Killer on the Run
INTRODUCTION TO PARASHAT HASHAVUA
*********************************************************
Yemei Iyun beTanakh: July 31 Aug 4 in Alon Shevut. 175 lectures in Hebrew,
30 in English!
New: special program for high school students.
To register:
http://www.herzog.ac.il
*********************************************************
In loving memory of Fred Stone, Yaakov Ben Yitzchak AH
beloved father and grandfather,
Ellen & Stanley, Jacob, Zack, Ezra, Yoni, Eliana and Gabi Stone, Teaneck NJ
**********************************************************************
PARASHAT
MASEI
Killer on
the Run
by Rav Zvi Shimon
Violence
is not only horrible due to the damage, injury and death it causes. It is also
horrible due to its explosive nature. Violence invariably breeds more violence.
The injured party retaliates, setting in motion a chain reaction whose beginning
is known to all, but whose end none can foretell. It is with this latter
devastating aspect of violence that this week's Torah reading contends:
"The Lord
spoke further to Moses: Speak to the Israelite people and say to them: When you
cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan, 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. 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...
If he
pushed him in hate or hurled something at him on purpose and death resulted, or
if he struck him with his hands in enmity and death resulted, the assailant
shall be put to death; he is a murderer.
The blood-avenger shall put the murderer to death upon encounter.
But if he
pushed him without malice aforethought or hurled any object at him
unintentionally, or inadvertently dropped upon him any deadly object of stone,
and death resulted - though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm
- in such cases the assembly shall decide between the slayer and the
blood-avenger. 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 anointed him with the sacred oil. But if the manslayer ever goes
outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled, and the
blood-avenger comes upon him outside the limits of his city of refuge, and the
blood-avenger kills the manslayer, there is no bloodguilt on his account. For he must remain inside his city of
refuge until the death of the high priest; after the death of the high priest,
the manslayer may return to his land holding." (Numbers 35:9-12, 20-28)
God commands the Israelites to designate cities of refuge where
accidental killers may seek protection from the avenger of the deceased's blood.
The killer remains in the city of refuge until he stands trial. If the judges
conclude that the killing was unintentional, a consequence of carelessness and
not premeditated, then the killer is returned to the city of refuge where he
must remain till the death of the high priest. There he lives safely out of the
reach of the avenger and the violence is terminated. If, however, the killer is
found guilty of murder, he is handed over to the avenger and put to death.
II. The Avenger
Who is this avenger? He is referred to in Hebrew as the 'goel'.
Interestingly, this very same word is used in relation to several other
commandments. The 'goel' receives
money owed to a dead family member on behalf of the family (Numbers 5:8), he
buys a family member out of slavery brought on by poverty (Leviticus 25:48), and
buys property that has passed out of the family under similar conditions (ibid.
25:25). According to the book of Ruth, his responsibilities also include
marrying the widow of a childless relative in order to perpetuate his name (Ruth
4:4). All these instances relate to a loss suffered by the family. Thus, we may
conclude that the 'goel' is the next-of-kin selected by the family to deal with
a loss suffered by that family. This may shed light on the conceived role of the
avenger of blood. The 'goel' is not viewed as engaging in revenge but rather in
redemption of a family loss. A family member was killed, and the 'goel' seeks to
rectify this loss. In so doing, he represents the deceased and his family.
III. Cities of Refuge
The Torah commands the Israelites to designate cities of refuge in order
to protect the accidental killer from the avenger/redeemer. This is the stated
purpose of the city of refuge: "The cities shall serve you as a refuge from the
avenger" (35:12). According to certain commentators, there is an additional
function for the cities of refuge. The unintentional killer must leave his home
and move to the cities of refuge from which he may not leave until the death of
the high priest. Although the city of refuge protects him, it also confines him.
Rabbi Hirsch
(Rabbi Samson Raphael
Hirsch, Germany, 1808-1888)
views this confinement as a form of punishment
(Rabbi Hirsch on Genesis 4:12). The unintentional killer is banished from his
home; he suffers a form of exile. His fate is reminiscent of that of Cain, the
first killer: "You have banished me this day from the soil...anyone who meets me
may kill me" (Genesis 4:13). Like Cain, the unintentional killer is exiled from
home and must be constantly on the watch for potential avengers. He enjoys no
security. The punishment for killing is the loss of one's rights to dwell at
home and in peace. He who kills forfeits his rights to domicile on earth; he is
no longer deserving of his own plot of land. Although an accident, the killer is
still partially culpable. He should have been more careful. Now, he must go into
exile, into the city of refuge.
These two
functions of the cities of refuge, protection and punishment, are not mutually
exclusive. The 'Sefer Ha-chinukh' (Lists and elaborates the 613 commandments,
anonymous author, Spain, 13th century,) incorporates both in describing the
function of the city of refuge:
"At the
root of the precept lies the reason that the crime of killing is utmostly
serious, for in it lies the destruction of the world - so much so that the Sages
of blessed memory taught that if a person kills someone deliberately, even if he
has observed all the commandments he is not saved from judgment.
It is
therefore proper for one who killed even unintentionally, since such a great
misfortune occurred by his hand, that he should suffer for it the anguish of
exile, which is almost equal to the anguish of death, since a man is then
separated from his friends and his native ground, and he lives all his days with
strangers. Moreover, there is a
rectification in the community through this precept, in the sense that Scripture
explains: for in this way he will be rescued from the hand of the blood-avenger,
that he should not kill him when there was no violence in his hands, since he
had done it unintentionally."
Both these functions highlight the sanctity of human life. The city of
refuge protects the life of the unintentional killer and, simultaneously,
punishes him for having shed the blood of another human being.
The Torah
emphasizes that the cities of refuge must be designated immediately upon entry
into the promised land: "When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan"
(35:10). Rabbi Hirsch comments on the significance of this specification:
"The land
of the Divine Torah is there for the people who live in it. Its most valuable product...is every
human life...The land is only given on the condition of every human life being
respected as being unassailably sacred to the Torah. One drop of innocent blood shed and
no notice taken of it, drops a stitch in the bond which connects the land with
the nation and both with God. This
holding of human life to be so sacred is to be made evident immediately on
taking possession of the land." (Rabbi Hirsch 35:10)
IV. Ancient Near-Eastern Law
The two concepts discussed so far, the
avenger and the cities of refuge, are not creations of the Torah. Both existed
in ancient Near Eastern cultures. In fact, to fully grasp the significance of
the laws of the cities of refuge, we need to compare them to the prevailing
norms of ancient civilization before the giving of the Torah. For this purpose, we will refer to
scholars of ancient Near Eastern civilization.
The idea of avenging blood was common in Assyrian culture, pre-Islamic
Arabian culture, and is found, to this day, in Arabic society, particularly
amongst the nomadic Bedouin tribes:
"The
practical test of kinship is that the whole kin is answerable for the life of
each of its members. By the rules of
early society, if I slay my kinsman, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, the
act is murder, and is punished by expulsion from the kin; if my kinsman is slain
by an outsider I and every other member of my kin are bound to avenge his death
by killing the manslayer or some member of his kin." (W. Robertson Smith, 'The
Religion of the Semites' p.272)
"Blood-revenge applies to manslaughter, i.e., to the killing of a stranger. And in that case the dead man's kin
make no effort to discover and punish the individual slayer; they hold his whole
kin responsible for his act, and take vengeance on the first of them on whom
they can lay hands."(ibid. p. 420)
Ancient law did not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter. In both instances, the blood of the slain had to be avenged.
Amazingly, the avenger would not be limited to killing the manslayer. He could
retaliate by killing any of the killer's relatives!
The concept of temples or cities of refuge was also common throughout the
ancient Near East and beyond. They existed in Mesopotamia, Arabia, Syria, Egypt
and Greece:
"In many
cases the assertion of a man's undoubted rights as against a fugitive at the
sanctuary is regarded as an encroachment on its holiness; justice cannot strike
the criminal, and a master cannot recover his runaway slave who has found asylum
on holy soil. In the Old Testament
the legal right of asylum is limited to the case of involuntary homicide; but
the wording of the law shows that this was a narrowing of ancient custom, and
many heathen sanctuaries of the Phoenicians and Syrians retained even in Roman
times what seems to have been an unlimited right of asylum. At certain Arabian sanctuaries the
god gave shelter to all fugitives without distinction and even stray or stolen
cattle that reached the holy ground could not be reclaimed by their
owners."(ibid. 148)
Some temples of refuge of ancient civilization enjoyed sweeping powers.
Anyone or anything coming within their parameters became untouchable. These holy
sites were beyond the arm of the law. Once a murderer entered a city of refuge,
he was safe. Consequently, many of the temples became dens for criminals.
Amazingly, this intolerable state of affairs existed even within the Roman
empire, under the reign of Tiberius (Tiberius Claudius Nero, 2nd emperor of
Rome, 42 BC- 37 AD):
"Tiberius, however, while tightening his grasp on the solid power of the
principate, vouchsafed to the senate a shadow of the past by submitting the
claims of the provinces to the discussion of its members. For throughout the Greek cities there
was a growing laxity, and impunity, in the creation of rights of asylum. The temples were filled with the
dregs of the slave population; the same shelter was extended to the debtor
against his creditor and to the man suspected of a capital offence; nor was any
authority powerful enough to quell the factions of a race which protected human
felony equally with divine worship.
It was resolved, therefore, that the communities in question should send their
charters and deputies to Rome."(Tacitus, 'The Annals', book 3, ch. 60)
V. Torah Law
With this historical background in mind, let us examine some of the laws
regulating the Torah's cities of refuge. As you read the Rambam's (Rabbi Moshe
ben Maimon, Egypt, 1138-1204) formulation of the laws of the cities of refuge,
note the contrast to the ancient Near Eastern conception:
"Both the
unwitting killer and the willful killer first go to the cities of refuge. The
court of the city in which the murder took place send for and bring him [the
killer] and judge him as is stated "The elders of his town shall have him
brought back from there" (Deuteronomy 19:12). He who is sentenced to death, is
killed as is stated, "they shall hand him over to the blood avenger" (ibid.); he
who is found innocent is released as is stated, "The assembly shall protect the
manslayer from the blood-avenger"(Numbers 35:25); he who is sentenced to exile
is returned to his place [to the city of refuge] as is stated, "the assembly
shall restore him to the city of refuge(ibid.)" (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of
the Murderer 5:7)
The first striking difference between Torah law and ancient Near-Eastern
law is that, according to Jewish law, the city of refuge is part of the judicial
process. It is not an asylum from the law; it is merely a shelter from the
avenger. In contrast to the idolatrous cities of refuge which was beyond the
pale of the judges, the Israelite court fetches the killer from the cities of
refuge. "When a man schemes against another and kills him treacherously, you
shall take him from My very altar to be put to death"(Exodus 21:14). God's altar
will not be made into a haven for criminals.
A second difference is the demand that the killer be judged by an
impartial court. According to idolatrous practice, the avenger had free reign to
avenge the blood of his relative. The Torah took the decision of the guilt or
innocence of the manslayer out of the hands of the avenger and assigned it to an
impartial tribunal. Jewish law requires that the killer stand trial before
facing the avenger. Only if he is found guilty of murder, is he handed over to
the avenger.
The third fundamental difference is that the Torah clearly distinguishes
between the willful and the unintentional killer. The avenger may not kill the
unwitting killer residing in a city of refuge. However, the murderer is handed
over to the avenger. Thus, Jewish law limits the action of the avenger to the
willful murderer, but, at the same time, legally invests him with the role of
carrying out the death penalty of he who is found guilty of murder.
The verses following the laws of the cities of refuge highlight another
difference between Torah and common ancient law: "You may not accept a ransom
for the life of a murderer who is guilty of a capital crime; he must be put to
death. Nor may you accept ransom in lieu of flight to a city of refuge, enabling
one to return to live on his land before the death of the priest" (Numbers
35:31,32). Just as the city of refuge does not override the arm of justice, so,
too, does money not absolve from punishment. Compensation can not atone for the
spilling of blood even if accepted by the injured party. Justice is the
overriding concern.
In summary, the Torah did not do away completely with the pre-existing
structure of the avenger and the cities of refuge but actually implemented them
within Torah law. However, the implementation followed a serious overhaul which
redefined their function and essence.
One question still requires elaboration. If the Torah established cities
of refuge in order to protect the unintentional killer from the avenger, why did
it not totally cancel the whole idea of a blood avenger? Why does the Torah not
consider the avenger a murderer? Shadal
(Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto, Italy, 1800-1865) grapples
with this very question:
"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"
According to Shadal's approach, the custom of the avenger was so
entrenched in ancient society that attempting to totally nullify it would be
futile. The Torah therefore satisfied itself with drastically limiting the scope
of the law of the avenger and establishing cities of refuge to protect the
unintentional killer. Ideally, the Torah would have preferred the total
abolishment of the involvement of the avenger, but since this was not possible,
the Torah confined his role to a bare minimum.
Shadal is
of the opinion that the Torah law does not represent the ideal judicial state.
However, there is room to consider the involvement of the avenger as part of the
ideal formulation of the law. Our Sages emphasize that only an unwitting killer
who was somewhat negligent in causing death must dwell in the city of refuge
(see Babylonian Talmud, tractate Makot 7a ff.) Someone who killed
unintentionally but in a totally unforeseeable manner, where he is not in any
way at fault, is not exiled to a city of refuge and the avenger may not harm
him. Thus, the law of the avenger and the cities of refuge pertains to an
unwitting killer who is, nevertheless, guilty of a certain degree of negligence.
Although the killer does not deserve a death penalty, he is still culpable for
his negligence. As stated above, his confinement to a city of refuge may be
viewed as part of his punishment. In addition to suffering the pangs of exile,
he also loses any sense of peace and tranquility. The unintentional killer must
always be on guard from the avenger. It is the avenger who deters the killer
from leaving the cities of refuge. Thus, we may see in the avenger and the exile
to the cities of refuge one interconnected punishment. The avenger keeps the
unintentional killer in the city of refuge and prevents him from enjoying a
secure existence elsewhere.
VI. Death of a Priest
The exile of the unintentional killer is not eternal. Scripture states
that he must remain in the cities of refuge until the death of the high priest.
Why should the length of the killers' tarriance in the city of refuge be
determined by the high priests' life span? This question intrigued all the
commentators. We will begin with the explanation advanced by the Seforno
(Rabbi Ovadia Seforno, Italy, 1470-1550):
"It has
already been explained that exile is the punishment for one who kills in error.
Now being that there are different kinds of unintentional sins which are
disparate because some are closer to being considered accidental while others
are closer to being considered intentional, therefore there are varying periods
of exile for one who kills unintentionally. For some, the unintentional act [of
killing] is [punished by exile] for a brief period before the high priest dies,
while some murderers die in exile before the death of the high priest. This
occurs [according to] the judgement of God who punishes the unintentional sinner
according to the degree of his error"
Seforno understands the residence of the unintentional killer in the
cities of refuge to be a punishment. Not every case of unintentional
manslaughter is comparable. Some instances involve a greater degree of
negligence and hence culpability on the part of the killer. Therefore, the Torah
did not prescribe a definite number of years to the exile but designated the
high priest's life span to be the determinant. God can thus influence the length
of the exile. If the killer is deserving of a harsher punishment, the priest
will live longer, but if the killer deserves only a minor punishment, God will
not lengthen the days of the priest. Do you see any difficulties in this
interpretation.
This interpretation is problematic on several accounts. Why should the
high priest's length of life be impacted by the degree of culpability of the
unintentional killer? Moreover, the Seforno's interpretation assumes the
existence of only one unintentional killer. However, there were surely more than
one unintentional killer at a time and every single one of them was a different
case with different levels of personal responsibility for the killing.
The Bekhor Shor (Rabbi Yosef Ben Yitzchak Bekhor Shor, France, 12th
century) agrees that the killers' dwelling in the cities of refuge is a
punishment. However, he offers a different explanation of the specification
"until the death of the high priest":
"We do
not know how long the slain man would have lived had he not been killed. We,
therefore, estimate his life span through the high priest who is important, and
it is known that it is unlikely that the slain would have lived longer than the
high priest who serves God. According to the years which he shortened the life
of the slain shall the killer dwell in exile"
The Bekhor Shor offers a novel explanation. The years in exile come
instead of the years lost by the deceased. The Torah states "an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth"(Exodus 21:24). According to the Bekhor Shor we may now add
'a year for a year'. Exile is a form of death, a detachment from one's natural
life and habitat. The price paid by the killer is "loss" of his own life for the
same amount of years taken from the deceased. One who steals must return that
which he has stolen. The killer cannot return life to the dead but he pays with
his own loss of time.
The Abrabanel
(Don Isaac Abrabanel, Spain, 1437-1508) takes a
very different approach in explaining the specification that the unintentional
killer remain in the city of refuge until the death of the high priest:
"[The
Torah] states that he [the unintentional killer] remain [in the city of refuge]
till the death of the high priest because the high priest was a prince and a
leader of Israel and was consecrated to God. Upon his death the whole nation
would tremble and the living would recognize that the days of man are like a
shadow. So why should he [the avenger] not shed from his thoughts the idea of
avenging [the death] of his relative...for shortly the avenger himself will be
led to his grave. Therefore his heart and anger will be placated and he will be
consoled and forget his troubles and his zealousness will subside. This is the
reason for the designation 'until the death of the high priest' for he is the
great one through whom the heart of the avenger is pacified
In contrast to the explanations of the Seforno and the Beckor Shor which
consider the city of refuge to be a punishment for the killer, the Abrabanels
explanation considers the city of refuge to be a shelter protecting the
unintentional killer from the avenger. The unintentional killer must remain
there so long as his life is in peril. For how long does this continue; when
does the vindictive rage of the avenger subside? Scripture informs us that this
occurs upon the death of the high priest. The death of a leader of the stature
of the high priest has a profound impact on the nation. We might compare it to
the impact that the death of a great Rabbi would have on the community. The
nations grief would be so great that it would eclipse all other sorrow. The
death of the high priest would cause the avenger to forget his previous sorrow
and stop pursuing the killer.
The three elucidations offered so far for the specification until the
death of the high priest explained it as a time designation. The death of the
high priest is a calendrical signpost revealing additional data such as life
expectancy or the duration of the avengers vengefulness. Other approaches
propose a more direct connection between the high priest and the length of time
the unintentional killer must reside in the city of refuge:
He who
kills a human being had no atonement until the Torah established atonement
through the death of the high priest [as is written in Numbers 35:25] and there
he shall remain until the death of the high priest (Jerusalem Talmud, Tractate
Yoma 7:3)
According to our Sages, the death of the high priest is not simply a
calendrical designation; it provides atonement for the unintentional killing of
human beings and consequently releases the unintentional killer from the city of
refuge. This approach is further elaborated by Shadal:
The
priests atone for unintentional sins through the offering of sacrifices, the
high priest atones for even more, this being the reason for his functions on Yom
Kippur, and the death of the high priest is the highest form of atonement which
atones for unintentional manslaughter, the severest of unintentional sins
A transgression which was performed unintentionally still requires
atonement. This is one of the functions of sacrifices and the priestly temple
worship. In addition to sacrifices, our Sages maintain that the death of the
high priest atones for unintentional manslaughter. Sacrifices are of no use for
such grave sins. The only atonement is the death of the righteous high priest
which grants the whole nation atonement for unintentional killings.
The Rashbam (Rabbi Shemuel ben Meir, France, 1080-1160) offers a
different interpretation which also links, albeit from a different perspective,
the death of the high priest directly to the length of time the unintentional
killer must remain in the city of refuge:
Until
the death of the high priest- According to the simple reading, throughout the
days of the chief justice, as stated 'who never released his prisoners to their
homes'(Isaiah 14:17)."
The priests had several functions within the nation. They were
responsible for offering sacrifices and performing the different functions in
the Temple as stated They shall put incense before you, and whole burnt
sacrifice upon your altar (Deuteronomy 33:10). In addition, they were the
judges of the people as stated: If there arise a matter too hard for you in
judgment...you shall come to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that
shall be in those days (ibid. 17:8,9). Our Sages, cited earlier, explained the
role of the high priest in determining the time when the unintentional killer
may leave the city of refuge, on the basis of the first priestly function, the
sacrificial rite. Just as sacrifices atone for sin, so does the death of the
high priest atone. In contrast to our Sages, the Rashbam emphasizes the second
role of the high priest as the chief justice. The high priest sentences the
killer to dwell in the city of refuge. This sentence is determined by the high
priest and extends throughout the high priests life. The killer is not
imprisoned in the city of refuge forever. The high priests death provides
clemency for the killer and ends the obligation to remain in the city of refuge.
Why should the sentence be limited to the life the chief justice? Although the
Rashbam does not elaborate, the Chizkuni (Rabbi Chizkiya ben Manoach, France,
mid-thirteenth century) grapples with this very question.
After
the death of the high priest, the manslayer may return(35:28)- Since the city
of refuge of the Levites are under the dominion of the high priest, and he [the
unintentional killer] enters his [the high priests] dominion, it is proper that
he be released upon [the high priests] death
The cities of refuge are closely connected to the cities of the Levites.
They appear in the same chapter in the Torah (see Numbers 35:1-8 and 35:9 ff.).
In fact, the forty-two Levite cities function as cities of refuge (see Rambam,
Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Murderer, 8:9). The cities of refuge are under the
jurisdiction of the Levites, and more specifically, the high priest. When an
unintentional killer dwells within the city of refuge he becomes the property
of the high priest. He lives within his city and therefore belongs to him.
Although by no means a slave, he still lives under the dominion of the high
priest. The same law governing the release of a permanent Jewish slave upon the
death of his master (see Mishna, Tractate Kiddushin, 1:2) applies here. The
unintentional killer may leave only upon the death of his master, the high
priest.
I would like to carry this interpretation a step further. I believe it is
possible to view the unintentional killer not only as living under the dominion
of the high priest, but as actually joining, in some sense, the tribe of Levy.
He no longer resides on his plot of land, but, like the tribe of Levy, dwells in
specific cities. For the time being, he has no land inheritance; he joins the
ranks of the Levites. Textual support for this novel conception may be found in
a precise, albeit novel, reading of an obscure verse in our section:
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 ANOINTED HIM with the sacred
oil (35:25).(In Hebrew- ad mot ha-kohen ha-gadol ASHER MASHACH OTTO be-shemen
ha-kodesh)
The obvious question is who anointed whom? Who is the subject who did the
anointing and who was anointed? Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitzchak, France,
1040-1105) offers the following interpretation:
According to its plain sense, this is one of the elliptical sentences- for it
does not expressly mention who anointed him but it is the same as the high
priest WHOM HE WHO CARRIED OUT THE ANOINTING had anointed with the sacred oil
Rashi claims that our verse is abbreviated and can only be understood by
adding a subject. The unintentional killer must wait till the death of the high
priest whom "the anointer" anointed with the sacred oil. This is the accepted
and obvious interpretation. The high priest was anointed before serving in this
capacity. The only people to be anointed with the sacred oil are the high
priests, the priest who goes out to war with the nation (Deuteronomy 20:2), and
the kings of Israel (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Laws of the Utensils of the Temple,
1:7). The anointing dedicates a person to a new position, in service of God, or
an object to the service of the temple. Rashi, therefore, interprets that the
high priest was the one who was anointed. However, we must clarify why the Torah
uses this abbreviated and obscure phrasing. there he shall remain until the
death of the high priest WHO ANOINTED HIM with the sacred oil! A simple reading
of our verse could lead one to mistakenly conclude that the high priest anointed
the unintentional killer!? I would like to propose that the Torahs obscure
wording is meant to have a double entendre, a double meaning. In reality, only
the high priest was anointed. However, on a conceptual plain, the unintentional
killer was also to be anointed! Why should a killer be anointed with sacred oil?
Is not manslaughter the antithesis of sanctity?
To answer this question, we must return to the interpretation of the
Chizkuni. According to the Chizkuni, the unintentional killer falls under the
dominion of the high priest. If we accept my claim that the unintentional killer
actually joins, in some sense, the ranks of the priests, than it is clear why he
is anointed. His entry into the city of refuge is an entry into a new role, a
new position as a servant of God. He was not born a priest and must therefore be
consecrated for his new status. However, this still begs the question: Why
should a killer be promoted to the status of a quasi-priest?
The answer to this question is that his consecration to the service of
God is part of his atonement process. All sinners must atone for their
wrongdoing. A thief must return that which he has stolen and pay a fine. One who
injures his fellow human being must pay damages and compensation. How does the
unintentional killer atone for his negligence? More specifically, to whom is he
liable. The Torah informs us that he is liable towards God. The killer has slain
a human being, has taken the life of one of Gods creations. He cannot revive
the dead. His only way of repaying God, of atoning for his sin, is
consecrating his life to the service of God. Human life is sacred. If one spills
blood unintentionally he must atone for it. The Torah, which so values every
human life, wished to prevent the escalation of violence and the further
spilling of blood by the avenger. For this reason, it commanded the
establishment of cities of refuge. These cities prevented more bloodshed and
simultaneously allowed the unintentional killer to atone for his sin by joining
the high priest in consecrating his life to the service of God.