ומגרשי הערים וגו', “and the open spaces of the cities, etc.” Nachmanides, explaining the plain meaning of the text, states that the text first commands that there should be an open space of 1000 cubits around the city. This is to be arrived at by measuring 500 cubits extending outwards from all four directions, and describing a square using the line forming the outer perimeter of these four sides. When the Torah speaks later (verse 5) of measuring 2000 cubits in each direction outwards, so that the city core will be in the center of the new perimeters, we wind up with a total of 4.000 000 cubits square in all. When measured from the respective corners to the outer rim of the city core, this area, of course, was far longer than 2000 or 500 cubits from the edge of the city core. [Nachmanides’ calculation of the size of the city including all its outer areas is by far smaller than the area arrived at by either Rashi or Maimonides. Ed.] The entire length of each side is called פאה, “corner,” by the Torah. The first 1000 cubits of “suburbia” were not meant to be used for planting gardens, etc., but were a “green-belt.”

מאת הרב תרבו ומאת המעט תמעיטו, “from the many (numerous) you shall increase, and from the few (in number) you shall decrease;” Nachmanides, quoting our sages who claim that all the tribes received territorially equal amounts of land, writes that we need to explain what is written here in terms of the number of families per tribe. A family who had received a large allocation of land (within its tribe) would have to cede relatively many cities of refuge from its territory, whereas a family that had received a relatively small parcel of land would not have to cede proportionately as much for the purpose of providing cities of refuge (including the cities of the Levites). This was so in spite of the fact that when these cities are listed by name and the tribal territory they were in, you will find that the tribes did not all contribute equal numbers. (Joshua chapter 21. [According to verse 3 in that chapter the distribution or allocation of these cities may have proceeded upon divine command after consultation with the urim vetumim. Ed.]

את שלש הערים, “the three cities, etc.” Nachmanides writes that our sages said that Moses designated three cities of refuge on the east bank of the Jordan, a surprisingly large number in view of the few inhabitants (21/2 tribes), as murder was a more frequent occurrence in that part of the country. Although this seems irrelevant seeing that these cities were meant only for people who inadvertently committed manslaughter, there were many people who deliberately committed murder, making it appear that the act had been committed unintentionally. It had therefore become necessary to have such cities available until the true circumstances of the killing had been established. According to this interpretation the legislation took into consideration circumstances that would arise only in the future. Alternately, we could say that up until now the region of Gilead had been known as a region in which murder and manslaughter was a frequent occurrence. Personally, I am amazed at these approaches by some commentators, seeing that our sages (Makkot 10) stated that there were a total of 42 cities either being cities of the Levites, which did double duty, or cities of refuge on the west bank, whereas the total on the east bank, including the cities for the Levites amounted to only 6. There is therefore no numerical anomaly in the allocation of these cities. According to the arrangement just described, each tribe had a total of 4 cities that were capable of serving as cities of refuge. Perhaps the fact that there were 3 basic cities of refuge (out of a total of only 6 such cities) in the region of the east bank was a special compliment to Moses for having allocated three such cities already during his lifetime before the west bank or any part of it had even been conquered. The whole arrangement was not unequal once we realise that the cities of the Levites were part of it, so that there were a total of 48 cities that could provide refuge for inadvertent killers. Looking at it from the plain meaning of the text, the פשט, it would appear that the area of the east bank which became part of the Jewish state was huge, considering that this territory comprised all the lands that formerly belonged to the two Emorite kings Sichon and Og by comparison to the west bank, land which the Torah went out of its way to describe with impressive detail. The lands of Moav and Ammon were also partially included, as the Emorites had captured them.. If judged by area rather than by population, it was certainly not excessive to allocate 3 out of the 6 cities of refuge to that region.

ולא תקחו כופר לנוס אל עיר מקלטו, “and you are not to accept ransom from someone who fled to his city of refuge.” The meaning is that the city elders must not accept a bribe to allow the person who should await the death of the High Priest while still in the city of refuge, and let him return to his hometown prematurely. There was no need for the Torah to warn that one must not settle for a ransom instead of the inadvertent killer taking up residence in the city of refuge. He would not fail to do so because he had to be on guard against avengers of the slain person’s family, his גואל הדם. Not only that, failure to make use of the city of refuge exposes the killer to the suspicion that he killed intentionally.

ולא תחניפו את הארץ, “you shall not pollute the land.” Nachmanides writes that seeing a little while ago (35,29) the Torah wrote והיו אלה לכם לחוקת משפט לדורותיכם, “these shall be for you a decree of justice for your generations,” we might have thought that the legislation of cities of refuge is applied also beyond the boundaries of the land of Israel; to prevent us from making this error the Torah now stresses that its concern with this legislation is that the Holy Land not become polluted, not that the whole globe not become polluted. The yardsticks of conduct and account- ability for failing to maintain the proper standards that the Torah applies to residents in the land of Israel are stricter than those applied to people riding outside that land, seeing that the presence of G’d, i.e. the Shechinah, does not hover over the Diaspora. Lands that are not holy in the first place, but are halachically ritually impure at all times, cannot be polluted by murder committed by man. The residents of the Holy Land are charged with the duty to preserve the holiness of that land. The choice of the term חניפה by the Torah here, a term that is usually applied to flattery, which is a form of misrepresentation of the true facts, is deliberate. as treating an intentional murderer as if he had killed accidentally, by accepting monetary compensation, is a form of distorting the facts. Allowing murder, even unintentional killing, [which by the way the Torah does not describe as הורג, “killing,” but chillingly, as רוצח בשגגה “murdering unintentionally,” Ed.] is apt to drive away the presence of the Shechinah unless the legislation written here is observed in all its details. In the Sifri the expression לא תחניפו את הארץ is understood as a warning to habitual flatterers not to treat the unintentional or intentional killer with flattery, i.e. by accepting a fine from him instead of what the Torah has demanded. The warning is repeated when the Torah writes כי הדם הוא יחניף את הארץ, implying that the guilt of the killer (intentional) must not be downgraded (a form of flattery, misrepresentation) by treating it as if it had only been an unintentional killing. The warning is that if we, the inhabitants of the Holy Land will deceive in this fashion, the land itself will deceive us by withholding its yield after we have toiled with ploughing, seeding, watering, etc