(Mishnah): If he was sentenced...

(Rav Yehudah): "Va'Yanas Yo'av... va'Yachazek b'Karnos ha'Mizbe'ach" - Yo'av made two mistakes:

He grabbed the corners of the Mizbe'ach, but the Mizbe'ach is Kolet only someone standing on top;

Only the Mizbe'ach in the Beis ha'Mikdash is Kolet. He grabbed a Bamah that David had made in front of the Aron (Rashi's text).

(Abaye): He made a third mistake. The Mizbe'ach is Kolet only a Kohen engaging in Avodah, but Yo'av was a Zar.

(Reish Lakish): The Sar (overseeing angel) of Romi will make three mistakes in the future - "Mi Zeh Ba mi'Edom... mi'Batzrah"

The Ir Miklat is Betzer, but he went to Batzrah;

Kelitah is only for Shogeg, but he was Mezid;

Kelitah is only for people, but he is an angel.

(R. Avahu): We do not bury Leviyim in the Arei Miklat. "U'Migresheihem... ul'Chol Chayasam", they are for life, and not for burial.

Question (Mishnah): "Shamah" - he will live, die and be buried there.

Answer: Burial of murderers is different. The Torah explicitly commanded about it.

(Mishnah): Just like the city is Kolet, also its Techum.

Contradiction (Beraisa): "V'Yashav Bah" - not in the Techum.

Answer (Abaye): The Techum is Kolet, but he may not dwell there.

Question: No one may live there!

We may not convert a Migrash (1000 Amos surrounding a city in each direction) into a field or city, or vice-versa!

Answer (Rav Sheshes): Normally, one may dwell in the outskirts under the ground. "Va'Yashav Bah" forbids this to a murderer.

(Mishnah): If a murderer left the Techum...

(Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): "V'Ratzach Go'el ha'Dam Es ha'Rotze'ach" - (if a murderer left the Techum,) it is a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him. If there is no Go'el ha'Dam, anyone else is permitted;

R. Akiva says, the Go'el ha'Dam may kill him. Anyone else is (Gra's - not) liable if he kills him.

Question: What is R. Yosi ha'Galili's reason?

Answer: It does not say 'Im' (if). It says "v'Ratzach" (imperative, he will kill)!

R. Akiva says, had it said 'Yirtzach', this would clearly be imperative, but 'v'Ratzach' can be Reshus! (Ritva - R. Akiva agrees that this tense usually denotes the imperative, but we do not expound to kill unless it is explicit.)

(Rav Zutra bar Tuvya): If the Go'el ha'Dam found and killed the murderer outside the Ir Miklat (R. Chananel - before Beis Din ruled that he is exiled), he is killed.

Question: This is not like either Tana!

Answer: He holds like R. Eliezer;

(Beraisa - R. Eliezer) Question: What do we learn from "Ad Amdo Lifnei ha'Edah la'Mishpat"?

Answer: One might have thought that "v'Ratzach Go'el ha'Dam Es ha'Rotze'ach" teaches that he should kill him immediately. "Ad Amdo..." teaches that this is only after he is warned not to leave (Ritva; R. Chananel - until Beis Din sentences him to Galus).

Question: How do R. Akiva and R. Yosi expound "Ad Amdo..."?

Answer (Beraisa - R. Akiva): If the Sanhedrin witnessed a murder, they do not kill him. He is tried in a different Beis Din - "Ad Amdo Lifnei ha'Edah la'Mishpat."

(Beraisa #1) Suggestion: Perhaps "Im Yatzo Yezte ha'Rotze'ach" (he may be killed) is only if he left his city b'Mezid!

Rejection: "Im Yatzo Yezte" - the verb is doubled to include even Shogeg.

Version #1 - Rambam's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): (If he left b'Shogeg), if someone (the Go'el ha'Dam or anyone else) kills him b'Mezid is killed, b'Shogeg he is exiled.

Version #2 - Ritva's text - Contradiction (Beraisa #2): If he left b'Mezid he is killed. If he left b'Shogeg he returns to Galus. (end of Version #2)

Resolution: The Tana of Beraisa #2 holds that the Torah speaks as people do (they sometimes double words, therefore, we need not expound this). The first Tana does not.

(Abaye): It is more reasonable to learn like Beraisa #2. His liability for leaving the city should not be more stringent than for killing;

One who kills b'Mezid is killed, but b'Shogeg he is only exiled. It suffices to make him just as liable for leaving the city!

(Beraisa #1): If a father killed (his son), his son becomes the Go'el ha'Dam.

Contradiction: (Beraisa #2): If a father killed (his son), his son does not become Go'el ha'Dam.

Suggestion: Beraisa #1 is like R. Yosi ha'Galili (since it is a Mitzvah to kill, even a son can do this). Beraisa #2 is like R. Akiva (who holds that it is only Reshus.)

Rejection: Even if it is a Mitzvah, a son may not kill his father!

(Rabah bar Rav Huna, also Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): A son may not be appointed to lash or curse his father, unless his father was a Mesis, about which it says "v'Lo Sachmol v'Lo Sechaseh Alav."

Answer: Beraisa #1 means that the son of the murdered son becomes Go'el ha'Dam (to kill his grandfather). Beraisa #2 means that another son of the father does not become Go'el ha'Dam (to kill his father).

(Mishnah): If a tree is within the Techum of an Ir Miklat, and the foliage is outside, or vice-versa, the entire tree has the law of the foliage. (If the murderer is on the trunk, it is as if he is on the foliage.)

(Gemara - Mishnah #1) Contradiction: (Regarding Ma'aser Sheni) if a tree is within Yerushalayim and the foliage is outside, or vice-versa, any place on the tree is judged like the ground below (e.g. if it is inside the city wall, Ma'aser Sheni may be eaten there, but not redeemed).

Answer: You cannot ask from Ma'aser to Arei Miklat. Ma'aser depends on being within the wall, but Arei Miklat depends on dwelling;

One can dwell in the foliage, but not on the trunk.

There is a contradiction regarding Ma'aser itself!

(Mishnah #2): Regarding (eating or redeeming Ma'aser in) Yerushalayim, we adopt the law of the foliage; regarding Arei Miklat, we adopt the law of the foliage.

Answer (Rav Kahana): Mishnah #1 is like Chachamim, Mishnah #2 is like R. Yehudah.

(Beraisa - R. Yehudah): (Regarding Ma'aser), if a cave is partly in Yerushalayim, the entire cave is like the opening. Regarding a tree, we adopt the law of the foliage.

Question: Perhaps R. Yehudah adopts the law of the foliage only to be stringent, to forbid redeeming (on the trunk) if the foliage is inside Yerushalayim, and to forbid eating if the foliage is outside;

Also, if the trunk is outside an Ir Miklat and the foliage is inside, he would be stringent to forbid killing the murderer on the trunk;

However, if the trunk is inside and the foliage is outside, would he say that since one could kill the murderer if he were on the foliage, he may kill him if he is on the trunk in the Ir Miklat?!

Answer (Rava): All agree that he may not kill him on the trunk (in the Ir Miklat);

If he is on the foliage, all agree that he may kill him by shooting arrows or throwing rocks;

They argue about whether or not he may climb up the trunk in order to get to the murderer to kill him.

(Mishnah): If a murderer went to Galus and killed in the Ir Miklat, he is exiled to a different neighborhood in the city;

If a Levi killed in his city, he is exiled to a different Ir Miklat.

(Gemara - Beraisa): "V'Samti Lecha Makom" - in your (Moshe's) lifetime (you will separate Arei Miklat);

"Makom" - from your place (the Arei Miklat will be the Leviyim's cities).

"Asher Yanus Shamah" teaches that Galus applied in the Midbar.

Question: Which place was Kolet?

Answer: Machaneh Levi was Kolet.

This is the source that if a Levi killed, he is exiled to a different Ir Miklat. If he exiled himself to a different part of his city, it is Kolet.

(Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): We learn from "Ki v'Ir Miklato Yeshev" - the city that was already Kolet him.

(Mishnah): Similarly, if a murderer was exiled to a city, and the people wanted to honor him, he must tell them 'I am a murderer';

If they still want to honor him, he should let them - "v'Zeh Davar ha'Rotze'ach."