- This topic has 41 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 6 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Under what circumstances does someone who kills unintentionally have to go to a Ir Mikalt? Under what circumstances (i.e. negligence) is the killer unable to seek refuge in the Ir Miklat? And in such a case (negligence) what happens to the killer?
If the killer leaves the Ir Miklat, which family members of the victim are allowed to kill him? Can they kill him with any method they choose?
If someone kills intentionally — murder — but there was no warning by two witnesses, and he thus escapes the death penalty, can family members of the victim kill him? Obviously the killer wont be able to avail himself to a Ir Miklat in a murder case and why should the family members of the victim have less right to kill the perpetrator if he killed intentionally than if he killed unintentionally?
There is a whole perek in Mesechtos Makos dedicated to this topic but as a general rule someone who is not obligated to go to an ir miklot for wathever reason cannot be killed by the victems family.
I hope you’re not planning anything, Splenda…
“deiyezooger: One of my questions (the last one) was why. If an unintentional killer can be killed by the victims family why can’t an intentional killer (without the requisite warning that would allow the death penalty) not be killed by the victims family?”
The point of being aloud to kill an unintentional killer is just a means to force him into galos (ir miklat) as a kaparah for killing b’shogeig.
The point of being aloud to kill an unintentional killer is just a means to force him into galos (ir miklat) as a kaparah for killing b’shogeig”
Also to force him to live amongst the Leviim, who were the models of correct behavior and attention to detail, which had he possessed those qualities, he would never have been so negligent as to cause someone’s preventable death.
if he kills on purpose and bais din can’t kill him (no aidim or hasraah)or almost on purpose (korov l’maizid) then the family can kill him and running into an ir miklat won’t protect this killer.
ajewfrommonsey. on what do you base your comment?
It could be the basis is Makkos 10b the braisa halfway down tanya R’Yosi b. Yehuda…
Thats not what the Braisa says. Not how I understand Rashi. The way I understand the opinion of R’ Yosi (see Rashi) is that all rotzchim go to ir miklat. Beis Din then brings him from there to court. The one who is chayev (misa) is given to the goel hadam and is killed. The one who is pattur is sent home (the drasha on vihitzilu haeda) and one who is chayev galus is sent back. That is a far cry from, someone who cant be convicted in beis din the family has free reign.
??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???, ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????
????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????
??? ?? ??????? ???? ?????? ????? 1????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???
????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? 12 ??????
???? ?? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ??????? ???? ??????
???? 12 ?????? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???
apushatayid-
Your understandinf of that doesn’t compute. You mentioned 3 cases:
1. Intentional killer with warning from witnesses is brought from Ir Miklat to court, convicted, executed.
2. Accidental killer is brought from Ir Miklat to court, determined to be accidental, sentenced to Ir Miklat.
3. Intentional killer without warning from witnesses is brought from Ir Miklat to court, and then sent free?
Why should Case 3 have it off when Case 2 doesn’t?
It’s clear from the gemara above this one that the goel hadam has a chance to kill the rotzeach (whether shogeg or mazid) while he is traveling to the ir miklat. Two Talmidei Chachamim will accompany and try to convince him not to by saying acc. to the Maaratz Chayis, Hashem brought this about b’shogeg because the victim must have killed someone b’mazid previously and this man was just the unfortunate shaliach of Hashem to punish your relative, as the gamara says above also Hashem mazminim l’pundoc echad…
BTW How do you know that after the beis din is m’chayiv him misa he is “given to the goel hadam” although those are the words of the posuk here what about the gem in Sanhedrin Vahavta l’reecha going on the one being led out to be executed?
I did not mention 3 cases. You did. I mentioned 3 possible verdicts (and then cited the words of the gemara that say the same).
The 3 verdicts are possible as follows.
Chayiv misa. Someone killed with eidim and hasra.
Completly pattur. (This you didn’t mention) I guess, the killing was pure onnes.
One who is chayiv galus. This is one who kills “bishogeg” which is not the same as “ones”.
Again, from this braisa i do not see “if beis din can’t convict they hand him over to family”. If you do, which part of the braisa teaches it.
And why should an intentional murderer without hasra have a better outcome than an accidental killer?
who knows
maybe its a worse outcome.
maybe because he isnt deserving of a kaporah in olam ha zeh. ask a Talmid Chachom
you cant question a gezaras ha casuv from your personal concepts of reward and punishment
I’m questioning the claim that an intentional murderer without hasra goes scott free under beis din. I learnt the din the same way “ajewfrommonsey” explained it above.
Actually the gemara implies above that Hashem will bring about his “execution” by arranging him to be in a place such as an inn and stand under a ladder where a Jew (who himself is chayiv galus but was not sent yet) will fall on him and he will be killed.
i understand what you are questioning
its just that we are unable to question it by saying thats not fair.
if you learned that the din is that he doesnt go free then thats fine.
but not to say it cant be the din that he goes free because why should an intentional murderer without hasra have a better outcome than an accidental killer?
APY,
AFAIK There is a 4th verdict, that of negligent but not willful murder; i.e. when the axe head flies off and kills on the down stroke. That person does not get to go to the Ir Miklat (to be safe), nor is he considered beyond retribution from the Goel Hadam.
I don’t beleive that anyone is “handed over to the family”, but in this case he better watch out. He’s now a target with no place for refuge.
Perhaps my wording wasn’t clear. If the din had been he goes free, even though he committed an intentional murder, I would accept that entirely. I am *only* questioning if the din is in fact like that. I believe it is not.
why should an intentional murderer without hasra have a better outcome than an accidental killer?
The purpose of Hasrah is to inform the doer of the punishment. WE can not punish without warning what it would be. Also Hashem does the same in His Torah, where for all punishments, there is the “Lav” and the “Azhara” (the law & the warning).
That being said, 80 is as usual 100% correct. Punishment in Yiddishkeit is not “Lehachis”. Just like Gehennom, it is a needed cleansing of the soul, like scrubbing a stain off a shirt. If the stain is too strong, there is no need to scrub, as it will not come out in any case.
However, there is “Kipa” for those who Bais Din decides that their being in society will harm others.
“2. Accidental killer is brought from Ir Miklat to court, determined to be accidental, sentenced to Ir Miklat.
3. Intentional killer without warning from witnesses is brought from Ir Miklat to court, and then sent free?
Why should Case 3 have it off when Case 2 doesn’t? “
I beleive that there are two situations where the killer is sent out and not to an Ir Miklat:
1) Complete Ones – totally patur. The Goel Hadam can’t touch him.
2) Negligent – should have taken precautions but didn’t. The killer does not get the protection of the Ir Miklat.
MDG: So when does the killer get the protection of the Ir Miklat (from Goel Hadam) *only* as long as he remains in the Ir Miklat?
Here is the psak of the Rambam- Sefer Nezikin, Hilchis Rotzeach V’Shmiras Nefesh(Laws of Murder), chapter 6, no. 5 – What should this one (who cannot be sent to galus) do? He should sit and guard himself from the goel hadam. And so too all killers that killed with only one witness or without hasra and the like, if they are killed by their goel hadam they(the goel hadam) are not treated more stringently than with the ones that killed with no intention.
Is the consensus that the Goel Hadam can exact revenge on an intentional murderer who doesn’t have the protection of the Ir Miklat? (As ajewfrommonsey maintains.)
concensus shmonsensus. look in the gemara.
So the Rambam is saying that the Goel Hadam can kill a murderer who didn’t receive hasra or only had one witness. Does the Beis Din, when acquitting the perpetrator from the death penalty (due to a lack of warning), still issue a determination of guilt on the defendent that, even though he is not executed, he is not acquitted? And then the Goel Hadam can kill the murderer who didn’t receive hasra (or only had one witness).
MDG: So when does the killer get the protection of the Ir Miklat (from Goel Hadam) *only* as long as he remains in the Ir Miklat?
AFAIK, Yes.
An, unintentional killer, who was not negligent (e.g. upswing of the axe), get protection from being in the Ir Miklat. Completely accidental (Ones) goes out free, and the unintentional but negligent (downswing of the axe) is a “marked man” with no refuge available. Col sheKain an intentional killer is a “marked man”.
Col sheKain an intentional killer is a “marked man”.
IOW, an intentional killer who beis din can’t execute (i.e. no hasra or only one witness) can be killed by the goel hadam.
The Raavad says on this Rambam – Taimah! How do we believe one witness to permit his blood to the goel hadam!!
So from his words the answer to your question would be yes they “permit his blood to the goel hadam”
BTw see kesef Mishna who answers Raavads kasha.
I don’t understand the Raavad’s kasha. By an unintentional murder we permit his blood to the goel hadam even if there is NO witnesses (and he admits he killed someone unintentionally), no? So why should an intentional murderer need a higher standard than an unintentional killer?
MDG – You are a bit off with upswing and downswing. The Gem. and Rambam clearly say upswing is patur from galus and downswing is chayiv galus from the use of the word vayapol “and it fell” in the posuk in Bamidbar 35. The Rambam seems to explain it that things which fall downwards are more likely to damage because they move faster.
Hacham- I don’t believe the bais din can sentence anyone to galus without interviewing witnesses.
Thanks for correcting me. I think I may be remembering a Daat Yachid there. It’s been about 7 years since I last learned Maccot.
Let’s daven real hard for the days when we will have arei miklat (but never a need for them) and return of the sanhedrin. We’ll be able to get a clear cut psak.
littleapple
How does the Keshef Mishna answer the Raavad’s kasha?
Hi Stamper sorry I didn’t see your question till now. The Kesef Mishna says the Rambam meant aidus meyuchedes rather than regular one witness which is for instance a witness that saw the incident exactly from 3pm to 3:02 pm and then another that saw it from 3:03 to 3:06 pm or alternatively they saw it at the same time from two different windows and could not see each other; neither of these are acceptable to mechayiv misas beis din al pi 2 witnesses but according to this Rambam it seems the Bais din would not hold a goel culpable if he acted in these cases, so the Rambam advises the killer to protect himself from that time forward…
The Keshef Mishna? Is that a peirush on Harry Potter?
Al pi halacha, if someone killed b’shogeg today what would be the halachic consequences?
Gavra-at-work, you are wrong. Sometimes punishments are just to punish not as means of kapora — some people go to Gehinom forever or loose their share in Olam Haba.
That might be true of Hashem’s punishments but not of Beis Din. No doubt, Hashem will indeed punish him.
But even of Gehenom, it fulfills a purpose and eventually they become ??? ??? ???? ???????.
think it depends on how u learn the gemara on 2b.
Similarly we say ain onshin min hadin- we dont learn out a punishment in bais din from a kal vchomer. According to the Maharsha this is because a worse crime may deserve a worse punishment. Being that the punishment’s purpose is for a kaporah, a worse crime may not be covered by (/deserving of) this kaporah and bais din wont be allowed to “help” him with the punishment of a lighter offense.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.