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.

כי בעיר מקלטו ישב עד מות הכהן הגדול, “for he has to remain in the city of his refuge until the death of the High Priest.” The plain meaning of the verse is to prevent people from complaining about the High Priest doing nothing to avenge the victim of this killer when they see the inadvertent killer leave his city of refuge. Once he has died and another has been appointed in his place, this is no longer a consideration as the murder had not been committed during the tenure of the new High Priest. According to Deuteronomy 26,3: the function of the High Priest is בימים ההם, during each High Priest’s lifetime, he is not held responsible for what occurred before he was appointed or after he had died.

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.