Pensamiento judío sobre Números 35:31

Despite Yehudah's having said previously that there was nothing he could say to alter the fact of Benjamin's guilt, he now attempted a different tack, prompted by the vision of his father's anguish. He appealed to Joseph to open his ears, i.e. to become accessible to what he was about to tell him. He implied that there is no shame attached to a ruler changing his mind, hinting that Joseph was not unlike Pharaoh, the latter also not always keeping his promises, i.e. changing his mind (Bereshit Rabbah 93). No doubt, when that happened there were compelling circumstances. That is why Joseph also could change his mind without any stigma being attached to him on that account. Yehudah's basic approach was that even when a certain crime carries a certain penalty, administering such a penalty in equal measure to every criminal regardless of any other consideration, could not contribute to the dissemination of true justice. When a weak young man has to submit to the penalty of 39 strokes of the whip, he may well die instead of merely suffering the indignity that the penalty is meant to subject him to. In such cases the attempt to administer justice results in murder. Therefore, Torah law (Makkot 22) provides safeguards to determine when the lashes have to be stopped to prevent such an eventuality. Also, should administering the penalty prescribed, result in a loss to society that outweighs the good which the offender's punishment would do for society, such punishment may well be deferred. Possibly, the reason David did not punish Yoav for the murder of Avner was for precisely this reason. Maybe this is why G-d did not punish David in connection with Bat Sheva, though Saul was dealt with harshly for his sin of not killing Agog. This may also have been the reason for the people's displeasure when Saul wanted to kill Jonathan. Since Jonathan was slated to become Saul's successor, the people felt that punishing him would in effect be punishing them (Samuel I Chapter 14). Also the plea of the woman from Tekoah for allowing Absalom to return to Jerusalem may have been prompted by similar considerations (Samuel II Chapter 14). A third reason for tempering punishment though deserved, is that the penalty in question is only one example of a variety of penalties applicable. Murder, whether intentional or unintentional is punishable by death or exile respectively, and the Torah repeatedly stresses that converting the penalty to a fine or any other type of punishment is strictly forbidden (Numbers Chapter 35 and elsewhere). From this it follows that crimes other than murder, lend themselves to a variety of punishments, the particular penalty to be determined by the judge. (14+15) Yehudah describes that Benjamin's penalty deserved to be altered for all the reasons listed. We have already raised the question how Yehudah could have had the audacity to claim that Joseph had asked about their father, when in fact he had not. Also, Yehudah's claim that he had told Joseph that Benjamin's separation from his father would lead to his death, can nowhere be found. Obviously therefore, Yehudah reconstructed their previous encounter as having resulted in the equivalent of all these questions, though they may never have been articulated in so many words. The accusation of their being spies, irreputable people, had forced the brothers to reveal that they were people of good repute, all of one family, sons of one father, thereby implying that they did not share the same mother. They had revealed that their remaining brother was the sole survivor of his mother's children, and therefore by implication, that his father leaned on him especially. Since their father had twelve sons, he was presumably an old man by this time. Although Joseph was aware of all this, he had insisted on Benjamin coming to see him. Yehudah continued that all the brothers had been imprisoned because they had refused to send one of them to bring Benjamin down to Egypt, and that they had only consented in the end, because Joseph had made it an issue of life and death by implication. When Joseph had said that he wanted to set eyes on Benjamin, the brothers had assumed that his intention was completely above board, whereas now it turned out that he wanted this spoiled young man as a slave, a task that Benjamin's previous lifestyle had not prepared him for, and which might result in his death.

(1) On the two previous occasions when the Torah deals with the "city of refuge" legislation, the point had been to teach us that the law treats unintentional crime differently from intentional crime; now the message is that since all other pieces of legislation dealing with law giving and law enforcement have been revealed, the practical observance of the city of refuge legislation can no longer be delayed. From now on, everyone who trespasses, is considered an intentional sinner. (since the law is known) Therefore the machinery to protect the person who is clearly an unintentional sinner has to be put in operation. This is why on this occasion we read about such details as erecting signposts pointing to the nearest "city of refuge." (Makkot 10) (2) The reason the Torah describes death as having occurred in a forest etc., is to teach that when it is evident through the circumstances where it occurred, that there could not have been criminal intent, then, even if there had been a feud between the two parties involved, the killer is believed, and he may take refuge in the city set aside for that purpose. Only, if in addition to the "hatred" between the two parties, there is evidence of an ambush, does the city of refuge not protect such a killer. In such an event, the killer is subject to retribution by human hands despite the absence of witnesses. The word im, in 19,8, refers back to the beginning of the subject matter in verse two. Once the West Bank would be conquered, the three cities Moses had designated on the East Bank would become operative. "You will add three more such cities on the West Bank as soon as practicable."