for instance] while he was pushing a roller [on the roof] and it fell down and killed somebody; If while he was lowering a cask it fell down and killed somebody; If while coming down a ladder he fell on somebody and killed him, he goes into banishment. But, if while he was pulling up the roller it fell back and killed somebody; If while he was raising a cask and the rope snapped and the cask fell and killed somebody; If while going up a ladder he fell down and killed somebody, he does not go into banishment. (1) This is the general principle: [whenever the death was caused] in the course of a downward movement, he goes into banishment, but [if it was caused] not in the course of a downward movement, he does not go into banishment. This entire section illustrates the principle that an accidental death which will force the killer to go into exile is a case where a person is lowering a heavy object or he himself is going down a ladder and the object or the person slips and accidentally kills someone. If however, he was bringing something up or going up a ladder and the object or he fell downward he is not obligated to go into exile. The difference between the two is that in the first case the likelihood of injuring someone below is relatively high and he therefore should have been more cautious. In the second case, when he is bringing something up, the likelihood that it will fall below and cause injury is unlikely. Therefore he does not need to go into exile. This section illustrates an important difference in the Rabbinic understanding of exile from the Biblical understanding of exile. In the Bible the accidental killer’s fleeing to the refuge city is to his own advantage. If he does not the blood avenger will kill him. Exile is not a punishment for a crime or for negligence but legal protection offered to an accidental killer. In the Rabbinic legal system exile is a punishment for negligence. This is probably partly due to the fact that blood vengeance was not accepted in their society. The Rabbis understand exile as a punishment for negligence. Therefore if the killing was totally unanticipated, he need not go to the city of exile.

אבל אם היה מושך במעגילה – from below to above

If the iron slipped from its heft and killed [somebody]: Rabbi says, “He does not go into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He goes into banishment.” If it flew from the log being split: Rabbi says, “He goes into banishment.” And the Sages say: “He does not go into banishment.” Deuteronomy 19:5 brings up an example of accidental killing whereby a man goes into the forest with an ax and the “ax flies off the handle and strikes another so that he dies”. This phrase “ax flies off the handle” is read in two different ways. The Sages read the verse as we have translated it, that the instrument which kills is the metal part of the ax which flies off its handle. According to Rabbi (Judah the Prince) in this situation the person is not liable for exile. He reads the verse as if it states that the ax causes a chip to fly off from the tree and the chip kills someone else. [Rabbi would translate the word handle as “tree”, and they are both indeed the same word.] According to the Sages, in this situation he is not liable for exile.

כל שבדרך ירידתו גולה – As it is written: (Numbers 35:23): “or inadvertently dropped upon him/ויפל עליו [any deadly object of stone, and death resulted – though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm],” until it would be through falling, [and the word] "כל" includes even descending which is for the need of ascending.

נשמט הברזל מקתו – from the sleeve that it is fastened to

רבי אומר: אינו גולה – Rabbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) holds that if the iron (axe) chipped off the wood – that is, which was to be split (and the chip struck a person dead – see Tosefta Makkot, Chapter 2, Halakha 6), and not the wood handle which it is fastened to. But the Rabbis “from the wood” – from the wood handle to which it is fastened. And the Halakha is according to the Sages, for the wood that was to be split is an indirect action and via an indirect action, one is not exiled.

זרק את האבן לרשות הרבים – and even though it is close to acting with premeditation, for he should have thought that people would always be found in the public domain. Here we are dealing with a dunghill that was made in the public domain to be removed from there during the daytime and occasionally, it happens that he sits thee, and because of this, he is exiled, but it is not negligence nor is it totally unavoidably preventable (i.e., victim of an accident).

Introduction Mishnah two continues to define what killing is considered accidental such that it allows a killer to escape to a city of refuge.

והוציא הלה את ראשו וקבלה פטור – As it is written (Deuteronomy 19:5): “[…the ax-head flies off the handle] and strikes the other [so that he dies. That man shall flee to one of these cities and live].”

If a man threw a stone into the public domain and killed a person, he goes into banishment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: “If after the stone had left his hand another person put out his head and caught it, the thrower is exempt [from banishment].” One who throws a stone into the public domain has thereby committed a negligent act and is exiled if the stone kills. According to Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob the stone must be thrown at the place where a person is standing, before the stone is thrown. If after the stone is thrown a person moves into its way he is not liable to be exiled. This is probably because he is less negligent, having thrown a stone to a place where no one was standing. However, according to the first opinion in the mishnah, merely throwing a stone to a place that might kill is enough to cause the thrower to be exiled.

אם יש רשות לניזק – if the owner gave him permission to enter

If a man threw a stone into his [own] court and killed a person, then, if the victim had a right of entry there, the thrower goes into banishment, and if not, he does not go into banishment, as it says, “As when a man goes into the forest with his neighbor” (Deut. 19:5): the forest is a domain accessible to the victim and to the slayer and it therefore excludes the court of the householder where the victim has no right of entry. If a person throws a stone into his own courtyard and it kills a trespasser the thrower is not liable to be exiled. This is learned from the example of accidental killing mentioned in Deuteronomy 19:5, that of an accidental killing taking place in the forest. Just as the forest is a place where anyone may enter, so too any accidental killing can only occur in a place where the victim had permission to enter. An accidental killing which takes place on private property when the victim had not been given permission to enter will not make the killer liable for exile.

מה חטיבת עצים רשות – if he wants to go up to chop [wood], and if he does not want to, he does not go up.

Abba Shaul says: “Hewing of wood is an optional act and it therefore excludes a father beating his son, or a master disciplining his pupil, or an agent of the court [administering lashes].” Abba Shaul learns another law from the example given in the Torah, that of a person chopping wood. Chopping wood is a voluntary activity and therefore any accidental killing which will force the killer to go into exile must also entail voluntary activities. If however the striking was mandatory such as a father disciplining his son, a master his student or a court agent administering lashes, the accidental killer is exempt. When reading this mishnah, as harsh as it sounds we must remember that corporal discipline was an accepted part of all ancient societies.

יצא האב הרודה את בנו – for he is doing a Mitzvah

האב גולה על ידי בנו – for he did not hit him to teach him Torah or ethics or a trade

Introduction Mishnah three discusses categories of accidental killers who do or do not go into exile.

הכל גולין על ידי ישראל – and even a slave or a Cuthean

The father goes into banishment for [the death of] his son, and the son goes into banishment for [that of] his father. Although we learned in the previous mishnah that a father does not go into banishment if he accidentally kills his son while disciplining him, he nevertheless does go into banishment if he accidentally kills him under other circumstances. So too a son goes into banishment if he accidentally kills his father.

חוץ מעל ידי גר תושב – for if he inadvertently killed the son of an Israelite, he is not exiled, but is killed.

All go into banishment for [the death of] an Israelite, and Israelites go into banishment on their account, except for a resident alien. And a resident alien does not go into banishment except for [the death of another] resident alien. Anyone who accidentally kills an Israelite, meaning a Jew, is exiled, including a slave or a Samaritan (a sect that broke away from the Jews). So too, any Jew who accidentally kills someone goes into exile, even if he accidentally kills a slave or a Samaritan. The one exception is a resident alien, a person who lives in the Land of Israel and has accepted upon himself to perform the seven Noahide commandments (the prohibitions of idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual sins, theft, and eating from a living animal, as well as the injunction to establish a legal system) but has not fully converted to Judaism. If a Jew accidentally kills a resident alien he is not banished. However, if a resident alien accidentally kills a Jew he is to be executed. These laws are learned in the Talmud exegetically from Deuteronomy 19:5.

הסומא אינו גולה – As it is written (Numbers 35:23): “or inadvertently dropped upon him/"בלא ראות" [any object of stone, and death resulted – though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm],” excluding someone blind.

A blind person does not go into banishment, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Meir says: “He goes into banishment.” Numbers 35:23 states that if a person drops a stone on someone else “without seeing” he is to be banished. Based on this verse there is a dispute amongst the Sages with regards to the banishing of a blind person. According to Rabbi Judah since a blind person can never see he is exempted from the laws of banishment. According to Rabbi Meir, as long as the killing was accidental the killer is banished.

רבי מאיר אומר: גולה – [The words] "בלא ראות"/”or inadvertently dropped upon him (without seeing) , includes he blind person. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

An enemy does not go into banishment. Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “An enemy is executed, for it is as if he has been warned.” Rabbi Shimon says: “There is an enemy that goes into banishment and there is an enemy that does not go into banishment: wherever it can be said that he had killed [his victim] wittingly, he goes not into banishment, and where he had slain unwittingly, he goes into banishment. A person who accidentally kills his enemy is understandably going to be looked at with some suspicion. Deuteronomy 19:11 states that “If, however, a person who is the enemy of another lies in wait for him and sets upon him and strikes him with a fatal blow” this person is to be executed. The question our mishnah asks is what to do with the an enemy who claims that he killed accidentally. According to the first opinion, since he is an enemy, he is not banished. Neither is he to be executed by a court. Rather, the blood avenger is allowed to exact revenge upon this person and not be considered guilty of murder himself. According to Rabbi Yose bar Judah he is to be executed, for we can assume that he murdered with intent, and it is as if he has already been warned not to murder such and such a person. Rabbi Shimon states that not all situations in which a person kills his enemy are the same. If it can be stated that the enemy killed with intent than he is not to be banished. In other words, the cities of refuge will not offer him protection and the blood avenger will be permitted to exact revenge. If, however, it cannot be stated that he killed with intent he is banished like all other accidental killers.

השונא – all who did not speak with him for three days because of enmity (see Mishnah Sanhedrin Chapter 3, Mishnah 5 – but Israelites were not suspected of this, according to that Mishnah). And the Halakha is not either according to Rabbi Yosi B’Rabbi Yehuda nor like Rabbi Shimon, but rather, the one who hates is not killed nor is he given the shelter of asylum because his legal status is close to acting with premeditation.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why would you think that a father doesn’t go into banishment for his son? Why would you think that a son doesn’t go into banishment for accidentally killing his father?
• Section four: There are three different opinions in this section. Try to figure out how each opinion might be based on the verse in Deuteronomy.

להיכן גולין לערי מקלט – and forty-two Levitical cities also all of which provide the shelter of asylum, but those six cities of refuge, whether the one who enters there is murderer with the knowledge that he will receive asylum or whether one enters without the knowledge that he will receive asylum, it provides asylum. And the forty-two cities, with the knowledge that it absorbs, for without the knowledge that it absorbs, they do not absorb, and if the blood avenger was to kill him there, he is exempt.

To where are they banished? To the cities of refuge, to the three cities situated on the far side of the Jordan and the three cities situated in Canaan, as it says, “Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 35:14).
Not until three cities were selected in the land of Israel did the [first] three cities beyond the jordan receive fugitives, as it says, “Six cities of refuge in all” (Numbers 35:13), until all six could simultaneously receive fugitives.
Mishnah four begins to discuss the refuge cities, those cities to where the accidental killer would flee.

This mishnah begins to discuss the cities of refuge to where the accidental killer would flee in order to protect himself from the blood avenger. There were three cities on one side of the Jordan river (where the country of Jordan currently exists) and three in the land of Israel. Although the land on the other side of the Jordan river was conquered first and assumedly its refuge cities were assigned before the remainder of the land was conquered, nevertheless these refuge cities were not functional until all six had been conquered and assigned.

ומכוונות היו להם הדרכים – they would make the roads so that they would be in a line to the Cities of Refuge so that the murderer would not err on the way (see Talmud Makkot 9b – in which the cities in the Land of Israel and on the opposite side of the Jordan wer in straight parallel lines like two rows in a vineyard). And [the words] "מקלט מקלט" /”Asylum/Refuge”, “Asylum/Refuge” were written at the crossroads, in order that the murder would recognize it and turn to there.

Introduction Mishnah five discusses the making of roads to lead to the cities of refuge and the accompaniment of the manslayer as he makes his way.

וידברו אליו – they speak to the blood avenger: “do not follow the practice of those who shed blood; this matter came to his hand inadvertently.”

And direct roads were made leading from one to the other, as it says, “You shall prepare the way and divide the borders of your land into three parts” (Deut. 19:3). Roads were to be made leading to the cities of refuge so that the manslayer would not have a difficult time finding his way. Remember that if the blood avenger found him before he arrived at the city of refuge he could kill him without incurring penalty.

הוא מדבר על ידי עצמו – no Sages are required to speak to the blood avenger on his behalf, but he (i.e., the murderer) makes claims to himself. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

And they delegate to him to disciples of the Sages [as escorts] in case anyone attempted to slay him on the way, and that they might speak to him. Rabbi Meir says: “He may [even] plead his cause himself, as it says, “And this is the word of the manslayer” (Deut. 19:4). In order to prevent the blood avenger from finding the manslayer on his way to the city of refuge the court would assign two disciples of the Sages to travel with him and plead with the blood avenger should he try and attack while on the way. Rabbi Meir’s statement can be read in two ways. He may be suggesting that not only should the disciples of the Sages plead his case, but he should plead himself. According to this interpretation, Rabbi Meir does not disagree with the previous opinion, but rather adds upon it. Alternatively, Rabbi Meir may disagree with the previous opinion. Rabbi Meir may believe that only the manslayer may plead his case, but not the disciples of the Sages. In either case the act of pleading is learned from the verse in Deuteronomy which states “the word of the manslayer”, understood by Rabbi Meir to hint that the manslayer should plead his own case.

ואחד המרובה בגדים – since after the flask of anointing oil was hidden, he was not inaugurated to become the High Priest other than the wearing of eight garments.

Introduction The first half of mishnah six states that all killers, accidental or intentional, would initially flee to the city of refuge, before standing trial. The second half discusses issues concerning the death of the high priest, which according to Numbers 35:25, 28 is what allows the manslayer to leave the city of refuge and return home without fear of the blood avenger.

ואחד שעבר ממשיחתו – that a nocturnal emission befell the High Priest on Yom Kippur and they appointed another n his place. With the death of all of those, he returns, even though the other one is alive, since “High Priest” is written three times in the portion.

Rabbi Yose bar Judah says: “Initially a slayer is sent in advance to [one of] the cities of refuge, whether he had slain in error or with intent and then the court sends and brings him out. Whoever was found guilty of a capital crime the court had executed, and whoever was found not guilty of a capital crime they acquitted. Whoever was found liable to banishment they restored to his place [of refuge] as it says, “And the congregation shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled” (Numbers 35:25). Before a trial it is impossible to know whether the killing was done accidentally or with intent. Therefore, all killers flee to the city of refuge immediately. Afterwards the court sends for them and puts them on trial. If they are found guilty of murder they are executed. If they are found not to have killed with intent and not to have been negligent, then they are totally exempt and incur no penalty. If they are found to have killed accidentally, without intent but with some degree of negligence, then they are sent back to the city of refuge.

רבי יהודה אומר: אף משוח מלחמה – Another Biblical verse is written (Numbers 35:32): “…enabling one to return to live on his land before the death of the priest.” But the Rabbis, since “High Priest” is not written in this verse, they don’t expound it. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

All the same are [the deaths of] the high priest who had been anointed with the anointing oil; or had worn many garments, or had retired from his office all make possible the return of the manslayer. Rabbi Judah says also the [death of the] priest who had been anointed for war makes possible the return of the manslayer. There are several different types of high priests described in our mishnah. The first are those who have been anointed with oil, a practice that only existed during the First Temple period. The second are those who wore the high priest’s special clothing, which included more pieces of clothing than a normal priest. This would have included the high priest during the Second Temple period. Thirdly, the mishnah mentions a high priest who retires from office. The manslayer may leave the city of refuge at the death of any one of these types of high priests (see Numbers 35:25, 28). According to Rabbi Judah, even the priest who has been anointed to charge the people into war, referred to in Deuteronomy 20:2, is considered to be like a high priest, and therefore his death allows the manslayer to return home.

שלא יתפללו על בניהם שימותו – and they were negligent, for they should have requested for mercy on this generation that no religious offense should happen on them, and they did not request this.

Therefore, mothers of high priests would provide food and clothing for them [who had been exiled] that they might not pray for their son’s death. Naturally, it is in the best interest of the manslayer who has been banished to the refuge city for the high priest to die as quickly as possible. They may even pray for his speedy death. In order to encourage them not to pray for their sons’ deaths, the mothers of the high priests would feed and clothe the manslayers who were stuck in the cities of refuge.

משנגמר דינו – for exile, for when the proceedings were finished (i.e., the sentence was pronounced), and he is about to be exiled, it is as if he was exiled.

If the high priest died at the conclusion of the trial, the slayer does not go into banishment. If he died before the trial was concluded and another high priest was appointed in his stead and the trial was then concluded, the slayer returns [home from refuge only] after the latter’s death. If the high priest were to die after the conclusion of the trial the manslayer does not need to go into banishment, for the high priest has already died. Although he never reached the city of refuge, once his trial has been concluded it is as if he is already there. If, however, the high priest dies before the conclusion of the trial and a new one is appointed, the manslayer must wait until the newly appointed high priest dies before he can leave the city of refuge.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Section one: Why does Rabbi Yose bar Judah suggest that all killers initially flee to the refuge city, even before a trial?
• Section three: What does this section teach us about the nature of prayer in the eyes of the Rabbis?

נגמר דינו בלא כהן גדול – for there was no High Priest in the world

Introduction Mishnah seven continues to deal with various law concerning the cities of refuge.

לא לעדות מצוה – for example, for testimony of the [New] Month

If the trial was concluded when there was no high priest [in office], or if one kills a high priest, or a high priest that kills, [in these cases the manslayer] can never come away from that place [of refuge]. This section is a conclusion of the previous mishnah. If the trial of the manslayer is concluded at a time when there was no high priest he can never leave the city of refuge. Even when a new high priest is appointed, his death will not free the manslayer since he was not the high priest when the person was convicted of manslaughter. Similarly, one who kills a high priest or a high priest that kills can never leave the city of refuge, since there would be no existing high priest at the conclusion of the trial.

וכל אדם – except for the blood-avenger that killed him outside the City of Refuge is not liable for him, as it is written (Numbers 35:27): “[and the blood avenger comes upon him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the blood-avenger kills the manslayer,] there is no bloodguilt on his account.” For the blood-avenger has the permission to kill him. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba. And these words [of our Mishnah] is if he left [having murdered] with premeditation; but if he left [having murdered] inadvertently, every person who kills him is killed on his account.

He [the manslayer] may not go out to bear witness, neither for cases having to do with a religious observance, nor to bear witness in a monetary suit, nor to bear witness in a capital case. Even should [all] Israel need him, and even a general like Yoav the son of Zeruiah, he may never go out, as it is said, “to there he fled”: ‘there’ must be his abode, ‘there’ his death, ‘there’ his burial. The manslayer may not leave the city of refuge under any circumstance, even to testify to a religious matter, such as the new month. Neither may he leave to testify in monetary cases nor in capital cases. Even if he was a general in the army and Israel needed him in war, he may not leave. The mishnah emphatically states that “there”, i.e. in the city of refuge will be his permanent dwelling, his death and his burial.

הכל הולך אחר הנוף – The Gemara explains that even the location of the branches decides the nature of the territory (see Mishnah Ma’aserot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 10) is spoken of, for if the root was inside the borders of the City of Refuge and the branches stretch outside the boundary, since he enters under the branch, he is “absorbed,” [by the City of Refuge] since its roots are inside and we judge that the branches follow after the roots, but if the roots were outside and the branches were inside, for just as within its branches, he cannot kill him, in its root also, he cannot kill him, for we cast the root after the branch for a stringency.

Just as the city affords asylum so does its Sabbath boundary afford asylum. Just as the city proper offers the manslayer refuge from the blood avenger, so too does any area within the Sabbath limit (a boundary within which a person may freely travel on the Sabbath). This is defined as a 2000 amot perimeter of the city.

If a manslayer went beyond the boundary [of the city] and the blood avenger found him: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “For the avenger it is a matter of obligation [to kill him]; for everyone else, a matter of option.” Rabbi Akiba says: “It is a matter of option for the avenger, and anyone else [who kills him] is not liable for doing so.” If he does leave the city of refuge before the high priest dies, he is liable to be killed. According to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the blood avenger is actually commanded to kill him and any other person is permitted to kill him. According to Rabbi Akiva the blood avenger may kill him, and other people may not. However, if other people do kill him they are not liable as murderers.

If a tree was standing within the boundary and its boughs extended beyond [the boundary] or if it was standing outside of the boundary and its boughs extended within, it wholly follows [the position of] the boughs. A tree standing in the city and leaning out of it, or standing outside of the city and leaning in, is judged to be in our out of the city boundaries based on its boughs and not on the position of its trunk. This will be of import if the manslayer reaches the tree and the blood avenger tries to kill him. If the tree is in the boundaries the blood avenger may not kill him but if it is outside of the boundaries, he may.

If he slew [someone] in that city [of refuge] he is banished from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. And a Levite is banished from one city to another. A person who accidentally kills someone in a city of refuge presents a legal problem since he is already in the place that protects people from the blood avenger. The mishnah remedies this problem by stating that he is to be exiled from neighborhood to neighborhood. A Levite who lives in a city of refuge (see Numbers 35:6) may not stay in the city if he accidentally kills someone. Rather he must go to a different city of refuge.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?