Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina asks why the Parshah of Rotzchim (in Yehoshua, in connection with the Arei Miklat) was said in a strong Lashon, by which he means - with a Lashon of 'Dibur' (even though throughout the Sefer, the Torah generally uses a Lashon of 'Amirah').

He answers that - this particular Parshah was said with reference to the Parshah of Arei Miklat in the Torah, which is written withy a Lashon pn Dibur.

We learn from the Pasuk in Mikeitz "Diber ha'Ish Adonei ha'Aretz Itanu Kashos" that - Dibur is a strong Lashon (which stems from the Midas ha'Din).

The Beraisa, based on the Pasuk "Yadber Amim Tachteinu", describes "Az Nidb'ru Yir'ei Hash-m Ish el Re'eihu" as gentle. "Yadber Amim Tachteinu" means - 'Hashem will lead nations to be under our jurisdiction'. In any event, this implies that 'Dibur' is a soft Lashon (Midas Rachamim), a Kashya on Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina.

We reconcile Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina with the Beraisa - by differentiating between 'Daber' (which is a strong Lashon of speech) and 'Yadber' (which is a gentle Lashon of leading).

Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan argue over the previous point; One explains Yehoshua's use of 'Dibur' like Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina. The other - - attributes it to the fact that he failed to inform Yisrael about the Arei Miklat as soon as it was told to him.

Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemyah argue over the Pasuk "Vayichtov Yehoshua es ha'Devarim ha'Eileh be'Sefer Toras Elokim". One of them ascribes this to the Pesukim of the Arei Miklat (which we have just been discussing). The other - to the last eight Pesukim in the Torah (which speak after Moshe's death).

The first opinion explains the words "be'Sefer Toras Elokim" to mean that - Yehoshua wrote in his Sefer things that were already written in the Torah.

Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir argue over a Sefer-Torah that one stitched with linen threads. One opinion learns from the Pasuk in Bo "Lema'an Tih'yeh Toras Hash-m be'Ficha" that - just as Tefilin (based on a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai) must be stitched with Gidin (animal sinews), so too, must a Sefer-Torah.

The other opinion validates it in spite of the 'Hekesh' - because, in his opinion, the 'Hekesh' only teaches us that, like Tefilin, a Sefer-Torah must be written on K'laf that is made from hides of an animal that one is permitted to eat (since this is clearly insinuated in the Pasuk), but does not incorporate other things that are Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai.

Rav commented that - the Tefilin (or the Sifrei-Torah) that he saw in the house of his uncle Rebbi Chiya - were stitched with linen threads ...

... but that the Halachah was not like him.

The Mishnah rules that a Kohen Merubeh Begadim who dies releases the murderers from the Ir Miklat just like a Mashu'ach be'Shemen ha'Mishchah. They cannot serve simultaneously - because it was only from the time of Yoshiyahu ha'Melech (after the jar of anointing oil was hidden) that the Kohen Gadol was appointed by wearing the eight Begadim. Prior to that, he was anointed with the Shemen ha'Mishchah.

A Kohen she'Avar mi'Meshichaso who dies also release him. This refers to a Kohen who stands in for a Kohen Gadol who became Tamei before or during the Avodah of Yom Kipur, and who subsequently stands down, when the Kohen Gadol becomes Tahor once again.

The fourth category of Kohen Gadol that Rebbi Yehudah adds to the list is - a Kohen Mashu'ach Milchamah.

The the mothers of the Kohanim Gedolim would distribute food and clothes to the murderers - to discourage them from Davening that their sons should die (to enable them to go free).

According to Rav Kahana, the Tana Kama of our Mishnah learns from the three Pesukim in Masei "Veyashav bah ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol", "Ki be'Ir Miklato Yeishev ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" and "ve'Acharei Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" that - the three Kohanim Gedolim that he lists in our Mishnah release the murderers from the Ir Miklat with their death.

Rebbi Yehudah includes a Mashu'ach Milchamah from the Pasuk "Lashuv ba'Aretz ad Mos ha'Kohen". The Rabbanan disagrees with him - because the Pasuk there omits the word "ha'Gadol", implying that this Kohen is merely one of the three mentioned earlier.

We learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "ke'Tzipor Lanud ki'Deror La'uf, Kein Kilelas Chinam Lo Savo" that - a baseless curse will not materialize.

That old man quoting Rava reconciled our Mishnah with this Pasuk - by basing the mothers of the Kohanim's fears on the fact that the murders would not have occurred had their sons Davened that such things should not happen in Yisrael, in which case, the murderers' prayers were not baseless.

The alternative version to 'K'dei she'Lo Yispal'lu al B'neihen she'Yamusu' is - 'K'dei she'Yispaleu al B'neihem she'Lo Yamusu' (because otherwise, they might die automatically).

Before arriving at the same conclusion as we did in the first version we were faced with the problem why the Kohen Gadol should die because of the sins of murderers?

Eliyahu ha'Navi did not speak to Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi for three days - because someone was eaten by a lion and Rebbi Yeoshua ben Levi had not Davened for such an occurrence not to happen; and even though this took place at a distance of three Parsah (twelve Mil), such was Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi's piety that his Tefilos would have succeeded in preventing it.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav said that the curse of a Chacham - will materialize even if it is unfounded ...

... and he learned it from - David's curse of Achitofel (as we shall now see).

When David was digging the foundations for the Beis-Hamikdash, and the depths threatened to drown the world, David asked how he was able to dig the foundations of the Beis-Hamikdash, despite the fact that he had not yet purchased the land on which it was to be built, from Aravnah ha'Yevusi - because years earlier, he had already worked out together with Shmuel, its exact location. (Presumably, he then dug the foundations with Aravnah's consent).

David then asked was - whether it was permitted to write Hash-m's Name on a piece of clay and throw it into the depths, to confine the water of the depths to its current location (even though it was bound to become erased).

Eventually, Achitofel resolved David's She'eilah by Darshening a 'Kal va'Chomer - from a Sotah, where Hash-m permitted His Name to be erased in order to make peace between man and wife; how much more so to save the world.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learned his Din from that episode - because when initially, nobody responded to David's She'eilah, he placed a curse upon anyone who knew the answer and did not divulge it, to the effect that he would be strangled. Achitofel divulged the information, yet he died by strangulation.

Achitofel strangled himself, because he was frustrated when Avshalom accepted the advice of David's friend (and spy) Chushai ha'Arki, against his own, and this was the first time in his life that his advice was spurned.

Rebbi Avahu learned from Eli and Shmuel that the curse of a Chacham materializes even if the condition that accompanies it is fulfilled - because Eli told Shmuel that he would be made to suffer what he was suffering if he did not reveal to him what Hash-m had said. He did indeed reveal to Eli Hash-m's terrible prophecy, yet his children (like Eli's) did not go in his ways.

Rav Yehudah Amar Rav learns from Yehudah, whose bones 'rolled in the coffin' - that a Niduy (Cherem) will materialize, even if the conditions to which it is attached are fulfilled (seeing as Yehudah was punished in this way, even though he returned Binyamin safe and sound, as promised).

Yehudah's bones - were taken out of Egypt by the members of his tribe, as were the bones of all the sons of Ya'akov,

Rebbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni Amar Rebbi Yonasan learns from the juxtaposition of the Pasuk "Y'chi Reuven ve'Al Yamos" to that of "ve'Zos li'Yehudah ... " - that (due to the self-imposed Niduy), Yehudah's bones were rolling in the coffin throughout the forty years in the desert, and that Moshe was now Davening on his behalf that they should come together.

The connection between Reuven and Yehudah is that - it was Yehudah, who did Teshuvah on his sin (concerning Tamar), who inspired Reuven (who sinned against his father regarding Bilhah's bed) to follow suite, and if Reuven's Teshuvah was excepted, it would not be fair for Yehudah to still be suffering.

When Moshe Davened 'Sh'ma Hash-m Kol Yehudah", Yehudah's bones knitted together. When he said ...

... "ve'El Amo Tevi'enu" - he was accepted as a member of the Celestial Beis-Din.

... "Yadav Rav lo" - he was able to participate in the discussions that went on there.

... "ve'Eizer mi'Tzarav Tih'yeh" - he was also able to answer (according to the Halachah) the Kashyos that the angels asked.

We ask whether the death of one of the Kohanim Gedolim will suffice to release the murderers from the Arei Miklat or whether all of them (either a Mashu'ach or a Merubeh Begadim plus the others) must die to release them. The next Mishnah rules that in a case where the Din of a murderer is concluded when there is no incumbent Kohen Gadol - he will never go free.

We try to resolve the She'eilah from there - because if it was any of the three (or four Kohanim Gedolim who released the murderers from the Ir Miklat, why should a murderer whose Din was concluded with no Kohen Gadol in office, not go free with the death of one of the other Kohanim Gedolim (a proof that all three Kohanim Gedolim must die, before the murderers can go free).

But we refute the proof by establishing the Mishnah where there were none of the other Kohanim Gedolim at the time.

Our Mishnah rules, in a case where the Kohen Gadol died ...

... after the murderer's Din was concluded, before he had a chance to run to the Ir Miklat that - he is exempt from having to run.

... and they appointed a new one, before his Din was concluded - then he will be released only when the second Kohen Gadol dies.

We already cited the Mishnah's ruling that if the murderer's Din was concluded before a new Kohen Gadol had been appointed, then he will never go free - and the Tana issues the same ruling in a case where someone killed a Kohen Gadol or the Kohen Gadol killed someone.

We learn from the Pasuk "Asher Nas Shamah" - that the murderer must live, die and be buried in the Ir Miklat.

Even if K'lal Yisrael need the murderer, like for example, Yo'av the commander-in-chief of the army, who are about to go to war - he is not permitted to leave (and if he does, he is a the mercy of the Go'el ha'Dam).

If the Go'el ha'Dam catches up with the murderer outside the walls of the town, but within the T'chum (the Shabbos boundaries) of the town - he is not allowed to kill him there, even though he is still outside the walls of the town.

According to Rebbi Yossi Hagelili, if a Rotze'ach left the Ir Miklat, it is a Mitzvah for the Go'el ha'Dam to kill him, but for anybody else - it is R'shus (voluntary).

According to Rebbi Akiva - the Go'el ha'Dam has R'shus to kill him, whereas anyone else is not Chayav for killing him (though he ought not to have done it [some texts read, 'Chayavin alav' - 'is Chayav']).

A murderer does not go into Galus if the Kohen Gadol dies after the G'mar Din, says Abaye - due to a 'Kal va'Chomer' from one who is already in the Ir Miklat when the Kohen Gadol dies, which sets him free, how much more so that he it absolves him from having to go there in the first place.

We answer the Pircha that perhaps a murderer who has been in Galus has at least attained a Kaparah, whereas one who has not been in Galus has not - by pointing out that it is not the Galus that serves as a Kaparah, but the death of the Kohen Gadol (see Tosfos DH 'Midi').

Rav Kahana learns from the Pasuk "Veyashav bah ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol asher Mashach oso be'Shemen ha'Kodesh", that (seeing as the murderer is not the one to anoint the Kohen Gadol), what the Pasuk must therefore mean is that - if the Kohen Gadol is anointed (only after the murderer committed the murder, but) before the G'mar-Din, the latter only goes out with his death.

Even though the second Kohen Gadol was not yet anointed at the time when the murderer killed, he is nevertheless partly to blame - because he did not Daven for the murderer's Din to be concluded in his favor.

Abaye rules that if a murderer whose Din is concluded dies before he manages to run to an Ir Miklat - then his remains must be taken to the Ir Miklat to be buried there.

He extrapolates this ruling from the Pasuk "Lashuv Lasheves ba'Aretz ad Mos ha'Kohen ha'Gadol" - which implies that he must dwell inside the ground, a Lashon that is more applicable to a corpse than to a live person.

And the Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Yashuv ha'Rotze'ach el Eretz Achuzaso" that - if a murderer dies before the Kohen Gadol, he is taken to be buried in his family grave (see Aruch la'Ner).

Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Yitzchak Nafcha argue over a case where the Kohen Gadol is declared a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah after the conclusion of the murderer's Din. One them says 'Meisah Kehunah' by which he means that - it is as if the Kohen Gadol died, and the murderer is exempt from running to the Ir Miklat.

The other one says - 'Batlah Kehunah', which means that it is as if the Kehunah is annulled, in which case the murderer is obligated to remain in the Ir Miklat forever.

Initially, we link the above Machlokes to a Machlokes Tana'im in T'rumos. Rebbi Eliezer holds there that if a Kohen who is serving on the Mizbe'ach discovers that he is a ben Gerushah ... , all the Korbanos that he brought until then are Pasul. According to Rebbi Yehoshua - they are Kasher.

We conclude however, that even if Rebbi Eliezer cannot hold 'Meisah Kehunah', Rebbi Yehoshua might concede 'Batlah Kehunah', yet the Korbanos that he brought until that moment are valid - because the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah validates them when it writes "Bareich Hash-m Cheilo u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" (even though he is considered a Chalal).