Mishkan, Mikdash, and Peace

 

INTRODUCTION

 

            In this lecture, I wish to consider the deep connection that exists between the Mishkan/Mikdash and peace. This connection is expressed in many ways, some of which will I shall deal with in this lecture:

 

• The Mishkan itself is peace.
• There is an essential connection between the timing of the building of the Mikdash and peace.
• The manner of the building of the altar is connected to peace; accordingly the Mikdash was built by Shlomo, and not by David.
• Those who serve in the Mikdash and the entire tribe of Levi do not receive an inheritance in Eretz Yisrael, do not go out to battle or participate in the war effort, and have no share in the division of the booty. God is their inheritance.
• The sacrificial service in the Mikdash is connected to peace.
• There is a significant connection between the city of Jerusalem – in both its name and in its essence – and peace, both in the present and in the future.

 

1. THE MISHKAN ITSELF IS PEACE

 

            The very building of the Mishkan brings peace into the world, as opposed to the strife that was found in the world prior to its construction. The midrash states as follows:

 

R. Yochanan said: "On the day that Moshe had finished" – on the day that enmity in the world came to an end. For until the Mishkan was erected, there was enmity, jealousy, rivalry and dispute in the world. But after the Mishkan was erected, there was love, affection, friendship, righteousness, justice, and peace in the world. (Pesikta De-Rav Kahana 1)

 

            This idea is also found in a midrash that expounds the significance of the dedication of the altar:

"May [the Lord] give you peace" (Bamidbar 6:26)… On the day that Moshe had finished" (ibid. 7:1): This is what it says, "I will hear what God the Lord will speak" (Tehillim 85:9). You find that when Israel did that act and the Holy One, blessed be He, was angry with them, etc. "For He will speak peace to His people, and to His pious ones" (ibid.). R. Berakhya the Priest said in the name of R. Yehuda the son of R. Simon: The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moshe: In the past there was enmity between Me and my children, hatred between Me and my children. rivalry between Me and my children. But now that the Mishkan has been built, there is love between Me and my children; peace between Me and my children. "For He will speak peace to His people" – this is Israel, for having built the Mishkan… And from where do you [know to] say that the verse speaks about the Mishkan? For it is written afterwards: "Surely His salvation is near to them who fear Him; that glory may dwell in our land" (ibid. v. 11). When was there peace in Israel? When the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, dwelt in the Mishkan. As it is stated: "And the glory of the Lord filled the Mishkan" (Shemot 22:35). R. Shimon ben Lakish said: Why must I learn this from the book of Tehilim? It is stated in the Torah; even it its place, nothing is missing. What is written? "May [the Lord] give you peace" – when? "On the day that Moshe had finished [setting up the Mishkan]." (Bamidbar Rabba 12:1)

           

            In this connection, let us consider the interesting words of the gemara regarding observance of the mitzvot in the future:

 

R. Chana bar Bizna said in the name of R. Shimon the Saint: What is the meaning of the verse: "Thus had said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month and the fast of the fifth and the fast of the seventh and the fast of the tenth shall be to the house of Yehuda joy and gladness" (Zekharya 8:19). The prophet calls these days both days of fasting and days of joy, signifying that when there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness, but if there is not peace they shall be fast days! R. Papa said: What it means is this: When there is peace they shall be for joy and gladness; if there is persecution, they shall be fast days; if there is no persecution but yet not peace, then those who desire may fast and those who desire need not fast. (Rosh Ha-Shana 18b)

 

Rabbeinu Chananel explains (ad loc.):

 

When there is peace – that is to say, as long as the Temple stands, they shall be for joy and gladness.

 

2. THE TIMING OF THE BUILDING OF THE MIKDASH

 

            There is a most interesting connection between the time of the building of the Mikdash and peace in the world. The Torah states in Parashat Re'eh:

 

For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God gives you. But when you traverse the Jordan, and dwell in the land which the Lord your God gives you to inherit, and when He gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; then there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there; there shall you bring all that I command you. (Devarim 12:9-11)

 

            According to the simple reading, the rest from the enemies precedes God's choosing of a place to cause His name to rest there. Once God gives us rest from our enemies and there is peace in the land, then the Mikdash will be built.

 

            In light of this, we can understand why David did not build the Temple.

 

            It is interesting that different explanations for this fact are offered in the book of Shmuel and in the book of Divrei Ha-yamim.  The book of Shmuel (II Shmuel 7; and in the parallel in I Divrei Ha-yamim 17) states that the building of the Temple requires a fixed royal dynasty, and therefore it is only David's son who will build it. This reason is connected to the permanence and continuity of the kingdom and not directly to the issue of peace. In contrast, the book of I Divrei Ha-yamim (chapters 22, 28) states that David will not build the Temple because he shed much blood,[1] and bloodshed is the very opposite of building the Temple. Whether the reference is to the shedding of the blood of the enemies of Israel in the battles that David fought in order to firmly establish the kingdom of Israel or to internal wars in Israel,[2] bloodshed stands in stark opposition to the building of the Temple.

 

In this context, the formulation found is the book of Divrei Ha-yamim regarding the selection of Shlomo is most interesting:

 

Behold, a son shall be born to you who shall be a man of tranquility; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Shlomo, and I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his day. He shall build a house for My name; and he shall be My son, and I will be his father, and I will establish the throne of His kingdom over Israel forever. (I Divrei Ha-yamim 22:9-10)

 

            In addition, the reason Shlomo offers to Chiram regarding why his father did not build the Mikdash relates not to David and the blood that he shed, but rather to the general state of war in the region, which made it impossible to build the Mikdash:

 

And Shlomo sent to Chiram, saying, “You know how David my father could not build a house to the name of the Lord his God on account of the war with the nations which were about him on every side, until the Lord put them under the soles of my feet. But now the Lord my God has given me rest on every side, so that there is neither adversary nor evil hindrance.” (I Melakhim 5:15-18)

 

            The Rambam rules similarly:

 

Israel was commanded to fulfill three mitzvot upon entering Eretz Yisrael: a) To choose a king, as it is stated (Devarim 17:15): "Appoint a king over yourselves;" b) To wipe out the descendents of Amalek, as it is stated (ibid. 25:19): "Erase the memory of Amalek;" c) To build God's Chosen House, as it is stated (ibid. 12:5): "Seek out His Presence and go there."

The appointment of a king should precede the war against Amalek. This is evident from Samuel's charge to King Shaul (I Shmuel 15:l-3): "God sent me to anoint you as king… Now, go and smite Amalek." Amalek's seed should be annihilated before the construction of the Temple, as it is stated (II Shmuel 7:1-2): "And it came to pass, when the king dwelled in his palace, and God gave him peace from all his enemies who surrounded him, the king said to Natan, the prophet: Look! I am dwelling in a house of cedar." (Hilkhot Melakhim 1:1-2)

 

            The war against Amalek, who symbolizes the ultimate hatred for Israel, is a condition for the building of the Temple. Rest from Israel's enemies is not merely a practical prerequisite, but rather an inner issue. Peace is the spiritual background for the building of the Mikdash, whose essence is peace.

 

3. SHLOMO’S BUILDING OF THE TEMPLE

 

            We saw in the previous lecture that Shlomo expanded the original prohibition of hewing the stones of the altar with an iron implement; he refrained from using iron tools anywhere on the Temple mount:

 

And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready before it was brought there: so that there was neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house. (I Melakhim 6:7)

 

            The gemara relates to the building method that was used in the building of the Temple:

 

When [the second] Temple was destroyed, the shamir ceased. Our Rabbis taught: Shlomo built the Temple with the shamir, as it is said: "And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone [made ready before it was brought there]" (I Melakhim 6:7). The words are to be understood as they are written; these are the words of R. Yehuda. R. Nechemya said to him: Is it possible to say so? Has it not been stated: "All these were of costly stones… sawed with saws!" If that be so, why is it stated: "There was neither hammer, nor axe nor any tool of iron heard in the house, when it was in building”? [It means] that they prepared them outside and brought them within. Rabbi [Yehuda HaNasi] said: The words of R. Yehuda are probable in connection with the stones of the Temple, and the words of R. Nechemya in connection with [Shlomo's] house. (Sota 48b)

 

            The Rambam rules in accordance with the viewpoint of R. Nechemya:

 

We may not split the stones used for the building on the Temple mount. Rather, we must split and chisel them outside, and [afterwards,] bring them in, as it is stated (I Melakhim 5:31): "And they brought great stones, costly stones, to lay the foundation of the house with dressed stone." Furthermore, it is stated (ibid. 6:7): "Neither hammer, nor axe, nor any tool of iron was heard in the house when it was in building." (Hilkhot Bet Ha-bechira 1:8)

 

            According to R. Nechemya, they would quarry the stones from the ground with iron tools and dress them with iron tools at the site where they were quarried. Shlomo wished to distance iron from the Temple to the greatest extent possible. The verse, "And the house, when it was in building, was built of stone made ready," means that the Temple was built of smooth and unblemished stones, and "before it was brought there" means that each stone was brought to the Temple in the same size that it was when it was quarried; it was not cut into smaller stones as is the practice of builders.

 

            This expansion of the prohibition on the part of Shlomo seems also to reflect the dimension of peace in the Temple. Shlomo wished to emphasize the peace of the Temple and therefore expanded the prohibition of using iron tools to the entire Temple mount.

 

4. WHAT USE DID SHLOMO MAKE OF THAT WHICH WAS PREPARED BY HIS FATHER DAVID?

 

            When the construction work of the Temple is finished, we read:

So was ended all the work that King Shlomo made for the house of the Lord. And Shlomo brought in the things which David his father had dedicated; the silver and the gold, and the vessels, he did put in the treasuries of the house of the Lord. (I Melakhim 7:51)

 

            Why didn't Shlomo use the things that his father David had dedicated to the Temple? The midrash discusses this question:

 

Some interpret this to his credit, while others interpret it to his discredit.

[Some] interpret [it] to his credit: David asked for this, saying to him: Master of the Universe, I see in my prophecy that the Temple will eventually be destroyed, and everything that I had set aside is from the idolatrous temples that I destroyed. So that the nations of the world not say: What did David think? He destroyed our temples and built a Temple for God? Our gods were stirred up and also their vengeance, and they destroyed the Temple of God – he therefore prayed that Shlomo should not need them.

And some interpret [it] to his discredit: For a three-year hunger came in the days of David, and David had several storehouses filled with silver and gold, that which he had set aside for the building of the Temple, and he should have taken it out to save lives, but he did not do so. God said to him: My children are dying of hunger, and you amass money to build a building with it. You should have saved lives with it, but you did not do so. By your life, Shlomo will not need to take anything from it. (Pesikta Rabbati 6)

 

            The Abravanel adds:

 

Just as He did not want David to build the Temple in his days, owing to the great amount of blood that he had shed, so too He did not agree that it should be built from the money that he had amassed in his wars from the booty of the [enemy] nations. But Shlomo, who was a man of peace, and that which he had amassed was through peaceful measures and righteousness – he will build the Temple with that money, and not with anything else, because the Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace.[3]

 

            This might also be an expression of Shlomo's independence: Shlomo wished to build the Temple on his own without his father's help.

 

            It should be noted that all this notwithstanding, it is explicitly stated in Divrei Ha-yamim that Shlomo made use of at least part of what David had prepared (and we are dealing there with spoils of war!):

 

Likewise from Tivchat, and from Kun, cities of Hadadezer, David took very much brass, with which Shlomo made the brazen sea, and the pillars, and the vessels of brass. (I Divrei Ha-yamim 18:8)

 

5. THOSE WHO SERVED IN THE TEMPLE

 

            The Torah describes the selection of an entire tribe – the tribe of Levi –which was not counted together with the rest of the tribes of Israel. Its role was to carry the Mishkan and safeguard it, and it was wholly dedicated to the service of God. The tribe of Levi did not receive an ordinary inheritance, it did not go out to war with the other tribes, and it did not share in the distribution of the spoils of war.

 

The Rambam summaries the main laws connected to the tribe of Levi:

 

The entire tribe of Levi are commanded against receiving an inheritance in the land of Canaan, and they were commanded against receiving a share in the spoil when the cities are conquered, as it is stated (Devarim 10:9): "The priest and the Levites - the entire tribe of Levi - should not have a portion and an inheritance among Israel." "A portion" [refers to a portion] of the spoil; "an inheritance" refers to [a portion of] the land. And (Bamidbar 18:20): "You shall not receive a heritage in their land, nor will you have a portion among them," i.e., in the spoil.

Why did the Levites not receive a portion in the inheritance of Eretz Yisrael and in the spoils of war like their brethren? Because they were set aside to serve God and minister unto Him and to instruct people at large in His just paths and righteous judgments, as it is stated (Devarim 33:10): "They will teach Your judgments to Yaakov and Your Torah to Israel." Therefore, they were set apart from the ways of the world. They do not wage war like the rest of the Jewish People, nor receive an inheritance, nor acquire for themselves through their physical power. Instead, they are God's legion, as it is stated: (ibid. v. 11): "God has blessed His legion"; and He provides for them, as it is stated (Bamidbar 18:20): "I am your portion and your inheritance."

 

            Not only is the Mishkan itself peace, and not only is the timing of its building connected to Israel's rest from their enemies –the entire tribe of those who serve in it is wholly dedicated to God and therefore have no connection to war or its consequences, the spoils of battle.

 

6. A PRIEST WHO KILLED SOMEONE MAY NOT RECITE THE PRIESTLY BENEDICTION

 

R. Yochanan said: A priest who has committed manslaughter should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly benediction], as it is stated [in this context]: "Your hands are full of blood" (Yeshayahu 1:15). (Berakhot 32b)

 

A priest who has committed manslaughter should not lift up his hands [to say the priestly benediction], even if he repented. Rema: But some say that if he repented, he may lift up his hands. One should be lenient with repentant sinners, so as not to lock the door before them. And this is the customary practice. (Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayyim 128:35)

 

            The Mishna Berura comments:

 

Even if he repents – the reasoning behind this position is that he maintains that even though nothing stands before repentance, nevertheless the accuser must not become the defender, for it is not fitting that these hands that killed a person should be lifted up [in blessing], even though he repented.

 

7. THE TEMPLE SERVICE

 

            In addition to all the components thus far mentioned, the idea of peace is expressed in a most prominent manner in the ongoing service in the Temple. This is especially evident in the peace-offering, as we shall see from the midrashim cited below.

 

"And this is the Torah of the sacrifice of the peace offering." R. Mani of Sha'av and R. Yehoshua of Sakhnin said in the name of R. Levi: Great is peace, for all the blessings, goodness, and consolations that the Holy One, blessed be He, brings to Israel conclude with peace: In Keri'at Shema, "who spreads a shelter of peace;" in [the Amida] prayer, "Who makes peace;" in the priestly benediction, "And may He give you peace." I only know about blessings. From where do I know about sacrifices? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering, and of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offering.” I only know about when they are together; from where do I know when they are separate? "This is the Torah of the burnt-offering," "This is the Torah of the meal-offering," "This is the Torah of the sin-offering," "This is the Torah of the guilt-offering," "This is the Torah of the sacrifice of the peace-offering." I only know about sacrifices brought by an individual. From where do I know about sacrifices brought by the community? The verse states: "These you shall offer to the Lord on your appointed days," and it ends with peace-offerings. (Vayikra Rabba 9:9)

 

Why does it say "the sacrifice of the peace-offering"? Because it makes peace between the altar and the priests and [regular] Israelites. Come and see, the burnt-offering is entirely for the fire; and the sin-offering – its fats and stated portions are for the altar, and its hide and flesh are for the priests, and no pleasure is derived from it by [regular] Israelites; and similarly the guilt-offering. But the thanksgiving-offering – its blood and stated portions are for the altar, the breast and shoulder are for the priests, and its hide and flesh are for [regular] Israelites. Thus, it makes peace between the altar and the priests and [regular] Israelites. Therefore, it is called "the sacrifice of the peace-offering," because it makes peace for all. (Tanchuma Yashan 96)

 

"The sacrifice of the peace-offering." R. Shimon says: He who is at peace brings a peace-offering, but one who is in acute mourning does not bring a peace offering. (Vayikra Rabba 9:8)

 

            The state of acute mourning (aninut) of a person who has just lost a close relative is the very opposite of the state of peace and wholeness, and therefore someone who is in acute mourning must not bring a peace-offering.

 

            Another aspect of peace in the Temple is the priestly benediction, which originally was pronounced by the priests in the Temple. It ends with the words: "May the Lord lift up His countenance to you, and give you peace" (Bamidbar 6:26). Chazal expound the blessing as follows:

 

"And give you peace." The Holy One, blessed be He, who tries the reins and the heart would say to Aharon: Your intention was good and you made peace between Me and the children of Israel. I will bring forth from you sons who will atone for Israel each and every year, and call peace unto them each and every day. They will say to them: "May the Lord bless you and keep you; may the Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious to you; may the Lord lift up His countenance to you, and give you peace."

 

            The midrash connects the priestly blessing to the blessing received by Pinchas in the wake of his zealotry on behalf of God:

 

"And may He give you peace" – "Behold, I give to him My covenant of peace" (Bamidbar 25:12). The Holy One, blessed be He, said before them: You who have made peace between man and his fellow – you shall bless My children with peace. As it is stated: "May the Lord lift up His countenance to you, and give you peace."

 

            The formulation of the mishna that describes the beginning of the Temple service in the morning is very interesting:

 

He took the key and opened the small door and went from the fire chamber into the courtyard, and the priests went in after him carrying two lighted torches. They divided into two groups, one of which went along the portico to the east, while the other went along it to the west. They went along inspecting until they came to the place where the griddle-cakes were made. There the two groups met and said: Is all at peace? (Tamid 1:3)

 

            The author of the Tif'eret Yisrael explains:

 

Each set asked the other whether everything is at peace, that is to say, is anything missing from the vessels of the Temple. And the other set would answer: Everything is at peace, standing in its place. (Yakhin U-Boaz, ad loc.)

 

            Similarly, the blessing that was bestowed on Shabbat on the outgoing watch included a blessing of peace:

 

"On Shabbat they said an additional blessing on account of the outgoing watch." What was this benediction? R. Chelbo said: The outgoing watch said to the incoming one, May He who has caused His name to dwell in this house cause to dwell among you love and brotherhood and peace and friendship. (Berakhot 12a)

 

            "Peace" is one of God's names, and God reveals Himself in His house by resting His name there.

 

            The Tanchuma notes the connection between the sacrifices and peace with specific reference to the people of Israel:

 

"This is the Torah of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings" (Vayikra 7:11). This is what the verse says: "I will hear what God the Lord will speak: for He will speak peace to His people, and to His pious ones" (Tehillim 85:9). The nations of the world said to Bilam: Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Israel that they should offer Him sacrifices, and to us He said nothing? Bilam said to them: The sacrifices are but peace, and he who received the Torah in which they are written must bring sacrifices. You at the outset began with it [but you did not want to receive it], and now you ask to offer sacrifices? He who received it brings sacrifices, as it is stated: "The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace." (Tanchuma 96:4)

 

            Thus far ,we have seen many essential dimensions of the connection between the Temple and peace. It is interesting that various prophets prophesy about the renewed building of Jerusalem and the Temple describe a vision of a renewed revelation of the Torah on Mount Moriya, when all the nations will recognize God's kingship and that recognition will lead to a revelation of peace. Thus, for example:

 

And He shall judge among the nations, and shall decide among many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. (Yeshayahu 2:4)

 

            World peace will reveal itself in the future in the Temple when all the nations of the world will recognize God's kingship. Owing to this recognition, there will be no more wars in the world between one nation and the next, because there is only one king in the world, and all peoples are as nothing before Him.

 

8. JERUSALEM AND PEACE

 

            Some interpret one of Jerusalem’s names – Shalem (Tehillim 76:3) – as connected to the word "shalom" (peace).An interesting expression of the city’s connection to peace is found in the words of the Psalmist in Tehillim:

 

Pray for the peace of Jerusalem; they who love you shall prosper; peace be within your walls, and prosperity within your palaces. For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within you. For the sake of the house of the Lord our God I will seek your good. (Tehillim 122:6-9)

 

            The vision of the Messianic king in Jerusalem is also connected to peace:

 

And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off; and he shall speak peace to the nations: and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. (Zekharya 9:10)

 

            Jerusalem in its essence is an expansion of the Temple,[4] and therefore is connected in its very essence to the idea of peace. It is there that God's presence – which is connected to peace and perfection – is revealed in the world.

 

9. THE ALTAR – A HAVEN FOR MURDERERS?

 

            To complete this lecture, I wish to touch upon the limits of the definition of the Mishkan and the Mikdash as an expression of peace.

 

            Is it possible that the altar or the Mikdash as a whole should be a place that provides a haven of sorts to murderers? The Torah relates to this idea in Parashat Mishpatim:

 

But if a man came presumptuously upon his neighbor, to slay him with guile; you shall take him from My altar that he may die. (Shemot 21:14)

 

            R. Kasher cites from the Biblical commentary of R. Sa'adya Gaon (Torah Sheleima, end of no. 281), who explains that the phrase, "from My altar," was stated as an exaggeration. He further suggests that that the Torah wanted to say that even if the murderer ran away to the camp of the Levites or to the camp of God, he is to be removed and put to death.

 

            According to this understanding, the reference is not exclusively to the altar, but to the entire area around the Mishkan – the camp of the Levites or the camp of God.[5]

 

            The Seforno writes: "'You shall take him that he may die' is like: 'Is this house become a den of robbers' (Yirmiyahu 7:11)." The Seforno alludes to the words of the prophet Yirmiyahu in the days of king Yehoyakim:

 

Behold, you trust in lying words that cannot profit. Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense to the Ba'al, and walk after other gods whom you know not; and come and stand before Me in this house, which is called by My name, and say, We are delivered; that you may do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I Myself have seen it, says the Lord. (Yirmiyahu 7:8-11)

 

            The simple understanding of the verse, according to the Da'at Mikra commentary of Amos Chakham is: If someone wittingly did something to his fellow, killing him with guile, then even if the murderer fled to the altar, the altar will not serve him as a refuge. The court must remove him from there and put him to death, as he deserves.

 

            From the fact that the Torah denies haven at the altar to someone who murders his fellow intentionally, it follows that the altar does in fact offer refuge to someone who is guilty of unintentional manslaughter. The Rambam rules as follows:

 

The altar in the Temple serves as a haven for killers. For it is stated with regard to a person who kills intentionally: "You shall take him from My altar, that he may die." One can derive from this, that one who kills unintentionally should not be killed at the altar. Thus, if a person kills unintentionally and takes refuge at the altar and the blood redeemer kills him there, he should be executed as if he killed him in a city of refuge. (Hilkhot Rotze'ach U-shemirat Ha-nefesh 5:12)

 

            However, in the wake of the gemara in tractate Makkot (12b), the Rambam rules:

 

What serves as a haven is only the top of the altar in the Temple. Moreover, it serves as a haven only for a priest who is in the midst of sacrificial worship. For a person other than a priest, a priest who is not involved in the sacrificial worship, or a priest who was involved in the sacrificial worship but was not on the top of the altar, but near the altar or holding on to its horns, the altar does not serve as a haven.

If someone takes refuge on the altar, he is not left there. Instead, he is given guards and taken to a city of refuge. When does the above apply? When one is obligated to be exiled. If, however, a person feared that a king will have him executed, as is the king's authority, or that the court will execute him as an immediate directive, and he fled to the altar and held on to it, he should be saved. This applies even if he is a common Israelite. He should not be taken from the altar to die unless he was sentenced to death because of the testimony of witnesses who delivered a warning, as is always required with regard to those executed by the court. (ibid. 13-14)

 

            The simple understanding of this ruling is that it is unimaginable that a cold-blooded murderer should find refuge in the sanctified limits of the Mikdash. It should be noted that while the idea of cities of refuge is a concept whose source is in the Torah and is not found in the neighboring civilizations – not in Babylonia, Egypt, or Assyria – refuge in the shadow of an altar existed and was recognized throughout the ancient world.[6]

 

            The underlying idea of an altar or temple providing refuge to anyone being pursued is the notion that the area of the temple is a divine domain, and that no human hand or force may cause harm to anything found within its limits.[7]

 

            In contrast, the cities of refuge have no inherent sanctity, and they offer haven only to those guilty of inadvertent manslaughter. We are dealing exclusively with one who unwittingly killed another person; it is inconceivable that refuge of any kind should be granted to one who committed intentional murder.

 

            As for the reason of the mitzva, the Rambam writes:

 

On the contrary, the wrongdoers and the worker of injustice should not be protected when he seeks our protection and should not be pitied, nor should his rightful punishment be abolished in any way, even if he seeks the protection of the greatest individual and the one having the highest rank. This is the meaning of the dictum: "You shall take him from My altar, that he may die." Thus, the man referred to seeks the protection of God, may He be exalted, and holds fast to a thing attached to His name; in spite of that, however, He does not protect him, but orders him to be delivered over to him who has the right to inflict punishment on him and from whom he has fled. All the more if the man in question has sought the protection of a human individual: the latter ought not to protect or to pity him, for pity for wrongdoers and evil men is tantamount to cruelty with regard to all creatures. (Guide of the Perplexed III:39)

 

            In the wake of the Rambam, Rabbeinu Bachayei sharpens the point in his commentary:

"You shall take him from My altar." Scripture means: Needless to say, if he fled to one of the cities of refuge mentioned earlier, "Then I will appoint you a place" (Shemot 21:13), that we remove him from there. But even if he went and grabbed hold of the horns of the altar, as did Yoav, as it is written: "And Yoav fled to the tent of the Lord, and caught hold of the horns of the altar" (I Melakhim 2:28), we remove him from there and put him to death. This is truly one of the just laws, and among the righteous statutes and judgments –even one who thinks that he will be helped by the Holy One, blessed be He, or by the altar attached to Him, since he is a murderer and he is liable for the death penalty, Scripture commands that he be removed from there and handed over to the one from whom he fled, and that it is inappropriate to have mercy or pity upon him, for pity in this case is cruelty with regard to all creatures. (Rabbeinu Bachayei, Shemot 21:14)

 

            R. S.R. Hirsch, in his commentary to the verse, aptly explains the spiritual meaning of this commandment:

 

The Jewish altar grants no protection to the criminal. In Jewry, there are not two principles which mutually control and modify each other, like Church and State, Justice and Mercy, etc.; right next to the sword-hating altar was the chamber of the highest Court of Justice. It was one and the same principle that was to be taught by the altar and that the Sanhedrin had to see was carried out in the practical life of the people. The whole idea of the right to grant clemency or mercy was entirely absent in the Jewish Code of Law. Justice and judgment is the prerogative of God, not of man. When the very precisely defined Law of God – giving man no scope for his own judgment or arbitrary discretion – ordains death for a criminal, the carrying out of this sentence is not an act of harshness to be commuted for any consideration whatsoever. It is itself the most considerate atonement, atonement for the community, atonement for the land, atonement for the criminal, atonement in quite the same way as that brought about by the altar. And if the priest was actually officiating at the altar, and even if he was the one and only priest available, and the accusation of murder was brought against him, away from the altar must you drag him to the court, to satisfy the Law of Justice.

 

            The proximity of the Sanhedrin to the altar[8] teaches that the site of justice and the site of ritual is one and the same. They cannot be separated; on the contrary, they both are nurtured by the same source, the resting of God's Shekhina.

 

(Translated by David Strauss)

, full_html