1)

(a)When Rav Yehudah Amar Rav lists two mistakes that Yo'av made when he 'held on to the horns of the Mizbe'ach in Shiloh', it cannot be taken literally - since Shiloh was destroyed many years earlier, in the days of Eli ha'Kohen.

(b)In reality, he took hold of - the horns of the Mizbe'ach that David built on a Bamah in front of the Aron.

(c)One of his two mistakes was that he held on to the 'horns' from below, whereas it is only the roof of the Mizbe'ach that is Kolet(protects); the other was that - it is only the Mizbe'ach in the Beis-Hamikdash that is Kolet, and not even that of Shiloh (let alone of a Bamah).

(d)The third mistake that Abaye adds was that - Yo'av was a Zar (a non-Kohen), and it is only a Kohen who is performing the Avodah that is exempt from Misah.

2)

(a)In similar vein, Resh Lakish lists the three mistakes that the Angel of Rome - (Samael) will make when he runs to Batzrah to avoid the death-sentence for all the murders that he and his nation perpetrated against Yisrael.

(b)He will err with regard to ...

1. ... the name of the 'city of refuge - which is Betzer (and not Batzrah).

2. ... the status of those who are permitted to take refuge in an Ir Miklat - which is human-beings (but not angels).

3. ... the nature of the murders that entitle a person to escape there - which is Shogeg (but not Meizid).

3)

(a)Rebbi Avahu extrapolates from the phrase in Mas'ei "u'le'Chol Chayasam" (in the Pasuk "u'Migresheihem Yih'yu li'Vehemtam, ve'li'Reshusam u'le'Chol Chayasam") - that the Arei Miklat are for living purposes exclusively, but not for burial, which is forbidden in an Ir Miklat.

(b)To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which Darshens "Shamah", 'Sham T'hei Kevuraso' - we confine the first D'rashah to the Levi'im who owned the cities, and the second one to the murderers, who must be buried there, due to the Gezeiras ha'Kasuv.

(c)The Beraisa extrapolates from the Pasuk "Veyashav bah" - "bah", 've'Lo bi'Techumah', that one is not permitted to live outside the town, even within the T'chum.

(d)Abaye reconcile this with our Mishnah, which forbids the Go'el ha'Dam to kill the Rotze'ach, once he reaches the T'chum (implying that within the T'chum is considered part of the town) - 'Ka'an Lik'lot, Ka'an Ladur' (being considered inside the town is one thing, living there is another).

4)

(a)The difference between 'Sadeh' and 'Migrash' is that - whereas the latter (which refers to land that has to be left uncultivated) incorporates the first thousand Amos outside the town, the former, incorporates the second thousand Amos.

(b)The Beraisa - forbids transforming a Sadeh into a Migrash and vice-versa, or a Migrash into part of the Ir and vice-versa.

(c)We nevertheless need the D'rashah "bah", 've'Lo bi'Techumah' - to forbid inhabiting it even underground (which would not encroach on the 'Migrash').

5)

(a)According to Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili, anyone is permitted to kill a Rotze'ach who leaves the Ir Miklat - provided the victim has no Go'el ha'Dam.

(b)He extrapolates from the word "Veratzach" (in the Pasuk [in connection with the Rotze'ach leaving the Ir Miklat] "Veratzach Go'el ha'Dam es ha'Rotze'ach") - that it is a Mitzvah for him to kill the Rotze'ach.

(c)Otherwise, the Torah should have written - "*Im Ratzach* Go'el ha'Dam es ha'Rotze'ach" (because the Lashon "Ve'... " is sometimes a Lashon of Mitzvah and sometimes R'shus).

(d)Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yossi Hagelili. He maintains that had it been a Mitzvah, the Torah ought to have written - "Yirtzach es ha'Rotze'ach" (which is a Lashon of Mitzvah exclusively).

6)

(a)Mar Zutra bar Tuvya Amar Rav holds neither like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili nor like Rebbi Akiva. Acording to him, a Go'el ha'Dam who kills the Rotze'ach should he leave the Ir Miklat - is Chayav Misah.

(b)This conforms to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer in a Beraisa, who learns from the Pasuk "ve'Lo Yamus ha'Rotze'ach ad Amdo lifnei ha'Eidah la'Mishpat" that - a Rotze'ach is only sentenced to death by Beis-Din, and cannot be killed by the Go'el ha'Dam (even if he leaves the Ir Miklat).

(c)Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Akiva learn from that Pasuk that - even if the Sanhedrin witnessed Reuven killing Shimon, they cannot put him to death by virtue of what they saw, but are obligated to go before another Beis-Din who will sentence him based on their testimony.

7)

(a)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk (in connection with the Rotze'ach leaving the Ir Miklat) "Im Yatzo Yatza ha'Rotze'ach" that - even if he leaves the Ir Miklat be'Shogeg, the Go'el ha'Dam may (or should) kill him.

(b)To reconcile this with the Beraisa "be'Meizid Neherag, be'Shogeg Goleh", we establish the latter - according to those who hold 'Dibrah Torah ki'Leshon b'nei Adam' (in which case, we do not Darshen anything from the double Lashon of "Yatzo Yatzta").

(c)Abaye supports the second opinion - because it is not logical for the end of the murderer to be more stringent than the beginning (where Shogeg goes into Galus and is not killed).

8)

(a)Initially, we connect the Machlokes whether a son can be a Go'el ha'Dam to avenge the blood of his brother, whom his father killed or not, with the Machlokes between Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili and Rebbi Akiva - by establishing the former like Rebbi Yossi ha'Gelili (who hold that it is a Mitzvah), and the latter like Rebbi Akiva (who holds that it is R'shus).

(b)We query this however, from a statement by Rabah bar Rav Huna and Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael, who say that - with he sole exception of where the father is a Meisis, a son may never be appointed to punish his father (not to administer Malkos and not to curse him, even though these are Mitzvos).

(c)When, to reconcile the two Beraisos, we conclude "Ha bi'Veno, ha be'Ben B'no'' we mean that - certainly everyone agrees with Rabah bar Rav Huna (that a son may not be a Go'el ha'Dam to kill his father), and the Beraisa which permits his son to be a Go'el ha'Dam against 'his father', is talking about the son of the murdered man (not his brother, as we thought at first), killing his (the murdered man's) father (who is his own grandfather).

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if the murderer is standing ...

1. ... inside the (T'chum of the) town, by the trunk, but where most of the branches are growing outside the walls - the Go'el ha'Dam may kill him, since the tree goes after the branches.

2. ... outside the (T'chum of the) town by the trunk, but where most of the branches are growing inside - he may not kill him, for the same reason.

(b)The Beraisa rules that if a tree is growing within the walls of Yerushalayim but whose branches protrude outside or vice-versa, then we disregard both the branches and the trunk. If he is within the walls he may eat Ma'aser Sheini, and if he is not, then he may not.

(c)Initially we resolve this apparent discrepancy by differentiating between Ma'aser and Arei Miklat - simply because whereas Ma'aser is determined by the wall of the town, Ir Miklat is determined by residence, and the branches are obviously more inhabitable than the trunk).

(d)This distinction is based on the Pesukim "Lifnei Hash-m Elokecha Tochlenu" (in Re'ei) and "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev" (Mas'ei) respectively.

10)

(a)The Mishnah in Ma'asros says 'be'Arei Miklat Halach Achar ha'Nof - bi'Yerushalayim Halach Achar ha'Nof' ...

(b)... clearly making no distinction between Ma'aser and Ir Miklat in this regard).

(c)We answer the S'tirah in Ma'aser by establishing the Beraisa like Rebbi Yehudah, who says that one may eat Ma'aser Sheini in Yerushalayim ...

1. ... in a cave on the outskirts of Yerushalayim - provided the entrance to the cave is inside.

2. ... by the trunk of a tree that is outside Yerushalayim - if the branches are inside ...

3. ... but not by the trunk of a tree that is outside Yerushalayim, if the branches are inside

(d)The author of our Mishnah is then Rebbi Yehudah, since he does not differentiate between Ma'aser and Ir Miklat.

(e)The Rabbanan (who do not differentiate either) go neither according to the branches nor according to the trunk, but according to whether the person concerned in inside the wall or outside (even with regard to Ir Miklat).

11)

(a)We query our current explanation by asking that perhaps Rebbi Yehudah only says his Din (without reservation) by Ma'aser, because it goes 'le'Chumra both ways, but not by Arei Miklat, which goes le'Chumra one way but le'Kula, the other - because he is not sure himself whether we go after the branches or not (so he follows the branches wherever it is le'Chumra).

(b)The Chumra by Ma'aser in the case where the owner is standing by the trunk, which is ...

1. ... outside, whereas the branches are inside, is that - he will no longer be able to redeem the Ma'aser (as if he was in Yerushalayim).

2. ... inside and the branches are outside - he will not be permitted to eat it (as if he was outside).

(c)The case that then creates a problem with regard to Ir Miklat is - where the murderer is standing by the trunk inside the town, whereas the branches are outside, permitting the Go'el ha'Dam to kill the Rotze'ach (a Kula), even though technically, he is standing inside the Ir Miklat.

12)

(a)Rabah upholds the query. The basis of the Tana'im's dispute therefore pertains to a case where the murderer is perched on the branches outside the walls, where Rebbi Yehudah permits the Go'el ha'Dam to climb up the trunk which is inside the town, in order to get to the murderer, whereas the Rabbanan forbid even that.

(b)And even the Rabbanan will concede in a similar case, where the murderer is also perched in the branches outside the walls, that the Go'el ha'Dam will be permitted to kill him from afar with arrows or stones - because they too agree, that the branches do not go after the trunk.

13)

(a)Rav Ashi disagrees with the entire Sugya. He amends the Lashon of our Mishnah 'ha'Kol Holech achar ha'Nof' to - 'ha'Kol Holech Af achar ha'Nof', implying that we certainly go after the trunk (but that we will even go after the branches le'Chumra).

(b)The implication refers to - where the murderer is standing by the trunk inside the town, in which case, we certainly do not go after the branches that are growing outside the wall (permitting the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him, as we thought until now).

(c)And we go after the trunk in a case - where the murderer is perched in the branches outside the walls, and the trunk is inside (in which case the Go'el ha'Dam is certainly not permitted to kill the murderer.

(d)The author of our Mishnah is still - Rebbi Yehudah, who is the one to go after the branches (at least, le'Chumra).

14)

(a)If a murderer kills someone be'Shogeg in an Ir Miklat - he must run to another district in that town.

(b)If the murderer is a ben Levi - then Lechatchilah, he must run to another Ir Miklat (seeing as, unlike the murderer, he is permitted to leave the town (since he was not exiled into it).

(c)The Beraisa learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... "ve'Samti *l'cha* Makom" that - Moshe would perform the Mitzvah (of setting up some Arei Miklat still) in his lifetime.

2. ... "asher Yanus Shamah" that - the Din of Arei Miklat applied in the desert, and someone who murdered be'Shogeg would have to run to the Machaneh Leviyah.

(d)If a ben Levi runs to another district in his own town (like a Yisrael) - Bedieved it is Kolet (see Tosfos DH 'Pilcho').

(e)Rav Acha b'rei de'Rav Ika learns from the Pasuk "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev" that - a Yisrael who already killed once runs to another district in the same town (Lechatchilah, and a resident ben Levi, Bedieved).