Apropos declarations that take effect even if they were stated conditionally and the condition was not fulfilled, Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Ostracism that was declared conditionally requires nullification, even though the condition was not fulfilled. From where do we derive this? It is derived from Judah, as it is written with regard to his request that his father allow the brothers to take Benjamin to Egypt: “If I do not bring him to you…I would have sinned to you for all days” (Genesis 43:9), i.e., I will remain ostracized as a sinner. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Let Reuben live and not die” (Deuteronomy 33:6), followed immediately by the verse: “And this for Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7)? Why was the blessing of Judah linked to that of Reuben?

Throughout those forty years that the children of Israel were in the wilderness, Judah’s bones were rattling in the coffin, detached from one another, because the ostracism that he declared upon himself remained in effect, until Moses stood and entreated God to have mercy upon him. Moses said before Him: Master of the Universe, who caused Reuben to confess his sin with Bilhah? It was Judah. Judah’s confession to his sin with Tamar led Reuben to confess to his own sin. Moses continued: “And this is for Judah…hear God, the voice of Judah” (Deuteronomy 33:7).

At that point his limbs entered their designated place [leshafa] and no longer rattled, but the Heavenly court still would not allow him to enter the heavenly academy. Moses continued: “And bring him to his people” (Deuteronomy 33:7), so that he may join the other righteous people in Heaven. That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to engage in the give-and-take of halakha with the Sages in the heavenly academy. Moses continued: “His hands shall contend for him” (Deuteronomy 33:7). That request was also granted, but Judah did not know how to resolve any difficulty raised to reject his opinion until Moses prayed: “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7).

The mishna enumerates those High Priests whose death facilitates the return of unintentional murderers to their homes from the city of refuge to which they fled. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is it only with the death of all of the High Priests enumerated in the mishna that the unintentional murderer returns, or perhaps it is even with the death of one of them that he returns?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to the dilemma from the succeeding mishna: If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no one filling the position of High Priest, he never leaves the city of refuge. And if it is so that the death of any of those listed in the mishna facilitates his return, let him return with the death of one of these other High Priests, the one who was sanctified by donning the eight vestments or a priest who was relieved of his position. The Gemara rejects the proof: The mishna is referring to a case where there were no High Priests when the verdict was decided.

MISHNA: If, after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, he is not exiled, as the death of the High Priest exempts him from exile. If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns from exile with the death of the second High Priest. If the verdict of a murderer was decided at a time when there was no High Priest, and likewise in the cases of one who unintentionally killed a High Priest and in the case of a High Priest who killed unintentionally, the unintentional murderer never leaves the city of refuge.

And one who is exiled may not leave the city at all, either for testimony relating to a mitzva, or for testimony relating to monetary matters, or for testimony relating to capital matters. And even if the Jewish people require his services, and even if he is the general of the army of Israel like Joab ben Zeruiah, he never leaves the city of refuge, as it is stated: “And the congregation shall restore him to his city of refuge, that he fled there” (Numbers 35:25), from which it is derived: There shall be his dwelling, there shall be his death, there shall be his burial.

The mishna continues: Just as an unintentional murderer is admitted to the city of refuge, so is he admitted to its outskirts, located within the Shabbat boundary. Once he entered the outskirts of the city, the blood redeemer may not kill him. In a case where a murderer emerged beyond the Shabbat boundary of the city of refuge and the blood redeemer found him there, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is a mitzva for the blood redeemer to kill him, and it is optional for every other person to do so. Rabbi Akiva says: It is optional for the blood redeemer, and every other person is liable for killing him.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches: If after the unintentional murderer’s verdict was decided and he was sentenced to exile, the High Priest died, the unintentional murderer is not exiled. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? Abaye says: It is derived through an a fortiori inference: If one who was already exiled now emerges with the death of this High Priest, with regard to one who was not yet exiled, is it not right that he should not be exiled? The Gemara rejects this reasoning: And perhaps with regard to this one, who was already exiled, his sin was atoned for by his exile, and therefore the death of the High Priest facilitates his return, but that one, who was not yet exiled, no, his sin was not atoned for and the death of the High Priest should not prevent his exile. The Gemara rebuts: Is it his exile that atones for his sin? It is the death of the High Priest that atones for his sin, and the High Priest died.

The mishna teaches: If it was before his verdict was decided that the High Priest died and they appointed another in his place, and thereafter his verdict was decided, he returns with the death of the second High Priest. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Kahana said that they are derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And he shall dwell there until the death of the High Priest, whom he anointed with the sacred oil” (Numbers 35:25). Now is it the unintentional murderer who anoints the High Priest? Rather, the reference is to that High Priest who was anointed during his days, after he committed the unintentional murder.

The Gemara asks: Why is his return home dependent on the death of the second High Priest? Earlier (11a), the Gemara explained that the High Priest bears a share of the responsibility for unintentional murderers, as he should have pleaded for mercy for his generation and he did not do so. In this case, as the High Priest in question was appointed only after the murder transpired, what could he have done to prevent the unintentional murder? The Gemara answers: He should have pleaded for mercy that the verdict of the unintentional murderer would be decided by the court favorably, so that he would not be sentenced to exile, and he did not plead.

§ Abaye said: We have a tradition that with regard to an unintentional murderer whose verdict was decided and who was sentenced to exile, and he died before he was exiled to the city of refuge, one transports his bones to the city of refuge, and buries him there, as it is written: “To return and dwell in the land until the death of the priest” (Numbers 35:32). And what is the dwelling that is in the land? You must say it is referring to his burial. A Sage taught: If an unintentional murderer died in a city of refuge before the High Priest died, one transports his bones to the graves of his ancestors after the High Priest dies, as it is written: “The murderer shall return to his ancestral land” (Numbers 35:28). What is the dwelling that is taking place in his ancestral land? You must say it is his burial.

§ The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to a case where the murderer’s verdict was decided, i.e., he was sentenced to exile, and the High Priest filling the position at the time was deemed the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, and the High Priest was thereby disqualified from the priesthood. Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa disagree with regard to this matter. One says: The priesthood died, i.e., it is as though the High Priest died, and all exiles return home from the city of refuge. And the other one says: The priesthood is voided, i.e., it is as though there was no High Priest filling the position during that period, and therefore, the exiles may never leave the city of refuge.

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that these amora’im, Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna (Terumot 8:1): If a priest was standing and sacrificing offerings upon the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a ḥalutza, and he was disqualified from the Temple service, Rabbi Eliezer says: All offerings that he sacrificed up to that point are not valid, as it is apparent that he is not and never was fit for Temple service, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems all offerings that he already sacrificed as valid.

The Gemara explains: Let us say that the one who says here that the priesthood died holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. He holds that the High Priest is disqualified only from the time of the discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood and forward, while any service performed previous to that discovery is valid. The discovery that he is disqualified from the priesthood is like the High Priest’s death, but his priesthood is not invalidated retroactively. And the one who says that the priesthood is voided holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and since his priesthood is voided retroactively, there was no High Priest filling the position when he was sentenced.