Midrash sur Les Juges 1:20

(Fol. 9b) Our Rabbis were taught: Three cities did Moses separate on this side of the Jordan, and corresponding to them, Joshua separated in the land of Canaan, and they were right opposite one against the other, just as two rows in a vineyard. Namely (Josh. 20, 7) Hebron in Judah, opposite (Deut. 4, 43) Bezer in the wilderness; Shechem in the mountain of Ephraim, opposite Ramoth in Gilead; Kedesh in Galilea in the mountain of Naphthali, opposite Golan in Bashan. (Josh. 20, 7) And the three, i.e., it should be divided into three that there shall be the same distance from South Palestine to Hebron as from Hebron to Shechem; and from Hebron to Shechem as from the latter to Kedesh, and from Shechem to Kedesh as from the latter to North Palestine. How is it that three were needed on the other side of the Jordan, and only three for the whole land of Israel? Said Abaye: "In Gilead there were many murderers, (Fol. 10) as it is written (Hos. 6, 8) Gilead is a city of them that work iniquity, it is covered with footprints of blood." And R. Elazar explained the verse: "They followed up [their victims] to commit murder." Why were the cities on both sides of the Jordan far from the boundary, and the middle one near? Said Abaye: "Because Shechem was also full of murderers: as it is said (Ib., ib. 9) And as troops of robbers wait for a man, so doth the company of priests, they murder in the way toward Shechem." What is meant by the company of priests? Said R. Elazar: "They conjoined themselves to kill as the priests who would enjoin themselves to receive the heave-offerings from the barns." But were there not more cities of refuge? Behold there is (Num. 35, 6) And in addition to them shall ye give forty and two cities? Said Abaye: "The former protects the refugee in any instance, whether he is aware of that city being a place of refuge or not; while the latter accept him only when he is aware [of its protective power]." Was then the city of Hebron indeed a city of refuge? Does not the passage say (Jud. 1, 20) And they gave Hebron unto Kaleb as Moses ordered. Said Abaye: "It was only the suburb of it, as it is written (Josh. 21, 12) But the fields of the city, and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb, the son of Jephunneh."

We are taught (Num. 26) It was divided only by lots. Except Joshua and Caleb, What does this mean? Shall we assume that they did not take any land at all? Is it possible? If, as said above, they took the shares that were not theirs, how much more ought they take their own? It means they did not take by lots, but by the decree of Heaven. Joshua, as it is written (Joshua 19, 50) By the order of the Lord did they give him the city which he had asked — Timnath Serah on the mountains of Ephraim. And Caleb — as it is written (Jud. 1, 20) And they gave Hebron unto Caleb as Moses has spoken. But was not Hebron one of the cities of refuge? Abaye said: "It refers to the suburbs and village surrounding the city, as it is written (Josh. 21) But the field of the city and its villages they gave to Caleb the son of Yephunah for his possession.

(Bamidbar 26:25) "Only by lot shall the land be divided": ("Only") — excluding Joshua and Calev (who received special portions.) And thus is it written (Judges 15:13) "And to Calev ben Yefuneh was given a portion in the midst of the children by word of the L-rd to Joshua," and (Judges 1:20) "And they gave Chevron to Calev as Moses had spoken," and (Joshua 19:49-50) "And the children of Israel gave a portion to Joshua the son of Nun in their midst. By word of the L-rd they gave him the city that he asked for, Timnath Serach."