Commentary for Numbers 35:43

ומגרש AND OPEN LAND — an area consisting of an open space round about the city outside it, serving to beautify the city. It was not permitted to build houses there nor to plant vineyards nor to sow a plantation (cf. Arakhin 33b).

AND OPEN LAND — “a space [consisting of] open land outside and around the city, in order to make the city pleasant; and they [the Levites] are not permitted to build any building there or to plant a vineyard, or to sow any crop. 4. A THOUSAND CUBITS ROUND ABOUT. But afterwards [in Verse 5] it says [that it should be] two thousand cubits! How can we explain this? He assigned two thousand cubits for them around [the cities], of which the inner [area with a radius of a] thousand [cubits, as mentioned in Verse 4] was to be free [open] space, and the outer [area of a thousand cubits] was to be for fields and vineyards round about.” This is Rashi’s language taken from the words of our Rabbis.⁵⁷Sotah 27b. Thus, according to Rashi, two thousand cubits were assigned for each of the four sides round about the Levite city. Of these, the innermost thousand served as the open space, and the outermost was for fields and vineyards. Thus the two verses are harmonized. It will be noted though that Rashi did not assign any dimensions for the city proper. This will be one of the major contentions of Ramban, from which will follow important conclusions (see Note 59).
The correct interpretation according to the plain meaning of Scripture seems to be that Scripture [in Verse 4] is stating that they should assign as open space a thousand cubits directly round about the city, meaning that [the combined open space of both sides of the city] should be a thousand cubits long, five hundred on each side, and similarly [the open space of both sides together] of the width, should be a thousand cubits, five hundred cubits on each side.⁵⁸Thus, where Rashi assigned two thousand cubits for each of the four sides outside the city (as explained in the preceding note), Ramban allocates only five hundred for each side, totalling one thousand on the two opposite sides. After this He stated [in Verse 5] that they should make a square [the dimension of which to be] two thousand cubits by two thousand cubits, and the city should be situated in the center of the square. He thus added to them [the dimensions — in Verse 5] an open space not directly facing the city, equal to the measurement directly in front of the city, so that you find when leaving a thousand cubits as open space round about the city as He assigned at first [in Verse 4], the city, a thousand by a thousand cubits, will be in [the center of] the square.⁵⁹Thus, while Rashi did not designate any dimensions for the Levite city proper, Ramban assigned it a thousand by a thousand cubits. [See in Erubin 56b where one of the Amoraim, Abaye, indeed proposes these measurements for the Levite city, and this may well be the source of Ramban’s interpretation at which many scholars have wondered.] By placing now this square-shaped city of a thousand by a thousand in the center of the larger outer-square of two thousand by two thousand, some important conclusions follow. Since, as has been clarified before, a migrash (open space) of five hundred by a thousand extends in each direction directly facing the city, there still remains a space of five hundred by five hundred above and below these migrashim, near the corners of the outer square. These remaining spaces, Ramban will suggest, were to be designated for fields and vineyards. [In a drawing of Ramban’s design of the Levite city, found in my Hebrew commentary, p. 336, there will be noticed a circle encompassing all these four migrashim directly facing the city up to the walls of the outer-square. The circle naturally cuts down somewhat on the space allotted for the fields and vineyards. I based this upon the Gemara in Erubin ibid., as interpreted by the commentators, especially the Ritba, in order to bring Ramban’s words into consonance with the text there. Ramban’s general concept though of the Levite city and its environs as presented here, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, is clear.] Thus the city given to the Levites was in the form of a square.
Know that the term pei’ah [in Verse 5] signifies “a whole side” [i.e., the whole length of the distance of any of the four sides of the outer square, and not merely any point along that side].⁶⁰Thus, unlike Rashi who explained, for example, eth ‘pe’ath keidmah alpayim ba’amah (for the east ‘side’ two thousand cubits) as any point on that eastern side of the circle, located two thousand cubits away from the city (see Note 57), Ramban applies it to the whole length of that eastern side alongside the city [of which a thousand cubits were directly opposite the city, and five hundred were above and below the city, as explained]. Similarly the expression, a hundred cubits long ‘lapei’ah ha’echath’⁶¹Exodus 27:9. See also Verses 11-13 ibid. means “for the whole ‘one’ side,” and so also similar expressions mentioned there [with reference to the dimensions of the Tabernacle]. This is also true of the term pei’ah at the end of the Book of Ezekiel⁶²Ezekiel Chapter 48. [with reference to the dimensions of the city of Jerusalem and the Sanctuary of the future]. Moreover, if the intent of the verse was to have been [as Rashi interpreted] that they were to assign two thousand cubits round about the city in each direction, He would have said, “And you shall measure without the city ‘l’pe’ath keidmah (‘to’ the east side — two thousand cubits) etc.;” but instead He says [in Verse 5] And you shall measure without the city ‘eth’ pe’ath keidmah, which means “the measure of that [whole] side” [i.e., the whole distance along the eastern side of the outer square area, and also on each of the other outer sides, as the verse continues]. Such a four-sided plane figure having all its sides equal [and all its angles, right angles] is indeed a pleasingly suitable appearance for cities to have, not that they should measure two thousand cubits around the city in all directions [as explained by Rashi], thus eliminating the corners. A similar case is the expression, It shall be eighteen thousand reeds round about,⁶³Ibid., Verse 48. which means that the city [of Jerusalem] will measure on all of its four sides together eighteen thousand reeds, since he [Ezekiel] assigned there for each of the four sides four thousand and five hundred [reeds]. Now it is correct to say that the thousand cubits which He assigned [in Verse 4] as open space directly round about the city that it is not to be planted, and the thousand cubits He added in the second verse at each of the outer sides [not directly opposite the city] be used for fields and vineyards, as our Rabbis have received by tradition. But the term migrash (open space) in Scriptural language applies to both, but in the one case [in the remote corners, not directly opposite the city] it may be cultivated and sown, whereas in the other case [in the migrash facing directly the city] it may neither be plowed nor sown.⁶⁴Deuteronomy 21:4. That is why Scripture separated them from each other [by giving two commands, in Verse 4 and in Verse 5, and not commanding both of them together].⁶⁵With this interpretation Ramban solves the apparent contradiction between Verse 4 which speaks of the migrash as consisting of a thousand cubits and Verse 5 which assigns it to be two thousand. Ramban’s answer is that the term migrash applies to both — open space, and land for planting. Thus Verse 4 addresses itself to that migrash which was for open space, while Verse 5 speaks of the overall concept of migrash which includes both the thousand cubits of open space directly opposite the city, and the five hundred cubits above and below the city for planting, which total altogether two thousand cubits.

ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחוזתם, "that they give to the Levites of the inheritance of their possession, etc." The meaning of this verse is that while it is true that the Levites were not to have a claim to an inheritance in the land, there was nothing to prevent them from accepting parcels of land as a gift from the other tribes. This is in the same category as the rule that one should provide a livelihood for people who have not been fortunate enough to provide it for themselves. When the Torah is specific, writing ערים לשבת, "cities to dwell in," the meaning is that seeing the Levites have to live some place they need to be allocated cities for themselves. The Torah repeats the statement to indicate that the first time the Torah writes לשבת is to justify why these cities have to be given to the Levites; when the Torah continues with והיו הערים להם לשבת (verse 3) the Torah emphasises that these "cities" must be fit to dwell in. We are told in Makkot 12 that the meaning is that cities must be reserved for residential purposes and that it is forbidden to convert land set aside for residential purposes into מגרשים, open playfields, etc.

צו את בני ישראל ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחוזתם ערים לשבת ומגרש לערים סביבותיהם, “instruct the Children of Israel to allocate (give) to the Levites from the heritage of their possessions, cities for dwelling and an open space around their cities.” The expression מגרש describes an empty space outside the city for decorative purposes extending around the walls of a city 1,000 cubits all around that city. This area must not be used to build houses on, nor must it be used to plant trees or perform any agricultural activities. It is reserved for use by the livestock of the Levites and their free-roaming animals.

Kap. 35. V. 2. ומגרש לערים (siehe Wajikra 25, 24). סביבתיהם. Da עיר femininum ist, so kann sich סביבתיהם nur auf לויים beziehen. Das Weichbild wird den Städten beigegeben, damit die Leviten nicht nur Städte, sondern auch eine Umgegend als Eigentum haben.

ערים לשבת, “cities to dwell in;” while the Levites were not given ancestral lands, at least they were given houses, i.e. some real estate where to make their permanent homes. (B’chor shor)

ולכל חיתם means FOR ALL THEIR NEEDS (the needs of their life; it does not mean for their animals) (Nedarim 81a).

לבהמתם, for riding and carrying loads.

ולכל חיתם, "and for all their livestock." The plain meaning of the verse is that these מגרשים, "open spaces" are to serve the various needs of the Levites. The Talmud in Makkot 12 derives from the word חיתם, that these spaces are to serve only the needs of the living, they are not to be used as burial plots, with the exception of burying an involuntary murderer who had used this city as his city of refuge. This is based on the word תהײנה in verse 15 of our chapter from which the Talmud derives "there shall be their burial." According to the exegetical approach of our sages in the Talmud the words ולכל חיתם are difficult. Seeing that these words are only intended to forbid burial of the regular residents of these cities in their מגרשיהם, all the Torah should have written was the word לחיתם leaving out the word ולכל which implies all kinds of other usages. The addition of the letter ו at the beginning of the word ולכל makes this even more difficult to understand as we are clearly dealing with a רבוי, an expression intended to include additional meanings. Perhaps we can best explain this by saying that the רבוי implied in the word ולכל was meant to counteract the מיעוט, the restrictive nature of the word חיתם. The meter of the verse then is as follows: ולכל, "the use of the מגרש is permitted for every kind of use for the living, i.e. only burial of the dead is excluded." Had the Torah only written לחיתם, I would have concluded that anything which is not directly required for life is prohibited, i.e. a host of activities other than burial.

V. 3. ומגרשיהם .והיו וגו׳ der Leviten. ולכל חיתם nach Nedarim 81a für jede zur Gesundheitspflege notwendige Handtierung; z. B. zur Wäsche. So heißt Jesaias 57, 10: חית ידך die Lebenskräftigkeit deiner Hand. Nach Mackot 12a durften auch in dem ganzen Levitengebiet keine Gräber (außer für den dahin geflohenen רוצח שוגג) angelegt werden. לכל חיתם לחיים נתנו ולא לקבורה.

ולכל חיתם, “and for all their livestock.” The choice by the Torah of the word: חיה for livestock, instead of בהמה, is to underline that the Levites’ function on earth is to promote constructive life not burial rites, as pointed out by our sages in the Talmud, tractate Makkot folio12.

ולרכושם, cattle and flocks.

ולכל חיתם, such as bees and their beehives or pigeons and their habitats, etc.

אלף אמה סביב A THOUSAND CUBITS ROUND ABOUT — But afterwards, (v. 5) it says, “two thousand cubits”!? How can that be? They assign two thousand for them (for the Levites) round about their cities, and of these, the innermost thousand serves as the “open space” and the outermost is for fields and vineyards (Sotah 27b).

ומגרשי הערים וגו', “and the open spaces of the cities, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the plain meaning of the text, states that the text first commands that there should be an open space of 1000 cubits around the city. This is to be arrived at by measuring 500 cubits extending outwards from all four directions, and describing a square using the line forming the outer perimeter of these four sides. When the Torah speaks later (verse 5) of measuring 2000 cubits in each direction outwards, so that the city core will be in the center of the new perimeters, we wind up with a total of 4.000 000 cubits square in all. When measured from the respective corners to the outer rim of the city core, this area, of course, was far longer than 2000 or 500 cubits from the edge of the city core. [Nachmanides’ calculation of the size of the city including all its outer areas is by far smaller than the area arrived at by either Rashi or Maimonides. Ed.] The entire length of each side is called פאה, “corner,” by the Torah. The first 1000 cubits of “suburbia” were not meant to be used for planting gardens, etc., but were a “green-belt.”

V. 4. מקיר העיר וחוצה אלף אמה, die tausend Ellen begannen nicht gleich an der Mauer, sondern erst וחוצה, nach dem unmittelbar zur Stadt zu rechnenden Außenraum, תן חוצה ואחר כך מדוד (Eruwin 57a). Es sind dies die "siebzig Ellen und darüber", שבעים אמה ושיריים, die überall noch zur Stadt gerechnet werden, עיבורו של עיר, so dass auch die zweitausend Ellen des תחום am Schabbat erst nach diesen siebzig Ellen beginnen (daselbst). Diese "siebzig Ellen und darüber" sind der Durchmesser eines Quadrats von fünftausend Quadratellen, welches dem Flächeninhalt des hundert Ellen langen und fünfzig Ellen breiten Umraumes (חצר) des משכן entspricht.

אלפים באמה, 1000 cubits described as מגרש, open space, the balance devoted to fields and vineyards.

ומדותם מחוץ לעיר אלפים באמה, “you shall measure outside the city ...approx 2,000 cubits (in each direction).” The meaning is that the Levites were to be given a belt of two thousand cubits of land, the inner half of which has already been described in verse 2. The outer 1,000 cubits could be used to plant vineyards, etc. (compare Rashi).

V. 5. ומדתם וגו׳. Vers 4 waren dem מגרש der Stadt nur tausend Ellen zugewiesen. Jenseits dieses מגרש waren der Stadt noch tausend Ellen zugeteilt, die zu שדות וכרמים verwendbar waren (siehe zu Wajikra. 25, 34). Im Ganzen waren daran zweitausend Ellen nach jeder Seite hin der Stadt zuzumessen. Im weiteren Sinne heißt dieser ganze Raum מגרש.

ואת הערים…את שש ערי המקלט, "and the cities…the six cities of refuge, etc." From this verse we learn that these six cities were to serve primarily the involuntary murderers who had to be exiled there and not the Levites. Seeing that in verse 7 the Torah mentions that the grand total of the number of cities allocated to the Levites is 48, it is clear that the Levites were also entitled to live in the six cities of refuge. Apparently, the Torah wrote matters in such a way that we understand that the Levites and the inadvertent murderers (Israelites) had equal rights in the six cities of refuge. This is why the Torah stressed the rights of the inadvertent murderers in the first verse whereas in the second verse it appears to stress the rights of the Levites. From all this it is clear that the exiles do not have the right to charge rent to the Levites. All the opinions discussing this subject in Makkot 13 are agreed on this point. I may add that it is my view that in the event that there is a surfeit of exiles in any of the six cities of refuge, a Levite may be forced to leave in order to make room for an inadvertent murderer.

ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר, “In addition to them (the 6 cities designated for involuntary manslaughterers to take refuge) you will add another 42 cities for the Levites.” This would make a total of 48 cities in which the Levites would dwell. Three of the cities of refuge were to be situated in the territories of the two and a half tribes on the east bank of the Jordan, the remaining three in Eretz Yisrael proper.

V. 6. ואת הערים וגו׳ את שש ערי המקלט וגו׳. Diese wiederholte Akkusativkonstruktion soll wohl sagen, dass die sechs zuerst zu ערי מקלט bestimmten Städte (V. 13) zugleich den Leviten übergeben werden sollen. In erster Linie bleiben sie jedoch ערי מקלט, so dass die dorthin sich flüchtenden unabsichtlichen Totschläger den Leviten für ihren Aufenthalt keinerlei Abgaben zu zahlen hatten (Mackot 13a). Nach Raschi (daselbst) scheint ihnen sogar unentgeltliche Wohnung haben gewährt werden müssen. ועליהם תתנו וגו׳. Außer diesen sechs ערי מקלט wurden noch zweiundvierzig Städte den Leviten gegeben. Durch dieses ועליהם ist diesen zweiundvierzig Städten sekundär auch das מקלת-Recht erteilt. Allein ihre nächste Bestimmung ist: Levitenstadt zu sein. Daraus fließt ein zweifacher Unterschied zwischen ihnen und den sechs eigentlichen מקלט-Städten. Wenn in ihnen ein unabsichtlicher Totschläger seinen Aufenthalt nimmt, so hat er dafür Abgaben zu tragen, und ferner gewähren sie ihm nur Schutz, wenn er sie mit der ausgesprochenen Absicht des schutzsuchenden Aufenthalts betritt, während die sechs eigentlichen מקלט-Städte ihm diesen Schutz gewähren, selbst wenn er sich nur zufällig in ihnen befindet, ja selbst, wenn er von ihrer schützenden Kraft gar kein Bewusstsein hat (Mackot 10 a und 13 a).

Forty-two cities. Corresponding to the forty-two encampments in which Yisroel camped in the desert and where all of them were like strangers, so were the forty-two cities given to the Levites so that they would not have a portion in Eretz Yisroel. The Cities of Refuge were amongst the cities of the Levites, because whoever enters the City of Refuge has the status of a stranger, and we are concerned that the dwellers in the land might say to him: “You are a stranger in the land.” It was therefore commanded that the Cities of Refuge would be amongst the cities of the Levites, because the Levites are also strangers in the land and the person taking refuge can say: People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר, “and in addition you will add 42 towns” (which can also serve as cities of refuge). The difference between the six cities of refuge named and the cities of the Levites is that the former serve as such regardless of if the unintentional killer is aware of their function or not, whereas the 42 cities of the Levites serve as such only if specifically chosen by the unintentional killer for that purpose. Talmud tractate Makkot, folio 10.

FROM THE MANY YE SHALL TAKE MANY, AND FROM THE FEW YE SHALL TAKE FEW. Here too,⁶⁶See 26:54 where Ramban presents a similar explanation about the allocation of the whole Land amongst the twelve tribes; he now applies the same principles to the manner in which the tribes contributed to the number of cities given to the Levites. in the opinion of our Rabbis [the meaning is that] from the paternal families which received a large amount as their inheritance, they should take many [cities], as He mentioned according to your families,⁶⁷Above, 33:54. while each tribe received exactly the same amount of land [and therefore had to provide an equal number of cities for the Levites]. And although you will find in the Book of Joshua that the number of cities which they gave to the Levites was not equal,⁶⁸In Joshua Chapter 21, where a list of all these cities is given, it is stated that while most of the tribes each gave four cities to the Levites, the tribe of Judah gave eight, Shimon one, the half tribe of Menasheh in Canaan two, and Naphtali three [thus totalling thirty-eight cities in the land of Canaan and ten on the eastern side of the Jordan]. Ramban’s statement that “the number of cities which they gave to the Levites was not equal” is thus clear, as is proven in the cases of Judah, Shimon, and Naphtali. according to the number of tribes, that was because of the [different] value of the particular cities, since some were more important than the others, for the Land was divided according to its value.⁶⁹Baba Bathra 122a. Thus, land nearer to Jerusalem was appraised more valuable than land further away, both because it was nearer to the Sanctuary and also it was further away from the border of the nations (Rashbam, ibid.). A proof to this is the fact that from [the tribes of] Judah, Shimon and Benjamin they gave thirteen cities [to the Levites],⁷⁰Thus: Judah gave eight, Shimon one, Benjamin four, totalling thirteen cities. Similarly: Issachar and Asher each gave four, Naphtali three, the half-tribe of Menasheh two, totalling thirteen cities. and from the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and the half-tribe of Menasheh, [also] thirteen [cities were given],⁷⁰Thus: Judah gave eight, Shimon one, Benjamin four, totalling thirteen cities. Similarly: Issachar and Asher each gave four, Naphtali three, the half-tribe of Menasheh two, totalling thirteen cities. and yet these [latter tribes] were larger than the former ones in their population.⁷¹The figures used here are those of the census, above Chapter 26. Judah (Verse 22 ibid.), Shimon (Verse 14), and Benjamin (Verse 41) totalled 144,300. Issachar (Verse 25), Asher (Verse 47), and Naphtali (Verse 50) totalled 163,100. The complete tribe of Menasheh (Verse 34) totalled 52,700. Assuming that the half-tribe of Menasheh mentioned in Joshua was exact half [i.e., 26,350] we have a total for the latter group mentioned of 189,450, which is far more than the 144,300 of the first group. And from the tribe of Ephraim they gave four cities [to the Levites],⁷²Joshua 21:20-22. and from the tribe of Dan four cities,⁷³Ibid., Verses 23-24. and yet the children of Dan were double [the population] of the children of Ephraim.⁷⁴The children of Ephraim totalled 32,500 (above, 26:37), while Dan totalled 64,400 (ibid., Verse 43)! Thus we must say that the cities were not given in proportion to the population of the tribes, but according to the appraised value of the city.

מאת הרב תרבו, seeing that the value of the land had been determined not in terms of quantity but in terms of quality, when the tribe with large tracts of land contributed more square cubits for the cities of the Levites this did not represent an unfair burden.

מאת הרב תרבו ומאת המעט תמעיטו, “from the many (numerous) you shall increase, and from the few (in number) you shall decrease;” Nachmanides, quoting our sages who claim that all the tribes received territorially equal amounts of land, writes that we need to explain what is written here in terms of the number of families per tribe. A family who had received a large allocation of land (within its tribe) would have to cede relatively many cities of refuge from its territory, whereas a family that had received a relatively small parcel of land would not have to cede proportionately as much for the purpose of providing cities of refuge (including the cities of the Levites). This was so in spite of the fact that when these cities are listed by name and the tribal territory they were in, you will find that the tribes did not all contribute equal numbers. (Joshua chapter 21. [According to verse 3 in that chapter the distribution or allocation of these cities may have proceeded upon divine command after consultation with the urim vetumim. Ed.]

V. 10. כי אתם עוברים וגו׳. Das Land des göttlichen Gesetzes ist um der Menschen willen da. Sein höchstes Produkt, Ziel und Zweck des ganzen ihm zugewandten Gottessegens, ist jede von ihm genährte, der Verwirklichung des Gottesgesetzes durch seine Mittel geweihte Menschenseele. Das Land wird allen nur unter der Bedingung der unantastbaren Heiligachtung einer jeden dem Gesetze heiligen Menschenseele gegeben. Ein Tropfen unschuldig vergossenes, unbeachtet gebliebenes Blut löst eine Masche an dem Band, das das Land mit der Nation und beide mit Gott verknüpft (siehe Verse 33 u. 34). Dieser Heiligachtung des Menschenlebens soll sofort bei der Besitznahme des Landes Ausdruck und in der Verteilung des Landes selbst die Gesetzesinstitution geschaffen werden, auf welche bereits in den Grundzügen der sozialen Rechtsordnungen (Schmot 21, 13) hingewiesen ist.

והקריתם — This verb קרה (in the Hiphil) denotes “preparing”. Similarly it says, (Genesis 27:20) “Because the Lord thy God made it ready (הקרה) before me”(Sifrei Bamidbar 159:4).

והקריתם לכם ערים, ערי מקלט, “you shall designate cities for yourselves, cities of refuge.” The expression והקריתם is derived from קריה, city.

V. 11. והקריתם לכם וגו׳, ihr sollt euch Städte in solcher Lage bestimmen, dass sie sich, ungesucht, von selbst dem Flüchtigen darbieten (siehe zu Bereschit 24, 12).

והקריתם לכם לערים, “you shall appoint for yourselves as towns;” In Deuteronomy 19,3, the Torah instructs the Jewish people to erect pointers guiding potential inadvertent killers with how to get to the nearest city of refuge at each juncture of major roads in the country. This is also what the psalmist referred to in Psalms 25,8: על כן יורה חטאים בדרך, “therefore He shows sinners the way.” Actually, there was no need for this legislation as it follows logically from another legislation. If G–d shows murderers the way to their rehabilitating themselves, how much more will He show the way to people who are righteous and have erroneously committed a sin. This is why the psalmist quoted above immediately continues with: ידרך ענוים במשפט וילמד ענוים דרכו, “He guides the lowly on the right path, and He teaches the humble His way.”

Dieses והקריתם לכם wird Dewarim 19, 3 näher also präzisiert: תכין לך הדרך ושלשת את גבול ארצך וגו׳ die Wege dahin sollen immer in gutem, von allem Hindernis freien Zustande erhalten, nach Mackot 10b mit Wegweisern versehen, und die Städte in gleichen Distanzen von einander entfernt sein. Die drei transjordanischen (Dewarim 4, 48) lagen nicht nur den diesseitigen ganz parallel: Hebron in Juda, Bezer in der Wüste, Sichem am Gebirge Efrajim, Ramot in Gilead, Kadesch im Gebirge Naftali, Golan in Baschan gegenüber, sondern es war auch von der Südgrenze bis Hebron genau so weit wie von Hebron nach Sichem, von Hebron nach Sichem wie von Sichem nach Kadesch, von Sichem nach Kadesch genau so weit wie von Kadesch zur Nordgrenze. Es war also von den beiden Grenzen bis zur ersten Stadt genau so weit, wie von dieser zu der nächstliegenden.

Es waren also drei gleiche Distanzen gegeben: die Entfernung von den Grenzen und die Entfernung von der ersten Stadt zur zweiten und von der zweiten zur dritten. Oder durch Fixierung dreier gleich von einander weit entfernt liegender Punkte in der Mitte wird das Land in vier gleiche Teile geteilt. Diese gleiche Teilung nennt der Text”שלש“ . Im Munde unserer חז׳׳ל wird überhaupt die gleiche Teilung eines gegebenen ganzen Quantums unter mehreren שלש genannt, z. B. משלשין בממון ואין משלשין במכות (Mackot 5 a; — siehe jedoch Raschi daselbst 3a).

”קלט“ ,ערי מקלט kommt in תנ׳׳ך nur als מקלט in diesem Zusammenhange vor und sonst noch שרוע וקלוט, wo es die ungespalten zusammengewachsene Klaue bedeutet. Im Munde der חז ל kommt קלט als das Aufnehmen eines fremden Stoffes zur bleibenden Vereinigung, z. B. bei Farben und beim Pfropfreis (Schabbat 17b und Schebiit 2, 6), obgleich es auch zum Ausdruck für eine vorübergehende Aufnahme vorkommt: קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא (Schabbat 4a). Lautverwandt erscheint es mit גלד, wovon גלד die Haut (Job 16, 15), also die organisch den Leib umschließende Hülle, daher rabbinisch גלדאי, Gerber. Auch der zusammenziehende, starr machende Frost heißt גליד. Nach allem diesem scheint ”קלט“ in מקלט die bleibende festhaltende Aufnahme zu bedeuten. Vielleicht bezeichnet auch das lautverwandte ”ילד“ das Hineinsetzen in die Erdwelt als die fortan den Neugeborenen bleibend aufnehmende Umgebung, und das Verweisen des unvorsätzlichen Mörders in die מקלט-Stadt, ist gleichsam eine zweite beschränkendere Geburt; die מקלט-Stadt ist fortan die ganze Welt des dahin Verwiesenen.

Daher auch im folgenden Verse לכל צרכיכם :לכם ,והיו לכם הערים למקלט (Mackot 13 a). Die Aufnahmsstadt soll in der Tat die kleine Welt des dahin Verwiesenen sein. Er soll darin allen seinen Bedürfnissen vorgesorgt finden. ינום אל אחת הערים האלה וחי, heißt es Dewarim 19, 5, עביד ליה מידי דתהוי ליה חיותא, sorge dafür, dass er dort ein "Leben" finde. Die Städte selbst sollen von mittlerer Größe, nach הל׳ רוצח מל׳׳מ 8, 8 keine ummauerte, mit Wasser und Märkten für Lebensmittel versehen sein. Bei Förderung von Niederlassungen daselbst hat man darauf zu sehen, dass von allen nationalen Kategorien, כהנים לוים וישראלים, sich dort niederlassen, ja selbst für die geistigen Bedürfnisse der dahin Verwiesenen ist in dem Grade zu sorgen, dass einem dorthin verwiesenen Schüler der Wissenschaft sein Lehrer, und in gleichem Falle dem Lehrer die Schüler nachzufolgen haben (daselbst 10a). Es bildet also in der Tat eine מקלט-Stadt eine ausreichende Welt im Kleinen.

מכה נפש בשגגה. Es ist bereits zu Schmot 21, 13 der Begriff שגגה für die unvorsätzliche Tötung dahin präzisiert worden, dass, um unter den Schutz und die Pflicht der עיר מקלט-Zuflucht zu fallen, das Geschehene ebenso weit von מזיד als von אונס, von grober Fahrlässigkeit wie von völlig unberechenbarem Zutreffen, fern sein muss, und nur eine solche Tötung שגגה-Flucht nach עיר מקלט diktiert, bei welcher der eingetretene Fall zwar in der Regel nicht vorauszusetzen, jedoch bei einiger ernsten Vorsicht als immerhin möglich hätte vorschweben müssen (siehe daselbst). מכלל דהוי ליה :בשגגה ידיעה (B. K. 26 b). Der wiederholte Ausdruck בשגגה schließt den Fall aus, wenn das Vorhandensein des Leben gefährdenden Gegenstandes dem Täter nie zum Bewusstsein gekommen war, z. B. היתה אבן מונחת לו בחיקו ולא הכיר בה ועמד ונפלה.

מגאל — [AND THE CITIES SHALL BE UNTO YOU AS A REFUGE] מגאל — i.e. as a refuge on account of the avenger of blood, — he who is the near relative of the murdered man.

למקלט מגואל, “as a refuge from the avenger.” The reference is to a family member of the slain person who would act as his avenger.

Against the blood redeemer. Meaning that מגואל ["from the avenger"] refers to the blood redeemer. Rashi continues to explain which person is termed the blood redeemer, given the name “redeemer” could refer either to the redeemer of the murderer or to the redeemer of the victim. Therefore Rashi explains that he is a kinsman of the victim.

V. 12. מגאל (siehe Schmot 6, 6). גואל ist hier derjenige, der für den getöteten Menschen auftritt und die Ahndung des Geschehenen an dem Täter zur Geltung bringt. Es ist dies in der Regel ein Verwandter des Getöteten. Es ist aber dieses Auftreten des גואל so wenig als sogenannte "Blutrache" zu begreifen, dass, nach Sanhedrin 45b, wenn kein Verwandter da ist, das Gericht einen גואל bestellt. אם אין לו גואל ב׳׳ד מעמידין לו גואל (nach רש׳׳י daselbst ד׳׳ה גואל הדם wäre dies selbst bei רמב׳׳ן ,הורג בשוגג in ס׳׳מ im Anhange zu מ׳׳ע סי׳ י׳׳ג widerlegt jedoch diese Ansicht und erklärt den Satz nur bei הורג במזיד).

למקלט מגואל, “as refuge from the potential avenger of the slain person.” They are to calm the fears of the person who killed unintentionally who worries about becoming the victim of such relatives of the slain person.

ולא ימות הרצח וגו׳,dadurch, dass einmal ein jeder, der einen Menschen getötet , dorthin fliehen kann, ist dem vorgebeugt, dass keiner wieder getötet werde, bevor er vor Gericht gestanden und das Gericht über den Fall entschieden hat, ob er der gerichtlichen Hinrichtung, ob der Verweisung in eine מקלט-Stadt zum Schutze vor dem גואל הדם schuldig geworden oder gänzlich frei zu sprechen sei. So lehrt die Mischna zu Verse 24 und 25 Mackot 9a: בתחלה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד מקדימין לערי מקלט וב׳׳ד שולחין ומביאין אותו משם מי שנתחייב מיתה בב׳׳ד הרגוהו ושלא נתחייב מיתה פטרוהו מי שנתחייב גלות מחזירין אותו למקומו שנאמר והשיבו אותו העדה אל עיר מקלטו. Mackoth 12 a wird an unserem Satze allgemein die Norm gelehrt, dass selbst bei positivster Gewissheit von der Schuld, wenn z. B. ein Mord in Gegenwart des Gerichtes geschehen, der Mörder nicht ohne vorgängige gehörige gerichtliche Prozedur hingerichtet werden dürfe, מנין לסנהדרין שראו אחד שהרג את הנפש שאין ממיתין אותו עד שיעמוד בב׳׳ד אחר ת׳׳ל עד עמדו לפני הערה למשפט עד שיעמוד בב׳׳ד אחר, und zwar, wie es hier heißt, muss die gerichtliche Prozedur durch andere Richter vorgenommen werden, die nicht bei dem Vorgang gegenwärtig waren. Die gegenwärtig gewesenen können nur als Zeugen und nicht als Richter fungieren, weil, wie Rosch Haschana 26 a mit Hinweis auf Verse 24 und 25 (siehe daselbst) gelehrt wird, bei דיני נפשות kein עד הרואה נעשה דין, wer bei dem Vorgang als Zeuge gegenwärtig gewesen, nicht Richter in der Sache werden kann, weil die Aufgabe des Gerichts die möglichste Freisprechung ist, und כיון דחזיוה דקטל נפשא לא מצי חזו ליה זכותא, der Eindruck des gesehenen Vorganges bei ihm nicht hinreichende Unbefangenheit voraussetzen lässt, dem Tatbestand freisprechende Seiten abzugewinnen.

ולא ימות הרוצח, “so that the manslayer will not have to die.” The Torah had to stress this, seeing that it had written in verse 27 of this chapter: ורצח גואל הדם את הרוצח, “and the avenger of blood will slay the manslayer.” This taught that if these two meet elsewhere, the avenger would not be culpable for having killed unless the manslayer had stood trial and been convicted of murder. (Sifri)

העדה ist das Gericht als Repräsentant der von Gott mit Handhabung seines Rechts betrauten Gesamtheit.

שש ערי מקלט [AND AS TO THE CITIES WHICH YOU SHALL GIVE] SIX CITIES OF REFUGE (THERE SHALL BE FOR YOU] — This tells us that although Moses during his life-time set aside three cities on that side of the Jordan (Deuteronomy 4:41), they did not provide refuge until the three had been chosen which Joshua assigned in the land of Canaan on the west side of the Jordan (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:2; Makkot 9b).

The three that Yehoshua placed. Rashi wishes to answer the question: Why did it write the number? Surely when it is written afterwards (v. 14), “three cities you shall give…” [Therefore] we see that there were a total of six. Rather, it was to teach that they did not provide refuge until all six were established.

V. 13. והערים וגו׳ שש ערי מקלט תהיינה. Auch die transjordanischen bereits von Mosche bestimmten drei Städte treten nicht früher in Kraft, bis auch die drei im Lande bestimmt sind. Die מקלט-Institution muss gleichzeitig überall im ganzen jüdischen Gebiete in Kraft treten (Mackot 9b). תחיינה לכם (siehe V. 11).

את שלש הערים וגו׳ THE THREE CITIES [YE SHALL GIVE ON THIS SIDE OF THE JORDAN etc.] — Although in the land of Canaan there were nine tribes and here (on the east side of the Jordan) there were only two and a half, it (Scripture) gives them (the latter) the same number of cities of refuge, because in Gilead (on the east side) murderers were more numerous, as it is written, (Hosea 6:8): “Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, it is covered with footprints of blood” (Makkot 9b; cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 160:2).

YE SHALL GIVE THREE CITIES BEYOND THE JORDAN. “And even though in the land of Canaan there were nine tribes, and here [on the east side of the Jordan] there were only two [and a half], Scripture gave them an equal number of cities of refuge, because in Gilead [on the east side of the Jordan] murderers were numerous, as it is written, Gilead is a city of wrong-doers; it is covered with footprints of blood.”⁷⁵Hosea 6:8. This is Rashi’s language, based on the words of our Rabbis.⁷⁶Makkoth 10a. Now even though the [cities of] refuge were only for those who killed in error [and these murderers of Gilead killed deliberately], they would kill in treachery and make themselves appear as if they had done it in error, and therefore it was necessary to increase [proportionately] the number of their cities of refuge, in order to be able to take in all of them, since one could not tell who had killed deliberately. If so, [we must say that] the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded this on account of the future [since He knew that murderers in Gilead would be numerous], similar to that which it says [of the future generations], and this people will rise up, and go astray.⁷⁷Deuteronomy 31:16. Or perhaps the Rabbis will say that the climate of the land of Gilead was conducive to producing murderers since it became a nation.⁷⁸Exodus 9:24.
But I wonder! For in the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory,⁷⁶Makkoth 10a. the [cities mentioned in the] verse which says, and beside them [i.e., apart from the six cities of refuge], ye shall give [to the Levites] forty and two cities,⁷⁹Above, Verse 6. were all commanded as cities of refuge, and thus there were thirty-six of them in the land of Canaan, and six beyond the Jordan,⁸⁰Since from the total of thirty-eight cities which, as clearly stated in Joshua Chapter 21 (see Note 68), were in the land of Canaan, we must now deduct the three main cities of refuge, leaving us a total of thirty-five additional cities of the Levites in the land of Canaan – and consequently a total of seven such additional cities for beyond the Jordan to complete the total of forty-two — we must perforce understand Ramban’s language in speaking of thirty-six cities for the land of Canaan and six for beyond the Jordan as based on the theory mentioned above in the text that the factor of appraised value was also taken into consideration, and hence the seven cities on the eastern side of the Jordan were regarded as six, thus leaving a total of thirty-six for the land of Canaan. and they all offered protection, in the opinion of our Rabbis, of blessed memory! Thus the cities of refuge throughout the Land of Israel were [distributed] justly and equally, for each of the [twelve] tribes received four cities of refuge. He also counted the tribe of Menasheh in the land of Canaan,⁸¹I.e., in Joshua Chapter 21, Verse 25, the half-tribe of Menasheh in the land of Canaan is mentioned among the other nine tribes as giving cities to the Levites, which served as cities of refuge. This was because, as the text continues, the larger part of the tribe was there; therefore, although their land was smaller, the number of cities they gave to the Levites equalled that of their brethren beyond the Jordan [each giving two cities]. This proves that the determining factor was not because in Gilead murderers were numerous and that therefore the two and a half tribes beyond the Jordan were given a larger proportion of cities of refuge. because the majority of it was there [thus the nine tribes in the land of Canaan together with Menasheh were given thirty-six cities of refuge, i.e., those which constituted the cities of the Levites, plus the original three cities of refuge, making a total of thirty-nine]. Perhaps in [the proportion of] the [six] appointed cities⁸²Joshua 20:9. The phrase refers to the six cities that were originally designated specifically as places of refuge. According to the Rabbis, these six cities offered protection whether the murderer knew that they were cities of refuge or not; in the other forty-two cities he was protected only if he knew that they offered protection (Makkoth 10a). G-d increased [the number of these cities] beyond the Jordan, in honor of Moses, so that he would set aside half of that number [since he could not enter the land of Canaan], but in their totality [of forty-eight cities] they were all divided up by measure and according to proportion [each tribe receiving four cities].
According to the simple meaning of Scripture, it appears to me that the land on the [east] side of the Jordan was very large, for it contained [the kingdom of] the two great Amorite kings [Sihon and Og], about whose might the verses speak in superlative terms, and [this kingdom became] even greater when Ammon and Moab became a legitimate [conquest for Israel] through them [i.e., through Sihon and Og who captured the lands of Ammon and Moab, and from whom Israel subsequently took them by the right of conquest],⁸³Chullin 60b. Israel was not allowed to fight against Ammon and Moab (see Deuteronomy 2:19). But since parts of their lands were captured by Sihon first, this injunction was removed. whereas the kings of the land of Canaan were merely kings of cities, and every ruler of a city was called a “king,” as you see [from the verse]: the king of Jerusalem, one; the king of Hebron, one,⁸⁴Joshua 12:10. See also ibid., Verses 9 and 16. although between them [these two cities] there is a distance of [only] half a day’s walk.⁸⁵This language possibly indicates that Ramban wrote this on the basis of his personal experience, which would indicate that these parts of his commentary were written [or emended] when he was already living in the Land of Israel. See my article on this issue in Hamayon, Tammuz, 5728. Similarly the Sages mention⁸⁶Shemoth Rabbah 32:2. that between Beth-el and Ai is a distance of [only] four miles, and yet each of these cities had its own king.⁸⁴Joshua 12:10. See also ibid., Verses 9 and 16. It is possible that it was the custom in those generations to call every ruler of a city “king,” or perhaps [this was only in the Land of Israel] in honor of the Land of Israel, as our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained.⁸⁷Bereshith Rabbah 85:16: “Any king or ruler who had no [seat of] sovereignty in the Land of Israel would consider himself worthless.” In any case, they were not kings of countries, but only kings of particular cities. And thus it is written, [And Adoni-bezek said], ‘Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered food under my table.’⁸⁸Judges 1:7. The seventy kings subject to Adoni-bezek were clearly not kings of countries, but of small local areas. Thus the land on the [east] side of the Jordan was a very large land, and required three cities of refuge just as the whole of the Land of Israel on the [west] side of the Jordan did, and only these six cities offered refuge [to unwitting murderers], and the forty-two cities [set aside] were for the open lands of the Levites and not for refuge.⁸⁹Ramban is here explaining the verses “according to their simple meaning,” and not according to the opinion of the Rabbis, as mentioned above (at Note 82). See also my Hebrew commentary, p. 338, for further explanation.

את שלש הערים תתנו מעבר לירדן, the ones Moses had already set aside for this purpose as we know from Deuteronomy 4,41.

את שלש הערים, “the three cities, etc.” Nachmanides writes that our sages said that Moses designated three cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan, a surprisingly large number in view of the few inhabitants (21/2 tribes), as murder was a more frequent occurrence in that part of the country. Although this seems irrelevant seeing that these cities were meant only for people who inadvertently committed manslaughter, there were many people who deliberately committed murder, making it appear that the act had been committed unintentionally. It had therefore become necessary to have such cities available until the true circumstances of the killing had been established. According to this interpretation the legislation took into consideration circumstances that would arise only in the future. Alternately, we could say that up until now the region of Gilead had been known as a region in which murder and manslaughter was a frequent occurrence. Personally, I am amazed at these approaches by some commentators, seeing that our sages (Makkot 10) stated that there were a total of 42 cities either being cities of the Levites, which did double duty, or cities of refuge on the west bank, whereas the total on the east bank, including the cities for the Levites amounted to only 6. There is therefore no numerical anomaly in the allocation of these cities. According to the arrangement just described, each tribe had a total of 4 cities that were capable of serving as cities of refuge. Perhaps the fact that there were 3 basic cities of refuge (out of a total of only 6 such cities) in the region of the east bank was a special compliment to Moses for having allocated three such cities already during his lifetime before the west bank or any part of it had even been conquered. The whole arrangement was not unequal once we realise that the cities of the Levites were part of it, so that there were a total of 48 cities that could provide refuge for inadvertent killers. Looking at it from the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, it would appear that the area of the east bank which became part of the Jewish state was huge, considering that this territory comprised all the lands that formerly belonged to the two Emorite kings Sichon and Og by comparison to the west bank, land which the Torah went out of its way to describe with impressive detail. The lands of Moav and Ammon were also partially included, as the Emorites had captured them.. If judged by area rather than by population, it was certainly not excessive to allocate 3 out of the 6 cities of refuge to that region.

Rife with murderers. You might ask: Surely the cities of refuge would only provide refuge for inadvertent killers, and it is illogical to say that Gil’ad was rife with inadvertent killers. The answer is that they were certainly intentional killers, however there were no witnesses and thus they claimed that they killed inadvertently. Consequently, they required three cities of refuge. Re’m. Another answer is that this refers to a matter detailed in Parshas Mishpatim (Shemos 21:13), “Hashem caused it to come to his hand” teaching that Hashem arranges for them to be at the same inn…” (see below). Here too it refers to the same matter. There were many murderers in Gil’ad who acted with intent but without witnesses, and in the land of Israel there were many inadvertent killers without witnesses. So what did Hashem do? He would arrange for them to be at the same inn, in Gil’ad, and the inadvertent killers from the land of Israel would inadvertently kill the intentional killers. For example, when [the murderer] was sitting beneath a ladder as Rashi explains there [the inadvertent killer would accidentally fall upon the murderer, killing him in front of witnesses]. Consequently, the intentional killers would be killed while the inadvertent killers would be exiled there in Gil’ad to these cities of refuge. Thus, it was necessary to have three cities of refuge in Gil’ad like in the entire land of Israel. (Divrei Dovid) answers the question with the Gemara in Perek Eilu Hen Hagolin (Makkos 10b): It was taught in a beraysa: Rabbi Yosi bar Yehudah says that initially both inadvertent and intentional killers go to the cities of refuge, and the Beis Din sends messengers to bring them [for judgment]. Whoever is liable for the death penalty is executed, as it says (Devarim 19:12), “The elders of his city shall send for him and take him from there…” Whoever is not liable is released, and whoever is liable for exile (i.e., city of refuge) is returned to the place [from where he was taken].

V. 14. ערי מקלט תהיינה, bei ihnen steht die מקלט-Bestimmung voran, während, bei den übrigen Levitenstädten der מקלט-Charakter nur sekundär ist (siehe V. 6).

They shall be cities of refuge. In their name and content they should only be Cities of Refuge, and there should be no other industry there that should be fitting to call the city after that industry.

את שלש הערים וגו'...מעבר לירדן ואת שלש הערים וג' בארץ כנען “the three towns etc.; and the three towns etc.; in the land of Canaan.” The Talmud tractate Makkot folio 9 raises the question why it was that both on the west bank of the Jordan and on the east bank three towns of refuge for potential inadvertent killers were provided when more than 80% of the population resided on the west bank of the Jordan? The answer given by the scholar Abbaye is that the area known as Gilead on the east bank was known to harbour many murderers. He based himself on what is written in the Book of Hoseah 6,8: גלעד קרית פועלי און עקובה מדם, “Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” Rabbi Elazar there adds that the word עקובה used by the prophet means that people lay in wait, and ambushed those whom they planned to kill. How do these statements answer our question seeing that the cities of refuge were not provided for intentional murders? The prophet accused the people Gilead of committing deliberate murders! The answer is that the fact that seeing that unintentional killings were common place in Gilead, this encouraged intentional killers to pretend that they had committed unintentional killing. G–d arranged for unintentional killers to be residents of that area in order to be able to tell between deliberate murders committed in the absence of witnesses, and unintentionally committed killings. Their victims would be the ones who had previously committed intentional killings but could not be brought to court due to absence of witnesses. The Talmud on the folio next to the one we quoted uses Samuel I 24,14: מרשעים יצא רשע, “wicked deeds have a habit of being performed by wicked people.” [a quote from David who after having cut off a piece of King’s Shaul’s cloak instead of killing him as his pursuer, wanted to convince him that the people who had accuse him as being his enemy had evil intentions. Ed.] If one person had killed unintentionally, without there being any witnesses, so that he did not bother to go to a city of refuge, G–d arranges that he will do something similar with witnesses, but the victim having previously guilty of intentional undetected murder.

את שלש הערים, “the three cities;” we do not read here about the difference of the status of these cities that Moses had selected on the east bank of the Jordan and the three that were designated as cities of refuge on the west bank. (the word מקלט describing the function of the three cities on the east bank is absent in this verse. Ed.] This had been spelled out, however, in Deuteronomy 4,4143. Rashi explains that a) the three cities which Moses had designated on the east bank did not become functional as long as the land on the west bank had not been conquered and settled. b) He also points out on our verse that whereas three such cities served in the west bank where nine and a half tribes had made their homes were on the east bank where only two and a half tribes had made their homes were served by the same number of cities of refuge. He views this as proof that Moses viewed the likelihood of these cities being needed on the east bank was far greater as in Gilead murders would be more common than in the “Holy Land” on the west bank. He backs up this surmise by quoting Hosea 6,8: גלעד קרית פועלי און עקובה מדם, “Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” This suggests that in the prophet’s time even intentional killers were in the habit of using these cities as cities of refuge. The Mishnah in Makkot folio 9, states that in the early periods both intentional and unintentional killers used to flee to the cities of refuge, pending a trial to determine who had been an intentional killer and who had been an unintentional killer. This explains what the Torah had written in verse 12 that no one was to be executed until he had stood trial. According to Sifri, the courts would dispatch messengers to bring the offending parties to trial in the location under their jurisdiction, i.e. depending on where the killing had occurred. They would execute the guilty and free the innocent, i.e. bring them back to the city of refuge.

Bloody ambush. עקובה is in the sense of an ambush.

ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו BUT IF HE SMOTE HIM WITH AN INSTRUMENT OF IRON — This is not speaking of one who kills inadvertently, who is mentioned near this (in the preceding verse), but of one who kills intentionally; and its purpose is to teach us that with whatever instrument one kills, it is necessary that it must have a size sufficient to cause death, because in the case of all of them (vv. 17, 18) it is said, אשר ימות “[an instrument] by which one may die”, the Hebrew of which we translate in the Targum by, “[an instrument] which is of such a size that one may die through it” — in the case of all, except in that of iron, because it is manifest and known to the Holy One, blessed be He, that iron kills whatever size it may be (however small it is), even a needle. Therefore the Torah does not assign a size to it by writing ,אשר ימות בה (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:3; Sanhedrin 76b). And if you say that Scripture is speaking of one who kills inadvertently, — but surely it says lower down, (v. 23) “Or with any stone, even though one may die by it, (even though it is large enough to kill him) seeing him not”, which certainly is by inadvertence. This proves as regards the cases mentioned before it, that Scripture is speaking of one who kills intentionally.

ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו וימות רוצח הוא, “If he had struck him with an iron implement and he died, he is a murderer.” The Torah legislated that if someone killed with a stone or a wooden implement the court will examine if the force used was sufficient to result in death under normal circumstances, i.e. if the victim were healthy. We know this from verse 17: “If he struck him with a hand-sized stone which is sufficiently large to cause death, or with a wooden implement.” These words mean that the court must weigh the relative strength of the blow according to the physique of who administered it and according to the implement employed to strike the victim with. When the blow was struck with an iron tool or weapon, the Torah does not apply such criteria but assumes that anyone who strikes a blow with such an instrument has murderous intentions. Iron instruments, even if as small as a needle are capable of causing death. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Rotzeach Nefesh 3,1; 3,2, etc.)
If the killer pushed the victim so that he fell off the roof of a building and died, this is a situation covered by the words in verse 20: “if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled him from an ambush so that he died,” the killer is automatically assumed to have had murderous intent. If less lethal instruments caused the death of the victim the court has to assess if the blows inflicted were prompted by hostility. This is why the Torah wrote: “or he struck him in enmity with his hand.”

Of a size capable. כמיסת means “of a size.”

V. 16. ואם בכלי ברזל usw. Von Versen 16 — 21 folgen erst Bestimmungen über die Modalitäten, die den vorsätzlichen Mord zur gerichtlichen Ahndung qualifizieren. Außer den durch Zeugen und vorgängige Warnung, עדים והתראה (Kap. 15, 33) zu konstatierenden subjektiven Merkmalen des Bewusstseins und Vorsatzes, kommen noch die objektiven Umstände, die von dem Täter in Bewegung gesetzten oder zu seinem Zwecke benutzten tötenden Mittel in Betracht, ob sie zu dem erfolgten Tode in solchem Verhältnis stehen, dass nach menschlicher Schätzung der Tod als direkte Wirkung der Handlung des Täters zu beurteilen sei. Es ist dabei Größe, Stoff und Beschaffenheit des Werkzeugs, die dabei angewandte Kraft des Täters, die bedrohte und getroffene Stelle, die körperliche Konstitution des Getöteten etc. vom Gerichte in Erwägung zu ziehen, wie alle diese Erwägungen in unserem Texte angedeutet sind. Es werden die verschiedenen Stoffe עץ ,אבן ,ברזל genannt, bei אבן und עץ steht die Beifügung כלי עץ יד ,אבן יד :יד, d. h. ein zu handhabender Stein, ein zu handhabendes hölzernes Gerät, und ist damit sowohl eine hinreichende Größe vorausgesetzt, als auch auf Schätzung der Kraft hingewiesen, die das Mittel in Bewegung gesetzt. Bei ברזל fehlt diese Beifügung, weil nach Sanhedrin 76 b auch die kleinste Verwundung durch Eisen tötlich werden kann (siehe תוספו׳ daselbst). Darum steht auch beim Stein und dem hölzernen Geräte: אשר ימות בו, es müssen Mittel und Schlag solche gewesen sein, dass er dadurch hat sterben können, dass der erfolgte Tod darauf zurückgeführt werden kann, und endlich heißt es überall הכהו וימות, es muss nach sachkundiger Ansicht der Tod in Folge des Schlages eingetroffen sein; dann ist er ein רצח, ein "Mörder", und מות יומת הרצח, und es ist sein Tod durch Menschenhand zu bewirken.

The murderer must be executed. Here it means not by Beis Din, since we are discussing a case where there was no warning. If there was, there would be no difference in the ruling according to the weapon used for murder, since the witnesses watched and knew for sure that he intended purposely to give him a fatal blow. Rather, here it is talking about a case where he did not get a warning, and there is no clear awareness if it was intentional or unintentional.

ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו, “but if he struck him with a metal instrument or tool;” why did the Torah have to give us this example if it had already told us that wooden or stone vessels or tools are considered as lethal weapons? Surely it is understood that metal tools are at least as dangerous?!This is to teach us that penalties cannot be imposed on the basis of logic, especially in capital crimes, but only if the written Torah had decreed them. (Compare Rashi quoting the Talmud in Sanhedrin and by the commentaries.) A minute metal instrument, a needle is already capable of causing death, i.e. is a lethal weapon.

But it states. Meaning that when it is written, “If [he struck him] with an iron instrument… or if with a stone that can be held in the hand… or if with a wooden implement…” until “If [he pushes] out of hatred” (v. 20) perhaps it is referring to an inadvertent killer. And this was necessary [in contrast with the verses below] so that you would not say as follows: It is understandable if this refers to an inadvertent killer, that it would have had to say, “And if with an iron instrument” and all of the other cases that follow, in order to teach that he is liable for the death penalty, even if he killed inadvertently. But, if it refers to an intentional killer, what difference does it make whether he killed with an iron or any other instrument? Surely he is an intentional killer. However, when it is written afterwards (v. 21), “Or if in enmity…” until “But if suddenly” (v. 22) [it is clear that] these undoubtedly refer to an intentional killer.

With a stone. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture write about “a stone” (v. 23)? Surely above it is also written about a stone, where it [apparently] also refers to an inadvertent killer. Rather, “This teaches that in its statements above…”

באבן יד [AND IF HE SMOTE HIM] WITH A STONE IN THE HAND (more lit., with a stone of the hand) — one which has the size of a full hand (i.e., large enough to fill a hand).

Large enough. You might ask: Surely it is written, “A stone that can be held in the hand” and Rashi explains that this is “large enough to fill the hand,” meaning that it is large enough to kill. The answer is that one phrase teaches that it is large enough to kill when one strikes, and one phrase teaches that it is large enough to kill when one throws it. For sometimes it would be large enough to kill when striking but not when thrown, and if one were to throw it and kill, I might have said that he was culpable. Consequently, we are informed that he is not culpable until it is large enough to kill when thrown. With this we can answer the question of Re’m who writes “I do not know…”

אשר ימות בה signifies: which has a size sufficient to cause death, as the Targum understands it. Because it has been stated, (Exodus 21:18) “If one man smote another with a stone” but it assigned no size for it, one might think that it means, whatever size it may be! Therefore it states here, “by which one may die” (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:3).

או בכלי עץ יד OR [IF HE SMITE HIM] WITH A WEAPON OF WOOD IN HIS HAND — Because it has been stated, (Exodus 21:20) “And if a man smite his bondman or his bondwoman with a rod”, one might think that it means whatever size it may be! Therefore it states here of the wooden instrument אשר ימות בה — meaning that it must have a size sufficient to cause death (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:4).

בפגעו בו WHENEVER HE MEETETH HIM [HE MAY KILL HIM] — even in the cities of refuge.

Even inside the cities of refuge. For here the Torah speaks about a premeditated killer, as Rashi explains above (v. 16). If Beis Din did not execute him and he exiled himself to a city of refuge without its authorization, then [the avenger] could kill him, even inside the city of refuge. For if not so, why does the Torah write “where ever he meets him”? Surely it had already written, “The blood avenger shall kill the murderer.”

V. 19. גואל הדם וגו׳ בפגעו בו וגו׳. Es scheint hiermit ein zweifaches gesagt zu sein. Hat das Gericht nach dem Vorangehenden (Verse 16 — 18) den Mörder des Todes schuldig erkannt, so hat in erster Linie der גואל הדם den gerichtlichen Tod an ihm zu vollziehen, ja, wie bereits V. 12 bemerkt, ist kein Verwandter als גואל da, so hat das Gericht einen גואל הדם zur Vollziehung des Urteils zu ernennen (Sanhedrin 45b). Ferner aber בפגעו בו וגו׳, wenn das Gericht die Vollziehung unterlässt oder er sich derselben entzieht, so ist der גואל הדם berechtigt, wo er ihn trifft, selbst innerhalb der ערי המקלט, das gefällte Urteil an ihm zu vollstrecken.

בצדיה — Understand this as the Targum does: בכמנא, BY LAYING IN WAIT.

VV. 20 u. 21. ואם בשנאה וגו׳. Bei den in Versen 16-18 angeführten Tötungen mit einem Werkzeug lassen sich die Merkmale, die einen Totschlag als Mord qualifizieren, mit größerer Klarheit präzisieren. Darum standen diese voran. Hieran schließen sich nun die Sätze: אם בשנאה usw. או באיבה usw. und sagen damit, dass auch bei jeder anderen Tötungsart dieselben Momente der Kraft, des Mittels und des Erfolges zur Entscheidung der Frage ermittelt werden müssen, ob der Tod als direkte Wirkung der Tat des Täters zu beurteilen sei (siehe Sanhedrin 76a f.). — ואם וגו׳ יהדפנו או השליך עליו. Es ist einerlei, ob er den Menschen auf das tötende Medium oder das tötende Medium auf den Menschen wirft. ”הדף“, verwandt mit ”חטף“ ,”ערף“, ”עטף“ ,”חטב“, Grundbedeutung: übrig sein, die in עדף einfach hervortritt, davon הדף: als irgendwo übrig, dort nicht hingehörig, fortstoßen. חטף: etwas, als da, wo es sich befindet, nicht hingehörig, zu sich fortreißen. ”חטב עץ“ Bäume dem Walde durch Fällen entreißen. עטף: sich durch Verhüllung isolieren.

ואם בשנאה יהדפנו, “and if he had attacked him from above out of a feeling of hatred,” [possibly without intent to kill but only to harm, Ed.]

”צדה“ .בצדיה (siehe Schmot 21, 13 ).

בפתע means BY ACCIDENT. In the Targum it is translated by בתכיף (in close proximity), meaning that he was very close to him and so had no time to be careful about him (i.e. to be on his guard not to kill him; see Rashi on Makkot 7b).

ואם בפתע בלא איבה, “But if with suddenness, without enmity,” The word “suddenly” means that it was caused by an accident. The victim was close by the killer and he did not have a chance to be warned.

V. 22. ואם כפתע (siehe Kap. 6, 9). ואם בפתע פרט לקדן זוית (Mackot 16 b). Es muss im Momente der tötenden Bewegung der Getroffene in einer solchen Richtung sich befunden haben, dass der Täter כפתע, nur aus Gedankenlosigkeit von der Begegnung überrascht worden. Ging er aber z. B. von West nach Ost, also mit dem Gesichte nach Osten an einer Straßeneinbiegung vorüber, in dem Momente, in welchem der Getroffene mit dem Gesichte nach Norden hervortrat, so dass wohl der Getroffene den Täter sehen, nicht aber von ihm gesehen werden konnte, so ist der Täter אנוס und frei von גלות (siehe ריטב׳׳א z. St.). פרט לשונא :בלא איבה, es waltet bei dem שונא die Präsumtion einer solchen Fahrlässigkeit vor, die nahe an מזיד streift. בלא צדיה: da צדיה (V. 19 ). ganz entschieden die beabsichtigte Tötung, das bewusste Zielen auf den Getöteten ausdrückt, so kann hier בלא צדיה eben nur dies bewusste Zielen auf den Getroffenen ausschließen, und wenn es Mackot 7b heißt: בלא צדיה פרט למתכוין לצד זה והלכה לה לצד אחר, dass damit der Fall ausgeschlossen ist, wenn die Absicht war, den Stein nach einer ganz anderen Seite zu werfen, er aber durch einen nicht vorherzusehenden Umstand nach der entgegengesetzten Seite geflogen, so kann dieses Abweichen von der beabsichtigten Richtung nicht in dem Begriff צדיה liegen. Vielmehr dürfte dieser Fall durch den Ausdruck בלא צדיה nur also sich verneinen, dass der Text sagt: es fehlt nur die Absicht, das Zielen. Allein, wenn nicht nur diese Absicht fehlt, sondern es die Absicht war, den Stein in eine ganz andere Richtung zu werfen, so tritt nicht einmal גלות ein, er ist קרוב לאונס und der Täter ist ganz frei.

או בכל אבן אשר ימות בה OR WITH ANY STONE WHEREBY ONE MAY DIE, he smote him.

ויפל עליו, “he caused it to fall upon him.” This verse caused our sages (Makkot 7) to determine that if someone kills unintentionally by dropping something while lowering it he must go to the city of refuge, but if it occurred while lifting the object he does not go.

He struck him. Without the additional phrase, “He struck him,” we would understand “without seeing” is associated with “which can kill” as if to say that he did not see his death. However this is not so, rather it means to say that he did not see when he struck him. Furthermore, without the additional wording the phrase, “Or even with a stone” would obviously be missing [a verb], since it should have said, “Or even struck with a stone.” For if it referred back to [the verb] “threw” (v. 22), the verse should have said או כל אבן ["or even a stone"].

V. 23. עד שיפול דרך נפילה :ויפל עליו, es ist als eine גלות verschuldende Unvorsichtigkeit nur dann zu behandeln, wenn der tötende Gegenstand von ihm abwärts gerichtet war, nicht aber, wenn er von ihm aufwärts geführt gegen seinen Willen abwärts flog. Ebenso wohl, wenn er von einer Leiter abwärts steigend auf einen Untenstehenden gefallen, nicht aber, wenn er beim Hinaufsteigen hinunter gefallen und im Fall den Untenstehenden getötet. זה הכלל כל שבדרך ירידתו גולה ושלא כדרך ירידתו אינו גולה (Mackot 7b).

ויפל עליו “and he threw it down upon him;” from the wording of this verse the Rabbis concluded that killing by dropping something on the victim makes the killer subject to spending the rest of his life until the death of the High Priest in a city of refuge. If the killer had looked at what was below him he would have seen that dropping an object or throwing an object down was something dangerous. (Talmud tractate Makkot folio 7) On the other hand, if the victim was struck by the killer having thrown something up into the air, this is considered an accident, and the person who had thrown the object does not have to be confined to the city of refuge. The basic principle is that one has to look in front if there are obstacles, but not behind or above. Normal people do not look in all directions before throwing an object.

בלא ראות — i.e. that he (the slayer) did not see him (Not: without anyone having seen him, i.e. that there were no witnesses).

While descending. Such as where one was rolling a roller downward and it fell upon a person and killed him, or where one was lowering a bundle and it fell upon a person, or one was descending a ladder and fell upon a person and killed him, [in all these cases] he is exiled.

ויפל עליו AND HE CAST IT UPON HIM — From here (i.e. from these words) they (the Rabbis) said: he who kills inadvertently by way of a falling movement goes into exile (i.e. must escape to and reside in a city of refuge); he who kills by way of an upward movement does not go into exile (Makkot 7b; cf. our Note on Exodus 21:13).

While ascending is not exiled. If one was pushing a roller upward and it fell on a person and killed him, or one was raising a barrel and the rope broke and the barrel fell on a person and killed him, or where one was ascending a ladder and fell upon a person and killed him, he is not exiled. The reason is that because all of these [deaths] were as a result of moving upward and he was not obliged to be cautious.

VV. 24 u. 25. ושפטו העדה וגו׳ והצילו העדה וגו׳. Wir haben bereits zu V. 12 bemerkt, wie die freisprechende Tendenz ein wesentliches Attribut der jüdischen Kriminalgerichte bildet. Schon in ihrer Zusammensetzung findet dies seinen Ausdruck. Das höchste Tribunal, סנהדרי גדולה, bestand aus einundsiebzig Gliedern, die in jeder größeren Stadt einzusetzenden kleineren Kriminalgerichtshöfe aus dreiundzwanzig, und wird Sanhedrin 2a diese Zahl auf unsere Stelle zurückgeführt: העדה ,ושפטו העדה es müssen sich innerhalb eines Kriminalgerichtshofes eine עדה שופטת ועדה מצלת bei jedem Kriminalfall bilden, d. h. die Schuld wie die Unschuld durch ein Zehnmännerkollegium, עדה, vertreten sein können. Es gibt dies die Minimalzahl von zwanzig, und damit ein Majoritsausschlag möglich sei, der bei Kriminalfällen, wenn verurteilend, mindestens aus zwei Stimmen bestehen muss (siehe Schmot 23, 2), so musste das Kollegium aus mindestens dreiundzwanzig bestehen. Diese freisprechende Tendenz ist auch der ganzen kriminalgerichtlichen Prozedur aufgeprägt. Ein Gerichtshof, bei dessen Verhandlungen sich einstimmige Verurteilung gezeigt, שראו כולן לחובה, hat den Angeklagten freizusprechen (Sanhedrin 17 a). Ein Mitglied des Gerichtshofes, das bei einer kriminalrechtlichen Verhandlung eine verurteilende Ansicht geäußert, kann während der Verhandlung zur Vertretung der freisprechenden Ansicht übergehen, nicht aber von freisprechender zur verurteilenden. Bei der Schlussabstimmung, גמר דין, hat er freilich seiner schließlichen Ansicht gemäß zu votieren (daselbst 32 a; — siehe auch Schmot 23,7).

על המשפטים האלה: auf Grund dieser Rechtsordnungen, ob er zu gerichtlichem Tode, zur Verweisung in die מקלט-Städte zu verurteilen, oder frei zu sprechen ist.

והשיבו וגו׳ והצילו וגו׳. Wenn er zur Verweisung in eine מקלט-Stadt verurteilt wird, so sorgt das Gericht für seine Rückkehr dorthin und gibt ihm Begleitung auf dem Wege mit (Mackot 10b). וישב בה עד מות וגו׳. So auch V. 28 עד מות הכהן הגדול und ואחרי מות הכהן הגדול ישוב, dadurch ist der Begriff "כהן גדול" hinsichtlich der heimbringenden Kraft seines Todes erweitert: אחד מושח בשמן המשחה ואחד המרובה בבגדים ואחד שעבר ממשיחתו מחזירין את הרוצח (daselbst 11 a). dass ein durch Salbung oder ein in Ermangelung derselben nur durch Anziehen der hohenpriesterlichen Kleider (Schmot 29, 29-30 und Wajikra 16, 32) zum כהן גדול Geweihter, oder ein bei Erkrankung des כהן גדול zu dessen Stellvertreter ernannt Gewesener und nach Genesung des כה׳׳ג wieder Zurückgetretener (עבר ממשיחתו), in dieser Beziehung ganz gleich stehen (siehe ריטב׳׳א Mackoth daselbst das Problem nachgewiesen, wie alle drei Arten כה׳׳ג gleichzeitig sein können). Die Frage: ob במיתת כולן הוא חוזר או במיתת אחד מהן, ob, wenn mehrere, in dieser Beziehung gleichberechtigte כהנים גדולים, z. B. ein כה ג und ein עבר ממשיחתו da sind, schon der Tod eines derselben, oder erst der Tod beider die Heimkehr gestatten, ist (daselbst 11b) nicht ganz entschieden.

(Das sonstige Verhältnis eines כהן המשיח zu einem מרובה בגדים, sowie des כהן משמש zu dem כהן שעבר ist Horiot 11 b also ausgesprochen: אין בין כהן המשיח בשמן המשחה למרבה בגדים אלא פר הבא על כל המוות (ויקרא ד׳, ג׳) ואין בין כהן משמש לכהן שעבר אלא פר יום הכפורים (שם ט׳׳ז, ג׳) ועשירית האיפה (שם ו׳, י׳׳ג) זה וזה שוים בעבודת יום הכפורים ומצוים על הבתולה (שם כ׳׳א, י׳׳ד) ואסורים על האלמנה (שם כ׳׳א, י׳-י׳׳א) ואינם מטמאין בקרוביהם ולא פורמים ומחזירים הרוצח)

Es hat aber nur der Tod des כה׳׳ג die heimbringende Kraft, der im Momente des Urteilschlusses, כהן גדול ,גמר דין war. Es heißt אשר משח אותו בשמן הקדש, den er, der Angeklagte noch mitgesalbt hatte, d. h. wenn wir es recht verstehen, der gesalbt wurde, während er, der Angeklagte, noch zu der nationalen Gesamtheit gehörte, in deren Namen jeder Hohepriester ernannt wird, als er noch nicht durch seine Verurteilung aus der nationalen Gesamtheit verwiesen war, שנמשח בימיו Mackot 11b). Stirbt der כה׳׳ג vor der Verurteilung und seine Verurteilung erfolgt erst nach der Ernennung eines andern, so kehrt er mit dem Tode dieses zweiten zurück. Erfolgt seine Verurteilung ohne Vorhandensein eines כה׳׳ג, ebenso wer einen כה׳׳ג getötet hat, oder ein כה׳׳ג, der eine unvorsätzliche Tötung begangen, kehrt nie aus der Verweisung zurück. (Nach תוספו׳ Sanhedrin 18 b ד׳׳ה אינו יוצא wären jedoch diese beiden letzten Fälle ההורג כה׳׳ג או כה׳׳ג שהרג nur, wenn vor seiner Verurteilung kein anderer ernannt worden, und wäre somit in dieser Beziehung zwischen כה׳׳ג und einem anderen kein Unterschied. So auch הל׳ רוצח ,דמב׳׳ם VII, 10). — אשר נם שמה וישב בה. Vor Beendigung seiner Verweisungszeit darf er unter keiner Bedingung und zu keinem Zweck, selbst nicht zu einem Mizwazwecke, selbst nicht im höchsten Interesse der Gesamtheit seine מקלט-Stadt verlassen, אינו יוצא לא לעדות מצוה ולא לעדות ממון ולא לעדות נפשות ואפילו ישראל צריכין לו. Auch nach seinem Tode wird er dort begraben. Ja, selbst wenn er nach der Verurteilung noch in, der Heimat gestorben, wird seine Leiche nach der מקלט-Stadt gebracht, das Grab gehört mit zu dem ihm dort angewiesenen Wohnen, und erst nach dem Tode des כה׳׳ג können seine Gebeine in das Grab seiner Heimat überführt werden, שם תהא דירתו שם תהא מיתתו שם תהא קבודתו (Mackot 11 b).

עד מות הכהן הגדול [HE SHALL ABIDE IN IT] UNTIL THE DEATH OF THE HIGH PRIEST — because he serves to cause the Shechinah to dwell in Israel and thereby prolong their days, whilst the murderer serves to make the Shechinah depart from Israel and thereby shortens the days of the living. He is therefore not worthy that he should stand before a High Priest (that he should be anywhere near a High Priest) (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:9). Another explanation why he had to remain there until the High Priest’s death: Because the High Priest should have prayed that this misfortune might never happen in Israel in his days (cf. Makkot 11a).

עד מות הכהן הגדול, the Torah had already made clear that exile is a penalty applicable only to inadvertently committed killing. Seeing that there are different degrees of inadvertent killing, i.e. some border on accidents totally beyond the control of the perpetrator, whereas others are acts of criminal negligence, though unintended, the Torah in determining the penalty does not give us a fixed time, but a variable. When the killing occurred only a short time before the death of the High Priest, the exile spends little time in the city of refuge; on the other hand, there may be times when the exile dies in the city of refuge before the High Priest officiating at the time of the “crime,” dies. These variables are taken into account by G’d Who alone is in possession of all the facts, i.e. the degree of negligence which caused this inadvertent killing. The important reference to G’d’s involvement and calculations in all this is found in Exodus 21,13 והאלוקים אנה לידו, “G’d had caused, directed his hand,” (that of the inadvertent killer.)

עד מות הכהן הגדול; according to the plain meaning of the text the word is used to described the senior judge. The idea of “lifetime” imprisonment referring to the lifetime of the judge who imposed the sentence occurs in this sense also in Isaiah 14,17 אסיריו לא פתח ביתו, “he never released his prisoners.”

And the correct [understanding] is like the words of Sforno. And it is [also] possible to say like the author of Mincha Belulah, "[that it is] in order that the high priest will be beloved to the people, and that the joy of his establishment will be increased, since the exiles were return to their land"...

וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, “and he will stay there until the death of the High Priest.” Our sages in Makkot 11 linked the duration of the stay of such an inadvertent killer to the death of the High Priest to the fact that the High Priest is the means of atonement for the people; it had been up to him to beseech G’d for mercy and he had failed to do so (adequately) or the tragedy of this killing would not have occurred. In this manner he shares the guilt of any murder which occurs during his tenure of the office of High Priest.
Furthermore, the death of the High Priest serves as a measure of consolation and comfort for the relatives of the slain person who will no longer bear a grudge concerning that killing. The Sifri on our verse also writes that seeing that the High Priest is the cause for the Presence of the Shechinah to dwell in Israel, i.e. the cause that lengthens the lives of the people, the killer had caused the opposite i.e. he caused the Shechinah to depart [by reducing the average life span of the people through killing someone prematurely, Ed.]. It is not appropriate therefore that the killer present himself in the vicinity of the High Priest. Hence he had to remain confined to the city of refuge.

That this [pitfall] not occur. According to the first interpretation there is the difficulty that it is written, “Until the death of the Kohein Gadol.” The verse is saying that the murderer will live after the death of the Kohein Gadol, since the Kohein Gadol would die sooner, but why would this be? Therefore, Rashi explains, “Because he should have…” However, according to the second interpretation there is the difficulty that even if the Kohein Gadol was punished with death for not praying, why should the murderer return home after the death of the Kohein Gadol? Therefore, he also brings the first reason.

Until the death of the Kohein Gadol. Since the overriding characteristic of Aharon is peace, he should have prayed for the members of his generation that there will only be peace and truth in his day, and then this unpleasant incident would not have happened. Therefore the murderer stays in the City of Refuge until the death of the Kohein Gadol. Thus, he and his entire household pray for the death of the Kohein Gadol, so that he can return home swiftly. For this reason Scripture writes: Until the death of the Kohein Gadol, who was anointed with the sacred oil. Don’t we already know that the Kohein Gadol was anointed with the anointing oil? Scripture is teaching us that the murderer extinguished the light of Hashem, which is the soul of man, and also extinguished the “candle is a mitzvah and the Torah is light.” For sure this Kohein Gadol, who experienced a murder in his days, did not remember that he had the holy anointing oil poured over him. Half of the measure of anointing oil was 250, which is to say twice the value of ner (candle). Every Kohein Gadol needs to stand on guard over these two lamps during his days and to pray for this. Since this event happened during his term of office, he must remain there until the death of the Kohein Gadol.

וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, “and he has to dwell there until the death of the High Priest.” The reason is so that people at large will not accuse the High Priest as not having fulfilled his task of seeing to it that murder does not go unpunished (Deuteronomy 17,12). They would not be able to blame the new high Priest as the killing had not occurred while he was in office.

אשר משח אתו בשמן הקדש WHO WAS ANOINTED WITH THE HOLY OIL — According to its plain sense, this is one of the elliptical sentences — for it does not expressly mention who anointed him, but it is the same as אשר משחו המושח בשמן המשחה “… the High Priest whom he who carried out the anointing had anointed with the holy oil”. — Our Rabbis, however, expounded it in Treatise Makkot 11b as a proof for a law: that it intends to teach that if, before the sentence on him has been passed that he should go into a city of refuge, the High Priest died and they appointed another in his stead, and afterwards his case was finished, he returns home through the death of the second, because it is said, אשר משח אתו. But did he anoint the priest or did the priest anoint him? for the words may literally mean either: “until the death of the High Priest whom he (the murderer) had anointed” or “until the death of the High Priest who has anointed him (the murderer)” — but the words are used to include the case of the High Priest who was anointed in his days (and whom, as it were he had anointed), viz., that he (such a High Priest) causes him to return home through his death.

אשר משח אותו, “whom one had anointed.” The subject המושח is missing in this verse. It is one of numerous verses where this occurs. Our sages in Makkot 11 derive from this missing word that if a High Priest died during the period that the court had to decide if the killer was an intentional killer or not, and a new High Priest was appointed prior to the end of the trial, the killer has to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the second High Priest. The reason that although the second High Priest was not even in office yet is still associated with this killer is that the new appointee should have prayed that the court would find the killer as innocent of wrongdoing instead of convicting him of manslaughter through negligence. [I believe the underlying linkage is that the killer confined in the city of refuge prays for the demise of the High Priest so that he can go home. Ed.]

Who anointed him. The verse implies that the murderer anointed the Kohein Gadol with the sacred oil, therefore one must say that this is one of the shortened passages…

VV. 26 u. 27. ואם יצא וגו׳ ורצח וגו׳. Mackot 11 b heißt es: כשם שהעיר קולטת כך תחומה קולט, dass nicht nur die Stadt, sondern auch das Stadtgebiet ihm Schutz gewährt, darum heißt es auch wohl nicht ומצא אתו וגו׳ מחוץ ,אם יצא וגו׳ את עיר מקלטו לעיר מקלתו, sondern: מחוץ לגבול עיר מקלטו ,את גבול עיר מקלטו. Dagegen heißt es V. 28 כי בעיר מקלטו ישב, und nicht בגבול עיר מקלטו, denn sein Wohnrecht ist auf die Stadt mit Ausschluss ihres Gebietes beschränkt (daselbst 12 a).

את גבול עיר מקלטו, “beyond the boundary of his city of refuge;”

ואם יצא יצא nur wenn er במזיד über das Stadtgebiet hinausgeht, ורצח וגו׳ hat der גואל הדם das Recht, ihn zu töten, אין לו דם, und auch, wenn ein anderer ihn getötet, ist er nicht strafbar, רשות ביד גואל הדם וכל אדם אין חייבין עליו (Mackot 11b nach der allgemeinen Lesart). Hat er aber בשונג das Stadtgebiet verlassen, so ist jede Tötung desselben ein strafbarer Mord (daselbst 12a). Er unterliegt בשוגג nur der Nötigung, wieder in die מקלט-Stadt zurückzukehren, שלא יהא ,במזיד נהרג בשוגג גולה סופו צאתו מחוץ לתחום חמור מתחלתו (הרציחה) (daselbst).

אין לו דם [AND THE AVENGER OF BLOOD MAY SLAY THE MURDERER] THERE IS NO BLOOD GUILT FOR HIM (more lit., he has no blood) — He is as one who has killed a dead man, who is one who has no blood (cf. Rashi on Exodus 22:1).

V. 28. כי בעיר מקלטו ישב. Mackot 12 b wird an dieser wiederholten Beschränkung seines Aufenthaltes auf die Stadt, die ihn einmal schützend aufgenommen, zugleich der Satz gelehrt, dass, wenn er in seiner מקלט-Stadt wiederum einen unvorsätzlichen Mord begeht, er nicht in eine andere מקלט-Stadt zu fliehen hat, sondern innerhalb der Stadt, die einmal sein מקלט, die ihn "festhaltende Umgrenzung" geworden, משכונה לשכונה von einem Stadtviertel in das andere verwiesen wird und fortan auf diesen Stadtteil beschränkt bleibt. בעיר מקלטו ישב עיר שקלטתו כבר (daselbst).

כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עד מות הכהן הגדול, “for he has to remain in the city of his refuge until the death of the High Priest.” The plain meaning of the verse is to prevent people from complaining about the High Priest doing nothing to avenge the victim of this killer when they see the inadvertent killer leave his city of refuge. Once he has died and another has been appointed in his place, this is no longer a consideration as the murder had not been committed during the tenure of the new High Priest. According to Deuteronomy 26,3: the function of the High Priest is בימים ההם, during each High Priest’s lifetime, he is not held responsible for what occurred before he was appointed or after he had died.

'אחרי מות הכהן הגדול ישוב הרוצח וגו, ”after the death of the High Priest, the “murderer” will return” (home). All the cities of the Levites are under the direct authority of the High Priest. It is an undisputed law that that such unintentional “murderers” go free at the death of the High Priest. Our sages have a saying that “death brings in its wake atonement.” (Talmud Makkot folio 11), where it is clear that the “death” referred to is that of the High Priest. We find something analogous in Isaiah 14,17: אסיריו לא פתח ביתה, “who never released its prisoners?” [The prophet decries such a cruel practice. Jewish law which basically does not provide for prison as a form of punishment, certainly would not countenance lifeimprisonment. Ed.]

לארץ אחזתו הוא שב ואינו שב למה שהחזיקו אבותיו .אל ארץ אחזתו, d.h. לא היה חוזר לשררה שהיה בה er kehrt zu seinem heimatlichen Besitztum zurück, nicht aber zu der sozialen Stellung und amtlichen Würde, die er etwa früher in seiner Heimat inne gehabt, selbst wenn diese nicht eine persönliche Errungenschaft, sondern eine bereits in seiner Familie herabgeerbte gewesen war (Mackot 13a; — siehe Schmot 29, 30 und Dewarim 17. 20; — vergl. Wajikra 25, 41). ריטב׳׳א zu Mackot daselbst bemerkt, wie dieser Verlust früher besessener Ehren und Ämter nur dem in die Heimat zurückkehrenden unvorsätzlichen Mörder eigentümlich ist. Alle anderen Gesetzübertreter, sobald sie ihr Verbrechen gebüßt und sich gebessert, sind nicht nur zum Wiedereintritt in früher von ihnen besessene Würden und Ämter, sowie zur Nachfolge ihrer Väter in Amt und Würde fähig, sondern auch für alle neuen Ämter und Würden wählbar, zu denen sie sich qualifizieren.

בכל מושבתיכם [AND THESE THINGS SHOULD BE AN ORDINANCE OF JUSTICE FOR YOU] IN ALL YOUR DWELLINGS — This teaches that the "minor Sanhedrin" functions outside the Land as long as there is [the main] one functioning in the Land of Israel [namely, while the Temple stood].(Makkot 7a)

IN ALL YOUR HABITATIONS. “This teaches us that a Sanhedrin⁹⁰In our Rashi: “a small Sanhedrin,” i.e., a court of twenty-three judges which functioned in every city, and had power over civil and criminal cases. The “great Sanhedrin” consisted of seventy-one judges, and its seat was in a chamber on the Temple Mount, adjoining the Sanctuary Court. may function outside the Land [of Israel] as long as one functions in the Land of Israel itself.” This is Rashi’s language. This is indeed correct, because after the destruction [of the Temple] the Sanhedrin cannot function in the Land of Israel nor outside it, just as our Rabbis have said in the Chapter Arba Mithoth Beth Din:⁹¹Literally: “Four kinds of death-penalty of the court.” — The text referred to here is in Sanhedrin 52b. “And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days⁹²Deuteronomy 17:9. — when there is a priest [performing the Divine Service in the Sanctuary] there is [execution of] judgment; when there is no priest [at the Sanctuary] there is no judgment.” And we have been taught in the Mechilta:⁹³I.e., the Mechilta of Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai (on Exodus 21:14). This work is mentioned by Rambam in his Sefer Hamitzvoth, principle 14, (see “The Commandments,” Vol. II, p. 424). “Whence do we know that judicial execution can take place only during the existence of the Sanctuary? Because it says, From Mine altar, thou shalt take him, that he may die.⁹⁴Exodus 21:14. If you have an altar, you may render capital punishment, and if not, you may not do so.”
But I have nowhere found in connection with a commandment which is limited to the [duration of the] existence of the Sanctuary that Scripture should say about it, throughout your generations in all your habitations [as it does here], because this [expression] indicates [the contrary, namely that it is binding] even during the exile, outside the Land. Thus [it uses this expression] in connection with [the obligation of abstaining from work on the Festival of Shavuoth,⁹⁵Leviticus 23:21: it is a statute forever in all your habitations throughout your generations. and in connection with the prohibition of [eating from] the new crop [before bringing the omer on the sixteenth day of Nisan],⁹⁶Ibid., Verse 14. For the explanation of the word omer, see Vol. III, p. 368, Note 243. in order to make [these laws] obligatory even outside the Land [of Israel] and even nowadays [when the Temple is destroyed], so that we should not [think that the prohibition against eating of the new crop is] dependent upon [the actual offering of] the omer, and [so that we should not make the commandment to abstain from work on Shavuoth dependent] upon the offering of the new meal-offering⁹⁷Ibid., Verse 16. [on that day]. Likewise [the expression throughout your generations in all your habitations is used] in connection with [the prohibition against eating certain] fats⁹⁸Ibid., 3:17. so that we should not think that it is dependent upon the offerings.⁹⁹See Ramban’s emphasis on this point in Vol. III, pp. 85-88. [And so here too the expression throughout your generations in all your dwellings would indicate that the execution of judgment including the death-penalty, applies at all times, and is not dependent upon the existence of the Sanctuary!] Perhaps the Rabbis interpreted the words [in our verse here]: And these things shall be for a statute of judgment [as referring not to the criminal cases mentioned in this section, but] to [the general law of] the Sanhedrin mentioned continually in this section, as it is said, [until he stand] before ‘the congregation’ for judgment;¹⁰⁰Above, Verse 12. then ‘the congregation’ shall judge,¹⁰¹Ibid., Verse 24. and Scripture is thus saying that we should always have, throughout all generations, and even after the destruction [of the Sanctuary], “a congregation that judges” [i.e., a Sanhedrin, or court] in order to adjudicate upon the laws of fines, robberies, personal injury, and all monetary matters, and to deal with the law of forty stripes.¹⁰²Deuteronomy 25:3. All these laws are applied even after the destruction of the Temple.

והיו אלה לכם לחקת עולם משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם, “and these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations in all your dwellings.” This verse teaches that as long as Jews reside in Eretz Yisrael and they have a Sanhedrin which functions, a Sanhedrin can function outside Eretz Yisrael. This is how Rashi explains this verse. Nowadays that there is no Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael, no Sanhedrin (its authority) is competent in the Diaspora either.
The meaning of the verse according to the plain text is that even in these times there should be a judiciary wherever Jews reside, competent to rule on matters of financial disputes, compensation for injuries inflicted, etc., etc.; any infringement of laws for which the penalty prescribed by the Torah is 39 lashes such a court is competent to rule on. This is why the Torah writes the words לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם. However, in the absence of a Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael we are not entitled to rule on capital offenses [even if the host country were to give us such authority. Ed.]. We derive this from Sanhedrin 52 based on Deut. 17,9: ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט...ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא, “you will come to the priests, the Levites, and the judge...who will tell you from that place”. When there is a High Priest capital cases may be tried, when there is no High Priest such authority does not exist. We also learned this in the Mechilta (page 126) “how do we know that capital cases may be judged only when the Temple is standing? The Torah writes (Exodus 21,14) “from My Altar you shall take him to die.” When there is a Temple and an altar you may decree a death penalty; when there is no altar we have no authority to decree death by human hands. (Compare also Nachmanides).

So long [as it functions]. For it is written in Parshas Shoftim (Devarim 17:8), “You shall ascend to the place” which teaches that it is “the place” which confers authority. This means: At the time when the Great Sanhedrin of Yerushalyim sit in the Chamber of Hewn Stone [in the Temple, the lower] courts function outside the land and in other locations [within the land] are in effect.

V. 29. סנהדרין נוהגת בארץ ובחוצה לארץ ,בכל מושבותיכם (Mackot 7a). So lange die Kriminaljustiz im jüdischen Lande zur Verwirklichung kommt, — es ist dies an die Existenz des obersten Gerichtshofs in der Steinhalle, לשכת הגזית, im Tempelheiligtum gebunden (siehe Dewarim 17, 10), ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא אשר יבחר ד׳ מלמד שהמקום גורם (Aboda Sara 8b תוספו׳ daselbst) — so lange ist sie auch in den jüdischen Niederlassungen außerhalb des Landes durch Gerichtshöfe zu handhaben, deren Mitglieder, vermöge der von der Gesetzesautorität im Lande erlangten Autorisation, סמיכה, als deren Delegierte handeln.

כל מכה נפש וגו׳ HE WHO KILLETH A PERSON, etc. — This means: He who proposes to kill him because he had killed a person,

The one who endeavors to kill him. Referring to the killer, because he had killed a person.

V. 30. כל מכה נפש וגו׳ scheint, wie alles folgende, Vorschrift für das Gericht zu sein. Es war ihm (Verse 12, 24 u. 25) die Beurteilung, eventuelle Verurteilung und Bestellung des גואל הדם als ersten Vollstreckers des Urteils überwiesen. Hier wird nun ergänzt, dass nicht auf die bloße Aussage des גואל הדם, sondern לפי עדים, nach Aussage zweier Zeugen dem גואל הדם die Ermächtigung zur Tötung als רוצח erteilt werden dürfe. Das Subjekt von ירצח ist der גואל הדם, von welchem das ganze Kapitel bisher sowohl als dem Vollstrecker des Todesurteils an dem Mörder als demjenigen gesprochen, dem die Tötung des zur Verweisung in eine מקלט-Stadt Verurteilten gestattet wird, wenn derselbe seinen Verweisungsort mutwillig verlassen hat (siehe ספרי).

ועד אחד לא יענה בנפש, “a solitary witness must not testify against a person (in a capital case).” We might have thought that seeing that the penalty for capital crimes is so severe that the testimony of a single witness is relevant. The Torah tells us that it is not.

לפי עדים ירצח BY THE EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES ONE SHALL SLAY [THE MURDERER] — who testify that intentionally and after due warning he killed him.

And was forewarned. Meaning that this is one of the shortened passages, and it is as if the verse had said if anyone strikes a person, meaning that he killed a person, he may not be killed unless there is testimony that he killed intentionally and that he was forewarned.

ועד אחד לא יענה בנפש למות. Das Erfordernis von mindestens zwei Zeugen für ein Todesurteil, sowie überhaupt zu einem gerichtlich zu beachtenden Zeugnis über eine Menschentat ist ausführlich Dewarim 17, 6 und 19, 15 gegeben: על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת לא יומת על פי עד אחד. לא יקום עד אחד באיש לכל עון ולכל חטאת בכל חטא אשר יחטא על פי שני עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר. Es wird daher Sanhedrin 34a das לא יענה unseres Textes nicht von der Zeugenaussage, sondern von der Beteiligung an der Diskussion und den der Abstimmung vorangehenden Verhandlungen verstanden, ganz in dem Sinne wie לא תענה על רב וגו׳ (Schmot 23, 2; siehe daselbst).

Es heißt dort nämlich: אמר אחד מן העדים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות מנין שאין שומעין לו ת׳׳ל עד אחד לא יענה מנין לאחד מן התלמידים שאמר יש לי ללמוד עליו חובה מנין שאין שומעין לו ת׳׳ל אחד לא יענה בנפש למות. Es wird damit dort die Gerichtsnorm gegeben: Zeugen haben außer ihrem Zeugnis mit keinem Worte weder belastend noch entlastend auf den Gang der Verhandlungen zu influieren. Nicht einmal eine zu Gunsten des Angeklagten sprechende Ansicht hat das Gericht von ihnen entgegen zu nehmen. Dagegen Rechtsjünger — und es waren bei jeder Gerichtsverhandlung deren neunundsechzig, die in drei Reihen von je dreiundzwanzig als Auskultatoren den Verhandlungen schweigend anwohnten und aus deren Mitte der Gerichtshof vorkommenden Falls sich ergänzte (Sanhedrin 37 a) — Rechtsjünger, תלמידים, wenn von ihnen Einer eine verurteilende Ansicht äußern zu können meinte, wurde er nicht angehört, wohl aber, wenn er glaubte, eine Rechtsansicht zu Gunsten des Angeklagten vorbringen zu können. In solchem Falle war er in die Reihen der diskutierenden Richter zuzulassen. Fand man seine Ansicht bewährt, so blieb er für immer in den Kreis der Richter erhoben, fand man seine Ansicht unbegründet, so blieb er doch für den Tag in der Reihe der Richter (daselbst 40a und 42a). An der zitierten Stelle werden nun zwar beide Sätze, sowohl die gänzliche Ausschließung der Zeugen von jeder Meinungsäußerung bei den Verhandlungen, sowie die Zulassung der Jünger mit Äußerung einer freisprechenden Ansicht, an die Worte unseres Textes geknüpft. Allein eine Interpretation unseres Textes als Quelle beider Sätze wäre ungemein schwer. Wir glauben, das eigentliche Motiv für Ausschließung der Zeugen von jeder Meinungsäußerung בין לזכות בין לחובה in dem von ריש לקיש gelehrten Grunde, משום דמחזי כנוגע בעדותן finden zu dürfen, der umsomehr für eine Äußerung לחובה gelten dürfte. Eine jede Beteiligung der Zeugen bei der Verhandlung kann ihre Unparteilichkeit verdächtigen. Selbst, wenn sie das Wort für die Freisprechung erhüben, könnte es den Schein haben, als fürchteten sie eine הזמה (siehe Dewarim 19, 19), die für sie nur nach einer Verurteilung verhängnisvoll werden könnte. Allein — so glauben wir, — in noch höherem Maße dürfte ein verurteilendes Wort von ihnen ihre ganze Aussage verdächtigen und sie dem Scheine unterstellen, als sei nicht ein objektives Vertreten des Faktums, als vielmehr die zu erzielende Bestrafung des Angeklagten das sie leitende Motiv. Diese von ריש לקיש vorgetragene Begründung ihres Ausschlusses von לזכות dürfte daher in Wahrheit das Motiv für ihre Nichtbeteiligung an den Verhandlungen überhaupt bilden, die Anknüpfung des Ausschlusses der Zeugen von der Diskussion an unseren Text nur mnemotechnische אסמכתא, und dieses in Wahrheit nicht von עדים, sondern von תלמידים und deren Ausschluss von Meinungsäußerung לחובה zu verstehen sein.

In der Tat, nachdem zum kriminalrechtlichen Zeugnis mindestens zwei Zeugen gehören, ist ein Zeuge kriminalrechtlich überhaupt kein Zeuge und hat nicht im mindesten mehr Geltung als jeder andere. Nur als Sachverständiger könnte seine Äußerung, wie die eines jeden anderen Sachverständigen, von irgend einem Einfluss sein. Es wird hier nun gesagt: Nur dem Worte von Zeugen, das ist nach kriminalrechtlicher Satzung: zweier Zeugen, und zwar nur als Zeugnis, als Bezeugung des Faktums, ist ein Einfluss auf Verurteilung eines Angeklagten eingeräumt, ja es bildet die alleinige Basis des Urteils. Allein jeder andere und selbst ein einzelner Zeuge, der eben als einzelner kein Zeuge ist, — (und es kann ja jemand bei einem durch zwei Zeugen konstatierten und zur gerichtlichen Anklage gebrachten Vorgange ebenfalls gegenwärtig gewesen sein, ohne doch mit zu dem Zeugenpaar zu gehören, noch gehören zu können [siehe Mackot 6b]) — ein jeder andere also, der als einzelner Zeuge kein Zeugnis, sondern nur eine individuelle Meinung aussprechen kann, ist wohl zu hören, wenn er etwas Entlastendes, nicht aber, wenn er etwas Belastendes vorbringen will, דיני נפשות הכל מלמדין זכות ואין הכל מלמדין חובה (Sanhedrin 32a), darum heißt es: עד אחד לא יענה בנפש למות, zur Belastung ist außer dem Richterkollegium keines Individuums Ansicht zu hören, wohl aber לזכות, zur Entlastung. Diese Kautele, dass ein Kriminalgerichtshof jede für den Angeklagten sprechende Ansicht, keine aber gegen ihn sprechende außer im Schoße seiner eigenen Mitglieder anhören darf, ist für die ganze jüdische Kriminaljustiz tief charakteristisch, die viel weniger sich zu hüten hat, einen Schuldigen frei zu sprechen, als einen Unschuldigen zu verurteilen (siehe Schmot 23, 7).

ולא תקח כפר AND YE SHALL TAKE NO RANSOM — He (the murderer) shall not be freed by a monetary payment (Ketubot 37b).

AND YE SHALL TAKE NO RANSOM FOR THE LIFE OF A MURDERER etc. The correct interpretation of [the repetition of the phrase ye shall take no ransom in Verses 31-32] that at first [i.e., in the verse before us] He warned us against [pardoning] a deliberate murderer, [stating]: And ye shall take no ransom of monetary payment for the life of a murderer, who is guilty of death, for he shall under all circumstances be put to death, and shall not be saved from death by any means, neither by exile nor by stripes nor by any other punishment. And afterwards [in Verse 32] He stated, And ye shall take no ransom to allow him to flee [from the city of refuge] and return to live in the Land, until the death of the priest, and the verse thus refers back to those liable to exile [for unwitting murder] which He had [previously] mentioned, who are the main subject of this section. It is thus as if He would have said: And similarly you shall take no ransom from a murderer [who killed unwittingly] in order that he should flee [from his city of refuge] and return to live in the Land, before the death of the [High] Priest.” It was unnecessary to say that we should take no ransom from him [to free him] altogether from fleeing to the city of refuge, because anyone who kills somebody unwittingly is afraid at first that the avenger of blood might kill him in the heat of his anger, or [might kill him] because he suspected him of deliberate murder [and therefore he will always want at first to flee to the city of refuge]. Scripture, therefore, did not have to speak about [not taking] a ransom to free him altogether, but speaks only about [the prohibition against taking] a ransom after he has fled there, to enable him to return to his land, and so that he should not have to stay there [in the city of refuge] as long as the [High] Priest is alive. For[it is likely that he may desire to leave it, since] after he has fled [there] and stood [trial] before the congregation for judgment¹⁰⁰Above, Verse 12. and has been acquitted by them [of the charge of deliberate murder], he will no longer be afraid of the avenger of blood, and so he will want to return to his house before the due time [i.e., before the death of the High Priest]. Therefore Scripture warned us against [accepting from him a ransom or bribe for] this [purpose]. Or [it may be] that there is a letter vav “missing” from the word lashuv [in Verse 32 — so that it is as if it said v’lashuv] meaning “or to abide.”¹⁰³According to this explanation, Verse 32 involves two separate prohibitions: 1) not to take a ransom from an unwitting killer not to go to a city of refuge, and 2) not to take a ransom from him to allow him to return from there before the death of the High Priest (Aboab). Ramban, however, as he states in his concluding words, prefers the first-mentioned interpretation that Verse 32 involves but one prohibition, namely, that we are not to take a ransom from an unwitting murderer after he has fled to the city of refuge to enable him to return to his land before the death of the High Priest. This interpretation is to be preferred apparently because it does not necessitate the introduction of a missing letter into the verse, as mentioned in the text. But the first interpretation appears to me to be the correct one.

ולא תקחו כופר, he must not be released by paying a financial indemnity to the family of the victim. [whereas the Torah had legislated monetary compensation for injuries caused to the victim, such as loss of eye, tooth, etc. Ed.]

ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “and you must not accept a ransom payment in exchange of the life of the murderer.” The Torah tells us here that no amount of money is adequate to atone for the death of a Jew; hence a ransom payment is out of the question. The guilt of murdering someone is the greatest sin between man and his fellow man. Solomon told us in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit; let no one help him.” We may learn a lesson from Achav, King of Israel. When the prophet makes comparisons between the levels of guilt of different kings we are told in Kings I 21,25 concerning a very evil king, “there was never one like Achav who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Izzevel.” When Achav’s sins were measured and his merits were weighed against them, the decisive sin held against him was that he had framed Navot and had him executed. This is why we read in Kings I 22,21: “the spirit (of the deceased Navot) came forward before the Lord and said: “I will entice him.” “How?, the Lord asked him.” And he replied: “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then He (G’d) said: “you will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.” (Compare Sanhedrin 102). The story is an illustration that although Achav had not even killed with his own hands and could have pointed to the court which convicted Navot as guilty as responsible for his death, G’d considered the deed as his. How much more severely must someone be viewed who killed with his own hands.

He cannot absolve himself. Meaning that this is one of the shortened passages, and it is as if the verse had said, “Do not accept atonement compensation for the life of a murderer who is wicked to incur the death penalty, to exempt him from death, for he must be executed.” Since in Parshas Mishpatim the Torah writes (Shemos 21:29), “If it was a goring ox… and it killed a man or woman, the ox shall be stoned and its owners shall also die,” [where his death] is at the hands of the heavenly court. This implies that just as his ox is liable for death, so too he is liable for death. Nonetheless, afterwards it is written (v. 30), “When an atonement compensation is imposed upon him, he must give a redemption of his soul,” which implies that if he was liable for the death penalty on account of his ox, he can absolve himself with money. Therefore, I would have thought that the same is true if he was liable for the death penalty on his own account, that he could absolve himself with money.

V. 31. אשר הוא רשע למות .ולא תקחו כפר וגו׳: wenn er aber nach den euch vorliegenden Zeugenbeweisen und Rechtsnormen todesschuldig ist, so liegt es in keiner Weise in eurer Macht, ihn vom Tode, etwa durch Ablösung in Gelde, zu befreien. Das Recht ist nicht eure Satzung, von welcher Menschen, wie sie es gesetzt, auch dispensieren können. Das Recht ist Gottes Gesetz, ihr seid nur dessen Organ und Vollstrecker (siehe zu Wajikra 27, 29).

ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “you must not accept a financial ransom in lieu of the life of the murderer.” Seeing that in almost all situations the Torah is willing to accept punishment in the form of money or its equivalent, why does the Torah not accept it as atonement for a life taken? Life, as opposed to limbs, is something that cannot be valued in terms of money, in terms of material things. The only instance in which financial atonement (partial at best) is acceptable is when the penalty for the sin committed is death at the hands of heaven, but not by a human tribunal. This is why the Torah added: אם כופר יושת עליו, (Exodus 21,30) “if payment of a ransom had been imposed upon the guilty party.” This type of punishment is not really a full compensation, but since G-d has reserved to mete out His own judgment, it will fill the bill in the meantime. [You will not find that a person convicted of theft and murder will be assessed the financial penalty, as the loss of his life is the ultimate penalty, and the Torah does not impose anything beyond that. Ed.]

ולא תקחו כפר לנוס אל עיר מקלטו AND YE SHALL TAKE NO RANSOM לנוס TO HIS CITY OF REFUGE — The last words are the same as לַנָּס אל עיר מקלטו, "ye shall take no ransom for one who is fled to a city of refuge, i.e., one who has killed inadvertently, cannot be freed from exile by money, by giving a ransom (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:12), לשוב לשבת בארץ THAT HE SHOULD RETURN TO DWELL IN THE LAND before the High Priest dies.

ולא תקחו כופר לנוס אל עיר מקלטו, “and you are not to accept ransom from someone who fled to his city of refuge.” The meaning is that the city elders must not accept a bribe to allow the person who should await the death of the High Priest while still in the city of refuge, and let him return to his hometown prematurely. There was no need for the Torah to warn that one must not settle for a ransom instead of the inadvertent killer taking up residence in the city of refuge. He would not fail to do so because he had to be on guard against avengers of the slain person’s family, his גואל הדם. Not only that, failure to make use of the city of refuge exposes the killer to the suspicion that he killed intentionally.

Like לנס. With a sheva below the [letter] lamed and a kamatz below the [letter] nun [לנס "one who has fled" rather than לנוס "to flee"], meaning that just as there is no redemption for the death penalty, so too there is no redemption for exile.

V. 32. ולא תקחו כפר לנוס וגו׳. Schwerlich kann נוס etwas anderes als Infinitiv sein. Wollte man selbst mit Raschi eine Substantivform נוס wie שובי מלחמה (Micha 2, 8), מולים היו (Josua 5, 5) annehmen, so würde es dochלנוס heißen müssen. Es heißt wohl: ihr dürft kein Lösegeld für das Fliehen in die Aufnahmestadt nehmen, selbst nicht, um nur vor dem Tode des Hohenpriesters wieder in die Heimat zurück zu kehren.

ולא תקחו כפר, “and you are not to accept a ransom, etc.” if a deliberate killer had fled to a city of refuge, you must remove him and bring him to trial and convict him and carry out the death penalty. We know that Yoav the chief general of David had taken refuge and had held on to the corners of the altar, but had been removed from there and had been executed for the murder of Avner in peace time, in accordance with Exodus 21,14. David had not felt politically strong enough to carry out this penalty, but he had commanded his son Solomon to do so in due course, as if he would allow him to die in his sleep he would forfeit his share in the world to come, something David did not want to have on his conscience. (Kings I 2,28) Yoav was a very wise man, even among the senior members of the Supreme Court (Samuel II 23,8). According to Bamidbar Rabbah 23,13 and the commentators on that, he had been aware that the altar would not protect him against extradition, (seeing this had been spelled out in the Torah and most children under the age of ten had been aware of this.) He supposedly was aware that anyone executed by the Court for a capital offence was not allowed to be buried with his forefathers, and this would be an everlasting shame, and this is why he tried to escape death at the hands of the Court. When B’nayahu who had been assigned the task of arresting him heard this, he related it to King Solomon, who therefore decided to have him killed on the spot so that he could be buried with his forefathers. (Kings I 2, 30-31) David’s instructions to his son had been not to let him die peacefully, without specifying by what method he was to die. (Verse 5 in that chapter) According to our author, what David referred to when he told his son Solomon that Yoav had done something treacherous to him personally for which he was also guilty of the death penalty, referred to a different occasion, i.e. to Yoav having exposed Uriah hachitti, the first husband of Bat Sheva, to almost certain death in the war against the Ammonites. When Uriah was killed the other soldiers were very angry with Yoav their commander for having allowed a hero such as Uriah to be unnecessarily exposed. Thereupon Yoav showed his soldiers a letter that he had received from King David in which the king who had sat out that battle at home, had instructed him specifically to see to it that Uriah would be killed during a battle. Revealing the King’s secret to one and all was a sin for which Yoav was guilty on another score. These details are hinted at in the Book of Samuel, where Rashi (Samuel II 11,18) comments that he does not know why Yoav’s soldiers were angry at him after Uriah had been killed, and Yoav having warned the messengers in which Yoav reported to the king on the battle during which Uriah had been killed, David would criticize the strategy Yoav had used. If this happened they were told to add that Uriah had been killed during that battle. Somewhat strangely, the Book of Samuel 24,1 continues immediately that G–d was angry at Israel without spelling out what had caused G–d’s anger as a result of which He tempted David with conducting a census of the people. Perhaps the anger was caused by Uriah having been killed. If so, it makes sense that immediately prior to this verse Uriah had been listed as one of the 37 outstanding heroes in David’s army. He was listed there as the last, whereas in the Book of Chronicles I chapter 11 he is ranked higher. (number 15) (Perhaps that was before the incident of his having refused to go home on furlough when King David told him to) We may explain all this by means of a parable. A king instructed his servants to record for him all the men deserving of special distinctions and the reason why they deserved these distinctions. The servants did do, and they presented the list to the king and began to read the list out before him. The king enquired after the present whereabouts of each of these people, and what they were currently charged with doing. This is why each one was mentioned by name, until they came to one of these men who had become guilty of a misdemeanour in spite of having been an outstandingly loyal subject of the king. Due to this misdemeanour, he had been killed due to their not having given him support at a crucial moment. Upon hearing this, the king got angry and tore up the whole list. He gave them the choice of one of three punishments for their negligent treatment of that loyal servant. They could either endure a period of starvation, or be involved in a dangerous war in a distant country, or endure a painful physical beating. They unanimously responded that they left it to the king to decide, as they were confident that seeing that he was a merciful ruler he would know how to deal with them. The king instructed them to write a new list of these outstandingly loyal subjects, but to place the name of the one who had become guilty of a misdemeanour at the very end of that list. After they had received their physical punishment they wrote the new list with the name of the party guilty of a misdemeanour (Uriah) at the end of that list. G–d offered David the choice of three punishments, either famine, for three years, or a war in which he would be swept away by his enemies, or sword by the Lord, i.e. a plague lasting three days. (Samuel II 24,12) In Chronicles I 21,12, David is quoted as telling the prophet Gad who had communicated this choice to him that He knew that G–d was merciful and was prepared to fall into the hands of the Lord instead rather than into the hands of merciless men. (verse 14 there) The reason he chose the plague was that it strikes rich and poor alike, weak and strong alike. Had he chosen years of famine, the people would have accused him of discriminating against the poor who had no money to buy anything, whereas he being rich would hardly have to suffer. Had he chosen war, they would have said that during such a war David would rely on his outstanding warriors to bear the brunt of it. After the plague had passed, the list of all these heroes was recorded in the order of their valour, and Uriah appears in his rightful place. At the end of Kings 2,5 in his last testament to his son Solomon refers to “what Yoav the commander in chief has done to me,” followed by a reference to Yoav’s having killed Avner and Amassah in peace time. How was this something that Yoav had done to David? When Yoav had become aware that David had used subterfuge to have Uriah killed, he concluded that he could get away with killing Avner and Amassah. Once the officers in the army knew that David had ordered Yoav to kill Uriah they believed that it was also David who had ordered Yoav to kill Avner and Amassah, seeing that Avner had been a cousin of King Shaul. This caused David to become very angry and caused him to curse Yoav, as we read in Samuel II 3,29: ואל יכרת מבית יואב זב ומצורע ומחזיק בפלך ונופל בחרב וחסר לחם, “may the house of Yoav never be without someone suffering from discharge (from his genital organ) or an eruption on his skin, or a male who handles the spindle or one slain by the sword, or lacking bread.” Having heard this, the Israelites knew that it could not have been David who had instigated the death of Avner. When David told his son Solomon to see to it that Yoav not die a peaceful death, Solomon did not want to do so, as he was the son of his sister. (Chronicles I 2,16) When B’nayahu, at the command of Solomon, set out to kill Yoav, the latter said to him: “tell Solomon not to kill him on two accounts. If you will carry out Solomon’s command you will become afflicted with the curse with which your father has cursed me. Why don’t you let me die as a result of his curses. When Solomon heard this he changed the instructions he had given to B’nayahu, and told him to kill Yoav on the spot, i.e. at the corner of the altar to which he clung, and to proceed to bury him. (Kings I 2,31). Rabbi Yehudah is on record as saying that all the curses were fulfilled on various members of David’s descendants. Solomon’s son Rechavam, suffered the discharge mentioned, (hinted at in Kings I, 12,18, by reference to Leviticus 15,15,9, the word המרכב). King Uzziah suffered tzoraat, eruption on his legs during the last years of his reign (Chronicles II 26,21) ). King Assa was stricken by a spindle (foot ailment) (Kings I 15,23) King Yoshiyahu was killed in battle, (Chronicles II 35,23). According to the Talmud in tractate Taanit, folio 22, he was shot by 300 arrows. King Yehoyachin was a captive of Nebuchadnezzar and had to depend on his handouts for food until he died. Compare Jeremiah 52,34, as well as Bamidbar Rabbah 23,12, as well as Tanchuma section 12 on our portion.

לנוס (the passive participle) has the same meaning as לַנָּס (the active participle), just as, (Micha 2:8) "שובי מלחמה”, which means “those who have returned from battle”; and so, too, (Zephaniah 3:18) “those who are removed far (נוני) from the appointed season”; (Joshua 5:5): “for they were circumcised men (מולים)”. Now just as you say שוב in reference to one who has already returned, and מול in reference to one who is already circumcised, so you can say לנוס in reference to one who has already fled. It calls him נוס (the passive participle), as much as to say “one who was made to flee”; — But you say that לנוס means “to flee” (the infinitive) explaining it thus: “ye shall take no ransom for one who ought to flee”, in order to free him from exile (cf. Sifrei Bamidbar 160:12), then I do not know how it can be said: “ye shall take no ransom … so that he should return to dwell in the land”, for you see, he has not yet fled, so from where shall he return?

ולא תחניפו means AND YE SHALL NOT [MAKE THE LAND] WICKED, as it is translated in the Targum: לא תחיבון.

V’LO TACHANIPHU’ (AND YE SHALL NOT POLLUTE) THE LAND. Because He had said at the beginning: And these things shall be for a statute of judgment unto you throughout your generations in all your habitations,¹⁰⁴Verse 29. meaning that these judgments apply also outside the Land [of Israel], therefore He mentioned additional stringencies applying to the inhabitants of the Land [of Israel], in honor of the Divine Presence which is [especially] present there, and He warned us not to pollute it and not to defile it.¹⁰⁵Verse 34.
And the meaning of the term chanuphah [mentioned here, which literally means: “flattery,” or “pollution”] is that which is said with reference to the imprecations: Thou shalt carry out much into the field, and shalt gather in little;¹⁰⁶Deuteronomy 28:38. Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but thou shalt neither drink of the wine;¹⁰⁷Ibid., Verse 39. Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with oil;¹⁰⁸Ibid., Verse 40. All thy trees and the fruit of thy land shall the locust make bare,¹⁰⁹Ibid., Verse 42. for all expressions of chanuphah indicate doing the opposite of that which is seen by or appears to the eyes. This is the punishment [which will come] to the Land because of idolatry, bloodshed, and immorality, just as it is said, will not the Land ‘chanoph techenaph’ (become polluted)?;¹¹⁰Jeremiah 3:1. the earth also ‘chanepha’ (is polluted) under the inhabitants thereof;¹¹¹Isaiah 24:5. ‘vatachniphi’ (and thou hast polluted) the Land with thy harlotries.¹¹²Jeremiah 3:2. In all these three verses, the earth itself is described as becoming “chanuphah (polluted)” because of the sins of its inhabitants, which means, according to Ramban, that it will do the opposite of that which is its nature, for it will be planted and cultivated but not produce fruit. And the meaning of the term “defilement” [used in the next verse — And thou shalt not ‘defile’ the Land] is that the Land will become defiled so that the Glory of G-d will not dwell therein if there is innocent blood [shed] in it which has not been atoned for by the blood of him that shed it.¹¹³Verse 36 here. Thus the Rabbis have said in the Sifre:¹¹⁴Sifre, Mas’ei 161. “‘V’lo tachaniphu’ the Land — this is an admonition against flatterers.” For at first [in Verses 31-32] He warned us against taking a bribe from murderers, and then [in Verse 33 here] He warned us against flattering them because of their high position or their power, or the honor of their family, even without taking a bribe, because if we flatter them, we will thereby cause the Land to “betray” its inhabitants [as explained above].

כי אם בדם שפכו. As if the Torah had written כי אם בדם האיש אשר שופך את הדם, ”only blood spilled by the killer of the murdered party does not contaminate the Holy Land but cleanses it from blood spilled innocently.” [this is the way I understand the author. Do not forget that normally spilling blood in the Holy Land contaminates its soil, whereas here the blood of the murderer does the very oppsosite. Ed.]

ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you shall not pollute the land.” Nachmanides writes that seeing a little while ago (35,29) the Torah wrote והיו אלה לכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם, “these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations,” we might have thought that the legislation of cities of refuge is applied also beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel; to prevent us from making this error the Torah now stresses that its concern with this legislation is that the Holy Land not become polluted, not that the whole globe not become polluted. The yardsticks of conduct and account- ability for failing to maintain the proper standards that the Torah applies to residents in the land of Israel are stricter than those applied to people riding outside that land, seeing that the presence of G’d, i.e. the Shechinah, does not hover over the Diaspora. Lands that are not holy in the first place, but are halachically ritually impure at all times, cannot be polluted by murder committed by man. The residents of the Holy Land are charged with the duty to preserve the holiness of that land. The choice of the term חניפה by the Torah here, a term that is usually applied to flattery, which is a form of misrepresentation of the true facts, is deliberate. as treating an intentional murderer as if he had killed accidentally, by accepting monetary compensation, is a form of distorting the facts. Allowing murder, even unintentional killing, [which by the way the Torah does not describe as הורג, “killing,” but chillingly, as רוצח בשגגה “murdering unintentionally,” Ed.] is apt to drive away the presence of the Shechinah unless the legislation written here is observed in all its details. In the Sifri the expression לא תחניפו את הארץ is understood as a warning to habitual flatterers not to treat the unintentional or intentional killer with flattery, i.e. by accepting a fine from him instead of what the Torah has demanded. The warning is repeated when the Torah writes כי הדם הוא יחניף את הארץ, implying that the guilt of the killer (intentional) must not be downgraded (a form of flattery, misrepresentation) by treating it as if it had only been an unintentional killing. The warning is that if we, the inhabitants of the Holy Land will deceive in this fashion, the land itself will deceive us by withholding its yield after we have toiled with ploughing, seeding, watering, etc

ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you must not bring guilt upon the land.” The word חנף means to commit evil secretly.

Do not bring evil. For the word חנופה [lit. "false flattery"] is not appropriate when referring to blood. With regard to the land this term is understandable, since חנופה would be appropriate if “land” is explained as referring to the inhabitants of the land, with whom false flattery is possible. However, regarding blood, it cannot be explained in this manner.

V. 33. חנף .ולא תחניפו וגו׳, wie dessen Bedeutung in Ijow und Mischle entschieden klar ist, heißt: heucheln, also eine andere und zwar eine bessere Erscheinung äußerlich darstellen, welcher die Wirklichkeit des inneren Wesens nicht entspricht. Wer also einen Menschen zum Heuchler macht, der nimmt ihm bei unveränderter äußerer Erscheinung den innern Kern. Während ענף, der Zweig, und ענב, die Traube, das treueste und vollendetste Hinausleben des inneren Seins bedeutet, ist חנף — wie so oft bei dem ע- und ח-Wurzeln — eine Negation von ענף und ענב, es ist die äußere Zweigerscheinung, aber der Zweig bringt keine Blüte und keine Frucht, es ist die äußere Fruchterscheinung, aber die Frucht enthält nichts von dem edlen Saft eines segensreichen Innern. Wenn nun das Land zum "Heuchler" wird, so ist dies, wie man sieht, die buchstäblichste "חנופה". Es ist noch derselbe Boden, der unter Gottes Tau und Sonnenstrahl die reichste Fülle des Fruchtsegens zu tragen bestimmt ist; allein Boden, Tau und Sonnenstrahl täuschen, kein Segenskeim treibt aus dem Innern zum Leben und zur Freude der Menschen, und was davon treibt, ist wiederum Täuschung, es wohnt kein Segen in dem Mark und Saft der Triebe und Pflanzen. Es heißt nun: ולא תחניפו את הארץ, wenn ihr vorsätzlichen Mord und unvorsichtige Tötung eines Menschen duldet, so macht ihr das Land, אשר אתם בה, in welchem ihr seid (nicht bloß אשר אתם יושבים בה wie V. 34), in welchem euer irdisches Dasein wurzelt, das in euch, das in dem Menschen sein edelstes Produkt zu erblicken hat, zum "Heuchler". Es täuscht die Erwartung, die ihr sonst von ihm zu hegen berechtigt seid, es hält den Segen, in dem es sich hinausleben sollte, zurück, "כי הוא יחניף את הארץ" denn Blut, Menschenblut, ist der edelste Saft, den das Land, den die Erde zeitigt, und "unschuldig vergossenes "Menschenblut" macht das Land zum "Heuchler". In dem zu Gott naher sittlichen Freiheit berufenen Menschen gipfelt das Ziel aller irdischen Entwicklungen und Kräfte, in jedem lebendigen Blutstropfen, der die נפש eines "Menschen" trägt und sein Hiersein vermittelt, berührt sich der Himmel und die Erde, vermählt sich das Irdische mit Göttlichem; die Menschengesellschaft, der nicht jeder Blutstropfen ihrer Angehörigen heilig ist, die nicht eintritt für unschuldig vergossenes Menschenblut, verneint den Zweck, für welchen die Kräfte der Erde arbeiten, bricht die Bedingung, unm welche der Boden ihres Landes ihr ist, täuscht die Erwartung, in welcher die Erde ihr ihre Kräfte bietet, wird zur "Heuchlerin" an ihrem Lande und macht hinwieder das Land zum "Heuchler" gegen sie. ולארץ לא יכפר לדם אשר שפך בה כי אם כדם שפכו: diese חנופה des Landes wird nur abgewendet, wenn das unschuldig vergossene Blut und der in ihm um sein Hiersein gebrachte Mensch in der ihn überlebenden Menschengesellschaft seinen Vertreter findet und der Mörder von der Hand dieses Vertreters den Mord mit seinem durch den Mord verwirkten Hiersein büßt. Denn mit dem von seiner Hand vergossenen Blute des Brudermenschen hat sein eigenes Blut die Berechtigung verloren, hat er selbst das Hierseinsrecht eingebüßt, und das geduldete fernere Hiersein dessen, der einen Brudermenschen mit Bewusstsein und Vorsatz gemordet, ist ein Hohn auf die höhere Dignität des gottnahen Menschenwesens überhaupt, ist ein Bruch des Vertrages, unter welchem Gott dem Menschen die Erde, unter welchem Gott Israel das Land erteilt.

ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “this verse is to be understood at face value, i.e. “you shall not flatter the land;” this is a warning for wealthy people who had become guilty of the death penalty not to be allowed to plead to a lesser charge, and to make generous financial restitution to the party whom they had harmed or to the family of that person. 'כי הדם הוא הוא יחניף וגו, “for the blood spilled (and not atoned for) would contaminate” the soil of the Holy Land. This is why G-d warns us not to contaminate the land he has given us by allowing bloodshed to go unpunished according to the principle of נפש תחת נפש, “a life for a life,” a principle spelled out already in Genesis 9,6, a principle applicable to all of mankind.

In dem Augenblicke, in welchem Gott Noah und seine Söhne die neugeschenkte Erde wieder betreten lässt und ihnen die Pflanzen- und Tierwelt zur freien Disposition übergibt, proklamiert er mit dem: ואך את דמכם לנפשתיכם אדרש וגו׳ שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם die Geltung der unantastbar höheren Dignität der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen als Grundbedingung des Genusses dieses Geschenkes und dieser freien Waltung. In dem Augenblick, in welchem Gott Israel das Land als Boden seiner segensreichen Entfaltung für die Verwirklichung Seines Gesetzes übergibt, erneuert er mit dem: ולארץ לא יכפר לדם אשר שפך בה כי אם בדם שפכו dieselbe Humanitätsproklamation für Israel als Grundbedingung des gesegneten Besitzes und Genussessegens dieses Landes und erweitert sie noch durch die Sühneinstitution für den unvorsätzlichen Mord.

ולארץ לא יכופר, “and no expiation can be made for the land;” the Torah, of course, refers to the inhabitants of the land even more so, [seeing that the earth had been completely passive. Ed.]

אשר אני שכן בתוכה [AND YE SHALL NOT DEFILE THE LAND] … IN WHICH I DWELL — It means: Do not do anything defiling to the land so that you will make Me dwell amidst its uncleanness,

V. 34. אשר אתם יושבים בה אשר אני שכן בתוכה ist eine andere Beziehung des Landes zu seinen Menschen, als die V. 33 durch אשר אתם בה ihren Ausdruck fand. Dort ist es die Beziehung des Landes als Bodens der Menschenexistenz. Der Boden versagt den Menschen diese Existenz, wenn die Existenzvernichtung eines Menschen durch einen Menschen sie gleichgültig lässt. Hier ist es die Beziehung des Landes als Bodens der ישיבה und der שכינה, der nationalen Menschengesellschaft und der Gottesgegenwart auf Erden. Beides, sowohl die auf die Huldigung Gottes und seines Gesetzes zu erbauende soziale Volkswohlfahrt, als die einer solchen Erhebung des irdischen Gesamtseins zu Gott zugesagte Gegenwart Gottes auf Erden (Schmot 25, 8) beruht offenbar auf dem Bewusstsein und der Anerkennung der höheren Dignität, auf dem Bewusstsein und der Anerkennung der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Wenn das ganze Gottesgesetz auf den drei Fundamenten des Rechts und der Liebe des sozialen, und der Sittenheiligung des individuellen Menschen beruht, so steht und fällt das ganze Gesetz mit dem Bewusstsein und der Anerkennung oder der Verneinung und Leugnung der höheren Dignität, der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen. Auf der Anerkennung der Gottebenbildlichkeit des Nebenmenschen beruht das Recht, auf dem Selbstbewusstsein der eigenen Gottebenbildlichkeit die Sittenheiligung und die Liebe. Ist der Mensch nur tierebenbildlich, nur ein physisches Wesen wie alle Lebendigen neben ihm in der Schöpfung, so sind Gewalt und Selbstsucht und Tierbefriedigung auch für ihn die einzigen Lebensmotoren, so kann von Recht und Liebe und Sittenheiligung keine Rede sein, so ist טומאה, "physische Gebundenheit", "Unfreiheit" mit allen Konsequenzen der Gewalt und der Entartung das ausschließliche Gepräge der Erd- und Menschenwelt, so ist es das Tierideal, dem in Haus und Staat des Menschen- und Völkerlebens die Idolhuldigung gezollt wird, so ist für Gott, den in Recht und Liebe und Sittenheiligkeit zu bekennenden einen Einzigen, keine Stätte auf Erden.

‎'כי אני ה שכן בתוך בני ישראל FOR I, THE LORD, DWELL AMONG THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL — for even when they (the Israelites) are unclean My Shechinah remains amongst them (Sifrei Bamidbar 160:15).

Gleichgültigkeit der Gesamtheit gegen unschuldig vergossenes Menschenblut erkennt aber das Gesetz als die offenbarste Leugnung dieses Fundamentalgrundgesetzes von der Göttlichkeit des Menschenwesens, als tatsächlichste Proklamierung der טומאה als Prinzip des Menschen- und Volkslebens, und spricht daher zu der jüdischen Staatseinheit: ולא תטמא את הארץ אשר אתם ישבים בה, proklamiere durch deine Gleichgültigkeit gegen Menschenblut nicht das Prinzip der טומאה als das in dem Lande geltende, das euch zu seinen Bewohnern hat, in dessen Mitte Gott seine Gegenwart bekundet; כי אני ד׳ שכן בחוך בני ישראל, denn, wenn eben gesagt ist, אשר אני שכן בתוכה, dass Gott in Mitte des Landes gegenwärtig sei, so ist es ja nicht der Boden, das Land als solches, so sind es die Menschen, so ist es das Volk, Jisraels Söhne sind es, und das Leben, das sie entfalten, wodurch irdische Verhältnisse sich der Aufnahme der verheißenen Gottesgegenwart würdig gestalten; und wenn diese Gottesgegenwart sich in Mitte des Volkes kund tut, wie weit ab das Volksleben auch im einzelnen noch von dem Ziele seiner Vollendung sein möge, wie viel noch der טומאה angehörige Unvollkommenheiten ihm auch noch im einzelnen anhaften mögen, wenn Gott jeder Gegenwart des jüdischen Volkslebens eben in Hinblick auf dessen einstige sittliche Vollendung und mit seiner ewig zu ihr hin erziehenden Liebe nahe sein will: so muss, eben um dieser reinen Vollendungszukunft und der in jeder Zeit gegenwärtigen Gottesnähe willen, von der Gesamtheit stets das jeden Fortschritt zu dieser Zukunft bedingende Panier in unzweifelhaftem Lichte hoch und rein vorangetragen werden, in dem um Gott sich scharenden Menschenvereine die Idee der Göttlichkeit des Menschenwesens stets ungetrübt zum Ausdruck kommen, auf dass den Erscheinungen der טומאה gegenüber sich das Prinzip der טהרה seine hingebungsvolle Huldigung erhalte und der Gesamtgeist dessen würdig bleibe, der von ל sich verheißen: אני ד׳ שכן בתוך בני ישראל (vergl. zu Wajikra 18, 25 f. und 15, 31).

Durch diese Schlusssätze tritt erst die רוצח- und ערי מקלט-Institution, deren Verwirklichung das erste Gesamtheitsanliegen bei der Besitznahme des Landes bilden soll, und die schon vor derselben für das bereits in Besitz genommene transjordanische Land durch Mosche zur Ausführung kam, in ihr hellstes Licht. Es ist die Heilighaltung und der durch nichts aufzuwiegende Wert eines Blutstropfens ihres letzten Bürgers, mit deren Proklamierung die Gottesnation von ihrem Lande Besitz nehmen soll. Diesem Staate soll das Leben seiner Bürger als das heiligste und höchste aller seinem Schutze übergebenen irdischen Güter gelten, und es wird die Gesamtheit verantwortlich für jede vorzeitig gekürzte Hierseinsminute ihrer Angehörigen. Die in der Heiligachtung des Menschenblutes sich aussprechende "Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen" soll dem ersten Faktor: "Gott" sich sofort als zweiter anschließen, und beide Faktoren vereint: Gott und die "Gottebenbildlichkeit des Menschen" zusammen mit allen ihren Konsequenzen den geistigen und sittlichen Grund und Lebensborn dieses Staates und des individuellen und sozialen Lebens seiner Angehörigen bilden. Jedem seiner Angehörigen ist Hiersein und Landesboden nur unter der Bedingung garantiert, dass von ihm jeder seiner Mitbürger in seiner Gottebenbildlichkeit und der daraus fließenden Unverletzlichkeit seines Hierseins geachtet werde, und diese Achtung bei allen seinen Handlungen die selbstbewusste Vorsicht und Umsicht erzeuge. Die durchs ganze Land in gleichen Distanzen verteilten, nur zu gleicher Zeit in Wirkung tretenden (V. 13) Miklatstädte proklamieren faktisch dieses Prinzip ausnahmslos für das ganze Land und alle seine Bürger. Der staatsseitig zu autorisierende, eventuell zu bestellende גואל הדם vertritt nicht in seinem und in feiner näheren Verwandtschaft Namen allein, sondern im Namen des Staates dies in dem Mord oder der Tötung eines ihrer Angehörigen verletzte Prinzip.

For, I, Adonoy, dwell. The explanation is that this verse gives the reason for the two previous matters: This pollution causes the exile of Yisroel from Eretz Yisroel and exiles the Shechinah (Divine Presence). We might say we understand the reason for the exile of the Shechinah, since the Shechinah cannot dwell in a place of pollution, but why should Yisroel go into exile? Surely the sin itself is not so serious, since we are talking about a case of murder which was thought to be permissible, and if so, why should Yisroel be exiled because of the pollution of the land? Scripture explains to us the reason, “For, I, Adonoy, dwell among Bnei Yisroel.” I cannot cause My glory to dwell in Eretz Yisroel because of the pollution, thus, I must go into exile outside the Land. Therefore I must draw the essential dwelling place of Yisroel after me so that I can dwell amongst them outside the land, and it follows that the Shechinah dwells amongst Yisroel even outside Eretz Yisroel.

Die Gesetzesbestimmungen über den vorsätzlichen Mord stellen sich nur als Ausführung des schon der noachidischen Gesetzgebung angehörigen Ausspruchs שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך (Bereschit 9, 6) dar und erlangen im jüdischen Gesetze vorzüglich die charakteristische, übrigens der gesamten jüdischen Kriminaljustiz angehörige Beschränkung auf עדים והתראה, d. h. auf die Fälle, wo das Verbrechen durch zwei Zeugen konstatiert ist, die bei dem Verbrechen gegenwärtig waren und im Momente der Tat dem Verbrecher warnend den Buchstaben des Strafgesetzes entgegengehalten haben (siehe hierüber zu Schmot 21, 14 u. 18, 5, sowie Dewarim 17, 6), und wo ferner der Tod unzweifelhaft als direkte Wirkung der Verbrechertat erfolgt ist, wie überhaupt die zur Freisprechung überwiegende Tendenz, die die Strafvollziehung nur in den seltenen Fällen vollendetster Evidenz zulässt, dann aber auch die Befugnis zum Straferlass nicht in Händen hat (siehe zu Verse 31 u. 32).

Auf die Ähnlichkeit des dem unvorsätzlichen aber fahrlässigen Mörder diktierten Galut mit dem über den ersten Mörder ergangenen Verhängnis haben wir bereits zu Bereschit 4, 14 hingewiesen. Diese Verweisung aus der Heimat, dieser Ausschluss aus dem ganzen nationalen Boden und dieses Gebanntsein in eine einzige Stätte, die ihn aufnimmt und innerhalb ihrer Grenzen festhält, deren mutwilliges Überschreiten für ihn zur Höhnung der Schwere seines Verbrechens wird und den Todesstahl des Blutvertreters gegen ihn berechtigt, — alles dies ist nur ein verjüngtes Erleiden dessen, was sein Menschenbruder von seiner Hand erlitten, den er um Heimat und Vaterland und um das ganze irdische Hiersein gebracht. Und wohl mag dieses Herausgerissensein aus dem ganzen Boden des bisherigen Seins und aus dem freien Zusammenhange mit allem, woran das Menschengemüt im heimischen Kreise hängt, sowie die stete Sorge vor dem Stahl der Vergeltung, den er auf sein irdisches Hiersein gezückt weiß, sehr geeignet sein, ihn den ganzen Wert des hohen Gutes recht innig fühlen und schätzen lernen zu lassen, dessen seine straffällige Gedankenlosigkeit einen Brudermenschen verlustig gemacht. Der ganze Charakter, der dieser Verbannung in die Miklatstadt aufgedrückt ist, ist aber nicht Strafe, sondern: כפרה, Sühne, auf dass er von der Folgenschwere der auf ihm lastenden Schuld frei werde (Mackot 26, 11 b ד׳׳ה מידי גלות ,תוספו׳), und spricht sich dieser Charakter auch in der liebenden Fürsorge aus, die die Gesamtheit für das leibliche und geistige Wohl ihres Verbannten an seinem Verbannungsorte zu betätigen hat (siehe zu V. 11).

Einer besonderen Erwägung bedarf jedoch die Beziehung des כהן גדול zu der Verweisung des unvorsätzlichen Mörders in eine Miklatstadt. Das Verbannungsurteil lautet: bis zum Tode des Hohenpriesters, und zwar dessen, der im Momente der Urteilsfällung Hohepriester war. Es kann dies so wenig eine bloß äußerliche Fristsetzung sein, muss vielmehr einen so innigen Zusammenhang mit dem Vergehen und seiner Verurteilung haben, dass ja, wenn nach der Verurteilung vor der Hinflucht in den Bannort der Hohepriester stirbt, das Vergehen seine Sühne gefunden hat und der Täter von der Verbannung frei ist, hingegen, wenn zur Zeit des Urteilsspruches kein Hohepriester da war, der in eine Miklatstadt Verwiesene bis an sein Lebensende dort zu verbleiben hat. In der Tat wird auch Mackot 11b der Tod des כה׳׳ג als כפרה-Abschluss begriffen: מידי גלות קא מכפרה מיתת כהן הוא דמכפרא (siehe תוספו daselbst) und daselbst 41 a den כה ג ein möglicher Anteil an der Verschuldung zuerkannt, der durch ihren Tod zu büßen sein könne. Als ein solcher möglicher Verschuldungsanteil wird dort etwaige Gleichgültigkeit gegen die Wohlfahrt und Schuldlosigkeit ihrer Zeitgenossen bezeichnet, für die zu beten sie unterlassen haben können: שהיה להם לבקש רחמים על דורן ולא בקשו, oder daselbst 11 b von dem erst zwischen dem Vergehen und der Verurteilung zur hohenpriesterlichen Würde Erwählten, dass er vielleicht gegen das dem Angeklagten drohende Verbannungsgeschick gleichgültig gewesen und vielleicht für die Erleuchtung seiner Richter zu beten unterlassen, dass, wenn freisprechende Gründe für ihn vorhanden sind, ihnen diese nicht entgehen mögen, היה לו לבקש רחמים שיגמר דינו לזכות ולא ביקש. (Nur in diesem hypothetischen Sinne glauben wir beide Sätze verstehen zu müssen. Denn es ist ja weder das geschehene Unglück, noch die Verurteilung ein positiver Beweis, dass die zeitigen כהנים גדולים das von ihnen erwartete Gebet wirklich unterlassen haben. Die Erhörung steht ja bei Gott. Und vollends die zweite Bitte שיגמור דינו לזכות ist ja wohl sicher nur hypothetisch für den Fall seiner Unschuld zu verstehen. Es wäre ja sonst die Bitte um ein falsches, jedenfalls um ein irrtümliches Urteil). Diese Mitleidenschaft der Priester an dem Vergehen und dem Verbannungslos des unvorsätzlichen Mörders war so lebhaft in dem Volksbewusstsein, dass nach Mackot 11 a die Mütter der Hohenpriester die verwiesenen Mörder in ihrer Verbannung mit Nahrungsunterhalt und Kleidung verpflegten, damit sie nicht für den Tod ihrer Söhne beten möchten, אימותיהן של כהנים מספקות להן מחיה וכסותי כדי שלא יתפללו על בניהן שימותו (siehe daselbst). Im ספרי wird die Beziehung des כהן גדול zu der Verweisung des unvorsätzlichen Mörders also motiviert: ר׳ מאיר אומר רוצח מקצר ימיו של אדם וכהן גדול מאריך ימיו של אדם אין בדין שישב המקצר לפני המאריך ר׳ אומר רוצח מטמא את הארץ ומסלק את השכינה וכהן גדול גורם לשכינה שתשרה על הארץ אין בדין שיהא מי שמטמא את הארץ לפני מי שגורם להשרות את השכינה על הארץ, d. h. der Mörder verkürzt das Leben, der Hohepriester verlängert das Leben; es ist nicht Recht, dass der Lebensverkürzer vor dem Angesicht des Lebensverlängerers bleibe, oder: der Mörder bringt טומאה über das Land und verscheucht die Gottesgegenwart, der Hohepriester bewirkt die Gegenwart Gottes im Lande; es ist nicht Recht, dass derjenige, der dem Lande טומאה bringt, vor dem. Angesichte dessen bleibt, der die Gottesgegenwart im Lande bewirkt.