Cities of Refuge: Some Modern Considerations

Rabbi Melanie Aron

Saturday, August 22, 2009

In reading her Torah portion, MacKenzie’s attention was caught by the section on the Cities of Refuge. She is not the only one. The rabbis of the Talmud also discussed this topic at some length, looking at it from both a legal and humane perspective.

They wondered, as we might, why these laws which are discussed in Parashat Masei, read just a few weeks ago at the end of the book of Numbers, are read again in this week’s Torah portion, which always comes during the period of preparation for the High Holy Days.

The rabbis of the Talmud raise some interesting theoretical and practical concerns with this aspect of the justice system, even though they lived hundreds of years after Jews lost political independence and at a time when the system of the cities of refuge no longer existed. One of their concerns involved the High Priest.

When an individual who killed someone accidentally fled to a city of refuge, he was required to stay there until the death of the High Priest. This created what they considered a worrisome incentive system. They feared that those refugees would be very desirous of a speedy conclusion to the High Priest’s life so that they could return home sooner rather than later. Their interests were the opposite of those of the High Priest and his family. For that reason the rabbis concluded that the High Priest’s mother must have been the one responsible for taking care of the needs of these refugees while they were in the city of Refuge. It was she who would bring them warm clothes and otherwise make sure they were well taken care of. This teaching reminds us to keep an eye on the incentives we are creating in our own laws and systems.

For the rabbis, the Cities of Refuge were a way that society could respond to accidental killing based on the precedent of God’s response to Cain killing Abel. Was that an accidental killing, you might ask? Because no one had ever been killed before, the rabbis reasoned that Cain didn’t know what the consequences of his blow to his brother would be. To that extent then, even though he acted in anger and with malice, they viewed him as a manslayer and not a murderer. They noted that God did not sentence Cain to death, but rather to exile. It is interesting to consider the implications this has for death penalty convictions today of those who lack the capacity to understand that their actions would cause death. Some would place minors and the developmentally disabled in this category, for example, as have many other western democracies.

Another question the rabbis dealt with was whether, while in the City of Refuge, the accidental killer could assume a position of honor. After all he would be there for a long time and might have talents and abilities to contribute to the good of the community. Also these Cities of Refuge might have multiple refugees and if none of them could assume public office, who would serve? It was decided that as long as the accidental killer was honest about who he was and what he had done, and that the community chose him knowingly for this honor, this was not a problem. This is a great model for us for the reintegration of those who have served time in the criminal justice system but have something to offer our communities.

So why do we read this portion, this week, as begin the month of Elul? The rabbis suggest, that just as the accidental killer experiences guilt that can be paralyzing, so we may experience guilt over the thankfully, smaller ways that we have hurt other people. We may feel that we deserve to be rejected by others and even by God. Reading this portion this week reminds us that refuge is offered to every soul and sanctuary, a place to experience safety in God’s presence, is available through our own prayer and teshuvah. Ellul has started and so we can say:

Leshanah tovah tikateivu. May you be written for a good new year. May we together begin the work of repentance.