Комментарий к Бамидбар 35:32

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?