cities of refuge

[cellio]

In parsha Ma'asei, at the end of the book of Numbers, the torah commands Israel to establish cities of refuge in the land. These are the cities where those who kill accidentally can go for safety. (Those who kill intentionally are subject to the death penalty.)

While the talmud specifies that capital cases must follow a specific judicial process, the torah itself (in this passage) seems to say that the victim's next of kin (the "go'el", which means "redeemer" -- he redeems the blood-debt) "shall" carry out the death sentence wherever he meets the intentional killer, even in a city of refuge. This raises all sorts of questions that I hope we'll return to at next week's torah study.

First, I assume the rabbis reinterpreted this away from the plain meaning of the text, as they did with the rebellious son. I wonder what process they followed -- other text citations that seem to contradict this, perhaps?

Second, one has to wonder about security in the cities of refuge if people who flee there aren't actually safe. It appears that accidental killers are safe there and intentional killers aren't, but when the kinsman shows up at the gate, who validates his claim that he's after an intentional killer if there's no trial?

Third, I can't help but wonder about that "shall". Biblical Hebrew, according to the book I'm learning from, does not distinguish among the various senses of future tense -- "he will X", "he might X", even "he is Xing" (present tense) are all constructed the same way, and you figure it out from context. (Does Biblical Hebrew really lack the subtle shades of meaning we're used to in English? That seems over-simplistic.) Is the text using "shall" to mean "the go'el is to do this", or is it more predictive ("the go'el is going to do this")? Every translation is a commentary; I need to look at the Hebrew in context here, though I suspect I'm not sufficiently fluent and I'll have to ask my rabbi for help.

The accidental killer stays in the city of refuge until the (then-current) high priest dies -- sort of like a statute of limitations, but less predictable. I had wondered about this -- why does this make sense? Someone this morning pointed out an interesting interpretation (I think Rabbi Gunther Plaut's, but I might be wrong). The torah tells us elsewhere (Mishpatim and Noach at least, off the top of my head) that life must be paid with life, but in the case of an accidental killing you don't want to punish the person who did it -- so instead the high priest's death can "cover" these people too. I'm not sure I buy that -- it opens the door to expiation by proxy in a dangerous way -- but it's an interesting idea. And (I add) in a way the high priest is the people's representative before God; he's ultimately accountable for the sacrificial system that maintains the people's relationship with God. Another commentary likened it to the amnesty period that sometimes comes with a change of king, which sits a little easier but isn't wholly satisfying either.

The Levites, who don't get land, are given cities (from the other tribes' allotments), including these cities of refuge. We usually think of the Levites as being responsible for the people's relationship with God, but in the case of the cities of refuge they're responsible, in part, for people's relationships with each other too.

Comments

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

An accident can happen from carelessness and maybe the fault is carelessness and did not intend the death. I think the judgement of this person is what is in their heart. If it was an accident through carelesness then they didn't intend to kill but they were negligent. So the punishment is not death but seperation

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Offended relatives may not know the difference between "accident" and "Requiring blood-payment."

I like the idea of punishment by separation.

Interesting. Of course in the KJ New testament, which is what I first learned, "Thou shalt" is a commandment, where "you will" or "you must" is something that can be gotten around. And it's come that way down to (at least US) legal practice....

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

That is true the relatives may not see the difference between accident and intent, but God does and the trust is on Him to protect those who must flee to the city of refuge. Remember, the idea here is that God is absolutely sovereign. Also, I think they really believed in the will of God, especially when it comes to acts of tragedy. I'm also thinking maybe having these people flee to the city of refuge is also for the deceased relative benefit. It would be very hard to have to see everyday the person who's neglegance caused the death of a loved one. Usually God's commandments in the bible is multi-purposed.

[cellio]

I agree that fleeing to the city of refuge has a practical effect too, placing some separation between the accidental killer and the victim's family.

I wonder how the accidental killer supports himself until the kohen gadol dies. He's in a city, so he can't grow food. The Levites are also in the city, but they're supported through official channels. Does the killer's tribe continue to support him somehow?

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

If it is a city of refuge I'm sure there was a system of some sort for support or else the city would die out. I'm guessing these people were not the only ones there. Lots of travelers who passed by must have brought things to trade with and used the services of the city as well which they had to pay for. Caravans where big then and this carried wealth and opportunity get wealth.

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

Also the most important idea here is that God will protect and provide. Remember the ram God provided for Abraham to sacrifice instead of his son Isaac? Abraham called that place on the mountain "He will provide". The continuing theme is God is sovereign, God will provide, His children are to believe in His promises, and obey His commandments.

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

Sorry, it's called "the Lord will provide".

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

Hmm. very interesting. I'm learning a lot from these discussions, since my origins are Southern Baptist, which are very different in viewpoint. Thanks!

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

Personally, I love having biblical discussions. It causes you to ponder and research what the bible has to say.

[cellio]

So do I. There have been a bunch of them in my journal, in case you're interested. (Try the "torah" tag.) I do this a fair bit as I read, learn, preach, question... :-)

[sfromriverdale.livejournal.com]

I'll be sure to check them out.