Having written "Makeh Ish ... " (in Pasuk 12), why does the Torah see fit to add this Pasuk?
Rashi (citing the Mechilta): It comes to preclude a. a doctor (operating on a patient), b. a Shali'ach-Beis-Din (administering Malkos), c. a father (who strikes his son) or a Rav (who strikes his Talmid) and d. someone who kills be'Shogeg, from the death-penalty, in the event that they inadvertently kill in the process. 1
"Le'hargo ve'Ormah" - to preclude a. b. & c. (even though they struck be'Meizid), and "ve'Chi Yazid" - to preclude d. (Rashi). See Torah Temimah, note 107, who elaborates.
What are the connotations of the unusual term "ve'Chi Yazid Ish"?
Sanhedrin, 41a: It implies 1 that after being warned, the sinner persists with the murder - the source of warning min ha'Torah. 2
From the fact that "Yazid" is written in furture tense (Torah Temimah).
The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin, 5:1 learns it from the word "be'Ormah" - See Torah Temimah, note 110.
Because "Yazid" is a Lashon of 'Bishul' - See Torah Temimah 104..
Yerushalmi Sanhedrin, 8:5: And by the same token, a boy can only become a Ben Sorer u'Moreh from the time he becomes an Ish - See Torah Temimah, note 105.
What are thee implications of be'Ormah"?
What are the connotations of "me'Im Mizb'chi "?
Rashi (citing the Mechilta) and Targum Yonasan: Even if he is a Kohen who wants 1 to serve on the Mizbe'ach, one takes him down to carry out the death-sentence (death by the sword - Targum Yonasan).
Ramban (in Mas'ei, citing the Mechilta) 2 : It implies that Beis-Din may only when the Mizbe'ach is standing.
Seforno: He holds on to the Mizbe'ach thinking that it will save him from the death-sentence. 3
Yoma, 85a: "me'Im Mizb'chi", 've'Lo me'Al Mizb'chi' - Once he has begun performing the Avodah one does not take him down to be killed. 4
Sanhedrin, 37a: Refer to 21:14:2:1. "me'Im Mizb'chi", 'Mizb'chi ha'Meyuchad Li' - to include a Kohen who wants to bring the Korban Tamid (a Korban Tzibur). 5
Which does not appear in our texts. See Torah Temimah, note 114.
A Chutzpah in itself - as Yirmiyah ha'Navi lamented.. See Yirmiyah, 7:11 (Seforno).
One does however, take him down to save a life - if he is a witness to testify on behalf of a person who is being tried in Beis-Din for a crime that carries the death-sentence, from which we can extrapolate that life-danger overrides Shabbos - See Torah Temimah, note 110.
See Oznayim la'Torah who elaborates.
Why does the Torah write "Tikachenu (and not than Tevi'enu) Lamus", as if Beis-Din was next to the Mizbe'ach?
Mechilta: We learn from here that Beis-Din do indeed sit near the Mizbe'ach. 1
Mechilta: One only removes a Kohen who wants to perform the Avodah from the Mizbe'ach in order to carry out the death-sentence, but not to adjucate (regarding money-matters), to administer Malkos or to send him into Galus.
Mechilta: A further hint lies in the Pasuk in Melachim 1, 2:28 "Vayanas Yo'av el Heichal Hashem". See Torah Temimah, not 113.
Why did Yo'av hold onto the Mizbe'ach [lest Shlomo kill him - Melachim 1 2:28]? Did he not know this verse?!
Moshav Zekenim: He had accepted David's curses, and said that he will not descend until [Shlomo] annuls the curses. 1
Divrei Eliyahu, Kol Eliyahu: The Yerushalmi says that he did not err. The Mizbe'ach is a shelter for those killed through the king's command, but not for those liable through Beis Din. Yo'av thought that Shlomo can kill him only through the king's command; Benyahu replied, he is liable even through Beis Din. Yo'av insisted that he die on the Mizbe'ach, for if it is through the king's command, his property goes to the king, and not to his heirs.
Can a curse be annuled? Rav regretted that he cursed Shmuel (Bava Kama 80b), but he was not able to retract, and it was fulfilled! (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that v'Chi Yazid excludes one who kills b'Shogeg. Why is this needed? Even one who hit b'Mezid without guile (intent to kill) is exempt! And it already says "Asher Lo Tzadah" to exclude Shogeg!
Riva citing R"M mi'Kutzi: He refers to a Mezid who is like Shogeg, i.e. he was not warned; he can say that he was Shogeg.
Hadar Zekenim, Riva: I would have thought that one who did not Tzad in any way is exempt, but one who intended to kill, even though he is Shogeg (he did not want to kill an innocent Yisrael) is liable.
Moshav Zekenim #1: We exclude one who is Shogeg from "me'Im Mizbechi." He does the Avodah, and then he is exiled. (If he was Mezid, we wait for him to finish the Avodah only if he already began it 1 .)
Moshav Zekenim #2: We infer "me'Im Mizbechi", but not me'Al Mizbechi (if he is in the middle of Avodah, he finishes it before we judge him to execute him). For Shogeg, even me'Al Mizbechi he is exiled; the Mizbe'ach is not a shelter and refuge. My first Perush (refer to 21:14:151:3) is primary.
Moshav Zekenim #3: We need to exclude one who hit b'Mezid with intent to harm, e.g. a Shali'ach Beis Din for lashes, or he chastises a Talmid or child, but he does not intend to kill. He is not killed.
Chizkuni: We do not take a Shogeg from the Mizbe'ach to exile him [even if he has no Avodah to do]. We take only "Lamus", but not for exile, or even for [one who must receive] lashes.
Bamidbar Rabah 23:13 and Tanchuma Mas'ei 12 connote that if he was Mezid, he is taken even in the middle of Avodah! And so says Ibn Ezra (but he concedes that Chachamim expounded unlike this). Bartenura says that the Gemara says so (our text in Sanhedrin 48b does not say so). However, one can explain the Midrashim to say that Yo'av would not err to think that the Mizbe'ach shelters one who is Mezid, i.e. a Zar who cannot serve on it; they agree that it shelters a Kohen, even Mezid, until he finishes the Avodah. (PF)
