פירוש על במדבר 35:31

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.]