Parashat Matot (“Tribes”) opens with laws about vows, and continues to describe the Israelites’ war against the Midianites and the allocation of spoils. The tribes of Reuben and Gad request to dwell outside of the Land of Israel, and Moses acquiesces on the condition that they help conquer it.
Parashat Masei (“Travels”), the final Torah portion in the Book of Numbers, opens with a list of places that the Israelites traveled in the desert. God commands the Israelites to destroy idolatry in the Land of Israel, outlines Israel’s boundaries, and details the laws of cities of refuge for accidental killers.
(יא) וְהִקְרִיתֶ֤ם לָכֶם֙ עָרִ֔ים עָרֵ֥י מִקְלָ֖ט תִּהְיֶ֣ינָה לָכֶ֑ם וְנָ֥ס שָׁ֙מָּה֙ רֹצֵ֔חַ מַכֵּה־נֶ֖פֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָֽה׃ (יב) וְהָי֨וּ לָכֶ֧ם הֶעָרִ֛ים לְמִקְלָ֖ט מִגֹּאֵ֑ל וְלֹ֤א יָמוּת֙ הָרֹצֵ֔חַ עַד־עָמְד֛וֹ לִפְנֵ֥י הָעֵדָ֖ה לַמִּשְׁפָּֽט׃ (יג) וְהֶעָרִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר תִּתֵּ֑נוּ שֵׁשׁ־עָרֵ֥י מִקְלָ֖ט תִּהְיֶ֥ינָה לָכֶֽם׃ (יד) אֵ֣ת ׀ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ הֶעָרִ֗ים תִּתְּנוּ֙ מֵעֵ֣בֶר לַיַּרְדֵּ֔ן וְאֵת֙ שְׁלֹ֣שׁ הֶֽעָרִ֔ים תִּתְּנ֖וּ בְּאֶ֣רֶץ כְּנָ֑עַן עָרֵ֥י מִקְלָ֖ט תִּהְיֶֽינָה׃ (טו) לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל וְלַגֵּ֤ר וְלַתּוֹשָׁב֙ בְּתוֹכָ֔ם תִּהְיֶ֛ינָה שֵׁשׁ־הֶעָרִ֥ים הָאֵ֖לֶּה לְמִקְלָ֑ט לָנ֣וּס שָׁ֔מָּה כָּל־מַכֵּה־נֶ֖פֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָֽה׃ ... (כה) וְהִצִּ֨ילוּ הָעֵדָ֜ה אֶת־הָרֹצֵ֗חַ מִיַּד֮ גֹּאֵ֣ל הַדָּם֒ וְהֵשִׁ֤יבוּ אֹתוֹ֙ הָֽעֵדָ֔ה אֶל־עִ֥יר מִקְלָט֖וֹ אֲשֶׁר־נָ֣ס שָׁ֑מָּה וְיָ֣שַׁב בָּ֗הּ עַד־מוֹת֙ הַכֹּהֵ֣ן הַגָּדֹ֔ל אֲשֶׁר־מָשַׁ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ בְּשֶׁ֥מֶן הַקֹּֽדֶשׁ׃
(11) you shall provide yourselves with places to serve you as cities of refuge to which a manslayer who has killed a person unintentionally may flee. (12) The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer may not die unless he has stood trial before the assembly.
(13) The towns that you thus assign shall be six cities of refuge in all. (14) Three cities shall be designated beyond the Jordan, and the other three shall be designated in the land of Canaan: they shall serve as cities of refuge. (15) These six cities shall serve the Israelites and the resident aliens among them for refuge, so that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there...
(25) The assembly shall protect the manslayer from the blood-avenger, and the assembly shall restore him to the city of refuge to which he fled, and there he shall remain until the death of the high priest who was anointed with the sacred oil.
Questions to discuss:
1. Before the establishment of these cities of refuge, what do you think people would do if they'd committed manslaughter?
2. Why does the Torah select the death of the high priest as the moment the person guilty of manslaughter can return home? What are the upsides to this selection, and what are the potential pitfalls?
(יב) למקלט מגואל: תחלה קראו גואל למי שהוא גואל אחוזת קרובו אשר מכר אותה מפני דלותו, ואחר כן קראו גואל הדם למי שנוקם נקמת קרובו הנהרג, ואח"כ קראו לו ג"כ גואל סתם. והנה בדורות הראשונים, בטרם יהיו העמים מסודרים תחת מלך ושרים, ושופטים ושוטרים, היתה כל משפחה נוקמת נקמתה ממשפחה אחרת, והקרוב יותר אל הנהרג היה חייב לנקום מיתתו; והתורה העמידה שופטים ושוטרים, ונטלה הנקמה מיד היחידים, ומסרה אותה לכל העדה. והנה כשהיתה הרציחה בזדון, יתכן להשקיט את הגואל, כי יאמרו לו: הנח להם לשופטים, הם יחקרו הדבר, ואם בן מות הוא ימיתוהו; אבל כשהיתה ההריגה בשגגה, לא היה אפשר להשקיט את הגואל, ולהכריחו לראות מי שהרג את אביו או את אחיו נשאר בלא עונש, כי היה נראה לו ולכל יודעיו ומכיריו כאילו אינו אוהב את אביו ואת אחיו, מאחר שאינו נוקם את נקמתם. והדעת הזאת לא היה אפשר לעקור אותה בבת אחת, וראתה החכמה האלהית שאם יהיה גואל הדם נענש מיתה בנקמו את קרובו הנהרג בשגגה, עדיין לא ימנעו כל הגואלים ולא רובם מעשות נקמת קרוביהם, ועל ידי זה ירבו הנהרגים ללא תועלת... לפיכך מה עשתה התורה? הניחה זכות לגואל לנקום מיתת קרובו, אבל קבעה מקום מקלט לנוס שמה הרוצח, ולא יוכל הגואל לבוא שם ולהרגו.
In early times, before peoples were organized under a king, ministers, judges and officers, every family took revenge against other families, and the closest relative of the dead was responsible to avenge his death. The Torah established judges and officers and transferred the responsibilities of avenging [a killing] from individuals to the community.
Now in a case of murder it was possible to mollify the avenger by telling him to leave it to the judges to investigate and execute the killer if found guilty of murder. However, when the killing was unintentional, it was impossible to mollify the avenger and oblige him to watch he who killed his father or brother remain unpunished. He and his acquaintances would interpret this [his inaction] to be proof that he does not love his father or brother, since he does not avenge their death. Now it was impossible to totally uproot this attitude [that lack of vengeance implied lack of love]. The divine wisdom knew that condemning the avenger to death when avenging an unintentional killing would not prevent all or even most of the avengers from avenging the death of their relatives...
Therefore, what did the Torah do? It left the avenger the right to avenge the killing of his kin but designated places of refuge where the [unintentional] killer could seek protection and in which the avenger is unable to kill him.
When a person runs to a city of refuge, he is taken from there to trial. If he is convicted of intentional murder, he is executed. If the death was a complete accident, he is released. If, however, the court decides that he is guilty of negligent manslaughter, he must return to the city of refuge and remain there during the lifetime of the High Priest. If, for any reason, he leave the city of refuge, he may be killed by his victim's avenger.
Read this teaching from Tractate Makkot. What questions are the Rabbis trying to answer? How are they developing the laws around manslaughter?
(ו) רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד מַקְדִּימִין לְעָרֵי מִקְלָט, וּבֵית דִּין שׁוֹלְחִין וּמְבִיאִין אוֹתוֹ מִשָּׁם. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה בְּבֵית דִּין, הֲרָגוּהוּ. וְשֶׁלֹּא נִתְחַיֵּב מִיתָה, פְּטָרוּהוּ. מִי שֶׁנִּתְחַיֵּב גָּלוּת, מַחֲזִירִין אוֹתוֹ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר לה) וְהֵשִׁיבוּ אֹתוֹ הָעֵדָה אֶל עִיר מִקְלָטוֹ וְגוֹ'. אֶחָד מָשׁוּחַ בְּשֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה וְאֶחָד הַמְרֻבֶּה בִבְגָדִים וְאֶחָד שֶׁעָבַר מִמְּשִׁיחָתוֹ, מַחֲזִירִין אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף מְשׁוּחַ מִלְחָמָה מַחֲזִיר אֶת הָרוֹצֵחַ. לְפִיכָךְ אִמּוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים מְסַפְּקוֹת לָהֶן מִחְיָה וּכְסוּת, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִתְפַּלְּלוּ עַל בְּנֵיהֶם שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ. מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, הֲרֵי זֶה אֵינוֹ גוֹלֶה. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ מֵת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל וּמִנּוּ אַחֵר תַּחְתָּיו, וּלְאַחַר מִכֵּן נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ, חוֹזֵר בְּמִיתָתוֹ שֶׁל שֵׁנִי:
(6) Rabbi Yose bar Yehuda says: At the outset, both unintentional and purposeful [killers] arrive at the city of refuge. The court sends for him and takes him from there. One who is to be killed by the court is executed, and the one who is to be exiled, they return him back to his place, as it says, "The community will return him to his city of refuge."(Numbers 35:25)
The death of one who is anointed with oil* and one who has additional clothes** and one who used to be anointed--any of these return the killer (from the city of refuge to his city of origin). Rabbi Yehudah says: even one who is anointed for the purposes of war*** returns the killer. Therefore, the mothers of priests provided food and clothes (to the residents of cities of refuge), so they would not pray for their sons to die. If the high priest died after the killer's judgment was rendered, he is not exiled. If the high priest died before the killer's judgment was rendered and they appointed a new one and after that his judgment was rendered, he is returned [home] with the death of the second.
* this terms refers to the high priest
** this term refers to a priest on his way to becoming the high priest
*** a priest selected in wartime to consult the Urim and Tumim before entering battle, as well as to offer exemptions to anyone who was newly married, who had just built a home, or who had just planted a vineyard; this priest did not offer sacrifices or pass on this position to his sons.
* How do you respond to the laws of manslaughter? Do you agree with the Torah's presentation? Or with the ways the rabbis developed the basic laws?
* How do these laws compare to our justice system's treatment of manslaughter?
* How would you feel if you found yourself in any of these roles--someone who needed to flee to a city of refuge, a member of the court, or a relative of someone who was killed?