English translation — מסעי ב

Sicha b

A.

The Rambam wrote¹

: "The exile does not leave his city of refuge ever,

And even for a matter of a mitzvah or etc. And even to save a life through his testimony or to save from the hand of the idolater or from the hand of the river or from the hand of the fire or from the collapse,

Even if all Israel need his salvation like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, he does not leave there ever until the death of the Kohen Gadol,

And if he left, he permitted himself to death as we have explained²

".

And the source of his words is in the Mishnah Makkot

: "And he does not go out, neither etc. nor for capital testimony

And even an Israelite

they need him, and even the commander of the army of Israel, like Yoav ben Tzeruyah, does not go out from there forever, as it is said, 'who fled there'

there shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial."

And the later authorities asked

why does he not go out to save lives,

and behold, saving a life overrides the entire Torah,

and why is the commandment of dwelling in his city of refuge not set aside for the sake of saving a life?

And especially when all of Israel need his salvation,

for then it is saving lives

(not only of an individual but)

of many,

saving the lives of all of Israel,

and behold, there is nothing that stands before saving a life,

even of an individual,

and all the more so and how much more so of many and of the entirety of Israel.

And several answers were said in settling the matter:

a)

Since a murderer who goes out from his city of refuge, it is a commandment

(or at least permission)

in the hand of the blood avenger to kill him,

and likewise all other people are not liable for him

(as per the opinions in the continuation of the Mishnah),

behold, by his going out he endangers himself — and therefore there is no obligation on him to endanger himself for the sake of saving his fellow,

for your life takes precedence<sup>8</sup>.

And based on this they explain⁹

what the Rambam added at the end of the halacha "And if he went out, he freed himself<pg>128</pg>

to death",

that with this his intention is to explain the reason of the law that he does not go out from there even to save lives — because he should not bring himself into a situation of doubt of danger for the sake of saving his fellow

(even from certain danger).

And they already raised a difficulty on this explanation&lt;sup&gt;10&lt;/sup&gt;,

that in addition to this that the essence of the law that there is no obligation to put oneself in a doubt of danger in order to save one's fellow from certain danger,

is disputed,

and according to many poskim there is an obligation in the matter&lt;sup&gt;11&lt;/sup&gt;,

and especially when it is about a matter of danger to life of all of Israel — behold ostensibly in our matter there is not even a doubt of danger&lt;sup&gt;12&lt;/sup&gt;,

for it is obvious that one whom all of Israel need his salvation like Yoav ben Tzeruyah,

the general of the army of Israel,

can defend himself against the avenger of blood,

and furthermore — who can say&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;

that it is forbidden to close the door against the avenger of blood until the refugee saves all of Israel.

And also what is said that the conclusion of the language of the Rambam is a reason for the above is not so clear,

for from the language of the Rambam "And if he went out he permitted himself to death" it does not imply that this is a matter of a reason for the law

(that he does not go out),

for then it should have said that "he does not go out from there forever..

that if he went out he would permit himself to death" and the like.

b)

There are those who wrote&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;,

that since through him the killing of a soul was caused, it is far that merit should be caused through him.

And it is difficult to say that this is the reason of the law,

for how is it possible to rely on this reasoning to push aside because of it the obligation of saving a life — which pushes aside the entire Torah entirely,

and even a doubt and a doubt of a doubt.

c)

And there are those who say it is a decree of the verse&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

"There shall his dwelling be etc.",

that he does not go out from there for any matter in the world,

even for a great need like the rescue of the entirety of Israel&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;.

But also this answer needs explanation — for it is a great principle that pikuach nefesh overrides the entire Torah,

And how we learn the interpretation of this principle — whether in a place of pikuach nefesh the obligations of the Torah do not apply at all

(as we learn&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

from "and live by them&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;,

and not die by them"),

or that pikuach nefesh overrides all the laws of the Torah,

and that is, in relation to the obligation of saving lives,

whether his own or of others,

no law of the laws of the Torah overrides it — why should the scriptural decree of "there you shall be etc." override the obligation of pikuach nefesh that overrides the entire Torah?

(And in the learning of "there you shall be" it is not stated that this law applies also in a place of pikuach nefesh,

and pikuach nefesh of all of Israel).

&lt;pg&gt;129&lt;/pg&gt;

B.

And this will be understood with an introduction to the explanation of what the Rambam wrote "And if he went out, he surrendered himself to death as we explained."

In simple terms, the intention,

there is room to say,

that although according to the law he does not leave there forever,

nevertheless,

if he left in order to save a life through his testimony or to save from the hand of etc. — this is not considered as if he left willfully

(regarding which the Rambam wrote above&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

that he permitted himself to death)

but rather as if he left unintentionally,

in which case "whoever kills him, whether the blood avenger or any other person, is exiled on his account"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;,

and that is to say that then we do not say he permitted himself to death,

since he left only in order to save etc.

And on this the Rambam teaches us,

that since it is forbidden to leave,

therefore if he left to save etc. "he permitted himself to death".

But this itself requires a reason — what is the reason of the matter,

that leaving in order to save etc. is considered as leaving willfully that permits himself to death&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;,

and yet he left to save a life from Israel.

And it appears to say,

that the Rambam wrote it here as a law in itself,

and the intention is not only to inform the law,

but rather that this is also a reason for this that he does not leave from there ever.

3.

And the explanation in this:

Regarding the definition of one who leaves his city of refuge, the Rambam wrote above&lt;sup&gt;2&lt;/sup&gt;

: "He entered his city of refuge and left its boundary intentionally, behold this one permitted himself to death,

and permission is given to the blood avenger to kill him, and if anyone else killed him, they are not liable for him&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

as it is said&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

he has no blood".

And simply it implies,

that this that "he permitted himself to death" is because permission is in the hand of the blood avenger to kill him, and anyone else is not liable for him.

But according to this, it is difficult in the language of the Rambam,

that he should have said "behold this one permitted himself to death because permission is given to the blood avenger to kill him, and if anyone else killed him etc."?

And furthermore, the main point — why did the Rambam add "behold this one permitted himself to death" — what does he inform us with this?

And why did he not suffice with copying the language of R. Akiva "

(he went outside its boundary intentionally)

permission is in the hand of the blood-avenger to kill him, and if any person killed him, they are not liable for him"?

And it appears to say,

that the Rambam says here two laws concerning the law of one who goes outside the boundary intentionally: a)

"he permitted himself to death",

b)

"and permission is in the hand of the blood-avenger to kill him, and if any person killed him, they are not liable for him" — and they are two different laws that are not dependent on each other:

The first law is regarding the conduct of the murderer himself — that when he goes outside his city of refuge "he permits himself to death",

And this is not a result of the permission and license for the blood-avenger to kill him&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

And also because according to all a person they are not liable for him,

Rather this is due to the essence of his going outside his city of refuge&lt;sup&gt;*23&lt;/sup&gt;

(as below)

;&lt;pg&gt;130&lt;/pg&gt;

And the second law — in relation to the killing of the murderer by another

(the one who finds him outside his city of refuge),

And in this there is a distinction between the blood-avenger and other people,

That the blood-avenger has permission to kill him,

And all other people only "they are not liable for him"

(but they are forbidden ab initio,

even though he is a "dead man").

And it is to be said,

that this that "he permitted himself to death" is learned from the verse "And he shall flee there — there shall be his dwelling

(there shall be his death, there shall be his burial)

",

that is to say,

that his vitality is only in his city of refuge,

and if he goes out, the category of "vitality" is removed from him and he permitted himself to death and he is like a "dead man"²⁴.

[And it is to be said further,

that the intention of the verse²⁵

"And he shall flee to one of these cities and live" is — that a killer of a soul is fit to be in the category of a "dead man",

except that in the cities of refuge²⁶

a law was renewed for him²⁷

of "and live",

that the category of "dead man" is removed from him].

4.

Based on the above, it is simply understood that he does not go out from his city of refuge even to save,

that there is no need for the fact that a person is not obligated to put himself into a doubtful danger in order to save his fellow or for the sake of saving the entirety of Israel — but rather since according to Torah law when he goes out from his city of refuge,

there is upon him the status of a "guilty man",

it is impossible that any obligation or law should apply to him to go out from his city of refuge for any matter whatsoever.

And therefore it is impossible to say also in our case that saving lives of the entirety of Israel would permit him to save,

for the law and commandment of saving lives cannot apply to one about whom the Torah says that through the act of saving he becomes a "guilty man".

[And perhaps one may add in the way of allusion and homily²⁸

— that this very thing that the saving of lives of Israel should be dependent on a person whom the Torah forbade to go out from his city of refuge

(in a manner that if he goes out "he permits himself to death"),

compels one to say,

that it is revealed before Heaven that there is here no saving of lives,

and this person has no ability to bring rescue and salvation.

And according to the explanation of the Ramban

regarding the law of conspiring witnesses, that if "they killed, they are not killed"

— since he was killed according to the Torah in the court,

this itself compels [us] to say,

that before Heaven it is revealed that he was not righteous and died for his sin,

for "if he were righteous, God would not have abandoned him into their hands".

[pg] 131 [/pg]

And according to this, the conclusion of the Mishnah there is well explained,

that the teaching of this law is from the verse "where he fled there — there shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial",

and this means that his life and existence is only in his city of refuge,

but outside of it [it is] not; and consequently it is impossible that any obligation should apply to him

(including the obligation and commandment of saving a life)

connected with his leaving his city of refuge,

since he has no life and existence except "there".

And it must be said,

that this is also what was brought there not only "there shall be his dwelling" but also "there shall be his death, there shall be his burial",

at first glance what does this pertain to our subject?

— But rather this comes to teach us that this that he must be in his city of refuge is not only in the category of a commandment and obligation upon him to be there,

and a prohibition to go out from there,

or even more than this — that the place of his vitality is only "there",

but rather additionally,

that outside of his city of refuge he has no existence at all&lt;sup&gt;*30&lt;/sup&gt;

— and therefore it is impossible for any law and obligation to apply to him

(also that which is connected with his going out from there)&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;.

And the Rambam did not bring the teaching from the verse,

but he hints at the reason of the law at the end of his language "And if he went out he made himself liable to death",

that he is precise to bring this language specifically

(and not that permission to kill him etc.),

which is the first law that was explained above,

that the very going out of his city of refuge causes that he be like a dead man.

5.

The lesson from all this:

Torah is compared to a city of refuge,

as our Sages of blessed memory [said]: "Words of Torah..

provide refuge"³².

And the relationship of Israel to Torah is like [that of] a fugitive to a city of refuge,

that Torah is "our life and the length of our days"³³,

and without Torah, Israel is, may it not be said, like "a slain man",

as the well-known parable of Rabbi Akiva [about] fish and the waters of the sea³⁴.

And from this a lesson for one who thinks that by means of this that he goes out of the "four cubits of Torah",

i.e., making compromises in his conduct in Torah and mitzvos,

and even in the finest of fine points — he can save souls and the like,

that he should know,

that outside the Torah he is in the category of "a slain man",

and he does not go out at all even

(if in his opinion it is)

to save all of Israel — because since he is outside the refuge of Torah,

which is "our life and the length of our days",

it is impossible that salvation for a Jewish person should come out from this.

And may it be His will that through the study and the give-and-take in the laws of exile

(the cities of refuge),

and in general through the addition of each and every one in the study of Torah,

this will hasten even more the going out of the children of Israel from the &lt;pg&gt;132&lt;/pg&gt;

Exile in which we are,

and fulfillment of the prophecy³⁵

"Zion shall be redeemed with justice and her captives with charity",

and these days shall become joy and gladness and good festivals,

immediately and forthwith.

(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira and Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah 5747)