Comentário sobre Números 35:14

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.