Similarly, if a slayer fled to his city of refuge, and the people of that city wished to honor him, he must tell them: "I am a slayer"; and, if they persist, he may accept their homage, viz. (Deuteronomy 19:4): "And this is the word of the slayer" (i.e., He must say, in the above instance: "I am a slayer.") They would pay rent to the Levites. [In the forty-two (Levite) cities, which also grant refuge, the slayer pays rent to the man with whom he lodges.] These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Meir says: They would not pay rent to them. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir. (The disagreement obtains) only with the forty-two (Levite) cities, but with the six cities of refuge, all agree that no rent was paid.] And (upon leaving the city of refuge) he returns to his former eminence. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: He would not return to his former eminence, [it being written (Leviticus 25:41): "And he shall return to his family, and to the holding of his fathers shall he return" — He returns to his family, but not to the station held by his fathers. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yehudah.]
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?
