1)

(a)We learned in our Mishnah that a Ger Toshav is not subject to Galus, which we initially think incorporating - a Ger Toshav who kills a Yisrael and vice-versa ...

(b)... giving a Ger Toshav - the status of a Nochri (vis-a-vis the Din of Galus).

(c)The Kashya on this from the Seifa of our Mishnah is the Tana's ruling that - if he is considered a Nochri in this regard, them why does the Seifa rule that a Ger Toshav who kills a fellow Ger Toshav goes into Galus.

(d)Rav Kahana reconciles the two sections of the Mishnah - by confining the Reisha to a Ger Toshav who kills a Yisrael, who requires the death-penalty because Galus is not a sufficient Kaparah for him; whereas in the Seifa, where he only killed a Ger Toshav, Galus is a sufficient Kaparah. (Note: Whether a Yisrael who kills a Ger Toshav is Chayav Galus is subject to a Machlokes Rishonim).

2)

(a)In another version of the Kashya, the Pasuk in Mas'ei (in connection with the Arei Miklat) "li'Venei Yisrael ve'la'Ger ve'la'Toshav" appears to clash with the Pasuk there "ve'Hayu he'Arim ha'Eileh lachem" in that - whereas the first Pasuk includes a Ger Toshav who kills in the Din of Galus, the word "lachem" in the second Pasuk appears to exclude him.

(b)Rav Kahana answers (like he answered the first Kashya) - by differentiating between a Ger Toshav who killed a Yisrael and one who killed a Ger Toshav.

(c)Another Beraisa states 'Lefichach Ger (Toshav) ve'Oved-Kochavim she'Hargu, Neheragin'. 'Lefichach' refers to - the seven Mitzvos b'nei No'ach. The Tana has just taught us that 'their warning in the Torah, constitutes their death warrant', and no Hasra'ah is necessary before he transgresses (because a Nochri is Chayav Misah even be'Shogeg).

(d)The comparison between Ger and Oved-Kochavim teaches us that - like a Nochri, a Ger Toshav is always subject to Misah (and does not go into Galus), irrespective of whom he kills (even another Ger Toshav like himself, thus clashing with our Mishnah, which sentences him to Galus in the event that he kills another Ger Toshav).

3)

(a)To resolve the Kashya, Rav Chisda draws a distinction between an upward stroke and a downward one, by which he means that - our Mishnah is speaking about a downward stroke, for which a Ger Toshav who kills a Ger Toshav, like a Yisrael, goes into Galus; whereas the Beraisa is speaking about an upward stroke, for which a Yisrael is Patur from Galus, and for which the Ger Toshav is therefore sentenced to death.

(b)Rabah rejects Rav Chisda's answer because - if the Ger Toshav is Patur from Misah by a downward stroke because, like by a Yisrael, Galus will suffice, then by an upward stroke, where a Yisrael is even Patur from Galus, he should certainly be Patur from Misah!

(c)Consequently, Rabah establishes the Beraisa by 'Omer Mutar'. Abaye queried this however (as he did above) in that - 'Omer Mutar Oneis hu?'

(d)To which Rabah replied - 'she'Ani Omer, Omer Mutar Karov le'Meizid hu' (as he did above).

4)

(a)We conclude that Rabah and Rav Chisda follow their own reasoning. Rabah rules that a Ger Toshav who kills a person thinking that he is an animal, or a fellow Ger Toshav thinking that he is a Cana'ani - is Chayav Misah.

(b)Rav Chisda rules - that he is Patur, because 'Omer Mutar' is considered an Oneis.

(c)Rava queries Rav Chisda from the Pasuk in Vayeira (where Hash-m said to Avimelech) "Hincha Meis al ha'Ishah asher Lakachta" - which he assumed, means death at the hands of Beis-Din, indicating that 'Omer Mutar' is not considered an Oneis.

(d)To which Rav Chisda replied that - "Hincha Meis" means at the Hands of Hash-m.

5)

(a)Rav Chisda tried to prove his answer from Hash-m's words "me'Chato "*Li*", implying that Hash-m was responsible for Avimelech's sin and not his fellow man. Rava countered thayt however - by quoting Yosef's words to the wife of Potifera "ve'Chatasi l'Elokim", which must mean (not that he would be Chayav Misah at the Hand of Hash-m but) that although he would have sinned to Hash-m, his punishment would be meted out by Beis-Din; and that is what it means here too.

(b)Abaye queried Rabah from Avimelech's words to Hash-m "ha'Goy Gam Tzadik Taharog" - implying that Avimelech (who belonged to the category of 'Omer Mutar') was an Oneis?

(c)Rabah refuted Abaye's Kashya with a statement of Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan, who did not at first understand - why Hash-m told Avimelech "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish ki Navi hu", which implies that if Avraham had not been a Navi, Avimelech would have been permitted to retain Sarah (which is of course, ridiculous).

(d)So he explained ...

1. ... "ve'Atah Hashev Eishes ha'Ish" to mean - in any case, irrespective of Avraham's status.

2. ... "ki Navi hu" to mean that - 'he is a Navi, and only claimed that Sarah is his sister because he learned from your words what was in your heart (because the first question you asked Avraham was concerning his wife Sarah [instead of asking him whether he had somewhere to stay]). Consequently, it was not Avraham who tricked him, but he who caused Avraham to be afraid.

6)

(a)Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan extrapolated from there that - a ben No'ach is Chayav Misah for not learning the laws of Derech Eretz, should this cause him to sin ...

(b)... whilst Rabah proved that - Avimelech was not an Oneis, but was in Fact, Chayav be'Dinei Adam.

7)

(a)According to Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, a blind man who kills be'Shogeg does not go into Galus; according to Rebbi Meir - he does.

(b)According to the Tana Kama, a hater does not go into Galus either. According to Rebbi Yossi - he is even Chayav Misah.

(c)Rebbi Shimon compromises even on the Din of Galus, making it dependent on the way he killed the man he hates. If it looks as if he killed him on purpose, he goes into Galus; if not, he is Patur.

8)

(a)Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa initially learns from the Pasuk in Masei "be'Lo Re'os" (which implies a person with eyesight) that - a blind man is not subject to Galus.

(b)He then learns from the continuation of the Pasuk "bi'Veli Da'as" that - he is subject to Galus (because of the principle 'Ein Mi'ut Achar Mi'ut Ela le'Rabos' ['Two consecutive words that come to exclude, actually include']).

(c)Rebbi Yehudah initially includes a blind man from the Pasuk in Shoftim "va'Asher Yavo es Re'ehu". Consequently - when the Torah adds "be'Lo Re'os", it must be to preclude a blind man from Galus.

(d)And from "bi'Veli Da'as" he learns - 'P'rat le'Miskaven (Laharog es ha'Beheimah ve'Harag es ha'Adam... ', as we learned earlier).

9)

(a)The problem with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who sentences a hater to death, even if he killed be'Shogeg is that - there are no witnesses.

(b)And we answer by amending the name of the Tana to Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who states in a Beraisa that - a 'Chaver' (a Talmid-Chacham) does not require warning (because, in his opinion) the sole objective of warning is to distinguish between Shogeg and Meizid) ...

(c)... and our Mishnah is speaking - about a Chaver who killed with witnesses but without warning.

10)

(a)To explain Rebbi Shimon in our Mishnah (who makes it dependent upon how the hater killed), we differentiate between a rope that snapped - in which case he is Patur (as we shall see shortly) and one that slipped - which is considered Meizid in the case of a hater.

(b)We query this however, from Rebbi Shimon himself, who says that if Shimon kills be'Shogeg by allowing a trowel to fall on Reuven and kill him - he is Chayav Galus only if the trowel slipped out of his hands, but not if it broke).

(c)To answer the S'tirah on the two cases of the rope or the trowel slipping, we answer simply 'Ha be'Ohev' - (when he is Chayav Galus), 've'Ha be'Sonei' - (when he is Chayav Misah).

(d)And to answer the S'tirah between the two cases of snapping, we compare the rope snapping to the metal flying off the handle of an ax (Nishmat), and then establish our Mishnah like the Rabbanan - who sentence the latter to Galus (as we have already learned); whereas the Beraisa holds like Rebbi (who exempts even a friend from Galus in such a case).

(e)It emerges that, according to Rebbi Shimon - a hater will never go into Galus if we hold like Rebbi with regard to 'Nishmat'.

11)

(a)The basis of the mistake in our erroneous text 'Nifsak a'Nifsak Lo Kashya, Ha be'Ohev ... Nishmat a'Nishmat Lo Kashya, Ha Rebbi, Ha Rabbanan' is - the comparison between 'Nishmat ha'Chevel' and 'Nishmat ha'Barzel' (which in fact, are incompatible).

(b)And we reject this text a. because if 'Nifsak' goes into Galus by a Sonei, then how much more so by an Ohev, and b. - because if we establish 'Nishmat Eino Goleh' like Rebbi, then it pertains to Meizid too, and has nothing to do with the fact that even if he killed be'Shogeg, he probably did it on purpose (which is in fact, Rebbi Shimon's reason).

12)

(a)Our Mishnah explains that the Arei Miklat were situated - three in Eiver ha'Yarden and three in Eretz Cana'an ...

(b)... which the Tana calls by this name because that is what it was called at the time that they were commanded to set up the six towns.

(c)The three in Eiver ha'Yarden, which Moshe already designated, only came into effect - at the same time as the three in Eretz Yisrael, fourteen years after entering Eretz Yisrael ...

(d)... because the Torah writes in Masei "Sheish Arei Miklat Tih'yenah" (indicating that the six towns must come into effect simultaneously).

13)

(a)Our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "Tachin l'cha ha'Derech" - that - the roads leading to the Arei Miklat had to be cleared of any obstacles that might slow the murderer down (Tiferes Yisrael).

(b)According to the Tana Kama, Beis-Din would allot two Talmidei-Chachamim to accompany the Rotze'ach to the Ir Miklat - to convince the Go'el ha'Dam (the next of kin to the victim) not to kill him, should he catch up with them.

(c)According to Rebbi Meir - the murderer had to speak for himself ...

(d)... based on the Pasuk in Shoftim "ve'Zeh D'var ha'Rotze'ach".

(e)Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah maintains that initially, every murderer (even be'Meizid) had to run to an Ir Miklat. The procedure would then be - for the Beis-Din to judge him, and depending on his intentions, he would either be sentenced to death (if he was found to be a Meidiz), set free (if he was either Oneis or Karov le'Meizid) and made to flee to the Ir Miklat (a second time, should he be declared a Shogeg).

14)

(a)The Beraisa compares the two groups of Arei Miklat (one in Eiver ha'Yarden, the other, in Eretz Yisrael) - to two rows of a vineyard.

(b)In the latter group, Chevron and Sh'chem belonged to Yehudah and (Har) Efrayim respectively - whereas Kedesh (the northernmost of the three towns), belonged to Naftali.

(c)Regarding the three corresponding towns in Eiver ha'Yarden, Betzer was in the desert, Ramot in Gilad and Golan - in Bashan.

(d)In the Pasuk in Parshas Shoftim "ve'Shilachta es G'vul Artz'cha", the Beraisa explains the word "ve'Shilashta" to mean that - the distance between the northern and southern borders and the first town was equal to the distance between the first town and the second.

15)

(a)Abaye attributes the fact that Eiver ha'Yarden, where only two and a half tribes lived, required as many Arei Miklat as Eretz Yisrael to the fact that - there were a lot of murderers in Gilad (the center of Eiver ha'Yarden [see Tosfos DH 'be'Gilad', Hagahos ha'Bach and Mesores ha'Shas).

(b)This is based on the Pasuk in Hoshe'a "Gilad Kiryas Po'alei Aven Akuvah mi'Dam". Rebbi Elazar interprets "Akuvah mi'Dam" to mean that - they actually used to wait in ambush for passers-by, whom they would then murder (presumably for their money).

(c)Once again, Abaye attributes the fact that the distance between the extreme north and south of Eretz Yisrael to Kedesh and Chevron, respectively, was twice as far as the distance between them and the middle town (Sh'chem) - to the fact that in Sh'chem (like in Gilad) there were many murderers.

(d)In the relevant Pasuk in Hoshe'a, the Navi inserts the words "Chever Kohanim" - to describe the actions of the murderers in Sh'chem, who would band together to murder, like Kohanim would band together at the granaries to collect Terumah.