Today we continue our study of the law, laid out in Numbers 35, concerning a person who kills someone else accidentally. The accidental killer flees to a city of refuge and remains there, insulated from vengeance killing until the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:25). At that point, they may return home. Today’s daf explores the status of that person once they’re back home.
He returns to the same public office that he occupied prior to his exile — this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yehuda says: He does not return to the office that he occupied.
Rabbis Meir and Yehuda take differing positions on the question of whether the returning accidental murderer assumes the same position of authority he held before going into exile. The Mishnah doesn’t resolve this conflict, so the Gemara takes it up by first addressing what happens to a formerly enslaved Hebrew who returns home, as laid out in Leviticus:
Help us keep Jewish knowledge accessible to millions of people around the world.
Your donation to My Jewish Learning fuels endless journeys of Jewish discovery. With your help, My Jewish Learning can continue to provide nonstop opportunities for learning, connection and growth.
“And he returns to his family, and to the estate of his fathers he shall return.” (Leviticus 25:41) He returns to his family, but he does not return to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held — this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He even returns to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held. From the phrase “to the estate of his fathers he shall return,” it is derived that he returns to be like his fathers.
Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Meir’s arguments about the freed slave returning home parallel their original assertions: Rabbi Meir suggests that formerly enslaved people step back into their former roles and regain their former stature; Rabbi Yehuda disagrees. While the foundation of Rabbi Yehuda’s assertion isn’t clear, Rabbi Meir grounds his stance in close biblical interpretation, understanding “to the estate of his fathers he shall return,” as indicating that the return is not only physical but also social.
The Gemara continues:
And likewise, the same is true with regard to an exile sent to a city of refuge, as when the verse states: “To the estate of his fathers he shall return,” the term “he shall return” is redundant and it serves to include the unintentional murderer.
Although this verse is taken from Leviticus and the laws applying to the freed Hebrew, the Gemara concludes that the apparently superfluous phrase, “he shall return,” is a signal that this applies also to the accidental murderer.
How do we know that the superfluous phrase should be applied to the accidental murderer? Again, it’s a close reading of the biblical text:
What is the meaning of: And likewise, the same is true with regard to an exile? It is as it is taught in a beraita with regard to the verse: “The murderer shall return to his ancestral land” (Numbers 35:28), from which it is derived that he returns to his ancestral land, but he does not return to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held — this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says: He even returns to that status of prominence and honor that his ancestors held. Rabbi Meir derives this by means of a verbal analogy from there, i.e., between the term of “return” written with regard to the unintentional murderer, and the term of “return” written with regard to the Hebrew slave.
The language in Numbers, which references the exiled murderer, says that he returns “to his ancestral land.” What’s Rabbi Meir’s reasoning? He uses a gezerah shavah, an interpretive technique whereby the same word in two different passages signals a deeper connection between those passages. In this case, he holds that the word “return” in Leviticus and Numbers shows that two returnees should have similar outcomes.
Who wins this debate? Although Rabbi Meir brings the most textual proof, in the Mishneh Torah Maimonides sides with Rabbi Yehuda: “Although the killer has gained atonement, he should never return to a position of authority that he previously held. Instead, he should be diminished in stature for his entire life, because of this great calamity that he caused.” Maimonides seems to feel that one who has taken the life of another, even accidentally, should experience a consequence that lasts the rest of his life.
Read all of Makkot 13 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on April 21, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
