Parshas Matos-Masei
by Rabbi Yaakov Menken
In this week's reading, G-d commands the nation of Israel to set aside
Cities of Refuge throughout the land -- three in the Land of Canaan, and
three east of the Jordan River.
A City of Refuge could only be used by a person who killed another
accidentally, but negligently. An alleged murderer would be taken from the
city and judged, and returned only if the killing was unintentional. A
truly accidental killing, on the other hand, was not punished -- a person
was liable only if he or she might have taken appropriate precautions and
avoided the accident. So the Torah prescribed very different treatment for
those who murdered, those guilty of manslaughter, and those who were
blameless.
The Talmud tells us that there were two parallel lines of three Cities of
Refuge running from north to south, on each side of the Jordan. The three
cities on each side were divided such that each was equidistant from the
others and also from the borders -- dividing the Land of Israel into equal
quarters from north to south.
There is, however, an obvious problem with this division. A person living
in the middle of the country would have to travel no more than half the
distance that a person on the northern or southern border would travel in
order to reach the nearest city. Someone who lived at the midpoint between
the northern and middle cities would have to travel one-eighth of the
length of the country to reach either city, but someone living in the very
south of the country would have to travel one quarter of its length to
reach the southernmost City of Refuge.
Perhaps one could resolve this question by saying that the center of the
country was more populous, so more cities were required. But if so, we
have a different problem: there were three cities on each side of the
Jordan River, while the great majority of the population lived in the Land
of Canaan on the western side.
Abbaye, one of the great scholars of the Talmud, provides a very simple
answer: there were more cities where there were more murderers! Those
areas with more cities per square mile had more people who needed to make
use of them, resulting in a roughly even division of population between
the six cities.
There is something wrong with this answer, though. As we just discussed,
the Cities of Refuge were not for murderers, but only for those guilty of
manslaughter, those who had negligently but not deliberately killed
someone. The relative abundance or paucity of murderers should not matter.
Some of the early commentators, such as the Ramba"n (Nachmanides), answer
by pointing out that murderers would also flee to these cities, in order
to make their actions look accidental or under the misconception that they
would be safe there. Since it took time to clarify who could stay and who
would be removed, more cities were needed where murderers were more
common.
There is also, though, another possibility. Indeed there were more Cities
of Refuge where there were more murderers, and not only because the
murderers would run there. In places where there were more murderers,
there was less concern for life -- and this was something that affected
even those who would never contemplate deliberate homicide. Those who were
exiled were hardly murderers -- they made a mistake! They didn't look
carefully, they didn't think carefully -- but this very lack of caution
and concern for human life also enabled the lowest members of society to
contemplate murder.
We cannot imagine that when we live in a world where not only common
street criminals but corporate executives engage in thievery, we will not
be tempted to "borrow" that which is not ours. And we cannot delude
ourselves by thinking that we can expose ourselves to thousands of murders
per year on television and in movies, and we will remain every bit as
committed to the sanctity of life. We are, indeed, creatures of our
environment.
It is our responsibility, then, to build a different environment - to
remove poisonous influences from our lives as much as possible, and to
surround ourselves with role models, friends and other influences that
promote love, life, and holiness.
Good Shabbos,
Rabbi Yaakov Menken
About the Author
