Rotzeach uShmirat Nefesh - Chapter 7

As the Rambam quotes from Makkot 10a, the fundamental reason the teacher is exiled is for his student’s sake. Nevertheless, the commentaries have also emphasized that the fact that a teacher’s student causes the loss of a life also implies that there is a spiritual fault within the teacher that needs to be expiated, and for this reason he is exiled.

For just as a student cannot exist without a teacher, so too, it is equally trying for a teacher to be without students.

As reflected in Hilchot Avadim 9:7, an owner is never obligated to provide for his servant’s livelihood. He can withhold food from him at any time, should he desire. Even so, he does not forfeit his claim to the fruits of the servant’s labor.

To which the husband is entitled.

Which the husband is required to provide.

As explained in Hilchot Ishut 12:4, by marrying a woman, a husband makes a commitment to support her if she cannot support herself, whether or not her earnings bring back a commensurate amount.
If, however, the woman is capable of earning her own livelihood, her husband has the option of compelling her to do so, even in a city of refuge, where she will be required to make new business contacts.

This ruling emphasizes that exile is not merely a benefit for the killer - so that he will be protected from the blood redeemer - but is also required in order to bring him atonement.

At which point the killer’s deed has been expiated.

Although Jewish law generally does not allow disinterment, one of the exceptions is an instance when the corpse is being taken to be buried in an ancestral plot.

For the cities of refuge are given to the tribe of Levi in place of the ancestral heritage received by other tribes. (See Numbers, Chapter 35, and Chapter 8, Halachah 9.) Nevertheless, as reflected in Chapter 8, Halachah 8, not all the inhabitants of the cities of refuge were Levites. The laws mentioned by the Rambam apply to all the inhabitants aside from the exiles.

For as stated in Halachah 8, he is forbidden to do so, because of the first death that he caused.

Our translation follows the standard published text of the Mishneh Torah, although it appears to be in error. The word ובכן, translated as “similarly,” does not fit the context. It appears that the proper text is ובן לוי literally meaning “son of a Levite,” and used interchangeably with the term לוי. This version is found in the authoritative manuscripts.

For he must leave the city in which he killed.

Chapter 8, Halachah 9.

Although he is not leaving the place of his permanent dwelling, since he is leaving the city in which he killed, it is considered to be exile.

It would appear that the city is not disqualified as a city of refuge, but that it no longer accepts new killers.

I.e., that they are not killers as he is.

The K’nesset HaGedolah and the Ma’aseh Rokeach note that Makkot 10b, the source for this halachah, also mentions that a city cannot bring a calf whose neck is broken (see Chapter 9), nor carry out the judgment of a rebellious son, unless it has elders. They question why the Rambam does not mention these laws.

The Or Sameach notes that generally a threat to life supersedes all the prohibitions - and surely all the positive mitzvot - in the Torah. Why then should the killer remain in the city of refuge, although doing so may cause the loss of many lives?
He explains that since the blood redeemer has the right to slay the killer, the killer is not required to risk his own life to save the lives of others.

Chapter 5, Halachah 11.

The oil described in Exodus, Chapter 30, which was used to anoint the sacred vessels in the Sanctuary, and afterwards, the High Priests and the kings of the Davidic dynasty. This oil was entombed together with the Holy Ark in the time of King Josiah, shortly before the destruction of the First Temple.

I.e., the High Priests from Josiah’s time onward, who were not anointed. The literal translation of the term used by the Rambam is “one who adds garments,” referring to the fact that the High Priest wears four additional garments besides those worn by an ordinary priest. Putting on these garments would constitute his initiation into the High Priesthood.
(See Rav Kapach, who interprets merubah b’gadim not as having many garments as above, but as having long garments, referring to the white clothing the High Priest would wear on Yom Kippur, which had a long train.)

As Makkot 11a states, these terms are not mutually exclusive. Thus one can be a High Priest who performs the service of a High Priest and yet still be included in either one of the first two categories.

E. g., one who became leprous or sick and was unable to continue in his office.

See Deuteronomy, Chapter 20, and Hilchot Melachim, Chapter 7, which relate the command for a priest to be anointed with the anointing oil and address the army before they engage in battle.

The fact that he has been anointed does not change his status in an ultimate sense.

I.e., even though a High Priest was appointed subsequently, since he was not in office at the time the killer was sentenced to exile, the killer does not return after his death (Makkot 11b).

None of the four types of High Priests mentioned in the previous halachah were alive at that time.

Both this and the previous law refer to instances where a new High Priest had not been appointed until the sentence of exile was given. This is the Meiri’s perspective; there are differing views.

For the fundamental aspect of the killer’s atonement is achieved with the death of the High Priest.

According to Scriptural Law a priest is forbidden to marry a divorcee, and according to Rabbinic Law he is forbidden to marry a woman who has undergone the rite of chalitzah, the practice which releases a childless widow from her obligation to marry her deceased husband’s brother.
If a priest violates the prohibition against marrying a divorcee, his son is a challal and is not considered to be a priest. And if a priest marries a woman who has undergone chalitzah, his son is considered a challal according to Rabbinic Law and is likewise disqualified.
Thus, if it was discovered that a High Priest had blemished lineage of this nature, he is not a priest at all, and there is no High Priesthood. It is just as if there were no person serving in that office at all.

See Hilchot Mamrim 5:5.

The commentaries cite Chapter 5, Halachah 2.