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

[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.