צו את בני ישראל ונתנו ללוים מנחלת אחוזתם ערים לשבת ומגרש לערים סביבותיהם, “instruct the Children of Israel to allocate (give) to the Levites from the heritage of their possessions, cities for dwelling and an open space around their cities.” The expression מגרש describes an empty space outside the city for decorative purposes extending around the walls of a city 1,000 cubits all around that city. This area must not be used to build houses on, nor must it be used to plant trees or perform any agricultural activities. It is reserved for use by the livestock of the Levites and their free-roaming animals.

ומדותם מחוץ לעיר אלפים באמה, “you shall measure outside the city ...approx 2,000 cubits (in each direction).” The meaning is that the Levites were to be given a belt of two thousand cubits of land, the inner half of which has already been described in verse 2. The outer 1,000 cubits could be used to plant vineyards, etc. (compare Rashi).

ועליהם תתנו ארבעים ושתים עיר, “In addition to them (the 6 cities designated for involuntary manslaughterers to take refuge) you will add another 42 cities for the Levites.” This would make a total of 48 cities in which the Levites would dwell. Three of the cities of refuge were to be situated in the territories of the two and a half tribes on the east bank of the Jordan, the remaining three in Eretz Yisrael proper.

והקריתם לכם ערים, ערי מקלט, “you shall designate cities for yourselves, cities of refuge.” The expression והקריתם is derived from קריה, city.

ונס שמה רוצח מכה נפש בשגגה, “and to such a city a murderer who killed a person unintentionally shall flee.” Such a person is not guilty of the death penalty seeing he did not intend to kill his victim. This law demonstrates that the heart of the person is the prime driving force of man’s activities. This principle applies to the performance of all the commandments as well as to the commission of any sins. Exile is the penalty decreed here seeing that the man’s heart was not associated with his action. The death penalty never applies unless body and heart had committed the sin in question in tandem, in agreement with each other. The body contributes the relevant movement, the heart the relevant intention. Seeing in the example mentioned there was no such co-ordination between body and mind, the guilty party only has to be exiled. By the same token, if a person performed a commandment, in accordance with all its details but his heart was not involved, i.e. he did not mean to perform a commandment by doing what he did, he will not receive a reward for his deed (compare Nazir 23). This is what David meant when he said in Psalms 119,48: “I raise my palms toward Your commandments which I love, etc.” The “raising of hands” which David speaks of is the intention harboured by his heart. We find these two words side by side in Lamentations 3,41: “let us raise our hearts with our palms.”

A Midrashic approach based on Tanchuma Massey 12: “the words: ‘he who kills a person inadvertently,’ emphasise the fact that the deed was inadvertent not accompanied by malice.” If a person who had killed intentionally were to claim that his deed had been committed inadvertently the city of refuge does not afford him any refuge even if he had already reached it. He would be removed even from the Holy Altar in the Temple and convicted. We know this from Exodus 21,14: ”if someone kills a person deliberately, using subterfuge, you shall even remove him from My Altar to apply the death penalty to him.” We find that this is precisely what happened to Yoav, David’s commander-in-chief, who held on to the corners of the Altar in order to escape prosecution for murder (Kings I 2,28). He was forcefully removed and executed by Benayahu. On the other hand, we find that the law to exile an involuntary murderer dates back already to the very beginning of human history when David exclaimed in Psalms 25,6: “O Lord be mindful of Your compassion and Your faithfulness; they are as old as time.” According to the Midrash we quoted David said to G’d: ”Your compassion and faithfulness extend to the inadvertent killer of a human being for whom You have prepared a city of refuge seeing that such killer who did not kill intentionally is not guilty of death. This compassion of Yours dates back to the time You created man.” Although Adam brought death into the world, You did not kill him but You only exiled him as we know from Genesis 3,23: “He exiled him from Gan Eden.” We also have a verse describing this as an expulsion (verse 24 immediately following). [I suppose the Midrash bases itself on the repetition of the reference to Adam being expelled. Ed.]

למקלט מגואל, “as a refuge from the avenger.” The reference is to a family member of the slain person who would act as his avenger.

שש ערי מקלט תהיינה לכם, “you shall have six cities of refuge.” We learn from this verse that although Moses already set aside three of these cities (on the east bank) while he was still alive, they did not begin to function as cities of refuge until the other three cities were so designated after the conquest of the land of Canaan. Even though nine and a half tribes resided on the west bank of the Jordan as compared to two and a half tribes on the east bank, both sides had the same number of cities of refuge. This indicates that the relative incidence of murder in the territory of the two and a half tribes was statistically far higher than that in Eretz Yisrael proper. Gilead had a bad reputation in this regard as we know from Hoseah 6,8 :”Gilead is a city of evildoers, tracked up with blood.” The provision of three cities of refuge for that part of the land of Israel reflects the goodness of the Lord as we read in Psalms 25,8: “Good and upright is the Lord; therefore He shows the sinners the way.” If G’d is so compassionate towards involuntary murderers, showing them a path how to escape from their predicament, how much more compassionate must He be towards genuinely righteous people!

Nachmanides provides two separate reasons why the Torah provided relatively more cities of refuge for a territory with such a small population as the east bank of the Jordan. One reason cited is that it was in honour of Moses who had set these towns aside already during his life time when there really had not been any need to do so. The second reason is purely functional. Seeing that the territory in which the two and a half tribes settled, i.e. the territory formerly under the control of Sichon and Og was so much larger than that of the nine and a half tribes on the west bank, had the allocation been proportionate to the relative population, the average distance a potential killer would have had to travel to escape the avenger would have been so much greater that his chances of actually reaching a safe location would have been unrealistically small. Hence, the same number of such cities was allocated by the Torah to that region as was allocated to a region which had been ruled over by no fewer than 31 kings.

ואם בכלי ברזל הכהו וימות רוצח הוא, “If he had struck him with an iron implement and he died, he is a murderer.” The Torah legislated that if someone killed with a stone or a wooden implement the court will examine if the force used was sufficient to result in death under normal circumstances, i.e. if the victim were healthy. We know this from verse 17: “If he struck him with a hand-sized stone which is sufficiently large to cause death, or with a wooden implement.” These words mean that the court must weigh the relative strength of the blow according to the physique of who administered it and according to the implement employed to strike the victim with. When the blow was struck with an iron tool or weapon, the Torah does not apply such criteria but assumes that anyone who strikes a blow with such an instrument has murderous intentions. Iron instruments, even if as small as a needle are capable of causing death. (Compare Maimonides Hilchot Rotzeach Nefesh 3,1; 3,2, etc.) If the killer pushed the victim so that he fell off the roof of a building and died, this is a situation covered by the words in verse 20: “if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled him from an ambush so that he died,” the killer is automatically assumed to have had murderous intent. If less lethal instruments caused the death of the victim the court has to assess if the blows inflicted were prompted by hostility. This is why the Torah wrote: “or he struck him in enmity with his hand.”

ואם בפתע בלא איבה, “But if with suddenness, without enmity,” The word “suddenly” means that it was caused by an accident. The victim was close by the killer and he did not have a chance to be warned.

ויפל עליו, “he caused it to fall upon him.” This verse caused our sages (Makkot 7) to determine that if someone kills unintentionally by dropping something while lowering it he must go to the city of refuge, but if it occurred while lifting the object he does not go.

וישב בה עד מות הכהן הגדול, “and he will stay there until the death of the High Priest.” Our sages in Makkot 11 linked the duration of the stay of such an inadvertent killer to the death of the High Priest to the fact that the High Priest is the means of atonement for the people; it had been up to him to beseech G’d for mercy and he had failed to do so (adequately) or the tragedy of this killing would not have occurred. In this manner he shares the guilt of any murder which occurs during his tenure of the office of High Priest. Furthermore, the death of the High Priest serves as a measure of consolation and comfort for the relatives of the slain person who will no longer bear a grudge concerning that killing. The Sifri on our verse also writes that seeing that the High Priest is the cause for the Presence of the Shechinah to dwell in Israel, i.e. the cause that lengthens the lives of the people, the killer had caused the opposite i.e. he caused the Shechinah to depart [by reducing the average life span of the people through killing someone prematurely, Ed.]. It is not appropriate therefore that the killer present himself in the vicinity of the High Priest. Hence he had to remain confined to the city of refuge.

אשר משח אותו, “whom one had anointed.” The subject המושח is missing in this verse. It is one of numerous verses where this occurs. Our sages in Makkot 11 derive from this missing word that if a High Priest died during the period that the court had to decide if the killer was an intentional killer or not, and a new High Priest was appointed prior to the end of the trial, the killer has to remain in the city of refuge until the death of the second High Priest. The reason that although the second High Priest was not even in office yet is still associated with this killer is that the new appointee should have prayed that the court would find the killer as innocent of wrongdoing instead of convicting him of manslaughter through negligence. [I believe the underlying linkage is that the killer confined in the city of refuge prays for the demise of the High Priest so that he can go home. Ed.]

והיו אלה לכם לחקת עולם משפט לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם, “and these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations in all your dwellings.” This verse teaches that as long as Jews reside in Eretz Yisrael and they have a Sanhedrin which functions, a Sanhedrin can function outside Eretz Yisrael. This is how Rashi explains this verse. Nowadays that there is no Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael, no Sanhedrin (its authority) is competent in the Diaspora either. The meaning of the verse according to the plain text is that even in these times there should be a judiciary wherever Jews reside, competent to rule on matters of financial disputes, compensation for injuries inflicted, etc., etc.; any infringement of laws for which the penalty prescribed by the Torah is 39 lashes such a court is competent to rule on. This is why the Torah writes the words לדורותיכם בכל מושבותיכם. However, in the absence of a Sanhedrin in Eretz Yisrael we are not entitled to rule on capital offenses [even if the host country were to give us such authority. Ed.]. We derive this from Sanhedrin 52 based on Deut. 17,9: ובאת אל הכהנים הלוים ואל השופט...ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך מן המקום ההוא, “you will come to the priests, the Levites, and the judge...who will tell you from that place”. When there is a High Priest capital cases may be tried, when there is no High Priest such authority does not exist. We also learned this in the Mechilta (page 126) “how do we know that capital cases may be judged only when the Temple is standing? The Torah writes (Exodus 21,14) “from My Altar you shall take him to die.” When there is a Temple and an altar you may decree a death penalty; when there is no altar we have no authority to decree death by human hands. (Compare also Nachmanides).

ולא תקחו כופר לנפש רוצח, “and you must not accept a ransom payment in exchange of the life of the murderer.” The Torah tells us here that no amount of money is adequate to atone for the death of a Jew; hence a ransom payment is out of the question. The guilt of murdering someone is the greatest sin between man and his fellow man. Solomon told us in Proverbs 28,17: “a man burdened with blood guilt will flee to a pit; let no one help him.” We may learn a lesson from Achav, King of Israel. When the prophet makes comparisons between the levels of guilt of different kings we are told in Kings I 21,25 concerning a very evil king, “there was never one like Achav who committed himself to doing what was displeasing to the Lord, at the instigation of his wife Izzevel.” When Achav’s sins were measured and his merits were weighed against them, the decisive sin held against him was that he had framed Navot and had him executed. This is why we read in Kings I 22,21: “the spirit (of the deceased Navot) came forward before the Lord and said: “I will entice him.” “How?, the Lord asked him.” And he replied: “I will go out and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Then He (G’d) said: “you will entice and you will prevail. Go out and do it.” (Compare Sanhedrin 102). The story is an illustration that although Achav had not even killed with his own hands and could have pointed to the court which convicted Navot as guilty as responsible for his death, G’d considered the deed as his. How much more severely must someone be viewed who killed with his own hands.

ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you must not bring guilt upon the land.” The word חנף means to commit evil secretly.

ולא תטמא את הארץ, “so that the land will not be defiled.” The letter ת in the word תטמא is a feminine form third person. The verb is in a passive form. The Torah means that we must not allow the חנופה, the secretly committed sins, to contaminate the Holy Land. Alternatively, the letter ת is masculine, second person active future tense and means: “each one of you is charged with not defiling the land.” The reason why such a sin would be grave is because “I the Lord dwell in it amongst the Children of Israel.”