Difference between revisions of "Arei Miklat – Cities of Refuge or Exile/2"
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Arei Miklat – Cities of Refuge or Exile?</h1> | <h1>Arei Miklat – Cities of Refuge or Exile?</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
Line 53: | Line 52: | ||
<point><b>Multiple cities</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | <point><b>Multiple cities</b> – 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.<fn>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.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Death of high priest</b> – Though these commentators differ in the details, most suggest that the event is somehow related to atonement or punishment for the killer's sin: | <point><b>Death of high priest</b> – Though these commentators differ in the details, most suggest that the event is somehow related to atonement or punishment for the killer's sin: | ||
− | + | <ul> | |
− | + | <li><b>High Priest atones</b> – Tzeror HaMor asserts that a murder or homicide can not be atoned except via "the blood of he who spilled the blood."<fn>See above that he maintains that verse 33 refers to the accidental killer as well as the intentional one.</fn> 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.<fn>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. <multilink><a href="BavliMakkot11a" data-aht="source">Bavli Makkot</a><a href="BavliMakkot11a" data-aht="source">11a</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RashiBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 35:25</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>, R. Bachya and see <multilink><a href="PsJBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a><a href="PsJBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 35:25</a><a href="Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)" data-aht="parshan">About Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan)</a></multilink> 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 <multilink><a href="BavliMakkot11b" data-aht="source">Bavli Makkot</a><a href="BavliMakkot11b" data-aht="source">11b</a><a href="Bavli" data-aht="parshan">About the Bavli</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 35:25</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> 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.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Fair punishment</b> – Seforno maintains that since there is varying culpability amongst inadvertent killers,<fn>Some are very negligent, and some less so.</fn> 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,<fn>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.</fn> which is, in turn, decided by God.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RYBSBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 35:25</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> 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.</fn></li> | |
− | + | <li><b>High priest and killer are opposite</b> – The <multilink><a href="SifreBemidbar160" data-aht="source">Sifre Bemidbar</a><a href="SifreBemidbar160" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 160</a><a href="Sifre Bemidbar" data-aht="parshan">About Sifre Bemidbar</a></multilink><fn>R. Bachya brings this position as well.</fn> 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.</li> | |
− | + | <li><b>Granting of amnesty</b> – <multilink><a href="MinchahBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Minchah Belulah</a><a href="MinchahBemidbar35-25" data-aht="source">Bemidbar 35:25</a><a href="R. Avraham Porto (Minchah Belulah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham Porto</a></multilink> 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.</li> | |
− | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Prohibition to pay redemptive ransom</b> – 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.</point> | <point><b>Prohibition to pay redemptive ransom</b> – 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.</point> | ||
</category> | </category> |
Version as of 17:46, 4 July 2019
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.
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.
- 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
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.
- 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
- 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 Sifre Bemidbar31 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 Belulah 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.