web analytics
March 3, 2015 / 12 Adar , 5775
At a Glance
Judaism
Sponsored Post


Home » Judaism » Parsha »

Arei Miklat

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

This column is dedicated to the refuah sheleimah of Shlomo Eliezer ben Chaya Sarah Elka.

In parshas Masei the Torah discusses the halachos regarding when one person accidentally kills another. The Torah says that a relative of the victim (goel hadam) may avenge the death of his relative by killing the murderer who acted accidentally. According to the Torah, the perpetrator must go to one of the arei miklat (city of refuge). While in the ir miklat the goel hadam may not kill the murderer who acted accidentally. If he does kill him while he was in the ir miklat, he will be liable for murder.

The Gemara in Makkos 11b draws from a pasuk in this week’s parshah,asher nas shamah, v’yashav bah – he should run there and dwell there,” that an accidental murderer must remain in the ir miklat forever; even if klal Yisrael needs him, he may not leave. The Mishnah says that even if he is someone like Yoav ben Tziruya, a general in the army, he may not leave the ir miklat to fight a battle for klal Yisrael.

The Acharonim are bothered by this halacha. They point out that pikuach nefesh is generally docheh (takes precedence) over all other mitzvos. Why then is the pikuach nefesh of all of klal Yisrael not docheh the mitzvah of remaining in the ir miklat?

The Ohr Somayach (Hilchos Rotzeach 7:8) suggests that the reason why the accidental murderer should not leave the ir miklat, even for the pikuach nefesh of all of klal Yisrael, is because as soon as he leaves the city the goel hadam may kill him. One is not obligated to risk his own life in order to save someone else’s life. Therefore the accidental murderer should not leave under any circumstance.

However, this answer only fits according to those who opine that one is not required to save another person when his action possibly puts his life in danger. The Hagaos Maimanis (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14) quotes a Yerushalmi that says that one is required to save another person who is definitely in danger of losing his life, even if by doing so he is putting his own life at risk. The Beis Yosef (Choshen Mishpat 426) explains that since one person’s life is in certain danger, that fact precedes the possibility that another person’s life is in danger. According to this opinion, this question remains: Why can the accidental murderer not leave to save another person’s life? After all, it is not assured that he will be forfeiting his life by leaving the city. Thus, according to this opinion, he should be obligated to leave.

Others suggest that although it is not certain that the goel hadam will kill the accidental murderer if he leaves the ir miklat, nevertheless when he leaves he attains the status of a gavra kiteila (dead man). If someone else kills him, that person will not be liable for murder, for he killed someone who was already considered dead. A person is not required to place himself in a situation whereby he considered killing a gavra kiteila in order to save another person’s life.

The Cheshek Shlomo, in Makkos, asks another question on the halacha that an accidental murderer cannot leave the ir miklat under any circumstance. He says that the implication is that he may not leave, even to eat the Korban Pesach. If one does not eat the Korban Pesach he is liable for kareis. Why does the assei of eating the Korban Pesach, which has the punishment of kareis if not eaten, not doche the mitzvah of remaining in the ir miklat?

According to the Ohr Somayach that explains that the reason why the accidental murderer may not leave the ir miklat is because this action endangers his life, we can answer this question as well. There is a mitzvah of v’chai bahem v’lo she’yamus bahem (we should live by the mitzvos and not endanger our lives by performing the mitzvos). Since by leaving the ir miklat the accidental murderer will be endangering his life, he is not required to perform the mitzvah of eating from the Korban Pesach.

Perhaps we can extend this answer to explain the opinion that one must enter into a safek sakanas nefashos – which is certain danger – in order to save another person’s life. For this opinion only posited that one must enter a safek life-threatening situation in order to save another person’s life. It was not said that they do not consider a safek life-threatening situation to not indeed be safek life- threatening. Consequently, even the Yerushalmi would agree that one should not put himself into a safek life threatening situation in order to perform a mitzvah – even if the mitzvah has a punishment of kareis if not performed. Therefore, an accidental murderer would not leave the ir miklat – even to perform a mitzvah (such as eating the Korban Pesach) that has kareis attached to it.

About the Author: For questions or comments, e-mail RabbiRFuchs@gmail.com.


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Arei Miklat”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
President Barack Obama and Iran do not speak the same language..
Any Deal Is a Bad Deal
Latest Judaism Stories
wine

One can drink up to the Talmud’s criterion to confuse Mordechai and Haman-but not beyond.

Hur and Aharon holding up Moshe's hands as Joshua battled Amalek.

“The voice is the voice of Yaakov, but the hands are the hands of Esav” gives great insight to Purim

Esther Denouncing Haman

Purim is the battleground of extremes, Amalek and Yisrael, with Zoroastrian Persia in between.

Niehaus-022715

One should not give the money before Purim morning or after sunset.

The mishloach manos of times gone by were sometimes simple and sometimes elaborate, but the main focus was on the preparation of the delicious food they contained.

Does Hashem ever go away and not pay attention to us?

In other words, the Torah is an expression of the Way that we must follow in order to live a divine-like life and to bond in the highest way possible with God or Being Itself.

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

The avodah (service) of the kohen gadol is vital and highly sensitive; the world’s very existence depends on it.

Moreover, even if the perpetrator of the capital offense is never actually executed, such as when the fatal act was unintentional, Kam Lei applies and the judge cannot award damages.

Forever After?
‘Obligated for Challahh and Not Terumah’
(Kesubos 25a)

Question: If Abraham was commanded to circumcise his descendants on the eighth day, why do Arabs – who claim to descend from Abraham through Yishmael – wait until their children are 13 to circumcise them? I am aware that this is a matter of little consequence to our people. Nevertheless, this inconsistency is one that piques my curiosity.

M. Goldman
(Via E-mail)

“We really appreciate your efforts in straightening the shul,” said Mr. Reiss. “How is it going?”

This was a spontaneous act of rest after the miracle of vanquishing their respective foes. The following year they celebrated on the same days as a minhag.

The way we must to relate to our young adult children is to communicate with genuine loving-kindness

More Articles from Rabbi Raphael Fuchs
Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The Chasam Sofer answers that one of only prohibited from wearing a garment that contains shatnez if he does so while wearing the garment for pleasure purposes.

Taste-of-Lomdus-logo

The Aruch Laner asks: How can Rashi say that the third Beis Hamikdash will descend as fire from heaven when every Jew prays several times a day for the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdash?

The Ohr Hachayim rules that one may not manipulate the system; rather he must state his opinion as he see the ruling in the case; not as he would like the outcome of the verdict to become.

He suggests that the general admonition only dictates that a father may not actively enable his son to perform an aveirah.

Rather than submit to this fate and suffer torture and humiliation, Shaul decided to fall on his sword.

And if a person can take steps to perform the mitzvah, he should do so (even if he won’t be held accountable for not performing it due to circumstances beyond his control).

The Brisker Rav suggests that the barad, in fact, only fell on people, animals, and vegetation.

Why is it necessary to perform an aveirah punishable by lashes in order to be deemed a legal rashah and be pasul l’eidus m’d’Oraisa?

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/parsha/arei-miklat/2013/07/04/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: