Arei Miklat – Cities of Refuge or Exile/2

Arei Miklat – Cities of Refuge or Exile?

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

Commentators divide in their assessments of both the inadvertent killer's degree of culpability and the worthiness of the institution of the blood avenger. These, in turn, have consequences for their perspectives on the character of the "עָרֵי מִקְלָט" and their laws. Some exegetes, like Abarbanel and Shadal, adopt a more literal reading of the Biblical verses and view the cities as coming almost exclusively to safeguard the unintentional murderer. Others, like the Tzeror HaMor and the Netziv, are more heavily influenced by the Talmudic discussions, and attempt to reinterpret all of the sources to reflect the guilt of the killer and his need for penitence. Finally, many exegetes take a compromise position combining elements of both options.

THIS TOPIC IS STILL IN PROGRESS

Safe Haven

The cities are designated to serve as a refuge for the accidental killer, providing him with protection from the wrath of the blood avenger.

Sources: RambamMoreh Nevukhim 3:40About R. Moshe Maimonides, AbarbanelShemot 21Bemidbar 35Devarim 19About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, ShadalShemot 21:12-13Bemidbar 35:12,25About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Meaning of "מִקְלָט" – OnkelosBemidbar 35:6, 11-14About Onkelos translates "עָרֵי הַמִּקְלָט" as "קרוי שיזבותא" or cities of salvation. According to this definition, the name highlights the protective role of the cities.¹

Evaluation of accidental killer – Abarbanel asserts that the killer is not deserving of punishment since he was an unwilling participant.² The Torah, thus, does not wish to penalize him but rather shows him mercy and tries to protect him.

"וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ" – According to Abarbanel and Shadal, this phrase connotes that the killing was happenstance and done without the knowledge or will of the killer, emphasizing his lack of culpability. Shadal suggests that the deed is attributed to Hashem, as are other unintentional acts, since He is the ultimate cause of all.³

Does the inadvertent killer "defile" the land? The commentators do not address the issue explicitly, but this approach could claim that the verses in Bemidbar 35:33-34 refer only to the intentional murderer. It is only his actions which contaminate the land and require atonement through blood, but not those of the unintentional killer.

"וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת" – the killer or avenger? Abarbanel maintains that this phrase from Devarim 19:6 refers to the inadvertent killer and not the avenger. The Torah is emphasizing the killer's innocence, and trying to ensure that the avenger does not slay an individual who is not deserving of the death penalty.⁴

Why are blood avengers allowed?

• Concession to human nature – Shadal maintains that ideally there would be no institution of blood avenging at all, but at times the Torah makes concessions to human nature. Knowing that relatives of the deceased would not be satisfied in watching his killer go free, the Torah allowed them to pursue him while simultaneously protecting the killer by setting up cities of refuge.⁵
• Blood avengers were wronged – Abarbanel asserts that though the unintentional killer is not viewed as a criminal by the court, he did nonetheless wrong the blood avenger in killing his relative (albeit accidentally). Thus, if the killer decides to leave the city of refuge, it is viewed as a contemptuous insult to the family of the deceased, making him undeserving of further protection.⁶

Why were the Levite cities chosen? Shadal maintains that the cities were chosen due to the holy nature of the Levites. One could also suggest that this is related to the custom in ancient times for Temples and other holy places to serve as sanctuaries⁷ for criminals.⁸

Multiple cities – Shadal points out that one city⁹ would not have sufficed to ensure that all killers could reach it in time. There needed to be cities dispersed throughout the land so that there would be one close enough to all residents.

Death of high priest – Rambam suggests that seeing misfortune befall another, especially one of greater stature, would serve to calm the relatives of the deceased who would no longer seek revenge. Abarbanel similarly asserts that the death of the beloved high priest would inevitably lead to introspection and the recognition of the fleeting nature of life, resulting in the abating of the avenger's anger.¹⁰

Prohibition to pay redemptive ransom – If the cities were solely for the protection of the killer, one would have thought that he should have the right to refuse such refuge if he so desired. This makes the prohibition of accepting ransom from the inadvertent murderer in lieu of his fleeing to the city of refuge difficult to comprehend. However, the SifreMasei 161About Sifre suggests that the verse actually refers not to the inadvertent killer but only to the intentional murderer who is prohibited from either simply paying ransom or paying ransom to be allowed to flee in order to escape death.¹¹

Exile and Rehabilitation

The cities serve a punitive role, effectively becoming a mandatory exile for the killer until the attaining of atonement for the death he caused.

Sources: Bavli MakkotMakkot 2bMakkot 10bAbout the Bavli, R. BachyaBemidbar 35:11,25About R. Bachya b. Asher, Tzeror HaMorBemidbar 35:9,25,32,34About R. Avraham Saba, SefornoShemot 21:13Bemidbar 35:25About R. Ovadyah Seforno, NetzivBemidbar 35:34Devarim 19:6-7About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin

Meaning of "מִקְלָט" – Tzeror HaMor describes the cities as prisons, where the killer is enclosed "בעיר סוגרת ומסוגרת"‎.¹² This approach might suggest, as do some modern scholars¹³ that the root "קלט" means to shorten or narrow,¹⁴ and the cities are so called because they enclose the killer and confine his existence.

Evaluation of accidental killer – These commentators all view the accidental killer as one who is deserving of punishment (albeit not death) for his actions.

"וְהָאֱלֹהִים אִנָּה לְיָדוֹ" – According to the Bavli Makkot, the accidental killer is not merely Hashem's instrument through which He punishes another, but was chosen specifically because he himself was previously guilty of a similar crime but had not yet been held accountable.

Does the inadvertent killer "defile" the land? According to Tzeror HaMor, the verses in Bemidbar 35:33-34 apply not just to the intentional killer but to the inadvertent one as well. Anyone who spills blood and walks upon the land contaminates it.¹⁵ Only with the death of the culpable person will the land be placated.¹⁶

"וְלוֹ אֵין מִשְׁפַּט מָוֶת" – the killer or avenger? Netziv¹⁷ asserts that this phrase refers to the blood avenger and not the killer.¹⁸ The verse is saying that if he catches and slays the inadvertent killer, he will not be held accountable. This reading highlights the justice in punishing the accidental killer rather than emphasizing his innocence.

Why are blood avengers allowed? Since this approach views the unintentional killer as deserving of punishment, (and according to Tzeror HaMor the death even requires a blood atonement, a soul for a soul), it allows the blood avenger to seek his own vengeance.¹⁹

Why were the Levite cities chosen? Most of these commentators do not address the issue directly but the approach could suggest a variety of possibilities:

• Levites as teachers and judges – One of the functions of the Levites was to teach the nation. As such their cities might have been chosen so that they could facilitate the rehabilitation of the killer. In addition, in their role as judges they might have been in charge of administering prisons and the like, these cities included.²⁰
• Prevent defilement of land – Tzeror HaMor suggests that the killer needed to be confined to certain cities so that he would not defile the rest of the land by walking upon it. He does not explain why these had to belong to the Levites specifically, but see R. Rivlin,²¹ who suggests that the Levite cities were not considered to be part of the inheritance of the land and as such were the only sites within Israelite borders²² which were able to tolerate the killer walking upon them.²³
• Part of Levite punishment – It is possible that the cities were given to the Levites only after already being designated as cities of exile for the killers, as part of the fulfillment of Yaakov's rebuke and punishment of Levi that he "will be divided amongst Israel."²⁴

Multiple cities – If the city was mainly a means of punishing and rehabilitating the killer, one should have sufficed. Netziv suggests that the need for a plurality of cities was due to their secondary function as a refuge from the blood avenger.²⁵

Death of high priest – Though these commentators differ in the details, most suggest that the event is somehow related to atonement or punishment for the killer's sin:

• High Priest atones – Tzeror HaMor asserts that a murder or homicide can not be atoned except via "the blood of he who spilled the blood."²⁶ Since the killer acted accidentally, he himself is not culpable enough to deserve capital punishment, so the death of the high priest acts as a substitute.²⁷
• Fair punishment – Seforno maintains that since there is varying culpability amongst inadvertent killers,²⁸ defining a set amount of years for all killers to be in exile would have resulted in unfair punishment. Thus, Hashem leaves the duration of the killer's stay in His hands, as it is determined by the death of the priest,²⁹ which is, in turn, decided by God.³⁰
• High priest and killer are opposite – The SifreMasei 160About Sifre³¹ suggests that while the high priest serves to lengthen one's life and causes the Divine providence to dwell amongst Israel, the killer does the opposite, and thus it would be inappropriate for him to be set free before the high priest.
• Granting of amnesty – Minchah BelulahBemidbar 35:25About R. Avraham Rappo of Porto suggests that when a new priest assumes office after the death of the previous one, he gives out pardons so as to be liked by the people, much like a new king would do.

Prohibition to pay redemptive ransom – Since the exile to the cities is part of the killer's punishment and process of atonement, it is logical that he may not pay a ransom instead.

Combination

The cities have a dual nature, playing both a punitive and protective role.

Sources: PhiloOn Special Laws 3:120-133About Philo, RalbagBemidbar 35:25-28,33-34Bemidbar 35 Toelet 12-13Devarim 19 Toelet 8About R. Levi b. Gershon

¹ Since the word "מִקְלָט" only appears in Tanakh in the context of these cities, its meaning is difficult to determine with certainty. The context and the fact that some verses speak of the cities being a מִקְלָט "from the blood avenger", might support this reading. For a discussion of the etymology of the word and how it affects one's understanding of the purpose of the cities as a whole, see J. Milgrom, Olam HaTanakh Bemidbar (Tel Aviv, 1993): 205, and R. Elchanan Samet, "ערי מקלט – משמעות השם", ‎ עיונים בפרשות השבוע: סדרה שלישית (Tel Aviv, 2012).

² He suggests that punishments are meant to serve as deterrents against future crimes, and as such are only effective if the deed is intentional.

³ Abarbanel, drawing on Bavli Chulin and R. Shimon b. Lakish in Bavli Makkot10bAbout the Bavli, suggests that the verse is trying to highlight that although from the perspective of the individual this was just happenstance, it is really part of Hashem's Divine plan. The person who was killed must have deserved to die.

⁴ Though Abarbanel does not say so, one might go even further and suggest that the wording "פֶּן יִרְדֹּף גֹּאֵל הַדָּם אַחֲרֵי הָרֹצֵחַ" is actually a prohibition, telling the avenger that he may not chase after the unintentional killer. Contrast with the opinion in the SifreShofetim 183About Sifre and of R. Yosi HaGeliliBavli Makkot 11bAbout the Bavli who learn from this clause that the avenger is obligated (and not simply permitted) to chase.

⁵ The Torah recognizes that change is a gradual process, and that in certain instances introducing a prohibition that people are not ready to accept might have worse repercussions than allowing, but confining, the action. Thus, here the Torah does not prohibit blood killings, knowing that such a command would not be adhered to in any case, and would simply lead to criticism of the judicial system and more rampant killings. Instead, it sets certain conditions upon the rights of the avenger, with the hope that over time the institution of blood avengers will disappear. Shadal points out that these steps were not necessary when dealing with an intentional killer, since the capital punishment he was to receive at the hands of the judicial system would suffice to quiet the wrath of the blood avenger. For other examples where Shadal similarly explains laws as being concessions to human nature, see R. Shemuel David Luzzatto.

⁶ Abarbanel is only explaining why a blood avengers is allowed to slay a killer who leaves the city of refuge early, but does not account for why this should be allowed when the killer is first enroute to the city.

⁷ It is possible that Moshe's flight to Yitro after killing the Egyptian should be understood in light of this custom as well. Moshe's actions there are understood by some to be an unintentional killing. In the aftermath of the killing, Moshe seeks refuge in a priestly sanctuary (the home of Yitro, a Midianite priest), and only ventures out after the avengers of the Egyptian's blood had died. For elaboration, see Was Moshe a Murderer.

⁸ The Torah differs from other cultures in explicitly stating that no such refuge will be given for one who intentionally murders, in which case even "מֵעִם מִזְבְּחִי תִּקָּחֶנּוּ לָמוּת".

⁹ Shadal is really answering the question of why the Beit HaMikdash did not act as the place of refuge, especially given the Ancient Near Eastern custom that Temples served as sanctuaries.

¹⁰ Shadal brings a variety of possibilities, all of which suggest that the accidental killer required some level of atonement, and that perhaps the cities also served a secondary punitive role. He proposes that the high priests' death might atone for accidental sins or that the incoming priest, in an effort to attain the approval of the nation, pardoned previous offenders. He also brings the position of Seforno, below.

¹¹ This latter interpretation works well with the verb form "לָנוּס" which would otherwise be difficult, as it should read "לֹא תִקְחוּ כֹפֶר לַנָּס" (for the one who has fled) if it were referring to an accidental killer. It should be noted, though, that none of the exegetes above actually read the verse as suggested, but they rather assume that it refers to the inadvertent killer.

¹² Many other commentators similarly refer to the cities as places of punishment and following the language of the Mishna MakkotMakkot 2About the Mishna, consistently refer to the killer as being "exiled" and the cities as a place of exile.

¹³ See J. Milgrom, Olam HaTanakh Bemidbar (Tel Aviv, 1993): 205, and R. Elchanan Samet, "ערי מקלט – משמעות השם", ‎ עיונים בפרשות השבוע: סדרה שלישית (Tel Aviv, 2012).

¹⁴ The root only appears once outside the discussion of ערי מקלט, in Vayikra 22:23. There it is paired with the word "שָׂרוּע" which is understood to mean spread out, suggesting that "קָלוּט" means the opposite. [See Ibn EzraVayikra 22:23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra there, who asserts that the paired words are opposites and that the meaning of the root there might be connected to ערי מקלט as well.] In Arabic, the word "קולאט" means a dwarf, further suggesting that the word is related to making something smaller or more narrow.

It is not clear, though, how the adjective connects to the noun, and if one must necessarily conclude that shortening = confinement. See, for instance, Ibn Janach and RadakSefer HaShorashim s.v. קלטAbout R. David Kimchi, who also suggest that "קָלוּט" is opposed to "שָׂרוּע" and might mean to shorten, but view it as something which is gathered into itself. They, thus, suggest that ערי מקלט simply means a place in which the killer is gathered. This definition would be much more neutral in its connotation and could work either with an understanding of the cities as places of refuge or of punishment.

¹⁵ Thus, the killer is confined to the cities of the Levites and is not allowed to walk on and thereby defile the rest of the land. See below for elaboration.

¹⁶ See below that Tzeror HaMor understands the death of the high priest to serve this atoning function. Cf. Netziv who agrees that the inadvertent killer will defile the land and cause God's providence to depart, but thinks that verse 33 which speaks of the need for capital punishment to avenge a death refers only to the intentional killer. He presumably divides between the verses since the inadvertent killer is not punished by death.

¹⁷ He is following the second opinion brought in Bavli Makkot10bAbout the Bavli.

¹⁸ In contrast to the beraita in Makkot, Netziv asserts that the avenger is also the subject of the clause, "כִּי לֹא שֹׂנֵא הוּא לוֹ מִתְּמוֹל שִׁלְשׁוֹם". Until this point, the blood avenger had no motive and no reason to dislike the killer; it is only due to his recent actions that he is now running after him.

¹⁹ Tzeror HaMor further asserts that if a person who caused such a calamity is not ashamed and has the audacity to leave his deserved exile, the relatives of the deceased are welcome to punish him. See the SifreShofetim 183About Sifre and of R. Yosi HaGeliliBavli Makkot 11bAbout the Bavli who go even further and state that the relatives of the deceased are actually obligated to chase after the killer.

²⁰ See Rashbam and ChizkuniBemidbar 35:25About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach who suggest that the directive to remain in the city until the death of the high priest relates to his judicial function. [Rashbam suggests that the verse does not apply just to a priest but to the death of the senior judge of the time.]

²¹ See "עיון בפרשיות שפיכות דמים בתורה:עיר מקלט ועגלה ערופה", Megadim 28 (1998): 19-31.

²² See M. Greenberg, "The Biblical Concept of Asylum", JBL 78:2 (1959): 125-132 who asserts that the killer could not be banished totally from the land because that would mean he was cut off from the nation and Hashem, and likely to assimilate into surrounding cultures.

²³ Rivlin proposes that Kayin's punishment to be a wanderer is the prototype of this punishment of exile for the unintentional killer. He was the first to be banished from a land who could not tolerate him since his brothers' blood cried out from within. Cf. RadakBereshit 4:12About R. David Kimchi, who connects Kayin's punishment to that of an inadvertent killer but makes no mention of the defilement of the land.

²⁴ Yaakov's words can be understood to refer to Levi's not partaking in the inheritance of the land. The Levite cities are thus considered little pockets of exile within the country.

²⁵ The other commentators would likely agree since they all concur that one of the functions of the cities (though not its primary task) was to provide a haven for the killer to run to.

²⁶ See above that he maintains that verse 33 refers to the accidental killer as well as the intentional one.

²⁷ Tzeror HaMor explains that part of the priest's job was to pray that atrocities such as human killings did not occur. Since his prayers failed to achieve this, he is held accountable for the death and thus it is his death which sets the inadvertent killer free. Cf. Bavli Makkot11aAbout the Bavli, RashiBemidbar 35:25About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, R. Bachya and see Targum Pseudo-JonathanBemidbar 35:25About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan who goes even further to say that as a result of his ineffective (or nonexistent) prayers, the priest is punished and dies that year. See also Bavli Makkot11bAbout the Bavli and Ibn EzraBemidbar 35:25About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who assert that the death of the high priest serves as atonement, but do not connect this to his failure to pray for the nation.

²⁸ Some are very negligent, and some less so.

²⁹ Seforno assumes that if a killer is more blameworthy, Hashem will ensure that the priest won't die for many years, resulting in a greater punishment.

³⁰ Cf. R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBemidbar 35:25About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor who also views the law as an effort to be most fair. He suggests that the killer's duration in exile should have been equivalent to the amount of years he lessened from the deceased by killing him. Since this is impossible for anyone to determine but Hashem, it is estimated to be no longer than the life of the High Priest, the most esteemed person in Israel.

³¹ R. Bachya brings this position as well.