Kommentar zu Dewarim 4:43

את בצר במדבר, “the city Bezer in the desert;” In the next verse the Torah continues with the words וזאת התורה. It seems difficult to account for this sequence of subject matter. Our sages in Makkot 10 used this sequence to teach us that the words of Torah are equivalent to the refuge offered by the cities of refuge. They may even afford refuge from the angel of Death himself. The Talmud reports that the angel of Death wanted to take Rav Chisdah but he was so immersed in his studies hat he had no opportunity to snatch his soul until a diversion was created by a heavy beam in the academy falling down. The sound momentarily distracted Rav Chisdah so that the angel of Death could snatch his soul. Similar stories are told about David.
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that the protective angel of the Roman Empire (Edom) will make three errors in the future. He bases this on Isaiah 63,1: ”Who is this coming from Edom, in crimson garments from Bozrah — who is this majestic in attire?” The angel believes that Bozrah was also a city of refuge whereas only Bezer is such a city. Another error the angel of Edom will make is that he thinks that these cities serve as refuge for both intentional and unintentional killers, whereas they only afford protection for unintentional killers. Thirdly, he thinks these cities protect angels and humans alike. The fact is that they only protect human killers, not angels.

ואת בצר במדבר, “and Betzer in the desert.” This is what Solomon referred to when he said in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit;” he referred to someone who had incurred this guilt inadvertently, or even in self defense, i.e. accidentally. After Reuven (Genesis 37,29) found the pit in which he had left Joseph empty, i.e. he had to assume that he had been the cause of Joseph’s death; he supposedly fled to that town in the desert, later on in the territory of Reuven on the east bank of the Jordan.

ואת ראמות בגלעד, “and Ramot in Gilad;” from here we could infer that the tribe of Menashe did not own any land in that region. On the other hand, the Torah wrote in Numbers 32,40 that Moses gave the Gilad to Machir, son of Menashe. How are we to account for this discrepancy? We must assume that the tribes that settled on the east bank of the Jordan all shared some territory formerly known as Gilad. The same appears the case when the Torah wrote in Deut.3,12: וחצי הר הגלעד ועריו נתתי לראובני ולגדי, ויתר הגלעד נתתי לחצי שבט המנשה, “and I gave half of the mountain of Gilad and its towns to Reuven and Gad; and the remainder of the Gilad I gave to half the tribe of Menashe.”

בארץ המישור לראובני, “in the land of the plain of the tribe of Reuven.” The reason this is mentioned first is that Reuven had tried to save the life of Joseph at the time when he prevailed on his brothers not to kill him (Genesis 36,21-22). This is why the first city of refuge was situated in Reuven’s part of the east bank. This is the meaning of Proverbs 28,17: “a man oppressed by blood guilt will flee to a pit, let none give him support.” The “pit” mentioned in that verse is a reference to the territory of Reuven of whom the Torah writes in Genesis 37,29: “Reuven returned to the pit.”